For JMCFST, who asked (And anyone else who cares) LONG!!!

[JSojourner]

This is going to be a multi-part and very lengthy response to Jmcfst's question/criticism/attack (whatever you prefer to call it).  The first will explain my story with Evangelicalism, as he requested.  The second will refute his claim that I am obsessed or consumed with hating Evangelicals or fundamentalists.  (Not that I expect him to see it that way.  Frankly, I have never had any person on a message board so personally invested in making me look evil, dumb or just irrelevant.  I don't know if I should be flattered, scarced or just plain bewildered.  I am not that interesting, really. I'll leave it to others smarter than myself to figure out why this is.)

Okay -- My parents raised me Christian.  They came to be conservative Baptists (Conservative Baptist Fellowship) as a compromise.  Dad was a Congregationalist and fairly moderate in his theological and political views, but very deferential to my Mother.  Mom was a Pentecostal, raised by ex-Catholic Hungarians who had converted to Pentecostalism.  So the Baptist Church fit.  And frankly, the Baptist church I spent my Pittsburgh years in (1969 to 1977) was conservative, but not hateful.  I still have fond memories of Pastor Sissel, a sweet and dear man. My sisters had become involved in Youth For Christ (they were much older than me) and through YFC -- discovered the Christian and Missionary Alliance and Assemblies of God, respectively.  Upon moving to Ohio to be closer to them, my folks attended a CMA church.

Now, I have said this on this forum before.  The Christian and Missionary Alliance has some wonderful churches.  Loving, warm people attend.  I grew up there, and yes -- received Jesus Christ as my savior there -- under the ministry of a pastor who really was a spiritual abuser.  I don't doubt that he meant well. He believed his task was to save people from the fires of hell by scaring the hell out of them. I will forever be grateful that he invited me to an all night youth prayer meeting, where I surrendered my life and heart to Christ.  That was the best thing to come out of that experience.  But in my youthful, new-convert zeal -- I lapped up everything the man taught.  So -- not only were gays, liberals, Democrats, Jews, Catholics, Socialists and abortive women damned.  So were women who wore slacks, women who failed to submit to the will of their husband (even if he was abusive), young people who danced or listened to rock music, people who had wine with supper or attended movie theaters.  The Reverend William E. Allen was a product of the Holiness movement...which actually helped give birth to the CMA denomination (along with the Nazarenes and Wesleyans). 

That emphasis on holiness was so strong in his sermons that I -- a teenager desperately wanting to obey Jesus -- spent many a Sunday morning, Sunday night or Wednesday night -- weeping at the altar for what Pastor Allen called "a second blessing".  In the Pentecostal movement, this "second blessing" is accompanied by speaking in tongues.  In the non-Pentecostal Holiness churches, it means you are spirit-filled and sanctified.  In the Nazarene Church, at least back in the day, you could reach a state of sinless perfection.  While Pastor Allen was not Nazarene, he often preached that it was possible if we tried hard enough.  Soon, I was attending a private Christian school where many of the same ideas were advanced in chapel and other places.  And I was a classic Pharisee.  Since I was a new convert, one who once attempted suicide and listened to "Satanic" music, I felt God had appointed me judge over my classmates, my friends, my girlfriends, even my teachers.  Students who thought as I did would meet with me for prayer, asking God to send "latter rain" and revival to the hearts of these poor, backslidden souls. 

From birth through my college years, I also was taught a vile kind of subtle racism.  Which I never once seriously thought was contrary to my stated belief in Christ.  I was a borderline Klansman in all but dress.  I felt downright Godly because, like my pastor and mentor and parents, I could affirm that -- yes, indeed -- there were SOME "good ones" among the blacks, hispanics and others.  (More about this later.) 

At graduation, I chose to attend Chicago's Moody Bible Institute, where I majored in both theology and communications.  This is getting long, so the next post will pick up there.

I would ask Jmcfst and anyone else bothering to read this not to respond to anything until I have completed this tiresome missive.  And if you have read even this far, you have my sympathies. 

[JSojourner]

So it was on to Moody.  And what can I say about that place?  I met my darling wife there.  I had some professors and classmates who were shining examples of the very best that Evangelical Christianity has to offer.  And some who were and are precisely the people Jmcfst claims I am so obsessed over. 

During my time at Moody, some really positive things happened.  I am grateful.  First, we were regularly sent into nearby Cabrini Green to witness to people about Christ.  I kept my racist mouth shut, but much of what I saw confirmed the racism I had learned at my mother's knee.  Yet I also met some of "the good ones".  A surprising number.  It began to nibble away at my conscience -- perhaps I have been too harsh.  Some had jobs, many were faithful church members and so on.  Plus, I began to see that some people -- (I secretly worried that most of them might be this way, which would make my racism a lie) -- were just hardworking folks down on their luck.  But seeds were planted that would come to bloom later.

I also met other Christians.  Theologically conservative, to be sure.  But politically diverse.  I met missionaries -- loads of them -- who asked hard questions about American foreign policy.  Some Presbyterian missionaries to Central America particularly got me thinking.  They told horrible stories of U.S. backed and trained soldiers killing hundreds -- even thousands -- in some tortured "war on Communism".  This was the 80's, after all.  What was all that about?  I pushed it aside, but the seeds were there.

I met students from other countries.  From South Africa, for example.  When Jerry Falwell was invited to speak at Founder's Week, several of them quietly protested by wearing black armbands.  Because Falwell had repeatedly preached and written about the virtures of Apartheid.  I publicly defended Falwell, but secretly began to wonder if everything I had learned was wrong.

After my years of schooling and a couple of post-grad years as an employee, I moved.  And soon, I would discover the Jesus I accepted as a 14 year old boy had some vastly different ideas than I.  That, in the next post...

[JSojourner]

One of the things about being a journalist is that you hear both sides of every story.  A lot of the time, I didn't WANT to hear the other side.  I was, after all, a Christian journalist working for a Christian radio station.  But even so -- the story often demanded a serious look at both sides.  So again, seeds were planted.  I met Christians who opposed war.  Christians who believed government had a place (certainly not the sole place, but *A* place) at the table when it came to the problems of poverty, injustice and so on.  I met Christian environmentalists.  Mostly, I thought all these people -- and their Jesus -- were soft headed liberal do-gooders.  But they were so gentle, so loving, so inarguably and obviously head over heels in love with Jesus Christ.  It bugged me.

Then something else happened.  I expect a full portion of ridicule from all of you over this.  Because I know -- people who have visions are not "well".  But I had a vision.  Or a kind of vision.  Let me explain.  I was the morning news anchor and my buddy was the morning air personality.  We had a good rapport on and off the air.  One thing I think you will all agree with is that people with the same sins/foibles/faults/habits find each other.  And in Jeff, I found a fellow racist.  We told each other all the racist jokes -- and every time we saw a news item about a criminal who happened to be black, it just confirmed what we thought all along.  One day, I read a news story about a young man (14) who stole a car.  His name was Jamal.  And while police were pursuing him, his car crashed and he was killed.  After reading the story on the air, Jeff sauntered into the newsroom and said, "Isn't that great?  One less pickaninny thug to worry about."  I was busy and muttered some sort of agreement, but I had a deadline.  And something nagged at me.  I had been saying I loved Jesus all those years.  But there was something so wrong about what was said -- I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Then, Jeff played a song. It was a kind of Christian country song (not my style at all) by a fellow named Buddy Greene.  And as the words came over the monitor, I stopped my work and listened.

"There's a fiery cross, but it's not the cross of Christ
And sometimes it smolders and sometimes, you see it burning in the night,
And whether you glimpse it or see it glaring, it's a horrible sight,
For it has absolutely nothing to do with light.

It speaks of a sin as ancient as man.
And in some places, I swear it's brought a curse to the land.
And it sends up a stench no holy God could ever stand.

For it's man against man.  It's black and it's white.
It's man against man.  It's wrong and never right.
It's man against man. It's gentile and Jew.
For when it's man against man, Lord God -- it's man against you.

I've seen it in our churches and I've seen it in our schools.
It's thriving in our neighborhoods and in our social party rules.
In Mississippi, New York City, in Cape Town or Iran,
The colors change but the politics is still man against man.

It's bred in our fathers and passed on to their sons.
In the privileged, the deprived, in the genius and the simpleton.
It can raise its ugly head in nearly anyone.

Well -- you get the idea.  As those lyrics entered my ears, I started to cry and to shake.  Especially the part about how no holy God could ever stand such hatred.  And about how father passes this on to son.  I was -- I don't know -- completely oblivious to anything around me.  And in my mind's eye, I saw Jesus suffering on the cross.  And he was as black as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or whoever.  And he was saying to me, "when you hate anyone -- you hate me".  He wasn't angry.  I felt nothing but love coming from him.  And pity. 

I went home and told my wife.  She said that she'd been praying God would show me this sin for what it was.  It really bothered her because she never had a racist upbringing.  In the days, weeks and months that ensued, the Holy Spirit began to show me my problem was not just with blacks...but with gays and liberals and non-Christians and Atheists and witches and -- goodness -- with anyone not like me.  I hated them.  I thought I was called to hate them.  I piously said, "Hate the sin, love the sinner".  But I didn't mean that.  And I came to see that most of those who say that don't mean it at all.  More anon...

[JSojourner]

I wasn't a liberal yet.  But I was now willing, at the urging of the Holy Spirit, to listen to their stories.  To open my heart.  To break bread with and pray with them. 

And, in time, I came to believe that they were closer to being right on the issues than I had been.  Than had been any of my Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Conservative mentors.

Something else was taking place.  I began hosting an hour long interview program, often featuring Christian authors or academics.  All of them, Evangelical in theology -- but many of them remarkably liberal in their political stances.  Or not even liberal, just open.  Books became very important to me in forming my opinions.  The life of the mind was, I discovered, very much a Christian responsibility.  God gave me reason, intellect and skill -- in addition to Holy Writ.  I used to say, "The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible".  Or that clasic line, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".

But reading and listening showed me there was no shortage of passionately committed Christians who could take the same exact passage of Scripture and come to completely opposite conclusions. I realized that what I had been cherishing all those years was not the Bible.  But my interpretation of the Bible.  Or my pastors'/parents'/sisters'/professors' interpretation.  I found, too, that in listening to others tell their story -- from Fundamentalists to Quakers to Catholics to liberal Protestants -- the exact opposite of what my teachers said would happen happened.  My respect and regard for the Bible, the written word of God, was never higher. 

I will next answer the question -- why focus on fundamentalism -- in my final post of the thread.  But for now, suffice it to say that my journey revealed that a reliance on my (or someone else's) interpretation of Scripture was like sitting on a one-legged stool.  (Which probably means something is stuck up my ass! LOL)  Instead, I began to see that God had given us many gifts -- a three or four legged stool -- for discerning truth.  There was Scripture, to be sure.  But human reason, Christian tradition and experience as well.  If one leg of the stool led me down a wrong path, another would put me to right.  A three or four-legged stool is a lot more steady and stable.

[JSojourner]

So why focus on fundamentalism?

Well, first, I completely disagree with Jmcfst's characterization that I am driven by some obsessive desire to discredit and bash conservative Christians.  For one thing, I remain indebted to some of them for introducing me to Jesus Christ. For another, and I have said this in a number of ways and places, not all of them are people who hate or are driven by hate.

He has asked the question, >>>yeah, yeah, yeah...when you get through with your public display of humility towards God, please explain how all your humility and "the bread you found" gave you strength to compile this: (and then he quoted a lengthy tome of mine documenting some of the behaviors, teachings and axioms of the Christian Reconstructionist movement and other theocratic leaders)....<<<"

So why not forgive and get over it, he says?

It's not my place to forgive them.  I mean, sure -- I was taught some horrible things.  And I long ago forgave.  But their behavior persists.  And these are not naughty uncles, wayward stepchildren or nutty next door neighbors.  These are people who wield enormous, tremendous power and influence.  Thank God, that influence over our government is slowly waning.  But millions and millions of people follow them, donate huge sums of money to them and believe in their gospel of hate, exclusion and superiority.  Among those who follow these people are my mother, three sisters and two brothers-in-law.  So of course I feel a desire to debunk, discredit and disavow these charlatans.

The Scriptures themselves are replete with warnings to sound an alarm when false prophets are in our midst. Jmcfst himself believes -- and in my kind moments, I confer on him only sincere motives -- he must warn people about the evils, dangers and traps posed by sexual sin, in particular homosexuality.  One might say, based on reading his contributions to this forum, he is "obsessed" with it.  That, and the Dallas Cowboys.

He feels compelled by Scripture to comment about gays.  I feel compelled by Scripture, reason, tradition and experience, to comment about the religious right.

Too, one must also understand that this is a forum about politics.  The religious right wields no small amount of power and influence over this area of American life.  So it follows that those with views (pro or con) regarding the religious right should air them here.

Jmcfst, that is my story -- long, boring and yet terribly incomplete.  You suggest a fundamentalist must have personally injured me -- raped me or molested me or set fire to my family home -- and therefore, I am on some crusade against them.  No such thing happened.  Oh, I experienced some abuse as a child.  I was spiritually abused in my church.  But that doesn't drive my passion for the truth.  I don't think you were sodomized by a man as a young boy -- and that's why you comment so frequently on gay issues.  I think you believe it's evil to be gay and you wish to warn people. 

I think it's evil to be a theocrat or a Christian reconstructionist.  And I wish to warn people.

I will leave it to the individual reader to determine if being gay or propogating Christian Reconstructionist or Theocratic dogma is the greater threat to the democracy that is the very heart and focus of this forum.

[J. J.]

Very good and appreciated by those of us who are in the "anyone else" category. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Very good and appreciated by those of us who are in the "anyone else" category. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Amazing. Quite amazing. I've been waiting a long time to read this.

If you were able to flesh this into a book, it would be a very good one.

[Torie]

Fantastic story, thanks JS. The chapter as to how you became a "liberal" rather than a moderate is yet to be written, however.

My life experience was totally different, and we are so influenced by our experiences.   The only "soft"  bigotry that my parents had was regarding Catholics, and that faded really over time, as for upper middle class secular WASPS that seemed increasingly just so detached from reality, as Catholics assimilated as they did, and moved up the SES scale, and became more independent minded, thanks in part to Vatican II. Jews and blacks were never an issue, because my dad was in the entertainment industry, and he knew and was friends with many of them, but personally and professionally. In any event, when sometime during college, that emotional ember about Catholics died in my emotional makeup, I did feel kind of liberated.

In the end, I didn't have much to rebel against. And I tend to have a moderate disposition, and am just too skeptical, to really swing from one pole to the other. My training reinforced that - so many shades of gray.

And I never cared about Evangelicals one way or the other. I just don't come into contact with them, and they don't impact my life. They are more of a curiousity than anything else. And in my world, they have no political influence. If I lived where they did, I might feel differently.

[Aizen]

Sparknotes version please

[tik 🪀✨]

Ah, Sojourner's testimony! I've been wondering your story for quite a while myself, thank you for sharing and do continue if you please It's making for an excellent read.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

…And in my mind's eye, I saw Jesus suffering on the cross.  And he was as black as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or whoever.  And he was saying to me, "when you hate anyone -- you hate me".  He wasn't angry.  I felt nothing but love coming from him.  And pity.

And tell me, in your vision of his crucifixion of your vision, was Jesus holding a list of charges against any group of people? 
---

In the days, weeks and months that ensued, the Holy Spirit began to show me my problem was not just with blacks...but with gays and liberals and non-Christians and Atheists and witches and -- goodness -- with anyone not like me.  I hated them.  I thought I was called to hate them….

Let me put it to you this way, JSojourner, I disagree with many of the leaders of the black community, like Sharpton and JJackson.  I believe the black community has had to deal with great injustices from the white majority, but I think these types of leaders are doing the black community a great disservice by their unceasing preaching of victimhood to the masses.  I think they have lead the vast majority of the black community astray and that they are one of the main reasons why 75% of black children are born out of wedlock.

But as much as I disagree with them, I would consider anyone a racist who has compiled against Sharpton and JJackson half the crap you’ve compiled against idiots like Falwell and Robertson.

---

 

So -- not only were gays, liberals, Democrats, Jews, Catholics, Socialists and abortive women damned.  So were women who wore slacks, women who failed to submit to the will of their husband (even if he was abusive), young people who danced or listened to rock music, people who had wine with supper or attended movie theaters.

JSojourner, you’d find a lot in common with many from the church I go to, for it broke off from the UPC to escape the chaos and the same type of legalism you just mentioned (they weren’t allowed to wear makeup, watch TV, go to movies, ride motorcycles, etc, etc, etc).  And like many, my pastor was brought up in the UPC and was told his church was the only true church.  But when he was shipped off to Vietnam at the age of 18, he started a one hour prayer service on Thursdays night in his base camp, and he witnessed boys from almost every denomination receive the Holy Spirit.  And God poured himself out into them thousands of miles away from any denomination because they were simply hungry for God.  That was my pastors first interdenominational experience, but it wouldn’t be his last.

And my pastor and many in my church have scars from their religious upbringing.  But I can’t name one of them who collects information on the any of the many who still teach those falsehoods.   Those members of my church have somehow moved on with their lives, even though many still have relatives and friends in the UPC.

Many people want to hear that they are special and that they belong to a select group who only know the truth.  It’s just human nature.  But, you might as well be an exMormon fighting against the Mormon church, because you are NOT going to stop that train.  For it has already been foretold:

 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

And in light of this, did Paul instruct Timothy to compile a list of wrongs of those who don’t preach the truth? No, rather he gave the following command in the very next verse:

2Tim4:5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

And prior to verse 3,  there was another command in verse 2, that if followed, prepares for the things mentioned in verse 3:

2Tim 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

But the list you’ve complied and posted is not “preaching the Word”, rather it’s repeating someone else’s delusion.  And your compiled list is not “preparing in season and out of season”, rather you’re simply grinding an axe.  And it is not “correcting”, for you didn’t correct any of it.  And it is not “rebuking”, for the ones at fault aren’t even in your audience to rebuke.  And it is not “encouragement”, rather it is hopelessness.

===

But, in the end, let’s not deceive ourselves here, Sojourner:  For any fool can see that you and I are both in the wrong here:

You’ve compiled a list of wrongs on a group of people, and you know Jesus would not have done that.  And I have publically goaded you into justifying your list, and I know Jesus would not have done that.  I apologize for that.

[John Dibble]

Great story JSojourner - I really enjoyed reading it. It was very moving to hear about all the changes you went through.

As far as this list goes, ironically given his response it seems to me that jmfcst is more obsessed with it than anyone else.

[JSojourner]

Jmcfst,

Your apology is gracious and kind.  I really do not doubt your faith or your love for our Lord.  I particular like your Pastor's story and yes, identify with it completely.

I also agree with you about Sharpton and Jackson.  And I actually DO have a mental list of things they have said and done that I believe represent a danger to both the black and the liberal communities.  Tawana Brawley, Hymietown, embracing hatemonger Farrahkan...

I don't nurse hatred for them.  Nor do I cuddle and feed hatred for Pat Robertson, James Dobson or any of the far right power brokers I consider dangerous to America.  I simply note what they say and do, and sound the alarm.

If a pedophile sodomizes a child, I agree -- that child will need years of counseling, therapy and hopefully prayer.  And then, it would be my hope that God would lead them to a place of forgiving the pedophile for his heinous crime.  Forgiveness and "letting go" are more about the victim than the offender.  I really do hear what you are saying.

But suppose the pedophile continues raping children?  Suppose the brute keeps on beating women? Or suppose the young punk persists in robbing convenience stores?  The victims are, if Christian, supposed to forgive.  And to the best of their ability, they must move on.  To put a period there, as you put it.  I like that phrase.

But they also owe it to other children, women, neighbors, fellow business owners to sound the alarm.  To warn them of predators on the loose. 

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to American democracy and to the church -- Evangelical and otherwise.  I'm not sure, aside from my pastor way back when, that Pat Robertson and James Dobson have injured me personally at all.  But they have and will continue to injure people I love and care about.  My neighbors. And my country.

You might disagree.  You might think they are right in their goals.  Or you might think they are wrong, but relatively powerless and irrelevant.  And either is a fine position to take.  We can argue those points then.  But I respectfully do not think I can be accused of behaving like a victim who can't get over a past wrong.  You feel homosexuality is a threat to individuals and our country and you sound the alarm.  I do not.  I feel the religious right is a threat to both individuals and our country and I sound the alarm. 

That's basically the gist of it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to American democracy...you might think they are wrong, but relatively powerless and irrelevant....We can argue those points then

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

I've said it repeatedly for years on this forum, and I'll say it again: these guys hold very little power, even among social conservatives.  Rather, it is social conservatives like myself, who strive to be impartial, who hold the power within the GOP.

---

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to the church -- Evangelical and otherwise.

well, unlike Joseph Smith, these people didn't create their denominations, rather they are a product of their denominations.  And they would hold no sway at all if there wasn't a market for what they produce.  You're treating them as if they were the disease, but the truth is that they are simply a symptom of the disease, and in doing so, you're focusing the spotlight on them.

===

You're trying to argue that you're doing God's work by keeping a list of wrongs of these modern day Pharisees.  But when you read the Gospels and the book of Acts, did the early church keep a list of wrongs against the Pharisees, or was it the Pharisees that kept a list of wrongs against the church?

[JSojourner]

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to American democracy

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

I've said it repeatedly for years on this forum, and I'll say it again: these guys hold very little power, even among social conservatives.  Rather, it is social conservatives like myself, who strive to be impartial, who hold the power within the GOP.

---

I know you have said it repeatedly.  I could say repeatedly that 2 plus 2 equals 19 but saying it repeatedly would not make it so.

If they hold so little power, then why do millions of Christians send them hundreds of millions of dollars in donations?  Why do political candidates -- most Republicans and even a few Democrats -- bend over backwards to court, accomodate, pander to and cajole them?  Why have people as high ranking as U.S. Senators told me that nothing worries them more than having James Dobson tell his followers to jam the capitol switchboard?

I think you rightly identified Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as two people who wield power in a particular community.  And while both men have done some good things, as I am sure the guys on the religious right have, both can move millions to action.  In a positive or negative way.

So the only discussion you and I and everyone else should be having here is whether or not any of these people are moving their followers in a positive way or a negative way.

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to the church -- Evangelical and otherwise.

well, unlike Joseph Smith, these people didn't create their denominations, rather they are a product of their denominations.  And they would hold no sway at all if their wasn't a market for what they produce.  You're treating them as is they were the desease, but the truth is that they are simply a symptom of the diesease, and in doing so, you're focusing the spotlight on them.

I might be wrong, but I suspect you and I both agree that the disease is human sin.  And the remedy, we might agree, is Jesus Christ.  So sure -- the ultimate problem with the neo nazis, the skinheads, the KKK and the Nation of Islam is not that they hate blacks, whites, Christians, Jews or any one group.  It's that they are not under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Problem is, the religious right folks claim to be. And tens of millions believe they are. But their fruit betrays them. And worse, the fruit they bear threatens the country I love.  You haven't yet answered my question about why you believe you are called to warn people about the dangers posed by homosexuality...and how that differs from my desire to caution people about the danges posed by the religious right and its iconic leaders?  What is the difference?

===

You're trying to argue that your doing God's work by keeping a list of wrongs of these modern day Pharisees.  But when you the Gospels and the book of Acts, did the early church keep a list of wrongs against the Pharisees, or was it the Pharisees that kept a list of wrongs against the church?

Well, there are a few things going on in this statement.  One is the presumption that everything done by the church in the book of Acts was correct.  My guess is that much of what they did was right for its time and some of it turned out to be wrong, or just a bad idea.  More, we make the presumption that the behavior of the early church should be mimicked by Christians today.  And yet I see very few Christians in much of a hurry to "have all things in common and give to every one as each has need".  I'm not talking about charity, I'm talking about having all things in common. 

The early church had its problems just as the church today does.  We know St. Paul tried to correct a panoply of problems in several of these churches.  We don't know the extent to which he was successful.  So while the early church has much to offer us in the way of example, teaching and story, the desire many Christians have to see the church operate like it did then is unrealistic and, frankly, unBiblical. 

But more to the point -- I only say I think, I believe, I am doing God's work by exposing false prophets for who and what they are.  And I should interject here that you are doing that work skillfully and very usefully in debate with a Christian Identity supporter in another thread.  You also believe you are doing that work in writing about and debating what you believe to be the sin of and threat posed by homosexuality.

Now again -- I can disagree with you about the fact that it's a threat.  And you can certainly disagree with me about the fact that the religious right is a threat.  But let's not pretend the issue has to do with some perceived injury I suffered at the hands of zealots, and therefore am now seeking my "pound of flesh".  That's utter nonsense.  Just as it would be nonsense for someone to suggest that you are obsessed with the homosexuals because some boy scout leader molested you when you were young.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JSojourner, did I miss your answer to the following?:

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

[JSojourner]

JSojourner, did I miss your answer to the following?:

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

No you, didn't.  And I simply forgot to respond to that point.

I will answer your question with a question.  Did the racial laws enacted in Germany in the mid-1930's become a threat once they were enacted?  Or were they a threat as soon as those ideas were hatched and publicized?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JSojourner, did I miss your answer to the following?:

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

No you, didn't.  And I simply forgot to respond to that point.

I will answer your question with a question.  Did the racial laws enacted in Germany in the mid-1930's become a threat once they were enacted?  Or were they a threat as soon as those ideas were hatched and publicized?

I don't know enough about Nazi history to answer your queston.  But are you trying to suggest that we have to go back and study Hitler and the Nazis to understand Pat Robertson?  As if Pat Robertson can be compared with Hitler?

If so, I don't know what to say in response, except that I find your comparison a ludicrous version of reality.

But, since you can't name any laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you want removed, even though the Religious Right has been around for 30 years and its power is now waning, then it seems to me that my opinion is the one based upon reality:  these so-called "leaders" of the Religious Right have VERY little power, they're nothing more than gnats. 

And since that are nothing but gnats, my response to them seems the most prudent:  I turn the channel.

[Хahar 🤔]

But, since you can't name any laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you want removed, even though the Religious Right has been around for 30 years and its power is now waning, then it seems to me that my opinion is the one based upon reality:  these so-called "leaders" of the Religious Right have VERY little power, they're nothing more than gnats. 

And since that are nothing but gnats, my response to them seems the most prudent:  I turn the channel.

I apologize for this interjection.

The problem is the fact that they have so many followers. Look at the amount of money they make, at the ratings their TV shows get, at the number of books they sell.

They may be gnats now, but if not stopped, they could grow to be the most powerful men in the land.

[JSojourner]

But, since you can't name any laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you want removed, even though the Religious Right has been around for 30 years and its power is now waning, then it seems to me that my opinion is the one based upon reality:  these so-called "leaders" of the Religious Right have VERY little power, they're nothing more than gnats. 

And since that are nothing but gnats, my response to them seems the most prudent:  I turn the channel.

I apologize for this interjection.

The problem is the fact that they have so many followers. Look at the amount of money they make, at the ratings their TV shows get, at the number of books they sell.

They may be gnats now, but if not stopped, they could grow to be the most powerful men in the land.

Don't even try, my friend.  The man has his own facts and they will never change.  I was warned about that along time ago but other forumites.  They were right.

[True Democrat]

It was really good to finally read your story.  Truly inspiring.

[JSojourner]

It was really good to finally read your story.  Truly inspiring.

Thanks bro.  It's God's mercy in action.  I surely deserve worse.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But, since you can't name any laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you want removed, even though the Religious Right has been around for 30 years and its power is now waning, then it seems to me that my opinion is the one based upon reality:  these so-called "leaders" of the Religious Right have VERY little power, they're nothing more than gnats. 

And since that are nothing but gnats, my response to them seems the most prudent:  I turn the channel.

I apologize for this interjection.

The problem is the fact that they have so many followers. Look at the amount of money they make, at the ratings their TV shows get, at the number of books they sell.

They may be gnats now, but if not stopped, they could grow to be the most powerful men in the land.

Don't even try, my friend.  The man has his own facts and they will never change.  I was warned about that along time ago but other forumites.  They were right.

you two are certainly a pair.  But let me make a prediction:  these so-called leaders of the Religious Right will never even take control of the GOP, much less America.  

Who has the GOP nominated in the last 11 elections:  Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush41, Dole, Bush43, McCain.  And no matter what you think of Bush43, he hasn't advocated theocracy.  

So, it is now July 2008, after 30 years of their influence, and here's what your number one threat has accomplished:
1)  They have pushed through ZERO laws that you want reversed.  
2)  And the GOP nominee is John McCain.

but, as you said, those are my "own" facts:

The man has his own facts and they will never change. 

[JSojourner]

You and I are almost in complete agreement.  All the Republicans you mention -- with the exeption of Little Lord George -- have definitely not been in the thrall of the religious right.
I couldn't disagree more about Bush Lite. 

I couldn't be more delighted that -- at this relatively early stage in their decline -- the radical relgious right's influence appears to be waning. And I hope one day, your honorable and great political party returns to its roots and starts running national candidates like Teddy Roosevelt, Alf Landon, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerry Ford, Nancy Kassebaum, Mark Hatfield, Amo Houghton, Linc Chafee and Jim Leach.

There definitely are Republicans who reject politics of hate, interposition and the tinny drumbeat of false patriotism and religiousity.  Lots of them visit this forum with regularity.

But I'm not going to keep quiet about a still-powerful movement with millions of adherants just because you want me to.  And I am sure you're not going to stop warning us about "the radical homosexual agenda" just because we wish you would.

So let's ...hmm...  put a period to this discussion.