Worth watching, keeping in mind, sharing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBv9UTDfOfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBv9UTDfOfk
Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
Anything from the Family Research Council has to be taken with a grain of salt. This is the group that put in their shameless propaganda (voter guides) that my U.S. Congressman "supported state-funded pornography" because he voted to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. The FRC has a loose relationship with the facts, as did D. James Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteThat having been said, they have a reasonable argument that hate crime laws require us to read the mind of the perpetrator. I agree that hate crimes legislation goes beyond criminalizing actions and makes certain thoughts a crime.
It's a shame the FRC over-stretches that argument by jumping to the usual Evangelical paranoia that there is a global conspiracy to make it illegal for them to hate gays, atheists, scientists, etc.
The single incident of the "ex-gay" who allegedly was charged with a hate crime (not backed up by a search of the online Wisconsin case files from 1996)is not convincing. Even if the story were true, it is an example of the law being misapplied. I believe in absolute separation of church and state, but I would support David Ott's right to "witness" to anyone as long as it doesn't rise to the level of harrassment.