Gary Johnson: I’m the only choice to stop unconstitutional wars

by Brian Irving
Raleigh (NC) Libertarian Examiner

Libertarian presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson told a rally of Conservatives Against Unconstitutional Wars that he is not the third choice on the ballot, he’s only choice if they want to end undeclared wars.

“I am one of only three candidates who will be on the ballot in all 50 states,” he told the rally in Charlotte, N.C.  July 21. “I’m not the third choice. I like to think I’m the only choice. Of the three candidates, Obama, Romney and myself, I’m the only candidate that wants to get out of Afghanistan tomorrow, bring the troops home.”

He said he’s the only candidate who thinks marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed, just as were the civil rights people fought for in the 1960s. He said he’s the only candidate who would repeal the Patriot Act, end the drug war and abolish the IRS and the income tax.

“I’m the only candidate that would not have have signed the National Defense Authorization Act allowing for detainment of you and I without being charged,” he said.

Read more.

70 thoughts on “Gary Johnson: I’m the only choice to stop unconstitutional wars

  1. RedPhillips

    First of all, Conservatives Against Unconstitutional Wars sounds like an organization I could support.

    Second, the idea that “marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed” is absurd. To suggest that Madison, Hamilton, et al intended to enshrine gay “marriage” is ludicrous. The notion certainly never occurred to them, and if someone had suggested it they likely would have thought the person insane.

  2. Richard Winger

    Buchanan got lots of coverage because the press knew he had $16,000,000 in general election public funding. Nader got lots of coverage because he toured the country and was able to pull in crowds of 5,000 or more when he spoke at certain indoor venues, such as Madison Square Garden. Plus he was more famous than Gary Johnson is.

  3. Oranje Mike

    #1, why would the media lend publicity to a candidate that could defeat the one party machine?

  4. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ 3 Red

    Madison and Hamilton were silent on marriage, it was not a government issue.

    Now that it is we need to make it an even playing field for all. Once it is even, we can work to get government out of the marriage business completely.

  5. RedPhillips

    Mark, people can support gay marriage all they want if they are willing to risk the fate of Sodom, but that doesn’t make it “constitutionally guaranteed,” unless Johnson is endorsing a “living and breathing” interpretation of the Constitution. Is he? Because if he is then conservatives need to know that. I’m sure Virgil Goode would like to know it if he is.

  6. Just Saying

    Peter O @ 1: If resumes mattered, John McLean and Harold Stassen would have been President and Barack Obama wouldn’t have come within a country mile of occupying the White House.

    Moreover, the mainstream media will never extensively cover a minor-party candidate with only $5,218.84 cash on hand this late in the election cycle — especially one who touts himself as the most “fiscally responsible” candidate in the field while carrying a campaign debt of more than $431,0000.

  7. Steven Berson

    RedPhillips – the wording of the 14th Amendment section 1 is absolutely clear and unambiguous in it’s mandate:
    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    THAT’s the Constitutional mandate for marriage equality.

  8. Christians Only Party

    Red – Madison, Hamilton, et al were not involved with the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment enshrines equal protection to people of each state. If a state is going to license marriage for some, but not all, they are violating the 14th Amendment.

  9. Steven Berson

    RedPhillips – btw – since it seems that you’re as selective in your reading of the Tanakh as you are of the Constitution I’ll leave you with a quote from Ezekiel as to the reason Sodom was destroyed:
    Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.””

  10. RedPhillips

    Steven, the purpose of the 14th Amendment (which was not legally ratified btw) is clear, and enshrining gay marriage was not it. The supporters of the 14th Amendment would have thought anyone suggesting such nonsense no less insane than would have Madison or Hamilton.

  11. RedPhillips

    Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (KJV)

    Steven, what part of the above verse is ambiguous? The contention that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality is simply intellectually dishonest.

  12. Christians Only Party

    Mainstream Christianity are the ones who have historically endorsed a “living and breathing” interpretation of the Constitution. Christians have been perverting the words of our Constitution since day one to oppress and punish people they don’t agree with. Slavery for starters, and native American genocide were all carried out by mainstream Christians, but we would hardly say that is Constitutional today. Christians went to war with Mormons over plural marriages, using their newly found, made of whole cloth, government power to define marriage.

    If the Constitution Party doesn’t believe in or support the words of the 14th Amendment, maybe we should all know that today. Do they believe federal or state government has the power to define and license marriage and apply the laws unequally to gays and Muslims and old-school Mormons? Sounds to me like they interpret the Constitution to give Christians the power to write marriage laws that discriminate against people who don’t share their definition of marriage.

    Why can’t Muslims in America have a traditional plural marriage as more than 50 countries in the world allow? Because the Christians want to lock up people like that in the US?

    Red, what should the government do if they find a Muslim family with three wives? Or an old-school Mormon family? Or a new age plural marriage? Lock them in a cage, like we are doing right now? Is that the Constitution Party interpretation of the Constitution? Where does the Constitution give any government the power to put a Muslim man with three wives in jail, or lock up a gay couple?

  13. Just Saying

    “His campaign debt has nothing to do with his coverage.” – Humongous Fungus (#10)

    Sure it does. Gov. Johnson hasn’t raised much money since winning the Libertarian nomination in early May and, making matters worse, is saddled with an extraordinarily large debt for a third-party candidate at this point in the election cycle.

    Unlike the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode, who reported no outstanding debts in his 2nd quarter FEC report, and the Green Party’s Jill Stein, whose latest FEC filing lists more than $60,000 cash on hand and whose only outstanding obligation is a $24,000 loan made by the candidate herself, Johnson has dug himself a pretty deep hole.

    Unfortunately, it’s a hole large enough to bury any dreams of an Ed Clark-type showing this year.

    In 1980, for instance, Clark raised more than $3.2 million, about a tenth of what was spent by the Reagan and Carter campaigns, respectively, and roughly one-fifth of the $15,040,000 expended by independent candidate John B. Anderson.

    Given his current fundraising pace, Gov. Johnson is nowhere near matching Clark’s 1980 totals — a figure, adjusted for inflation, that amounts to $8.9 million today.

    Absent some divine intervention, Johnson probably won’t come close to raising even one-half of one percent of the expected outlays by the Obama and Romney campaigns.

    Ideally, that’s not the way our elections should be covered, but most seasoned political reporters and editors pay fairly close attention to those sorts of things.

  14. RedPhillips

    Mark, the issue is not “enforcing” Old Testament laws. The issue I was addressing with Steven was whether the Bible condemns homosexuality. He insinuated it did not in his reply to my off-hand Sodom remark. Such a suggestion is intellectually dishonest. The Bible clearly and unequivocally condemns homosexuality. This is really not debatable to honest actors.

  15. RedPhillips

    “Christians have been perverting the words of our Constitution since day one to oppress and punish people they don’t agree with. Slavery for starters…”

    COP, are you suggesting that the Constitution actually prohibited slavery and had to be “perverted” to allow it? That would be news to these people some of us like to call historians and everyone alive in 1787.

    Also, I suspect I’m being baited with your plural marriage question, but there is a heck of a lot more historical precedent for plural marriage, which is a historical commonplace, than there is for gay “marriage” which is without similar precedent.

  16. Christians Only Party

    So if slavery was Constitutional then, why is it not Constitutional now? Perhaps the 14th that you deny? Do you believe the Constitution allows slavery right now? If not, what part of the Constitution changed from then to now that bans the practice? Who is right about slavery, SCOTUS from 1780-1850, or everyone since then? Un-biased historians would say you are insane to think the Constitution still allows slavery.

    Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglas were among many, including some founders who believed the Constitution did not allow slavery and they were part of the history you want to white wash.

    So the Constitution Party believes slavery is still Constitutional? I think you gave your party the wrong name.

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    MH @ 17: I’m with Mark here. I really have a problem that so many “Christians” pick and choose what parts of the Bible to take literally. I hope, Red, that you also believe an “eye for an eye, and don’t forget to give up your daughters to travelers who stay at your home.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Same-sex marriage did not become constitutionally guaranteed with ratification of the 14th Amendment.

    Same-sex marriage became constitutionally guaranteed the instant a single state recognized it.

    The full faith and credit clause requires the states to recognize the public acts and deeds of the other states. That’s why if you get a government-recognized marriage in Montana, your marriage is still government-recognized when you move to Mississippi.

    As long as none of the states issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, that wasn’t an issue.

    As soon as Massachusetts started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the other 49 states instantly became required to acknowledge the validity of those licenses.

    Ron Paul has tried to dodge the full faith and credit clause with the Marriage Protection [sic] Act, which invokes Congress’s power to “prescribe the effect” of the full faith and credit clause …

    … and THAT is where the 14th Amendment comes in. Congress is no longer free to “prescribe an effect” that allows states to deny equal protection of the law. Its power and duty is precisely the opposite. If Texas recognizes marriage licenses, it has to recognize marriage licenses from Massachusetts, and it doesn’t get to say “unless one of them is black” or “unless both of them are female” or “only so long as neither of them is an albino with a goiter.”

  19. langa

    Now that it is we need to make it an even playing field for all. Once it is even, we can work to get government out of the marriage business completely.

    I keep hearing this argument, but it makes no sense. How does making it “an even playing field” get us any closer to getting government completely out of the marriage business (which is the real libertarian position)?

    Would it make sense to say that since marijuana and cocaine are banned, we should also work to ban alcohol and tobacco, to make things “even”, and then we can work to get end drug prohibition entirely?

    Or how about saying that since certain “assault rifles” are banned, we should also ban pistols and hunting rifles to make things “even”, and then we can work on restoring the right to bear arms?

    Yes, libertarians should oppose the prohibition of gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean we should support the “legalization” of it. Rather, we should stand for the strong, principled position that government has absolutely no business saying who can or can’t get married … period.

    Supporting more government licensing and regulating of consensual relationships will never get us any closer to real freedom.

  20. Ad Hoc

    @18

    “Sure it does.”

    Nonsense.

    The only people making an issue of the debt, which is being covered by after the fact primary donations and matching funds, are in the comments on this blog.

    No one else cares.

    The reason Buchanan and Nader got covered is that they have been widely covered media personalities for decades before they ran.

    Buchanan had also served in prominent roles in several administrations, had multi-millions of dollars for his campaign, had been a major candidate in previous Republican primaries (not
    a 1-2% candidate), was the candidate of a party that got close to 10% of the national vote four years earlier and had elected a Governor under its label.

    Buchanan and Nader had very high name recognition before they ever ran for president.

    Johnson has very little name recognition among the general public, managed to be on in 2 out of maybe 20 Republican primary debates before the field winnowed down, and was the Governor of a small-population state a decade ago. He represents a party that has scored 0.4% plus or minus 0.1% for the last seven presidential elections and has elected only a small handful of state legislators over several decades and nothing above that. And yes, he has very little money. How much of it is debt is the least of his problems in getting media coverage.

    He does have some breakthrough potential; we’ll see if reporters get bored with Obama and Romney and what percentage of Ron Paul supporters become Johnson supporters in September and October.

  21. RedPhillips

    “So if slavery was Constitutional then, why is it not Constitutional now? Perhaps the 14th that you deny?”

    No COP, that would be the 13th that explicitly prohibited slavery.

  22. RedPhillips

    Tom, that the Supreme Court might interpret the “full faith and credit” clause as you do, is why it is wise for the states to pass amendments and laws of their own, as many have. This is essentially an act of preemptive nullification.

  23. paulie

    From the Johnson campaign:

    Friends,

    Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the dollar has lost 97% of its value.

    TODAY, after almost 100 years of the Fed destroying our money with its secretive manipulations, we have an opportunity to finally do something about it. As early as tomorrow, the U.S. House of Representatives will – after years of inaction – hold a vote on Congressman Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act, better known as “Audit the Fed”.

    This morning, I emailed every Member of the House of Representatives urging them to vote YES on this historic legislation. I’m emailing you today to ask you to do the same with your Representative.

    Just last week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke again expressed his opposition to Rep. Paul’s bill. To me, that tells us everything we need to know about why it is crucial that Congress finally require an outside audit of the Federal Reserve’s activities. If the Fed doesn’t want to operate in the open, if they want to keep making secretive decisions behind closed doors about OUR money, too bad.

    If you haven’t seen it already, take a quick look at the video we released recently about the Federal Reserve, its secrecy, and the need to replace that secrecy with transparency.

    And today, please let your Representative in the House of Representatives know that you are watching, and that you respectfully request a YES vote for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

    Thank you.

    Governor Gary Johnson

    P.S. Tomorrow’s vote in Congress is just a first step. This fall, there must be a voice in the national Presidential Debates who will stand up to the central bankers and the Federal Reserve. Go to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com and help me provide that voice!

  24. paulie

    How does making it “an even playing field” get us any closer to getting government completely out of the marriage business (which is the real libertarian position)?

    Ending bans on “interracial” marriage did not necessarily get us closer to getting government out of marriage, but it still had to be done. The same goes for the discriminatory acts of some states in denying same sex marriage. The full faith and credit clause means they must now be made legal nationwide. We can still work on ending government marriage later, but that is a long term struggle; this is a short term one.

    Would it make sense to say that since marijuana and cocaine are banned, we should also work to ban alcohol and tobacco, to make things “even”, and then we can work to get end drug prohibition entirely?

    A better analogy would be that many of us would like to see marijuana regulated and taxed as opposed to outlawed, even though in the long run we don’t want marijuana or any other product regulated and taxed.

  25. Christians Only Party

    Bait taken. So the 13th was ratified legitimately, but the other two Reconstruction amendments, the 14th and 15th, were not ratified legitimately? Interesting perversion of the Constitution seeing as all three were ratified by Reconstruction governments in the south instead of elected legislatures, which is the ONLY argument that the 14th is not valid. You said the 14th is not valid, so why is the 13th valid?

    The Constitution Party wants to lock up gay people in cages for saying they are married. Its as simple as that. And the Constitution Party is wrong and their views on the 14th Amendment are barbaric, serving Christianity before the individual rights that our Constitution recognized as being granted at birth. All Christian mainstream historians believe the 14th was ratified legitimately contrary to Red’s assertion, yet they are all right about slavery according to Red. Very interesting and very wrong. We are born with our rights, they are not granted by the Christians in charge, and that includes gay people who want to get married. The Constitution never gave any human the right to hold another human as property or as a slave. The 13th only gave federal government the power to enforce laws in states against slavery and slave trading, since no one had the right to own another human being under the original Constitution but some states still refused to recognize the right to be free. Slavery has never been legal, Madison argued that very point at the Constitutional Convention. Thus, the 14th Amendment was meant to protect gay people from the oppressive laws of Christian perverts.

  26. Mark Hilgenberg

    @19 Red

    The bible condemns a lot of things, there are 613 commandments in the OT, why pick and choose one thing that, if you learn various translations, may not be about homosexuality at all. Leviticus was for Israel and Jesus fulfilled the law, case closed.

    The constitution and Bill of Rights is there to protect individuals from force of the majority. Any constitutional change which brings about more liberty for peaceful individuals is good, any change which restricts liberties is bad.

    When will the Constitution Party stop saying they are for liberty? Isn’t lying a sin also?

  27. Rob Banks

    Stopping unconstitutional wars is good for America, good for the world, and bad for the corporate/banker bottom line.

  28. langa

    A better analogy would be that many of us would like to see marijuana regulated and taxed as opposed to outlawed, even though in the long run we don’t want marijuana or any other product regulated and taxed.

    That’s a false choice. You can oppose the prohibition of marijuana without supporting the taxation and regulation of it. The same goes for gay marriage (or plural marriage, or interracial marriage, or any kind of marriage).

    If you don’t like my previous analogies, how about this one? If you had been alive prior to the abolition of slavery, at a time when abolition appeared to be a longshot, would you have supported a law legalizing white slavery, and saying that anyone who owned black slaves must also own white slaves, in order to “even the playing field”? Would that be libertarian?

  29. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ Langa 39

    No, you are talking about laws which decrease the rights of individuals. Increasing rights for some so everyone has equal right is libertarian.

  30. RedPhillips

    “So the 13th was ratified legitimately, but the other two Reconstruction amendments, the 14th and 15th, were not ratified legitimately?”

    COP, I didn’t say that. I was just directing you to look up the 13th before you embarrassed yourself further with your ignorant ramblings. Technically speaking the 13th wasn’t ratified legally either for the same reason (under duress), although neither I nor anyone else is making an issue of that, and you know it.

  31. Pad Thai

    So why are you making an issue of the 14th, if you admit that the verification technicality does not matter for another amendment?

  32. langa

    No, you are talking about laws which decrease the rights of individuals. Increasing rights for some so everyone has equal right is libertarian.

    There is no “right” to a government stamp of approval that forces others to accept your marriage as legitimate. Consider the case of an ad I saw recently offering discount room rates for newlywed couples. The owner of that hotel should have the right to determine who qualifies for the discount, but if gay marriage were “legal”, he would be unable to exclude gay couples from the discount.

    Or consider the case of an employer that offers spousal benefits to his employees. Again, the employer should be allowed to determine who counts as a “spouse” and is entitled to receive the benefits, but if gay marriage were “legalized” (as opposed to simply ending the prohibition against it), that employer would be forced, under penalty of law, to offer the spousal benefits to gay couples.

    These are very real ways in which the “legalization” of gay marriage not only could, but would, be used to take rights away from people. As I said in my original comment, there is simply no way that giving the government more power to license and regulate consensual relationships can be argued to increase freedom (at least not freedom in the libertarian sense).

  33. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ 43
    When those companies stop receiving special protections for their corporations, we can talk. As it is now, those with protections have the advantage to those who don’t. Minorities, gays, and women have not been on an equal footing for our history. Allowing everyone to have equal footing going forward is not a bad thing, especially with the protections and privileges we give corporations and land owners.

  34. langa

    Mark,

    I know it’s your favorite subject, but corporate privilege is completely irrelevant to this discussion. My first example, about the newlywed discount, concerned a small bed and breakfast, while my second example, about spousal benefits, could apply to any business, no matter how large or small, and regardless of whether it’s incorporated or not. Besides, two wrongs don’t make a right, and libertarianism is not about government finding a way to right historical wrongs, it’s about government getting the hell out of the way and letting individuals and voluntary organizations solve their own problems.

    Look, libertarians, like anyone else, are free to have their own personal opinions, and if you want to support “legalized” gay marriage as the lesser of two evils, that’s your business. But it’s not the real libertarian position, and it shouldn’t be part of the platform of the Libertarian Party, which should come out (no pun intended) unequivocally for a total separation of marriage and state, no more and no less.

  35. RedPhillips

    “So why are you making an issue of the 14th, if you admit that the verification technicality does not matter for another amendment?”

    Because a great deal of mischief is done in the name of the 14th Amendment.

  36. Joe Buchman

    Red @ 15

    The Bible most certainly DOES NOT condemn homosexual marriage. It’s clear from other language in later books that the passage you cite, as well as the rest of THE LAW was trumped by — Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.

    More than a couple of my “neighbors” in this world are Gay. One is a young man who is the brother of my daughter’s husband. That young gay man sang at the wedding of his brother to my daughter. Later he danced with another young man. Made us all happy.

    Cling to those parts of the law that do the same for you. I’ll follow other admonitions in there to Love One Another.

    Our fruits will be, as I understand scripture, the measure of how we shall someday be judged.

    But not here. Not now. And not for gay people who desire to MARRY.

    I mean really. What would Jesus REALLY do?

  37. TANSTAAFL

    @18 – you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Most all of that debt is to his campaign manager who is risking never being paid against qualifying for enough matching funds and fundraising to cover it and make a profit. Sounds like free market to me. In fact, the campaign management is only using matching funds to pay down that debt so that every dollar donated goes to promoting the campaign. If they were paying down the debt with raised funds, you would be bitching about that too. And ask anybody not commenting on here and they couldn’t tell you anything about debt or cash on hand. to believe that is the reason for not receiving fair coverage is just…well, dumb.

  38. Just Saying

    The $431,000 debt aside, it’s still hard to imagine the mainstream media tripping all over themselves to cover a candidate who reported only $5,200 on hand as of June 30th.

  39. RedPhillips

    Joe, homosexuality is explicitly and unambiguously condemned by both the Old and New Testament. This is NOT debatable. To deny this is simply not intellectually serious. As for Jesus, he raised the bar as far as sexual sin is concerned, he didn’t lower it. He said anyone who thinks lustful thoughts is guilty of adultery. So what makes you think Jesus at the same time abolished another sexual sin? Of course everyone is guilty of thinking lustful thoughts. The point of this was to emphasize that we are all sinners in need of a savior. Jesus came to die for our sins, not define them out of existence.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    Red, oh? OK. So how do you square 52 with the bit about “love your enemies”?

    Of COURSE lust is “adulterous.” The alpha and the omega begin and end in the mind.

    Actually, Jesus came because Joseph and Mary hooked up! After that, Jesus taught us that God is love. He taught us the Golden Rule. He taught us not to judge.

    Somehow or other, those words get twisted. Remarkable.

  41. Steve M

    @15,

    “Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (KJV)”

    So you are arguing that man’s interpretation of god’s will over rides the “non-initiation of force pledge”?

  42. Rob Banks

    “So why are you making an issue of the 14th, if you admit that the verification technicality does not matter for another amendment?”

    Because a great deal of mischief is done in the name of the 14th Amendment.

    A great deal of good has been done by the 14th and it is no less the law of the land than the 13th.

  43. Rob Banks

    By the way why are we talking about this? I thought this article was about unconstitutional wars?

    Seems like a more important subject if anything..

  44. Joe Buchman

    @52 He didn’t give crap about ANY of your OT laws. He worked on the Sabbath, he sought and loved God and others, he defied “Religious Authority” and tradition.

    If homosexuality was such an issue — where is His first-hand condemnation of it? It’s not there.

    Only the religious leaders and money changers got anything that looked like anger from Christ.

    Prostitutes, lepers, former tax collectors — the outcast — all right at home. Just like here in the LP.

    The judgmental, the condemning, the self-righteous –not so much. More difficult than that camel through a needle thing to find your way to unconditional love, forgiveness of others and a heart open enough for a loving God to make use of it.

    Condemnation of homosexuality is on the wrong side of history — no different that condemnation of skin color, racial intermarriage or other kinds of God-awful, sick, hateful, racism/sexism. I’ll grant you the Koran is on your side. You’ll find more traction quoting it than your twisted version of the Christian Bible.

    About 30 years from now it will be clear that what changed in our lifetimes happened because homosexual teens were finally protected against violent acts, murder even, and other kinds of harassment and your kind of God-awful putrid prejudice and hate in our public schools and most other youth-oriented institutions.

    Every 16 to 25 year old not locked away in some “religious” or home school has gay, bi, transgendered, metrosexual and every other kind of sex-orientation friend you (or they) can imagine AND they could care less.

    They look at the hate, and ignorance, and judgement, and asinine speaking for God of Muslims, Christians and most other traditional religions as the total BS of an older generation that they want no part of.

    The only people raving as you do against homosexuals are ones that are either repressing their own (self-judged as sinful) desires — and/or those who have never had a gay friend, or talked to a gay man or lesbian woman.

    I’d highly suggest you do that. Get to know them the same way a racist would benefit from being trapped for a month on an island with people of another race. Go get to really know some gay guys and lesbian women and then ask them for forgiveness for your ugly judgment and public condemnation. Otherwise your soul is lost in a sea of hate from which you’ll never likely recover. I think you’ll be floored by how unconditionally loving, and how generous in forgiveness they are. THAT’s the blessing of the oppressed, unfairly judged, the unjustly imprisoned, the condemned . . .

    And yes, Christ did not come to define sin out of existence. He spoke very clearly about the nature of sin — the lack of love for others, the unwillingness to pray without ceasing, to seek His guidance. With that life, there’s no room for the judgment and condemnation of the kinds of “sins” your pointing to. But there is room to take a thief on the next cross over along for the ride. Funny how loving others unconditionally and asking for forgiveness for being hard-hearted is something nearly universal for human beings on their death beds. You’d think they’d be continuing their raving about the sin of gay sex or something in that moment, cause it’s ever so important to a loving God, right?

  45. Mohamed Jihad

    Allahu Akhbar!

    “We also sent Lut : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Qur’an 7:80-81

    “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”

    “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”

    “Sihaq (lesbian sexual activity) of women is zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) among them.”

    Allah Most High says: “Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives that Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” Koran (26:165-66)

    (1) The Prophet (saws) said: (1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets if be done to him.” (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)

    (2) “May Allah curse him who does that Lot’s people did.” (Ibn Hibban, sahih (authentic))

    (3) “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.” (Tabarani, sahih)”

    Verses From Qur’an:

    026.165-166 “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!”

    027.055 Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!

    029.028-29 And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: “Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?” But his people gave no answer but this: they said: “Bring us the Wrath of God if thou tellest the truth.”

    Hadeeth (saying of prophet Muhammad) regarding homosexuality:

    Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: The Prophet (saws) said: A man should not look at the private parts of another man, and a woman should not look at the private parts of another woman. A man should not lie with another man without wearing lower garment under one cover; and a woman should not be lie with another woman without wearing lower garment under one cover. (Abu Dawood)

    Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (saws) said: A man should not lie with another man and a woman should not lie with another woman without covering their private parts except a child or a father. He also mentioned a third thing which I forgot. (Abu Dawood)

    Liwat is the word for sodomy, under which heading the topic of homosexuality is found in the books of fiqh. Under shari`a both the (same-sex) sodomizer and sodomized are passible of death.

    * Even though our religion allows us latitude, more than most, to ponder and reconsider some issues, homosexuality is clearly and explicitly condemned by the Quran (7:80-83, 11:77-79), the Prophet, and his progeny.

    * When we have a conflict with the Quran, which is the word of God verbatim, we do not ask where the Quran went wrong but rather why are we, limited beings, in conflict with the wisdom of the absolute, God Almighty.

    * As Muslims we do not make up our religion, but we receive it and we obey it.

  46. Be Rational

    @49 The campaign debt is definitely holding the campaign back. It discourages individuals from donating. It affects campaign operations. It’s a weight slowing progress.

    There are ways to limit the deleterious effects and work around them, but, ignoring the debt problem and hoping for funds to come in will not work.

  47. Jill Pyeatt

    RP @ 52: “He said anyone who thinks lustful thoughts is guilty of adultery.”

    This is truly an unbelievable statement. Seriously, does anyone believe this? I’m old and I’m married, and if a lustful thought jumps into my head–usually uninvited–I’m guilty of adultery? That’s absurd.

  48. Steve M

    Think not for yourself lest ye be thoughtful.

    Thou shall not use the fear of the wrath of god as justification for doing others harm. (Is your god so weak that she can’t take care of these issues on her own?)

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    God gave us our sex drive and also made sex fun. I do not believe humans were intended to be as repressed in their sexuality as many religious people try to make it. And I know there’s a scripture somewhere that says all sins are equal, so murdering someone is as equal a sin as that fleeting lustful thought? ? Who believes that??? God also gave us intelligence to communicate with Him directly and not rely on the writings of ancient, flawed human beings.

  50. Jill Pyeatt

    This is obviously a sensitive subject for me. I was president of my church choir in high school and actually carried a Bible to school every day (yes, I know that image of me is hilarious). I had a boyfriend my whole senior year, a kind basketball player who was a couple years older than me. That started my split with organized religion. I do much better with a one-on-one relationship with my God.

  51. Be Rational

    @8 Corey Schmidt ads …

    Great Job!

    Spread these messages far and wide …

    (I think I can find a bible passage somewhere that says to do that if you want to waste time on such nonsene.)

  52. Be Rational

    @8 Corey Schmidt ads …

    Great Job!

    Spread these messages far and wide …

    (I think I can find a bible passage somewhere that says to do that if you want to waste time on such nonsene.)

  53. Mark Hilgenberg

    Jill, he totally misunderstands the point Jesus was making about lust. It is common among legalists do make this error.

    The point Jesus made was to show that humans sin all the time, wanting to take another man’s wife is sin, it is not loving. So as opposed to focusing on sins of others, we should focus on loving others.

    The pharusies knew he had them.

  54. Joe Buchman

    Mark @ 69 — Exactly! And I’m still upset about the State of Utah kidnapping that man’s sperm. What kind of idiots in the legislature sit around making up those kinds of laws?!?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.