published Tuesday, November 5th, 2013

Cook: Something wicked this way comes

Some of the bravest, most deliciously compassionate people I know believe in God. They are magnificently heroic, gracefully wise, and unendingly generous. You ask them why they do the crazy things they do — like love their enemies or empty their bank accounts to feed the poor — and they answer, rather softly: God.

Christians, sure, but not just Christians. Hindus, Jews, more Hindus, this one Muslim I know who is everything good in the world and then some. Every stripe and flavor of believer can embody this elevated, transcendent way of walking on the earth that is so powerfully sweet and radically good.

It’s like listening to Ted Nugent when somebody turns the dial to Mozart; ahh, how lovely is the difference you make.

And yes, there are atheists out there who are spectacularly ethical and do-good moral. Sometimes faith has nothing to do with things.

But you see, it’s Tuesday, which means it’s City Council, which means I feel this hackles-up need to defend religion, namely Christianity, because tonight, once again, its name will be tarred, feathered, rode hard and put up wet.

“Wicked,” one man said at the last City Council meeting. “Wicked … wicked.”

He was talking about the domestic partner benefits plan, a proposal which has nothing, and everything, to do with religion. The plan would provide equal benefits to opposite- and same-sex domestic partners of city employees, but past meetings have become small holy wars of public protest and mean-speech mixed with Bible verse.

The councilman who introduced the legislation — Chris Anderson, and yes, he’s gay — has had a Chattanooga cop as body guard during this circus-spectacle which has become the theological equivalent of the bearded lady: brash, shocking and weirdly out-of-place.

“I would remind you God destroyed two whole cities,” another man said.

Actually, it’s called corporate greed, and it’s destroyed far more than two cities. But instead of talking about crime or the economy or how to get our infant mortality rate out of the toilet, Christians flock to City Council to argue over whether unmarried people in an intimate relationship can have medical benefits and gym memberships just as married spouses do.

“Our God, the god of Christians, hates homosexuality,” the man continued.

No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality. Or homosexuals. Or lesbians. Or transgendered people. God doesn’t hate anyone.

You do.

And you use the name of God to project your homophobia onto the world.

“I’d like to read you three verses out of the Bible this evening,” one man said.

Please don’t. Everyone has heard them, and they’re 1,000 others that totally contradict whatever you think Leviticus or St. Paul said. In fact, don’t read your Bible anymore. At all.

When this verse or that verse hijacks the overall fragrance of religion — to mend hearts, to heal the world — then those verses have become surrogate and substitute gods. Sure, understanding the divine can be tricky, and those holy books can be good road maps.

But the books aren’t the moon. They are only the finger pointing toward the moon.

The books aren’t the shore. They’re just part of the boat that carries you to it.

Believing in God is not about being right or wrong. It’s about the things we find when we drop Ruby Falls-deep into our own interior world. Down there in the dark, domestic partner benefits don’t matter.

Surrender does. And powerlessness. So do mystery, joy and magic. And finding the power to love in ways that are like medicine to the world.

“I have literally 500 letters along those lines,” said Collegedale Detective Kat Cooper.

Cooper, who’s become the public face for this movement, led the effort to change her city’s laws toward domestic partner benefits. She’s also gay, which means she’s heard plenty of bigotry from certain Christians.

But she’s also received messages of acceptance and support. Letter after letter of encouragement and apology, each saying much the same thing.

“Please know all Christians aren’t that way,” she said.

Tonight, she’ll walk to the City Council microphone and speak to the crowd, and then do something rather wonderful.

She’ll ask other Christians to stand with her.

And they will.

Contact David Cook at dcook@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6329. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter at DavidCookTFP.

about David Cook...

David Cook is the award-winning city columnist for the Times Free Press, working in the same building where he began his post-college career as a sportswriter for the Chattanooga Free Press. Cook, who graduated from Red Bank High, holds a master's degree in Peace and Justice Studies from Prescott College and an English degree from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. For 12 years, he was a teacher at the middle, high school and university ...

36
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
aae1049 said...

The aggressors promoting this ordinance are seeking taxpayer dollars, that is the bottom line. It will cost an estimated $2 million dollars annually to give Chris Anderson health insurance for the roommates of city workers.

Two years ago, the city abolished health insurance benefits for retirees and some workers with 24 years of service, who worked for the health insurance benefit for their entire career. It is absurd to take health insurance benefits from the actual workers, then expand to a group simply for being roommates of city workers.

This is about money and a group of non employees that don't wish to purchase ObamaCare ACA by the end of year deadline. ACA very expensive.

Anderson and the people promoting this expansion of health care to city employee roommates want the public to forget that just two years ago the city ended a health care benefit promised to actual workers that had at least 24 years of service. Take health insurance from older workers, then expand to non employees roommates, are you kidding?

Put this matter on a referendum, and let the voters and taxpayers decide.

Apparently, Anderson is about drama and wishes to portray himself important enough to be targeted by Christians, frankly most people could care less about his absurd ordinance. Mr. Wysong would not hurt a fly.

BTW, you should get your facts straight, the city took away pharmacy and health facilities benefits from older workers just two years ago. Tell the truth

Anderson should tell the truth about motives, ACA deadlines, and how the city took health insurance benefits from older workers just two years ago.

November 5, 2013 at 6:43 a.m.
librul said...

What a hoot.

"This is about money and a group of non employees that don't wish to purchase ObamaCare ACA by the end of year deadline. ACA very expensive."

C'mon April.

People who are paying $50 or $60 for useless "junk insurance" policies that the insurance cartel has foist off on the American people for decades, thereby creating the mess we're in, probably don't want to pay what the ACA demands for INSURANCE policies that actually provide the coverage they might (or might never) need.

And, sadly, few people are directing their anger at big pharma, and the hospital and insurance cartels whose war against Mr. Obama and the mere concept of single payer health CARE led to the hated "public mandate" that put billions more into their coffers. As things stand, if you want to get rid of the greed, graft and corruption that made insurance executives billionaires and let them cancel policies for people in despair of affording treatment, i.e. outright murdering them with those junk policies, you're going to have to have a system that provides policies that can pay the cartel's outrageous prices that make our system the laughing stock of the world.

The "christians" waving their babbles in the faces of the City Council are just haters taking advantage of another gay bashing photo op and are despicable examples of the kind of callous, inhumane tribalists who dominate wherever Abrahamic religion holds sway.

November 5, 2013 at 7:47 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Librul,

It is wrong and discriminatory for the city to take health insurance benefits for older workers that worked 24 years for the benefit, and two years later expand the health insurance to the roommates of city workers. It is absurd to take benefits from the actual workers only to expand to the roommates or non employees.

If anything, the city is guilty of age discrimination taking from older workers.

This is about money, not rights. Anderson is a fraud. You are David Cook and not being truthful on the taking of health insurance from older workers, only to give to the roomates of worker. Absurd.

November 5, 2013 at 8:16 a.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Cook wrote:

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

Did you get that? Could his statement be misunderstood to mean something other than what he plainly stated?

Mr. Cook wrote:

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

Would it take "umpteem times" for some to see the gross error in Mr. Cooks statement?

November 5, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
brendaaliana said...

The religious arguments need to be thrown out. We live in a society governed by law, not some perverted Christian version of Shari'a.

The argument that it costs money is ridiculous as well. All benefits to city workers cost taxpayer money. It is part of a fair compensation package for services rendered. Why is fair compensation withheld for the same work just because of the gender of one's life partner? Special rights for heterosexuals are wrong. Equal rights for all are American.

November 5, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Brendaaaliana, How fair is it to pull the rug out from under a 24 year employees and take away their health insurance benefits as the city council did 2 years ago, and cut the pension, then expand health insurance to the roomates of workers.

Anyway you dice it, the city if guilt of age discrimination. If the city has money to burn, they need to fund the benefits promised to retirees first.

$2 million should be spend on restoring the health insurance benefits taken from employees with 20 plus years of service that worked for the benefits.

It is about money.

TFP you are liberal bias junk journalism.

November 5, 2013 at 9:42 a.m.
brendaaliana said...

aae1049, the issue you speak of is wrong as well. I'm not arguing that. Equal benefits are morally right. Compounding wrong on wrong doesn't make things right. The City Council should answer for their stripping of benefits. They should also approve equal benefits for all city workers.

2 million? That's an absurdly high number. Please back it up with facts. How many gay and lesbian employees do you think the City of Chattanooga has? Prove your numbers.

November 5, 2013 at 9:55 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Perhaps you should read the ordinance. The ordinance states that the cost of expanding the health insurance to roommates of city employee is estimated by the city to be 1 percent of the annual operating budget. The annual budget is 200 million. Do the math.

Secondly, stripping away health insurance for retirees that worked 24 years for that benefit, and then two years later giving the same benefit to roommates of city workers is highly offensive. The actual workers lost their health insurance benefits, and without adequate time to establish a viable health saving account to fill in the gap. Now, the city is cutting the fire and pension of actual workers, and wants to give million in new health insurance for roommates of worker, while taking benefits from workers.

No way is this correct. The public should DEMAND this ordinance go to referendum, because it is unfair and a slap in face to older workers.

You and David fail to mention a word about cost.

November 5, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
chuckintn said...

April,

Since you contiue to attempt to hide your bigotry let me help you.

The 24 year employees you continue to mention lost thier benifits due to current funding at the time. Now that the standards have been raised the city can now provide for all with better services and a lower cost. In addition nobody can be dropped or refused, unlike the antiquated policy you seem to be clinging to. This was all also prior to ACA and even though our beloved Govenor has chosen not to help the people by taking the federal money, the city has to have insurance to comply. I suspect you are against ACA as well.

I have a suggestion. Since you dont think same sex and other none married couples should be covered, how about NO coverage for anyone except the employee. Of course then the spouse and children will need outside coverage which is far more than group. You neglected to point out how much more family coverage is costing? So you must be obsesed with only the cost of partners insurance? I will go so far as to suggest you would be against this plan because it would discriminate against straight peolpe. I bet you see that clearly. Also, I was married in CA but I cant be recognized in the state I reside but can still pay taxes at an increased rate to put other peoples kids through school. Oh yes it is all very fair?

This is 2013. Times and attitudes have changed and will continue to do so.

As for Charles Wysong not harming anyone. His hate speech harms. If you dont get that you may also be part of the problem. I consider what he has his children do and what he exposes them to, to be abuse. At this point however, being a fanaticle nut job is not considered so. I myself ask Wynsong what I had to do to elevate myself to his kind of christian and all he could do was walk away.

November 5, 2013 at 11:56 a.m.
librul said...

Re: aae1049 10:16 -- I fully agree that it is shameful and discriminatory to take away benefits from senior workers and then extend them to non-employees, regardless of their circumstance. I guess it's just another 'ripple-effect' from our unfair, decrepit, wasteful system and the burdens it places on local governments.

November 5, 2013 at noon
aae1049 said...

Anyone disagreeing with Chuck is a bigot, According to Chuck. If the best some you can do is name call people questioning the taking of benefits from senior employees, and then extending the benefits to roomates of city workers, then you have nothing valid to contribute.

Do you favor what the city council did to the older workers, took their health insurance, and then wants to give the same to non city employees.

You silly name caller, address the issues. Disagree with Chuck does not make me a bigot. It makes Chris Anderson and the TFP a liar, for failing to disclose these facts.

This ain't CA, and giving the benefits promised to older workers trumps any false notion of funding new groups.

November 5, 2013 at 12:10 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

If it costs $2,000,000 don't do it with taxes, but let Mr Cook and librul and bredaaliana chip in whatever they choose. They were gonna save 1 million by depriving policemen of cars they'd been promised? So save 2 million this way. Jesus didn't care for those who broadcast giving away their own money. Whaddya think He thinks of those who give away other peoples' money? Not just braggarts but thieves?

Now, I don't mind letting people have "Registered Significant Others" who can visit them in hospital, etc, and I suppose if the RSOs are paying for their own insurance, at rates proportional to risk, I wouldn't mind them joining the group. Just stop groping my wallet; I like the privacy of my pants.

Referendum, OK, but better to let each buy what they want. Economic democracy, dollars voting every day and electing all kinds of things, has advantages over political democracy: electing tyrants or even voting in tyrannical laws.

Junk insurance? Well, my car may be junk, but it does the job. A law forcing all drivers to buy new Cadillacs is rich people taking choices away from poor people--and that's what liberalism is, librul(s). Repent, damnable tyrants; God prefers liberty.

Jesus came to call not the righteous but sinners to REPENTANCE--not to remain in their sins. He loves sinners enough to have died for them (not 'slept' with them) and risen from the dead for them, but came to raise up "a unique people, zealous of good works" not sinners with a Get-out-of-Hell-free card. Gandhi, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, Marx, Rand, and Kennedy just died--didn't die for us--and stayed dead. The more they borrowed from Jesus the better, but they ain't on the same level.

November 5, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.
SPQR said...

Clearly, if it were Muslims railing against this issue, like they do all over the West where they've been allowed to immigrate, there wouldn't even BE a hearing.

November 5, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
chuckintn said...

April,

If its not bigotry what is it? The fact you cant see it in your own words but in mine is laughable.

You fail to answer my question but act like I am wrong? Then, you are the one offended. A few new descriptives just came to mind but I wouldnt wont to hurt your feelings anymore. I can tell how sensitive and caring for your fellow man you are.

I dont care if we agree or not but your factless stance speaks volumes. I also dont care if you are a bigot or not but at least own it. You expect me too.

If it were about money I am sure I can come up with a huge list my taxes go for that I receive nothing in return for.

What exactly do you want the city to do? Give the lost benefits back? Always work based on yesterday? Why not go back to a time when only males could work for the city? That makes as much since. Living in what was instead of what is leaves you behind not ready for the future.

Andrew as to the biblical aspect that is more at the core of this, it is simple, its a civil issue not a biblical one no matter how much you may want it to be. Not every one in this country or the world follow christianity. If they did you guys would have no other people to put down.

November 5, 2013 at 1:28 p.m.
chuckintn said...

April,

If its not bigotry what is it? The fact you cant see it in your own words but in mine is laughable. I suppose "the aggressors" is not name calling. That sounds so polite and kind. I suppose I should have said the ill informed. That would be so much better.

You fail to answer my question but act like I am wrong? Then, you are the one offended. A few new descriptives just came to mind but I wouldnt wont to hurt your feelings anymore. I can tell how sensitive and caring for your fellow man you are.

I dont care if we agree or not but your factless stance and repeated, rehearsed statements speaks volumes. I also dont care if you are a bigot or not but at least own it. You expect me too.

If it were about money I am sure I can come up with a huge list my taxes go for that I receive nothing in return for.

What exactly do you want the city to do? Give the lost benefits back? Always work based on yesterday? Why not go back to a time when only males could work for the city? That makes as much sense. Living in what was instead of what is leaves you behind not ready for the future. Wait that must make me a bigot too since I dont agree with you right. Same logic.

Andrew as to the biblical aspect that is more at the core of this, it is simple, its a civil issue not a biblical one no matter how much you may want it to be. Not every one in this country or the world follow christianity. To expect them to is a lot nuts

November 5, 2013 at 1:40 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Chuckie, Address the cost and removing the same benefits they took always from older workers. That is pure age discrimination. Why don't you oppose what the city has done to older workers?

Anyone disagreeing with Chuck is a bigot. Better a bigot than an idiot.

November 5, 2013 at 2:01 p.m.
MarkB said...

Please don't try to explain the bible if you honestly don't attempt to fully know it. I'm as Christian as some of you are gay. It's who I am. Don't ask me to leave my Christianity at home unless you are expected to leave your homosexuality at home. God doesn't hate homosexuals. God clearly despises sin. Lying, cheating and according to the bible, homosexuality. If you choose to overlook certain things then it's absolutely your choice. And don't assume I'm judging you or have any type of fear or phobia of you. I'm not without sin myself. Don't hate me for who I am and I won't hate you for who you are.

November 5, 2013 at 3:27 p.m.
brendaaliana said...

Hmmm, hypocrisy is also a sin. Matthew 23 clearly shows how "Jesus" felt about religious hypocrites trying to force their code on the poor and on those who don't agree with them. There's no hate towards people here. My code is to hate the belief, not the believer.

April, the $2 million number is wrong. The "less than 1%" applies only to the benefits budget, not the entire annual city budget. Stop throwing lies out there to hide your animus toward the LGBT community. The estimated amount is LESS THAN 0.1% of the annual City budget. Let's do the right thing, not the religious thing.

November 5, 2013 at 4:31 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr. Cook wrote:

"No, no, umpteen times no. The God of Christians doesn’t hate homosexuality."

Either Liberals/unbelievers refuse to read what the Bible says about Homosexuality and the Homosexual's fate or they do and deliberately lie.

Do not be deceived, no Homosexual will inherit the Kingdom of God:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 6:9-10

No, no, umpteen times no. Do not be deceived no Homosexual will inherit the Kingdom of God. 1Corinthians 6:9-10.

November 5, 2013 at 6:07 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Brenda, the city's numbers are what is called a WAG. You figure it out. Let's say your highly speculative numbers from the Berke Admin of magical liberalism were the weed grows thick are true and correct, then the $168,000 needs to be applied to the retirees health insurance taken from employees with 20 plus years of service, not a small special interest called, the friends of Chris Anderson fund.

Stop discriminating against older workers like the city did 24 months and is doing now by cutting the pension.

November 5, 2013 at 6:29 p.m.
brendaaliana said...

Wow, April. Me discriminating against older workers? Have you read my comments? I've done nothing to discriminate. YOU have been the person advocating discrimination. In my opinion, the Chattanooga City Council needs to honor its responsibilities to ALL of its workers, retired, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight.

$168,000. Thanks for finally presenting a number far closer to the truth. I knew the lies could not continue once the light of truth was turned on.

November 5, 2013 at 7:14 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Brenda, you are empty shell of no substance or knowledge. Spin does not work, when there is real data to examine costs.

This is Daisy Madison's slide on health care costs of the city of Chattanooga. No one agrees that providing health insurance to roomates of city workers will just cost $168,000. Their financial data does not support such an arbitrary low number. Many of the council members do not buy into number, as they stated tonight.

The health insurance coverage has increased over $10 million dollars in 6 years. The city responded by cutting coverage to retirees and cannot afford a health care expansion.

In your mind of magical liberalism where the weed grows thick, there are people like you in the dark about the real costs. The insurance expansion as proposed will cost a lot more than $168,000 a year.

Fact don't matter to people that just spin.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=629066503804987&set=pb.167584136619895.-2207520000.1383699343.&type=3&theater

The city is a liar, the costs are much greater.

November 5, 2013 at 8:12 p.m.
brendaaliana said...

April, that health insurance increased due to the greed of insurance companies, not because of coverage of same-sex spouses. Blaming the increase on those who aren't even covered yet is blatantly false. As Reagan would say, "there you go again..." If you want to reduce costs and have equality, remove partner benefits for all workers. That would save a lot. You insist that heterosexuals should get special rights. I disagree with special rights on basic American principles. What's empty about that?

And no, I don't believe in magic. No talking snakes or donkeys, no water into wine, no undead saviors. I'll leave that to others. If you try to make a point using numbers, I will always ask you to provide proof. You presented the numbers, not me. I'm a skeptic. The burden of proof lies with those who discriminate.

November 5, 2013 at 8:21 p.m.
MarkB said...

Brenda, I'm not really picking up what you're putting down. Are you saying I'm a hypocrite? And if so, how? Standing for a belief isn't forcing it on someone. If nobody stood for their belief how would democracy work? No one would cast a vote in fear of being attacked for their thoughts. I'm stating how I feel, not trying to force you into agreeing with me.

November 5, 2013 at 8:32 p.m.
brendaaliana said...

Mark, do you follow ALL of the biblical law? Do you eat pork or shellfish? Do you wear fabrics of mixed fibers? A person who tries to enforce the law on others without following ALL of it himself is called a hypocrite in the very book you quote. You accuse yourself. I'm just pointing out where your words take you.

November 5, 2013 at 8:39 p.m.
klifnotes said...

I think it's being untruthful and dishonest to say the city dumped its elderly workers from their insurance coverage who had 24 years of service. I think what happened, and the same happens in the private sector, is that those workers became eligible for Medicare. When a retired worker becomes eligible for Medicare, even in the private sector, Medicare becomes their primary insurance and if they decide to keep the company insurance, it becomes their secondary insurance. If the worker is responsible for paying all or part of their premiums in the private sector they may dump their private insurance policy altogether and opt for Medicare, the subsidize Medicare with a cheaper secondary police because Medicare premiums are usually cheaper. Either way, once an individual becomes eligible for Medicare and they take both Medicare parts A (A is automatic) and B (optional/the part of Medicare the client actually pays premiums on) they may opt out of company insurance if they're paying high premiums themselves. Or it's sometimes company policy to end benefits or become secondary when retiree becomes eligible for Medicare.

November 5, 2013 at 8:56 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Where the heck were you 24 months ago when the city council voted to end health insurance for retiree that were promised that benefit, and had worked for 20 plus years? I was there, and ask any city employee, you are dishonest. Perhaps you should consider reading a newspaper or news, it was just 24 months ago. It is highly offensive that the city dumped older workers only to give the benefit to the roommates of city workers.

November 5, 2013 at 10:10 p.m.
MarkB said...

Brenda, if you understood the bible rather than flippantly trying to use it against those who live by it you would know that Paul was pointing out that no one can keep the law and that believers are saved by Gods grace and sacrifice on the cross and not by works or by keeping the law.

November 6, 2013 at 6:08 a.m.
conservative said...

Did you ever notice that Liberals refuse to call Homosexuality a sin?

November 6, 2013 at 6:17 a.m.
brendaaliana said...

Yes, Mark, I was immersed in the bible until I nearly drowned when I was younger. I understand what many christians think it means. Neither Jesus nor Paul say that the government should treat people unequally. Never. US law, including the highest law in the land, the Constitution, demands equality under the law. Since you used the bronze to early iron age book, I used it back at you. Either way, it's completely irrelevant. This is not a religious issue.

Equality is my argument. Nobody has refuted that. Religion should be irrelevant here.

November 6, 2013 at 6:21 a.m.
MarkB said...

Yeah, some people have a hard time acknowledging any sins. Rather than call it sin some attempt to overlook it or try to find loopholes. I really don't intend to have a debate with those I disagree with . As I stated before, I just don't want anyone to tell me to hide my Christianity if they aren't expected to hide their homosexuality.

November 6, 2013 at 6:28 a.m.
klifnotes said...

RE: Two years ago, the city abolished health insurance benefits for retirees and some workers with 24 years of service,

RE: Where the heck were you 24 months ago when the city council voted to end health insurance for retiree that were promised that benefit, and had worked for 20 plus years?

So now the number of service years drops from 24 to 20 plus? Will the numbers keep dropping when false statements are challenged?

Again, were those individuals Medicare eligible or had switched for Medicare? These individuals take a small portion of a factual sentence then add several pages of lies, because they think the average person is too ignorant to think for themselves and ask questions.

November 6, 2013 at 6:56 a.m.
kenro said...

Speaking for God and intimating that God hates homosexuals, would endorse discrimination, or raze your city for supporting equal benefits for all? Perhaps you railed against divorcees in God's name in the past century? Perhaps the mixing of black and white people was obviously against God's holy Word? Or the notion that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a sinful city? This is called using the Lord's name in vain. This is the sin. These notions are from your pride in your knowledge of God's own thoughts. This is the sin.

Do the right thing. Love your neighbor as you love thyself. Stop hijacking my religion just so you can discriminate against someone else.

November 6, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
klifnotes said...

kenro said... This is called using the Lord's name in vain.

This is the sin.

Unfortunately, they will never see themselves in that picture as the ultimate SINNERS and hypocrites.

Reminds me of that phrase: A stairway to heaven and a crowded HIGHWAY TO HELL.

November 6, 2013 at 7:53 a.m.
brendaaliana said...

As a non-believer and a skeptic, the concept of "sin" is irrelevant to me. The concept of treating each other justly and equally in the only life we have to live is relevant. Our government has forbidden establishment of religion in the First Amendment. Therefore, the concept of "sin" is not the basis for law. The concept of equal rights for all is the basis for law.

Using gods to defend human rights is OK with me. Using gods to defend oppression, inequality, or bigotry is un-American.

November 6, 2013 at 8:03 a.m.
fivewillows said...

@Conservative: Be consistent. We should deny benefits to divorcees, drinkers, and bankers as well. Apparently Paul ranks them as low as "homosexuals."

"neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9.

November 17, 2013 at 6:18 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.