Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 18, 2015

Nov 12

To Mika Edmondson and his review of a new civil rights book by Ta-Nehisi Coates titled Between The World And Me. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

We should note that sometimes, merely pointing out the problems is an accomplishment worth noting. Citing that an author provides few solutions minimizes the work being reviewed. And we should also be clear about the 'theological legacy' of the civil rights movement. That legacy  did not come from white conservative churches. Rather it came from people like King who both theologically and politically leaned away from conservatism. In addition, the civil rights movement saw signficant contributions made by people of all faiths and no faith. Heck, King himself garnered much of his commitment to nonviolence from Gandhi. 

Finally, we need to ask whether the moral arc of the universe is bending toward justice. To answer with 'no' is not to say that that arc won't get there. It is simply an observatiion that some, like Chris Hedges, have made based on what they observe in the world in terms of where it is and where it is going.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Isaac Adams and his blogpost stating that Christianity offers a better way of dealing with racism than how it was recently dealt with on the University of Missouri’s campus. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If we Christians had a better way to deal with the racism on Missouri's campus, why weren't Christians employing that way? 

What is neat about what happened on U of Missouri's campus is that a student led protest provided an opportunity for change. And now isn't the time for us Christians to claim that we have a better way of dealing with those problems as if it was a competition. It's time for Christians and nonChristians to work together to address the problems with racism there. And it is in that way, Christians can employ what was described above to affect how racism should be responded to.

BTW, as for the man complaining that the city is the rape capital of the world, one would only need to point to the FBI crime statistics showing that rapes are commited by far more Whites than Blacks (see https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 13

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on whether one should kill baby Hitler if one could travel through time. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

I agree with the jist of this article but for a different reasons. Suppose there was the claim that science could predict the crimes we would perform in the future and suppose science predicted that person x was going to be a mass murderer. Would there be any significant difference between going back in history to kill baby Hitler from killing person x now? 

So though I agree with most of the article, I would say that the main problem here is the violation of due process. This is especially true if we could travel through time, we could transport Baby Hitler to the future where he would have missed his opportunity in history and perhaps would have grown up in a home that would not make him so hostile while we remain innocent of the shedding of what was then innocent blood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Thomas Sowell’s 3 questions that supposed stymie those on the economic left. This appeared in the Acton blog.

First, who is the economic left? Second, I assume that these questions can be asked of any position. So let's give it a go. And what we will do is to look at the raising of the minimum wage for example. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment is the claim made by conservative opponents of raising or even having a minimum wage.

First, compared to what? We should note that statistics from both Seattle and San Francisco where the minimum wage is being raised or has been raised is not a good comparison for those opposing the raising of the minimum wage. In San Francisco, employment rates have increased slightly after the minimum wage was raised (see http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/studies-look-at-what-happened-when-cities-raised-minimum-wage/ ) and this was favorable when compared with Albequrque, New Mexico which didn't raise its minimum wage. In fact, In other surrounding areas to San Francisco, there was no impact on employment rates. An additional fact was that while food prices at restaurants went up a little, they didn't come close to keeping pace with the percentage increase in wages.

When we look at Seattle, it is important to compare how unemployment fared for the first 5 months with what happened in the  months afterwards. AEI reported a huge increase in the unemployment of restaurant workers from January to June forgetting to mention that the increase in unemployment peaked in May (see https://www.aei.org/publication/minimum-wage-effect-january-to-june-job-losses-for-seattle-area-restaurants-1300-largest-since-great-recession/ ). But since then, employment numbers for restaurant workers jumped significantly exceeding what they were in January when increase in minimum wage started to be measured (see http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/25/latest-seattle-jobs-numbers-disprove-foxs-minim/205155 ).

Second question, at what cost should we not increase the minimum wage? Supposing that the conservative mantra that states that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment is true, the cost is a moral one considering how many who are not making an living wage must live on gov't assistance. Here we prohibited from challenging this capitalist system that gives us a choice between wages too low to live on and more unemployment. Besides the fact that the articles cited above tell us that this is a false choice, there is another moral problem. That problem is that the conservative argument rests on the supposition that workers in fast food restaurants and other minimum wage jobs don't deserve living wages because these are learning jobs designed for kids who live at home or retirees who are already on a pension. In short, what conservatives are telling us is that such food establishments that pay millions to shareholders are able to do so by relying on cheap labor that doesn't deserve any increases in pay. 

One conservative response to this is that manufacturing is the place where people should be able to go to to make a living. The 2 problems with that argument is that manufacturing started by exploiting its workers with low wages until they were forced by entities like labor unions and gov't to increase their pay. Thus, what today's restaurant owners and other users of low wage workers are telling us about why they pay their workers is the same as what factory owners of testeryear were telling people in the past. In other words, both industries were based on low wages, or should we say exploited, workers. In addition, we should note that with the offshoring of many factory jobs, there are not enough factory jobs available to provide living wage jobs to those who are in need.

The third question is what hard evidence do we have? Some of that has already been provided. Where Sowell's conversion to conservative economics occurred for anecdotal reasons

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 16

To Denny Burk and his blogpost quoting a Psalm that asks for God to break the arms of the wicked because of how they have hurt the innocent. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Should we then pray that God would break the arms of those pilots who fire missiles at civilians in Palestine? Should we pray that God would break the arms of those drone operators who fire missiles in countries like Yemen? I ask because innocent civilians are being killed in all those places as well as in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, and Kenya. And in all places, civilians are being killed because they are being targeted by those who recognize no authority over them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mike Evans and his blogpost on how Christians should respond to attacks on Paris by ISIS. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.


The list of the reactions above is very good. But like most similar lists made by Western Christians I've seen, it misses the same item. We should seek to more fully learn the historical context of events like the attacks on Paris, the terror atttacks on London in 2007, and 9-11. The western tendency is to think of these attacks, especially the 9-11 attack, as being unprovoked first strikes. But they aren't. Not counting the Crusades, the West has been intervening in the Middle East at least since oil became a valuable resource with France and England dividing up parts of the Middle East for their own benefit and with England trying to solve the problem that came about between European Jewish immigrants and the indigenous Palestinian population in what was then called Palestine.

Then America started intervening with the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president Mossadegh in order to install a business friendly tyrant known as the Shah. Other actions included supporting Israel's occupation of the Middle East, supporting business friendly tyrants such Mubarak and el-Sisi in Egypt, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein, that is until he invaded Kuwait, in Iraq,, and terrorists like Osama Bin Laden as they violently overthrew the Afghanistan government that was supported by the Soviet Union. Of course, we need to include both Persian Gulf Wars from Bush I & II along with the devastating sanctions that both England and the US forced on Iraq after the first Persian Gulf War. The comibation of that first war and the sanctions are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

This learning of history is what distinguishes a Christian reaction to the Paris attacks from a myopically Western, religious reaction to the same. This is particularly true when we only react to the attacks in Paris without mentioning the attacks in Beirut and Baghdad that occurred within a day of what happened in Paris or the series of attacks suffered by Kenya throughout this year. Our spiritual response needs to include an educated, reasoned response.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost asking why Christians killed by ISIS are not considered to be victims of genocide. This article appeared in the Acton blog.

Why aren't Christians who are victims of ISIS considered to be victims of genocide? I don't know, but I have similar questions of my own. Why are Palestinians who are either killed or evicted from their homelands considered to be victims of ethnic cleansing? And why were those Iraqis, including hundreds of thousands of children, who died during the sanction years considered to be victims of genocide? One could ask similar questions regarding other instances in our history, but it seesm that the most horrific crimes such as ethnic cleansing of a people from the land and genocide are acts that are only possible for other groups than our own to perform.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 23, 2015

 Sept 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Tertullian that talked about how we are to share our earthly goods. This appeared in Heidelblog.


Sometimes charity is like a bandage, it covers the wound but does not address its cause. Thus, bandages cannot prevent future wounds. That isn't to say that bandages aren't needed, it just says that we are to look into how to prevent future wounds too. For Martin Luther King Jr., to prevent future wounds of poverty we need to examine the systems that produce the many people who live in poverty to see what can be changed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 7

To Denny Burk's blogpost using a NYT article to state that Kim Davis did not need to be put in jail for her convictions. THis appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

We need to realize that she is not in jail over her beliefs, she is in jail because she defied a court order. As for her beliefs and those of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, they are being portrayed as something that suppresses the equal rights of another group. Such was was not tolerated when Jim Crow was being eliminated. Here, we should remember that some used the Bible to defend Jim Crow. Christian liberty is not the freedom to deny someone else their freedom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 8

To Dr. James Willingham's Sept 7 response to the part of my comment regarding those Christians who would seek to suppress the rights of others asking about the rights of those who want to commit murder. This appeared on Denny Burk's blog.

Dr Jim,
Tell me how the rights of those who want to commit murder compare with the rights of those who want to marry the person of their choice when the partners are consenting adults?

All you are doing with your analogy is showing your view of those from the LGBT community. That you would compare their rights to marry with a nonexistant right to commit murder. So can you guess why some from that community might not want to listen to the Gospel you cling to and represent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 11

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost consisting a picture of the attacks on the Twin Towers titled 'Remember.' This appeared in Heidelblog

 

There are times when a pictue can say a thousand words. There are also times when we need at least a thousand words to help explain a picture. The picture above fits firmly into the latter category. For while most Americans see atrocities like 9-11 count as the beginning of the genesis account of the war on terror, we committed too many sins in the Middle East before the 9/11 attacks to believe that the war on terror started with what others did to us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost consisting of an interview with David Van Drunen about The Constitution and the Obergefell decision. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I think describing the different ways of interpreting The Constitution needs further clarification. Many see those who employ a more modern approach to the document as looking at The Constitution as a living Constitution that changes as times change. That is in contrast to those who want to interpret The Constitution more literally and in keeping with what they see as being the intention of the writers.

Instead, perhaps we should look at The Constitution, especially the amendments most of which were written well after the times of the founding fathers, as either being a document that uses explicit and concrete statements only to describe our rights or a document that uses a combination of explicit and concrete statements with abstract statements. Thus, we would use what we see as abstract as a source from which we can apply The Constitution to today's issues and derive rights which the founding fathers or those who wrote the amendments may not have anticipated.

Seeing at least some of the statements containing our  rights in The Constitution as being more abstract than concrete allows us to employ a degree of flexibility in terms of using the document to answer some of the questions being asked today without treating the document as a waxed nose in the hands of time. To see The Constitution as having only explicit and concrete statements gives us a rigid document that struggles to react to the new issues and questions of today.

I can see one of the concerns of those who see The Constitution as containing just explicit and concrete statements as a fear of losing continuity with founding fathers when we treat some of the amendments as being more abstract. Thus, they do not see added flexibility gained when we treat some of the amendments more abstractly as a benefit.

One should consider the source of the above statements because I fully agree with what I have read of the Obergefell decision. It granted rights which I saw as being owed to those in the LGBT community who seek to marry the partners of their choice with recognition of at least some of the tension many conservative Christians have over the subject. BTW, the Obergefell decision does not relieve those in the LGBT community the hardship of losing one's job because of one's sexual orientation which exists in 29 states.

Finally, if we religiously conservative Christians really wish to address this issue without providing any unnecessary stumbling blocks to those who would hear us preach the Gospel, then it seems to me that we would rely solely on preaching and teaching God's Word as a way of influencing the people in society on whether they would or would not enter a same-sex marriage.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 27, 2015

May 21

To Denny Burk and his blogpost calling the legal action against a Christian family bakery an effort to ruin them financially because of their refusal to provide services to same-sex weddings. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.


If the family business was being sued for denying their business services to a particular function for Blacks or Hispanics, would we label the suit an effort to cause financial ruin? And yet when those in the LGBT community sue a business that is, in their view, participating in the marginalization of their community, why is that suit portrayed as an effort to ruin a family business?

To me, the issue here isn't one of agreeing/disagreeing with the plaintiffs in the court action. It has to do with the one-sided effort to market that court action to the public.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting about how Robert Gates called on the BSA to accept gay troop leaders. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What is the broader principle of which Carter is writing? Is it that we should discriminate against gays in society?

Where the Conservative Church has failed here is that it has made indistinguishable the Biblical teachings on sexual morality from calls to publicly discriminate against those in the LGBT community. Had we paired the Biblical teachings on sexual morality with a defense of equality for those in the LGBT community, we could have seen a different public reaction to our beliefs.  But some were determined that that was not meant to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a Christian Jeweler had to refund money for jewelry made for a Lesbian couple after they learned what his beliefs about their sexual orientation were. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Is it possible that the reaction of the lesbian couple in the story is at least partially due to past, and even present, treatment of those in the LGBT community by the Conservative Church? After all, the Conservative Church has been in favor of criminalizing homosexuality, firing homosexuals from certain jobs because of sexual orientation, prohibiting same-sex marriages, and Jim Crow laws allowing Christians to discriminate against either those in the LGBT community or specific events. Do we honestly believe that that our past treatment of those in the LGBT community has had no negative or embittering effects on some from the LGBT community. 

In addition, why Dreher entitle the article in black-white terms. Yes, some from the LGBT community have not showed me respect. However, my experience has been that the vast majority of those from the LGBT community have treated me with much respect and as an equal even when they know what, because of the Bible, I believe about homosexuality.

It seems that some in the Christian community want the Church to unite around a persecution complex. That simply is not right. However, making people feel persecuted is an easy to manipulate them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 26


To Joe Carter and his blogpost about 5 facts about Memorial Day. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The problem with Memorial Day does not have to do with the sacrifices some of our service people have made, it has to do with why they were sent in harm's way in the first place. And that problem is maintained when we copy what is said to us that our troops are always defending our freedoms. The problem with that assertion is that whether our troops are defending our freedoms depends on why they were sent into harm's way in the first place. Vietnam is key example the assertion being wrong since our losing that conflict has not affected any of our freedoms.

So what other interventions are there of other reasons than to defend our freedoms? Did we invade Afghanistan to defend our freedoms? If so, why did we team up terrorist groups to do so? How about Iraq? How is it that our troops were defending our freedoms in Iraq when the invasion was based on lies? The list of conflicts that need be examined here can be quite long if we include with our invasions all of the coups and other interventions we participated in.

The trouble with Memorial Day is not due to the valor of our troops. Rather, it is because our leaders have chosen to use our troops' valor as a moral shield to protect their policies. And they count on days like Memorial Day to compensate those who made the biggest sacrifices. And they do so as long as the policies that caused some of our troops to sacrifice the most go unexamined.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why it's everybody's responsibility to interpret The Constitution. This appeared on the Acton blog.

It is every citizen's duty to interpret The Constitution. Of course this doesn't mean that all interpretations will carry the same weight. And with interpreting The Constitution, the points made above are valid. The problem is that how people use the points above, especially point #3, will vary as much as how people interpret The Constitution itself.

Let's give an example. Conservatives look at point #3 and say that our founding fathers were looking to establish a limited federal government with an emphasis on states' rights. Those on the Left will point out historical facts that Conservative don't mention when asserting the original intention of the founding fathers: namely that the Constitution was written in order to expand the Federal Government's power to respond to insurrections such as Shays Rebellion. Also, the end of Federalist #10 seems to see The Constitution as emphasizing the Union over the states.  In addition, while some Conservatives claim that The Constitution is based on the Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith, Leftists will point to both the historical context of The Constitution as well as documents like Henry Knox's letter to George Washington and the Constitutional Debates to claim that The Constitution was written to maintain the class status quo.

Thus, using the 5 point guide above, especially point #3, does not make interpreting The Constitution any easier or more uniform.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 4, 2015

Feb 6

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing American Sniper The comment has been stuck in the limbo of awaiting moderation. This post appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

I would also add that the model of thought Chris Kyle’s father taught him is not Christian. This strict division of people into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs denies the sinfulness of everybody and the complexity of people and situations. Finally, this model taught Chris to only see who America was affected by the actions of others and not the other way around.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 23

To the comment section debate on the Wee Flea's blogpost about the number of Christians being martyred each year. The debate was between Brent and David Robertson. The later is the writer of the blog. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Brent seemed to be intent on setting a trap and David Robertson kind of fell into it. But Robertson has some valid concerns about Brent and that he doesn't like the number of those killed in the first place. What can be gained here is that Muslim persecution of Christians isn't devastating as how some who use the numbers wish to imply. In addition, we need to be fair, we need to see where Christian supported gov't policies, regardless of the gov't, had persecuted Muslims whether because of the religion itself or because they were caught up in something political.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 25

To Denny Burk and his blogpost about consent and 50 shades of grey. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Mutual consent by participating adults is also a legal issue, not just a moral issue. And if we left it at that, we could better share how God's Word applies to the sexual orientations and practices which our cultures accepts. It's when we start legislating, that we've stepped over the line.

BTW, shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether we ourselves are obsessed with sex when we write so much about it but neglect to pay adequate attention many of the important problems in today's world?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Eric's Feb 25 comment attacking me for being like a pharisee from the parable of the two men praying because I have challenged some conservatives and their thinking. His comment appeared with Bradley Birzer's blogpost on ideology and mass murder. This blogpost appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

Eric,
First, I've been up front in my above comment about the sins of the French Revolution as well as those of Lenin et. al. Please note that not all Marxists, Socialists, Communists are the same and there is plenty of historical documentation to show that. It is a historical mistake to equate the Soviet Union's Communism with Marx. And note that the key word there is 'equate.'

In addition, I have been up front here in saying I am a sinner who talks to fellow sinners. Now you have a choice. You either can admit that you are a fellow sinner too and thus what you say against me shouldn't discredit what I say anymore than your sinfulness would discredit what you say, or you can claim to be superior to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing Obama's telling of some of Christianity's dark times in history at the National Prayer Breakfast. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The anger exhibited here by Buchanan is simply not Christian. It isn't how the apostles reacted when accusation were made against them. And it isn't how Jesus reacted when He faced accusations. And here, we should note Jesus' reaction foremost because He, not His followers, are the ones who make Christianity special. We, His followers, are sinners who must pray for forgiveness on a constant basis. 

Thus, to point our sins doesn't challenge the legitimacy of Christianity and the Gospel. After all, we aren't the ones who lived without sin, died a substitutionary death on the cross, and rose again from the dead. Our sins are the reason why God sent His Son into the world in the first place. That is why Paul said in Romans 3:27 that our boasting is 'excluded' because we are saved by faith in someone else than ourselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost description of the different kinds of patriotism and love of country one can have. This appeared in the Acton blog.


A few points need to be mentioned. First, I don't think this fully explains the differences in patriotism between people. For example, Pat Buchanan made the same claim about Obama as Guiliana did. Why did he make that claim? It was because Obama does not, according to Buchanan, recognize either our civilization or Christianity as being superior over their counterparts. Carter's projection that Giuliani's patriotism includes a belief in American Exceptionalism shows his own leaning as well as the expectations of what some have in determining the patriotism of others. 

According to Buchanan, proof of Obama's inability to see our superiority was seen in his willingness to list some of Christianity's past sins during the National Prayer Breakfast. And yet, Obama has demonstrated his belief in American Exceptionalism in both his public declarations and his policies. Thus, identifying the differences between the patriotism of people like both Giuliani and Buchanan and that of Obama becomes problematic. People like both Giuliani and Buchanan share old school, common core beliefs in American Exceptionalism, And we should note that belief in this Exceptionalism comes with baggage. That baggage includes a sense of entitlement to privileges which should be denied to others and the embracing of an active form of authoritarianism. The latter says that the exceptional one has the right, and perhaps even the duty,  to exercise control over others. And we should note that Obama has demonstrated both that sense of entitlement and that embracing of authoritarianism--though the latter is done to perhaps a lesser degree than what Giuliani and Buchanan do.

Now Carter makes two mistakes here and the first one revolves around the post-authentic label he uses. For while Obama refused to wear a flag pin after 9-11 because he didn't see it as being an authentic show of patriotism, Carter labels Obama as being post-authentic rather than Obama's perception of wearing the flag pin as being post-authentic. From that label, Carter distinguishes two kinds of patriotism. The authentic kind that relies on past traditions as guides for determining how one should make the necessary changes to the nation. The other, using Jonah Goldberg as a reference, post-authentic patriotism that is, relies on government to change the country because government is better than the people it serves.

In other words, Carter ends up with the age-old conservative view that we are in a battle between progressive big government vs its people--and we should note that, according to some conservatives, adding the word 'progressive' to big government is redundant. Such is an oversimplified view of the relationship between government and its people. And it is so because this authentic or conservative viewpoint assumes that elite rule only emanates the public sector. There is no recognition here of private sector elite rule over the nation. So Carter and Goldberg's view here understandably assumes an alien relationship between government and its people. It is understandable because government is rarely if ever seen as a possible democratic tool of its people. And though in many cases it isn't, it has the real potential to be.

But what is patriotism? Must patriotism include the belief in the superiority and exceptionalism of one's nation? If so, the real question that is begged here is that patriotism is a trait to be desired and honored. What else is left unsaid is what American traditions should be used as guides for the future. This is an important point because not all have experienced America in the same way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost suggestion on how churches can help prevent people from being victims of predatory loans. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Yes, it's a great ministry and the idea is worthy of being practiced by other churches. But one question that arises is, with all of the other demands made on Churches and with all of the people in such need, can church created credit unions help enough people? But an even larger question looms here. Why can't the Church also demand that the Government steps in to alleviate the exploitation? For though churches can help, unlike government they are not the representatives of the people. So it seems that the people's should be representatives should also be involved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a college could lose its accreditation and thus access to federal loans for student because of these college's biblical on homosexuality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The issue here isn't about our religious freedoms or our view of a particular set of sins. The issue here is whether a college that is receiving federal aid is potentially participating in the marginalization of a rightfully protected group of citizens. So perhaps the problem isn't the college's opposition to homosexuality per se. Perhaps the real problem is that the college has made an inadequate statement about homosexuality in that it doesn't distinguish how it believes homosexuality should be regarded personally from a Christian perspective from how it believes homosexuals should be viewed by society.

This is where the past context provided by many conservative Christians has produced a pendulum swing resulting in an oversensitivity about and overprotectiveness for homosexuals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a March 3 comment to a post on the Imaginative Conservative that has now been posted. So the comment that was below is now deleted here. You can see the comment at the link below:

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/progressively-redefining-human-nature.html