Monday, December 20, 2010

Slouching Towards Gomorrah and the Republican Party

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I want to comment on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" vote and the direction of the Republican Party.

Congress has said "yes" to open homosexuality in the military. Over the loud and passionate pleas from Senator John McCain, and concerns expressed by military leaders who serve in combat, the Senate caved to homosexual activists, joined President Obama in his attempt to appease the activists and retain their vote, and said yes to a social experiment that will have both "intended" and "unintended" consequences.

The homosexual victory was aided by a number of Republicans. McCain was not one of them. He said of our fighting men and women, "They will do what is ask of them, but don't think there won't be consequences."

I'm reminded of Judge Robert H. Bork's bestselling 1996 book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," in which he graphically points out the moral decline in America and, if continued, the certain consequences.

You have witnessed another step down a slippery moral decline. And there will be consequences.
The Alliance Defense Fund issued a statement following the vote saying, "The Senate's cave-in to pressure from activists to impose homosexual behavior on our military will place troops' religious liberties in unprecedented jeopardy."

They say the first casualty will likely be the religious freedom of chaplins. They say they will defend them in court.

The Republican Party.

Several Republicans joined President Obama, Harry Reid and others in pushing the homosexual agenda forward. Many were silent on important social issues during the recent election.

There is growing discussion about the core positions of the Republican Party. There has been an orchestrated effort within the Party to advise candidates to avoid the issues of "marriage" and "abortion" and move toward the so-called center.

On January 3rd, Americans for Tax Reform and The Susan B. Anthony List is co-hosting the 2011 RNC Chairman's debate, which will include those candidates running for RNC Chairman.

The Chairman's view on marriage, abortion, family, etc. as core issues, significantly shapes the position the Party takes on these issues.

You can participate in deciding which questions will be asked of the candidates by clicking
here and going to . The most requested questions will be asked of the candidates.
You will be asked to register and will receive a password. I'm personally comfortable with it, although it could put your name on additional lists to which you may want to unsubscribe.

Please note question #24 which deals with marriage. There are a number of other interesting questions in play as well.

I personally think there is value in participating in this and I will be doing so. I believe the published results will have an impact.

A personal note: Thank you to those who have recently donated to Faith and Freedom Foundation. A survey just out reveals that about 80% of non-profit organizations were down in donations this past year---some as much as 50%. Those that were even or had a slight gain in donations were, for the most part, either linked directly to disaster relief work or were smaller organizations that had a very large single donor.

Your donations allow us to continue.

Thank you for considering a
year-end tax deductible donation to Faith and Freedom Foundation. Your support is needed and much appreciated.

Be Active. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. I hope that my opinion would count. But anymore, it doesn't count for much, just like my vote.
    This debate questions survey is complicated enough that I couldn't get past the first question about gay marriage.
    (Recently, one I participated in was so skewed by a conservative organizational media blitz as to be meaningless.)
    Guess we'll have to watch the debate to see the results.
    Merry Christmas
    rural NC WA.

  2. Those of us who are socially conservative Republicans have some very important decisions ahead. We are told independant parties can't win, which is generally true, we are told that it's better to elect a moderate Republican or as Gary says "so-called" moderate Republican, than a liberal, but to what end? Is Scott Brown's, and other Republicans vote against our values somehow better than Harry Reid's identical vote against our values?

  3. You might remember that Joe Biden was chairman of the committee that shot down Judge Bork's nomination, by President Reagan, to the Supreme Court. It was brutal. Now Bork is gone and Biden reigns. God help us.

  4. The only solution is to reform the Republican Party. Begin locally, within the state. I think the Tea Party will play an even greater role in the 2012 elections.

  5. So I guess by Gary's reasoning 70% of the US are "activists", who oppose DADT and who Obama and Congress are "appeasing" with this vote. Seems to me that the Congress is just reacting to the clearly expressed will of the people.

    That Gary would praise angry, bitter old man McCain, who completed a triple-lutz complete flip and flop on this issue, shows that "character" and "integrity" really mean "agreeing with me" in his world.

  6. Go ahead and blame the Republican party, but your predicament is not the party's fault, nor will filling out surveys make a difference.

    Politicians aren't (all) stupid. They are elected. And if they want to keep getting elected, the writing on the wall is clear. When nearly 8 in 10 Americans and 6 in 10 service members support the DADT repeal, and support for equal marriage rights is on the rise in every major religious group (including yours), and when nearly or even more than 50 percent of Americans now support equal marriage rights, why should the Republican party move in the other direction?

    Your problem isn't the party. It's that you've shored up your defenses around an indefensible position. You cannot argue for inequality without lying about gay people - that we are immoral sexual monsters, that we have a wider agenda than merely fully participating in society equally, that we have our aims on children. More and more, people are seeing through it and your once majority standing is slipping away.

  7. 1:39. What if the objection to normalizing homosexual behavior is based on very clear biblical teaching? Would you suggest we eliminate the Bible, revise it or simply ignor it?
    What if our truth is not relative, but based on what we believe to be eternal absolute Truth?
    What do you suggest we do?

  8. I don't think Gary is "blaming" the Republican Party. He is raising questions that are healthy and helpful. I suppose questioning is fine for homosexuals but not Christians.

  9. It's interesting that those who are in combat and have the most at risk, oppose the repeal of don't ask-don't tell and those who sit at desks or have politized positions in the military are just fine with it.

  10. Good point on military chaplins. Are they now required to stop believing what the Bible teaches on the subject of homosexual behavior or should they now just "don't ask don't tell" and be silent on certain truths because they are not politically correct?

  11. 1:58 -- We are not talking about the Bible. The Bible is part of your chosen faith, but it's not a basis for our law, despite its ties to our tradition and history. You should no more ask me to give up rights for your faith than you'd be willing to give up your rights for mine. The government should treat us equally regardless of any specific religious teaching. 

    But since you brought it up, I suggest you do with the gay issue you what you do with the Bible's support of slavery, the inequality of women, polygamy, a flat earth, interracial marriage, stoning, eating shrimp etc: Acknowledge that much of the Bible cannot be read literally in the context of today, and acknowledge that you have already sought out truth outside the Bible on these issues.

  12. 4:43 You dismiss the significance of the Bible on American law and mores, much too easily. The Bible was not used to force any certain religion on anyone. It's principles are the basis of our law. Those principles have worked out very nicely, haven't they?
    If not biblical principles as a basis for law, what would you suggest? No law? How would we know what is right and what is wrong. Why would murder be against the law? No basis, no law. Even the tribes in the most undeveloped countries of the world have a basis for their laws or rules. Usually it is one individual that makes the rules. Is that where you want to go?

  13. @7:05 I know you are changing the subject, but let's follow your crazy line of logic anyway. Are you arguing that without the Bible you would have no idea murder was wrong? Were you unclear on murder before you saw it written? Really?

    Or, if you have no sense of morality outside what is in the Bible, again, why do you feel slavery is morally unjust (please tell us if you don't)? The Bible does not condemn it. In fact it gives slaves lessons in obedience, and instructs masters in punishing slaves. The Bible was used to justify slavery for centuries.

    To answer your question, yes, I would rather have a system based on fairness and equality, with checks and balances that ensure that power does not tip too far in one direction, or that disfavored minorities aren't carved from protections. I prefer that to your system of competing religious leaders arguing over interpretations of a cryptic book and claiming to know the will of God. 

  14. 4:43 That's exactly the problem, The Bible needs to be read Literally in the context of today. God's Word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It is the very basis for our laws, The overwhelming majority of our founders said so. if you would take the time to do the research. I seek no truth but God's, moral relativism is not truth.

    Since you brought it up, there is no support of slavery, inequality of women, polygamy, a flat earth???(where did you get that), there is no proscription against interacial marriage, stoning stopped because we have better ways to execute criminals, and as for dietary laws(shrimp) they ended at Pentecost for reasons you should know if you really knew anything about the Bible. If you're going to bash it, at least know what you're talking about. Oh, BTW, the fool says in his heart there is no God.Look it up, its in there too.

    Craig in Lacey

  15. 12:41 When 90% of the South approved of slavery, I guess Lincoln did the wrong thing, huh? He went agaist the will of the people, imagine that.

  16. In your world who decides what is fair and what is equality?

  17. @10:25

    First of all I doubt 90% of the South approved of slavery, since 30% of them were slaves. I also doubt a majority of American's supported slavery, since the vast majority of them (per the 1860 US Census) lived in states that had already outlawed slavery. Seems there is no end to the untruths people will believe to support their bigotry.

  18. Craig... Ah, yes, the Bible needs to be read "literally" but "in the context of today." In other words, "literally" but sometimes "not literally."

    So, where the Bible dictates "stoning" as punishment, we are allowed to substitute something else, even though "stoning" is clearly just "stoning" and nothing else. But, for some reason, in your crazy logic, we have to take every word about homosexuality literally.

    Thank you, Craig, for finally admitting what I've been getting at all along. It is not the words in the Bible that illicit your strong feelings about gay people; you only use the words when they support your personal prejudices.

    PS Don't insult my intelligence or rewrite history by pretending a literal reading of the Bible has not been on the wrong side of history when it comes to women's rights, slavery, interracial marriage, and, yes, even a flat earth, etc.

    PPS Calling me a fool does nothing to support your arguments.

  19. 10:33pm

    In our world, society decides what is fair and what is equality. That is how we overcame biblical positions against blacks, women, and now gays.

  20. 9:22 Again you missed the point, a person can twist anything to support their position. If we wanted to stone people for murder, adultery, rape, etc., there is no biblical proscription against doing so. It's just less effort to hang them, electrocute them, etc. There is no difference, they're just as dead. Homosexual behavior is clearly forbidden in Scripture, literally. This is not my position so much as it's
    God's. Since I believe He means what he says, then I am honor bound to oppose it, in the context of our morally depraved society. Again there is NO support for slavery, the abuse of women or any of the other things you mentioed, in the Bible.
    Have people twisted it to support evil? You betcha,and I make no apologies for them. God will deal with such people most severely.

    So in your world, rape, incest, theft, etc. are O.K. because the Bible can't be read literally in the context of today.
    Don't insult my intelligence or rewrite history to support your views. The Bible is the basis for our laws, regardless of whether you like it or not.

    I have a personal prejudice against murder bacause God says its wrong. I don't hate the person, just the sin. If all you are is what you do, then I pity you. We're all going to stand before Him one day and give an account for our actions.I'll pray for you brother, that God will open your heart to the truth, not moral relativism.

    PSS, I didn't call you a fool, God did, and He's not buying your argument either.

    Craig in Lacey

  21. Craig, Craig, Craig,

    "a person can twist anything to support their position" yes that is precisely the point. There are nothing but "Cafeteria Christians", who pick and chose what parts of the Bible need to be literally interpreted and imposed on others by the force of government.

    If the Bible is really the source of our law, why are some of the ten commandments not only not reflected in our laws and Constitution but actively opposed? Seems like our cherished freedom of religion directly contradicts "I am the Lord your God; You shall have no other gods before me". Seems the one insulting others intelligence and rewriting history to support their views is you.

    I also take exception to you absurd leap of illogic that disagreeing with your pick and choose interpretation of the bible means that one is OK with rape, incest theft etc. Last I checked these things were all against the law in countries around the world that are not Christian and most certainly do not base their laws on the Bible. Just because you choose to pretend as if you aren't thinking for yourself doesn't mean no one else is.

    I, like many others, am opposed to murder; not because some big book of myths says it's bad, but because simple observation and thought shows it's bad. It is the denial of a primary and inherent right of one person by another- no Bible required to reach that conclusion just logic.

    Pray for me all you want, I'm certainly not bothered by the wasted effort.

    Oh, and BTW. "God" didn't call anyone a fool, the men, who wrote the Bible did, and like religionists love to do, they put those words in their "God's" mouth in an attempt to add weight to them.

  22. Craig... According to you, where the Bible calls for stoning, we are allowed to substitute other more modern, Craig-approved methods of death. Ok, first, I would love to see the verse where God says "subsies" are allowed. Does he offer guidelines? For example, can we hang people? Hold them underwater? It seems odd that if we are to take the Bible literally that he should leave these decisions up to us.

    But, OK, let's just go forward with this anyway, and assume that where God calls for death, we must punish by death in some manner. Then, obviously you support death-by-something for kids who curse their parents (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9). What method of death do you recommend for them?

    And adulterers  (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22), people who have sex outside marriage (Leviticus 21:9; Deuteronomy 22:20-21), and violators of the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36). And even gays (Leviticus 20:13)!

    Or is there some other rule you haven't mentioned where we don't have to follow these verses either? Or maybe just the gay one. 

    Rev. Gene Robinson calls out your hypocrisy best: "We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after..."

  23. 9:04 Absolutely, if the Bible calls for their death, then death it is. I'm not a "cafeteria Christian". I don't get to pick and chose which parts to follow and which parts not to.

    Stoning would be acceptable, there would be a lot less cursing of parents, adultery, sex outside marriage, homosexuality, etc.
    I would advocate public execution, give people something to think about before they act.

    As for the Sabbath, the keeping of the it is no longer required. Since you quote chapter and verse I think you already knew that.

    I don't know the Rev., but I agree with the statement. I don't pick and choose,God's Word doesn't change. It's just as much in force now as in the past. You scoff at your own peril, God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow.

    Judgement delayed is not judgement forgotten.

    11:20 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God & is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)

    The only myth is thinking you can poke your finger in God's eye and not pay an eternal price.

    I have no problem with stoning, see above.

    Ah, yes, The 1st Amendment. Love for God can't be legislated, it has to come from the heart or it's not love. Understand the context of the Amendment, it was written to prohibit a National denomination, i.e., the Anglicans in England, the Lutherans in Germany, the Catholics in France & Italy. We are free to worship or not according to the dictates of our consciense. That's why there is no history of religious wars of the kind that plagued Europe for centuries.

    Actively opposed? You mean like the disrespect kids have for the parents now days, or maybe the rampant adultery, or theft,
    or the idol worship, or using God's name as a curse word, or lying and gossiping. Oh, yes, they're actively opposed all right, as our country circles the drain.

    Craig in Lacey

  24. The basic way I look at voting is which party or candidate supports smaller government. regardless of cultural views, smaller government stops either from mandating it on you by government means . The culture is therefore decided on the people.

    A third party will and has caused only elections to be decided in the direction that is farthest in principles then the newer third party . The Heritage partry gave elections to at least one Congressman to the democrats in this state that I know of . Jay Inslee when Bruce Craswell decided to take on Rep White because of some votes that supported abortion rights and such. In retrospect , Rep White was a saint compared to Inslee.

    Freedom to me is less government in my life. Homosexuals serve in the military, and will receive the government sanction to marry . Its obvious this will occur. Go to any public school system and walk through the halls of a secondary school . The posters , bulletins , the clubs for after school are often inter whined with the views of the tomorrows leaders and participants in our culture.

    These religious right kinds of organizations I have seen do nothing but give bigots and those who will use the views here in politics to mock Christians and their beliefs. Academia is a temple of humanism , and religious beliefs are seen as ancient and superstitious.

    I see more damage to our culture from people like myself who subjected their families to divorce . According to statistics , the church is no better then the world . Having gays in the military serving to protect our freedoms and rights I do not find something as the straw that broke the camels back in our changing culture. It is just a indicator.

    What I have seen is where homosexual rights become more and more prevalent and normalized, Christianity does become more objected to openly , and prejudice against seen openly. I do not believe homosexuality or even the acceptance of it causes this , just the culture that will embrace different beliefs that are associated with this culture has that characteristic to it .

    The new tolerance is less tolerance . Once homosexuality became a civil rights issue , the issue was won by the homosexual agenda. The concern you have, regardless of sincerity is not conveyed to the general public. Common sense says consider a different means of promoting your view.

    My choice has been to help those in need when i can .Volunteer more , even for my school district.
    Yes help the Homeless, help and support those organizations that help this ein need. Show the love of Christ that has allowed sinners like me to be free and try to show that to everyone I meet, I really think doing that will help more people understand the love of Christ and his plans for us then telling people who do not know the love of Christ that certain people need to be shunned.

    You can support people and not support homosexual marriage . It is harder .

    Mick from Kingston


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.