Letters to the editor

Ms. Holbrook,

Do you enjoy alcohol? If you do, please realize that there are lots of people who abstain for religious reasons. Do they have the right to force that on you? If you don't enjoy alcohol (if you abstain) do you have the right to force others to abstain?

Our laws are not based on the bible. You can use the bible to justify the following: forbidding women from wearing pants, killing your teenager for mouthing off, giving your daughter to a male guest for sexual activity, owning slaves, discriminating against minorities and jews, the list goes on and on.

Being gay and living in a relationship with someone who is of the same gender is not a crime, nor does it hurt others. Keep your religious views to yourself and those who believe as you do and let others live (within the law) in peace. If you feel gays are sinning, too bad. That's between them and their conscience/skydaddy/deity etc. and not your concern. You are free to believe as you do, however, as long as you don't deny others their rights as citizens in the name of your beliefs. It would be the same if I, as a non-believer, came and padlocked your church to keep you from entering.

Mr. Armstrong, I think you're way off base. What you call the "vitriol of hate mongering" is really just someone who simply disagrees with you and has the audacity to do it by bringing up facts and history. Liberals have a very short fuse and cannot debate an issue without it degenerating into name calling or ridicule. There's no evidence that FDR's spending spree got us out of the Great Depression. His own Secretary of the Treasury stated that after 8 years of spending all there is to show is massive debt and continuing unemployment. It took WWII to give us relief. Sorry, but liberals right now are pulling the race card and the class envy card in order to get votes. You have nothing else, president obama and the liberals have failed miserably in their attempt to transform us into a somekind of socialist utopia. the problem with liberals is that they believe they can control people and silence debate.

mr ikeithlu...you have no business telling ms. holbrook to keep her religious views to herself. it's called the first amendment.

I do, if Ms. Holbrook believes that her religious beliefs should determine the law and permit discrimination.

it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. everyone in this country has the right to pop off, but no one has to listen. if you strongly believe in your athiesim, then it shouldn't matter to you what anyone else says.

even if she states that she's for discrimination you still cannot silence her.. its the first amendment. she believes that and states it, but she's broken no law. she can believe what she wants and say it no matter how outrageous it is. she can't put it into law.

Francis, I am not silencing anyone. I have every right to point out (using my right to free speech) that she and others would like to violate the constitution by using religious beliefs to determine law or justify discrimination. And you are incorrect: my religious (lack of) beliefs is protected under the constitution too.

Ms. Holbrook- "I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that we must bend over backwards to avoid discriminating against anyone".

Perhaps you missed this one...

Luke 6:31-"Do to others as you would have them do to you".

Maybe this one?

Matthew 7:12-"“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Perhaps this one?

Leviticus 19:15-"You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly".

Another..

John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

More..

Matthew 25:40-"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".

Hope this helps.

re: lkeithlu as usual you just don"t get the picture,God loves everyone after all we were made in his image.He just hates the sin inside of us.He even loves you. God bless you

There's yet another hotdiggity

John 8:7 "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"

Jesus taught that we are all sinners and have no right to judge others for thiers. I was taught to love your enemies as yourselves.

Ms. Holbrook, please listen to the teachings as they were intended and not the religious right's political ploys. The religious right is religiously wrong - spewing hatred and judgement instead of love and compassion. Quit looking at what's wrong in others and focus on how we treat all of God's creatures instead.

No one is asking churches to condone or perform gay marriages - its a state issue. Plus many churches out there not only condone Adulters marrying but actually perform the services. Adultry made God's top ten list, homosexuality did not. Its not up to us to pick and choose which sins are not acceptable.

mtngrl...we're all sinners, no doubt, but just because something is not on the "top ten list" doesn't mean it's no less sinful....sin is sin. just be- cause some church's are corrupt and marry adulters doesn't mean other sinful actions become less impactful. it's not a rating system. anything that devalues, corrupts, destroys and breaks down the family, and, in turn soc- iety, is sinful.

having said that, we shouldn't condem or judge, that's up to GOD, but a Christian should still stand up for what's in the Bible; while showing compassion at the same time. the religous right is no more wacked or hateful than the promiscious left who promote the perpeputation of immoral behavior under the guise of compassion and love. the point of life isn't to go around condeming everyone, but nor is it to give in to every desire, no matter how self-destructive.

Francis, I am actually agreeing with you here. I stated "Its not up to us to pick and choose which sins are not acceptable."

When I mention the religious right, I am speaking of the politcal arm that uses these hot-buttons to get normally good spiritual people riled up for voting purposes. No one has to condone or accept a homosexual lifestyle, just accept everyone as God's creatures and let him deal with the sins. All Americans should have the right to the pursuit of happiness without descrimination and that is not a religious issue.

And there is plenty of promiscuity on both sides, but from what I have seen repressed promiscuity tends to come out in more damaging ways to society.

That's very nice, Mitch, and I appreciate that some people believe that sort of thing (and of course that's your right) but the concept of morals takes on a different flavor when not filtered through the bible or some other holy book. However, once again, this is not about religion, but about the constitution. It protects all of us from the tyranny of any group, even if that group finds someone distasteful or, according to their beliefs, "sinful". THIS is what I believe. THIS is why I choose to live in the US, the only country that is truly free. As long as the law is not violated (and we can get on a LONG discussion about the origin of our laws) we should have all the same rights and freedoms, regardless of what another thinks.

Good posts Francis, you know and understand your Constitution. What's tragi-comic here is that the bubs above had to be told by you-correctly-what the First Amendment of the Constitution SAYS and actually means. The last bub post then embraces the Constitution and free speech as it suits their agenda. hilarious.

You were correct, the bubs own words above condemn her/him as being the one who discriminates and attempts to shut us all up-all of the time. 'Free speech' is for the Prog-Left, not for us apparently.

Then we have those Leftists who love to quote the Bible and throw it back at us-with no understanding or wisdom to know what the book means or says. Both the Old and New Testaments describe numerous sins and commandments not to do them, by the Lord God Himself. According to the bubs reasoning, our Creator 'discriminates' against homosexuals, so the next step for them is not to just shut us up, but ban the Bible.

Ms. Holbrook quotes the Bible, and that is her freedom of speech to write and quote the Bible as much as she likes, anywhere she likes (except perhaps Red Communist China, Iran, Russia, Cuba et al, where we all know how loving and free-speechy they are to their own folks).

As for the party-line, Left code words like "far-right extremists", "racists" and "white rednecks" the Progs are being taught to smear us with, in order to intimidate and control any conversation or public speech; it's pathetically transparent. And maybe the only thing really transparent about this Government in power and their duped minions.

Below is a good example of mandated political insanity run amok, violating the Constitutional rights of ordinary Americans trying to raise their children according to a moral system of behavior, so a small minority can indulge their imaginations and preferences (btw, the authors and propagators of ENDA are self-avowed Marxists and atheists who believe shoving their agendas at the majority of Americans is good and better is, believing that transgenderism/multiple partners is preferable to monogamous, hetero relationships):

Barney Frank: ENDA is about men showering with women Date: 8/27/2010 By Bryan Fischer

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, emphasis mine). According to both Scripture and biology, there are just two genders, two and only two, male and female. Period.

Pro-family advocates have from the beginning opposed the normalizing of transgenderism because it does gross violence to any rational view of human sexuality, and, even worse, will force women to share shower, bathroom and locker-room facilities with biological males.

Nonsense, we’ve been told by the deviancy cabal. All hype, fear, and exaggeration. Nothing to fear here except homophobia, move along. It’s all just fear-mongering, nothing like that will ever happen. Your daughter will never run into a disrobed male in the locker room of your local public pool. This is an ongoing battle in our day, at the state level as well as the congressional level. This spring, Maine very nearly enacted a policy that would require ENDA-type regulations in every school in the state, including private Christian schools. It was narrowly turned back.

A major goal of the Democrats in the current Congress is to get a transvestite-friendly ENDA bill passed this year. No worries, they say. Pro-family opponents are just trying to scare you with all this bathroom and locker room talk. And then along comes Rep. Barney Frank, the homosexual congressman from Massachusetts, to inadvertently save the day.

"...Democrats tried to pass ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) in 1999, and were under extreme pressure to include transgenders under its umbrella. Transgenders are people who are so psychologically and mentally confused they think they are trapped in a body of the wrong sex.

So we are talking here about biological males - males in every single cell of their bodies, with every strand of DNA male to the core, males according to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” - who are convinced that they are women trapped in male bodies. Consequently, they want to act as women, dress as women, and use the same facilities women use, including bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.

The pro-family community has spoken with one voice. No, no, a thousand times no. We do not want our wives and daughters exposed to such perversion. We insist on a decent protection for the privacy of the females in our families, and do not believe that males have any moral, ethical or legal right to share shower facilities with them.

In a long-buried piece from the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, dated June 10, 1999, Mr. Frank lets the proverbial cat out of the cathouse. In fending off transgendered activists, Frank told the paper it would be impossible to pass an ENDA bill which included special protections for such sexually abnormal individuals.

Here’s what he had to say: "I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want—and what we will be forced to defend—is for people with p** who identify as women to be able to shower with other women. There are no votes for that. And if that is the price for this bill, it is wrong.” (Emphasis mine)

Read that again: ENDA, as currently fashioned, is about “people with p** who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

Rep. Frank said since that’s what this bill is about, we’d have to defend that. They didn’t have the votes to do it in 1999. But they’re back, trying to break down the door to your daughter’s locker room in 2010.

So if you want your daughter to share a shower at your school, or at the local YMCA, with “people with p**,” then Barney Frank and his ruling class colleagues are the kind of congressmen you want. But if you want any kind of sane public policy on human sexuality, then they’re not.

For my money, this is the ENDA the discussion about whether the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is good public policy. Let’s protect our wives and daughters and drive this misbegotten piece of legislation into oblivion".

Yet another thread splattered with bird crap.

Blah, Blah, Blah...regardless of her narrow-minded, biggotted opinions Ms. Holbrook has brought upon us, she is entitled to them and is free to tell whomever she wishes. I am however, allowed to exercise my free speech and tell her what I think. She is a biggot, an intolerant homophob and a generally disturbing individual. Hopefully she and/or her family are perfect and free from being judged by others for any racial, social or psychological imperfections.

I will be taking a collection to fund the placement of a drag bar in canary's residence. Anyone who is interested can please let me know. ;)

It says freedom of religion. Meaning no state religion shall be reconized over any other. The founding father knew what they were doing. However when it comes to homosexuals I beleive in colonial times they had bigger CLOSETS !!

Even Jesus understood that the sin of Sodom was the sin of in-hospitality. Such wickedness is such the sin that the city of Sodom was guilty. Such cruelty is what the Bible condemns over and over again. So those who repress homosexuals because of the "sin of Sodom" may then themselves be the "Sodomites", as the Bible understands it.

hey Hambone....do you remember that the founding fathers had great wigs!

re:mconley you lost me on Sodom and Sodomites What"d he say if it looks like a duck,quacks like a duck,and walks like a duck:ITS A DUCK

I don't read Steve Barrett, and I don't read Canary. Both are full of convoluted propaganda.

Well said, canary.

They can bite us.....uh....on second thought they would like that much too much. I withdraw that particular comment.

The "well said" stands.

Ms. Holbrook didn't seem to be acting very "Christ" like.

Canary -

How does two gay guys getting married interfere with your constitutional right to raise your kids up to be bigots like you?

re:mitchsnowman17....ya know it might help if you educated yourself a little better on your bible knowledge. Everyone reads and understands the bible differently. There are several adaptations to the bible as we know it. The bible refers to the sin of in-hospitality over and over again. The sin of Sodom was not a sin of sex but rather a sin of in-hospitality.

Some of the posts here are pathetic,sickning and defy reason. Then there's ol' big bird, her's are beyond description!