10.18.06
Posted in faith at 10:31 am by Brandon
I’m taking a little break in my “revolutionaries” series to share with you a few thoughts that arose after I read the latest tripe at the Christian Worldview Network by “Dr.” David Noebel.
Christian Worldview Network has posted some really off the wall stuff before, and to be honest, I haven’t even really been reading all of it to know that this latest stuff is really the worst, but I can confidently tell you that Noebel’s piece is truly the most horrible piece of writing I have ever read at that site. Please do go read it in its entirity, and know that rather than to waste bandwidth on bullshit, I’ll just be reproducing the particularly flagrant bits of trash.
Further, I’ll be addressing the rest of this thought directly to “Dr.” Noebel, in case he’d like to respond–though, frankly, I think probably he won’t have much to say.
Dear “Dr.” Noebel,
First off, I’d like to ask you why you happily let people refer to you as a doctor? Being a doctoral student myself, I would never dream of not completing my doctoral degree and allowing thousands of misguided followers attribute more source credibility to myself than they should. So, why, when (as stated in your profile on the Christian Worldview Network site) you did not complete your doctorate in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin (the reasons for which we can only guess), why would you allow–in an official publication sent out to thousands of readers–yourself to be referred to as “Dr. David Noebel”. Why on your own Summit Ministries site would you refer to yourself as “Dr. David Noebel” That’s not just misleading, or a half-truth. It’s a bald-faced lie.
This point makes the claims you choose to make in your most recent article “Will the Real Sodomy Party Please Stand Up?” a little more clear. Frankly, no Ph.D. worth their salt would ever make some of the claims you make. Here are a few examples:
There hasn’t been a homosexual issue that the Democrats haven’t either backed or initiated since the ACLU determined that homosexuality would make a great stick to poke in the eyes of conservatives, traditionalists, and all natural law advocates. There hasn’t been a gay pride parade which hasn’t been led by a Democratic politician! There hasn’t been a gay pride book for first graders not endorsed by Democrats.
Bold claims, these are Mr. Noebel. Can you back them up? Can you cite evidence? You see, had you successfully completed your degree in Philosophy, you would, no doubt, have been required to take a course in basic logic. Perhaps you took it and just didn’t care or understand what was going on. In order to be able to prove this claim, sir, you would need to have knowlege of EVERY instance of EVERY homosexual issue, and EVERY democrat would have needed to back or initiate UNILATERALLY. I defy you to turn the rest of your life’s work to documenting EVERY instance of EVERY homosexual issue, and demonstrate that EVERY democrat backed or initiated those issues UNILATERALLY.
Then, when you complete that work (this should only take about 20 or so years) you can begin to start finding evidence to support your second claim: There hasn’t been a gay pride parade which hasn’t been led by a Democratic politician. Frankly, I’m not sure what it would prove if you could demonstrate this, but in order to demonstrate it you’ll need to document EVERY instance of EVERY gay pride parade ever. In each of those instances, you’ll need to demonstrate that a democratic politician led the parade. I defy you to support your claim.
Then, when you complete that work (and please work quietly, being people who value results–as doctoral students like you and I do–you wouldn’t want to report your findings before you’d completed your investigation) we can then turn to your next claim: There hasn’t been a gay pride book for first graders not endorsed by Democrats. Again, and I think you’re getting the drift here, you’ll need to document EVERY instance of EVERY book you label as a “gay pride” book, and demonstrate unequivocally that a democrat endorsed each one. I defy you to support your claim.
But, it’s not just Democrats you claim to know the “truth” about Mr. Noebel, you’re an equal opportunity “hater.” Here’s what you had to say about Log Cabin Republicans:
The truth is that every Log Cabin member knew of Republican Foley’s homosexuality, and I would be surprised if the Log Cabin didn’t know of his hitting on the pages for years. Homosexuals keep close tabs on these things and are really good at defining exactly who is and who is not “hitting on the boys.”
Wow, I never thought I’d be in the business of defending Republicans. And, honestly, I’m not sure they need defending from your cartoon arrows. In order to defend, to cite evidence for, the above claim, you will need to identify EVERY Log Cabin Republican, and be able to show evidence that EVERY Log Cabin Republican had knowlege of Foley’s homosexuality. I defy you to support your claim.
Finally, you make an implicit claim–a little easier for you to defend–that you’d be surprised if the Log Cabin didn’t know of his hitting on boys for years. How many Log Cabin Republicans would it take for you to be surprised at how few knew of Foley’s follies. 10%? 20%? 50%? Perhaps you can do a survey, I’m sure the Republicans in question would truthfully answer a survey from you about how many of them knew a member of Congress was having inappropriate relations with boys. I defy you to support your claim.
Here’s a good one: “Homosexuals keep close tabs on these things and are really good at defining exactly who is and who is not ‘hitting on the boys.’” But, not one citation. Nien. Nada. Clearly, for such an erudite and respected intellectual it would be mere child’s play for you to, off the top of your head, cite some social scientific study that supports such a claim. Perhaps academia is too liberal for you to trust their findings…then certainly you yourself have conducted some survey, some focus groups, done an experimental manipulation, even a quasi-experimental design, done an ethnography–maybe an auto-ethnography, perhaps, hmmmm… 
–maybe you’ve COLLECTED SOME DATA to support your wild claim!!!
But finally some evidence:
I have come to the personal conclusion that pedophilia and gayness go together like Mary and Mary’s little lamb. I may be wrong, but every “chicken hawk” that I have known has been on the hunt for “chickens.” Congress and church are just the playgrounds where the hunt occurs.
Above this claim you do offer some evidence! Kudos to you Mr. Noebel. Your “n” is now equal to one. Only 199 more instances of homosexuals that are pedophiles and people might start listening to you. Of course, the argument you make implicitly is that pedophilia is somehow unique to homosexuality. Your study design unfortunately does not test for this. You’d also need to sample (randomly, mind you) among both homosexuals and heterosexuals and determine if the rate of pedophilia is greater among one population or another. Of course, contrary evidence (and I do have citations) is rampant (Bickley & Beech, 2001; Freund et al., 1989; Jenny et al., 1994; Marshall et al., 1988; McConaghy, 1998). Even if you did conduct the aforementioned study, you still wouldn’t have evidence of a causal relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. The aformentioned design doesn’t allow you to rule out, by randomization, spurious causal agents. I defy you to support your claims.
Science is important Mr. Noebel. I want to know if you’re right. Unfortunately, you’ve given me absolutely no reason to think you are.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/10/18/how-little-a-phd-is-worth-these-days/trackback/
Posted in faith at 10:31 am by Brandon
I’m taking a little break in my “revolutionaries” series to share with you a few thoughts that arose after I read the latest tripe at the Christian Worldview Network by “Dr.” David Noebel.
Christian Worldview Network has posted some really off the wall stuff before, and to be honest, I haven’t even really been reading all of it to know that this latest stuff is really the worst, but I can confidently tell you that Noebel’s piece is truly the most horrible piece of writing I have ever read at that site. Please do go read it in its entirity, and know that rather than to waste bandwidth on bullshit, I’ll just be reproducing the particularly flagrant bits of trash.
Further, I’ll be addressing the rest of this thought directly to “Dr.” Noebel, in case he’d like to respond–though, frankly, I think probably he won’t have much to say.
Dear “Dr.” Noebel,
First off, I’d like to ask you why you happily let people refer to you as a doctor? Being a doctoral student myself, I would never dream of not completing my doctoral degree and allowing thousands of misguided followers attribute more source credibility to myself than they should. So, why, when (as stated in your profile on the Christian Worldview Network site) you did not complete your doctorate in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin (the reasons for which we can only guess), why would you allow–in an official publication sent out to thousands of readers–yourself to be referred to as “Dr. David Noebel”. Why on your own Summit Ministries site would you refer to yourself as “Dr. David Noebel” That’s not just misleading, or a half-truth. It’s a bald-faced lie.
This point makes the claims you choose to make in your most recent article “Will the Real Sodomy Party Please Stand Up?” a little more clear. Frankly, no Ph.D. worth their salt would ever make some of the claims you make. Here are a few examples:
There hasn’t been a homosexual issue that the Democrats haven’t either backed or initiated since the ACLU determined that homosexuality would make a great stick to poke in the eyes of conservatives, traditionalists, and all natural law advocates. There hasn’t been a gay pride parade which hasn’t been led by a Democratic politician! There hasn’t been a gay pride book for first graders not endorsed by Democrats.
Bold claims, these are Mr. Noebel. Can you back them up? Can you cite evidence? You see, had you successfully completed your degree in Philosophy, you would, no doubt, have been required to take a course in basic logic. Perhaps you took it and just didn’t care or understand what was going on. In order to be able to prove this claim, sir, you would need to have knowlege of EVERY instance of EVERY homosexual issue, and EVERY democrat would have needed to back or initiate UNILATERALLY. I defy you to turn the rest of your life’s work to documenting EVERY instance of EVERY homosexual issue, and demonstrate that EVERY democrat backed or initiated those issues UNILATERALLY.
Then, when you complete that work (this should only take about 20 or so years) you can begin to start finding evidence to support your second claim: There hasn’t been a gay pride parade which hasn’t been led by a Democratic politician. Frankly, I’m not sure what it would prove if you could demonstrate this, but in order to demonstrate it you’ll need to document EVERY instance of EVERY gay pride parade ever. In each of those instances, you’ll need to demonstrate that a democratic politician led the parade. I defy you to support your claim.
Then, when you complete that work (and please work quietly, being people who value results–as doctoral students like you and I do–you wouldn’t want to report your findings before you’d completed your investigation) we can then turn to your next claim: There hasn’t been a gay pride book for first graders not endorsed by Democrats. Again, and I think you’re getting the drift here, you’ll need to document EVERY instance of EVERY book you label as a “gay pride” book, and demonstrate unequivocally that a democrat endorsed each one. I defy you to support your claim.
But, it’s not just Democrats you claim to know the “truth” about Mr. Noebel, you’re an equal opportunity “hater.” Here’s what you had to say about Log Cabin Republicans:
The truth is that every Log Cabin member knew of Republican Foley’s homosexuality, and I would be surprised if the Log Cabin didn’t know of his hitting on the pages for years. Homosexuals keep close tabs on these things and are really good at defining exactly who is and who is not “hitting on the boys.”
Wow, I never thought I’d be in the business of defending Republicans. And, honestly, I’m not sure they need defending from your cartoon arrows. In order to defend, to cite evidence for, the above claim, you will need to identify EVERY Log Cabin Republican, and be able to show evidence that EVERY Log Cabin Republican had knowlege of Foley’s homosexuality. I defy you to support your claim.
Finally, you make an implicit claim–a little easier for you to defend–that you’d be surprised if the Log Cabin didn’t know of his hitting on boys for years. How many Log Cabin Republicans would it take for you to be surprised at how few knew of Foley’s follies. 10%? 20%? 50%? Perhaps you can do a survey, I’m sure the Republicans in question would truthfully answer a survey from you about how many of them knew a member of Congress was having inappropriate relations with boys. I defy you to support your claim.
Here’s a good one: “Homosexuals keep close tabs on these things and are really good at defining exactly who is and who is not ‘hitting on the boys.’” But, not one citation. Nien. Nada. Clearly, for such an erudite and respected intellectual it would be mere child’s play for you to, off the top of your head, cite some social scientific study that supports such a claim. Perhaps academia is too liberal for you to trust their findings…then certainly you yourself have conducted some survey, some focus groups, done an experimental manipulation, even a quasi-experimental design, done an ethnography–maybe an auto-ethnography, perhaps, hmmmm… –maybe you’ve COLLECTED SOME DATA to support your wild claim!!!
But finally some evidence:
I have come to the personal conclusion that pedophilia and gayness go together like Mary and Mary’s little lamb. I may be wrong, but every “chicken hawk” that I have known has been on the hunt for “chickens.” Congress and church are just the playgrounds where the hunt occurs.
Above this claim you do offer some evidence! Kudos to you Mr. Noebel. Your “n” is now equal to one. Only 199 more instances of homosexuals that are pedophiles and people might start listening to you. Of course, the argument you make implicitly is that pedophilia is somehow unique to homosexuality. Your study design unfortunately does not test for this. You’d also need to sample (randomly, mind you) among both homosexuals and heterosexuals and determine if the rate of pedophilia is greater among one population or another. Of course, contrary evidence (and I do have citations) is rampant (Bickley & Beech, 2001; Freund et al., 1989; Jenny et al., 1994; Marshall et al., 1988; McConaghy, 1998). Even if you did conduct the aforementioned study, you still wouldn’t have evidence of a causal relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. The aformentioned design doesn’t allow you to rule out, by randomization, spurious causal agents. I defy you to support your claims.
Science is important Mr. Noebel. I want to know if you’re right. Unfortunately, you’ve given me absolutely no reason to think you are.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/10/18/how-little-a-phd-is-worth-these-days/trackback/
wildwest said,
October 18, 2006 at 11:59 am
“Scholarship can go to hell!”
–Billy Sunday
dorsey said,
October 18, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Kick his ass, Seabass!
zalm said,
October 19, 2006 at 3:28 am
I just got the latest missive from Worldview Weekend. The subject?
“To Spank Or Not To Spank? CEOs Say It Helped Them”
I wonder how many CEOs they had to spank before they had results that could be considered statistically significant.
Recovering said,
October 19, 2006 at 8:27 am
Nice. Even as an evil, heartless, greedy,capitalist, conservative Republican I get very irritated with most of what I read on Worldview Weekend and Slice of Laodicea (I rarely visit either of them anymore to save my sanity).
The lack of love, compassion, and Biblical perspective on how to relate to those who are not following God is disconcerting at best.
Art said,
October 19, 2006 at 9:14 am
I got “Will the real sodomy party please stand up?” in my e-mail. I keep getting stuff from these idiots and I can’t get them to go in my junk mail. I had a good laugh over it at least.
Bridgier said,
October 19, 2006 at 11:02 am
I’ve been spanking since I turned 11, and all it’s helped me do is get a good nights sleep. Maybe I’m doing it wrong.
dave said,
October 19, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Good work Brandon.
And how the heck does this guy become a college president without a PhD? Or did he claim he was a doctor on his resume…
Kevin said,
October 20, 2006 at 10:04 am
They said stand up. Hehe.
Michele Kerby said,
October 20, 2006 at 11:41 am
You’re quite right about this trash. It’s so bad it boggles the mind to imagine how anyone could take it seriously, although of course some will. And I wish to goodness I hadn’t read it. Now I have in my mind an idea of “the male arse” as somehow sanctified to God but being used for “female target practice”. I know that’s not quite what he said but that’s how it impressed me. It will take me awhile to forgive him for that.
PiaSharn said,
October 20, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Sadly, the only time actual research matters to these groups is when they can twist it to suit their purposes. By the way, have you ever read Box Turtle Bulletin?
Jonathan said,
October 21, 2006 at 12:25 am
I don’t think this “doctor” really even needed your correctional post. Even a Kingdom-of-God-Republican with a bit of sense could see his article as a ridiculous diatribe.
I should point out thought, that a few posts back you supportively quoted, “Christians– those people on TV and in government who are always judging and condescending (see also Idiots & Pussies)” When has anyone from any political persuasion (myself included) let facts stand in the way of bold, angry generalizations? (Yes, I know that is also an unfounded generalization.)
Of course this man seems to have forgotten all Christ-likeness (and logic), but does calling him a moron and an ass make us more Christ-like?
-JD
Terri said,
October 22, 2006 at 9:56 am
Hey,
I think the scariest thing about this article is not the article itself (it can be chalked up to ramblings of an idiot), but how many replies there were saying that he was right on with the piece. I replied negatively to it ( i’m the ranting Canadian) and I got 2 replies that were just rediculous.
GOP said,
October 23, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Praise God! Repent Of Your SIN!
Brandon said,
October 24, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Since I haven’t dusted this phrase off and used it for a while…
Hey GOP,
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
That is all.
Now go on back to your safe little fundy-blog and feel free to bash Al Gore and John Roberts in peace, where no reader will bother to tread.
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 2:58 pm
You are just another foul mouthed sinner. Your mother can be proud. I will tell her when I kick her out from under the bikers at the bar. I really can’t believe that she actually did the donkey in the Mexican bar. Wow!
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 2:59 pm
By the way…the 80’s called and they want their hairstyle back.
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I win=you lose! Dumbass!
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Spit out the DICK Brandon!
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Does the goatee hide the stretch marks? Spit out the cock! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 3:04 pm
C’mon BITCH!
GOP said,
October 25, 2006 at 3:04 pm
LOL!
spanders said,
October 25, 2006 at 9:52 pm
While GOP is really just a troll, I think the opportunity for interesting discussion rests with recovering as a self described evangelical republican who seems truly interested in living according to god’s will. Forgive me recovering if I’m making bad assumptions here. The discussion that could be had is perhaps about the nature of god, how we see god and reaction that we have to that belief. I think an important question for all of us to ask is how do we see god and why? Is god a strict father who grants us salvation by falling in line? Is god a nurturant parent who has granted atonement for all regardless if we fall in line or not? What are god’s requirements for us? If we assume that hell is to be apart from god, what does it mean to be close to god?
GOP said,
October 26, 2006 at 2:14 pm
God is a strict father. As with any good parent he nurtures as well as corrects us. You have a misguided idea that it will be either or. That comes from your raising under a Dr. Spock mentality. God’s requirements are plainly laid out in the Bible. To be close to God is to have faith. This is what scares most liberals be cause you fail to understand how great it is to live a blessed life. You fear the prospect that it is real. I would suggest that you look into his word for further guidance. I am proud to be a “troll” for God! I at least got you thinking. Or were you already?
GOP said,
October 26, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Praise his name!
shelly said,
October 26, 2006 at 10:41 pm
GOP is obviously oblivious to the fact that liberal Christians DO EXIST. Also, I believe this person is full of it. So is Noebel.
GOP said,
October 27, 2006 at 2:18 pm
I realize that no one person can truly understand what the left represents and still be a true Christian. You are either oblivious to their position or not a Christian. I am full of it…FAITH!
Kevin said,
October 28, 2006 at 10:52 am
Ah, yes, the diabolical Christian left, which works towards such wholly unChristian principles as peace and ending poverty. You couldn’t be more against the teachings of Jesus than that.
Brandon said,
October 28, 2006 at 2:39 pm
So, amidst all of GOP’s cryptic, sometimes funny, always beligerent, never accurate, and rarely coherent prattling she or he has utterly failed to address any of the main points of this post. That, I find to be telling.
If I’m all wet, please, do what “Dr.” Noebel fails to do and support your point. Or, did you forget this was about “Dr.” Noebel’s failings to even use a modicum of good sense when stating his points. Or, did you forget to even read the post in question.
I can respect a well argued fundamentalism–even if I don’t buy it for a minute. But a mindless cat-call about how God is on the side of all of those more conservative: Frankly, I can’t think of a less-Christian perspective.
GOP, “Dr.” Noebel, and the rest of them all seem to me to be hacks. Largely, they’re interested in doing the work of the GOP rather than GOD. That’s a travesty…and to that I say, in the immortal words of Rage Against the Machine, “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!”
spanders said,
October 28, 2006 at 10:59 pm
I don’t think that GOP or Dr. Noebel are hacks in and of themselves, although GOP’s style of discussion leaves something to be desired and I profoundly disagree with the assumption that you cannot be a “left” or “liberal” christian.
People who frame god in context of being a strict father are not stupid or mean as stupid and mean people exist in every political or idealogical stripe. Rather, they have a fundamentally different view of the world.
If god is a strict father, the following would be true:
1. The world is an evil place and the only way to overcome evil is through strict moral discipline
2. The only one strong enough to overcome evil is god, whose strength and authority presents him as a male figure.
3. The worldly representative of god who has the responsibility to be strong and authoritative is the father figure in a family. The father should “dare to discipline”.
4. Morality comes from the recognition of god being the only one strong enough to defeat evil and there must be support of the father here on earth to fulfill god’s will and defeat evil. This is even illustrated in the first commandment: I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt (I defeated evil therefore I shall be worshiped before god), from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me…
5. The nation is viewed as a family, with the president being the “father” of the country. If we undermine his ability to defeat evil (or an axis of evil), then we are undermining morality. In addition, evil, since it is evil, cannot be negotiated with and needs to be eliminated at any cost, including torture. By defining evil and by taking the opposite stance, the father is “good” and the father is assumed to be right. The nation must be free of restrictions to defeat evil including not working with world organizations, participating in treaties or participating in anything other than unilateral discisions. The father must be the decision maker.
6. If the father requires the support of the family to defeat evil, the father must be given authority by the family. This includes decisions about reproduction and is why abortion is particularly offensive. If it were truly a life issue, then the death penalty would be treated with equal abhorrance. If there is a belief in original sin and predestination, then questions of innocence are irrelevant. Further, homosexual relationships destroy this model as two women have no father figure and two men are a distortion of this model.
Liberals do not use the strict father model for belief. The emphasis is placed on empathy and nurturance. Jesus can be seen as a transition from the strict father model to the nurturant model of belief. God had enough empathy for humanity to give himself totally for the good of others through grace. The following would be true for this model
1. Nurturing is preferred discipline. Encouraging right behavior will, over time, will instill values.
2. Morality is derived from empathy. Doing unto others constitutes the last five commandments
3. Gender roles are not relevant as they are not needed for morality
4. The nation can still be viewed as a family, but the role of the government should be to work towards nurturing ends.
5. Jesus represents the ultimate in nurturant behavior and the way to follow Jesus is to strive to become as nurturant as Jesus.
———-
These are descriptions of the far ends of ideas. Being completely nurturant would be bad and being completely disciplinary would be bad as well. It is in those varying levels that we can agree with people. GOP comments represent a pretty far expression of a strict father god, but this person may be a nurturant parent who relies on both models, like most of us. Most Americans are fairly moderate and rely on both models. It seems that conservatives have been the most successful in using language to sell their model of god in recent history. It’s time to recognize that language and those ideas. Liberal christians are as moral as conservatives. It is a different approach, but never let anyone tell you that liberals are not moral. Far from it.
wildwest said,
October 30, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Hey Brandon, I was just reviewing the comments here, and I notice you told GOP to “feel free to bash Al Gore and John Roberts in peace….” Uh, John Roberts? Isn’t he on GOP’s side?
GOP said,
October 30, 2006 at 3:01 pm
You and the Hitleresque abortion supporters are just trying to turn away from the Perfect word of GOD. You know that down deep you are wrong. That is obvious. You protestith too much.
GOP said,
October 31, 2006 at 2:58 pm
So now John Kerry is calling our troops uneducated and lazy. Nice…real nice.
Kevin said,
October 31, 2006 at 6:35 pm
So now John Kerry is calling our troops uneducated and lazy. Nice…real nice.
Almost makes you forget that Kerry served in Vietnam while the current administration was hiding, doesn’t it?
GOP said,
November 1, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Served? he said he was a criminal…oh, wait he later changed that as well. FLIP,FLOP!
BrotherPhil said,
November 16, 2006 at 7:53 am
GOP…. as a conservative Christian, I am appalled at your attitude and mentality. Was it not the word of God that says to do everything we can to live a peaceable life? Did not Jesus instruct us in the Sermon on the Mount to be peacemakers if we wanted to be blessed? Do you not see the instruction to “let him without sin, cast the first stone?”
I’m not saying that there is a time and place to point out the failings of society, but, dude, you just don’t understand the Scriptures…. especially the one that says to speak the truth, but to do it in love… or the one that says that we can speak with the tongues of angels and of men, but if we don’t LOVE, then you’re just as noisy and useless as a cracked cymbal, or a flattened trumpet.
Your attitude truly is an abomination to God, for God IS love, and He is justice… HE is justice, over and over we are instructed to let HIM judge… its not our job. Ours is to simply tell others the truth of God’s word and let them decide… and let them suffer the consequences if they choose wrong.
shelly said,
November 19, 2006 at 12:11 am
Did not Jesus instruct us in the Sermon on the Mount to be peacemakers if we wanted to be blessed?
One slight nitpick… That was part of the Beatitudes, not the Sermon on the Mount.
One more lie from GOP…
You and the Hitleresque abortion supporters
WHO THE FUCK SAID THEY SUPPORTED ABORTION?! NO ONE. Get that through your thick head right now.
“…I’d just like to say, on this historic week, that the legacy of the religious right will be that, despite their holy pretenses, they made politics not cleaner, but dirtier. Because when you’re so sure you’re right, you wind up acting so wrong.” ~ Bill Maher