While the media is loving focusing on the heated rhetoric being exchanged between two lawmakers, let us not lose site of the fact that a Wisconsin Democrat took to Twitter to blame Christians for gay Muslim man killing 49 people.
“How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgbt community by ‘conservative Christian’ ideology?” Barnes tweeted Sunday.
“So many terroristic enablers in churches, in Congress, and state houses. Whether by discriminatory policy or the love affair with guns,” read another Barnes tweet.
Barnes is either a bigoted disgrace or extremely stupid. I don’t rule out the possibility that he is both.
Another legislative dim bulb, Jesse Kremer, took the bait and accused President Obama of “divisive racism” and “hatred of Christianity.”
What a wonderful day for the Wisconsin Legislature.
I miss Lee Dreyfus.
I’m with Esox lucious on this one.
Muslim fanatic shoots people, it must be the Christian’s fault, says the hateful Atheist Democrat.
It is our fault as Christians…for letting godless liberals walk on us the last few decades and allowing them to expel Christianity from public square.
America has lost it’s way because of godless liberalism to point that right and wrong has been twisted into lunacy.
Christians need to wake up and take back this country from the godless, and the false god, Muslim.
Agreed Baldy, Dreyfus was an example of a decent, thoughtful and respectful conservative. Our state appears to have far too few of them left.
Kevin, please remember that not everyone in this state let alone this country is a Christian. Many good, decent, law abiding people, some of whom may even be your neighbors, practice a faith other that Christianity.
Lee Dreyfus was never, and never will be, a Conservative. He was a Bushman (George the First), and that gang was not Conservative, either.
Kay,
As long as the decent law abiding neighbors are fine with open expression of Christianity, great.
It’s this hostile, anti-Christian attitude, mostly emitting from left side of the aisle I’m not going to sit still for anymore.
This parallel Barnes Drew is beyond ridiculous. True conservative Christians don’t want to kill gay people, conservative Christians want to share the gospel and what it truly means for their life in Christ.
Muslims have been known to want to kill gay people for their life choices. That is wrong. Any Christian I know finds that reprehensible!
dad:
LSD was a conservative as defined in the context of his era, just as GHWB was. The big difference between those two and the so-called conservatives of today is that they were intelligent folks, able to deal with those of differing opinions, and not bound by some arbitrary oath of purity to party rather than the people the represent. And both were forward thinkers as opposed to the short-sighted views of todays far right. I would vote for both of them again.
Kay:
You are so correct. The alleged christians of kevins ilk are just as hateful (see above) and narrow-minded as the muslims he despises. We all need a little more sanity and tolerance of others that may be of a different belief. Or none at all.
Baldy,
(If you are the real Baldy), I’ll bite.
What makes “Christians of Kevin’s ilk” “hateful”?
If you find something, I will point out to you that they may not be acting Christian. I’ll even use specifics in the bible. (Muslims cannot do this when you ask them to renounce violence, because their holy books, celebrate and reward violence.)
Do you accept the challenge?
“I will point out to you that they may not be acting Christian”.
The usual fallback excuse.
Baldy,
No excuse. Christianity spells out, very clearly, what it means to be a disciple in Christ.
Christians are not perfect, but we certainly do not have any standards of conduct that rises to the celebration and reward for violence in Muslim “holy” books.
I am very disappointed to lack an specific example.
Would you like to withdraw your statement, (since you cannot back it up)?
If so, I will forgive you for the error.
If not, it will be tough for you to receive forgiveness if you desire to continue in your error.
kev:
So you can be a righteous christian right up until the moment you aren’t. Amazing.
Maybe it works the same way for muslims?
No need to forgive me for anything. No error involved. And I surely don’t need, nor don’t want, your forgiveness. That would certainly doom any afterlife I might be entitled to…
The comments of the Dem legislator gave no light whatsoever to the issues of Orlando and should be condemned as strongly as Trumps
War on Muslims
One thing Kev ,
Non believers want to be left alone .
They don’t want to be preached to by anyone .
They don’t owe Christians the time of day to
Be “taught” the Good News of a thought process they reject as Bronze Age hooey
This topic proves Christopher Hitchens statement .
” Religion ruins everything “
Baldy,
So you can’t even point to 1 thing to back up your hurtful statement about Christians?
I was hoping we could have a discussion about Christ centered living vs. what is called for in Islam.
Too bad we cannot get past your false statement about conservative Christians.
Mark,
You don’t have to listen. All too often liberalism seek to suppress rather than ignore Christian speech.
kev:
The 3:23 post isn’t mine. I don’t think you belong in an internment camp.
But I do agree with Mark. Alleged christians like yourself are no more righteous than anyone else, they just think they are. As long as you don’t force your religion on others, stay out of bedrooms and womens bodies, don’t expect the taxpayer to fund religious schools, or wrap your politics and religion together, I really don’t care whom or what you idolize. But when you continue to wave the flag of intolerance for others that don’t believe as you do, I’ll respond.
Baldy,
I don’t hold myself as more righteous as anyone else.
However, I do take issue with the godless mentality that we cannot discern good from evil.
The Islamic shooter in Orlando was evil. Why can’t our president bring himself to say that?
The liberal religion that refuses to label the Islamic terrorist movement as evil, shows tolerance for that evil. I consider that bad for the LGBT community.
That’s why morality and religion is important.
When we cannot discern good from evil because of the evil of liberal political correctness, people suffer.
kev:
Wow, just wow. You have outdone yourself with nonsense.
“The Islamic shooter in Orlando was evil. Why can’t our president bring himself to say that?” He did. I heard him numerous times on the radio. The last time maybe 7 minutes ago. WPR.
Baldy,
Did he use word “Islamic shooter”, Or “Islamic terrorism”?
If he did, provide me the link and I will listen intently.
If you are so small minded and short-sighted to get hung up on terminology, there is no hope for you… You are falling right into the trump trap.
Baldy,
If Obama cannot even utter the erms to label the problem, how can he even begin to solve the problem?
Evil does not go away by ignoring it.
What if FDR refused to use the term “NAZI evil”? The lens of history shows the tremendous human cost of waiting too long to address that evil.
” A rose by any other name is still a rose”….
Nord,
Evil by any other name is still evil….but using other names to describe it is meant to soften and tolerate it.
That is what liberals have been doing when it comes to term “Islamic terrorism.”
George W used it. Liberals have less courage than George W?
You took the Trump bait hook line and sinker.
What about all those radical Lutheran terrorists that serve lutefisk in the church basement all over Minnesota and western Wisconsin? Lutefisk is mentioned in hazardous waste regulations, and contains dangerous chemicals, yet we allow then to walk around without being on a list of suspected bad actors.
Nord,
Yeah. OK. Show that last comment to your doctor and check to make sure you are not being over medicated.
Nordic says…. “What about all those radical Lutheran terrorists that serve lutefisk in the church basement all over Minnesota and western Wisconsin? Lutefisk is mentioned in hazardous waste regulations, and contains dangerous chemicals, yet we allow then to walk around without being on a list of suspected bad actors.”
Are actually trying to equate someone eating food to terrorism, murder, and gun control? Really?
Look like we have another dolt to ignore.
As usual , I am on team OB on this one .
Did Obama call the folks he has killed by drones “”Islamic terrorists ” ?
Nope, he just killed them
Do we need the “Cafeteria Muslims ” help in finding the evil doers ?
I think so
Does calling the evil doers “Islamic terrorists”
Help getting the cafeteria Muslims in our side ?
Probably not
Slogans don’t kill terrorists
Actions kill terrorists
Let’s kill the terrorists together
And let’s not vote for thin skinned fake tough guys to do anything thoughtful in this matter
Jason:
The radical Lutheran terrorist comment is no more ridiculous than most of Kevin’s work, “Evil by any other name is still evil….but using other names to describe it is meant to soften and tolerate it.”, as an example. First it is evil, then it isn’t evil, all in the same sentence. Guess the dolt is on you .
Nord,
Lutherans are not called by Christ’s grace to kill gay people. In fact, it’s the opposite, we are called to evangelize to the gay community.
Many Muslims are called by their Imams to kill homosexuals. It is in the Qu’ran.
That is the difference.
Anyway, why is it when an acknowledged Muslim terrorists shouting he is doing it for Allah and ISIS, liberals to not ridicule Muslims, but a Christian baker, under Christ’s grace, refuses to sell a cake to a gay person, Christianity is tarr’ed and feathered against the wall nationwide by liberals as “hateful”?
Why is that?
Why does Islam get a pass for murder and a Chrsitian baker get’s crucified for not baking a cake?
Is this liberal “fairness” these days?
kev:
“we are called to evangelize to the gay community.”. Just another form of radical religious terrorism. Why do you self-righteous zealots just leave them alone?
That should read, “why don’t you…..”. Sorry
Baldy,
Spreading the Gospel of
Jesus is “terrorism”, the same as a Muslim gunning down 49 people?
Speech about the grace and love of Jesus is ” terrorism”?
This is precisely why godless liberalism is an enemy to 1st amendment, the Constitution, and everything this country stands for.
The 1st act of Congress was prayer. Psalm 23, as the British were coming. Our first act of Congress is now considered terrorism by godless liberalism?
kev:
It is when unwelcome. It is no different than any other religion telling folks that they are the only truth faith. Throughout history religions of all stripes have evangelized other cultures to death. christians have been among the worst of the worst.
Answer the question: Why can’t you leave others alone?
.
Baldy,
So “unwelcome” speech is terrorism?
Under that standard, every liberal who has ever said anything is guilty of terrorism.
When it comes to the “right to be left alone”, why does that right never apply to taxes, regulation, and religious interference in liberal lexicon?
We also have freedom from religion. Unless asked, you have no right to evangelize anyone.
Nord,
So unless asked, you have no right to evangelize to me about evolution, abortion rights, or any other godless liberal religious positions?
That essentially destroys the 1st amendment, indicating there is an “offense” test for speech.
Nord,
Sorry I had to expose the complete intolerance of your position.
It would appear that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices. The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Nord,
Evangelism is “speech”, not “practice”.
Joining a church is a “practice”. Baptism is a “practice.”
Telling someone about Jesus is “speech”.
Not when they don’t care to hear it. But since you are the constitutional expert it must be so. Fortunately there are numerous other decisions affirming Reynolds v US.
Nord,
There is a bunch of other USSC decisions affirming the right to speak about Jesus, even in public places, schools, and government buildings.
“Unwelcome” is not a standard by which speech can be judged… Or punished.
If so, I’d like to punish every liberal that flaps their gums about banning sugar, while smoking their pot.
“When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”.
And that is why I am concerned about the future my grandchildren will be inheriting.
Nord,
Funny, thought authoritarianism would come to America in a Che Guevara t-shirt desecrating the flag, a ridiculous taxation on sugar, and a “Coexist” bumper sticker. (Or Philidelphia these days.)
Christianity and the freedom the U.S. flag is the cure.
kev:
Well, you think a lot of strange things, this being just another example.
So you don’t want to coexist? You would rather have one segment of society dominate the rest? That is the definition of authoritarianism.
If you have the sure, what needs curing ?
“Coexist”, is liberal code for rejecting absolute truth for moral relativism. Moral relativism is when we start allowing men in bathrooms with girls, determine child molestors are “born that way”, and allow Muslim terrorist to run free and shoot people because we are afraid to label ISIS evil and defeat it.
That is what the “Coexist” movement gets us, complete destruction of determining simple right from wrong.
Coexist: to exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1969.
It is also a word on a bumper sticker.
In kevWorld dominance=good, coexistence=bad. kev is all about dominance, both in religious belief and in political thought. Rather than allow people of all types to live together, as guaranteed by the Constitution, he wants total dominance of thought.
He probably has a funky “DOMINANCE” bumper sticker on his H1 Hummer.
Baldy,
That is the problem, the moral relativism of the “Coexist” ideal you just explained is a unattainable lie.
No one can determine right from wrong because someone may be offended.
That is why 49 people are dead in Orlando. Tolerance for evil, because the “coexist” movement has no moral authority to say Islamic terrorism is wrong. To say Islamic terrorism is evil, you will not be able to “coexist”.
“Coexist” is anarachy.
Grrr…”Anarchy”
kev:
You’ll have to translate that screed as well. 49 people are dead in Orlando because an bad guy shot them. I didn’t see anything in the numerous press accounts about there being a Coexist bumper sticker on his car.
It’s interesting watching the twisting of words by some on this site:
“What about all those radical Lutheran terrorists that serve lutefisk in the church basement all over Minnesota and western Wisconsin? Lutefisk is mentioned in hazardous waste regulations, and contains dangerous chemicals, yet we allow then to walk around without being on a list of suspected bad actors.”
Yep. It’s specifically mentioned alright — it is specifically excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. We Norwegian Lutherans are tough. We eat things that make normal people ill.
Baldy,
49 people are dead because Obama had determined to “Coexist” with the evil of ISIS.
Obama is not interested in defeating ISIS. He wants to “run with them” like they are his best friend.
Unfortunately for Obama, ISIS is interested in defeating us. 49 gay night club people are dead because Obama wants to Coexist with evil rather than defeating it.
We had same problem in Europe with Nazis. Guys like Neville Chamberlain wanted to ” Coexist” with Nazis before defeating them. Jews paid that price as well.
The ” Coexist” movement is destructive to the life span of the defenseless most of the time.
kev:
You are making stuff up again. You can’t prove a thing you said.
jsr:
Exactly. That statement is no more ridiculous that any of kevins.
Baldy,
How can you “coexist” with me if you are going to intentionally hurt my feelings like that?
Or is it the fact you really don’t want to “Coexist” with those standing up against evil, like ISIS? You really only want to “Coexist” with ISIS sympathizers is the issue?
This is the problem with moral relativism. You have to coddle Islamic evil because there is no reason to take a stand against it.
kev:
I can coexist with you just fine. You tend to your business, I’ll tend to mind. It’s when you try to bully others with your factless statements that my patriotism takes over.
You don’t stand up against evil, but rather promote your own ego. Use a little more common sense and less hyperbole and readers may pay more attention to your opinions.
I don’t coddle evil of any type, islamic or your version of christianity, so get over that. A bully is a bully regardless of what robe or idol they promote.
Baldy,
Bully? That is hilarious. Given all the profanity used around here, and the fact I use zero profanity, I would think I would be last one accused of that.
Isn’t the “Coexist” movement suppose to “Coexist” with “bullies” anyway? You have moral authority label, ostricize, and shun “bullies” as something bad, or evil?
Sounds like you have some absolute truth after all and you don’t “Coexist” with all.
Why can’t you be as decisive about Islamic terrorism?
You realize the term “bully” is the same political correctness effect as ” religion”? It’s telling someone to “shut-up” in a debate.
kev:
You don’t want to coexist, you want to dominate others with your religious and political authoritarianism. That is the bullying part of your persona.
Baldy,
And you don’t want to dominate with moral relativism? Insuring that we, as a society, can never determine simple right from wrong in anything for fear it might offend?
I at least admit my absolute truth. Your aimless “truth”: to never determine right from wrong, as to not offend anyone; why do you not just admit that?
kev:
I want to dominate at cribbage, or when my knees were younger at basketball and baseball. But I don’t feel the need to dominate others based on religious or political beliefs as you do. Big difference.
You have no “absolute truth” any more than I do. I know right from wrong and perhaps you do as well, but it is obvious we look at that choice from completely different perspectives. The old glass half full vs glass half empty analogy. In your case the glass will never have any contends until the drinker bends to your will.
Baldy,
You know right from wrong?
Here’s a test:
Are child molesters “born that way”?
Will you accept the “Coexist” position on it? To tolerate and just live with it because that is their “lifestyle”?
Or do you find the behavior wrong and deserving to be punished, thereby not tolerating or “Coexisting” with it? ( this means you really do not “Coexist” with everyone.)
I will be fascinated by your answer either way.
kev:
I don’t know, nor do you. If someone commits a crime they should be punished. If they have a documented mental or physical condition that played a part in the planning (or not planning) and execution of that crime a judge and/or jury may consider those said conditions as mitigating factors in the punishment. As I read the Coexist position, they don’t tolerate crimials either.
So answer me this: Are pedophile clergy or republican politicians “born that way” ?
Baldy,
The “Coexist” position denies any universal right or wrong.
Even implying the molestor lifestyle is wrong will get you in trouble with many liberal groups like NAMBLA.
So are child molesters: criminals, or not?
Simple question, which you seem unwilling to answer.
Don’t you see how paralyzing moral relativism is toward protecting the innocent?
When Roman Catholic church lost its universal truth in many cornors of church, and embraced moral relativism and “Coexisted” with molesters, people got hurt.
Why are child molesters only bad in liberal lexicon if they are Catholic priests?
kev:
I answered it (see above). Just because you don’t like the response doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.
And is English your second language? Your post has some issues with composition. Want to try again?
kev:
I just spent an enjoyable time reviewing the Coexist home page, their philospohy and mission statement. Then I went to several other independent sites that were referring to the Coexist group. NOWHERE was there any mention of Coexist denying any universal right or wrong. In fact, there was no mention of any of the other claims you have made against them. Once again you have made up some self serving nonsense to prop up your limp ego. In other words, you are making stuff up again. What a guy.
PS: I ordered 2 bumper stickers. I’ll send you one C/O the DQ.
Baldy,
So Coexist movement does not deny universal truth?
Do those in that movement believe child molesters are “born that way”?
If so, then you really have to Coexist with them and forget about rights of children to be free from predators.
The priest issue in Catholic church was no big deal then.
kev:
The pedophile priest in my school was a big deal for those he preyed on. You really have no conscience, do you?
So it’s not your fault you fuck little boys?