Welcome To The First Church Of Sodomy, Pastor Hillary Clinton Presiding

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “This is not very much different from Sharia law.  If you don’t convert to radical homosexualism, if you don’t convert to, [mocking] “I can do it where I want, when I want, with who I want, public, private.  I can brag about it.  I can boast about it.  And I can march inside your little church and make that guy with the little white lapel marry me, and if he doesn’t, we’ll send him to jail.  And if you say he shouldn’t go to jail and you support him, we’ll send you to jail, too.”   Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW!

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  “Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?”  The answer is in today’s Pile of Prep.  The answer is yes.  Not only is the answer yes, what the conclusion ought to be is: Okay, what are you going to do about it?  What’s going to happen when that occurs?  Many of those universities out there that claim religious tax exemption are struggling to make it these days.  You might have noted that religious institutions are not the most popular places to be these days.

Then we have this, Ross Douthat, “The Wild Ideas of Social Conservatives.”  I’d like to meet one of these social conservatives one day, I really would.  To me trying to find social “conservatives” is akin to trying to find a dodo bird, which became extinct somewhere around 1912.  The term “conservative” these days is nothing more, to me anyway, and to many people that consider this logically, it’s nothing more than an advertising slogan, a marketing slogan.  If that’s the case, a social conservative would [private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime] then be what?  Someone that is marketing something that’s social?

[reading]

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether there exists a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, with a conclusion that seems more or less foregone. [Mike: He’s writing this Tuesday.] Among my fellow journalists and commentators, there’s little remaining debate at all, in part because there’s almost nobody left to have one, and in part because the winning side’s theory of the case (that opposition equals bigotry) precludes sustained engagement with the few remaining non-converts to its cause.

[end reading]

Mike:  You know what remains to be seen here, folks, what I think the great unanswered question is over the homosexual marriage case?  The SCOTUS is going to say that your state has to do it, that your state has to accept it, has to promote it, has to condone it, has to allow it.  It’s only a matter of time before clergy are expected to do it.  As soon as clergy say no, that’s not in my canon, that’s not in my magisterium, I won’t do it, as soon as that happens, are the radicals going to back down or are they going to demand more laws?  It wasn’t enough that you changed and altered the definition of what the term marriage means.  Now that you’ve conquested that, the real goal is to get rid of us.  Folks, this is a dhimmitude.  What the homosexual radicals and their – look, they don’t have the numbers to do this.  They’re only two percent of the population, so they have to enlist a significant amount of people from the rest of the population in order to pull this off, people that are only too willing to do this.

This is not very much different from Sharia law.  If you don’t convert to radical homosexualism, if you don’t convert to, [mocking] “I can do it where I want, when I want, with who I want, public, private.  I can brag about it.  I can boast about it.  And I can march inside your little church and make that guy with the little white lapel marry me, and if he doesn’t, we’ll send him to jail.  And if you say he shouldn’t go to jail and you support him, we’ll send you to jail, too.”  It’s either convert or drop out, convert or be taxed, convert or be ostracized, convert or be unable, we won’t allow you to earn a living anywhere publicly where we can shut down your access to said living.

Anyone that doesn’t see where this is leading – look at Mrs. Hillary Clinton’s statement two days ago: We have to get rid of, we have to change deep-seated religious beliefs.  Folks, if it’s a religious belief, there’s only one kind of religious belief.  It is deep-seated.  We didn’t even get into that part of the conversation.  [mocking] “We’re gonna have to change deep-seated religious beliefs.”  Is there a shallow-seated religious belief?  If it is, is it religious?

This is the other fallacy of modern life, of modernity, that religious is up to your discretion, religion is up to your take on it, up to your opinion.  Don’t worry about what the history and what the inspired and inerrant word and revelation has said is religion and is the moral code and is morality.  Don’t worry about that.  If you disagree, hey, we live in a subjective world.  You’re free to disagree and still be called religious.  What are you religious to?  Your religion is ascribed to what?  Your opinion.

So we now have opinions that count as religion?  Then why wouldn’t an opinion that a homosexual ought to be able to marry someone, why wouldn’t that count as a religion?  Why wouldn’t an opinion that says that incest, as Professor Gutzman was talking about yesterday, ought to be safe and legal and fun?  Why wouldn’t that count as a religion?  All these things make sense when we apply minor logic, just a little hint of philosophy to these things, and they become exploded for you to see.  You can see the fallacy of the thinking and the error that causes it.  You don’t fix the error.  You can’t fix what it is that the error is causing.  If we continue on with Ross Douthat in The New York Times, he gets to the question of this.

[reading]

It’s not that social conservatives are always right about where American society is going. As you would expect, they often err on the side of pessimism: The “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” fears that informed some right-wing arguments in my youth, for instance, were partially falsified by subsequent declines in crime, abortion rates and teen pregnancy, and it’s easy enough to reach back into the history books to find moral panics that turned out to be just that. And there are plenty of slippery-slope arguments, even when vindicated, that don’t necessarily prove anything on the merits: The fact that Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas was basically correct about that ruling’s implication, for instance, is a point that same-sex marriage’s supporters have actively (and understandably) embraced in the recent years.

But there’s still a broad track record that’s worth considering. In the late 1960s and early ‘70s, the pro-choice side of the abortion debate frequently predicted that legal abortion would reduce single parenthood and make marriages more stable, while the pro-life side made the allegedly-counterintuitive claim that it would have roughly the opposite effect; overall, it’s fair to say that post-Roe trends were considerably kinder to Roe’s critics than to the “every child a wanted child” conceit. [/private]

Conservatives (and not only conservatives) also made various “dystopian” predictions about eugenics and the commodification of human life as reproductive science advanced in the ‘70s, while many liberals argued that these fears were overblown; today, from “selective reduction” to the culling of Down’s Syndrome fetuses to worldwide trends in sex-selective abortion, from our fertility industry’s “embryo glut” to the global market in paid surrogacy, the dystopian predictions are basically just the status quo.

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s a great reminder of what was, just as recently as the 1970s, present and what people thought, what Americans thought about morality and the moral code when they saw some of these great apostasies coming down the street, of what they thought they would ultimately wind up causing.  Even though they were incorrect in some instances, they were correct in others.  To me it’s pretty easy to predict the persecution that’s going to result from what the SCOTUS is about to do and has already begun.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio