Next entry: LCR chides 'gay left' for discussing John McCain's gay chief of staff
Previous entry: Wingnuts look to favorite scapegoat
Yeah, baby. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is on fire with this batsh*t crazy letter to frantic supporters of the Cali marriage amendment. When this measure is defeated, he warns that the prisons will be overrun with fundies.
The unhinged letter is below the fold.
Is San Quentin available for new business?
California Pastor Warns of Threat to Religious Freedom - FRC national campaign to defend marriage needs your immediate support
If marriage loses, religious liberty is next
September 23, 2008 | Refer a Friend
Dear XXXX,
I want you to hear something a California pastor said to me recently:
“If we lose, we go to jail.”
It’s just that simple, says Pastor Jim Garlow-if marriage loses in California, religious liberties everywhere will be next.
Family Research Council has been pouring resources into a national campaign to defend marriage and religious freedom, and . . .
I’m writing today to ask you again to stand with us. We still must raise $600,000 before the close of our fiscal year on September 30.
I know many Americans are feeling the pinch of a tight economy. As you prayerfully consider a gift, rest assured that FRC carefully stewards every dollar you give to the defense of marriage, religious freedom, parental rights, and human life.
The stakes are enormous. We face a national menace to religious liberty:
- In Boston, a Christian adoption agency was shut down for refusing to place orphans with homosexual couples.
- In New Mexico, a Christian-owned studio was fined more than $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
- In San Francisco, the city council officially condemned Christian opposition to homosexual adoption as hateful and discriminatory rhetoric.
By God’s grace and with your help, we can win this fight.
FRC has been protecting marriage during its 25-year history, and we’ve been voicing your values ever since activist judges in Massachusetts and California legalized counterfeit marriage and triggered a national debate.
Your prayers and generosity are enabling FRC to use our national platform to make the forceful case for traditional marriage in the media, in the churches, and at the grassroots.
In less than two months, voters in California, Florida, and Arizona will have the chance to place marriage out of the reach of activists and liberals.
Twenty-six states already have constitutional protections for marriage.
We pray that California, Florida, and Arizona will be added to that list once voters learn the truth about the lies the Left uses to justify counterfeit marriage.
The fight for marriage in the states is our first priority.
But we can’t take our eye off Washington, D.C. politicians. Your support is vital as we stand up to liberals who want to criminalize your religious speech . . . threaten the religious liberties of employers . . . silence conservative and Christian broadcasting . . . raise taxes . . . and impose taxpayer funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Thank you for sacrificially giving whatever you can at this critical moment for faith, family, and freedom in America.
FRC national campaign to defend marriage needs your immediate support
Standing (Ephesians 6:13),
![]()
Tony Perkins
President
P.S. Please forward this e-mail to a friend.
Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Posted by
Pam Spaulding on 08:38 PM •
Permalink
I notice he never says what Christians would go to jail for if Prop 8 is defeated. I wonder what criminal law they would be violating?
When this measure is defeated, he warns that the prisons will be overrun with fundies.
He says that like it’s a bad thing.
They can’t even get their own scary details correct.
In Boston, a Christian adoption agency was shut down for refusing to place orphans with homosexual couples.
Technically, it was a Catholic adoption agency. More technically, it shut its-own-self down rather than comply with the law: “In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.” - Boston Globe, March 11, 2006.
In New Mexico, a Christian-owned studio was fined more than $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
That’s cuz it violated public accommodation laws.
In San Francisco, the city council officially condemned Christian opposition to homosexual adoption as hateful and discriminatory rhetoric.
Truth hurts, don’t it Tony?
Really, I can’t wait for Halloween. My new wife and I are going to don the wedding attire we wore last month (complete with white checkerboard Vans), knock on the doors of straight married couples, and threaten their marriages.
As a proud Californian, I knew what Christians were in for as soon as the state Supreme Court quite literally opened the gates of hell.
I mean, we’ve all heard about the concentration camps for Christians that were built all over Massachusetts immediately following that state’s defiance of God’s Law. And of course, all this was modeled after the Christian Holocaust in Canada after they legalized Gay “marriage” there.
We must turn back! We are temping God! We will be held accountable for treating gay people as if they are real people like anyone else!
...or maybe I just picked up this bullshit from the paranoid Christian fundnuts who can’t last an hour without experiencing an overwhelming sense of fear of their own impending doom, whether it’s really there or not.
Whatever gets you through the night…
In New Mexico, a Christian-owned studio was fined more than $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
I’m troubled by this. I was about to offer almost this very same thought experiment before I read it on WorldNutDaily:
“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”
And yet I see that this particular case is little different than refusing to serve black people at one’s privately owned restaurant. But the law still makes me uncomfortable. I don’t feel I’d have any right to make homophobes photograph my wedding. What’s up? Is this internalized oppression talking?
They can’t even get their own scary details correct.
So these “Christians” are bearing false witness?
Putting right-wing Christians in jail?
God, one can only hope.
“We don’t serve homos here,” isn’t very far from, “I don’t feel right photographing your ceremony.”
Still, got links?
PS, what does the third item have to do with the other two?
Grammar RWA,
Lorence’s analogy gets it a bit wrong (no duh, right?). The NM issue is actually between a person’s right not to be discrimated against in seeking access to services v. the service provider’s right to freedom of religion. AFAIK, vegetarianism isn’t a religion.
So in cases like this, the government, and the courts, have to weigh those two interests and determine which the government has a greater interest in promoting. New Mexico has both a public accommodation law encompassing prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as a religious freedom law.
The answer some people give to this particular case in NM is, “Well, the couple could just find another photog.” But that is similar to the answer given to folks in your example - “Well, they could just eat at another restaurant.”
My new wife and I were lucky - as far as we knew, there were no homophobes at our wedding last month, and we didn’t run into any in our planning and purchasing. I would have happily told them to take a hike after waiving cash and credit cards in their faces. But that was in CA where we did have tons of options - not everyone has such opportunity; hence the reason for the policy behind supporting the couple’s arguments over the photog’s.
Hey Pandogonians, No on 8/Equality for All is looking good in the polls but getting seriously out fundraised by the reichers. I’d like to suggest a fund-raising scheme: every time a troll posts on a thread about same-sex marriage between now and election day, you pledge some amount of money to their campaign (maybe $1 for lower income, $5 for higher income). Either we get no trolls or we give money to the good guys. It’s win/win!
The ads for No on 8 are actually good and are running on a lot of TV out here.
Yeah, the arguments I found weren’t very far from allowing someone to only serve Christians or only not serve Christians. You know, since it’s a choice, and all.
Ohwell. If they go to jail, it won’t be for not serving a homosexual a hamburger, that’s for sure.
Great idea, Loneoak!
I nominate you to keep track of these trolls so we know how much to contribute!
(For our wedding, we asked in lieu of gifts for our guests and well-wishers to donate to Equality California to fight Prop 8. I believe so far our tally’s at least $500.)
Note that in all three cited examples of the “national menace,” nobody was jailed.
Still, got links?
If you were asking me, here are a few to get you started:
Part I and part II from The Volokh Conspiracy’s analysis of the NM case (I don’t know if Prof. V’s correct, but the posts offer a pretty good breakdown of the competing legal issues).
Here’s Phoenix, AZ’s, public accommodation law (which wouldn’t have covered the NM couple as it does not apply to sexual orientation).
And, well, if you weren’t asking me . . . my apologies.
PS, what does the third item have to do with the other two?
You can’t have only two items on your List Of Oppressions—it looks like you ran out. You have to have at least three to imply that there are many more that you didn’t list.
The fact that Item #3 doesn’t even relate to the others is beside the point.
Here’s what shows how ridiculous the NM example is:
If a photo studio refused to photograph Christian weddings, that would be religious discrimination, and probably subject to similar fines.
I need some exercise, so I’m thinking of setting up some kind of schedule to make sure I follow through.
I just realized how much I enjoy oppressing Christians, and I figured out if I just set aside the time to oppress a couple of Christians on the way home from work, I get some exercise, unwind a little from work, and I get to do something I really enjoy.
Now, all I have to do is wait until after the election. Prop 8 was the only thing holding me back, but it’s gonna be clear sailing for us devil’s spawn, dirty librul, Christian haters to go hog wild.
I wonder if I’ll need a license...?
I’m glad someone else pointed out that the Christian adoption agency was a Catholic organization that was shut down not by its staff but by the local bishop. Even better, they blithely ignore the fact that equal marriage had been legal in Massachusetts for two years before Bishop O’Malley (almost certainly acting under pressure from the Vatican) pulled the plug on the adoptions. I also seem to recall that second parent and gay adoptions/foster parenting have been legal since the early 1990s, or long before Goodridge v. Massachusetts.
Lies, lies, lies. They should ashamed.
Lorence’s analogy gets it a bit wrong (no duh, right?). The NM issue is actually between a person’s right not to be discrimated against in seeking access to services v. the service provider’s right to freedom of religion. AFAIK, vegetarianism isn’t a religion.
It is an awful analogy. But if ever there were some blanket rule that service providers must always provide their services to any paying customer, the vegetarian would be out of luck. There’s no such blanket rule yet, and so Lorence is offering a red herring, one that worked at making me uneasy.
We’d all be against any such blanket rule though, yeah?
If Prop 8 is defeated, the next step—Christians will be jailed
Perkins is partly right, but he left out an intermediate step:
If Prop 8 is defeated, [fundy Christians will be so angry, they will commit crims, and] the next step—Christians will be jailed
If you equate extending rights to someone else with losing your rights, it means you are an oppressor. There is (obviously) no connection between gay marriage and Christians going to jail. Seeing inclusiveness as an attack on yourself is so blatantly oppressive.
Grammar RWA,
If there’s only one thing I’ve learned in law school (and unfortunately for me I think there is only one thing I’ve learned in law school 
) is that every rule has exceptions! (And balancing tests - okay, two things.)
And I think you’ve hit right on the nub of the problem.
If the NM photog’s religious objections fall to the state’s interests in promoting the moral right not to be discriminated against (as Prof. Volokh put it), then there is clearly the potential for all people of all sorts of beliefs (same-sex couples wanting wedding services, butcher shops wanting beef commercials, Klan members desiring to rent office space) to demand service of businesses who deplore those people’s beliefs (Christianist homophobe photographers, vegetarians, a PoC building owner).
On the other hand, if the right to refuse service based on the service provider’s religious beliefs prevails, then we can be denied housing, credit, photography services, a seat at the lunch counter.
That said, however, Mr Perkins’ wailings about Christians facing jail time if my right to my recent marriage is upheld is ludicrous and a transparent ploy to flush other fundies out of the woodwork on Nov. 4th. IMO, he knows good and damn well that he’s making a specious argument.
If Proposition 8 does pass, we might as well see a new violent rise of Christian fundementalism, as rea suggested.
It’s just like the white supremacist/Neo-Nazi violent wave during the 80’s and 90’s, years after the Civil Rights passed for minorities. Although they have committed hate crimes during segregation, extremists like the neo-Nazi and KKK groups have resorted to use even more violence as a last desperate act to reclaim what was “theirs.”
Christian extremists have no reason to commit violent acts and other crimes because they have so much power and influence than they have led people to believe. If this proposition passes, we will no doubt see a brave new world where Christian fundementalists may upstage Al-Qaeda and commit their own 9/11 on our soil.
Fred Clark has talked about this recently on Slacktivist, but I’m always fascinated by the ability of fundengelicals to hold two simultaneous beliefs in their minds:
a) America is a Christian nation, populated almost entirely by Christians, with non-Christians forming such a tiny minority that their beliefs and rights are unimportant.
b) Christians in America are a tiny, persecuted minority, constantly in danger of being imprisoned, deported, or fed to lions by the heathens who run the country and oppose them at every turn.
This is so goofy. How does this anonymous California pastor think “If we lose, we go to jail” is going to work? Every Christian in California is going to jail if gay marriage remains legal? Who will be throwing them in jail? Three Wiccans from Berkeley and George Takei?
Don’t get me started on one photographer getting fined for discrimination equalling Christian Holocaust.
Oh, and here in San Francisco we’ve had gay marriage, on and off, for almost five years. Number of local Christians in jail for gay-marriage-related reasons: 0.
Teac, you seem to be really into the fact you recently got married. I think that’s kinda sweet. Best of luck to you both.
Last wedding I went to was a gay wedding. Just about the best wedding I ever went to even though it didn’t really have any legal standing.
I gotta second Shaenon’s recommendation of Slacktavist. The analysis of the Left Behind series there is quite a good read
Bacopa,
Thank you for your good wishes!
*colors*
I guess I mentioned that a bit, eh?
I wonder if these folk are even capable of comprehending that Unitarian Christians exist...or if the idea is so terrifying for them that they prefer not to imagine them.
I wonder if these folk are even capable of comprehending that Unitarian Christians exist…
A really good question. My take is that, even if they were to think of it, it would not stay in their mind. In their black-and-white world, such a person just would not compute.
“If we lose, we go to jail.”
It’s just that simple, says Pastor Jim Garlow-if marriage loses in California, religious liberties everywhere will be next.
Somewhat reminiscent of the, “Give me money now or God will take me home.” scams of the 1980s.
The problem is that there are a number of christian families who really believe this, and really believe that “if obama is elected the christians will be the enemy.” I’ve been lurking on some christian women’s blogs and that is accepted absolutely as an act of faith with them. Even if, as I’m happy to report, they are deciding to vote third party against Obama *and* against Palin. This line of nutty scare tactics has worked, because (to my mind) moderate christian churches and pastors have not stepped up enough. However, it must be remembered that the world view of the people with whom this is a sucessful tactic is pretty paranoid and isolationist. They spend much of their time deciding that everyone else isn’t a “real” christian anyway.
But I think it would have been worthwile to run adds like this:
gay couple “Our parents are committed christians, our sisters and brothers are committed christians. Although we are fighting for our right to live together and be married we would never interfere with their right to continue in their christian beliefs. We know they have to do what they believe god calls them to do, and we just want the right to do the same thing.”
Pictures of happy, beaming, christian couples and gay couples at a family gathering, near a church, etc…
Or, gay couple with children in front of a school: “There’s been a lot of scary talk by some fundraisers on the far right that we have a “homosexual agenda.” Well, we don’t. We have parents, brothers, sisters, children nephews and nieces. They want to feel safe on the streets, safe at home, safe in their churches, and safe in school. When we send our kids to school we want them to have the same protections from angry, bullying, speech that you do. when our nieces and nephews go to school we don’t want them to be distracted from learning by angry, divisive, bullying speeches. Isn’t that what you want for your kids? Help us keep family matters private and religious matters out of school. Your rights will be protected, our rights will be protected, and the kids rights to a safe, secure, learning environment will be protected.”
I think we could have won some people over by handling these nutty fears directly.
aimai
I wonder if these folk are even capable of comprehending that Unitarian Christians exist
Sure they are - they just call ‘em “heretics”. Anyone who doesn’t follow their One True Church is a No True Christian - and fake Christians are worse than atheists. They are the Tools of Satan, sent to entrap the unwary.
You hear me, Unitarians? They’re coming for you next.
If you were to substitute “black” for homosexual in Tony’s three examples, everyone would agree that he was a raving bigot. Funny how the fundies never see it that way.
Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
Well aimai, I don’t know about you, but I have a Homosexual Agenda. (It has Jack Sparrow and Will Turner on the cover, with a big heart between them). Mine comes through in most of the books I write, where the same-sex couple gets a happy ending.
Seriously, your ideas are great. But what you outline: the ability to live without fear in a free and equal way, *is* the agenda. Some people see that as an infringement of their own rights.
If you were to substitute “black” for homosexual in Tony’s three examples, everyone would agree that he was a raving bigot. Funny how the fundies never see it that way.
Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
Yeah, but you totally choose to be gay, where it’s not the colored’s fault that they’re colored; God just didn’t like them enough to make them white like civilized people.
::retches::
Prisons overrun with fundies? That’s like saying that the teen maternity homes will be overrun with fundies, too ... or the drug rehab clinics ... or ...
Oh. Wait ...
They oughtn’t be worried about the gays sending them to prison. I mean, Tony Alamo is quoted as saying that “puberty is consent” when it comes to the girls in his evangelical compound. Shouldn’t they be more worried about the pedophilia that is rampant in their system? Or that’s not evil. Two consenting adults is. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Aimai, that sense of everyday American gay was why my classmate and friend Susan Shepard and her wife were the first to pull a legal marriage license in the United States at 12:01 am on 17 May 04. With their tall handsome and totally straight - and straight looking - hockey star son standing guard, two women who looked like anybody’s mom or grandmother or aunt or neighbor or coworker took center stage.
This was very very intentional. I bore witness to a fair amount of the agonizing that went into it ... the “why me, why us” and “will this work” and “do I really want to go through with this” and, even, “will somebody gun us down” etc.
Who will be throwing them in jail? Three Wiccans from Berkeley and George Takei?
Are you suggesting that they couldn’t? Never mess with George, especially if he has mystical backup.
I agree completely that these fundies are loony, and hard to appease because their sense of paranoia, rage, and isolation is a *feature* not a bug. But I still think that we need more pro-active advertising to combat this shit as it affects the swing voter and the idiot voter who isn’t fully committed to the loony right wing hate-on-the-gays-and-public school system crowd. Hell, a lot of those people home school and there’s no way their *own* churches are going to be approached by gay couples. But I know for a fact my evangelical christian republican sister in law *did* think that “gays were coming to her church” to get married because they had gay membership. In other words, there were and are people for whom the fear of persecution for their nutty beliefs was a real fear, however absurd. I think in MA we are really lucky that the whole gay marriage thing sort of happened without our having to ask permission of idiots like my sister in law. As the years have gone by I know that her fears have been assuaged. In fact, I think these fundraising letters principally work in areas where there are few out gays, and no gay rights to speak of, because in the states which are more liberal its *obvious* this is mere fundraising boilerplate. So personally I think when the anti equal marriage proposition in CA has been laid to rest I think that a lot of this homophobic spite will be relegated to the fringes. Eventually it will become like someone sending out fundraising letters opposing floridation in the water, or the illuminati. Convincing to some, but not a serious political stance. Still, I don’t see why we should leave them a moral leg to stand on. I wish we had enough money to run ads counteracting these fundraising letters with the light of real information on real issues facing gay and straight families. Not fake issues of christian exceptionalism and hysteria.
aimai
“So personally I think when the anti equal marriage proposition in CA has been laid to rest I think that a lot of this homophobic spite will be relegated to the fringes. Eventually it will become like someone sending out fundraising letters opposing floridation in the water, or the illuminati. ”
Yep. And my experience is for the most part we’ll have to wait for the fringe to die off before we’ll be rid of it. The type of person who believes those things is immune to logic and facts…
But I think it would have been worthwile to run adds like this:
The ads they’ve been running in California so far (IMO) have been pretty effective. I just saw a new one yesterday with a cute, ordinary elderly (hetero) couple talking about how much they love their children and why they want all of their children to have the same rights, even their gay daughter.
P.S. So what if they throw the “christians” in jail? Good riddance.
The problem is that they think that discriminating openly against homosexuals is a protected religious practice, and, if these guys had their way, they would move it to imprisoning the gays.
However, if you suggested to them that this would give Mormons the religious right to polygamy, their heads would explode.
Throw them in jail? Oh no ... throw them to the Lions at the San Diego Zoo! Turn that chasm in the middle of Balboa Park into an amphitheater and charge admission too.
Prisoners are more religiously conservative than the population at large, and it’s not Unitarianism that they follow. The prisons will largely be fundamentalist in religious tone in many parts of the country regardless of prop 8. But yeah, this letter is complete bullshit.
“Turn that chasm in the middle of Balboa Park into an amphitheater and charge admission too.”
Ms Kate, why do you hate lions so much?…
tony perkins reasoning is just like the underpants gnomes:
1. gay marriage
2. ????
3. fundies in jail
p.s. shaenon, “Number of local Christians in jail for gay-marriage-related reasons: 0.” you’re obviously not trying hard enough.
Ms Kate,
Do you live in SD? Can I buy you a drink?
Shorter Perkins: “If you deny us our ability to persecute others, why...you’re persecuting US!” The problem with these fucks is not merely that they are lemmings hell-bent for that last cliff-drop, the problem is that they want to take everyone with them as they careen headlong into their abysmal assholery.
I just woke up (late night class) and I’m wondering, how does this tie in with pharmacists claiming a religious exemption for handing over birth control?
More caffeine and I’ll probably kick myself for posting this.
Abra - No, it’s a valid point.
A couple links to the decision and the text of the New Mexico Human Rights Act. Relevant passage below:
F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any [individual] person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to [an individual’s] a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
And here’s a list from the Guttmacher Institute of states with abortion-refusal laws and the poorly named “Conscience Clauses”.
New Mexico doesn’t have a law allowing for the refusal to provide contraception, but it does have a law allowing health care providers to refuse providing abortion services.
New Mexico at least seems to be more consistent in its application and understanding of discriminatory behavior by not having a contraception-based Conscience Clause. But I’m really struggling to understand why (generally, for some states) it’s wrong to discriminate against a woman because of her sex, but it’s okay to refuse to provide her medical services only her sex can receive. It’s okay to discriminate against someone based on their behavior, but it’s wrong to discriminate against someone based on their sex or sexual orientation, but it’s also wrong to discriminate against someone based on their religious beliefs . . . so wouldn’t “beliefs” indicate “behavior”? I’m trying to think of an example . . . .
Okay:
1) Refusing to serve Jewish man because he’s Jewish (my religion doesn’t like Jews)::Refusing to cook a kosher meal for a Jewish patron because its existence violates religious values.
2) Refusing to serve woman because she’s female (my religion doesn’t like women)::Refusing to provide birth control because its provision violates religious values.
3) Refusing to contract services to gay couple because they’re gay (my religion doesn’t like gays)::Refusing to photograph commitment ceremony because its occurrence violates religious values.
4) Refusing to serve woman because she’s female (my religion doesn’t like women)::Refusing to provide abortions because the procedure violates religious values.
In the state of NM, both parts of #1, #2 and #3 would be wrong, but only the first part of #4 would be wrong. I bet every state would be different.
Totally confusing. Atheism is so much simpler. No worries about stretching the expectations of secular pluralism to encompass the narrow-minded bigotry of religion.
Well aimai, I don’t know about you, but I have a Homosexual Agenda. (It has Jack Sparrow and Will Turner on the cover, with a big heart between them). Mine comes through in most of the books I write, where the same-sex couple gets a happy ending
Angelia, are you admitting to writing “slash” fiction? Not that there’s anything wrong with it!
Never mess with George, especially if he has mystical backup.
George needed no mystical backup when he took down that stupid bigot in the NBA- heh heh...smooth chocolatey head indeed.
Big Bad Bald Bastard.
I used to write slash. Now I write GLBT romance using original characters.
Excuse please, my zombie-fighting steampunk lesbian ranchers need editing if they’re to be ready for release at Halloween. (It’s called “Meanwhile, back at the ranch.")
Technically, it was a Catholic adoption agency.
Technically, Catholics are Christians, though many conservative Protestant denominations in the US insist otherwise.
Yes, Thom, and that “insist[ence] otherwise” by “many conservative Protestant denominations” on the difference is exactly why I decided to use the word “technically.”
@Solace: If Proposition 8 does pass, we might as well see a new violent rise of Christian fundementalism, as rea suggested.
Actually, if Prop 8 *passes*, then same-sex marriage will no longer be legal or recognized in California. The fundies WANT you to vote yes for Prop 8.
(shorter: you’ve got it backwards)
@Ceredwyn: I wonder if these folk are even capable of comprehending that Unitarian Christians exist...or if the idea is so terrifying for them that they prefer not to imagine them.
Ah, but you see, Unitarian Christians, along with Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians (PCUSA), and some other denominations are not *Real True Christians*.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
I notice he never says what Christians would go to jail for if Prop 8 is defeated. I wonder what criminal law they would be violating?