==Barry, I’m surprised you vigorously oppose former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy joining the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You cite his religious beliefs about marriage. Would you have a different opinion if Dungy supported same-sex marriage? ==
Of course he wouldn’t. You don’t see him complaining about people on his side being biased and being there. These people don’t want the opposition to be in a position to challenge them.

OOPS!
Of course he wouldn’t —> of course he would

Personally, I’ll wait to hear what Barry has to say for himself on the matter.
I’m sure he has his own reasons as to why he doesn’t support Dungy.
One can support many wonderful charitable groups and still be an ass.
Jay, Gay marriage will eventually be a reality in this country. Nothing will change, the sun will rise tomorrow just as it did the day before, life will go on.
Fear is used to keep people in place. Some of us have simply thrown it away because we know it has no power over us.

==Personally, I’ll wait to hear what Barry has to say for himself on the matter.==
Well, if anybody is holding him back, tell them I told you to tell them to stop it.
==I’m sure he has his own reasons as to why he doesn’t support Dungy.==
Well, again, is anybody stopping him?
==One can support many wonderful charitable groups and still be an ass.==
Especially if that person is standing in the way of a group’s agenda.
==Jay, Gay marriage will eventually be a reality in this country. ==
It already is.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual. Heterosexuality of the individuals is not a requirement.
== Nothing will change, the sun will rise tomorrow just as it did the day before, life will go on.==
When the People of the Great State of California overruled the Supreme Court of the Great State of California, nothing changed. The sun rose. The birds sang. The clouds rained. People went to work.
==Fear is used to keep people in place.==
I’m afraid to speed down the highway. I could get killed. I could kill somebody else. That scares me. I choose, therefore, not to put myself in that position.
I’m afraid to go walking in a bad neighborhood at night. I could get killed, or seriously hurt, just by being there. So, outta fear, I stay away. That keeps me happy.
I’m afraid to touch a hot stove. I could get seriously hurt. So, I don’t touch the hot stove.
== Some of us have simply thrown it away because we know it has no power over us. ==
You’re afraid of us.

Afraid of us?
No, I consider them inconsequential and insignificant.

==I consider them inconsequential and insignificant.==
Then, you won’t mind if we continue.

Would you have a different opinion if Dungy supported same-sex marriage?
I can’t answer for Rev. Lynn, but I would support Dungy if he supported same-sex marriage.
This country has a pretty sorry history of deciding who can or cannot marry, which includes legislating against mixed race marriages at one point.
Discrimination is wrong, both legally and morally. Our Constitution extends equal rights to all people, without discrimination. That should be all you or anyone needs to know.

I’m afraid to speed down the highway. I could get killed. I could kill somebody else. That scares me. I choose, therefore, not to put myself in that position.
I’m afraid to go walking in a bad neighborhood at night. I could get killed, or seriously hurt, just by being there. So, outta fear, I stay away. That keeps me happy.
Mr. Incredible, if the only reason you don’t speed down the highway is because you might kill or be killed, and that scares you, you need an attitude adjustment. Most people recognize the possibility of injuring themselves or others as basically unjust. They aren’t scared of breaking the law. They are just good people who wouldn’t risk lives even if speeding were perfectly legal.
As for walking in a bad neighborhood at night, you ought to be working on resolving the issues that create so-called bad neighborhoods… things like poverty, lack of opportunity, crushing despair and the like. That would do you better than fear.
Frankly, your response sounds smug and arrogant. Get over that! The point of your life is not to keep yourself happy. The point of your life is to help other people to be happy.

==This country has a pretty sorry history of deciding who can or cannot marry, which includes legislating against mixed race marriages at one point. ==
Irrelevant. That is been corrected because we understand that a man of any color is still a man, and a woman of any color is still a woman. That fits God’s template for “marriage.”
==Discrimination is wrong, both legally and morally. Our Constitution extends equal rights to all people, without discrimination. That should be all you or anyone needs to know.==
Where is the sexual discrimination in a law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everybody is either a man, or a woman? Unless, of course, those who claim to be homosexual also claim to be members of a third sex.
==… if the only reason you don’t speed down the highway is because you might kill or be killed, and that scares you, you need an attitude adjustment.==
No, I don’t.
== Most people recognize the possibility of injuring themselves or others as basically unjust.==
So, now you’re trying to impose your value judgments on me.
== They aren’t scared of breaking the law.==
If they were scared only of being killed, or killing somebody, we wouldn’t need law.
== They are just good people who wouldn’t risk lives even if speeding were perfectly legal.==
There, apparently, are plenty of people who claim to be “good” who typically speed.
==As for walking in a bad neighborhood at night, you ought to be working on resolving the issues that create so-called bad neighborhoods… things like poverty, lack of opportunity, crushing despair and the like. That would do you better than fear. ==
However, until all that happens, and ALL the problems in those neighborhoods are solved by somebody, fear keeps me out of those neighborhoods, and it keeps me safe.
==Frankly, your response sounds smug and arrogant.==
That’s the way you choose to interpret it. I can’t help that.
== Get over that!==
Don’t have to since I’m not smug, nor arrogant.
== The point of your life is not to keep yourself happy.==
Speak for yourself.
== The point of your life is to help other people to be happy.==
Not according to the Word of God.

Mr. Incredible wrote: Where is the sexual discrimination in a law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everybody is either a man, or a woman? Unless, of course, those who claim to be homosexual also claim to be members of a third sex.
My response: I have heard this argument pretty frequently from those who oppose same-sex marriage (mostly Christians). Their argument is something along the lines of “Homosexuals have equal marriage rights. They are perfectly free to marry one person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals are.” To me, this is a pretty weak argument. To use an example that would hit pretty close to home for Christians, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is forbidden to openly practice any religion besides Islam. What if you were a Christian in Saudi Arabia and you went before the King and said “I am a Christian, and I would like equal religious freedom.” and the King said “You already have equal religious freedom. You are perfectly free to practice Islam, just like every other person in the country, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Taoist. No person, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Taoist, may practice any religion besides Islam. There’s no discrimination.”

==What if you were a Christian in Saudi Arabia and you went before the King and said “I am a Christian, and I would like equal religious freedom.” and the King said “You already have equal religious freedom. You are perfectly free to practice Islam, just like every other person in the country, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Taoist.==
Irrelevant. That’s a monarchy. This isn’t. There is no guarantee of Due Process there. There is here. There is no equal application of laws there. There is here.
So, all men are treated equally. Equitably. So are all women. Both men and women have the same access to marriage.
Those who say they are homosexual are either men, or women. They are not excluded. So, there is no sexual discrimination, unless those who claim to be homosexual claim to be members of a third sex.
== No person, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Taoist, may practice any religion besides Islam. There’s no discrimination.”==
That may be true there. However, no one is telling a man that he cannot marry a woman. No one is telling a woman she cannot marry a man. Heterosexuality and the individuals is not a requirement for marriage. Anywhere.

Heterosexuality and the individuals —>heterosexuality in the individuals

The council itself is a bad idea. Religious groups make their wishes known without such a council, and it’s just going to be used as a political football with each change of presidency.
If the goal really is to foster communication with religious groups, however, then it’s going to have to include hate-filled people, because a significant part of every religion is hatred of outsiders and people who are different. In that sense, if there has to be such a council, then someone like Dungy probably belongs on it.

It’s absurd for someone who advocated civil war on this website to complain about someone else’s plagiarism.

Dear Mr. Sekulow,
As a Christian, I appreciate very much the efforts your organization are engaged in to help preserve the freedom speech of Christians that they might not be hindered in evangelizing those they desperately want to save from God’s wrath. I also appreciate your efforts which will hopefully lead to the end of the atrocity of legalized abortion. Your efforts to prevent civil government from giving people incentives to engage in sinful behavior such as homosexuality are also greatly appreciated.
I have some suggestions that might lead to better progress on some of these issues. I hope that you will take the time to read them and carefully consider them.
On the issue political speech in churches, I believe that it is not prudent defend churches which are incorporated under 501(c)(3) from attempts to revoke this status when the church regularly engages in activities for which the intended purpose is clearly to influence elections and/or legislation. I believe that the ACLU is on the right side of the law in these cases. Any political organization could set itself up as a church and thus take advantage of what the law was clearly intended to prevent. There is no reasonable way to “separate the sheep from the goats”. I do not believe that churches should be silent on political issues, but a more legally correct set of alternative steps is in order.
First, churches should unincorporate themselves so that they can say anything that they want. We should not make any deals with government which hinder the preaching of the Truth. Only Christ should dictate to the Church what it can and can’t say. I am in favor of even doing away with 501(c)(3) altogether because it leads to so much temptation for churches to bend the law a little here and there. This may seem counterintuitive and counterproductive, but so do so many other things in the Bible. We need to have faith that God will help us when we do what is right everyone’s eyes. For more on unincorporation, go to http://www.lordshipchurch.com.
Secondly, the root of the problem needs to be addressed. The federal government has no Constitutional right to a progressive income tax in the first place! The Constitution forbids a “direct unapportioned tax” (Article I, section 2). The 16th amendment, even if it had been legally ratified, does not override this statement. Income taxes cause people to sin because it’s so easy to cheat (especially if you’re in business and your partners aren’t as conscientious as you are). The people who diligently pay their taxes have to pay more to make up for those who cheat. This like a tax on conscientiousness!
And the same problem would occur if we resorted to a Fair Tax. Churches which are 501(c)(3)s are exempted from sales tax, so there would be the same dilemma between doing what is commanded in Scripture and obeying the law. Individuals and businesses would also be tempted to sell things illegally without charging tax. This already can be seen in states with high cigarette taxes. There would be clamoring for exceptions and exemptions which would be awarded to the powerful at the expense of the weak. There is no solution to the problem but to drastically cut Federal spending! But luckily, the Constitution is on our side on this issue. The 10th amendment limits the activities of the United States Government to those which the Constitution itself grants to it. Nearly all Federal Government spending falls outside the constitutional limits placed on it. The ultimate solution to our problem is to litigate against the Federal Government to restrain its runaway spending (including unconstitutional wars). After getting rid of the IRS and the bulk of the unconstitutional bureaucracy, we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve (which also could be done through litigation since it is also clearly unconstitutional). Putting the chains of the Constitution on the Federal Government in this way would prevent it from sticking its hand into the cookie jar (your wallet) ever again. With no more “printing” money, they would be forced to lift the burden on everyone, including churches. Getting rid of the IRS and not replacing it with anything would also save churches money in other ways. Their employees would not have to pay income taxes. Their members would have more money to contribute if they didn’t have to pay such high taxes.
To finish the thought, the tax write-off for contributions is not the only way that 501(c)(3)s are protected from taxation. They also don’t have to pay sales tax and property tax. Property tax is like having to pay the government rent to stay on your own property. Most property tax is used for public schools which churches should not have to pay for. (I will return to that subject below.)
If someone vandalizes a church, the police are obligated to investigate the crime, and to apprehend, prosecute, and carry out a sentence for the criminal. When police patrol an area, they generally watch out for churches the same way they would for residential housing. If a fire occurs in a church, the taxpayer-funded Fire Department puts out the fire the same way they would for a business. It’s only fair they should pay for the services that they receive. (They should not have to pay for services that they don’t receive, but this would be just as much of a travesty of justice as it is for individuals to have to pay for services that THEY don’t receive.)
Not only is the Constitution on the side of drastically reduced government spending, but so is the Bible! According to Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:14, the purpose or role of the government is to punish the wicked and commend those who do right. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the government has the authority to provide healthcare, education, funding for scientific research, or anything else but the administration of justice. All authority in heaven and on earth comes from Christ.
Instead of fighting over what goes on in public schools, why not just get rid of them? Most serious Christians would prefer to homeschool their children anyway. It’s not fair to force taxpayers to pay for an educational system which teaches things go against their own personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if it’s Darwinism, Biblical Christianity, or Secular Humanism. The first amendment does not guarantee the freedom of speech or religion in schools, because it only says, “Congress shall make no law…”
If you’re still reading this, thank you very much. Another issue is the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like threading a needle with a sledgehammer. It would take ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify a Federal Marriage Amendment. Even if it passed, there is no guarantee that some states wouldn’t get away with having civil unions or some other such marriage equivalent by another name. The litigation over this would be costly and endless. Government cannot, and should not try to, define marriage. Only God can do this.
Of course I’m against government providing incentives for homosexual behavior. But consider how government has already ruined marriage. Some people get married just to get a tax break. The Federal Government gives states tax breaks for collecting child support payments. This gives the states a financial incentive to adopt policies which encourage divorce. Some people like the special privileges bestowed by government for marriage. Some people like that marriage is licensed and they like the regulations that come with it. But how many of these things were in existence at the founding of our nation or were endorsed by the Founding Fathers? How many of these things are found in the Bible? The answer is NONE. There is a reason why they didn’t put anything about marriage into the Constitution in the beginning. It is an issue the government (especially federal) should rarely concern itself with. (It’s a church issue.) When the government gives people unnatural, unbiblical incentives to marry, it causes couples to marry for the wrong reasons, which leads to more divorces.
Even though Proposition 8 passed in California, it’s NOT against the law for a homosexual couple to have a ceremony, to have custody of kids, or to have joint bank accounts. (The news media unscrupulously leads us to believe otherwise to divert us from the REAL issue.) So what’s the difference? If we would just get rid of all the unbiblical, modern “junk laws” which distort the real meaning of marriage, the legal incentives to engage in sinful relationships would be gone even if “homosexual marriage” were to be “legalized”. Christians need to be convinced to give up their selfish desire to receive the “free candy” that the government is all too willing to handout in exchange for the loss of God-given rights.
As far the abortion issue is concerned, I believe that without exception, anyone who intentionally takes the life of an innocent unborn baby should receive the same punishment as if the victim had been any other innocent person. In 2000 we elected Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but who take a compromising position on this issue. And what did we get? For six years, we had a Republican President, majorities in both the House and Senate, and 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. All this was to no avail. Not only was Roe v. Wade left in place, but Federal funds received by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers actually increased during that time through Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bills rubberstamped by all but a tiny minority of Republican congressman and senators. A new approach needs to taken. The DHHS is not authorized by the Constitution and should be abolished as unconstitutional in regard to the 10th amendment. Organizations like yours need to take the lead in bringing about the litigation that would make this happen as well as overthrowing Roe v Wade. We need to elect a President who will say upfront that he will never appoint any judge who does not believe that an unborn baby has a constitutional right to life, who will refuse to enforce Roe v Wade, and will never sign any spending bill into law unless authorized by the Constitution. We need to elect a Congress which will pass the Sanctity of Life Act and abolish the DHHS, and Senate which will not confirm pro-abortion judges. Instead fighting over how medical researchers can spend our federal tax dollars, why not just abolish the NIH? (It’s unconstitutional by the 10th amendment!)
On last issue that really concerns me is the role of your organization in bringing about legislation which is designed to aid the Federal Government in prosecuting the war on terrorism. The Patriot Act clearly violates the rights of individuals with respect to illegal searches and seizures.
In conclusion, it is generally easier, better, and wiser to get rid of laws which should not be, rather than accomplishing what we want to accomplish by creating more laws. The few laws that we should be creating are ones that restrain government. We already have enough laws which restrain individuals—we just need to enforce them consistently and litigate against unconstitutional laws which are at the root of our problems, rather than just treating the symptoms. Complicated, unbiblical laws generally hurt the poor, unlearned, weak-minded and the conscientious and benefit the wealthy, privileged, and unscrupulous. When government encroaches on areas which rightfully belong to parents, the Church, or God himself, it becomes corrupt and everyone suffers.
Sincerely,
Matthew Miller

I see in this blog that there are two pictures…one of Jay Seculow and one of a man who is evidentally is preaching from a Bible that I haven’t seen. My Bible is a King James version and says that Christ was ‘under the law’ meaning obeying the laws of Moses and without sin.
Should Mr. Lynn’s critiques or questions in this forum have any merit if he is supposed to represent clergy under the God that gave us His Son Christ to follow? How about adding a picture and clergy member of the true church to add to this forum unless you want to argue that Mr. Lynn’s opinion of gay marraige is approved by the Living GOD? GOD referred to the immorality and the beastiality and the lying men with men as a “harlot” spirit…my Bible says that Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever. Jay Seculow, I am very surprised that you chose a man outside of the church faith to represent a fair forum of discussion in these blogs….for you are leading us all astray by representing him as a man of the church that Christ received as His own. Pls take an honest look at what I have said…and ask yourself if you are being fair with GOD and us in this forum to waste our time with such. You should know by now that the blind cannot lead the blind….and you surely shouldn’t choose the ‘ignorant of the spriritual truth in Christ’ to co-host a blog with you if you want us to believe that you are of Christian faith yourself. I did not know that the ‘rev.’ was a defender of the gay rights marraige until I read this blog. I am sorry I have wasted some precious time in what I have shared. I certainly hope that Christ will discipline appropriately so as you not to mislead us anymore with thinking this was a fair forum….for we have a real enemy and if it wasn’t for the Holy Ghost (who abhors the harlot spirit) I wouldn’t be bothering to write this…as he must certainly be grieved that you are wasting our time.
Perhaps he will consider revealing the true Jesus sometime to Mr. Lynn as God hopes that all will come to agree with His word.
Amos 3:3, “how can two walk together except both be agreed?”….we cannot walk with GOD unless we can agree with Him. Christ has called us into all truth…and those that are holding the truth for their own lusts will be eventually punished. i hope you will find someone more worthy to represent a perspective as a theologian than one outside of the true faith. Paul would have really detested this and spoke the same way about it….He hated the evil, but knew of the ignorance of the human that was doing those things…yet he would not have given them the platform to stand with him as he said to follow him…not any other that was not following Christ.

I just read the banner over this blog again…
and it says Lynn v. Seculow …I suppose the v. means versus.
Paul did not debate with unbeleivers…He preached the word in hopes that they could hear the Living GOD. Paul disputed with those of carnality but not to the giving of disputations. For we are saved by faith, by the grace of GOD, not by disputes or v. in blogs.
If you want a blog to work…how about not debating with the unsaved as they are still in a bondage to that evil one….how could you open the eyes that GOD hasn’t? or anyone else here?
We need a blog to help express our solutions to a very concerning time in this generation and to identify how related to faith it is and what possible solutions can be done. Instead of worrying about Obama choosing Dungy …we should be concerned that GOD will do the choosing instead of the devil. We should be supporting our elected officials to do good…but using what means we have legally (thru our judicial system/senate/repres.) to show when the elected officials are doing wrong or leading the country in the wrong path.
Pehaps all of this really is the working of GOD to see if this nation will wake up to the call of “to what GOD do you serve?” for we that are in Christ certainly perked up when we heard that Obama did not refer to America as a Christian nation.

gail,
re: “preaching from a Bible that I haven’t seen”
Ain’t freedom of religion a wonderful thing then?
P.S. I suggest you expand your apparently very limited scope of Biblical text versions. The QJV is SO 17th century.

Mr. Incredible,
“When the People of the Great State of California overruled the Supreme Court of the Great State of California, nothing changed.”
Actually, a LOT changed.
First of all, the Constitution was changed – illegally and UN-Constitutionally, my mere majority vote instead of the prescribed 2/3 majority of the Legislature.
Also, now a minority group can have its civil rights stripped away by popular vote.
Those are seizmic changes. I hope and pray the CASC restores equality.

“How about adding a picture and clergy member of the true church”
Would that be the Holy Roman Catholic Church (TM)?
“to add to this forum unless you want to argue that Mr. Lynn’s opinion of gay marraige [sic] is approved by the Living GOD?”
Americans, being ‘guaranteed’ freedom of religion, don’t have to subscribe to your idea of “the Living God” (TM). Or don’t you believe in freedom of religion, gail?
“GOD referred to the immorality and the beastiality and the lying men with men as a “harlot” spirit…my Bible says that”
If your QJV* actually does say that, you’ve got a faulty version. The woman in quesion need not be a “harlot”. The verse actually says: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman …”.
Leviticus likewise does not refer to this (apparently BI-sexual behavior – as in “also lieing with mankind as he lieth with a woman” – hint, gay men don’t lie wih women in any fashion) as “beastiality” but as “abomination” (exactly the same condemnation given to the eaters of shrimp and lobster, btw – we’s so scared).
I urge you to actually read what you purport to quote, then garner its context (are YOU a member of the Levite tribe?), ‘cuz you’re gonna be pretty amazed that The Bible (TM) also says we should put the victims of incest to death and deny communion to the disabled.
It is exactly your kind of ‘thinkng’ that non-RRRers fear from having a Dungy on the (un-needed) Council.
Hey, howzabout this: why not set up a White House Advisory Council on NON-Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships? Oh right, I forgot, gotta be religious to be a “real American”.
Apparently you are idolizing a faulty version of Holy Scipture and you haven’t even read it correctly. And, you also read it selectively. Try hard to understand the message, not merely the (mis-quoted/mis-read) words.

I praise Pres. Barack for the diverse and representative makeup of people who were invited to be part of the advisory council. The main goal should be work towards the betterment of the communities, not gripes about specific religious and political beliefs.

In keeping with separation of church and state beliefs, the president should not be setting up a council with the words “faith-based” associated with it, regardless of which faith is the base. A diverse make up of a council is a good thing to strive for as it brings in many different perspectives and helps find a solution that is best for the majority. This council just shouldn’t exist.