Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Today's mindless bit of moronia comes from David Aaron Richey, pastor of the Gulf Coast Christian Center and is published in Charisma magazine.
I'm not afraid of the many disasters that are happening simultaneously in our world. I'm not afraid of all the wars that are currently raging on almost every continent on the globe. The potential for nuclear accidents globally doesn't frighten me.What terrifies me are good men and women saying and doing nothing when politicians we voted into office are making moral laws that contradict everything a Holy God stands for.
You mean like passing the First Amendment, which allows for the flagrant violation of the Ten Commandments by letting people worship other gods, take the lord's name in vain and make graven images of themselves? Clearly this is an example of the government passing laws that "contradict everything a Holy God stands for."
You mean like passing laws that actually allow people to have premarital sex rather than stoning them to death -- well, the women anyway -- should they prove not to be virgins no their wedding day? I mean, your "Holy God" commanded that punishment directly. And yet the laws of this country actually allow it to go on.
For that matter, we allow people to get divorced, eat shellfish and wear poly-cotton blends too. How terrifying this must be for you!
Civil liberties--which is how proponents of legalizing perversion are categorizing same-sex marriage--ought not to infringe on the civil liberties of other citizens. I have a right to live in a community that does not force me to agree with and defend perverted sexual acts between two people.
And who has forced you to agree with any of that, pastor? You just wrote an entire article condemning it. And guess what? No one stopped you or punished you for it. You can stand in your pulpit and rail against it every Sunday until the Cubs win the World Series if you'd like. No one will stop you. Your civil liberties are quite safe; I only wish those you target legally could say the same thing.
Politics
Comments
So holy gods only stand for immoral laws?
Posted by: DaveL | July 20, 2011 1:28 PM
Other than SSM, what moral laws have the politicians* we voted for passed that contradict everything a Holy God stands for? Seriously. I know they hate Obamacare, but is that a violation of what God stands for? Anything other examples? Or is he just generalizing based on that single specific example?
Or maybe a better questions is, "What does Holy God stand for?" Be specific. That way we can all know in advance whether we're in violation.
* I assume he means the liberal eastern elite commie fascist fag-loving muslims in the White House and Senate, and not the all-american god-fearing patriotic fag-hating Jack and Jane Armstrongs in the House.
Posted by: chris | July 20, 2011 2:00 PM
DaveL -- that's awesome. :-D
I always have to wonder why *pastors*, who in theory have at some point actually read the Bible (it's kind of required to at least skim the thing at seminary), press the issue that Christians are supposed to pass laws to enforce perceived moral issues. Especially when these same pastors are, quite often, antisemites, since they are basically advocating for Jewish religious law. (Not that they know the details of it, since they either didn't read the Bible or don't remember it, having cribbed off someone else to pass their exams at seminary.) It makes no sense.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Secular law does not need to have any relationship to how you live as you try to follow Christ. How you live is up to you. This seems to escape most of these people. Gays getting married might offend someone, but how, seriously, does it harm them? Religion needs to stay the HELL* out of politics, for everyone's sake.
*Word choice deliberate, since hell on earth is so often preceded by religion and politics getting in bed together.
Posted by: Calli Arcale | July 20, 2011 2:01 PM
#1 DaveL
You got me, this is what jumped out at me, did he mean immoral?
Maybe this is a wignut slip, e.g. protecting the rights of LGBT persons is moral but against gods law (as interpreted by some.)
Posted by: Mr Ed | July 20, 2011 2:09 PM
The 'no other gods' bit always perturbs me. All the translations (or really translations of translations of translations at best) that I've seen render it as "no other gods before me" which is the semantic equivalent of "I'm the most important god, and don't try and make any of the others more important." It's an explicit acknowledgment that the God of the ancient Jews and subsequently Christians is not the only god.
Posted by: Rev Matt | July 20, 2011 2:19 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 20, 2011 2:28 PM
@DaveL, others
I assume by "moral laws" he means "laws touching on morals" rather than the antonym of "immoral".
Posted by: Sivi | July 20, 2011 2:36 PM
I have a right to live in a community that does not force me to agree with and defend perverted sexual acts between two people.
Do I have a right to live in a community that does not force me to agree with and defend perverted religious beliefs?
Posted by: peicurmudgeon | July 20, 2011 2:46 PM
I know, but I just couldn't pass up on the joke set up by his ambiguous language.
Posted by: DaveL | July 20, 2011 3:06 PM
Actually, the Cubs have a better shot of winning the World than the Brewers.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | July 20, 2011 3:23 PM
Pastor Richie, Put Some Clothes On!:
Somebody's eyes need a pluckin'.
Posted by: Dr X | July 20, 2011 3:24 PM
Huh. How timely. I was just reading……
Now, that’s some old-school law making in the name of Jesus. Leave it to the liberals and the hippies to mess things up.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 20, 2011 3:31 PM
"It is accepted in our worship houses to show breasts, butts, crouches and legs.
"
"crouches?"
where do these people worship, at a titty bar?
Posted by: Chilidog | July 20, 2011 3:33 PM
@Calli Arcale:
And yet, I've encountered conservative Christians who object to government assistance to the poor because compulsion of law does not count as "moral" good on the part of those who pay taxes to support social programs. Only what is given voluntarily and freely counts.
Funny how the moral ground under compulsion can shift.
Posted by: Dr X | July 20, 2011 3:37 PM
Oh, and let's not forget: the spacegod cares about: who runs for political office as a hater and who wins football games.
Posted by: BobFromLI | July 20, 2011 3:42 PM
w
Either that or Pastor Richey has been mentally shearing his flock during services.
Posted by: Dr X | July 20, 2011 3:43 PM
Pastor Richie:
OK
Dude, you take any logic?
Yes, and you have to wear a mu-mu.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | July 20, 2011 3:52 PM
No he can't. He won't live that long.
Posted by: Tualha | July 20, 2011 3:54 PM
The Cubbies are going to win next year...I'm sure of it.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | July 20, 2011 4:15 PM
There are wars in Antarctica, Australia, Europe, North America and South America? I need to subscribe to a newspaper.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 20, 2011 4:16 PM
@ 20
Jeebus and Satin are, even as we type, locked in a death-cage match for souls all over the universe. That's what's been behind all the floods, fires, droughts, tsunamis, nuclear meltdowns, rumored new Charlie Sheen show, and other weirdness that's been happening all year. Well, either that or teh ghey marriage.
Apparently if we elect Sarah Palin, it will rain puppies and kittens* and we'll all get free ice cream on Tuesdays. Or something.
* The puppies will already be house trained and the kittens won't scratch our furniture. Also, the ice cream will be tasty and will not make us fat. Praise Bible-god!
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 20, 2011 5:22 PM
Yes Pastor Richie - we must remove all those groynes* from gothic churches immeadiately! Jesus says so... uh... somewhere. :) - Dingo
----
* See definition 2a.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2011 7:49 PM
I'm assuming he meant 'crotch' not 'crouch'. But perhaps there is a secret commandment about not stooping low or bending in churches, or something....? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2011 8:02 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Man, do you suppose the Cubbies can win it before the Sun enters its red giant phase?
Translation for what he's talking about when he says people are showing:
Breasts: A woman had a button undone on her blouse.
Butts: A woman wore pants.
Crotches: A woman's panty line was showing through her Dacron skirt.
Legs: A woman wore a skirt that didn't cover half her calves.
That's how it works here in Texas when these nutters get all hot and bothered about body parts they're seeing.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Not if the Brewers can hang onto Prince Fielder.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 20, 2011 8:12 PM
Chilidog "'crouches?'"
You're too late! Witness: (comment awaiting moderation)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 20, 2011 9:31 PM
I am so tired of Christians with such disregard for the commandment to not bear false witness.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 20, 2011 10:09 PM
James Hanley "I am so tired of Christians with such disregard for the commandment to not bear false witness."
He's not lying. That passage said nothing about the State punishing him.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 20, 2011 11:01 PM
Aquaria | July 20, 2011 8:12 PM:
Thank you. I had thought the poor innocent man was so sheltered he had seen no woman outside of his porn collection.
Posted by: llewelly | July 20, 2011 11:29 PM
most of what he had to say was fluff,the aim here is to push for the idea that communities should have the right to opt out of any federal or state law they don't agree with.
Posted by: scidog | July 21, 2011 12:13 AM
"29
most of what he had to say was fluff,the aim here is to push for the idea that communities should have the right to opt out of any federal or state law they don't agree with.
Posted by: scidog | July 21, 2011 12:13 AM"
It worked so well the last time this was a popular idea...
Posted by: William George | July 21, 2011 1:55 AM
This:
WTF? Does that mean gays and lesbians marrying will prevent non-gays and non-lesbians marrying? How do these people manage to walk and breathe simultaneously?
Posted by: Kiwi sauce | July 21, 2011 2:43 AM
"when the governments of our land create laws that state perversion is legal, I am legally placed in a position to defend or explain perversion—or break the law"
Honestly, the impression I get from this is that the sad sack can't distinguish (whether in his own mind, because of confused thinking, or in his speech, because of a malicious intent to muddy the waters) legality from morality. He can't see a way to believe, and teach, that something is morally wrong if the government doesn't say it's illegal. That's the only sense I can make of that "defend or explain" - the idea that others may have the legal right to do things he considers morally wrong just doesn't compute for him. It suggests a really fundamental failure of moral reasoning.
Posted by: Morgan | July 21, 2011 7:42 AM
Kiwi sauce #31:
You're not thinking in wingnutese. You see, if gays and lesbians marry, it means that it is possible that this guy might see a marriage announcement in his local paper, or pass the...I was going to say 'happy couple', but, of course, being gay or lesbian, they cannot POSSIBLY be happy, as they're committing a mortal sin against the ALMIGHTY GAWD, so let's stick with 'couple', coming out of the ceremony when he's driving around in his car, or something of that nature, so that infringes on his 'civil liberty' to ignore that these people are willfully and maliciously existing without getting executed, as is the instruction in his Holy Book. As such, they cannot be allowed to be married, or, indeed, openly admit they exist in any way, shape or form, as it infringes on his 'civil liberties'.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 21, 2011 8:14 AM
scidog, #29: most of what he had to say was fluff,the aim here is to push for the idea that communities should have the right to opt out of any federal or state law they don't agree with.
That's pretty funny. In Colorado in the early '90s, when a couple of communities tried to add gays to the list of groups that can't be discriminated against, they passed a state constitutional amendment that banned such protection across the whole state!
Yeah, these people are concerned about local government. As long as the local government goes their way!
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 21, 2011 9:16 AM
I love it when people who claim to follow an immoral creed like christianity, start lecturing people about morals. It's like the pot smugly offering the kettle a set of precepts regarding blackness.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 21, 2011 10:14 AM
Other than SSM, what moral laws have the politicians* we voted for passed that contradict everything a Holy God stands for? Seriously.
Physics!
Oh, wait. Those aren't human laws.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 21, 2011 10:19 AM
Zmidponk wrote: "...that these people are willfully and maliciously existing without getting executed..."
Well phrased. Put that way, it sounds a lot like "driving while black or brown."
Posted by: Chris Winter | July 21, 2011 12:00 PM
Drop the last 18 words in that quote, and I'd agree with it. Reminiscent of the famous quote/misquote, All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (and women) do nothing.
Posted by: Daniel J. Andrews | July 21, 2011 4:45 PM
My first thought was he is against all the laws the Republican Tea Partiers have passed to restrict abortions, limit voting rights of the poor, eliminate Medicaid, bust unions, harass the working class, and not create jobs.
Posted by: John Norris | July 21, 2011 5:36 PM