Black Pastors Are Telling Their Congregations Not to Vote Since Choices Are a Mormon or a Gay-Marriage Supporter

President Obama can’t afford to lose his most ardent supporters on Election Day, but many black pastors are urging their congregations not to vote at all since the choices are a Mormon or the gay-marriage-endorsing President:

When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he’s taking the nation,” said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. Bernard, whose endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, voted for Obama in 2008. He said he’s unsure how he’ll vote this year.

The Rev. Dwight McKissic, a prominent Southern Baptist and black preacher, describes himself as a political independent who didn’t support Obama in 2008 because of his position on social issues. McKissic said Obama’s support for same-gender marriage “betrayed the Bible and the black church.” Around the same time, McKissic was researching Mormonism for a sermon and decided to propose a resolution to the annual Southern Baptist Convention that would have condemned Mormon “racist teachings.”

McKissic’s Mormon resolution failed.

On Election Day, McKissic said, “I plan to go fishing.”

It’s an incredibly selfish move, since Obama would never force these churches to marry gay couples within their walls (nor would Romney infect them with Mormonism). But when you are unable to see candidates outside the boundaries of their faith, things like this are inevitable. That’s why religious Americans should judge the candidates by their policies as much as which invisible deity they (pretend to) listen to.

Here’s a better idea for the members of those black congregations: Vote for Obama and get the hell out of those churches. Everybody wins.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Gordon Duffy

    How short their memories are!

  • The Other Weirdo

    Don’t you people have some law or other that keeps churches out of politics for a tax-free status? I think it’s high time to start enforcing them.

    • dearestlouise

      Yes, we do have laws that are suppose to be followed in order for churches and other nonprofits to keep their tax-exempt statuses; however, churches are never investigated and openly challenge the IRS when it comes to politics.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/usa-tax-churches-irs-idUSL1E8HED5Z20120621 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Scoggin/100000044792747 Aaron Scoggin

      That’s supposed to be the idea. However, it conflicts with the “freedom of speech” thing, so the government can’t force churches to stay off political topics within their own churches.

      • The Other Weirdo

         The ability to scream “OMG! There’s a fire!” in a crowded movie theatre when there isn’t in fact a fire also conflicts with the “Freedom of speech” thing, but somehow people muddle through that. Or am I missing something?

        • Troels Jakobsen

          Wrong. Yelling “Fire!” is not a statement of opinion and so has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. Falsely yelling about fire would be no different from falsely setting off an actual fire alarm, and I hardly think anyone regards that as freedom of speech.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1078695333 David Kopp

        Nope. But then they shouldn’t get to be untaxed organizations. Because their tax-free status hinges on them remaining apolitical. Otherwise there’s a bit of a conflict of interest, where they’re funded by the government while also manipulating it. Choose one or the other.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Unlike what most people think- the separation of Church and State seems to have been intended from the beginning to be one-way glass; NO establishment of a state religion, and free exercise guaranteed.

      This falls under free exercise.
      Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee you to be free from hearing another person’s religious exercise.

      • coyotenose

         “Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee you to be free from hearing another person’s religious exercise.”

        Strawman. That has nothing to do with the argument against church involvement in politics. And no, there is NO evidence that it is a one-way street. It takes only a teeny tiny bit of logic to grasp that if religion affects politics, then politics will become dominated by specific religions, which will elevate themselves with legislation, thus allowing politics to affect religion.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          What part of “Congress shall make no law” do you not understand?

          • Baby_Raptor

            Congress  can make no laws promoting specific religions. That’s the part you seem to be missing. 

            Congress can make laws promoting all religion, or banning any religion at all. They cannot play favourites.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              According to the Constitution, Congress can make no laws regarding the expression of religion at all- for or against.

          • coyotenose

            What part of “Congress has done so before and will again if allowed” do you not understand?

            • TheodoreSeeber

              The part where Congress became a dictatorship separate from Constitutional Authority.

              • Glasofruix

                Which will happen if churches aren’t kept away from politics.

                • tedseeber

                  Because, of course, atheists never start dictatorships- except in Russia, Mexico, Cuba…..

                • Glasofruix

                  We saw what happened when the catholic church had power. Besides your useless argument states that the people who founded those dictatorships did so because of their atheism which is like saying that hitler was evil because of his moustache.

                • coyotenose

                   The “evil mustache” imagery is going to have me laughing at random all afternoon, I can tell.

                • The Other Weirdo

                   And those, eventually, fall away and die. Churches, however, do not, and without extensive outside pressure, churches don’t give up their unearned secular power.

                  Churches dominating politics results in centuries upon centuries of oppression, and it’s especially worse for minorities: sexual, religious, racial. We’ve seen it in Europe, we’re seeing it now in the Middle East.

                • coyotenose

                   All started on behalf of totalitarianism ideologies, not atheism, secularism, or Humanism. Ideologies that are religious in nature. You’re terrible at this, did you know that?

              • coyotenose

                 Good job dodging the point.

                Oh wait no, my bad. Terrible job, liar.

                • tedseeber

                  No dodge at all, for somebody who can think- oh yeah, atheists can’t.  They only know how to copy and paste well enough to pass a test.

                • phantomreader42

                  The projection is STRONG with this one.  The brainless asshat who couldn’t present even a flimsy argument to save his own life whines about people copy & pasting when they aren’t, then just lies through its rotting teeth about everything while falsely accusing everyone else of lying!

      • Baby_Raptor

        Strawman. The Constitution doesn’t claim that you’ll have the right to never even hear of beliefs that don’t match yours, much the the christianists chagrin.

        But it DOES guarantee that I don’t have to *live* under somepony elses’ beliefs. Which, if religion and government started mixing, I would have to do. They’re already trying their damndest.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Is that why the Freedom From Religion foundation keeps suing to keep individual people from praying in public?

          • coyotenose

            And Strawman again. The FFRF does no such thing. They stop public employees from using public property and taxpayer money to endorse religion.

            Try again.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              Since when are public employees not “individual people”?

              • The Other Weirdo

                 When they are on the job and on the clock. Just like I stop being an “individual person” when I walk through the office door in the morning.

                • tedseeber

                  So, you give up your personhood to become a part of the borg?

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Apparently, you don’t know that much about the Borg. You don’t give up your personhood to become a part of the Borg, they rip it from you with extreme prejudice with nanoprobes, an earth scooper and the occasional disupter blast, and you derive no benefit for undergoing that process.

                  When you voluntarily join an organization, you agree to abide by its rules and regulations, during business hours. And some regulations apply to you 24 hours a day, marauding Borg cubes notwithstanding.

                  WTF!! Did I just use Star Trek to explain a concept so simple anyone with the least bit of work experience understands?

                • coyotenose

                   Yep, and it was actually kinda awesome.

                • BeasKnees

                  Just have to jump in here and say that was awesome in so many ways.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  That rocked!

              • coyotenose

                 Seriously, why are you so ignorant of how “being on the public dime” works?

                Oh wait, it’s obvious now with this post. You’re not ignorant. You’re playing dishonest semantics games in order to try to “win” despite not being right. Screw off, pleasums.

                • tedseeber

                  I reject your collectivist paradigm that people aren’t people just because somebody is renting their time.

                • coyotenose

                   I reject your hatred of the Constitution.

                • phantomreader42

                   Tedseeber has spent every waking moment of his entire life making himself as ignorant as possible.  He’s offered his brain as a burnt sacrifice to his imaginary god.  He doesn’t miss it, he never used it in the first place. 

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QZIQV7QTV5CHWCQLG3BUWYTKDU Nw

                When they are on the clock and being paid by the taxpayer  it is not in their job description to proselytize. When they are not …then they can pray their knees bloody. 

              • TheodoreSeeber

                Don’t know why I’m not seeing the only response to this, but apparently if you pay somebody for their time, they are no longer people by the argument of the atheists.

          • RobertoTheChi

            Examples please. I don’t recall any such thing.

            • tedseeber

              Here’s one
              http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19477899/prayer-pulled-from-haralson-county-high-school-games 

              But you could have googled it yourself, since you’re such a genius.

              • phantomreader42

                Yet again, another christian who’s too fucking stupid to figure out how to pray without being ordered to by a government official!  This may come as a shock, but it IS possible, however rare, to be a christian without being a willfully ignorant lying sociopath like you, Ted.  

              • The Other Weirdo

                 By the way, you do know, do you not, that you are commanded by Jesus himself not to pray in public, but to retire to a private place where your prayer is a personal affair between you and your God?

                He seemed very concerned by the hypocrites that surrounded him who proclaimed their piety for the world to see.

                Public prayer reminds me of that R.E.M. song with the line, “Look at me, Momma, I’m making some noise!”

              • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

                Roberto asked for examples of the FFRF opposing an individual’s right to pray in public.  This is not an example of that.  This is an example of ending an institutionalized prayer being conducted by a taxpayer funded school.  The individuals sitting in the stands of that game are still perfectly free to pray on their own.

                • tedseeber

                  I fail to see the difference. You silenced the prayer.

                • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

                  You don’t just fail to see the (very obvious) difference, you actively REFUSE to see it. I wish I could say I expected more from you, but in your case past is prologue.

                • tedseeber

                  No worse than the atheist tendency to claim that there isn’t anything left to discover in science, because as we all know, the supernatural does not exist.

                • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

                  Please give examples of atheists making the claim that there isn’t anything left to discover in science. I’ll need at least fifty examples to justify the claim that this represents an atheist tendency. And don’t forget to cite your sources. (Hint: Your ass is not a source.)

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  I would suggest taking a look at a variety of Ted’s comments (just click on his profile) before bothering to engage him. I think he sincerely believes his source, but I think you’ve pretty much nailed his source.

                • tedseeber

                  I only need one example- the claim that the supernatural does not exist:

                  http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2013/05/fundamentalist-atheism.html

                  There is only one way that could be true- if we already have an explanation for everything, and there is nothing left to discover.

                • RobMcCune

                  If your arguing for something being a tendency, you need more than one example, preferably not one you wrote your self. Though I’m sure you’ll take the fact you agree with yourself on most issues as a sign that you’re right.

                • tedseeber

                  No, I take the fact that Atheists disagree with me as a sign that I am right.

    • Hello, my name is…

       Manpower and religious privilege pressure prevent the IRS from enforcing the only law that keeps churches out of politics. It has no teeth. The GOP like it that way.

      • coyotenose

        Wth, update, name! I. Am. Coyotenose.

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      I think he would be in trouble if he said don’t vote for Obama, without saying don’t vote for Romney, or vis-a-versa.  Or if he said vote for one or the other candidate.   But since his message is don’t vote at all, I’m not sure that conflicts with the law.  Not that the IRS is enforcing it anyways. 

      • westley

        I think you’re correct; churches can legally encourage people to vote, and even shuttle people to voting areas, so it should be legal to discourage voting.  They can’t endorse a political candidate, but that’s not the case here.

  • BlackoutCleaner44
    • CelticWhisper

      Spam. Kindle Fire HD advertisement; has nothing to do with article.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1351473675 Matthew Baker

    Wasn’t  James Buchanan the first gay president?

    • Guest.

       details, details…

  • Darren

    I’m Black…and I’m an atheist. Religion is just stupid all around. These pastors don’t speak for me. It amazes me that my mom, sister, brother, cousins, aunts and uncles can so strongly back a religion that supported slavery. Wake up!

    Why focus so much on gay marriage when thre are numberous other issues affecting the  “black community”.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      You mean like the 60% abortion rate?

      • coyotenose

         1. That number is made up. The Anti-Woman… excuse me, Pro-Life contingent adds unrelated things together in order to create alarming-sounding numbers.

        2. The abortion rate among all groups is much higher than it needs to be because of Christians crippling sex education and birth control in this country. It’s a prime example of what happens when religion gets into politics… you know, that thing you support. YOU INCREASE THE ABORTION RATE. Get it?

        3. Pathetic and desperate attempt at deflection of Darren’s point. Your lack of argument is noted.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          So, basically, you agree that the best thing we can do for minorities and poor people is to keep them from breeding, whether with chemical poisons like birth control, barrier methods like condoms, or when those fail (due to a lack of proper sex education) with abortion.

          Your bigotry is noted.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

            Yet theodore you are treating black women as incapable of making their own medical decisions.  We are perfectly capable of deciding whether we want an abortion or not. Stop talking about us like we are children unable to make our own choices.

            • tedseeber

              I treat anybody who would willingly take poison or go through unnecessary surgery as being incapable of making their own medical decisions- black, white, old, young, terminally ill…..

              • Georgina

                 I treat anybody who holds me incapable of making my own medical decisions as contemptible, and a bully.

                It is not to ‘keep people from breeding’ but to give them a choice.

                You are worried about poison? ZPE is the answer to most of the worlds ills, rather than drowning in our own poisons. 

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  We passed zero population growth for our society in 1982.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                And how is my or any other person’s medical decisions any of your business?  It’s your opinion, so keep it as such.  Whether someone choses bc pill or abortion, it’s none of your concern.  We are capable adults despite what you think.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Children need guidance.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                   Women, however, are categorically NOT CHILDREN.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Anybody who acts like a child, is a child, regardless of age.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Thereby implying, again, that women are incapable of acting like adults. Funny, coming from someone who is acting like a spoilt child himself.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                  Fuck you. It’s that misogyny crap that women should be treated as children.

                • tedseeber

                  I can’t understand how Disqus works- I didn’t get notified of this comment for 9 months?

                  At any rate, all human action is governed by the same chaotic math as all biological action is. A butterfly flaps it’s wings in the Pacific, causing a hurricane in the Atlantic.

                  Morality is designed to keep us from making those false errors, and “it is none of your concern” is the biggest superstition ever to come out of the lack of religion.

                • Dez

                  In biology my body naturally aborts. So obviously that doesn’t fit your argument. No it’s about bodily autonomy and that fact I come from ancestry where I would be treated as property. Religion enforces the same thinking as you that you have the right to determine what others medical decisions because you think you know better than me.

          • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

            Your idiocy is duly noted.  

          • RobertoTheChi

            And just why is there no proper sex education? Which side is pushing that?

            • tedseeber

              Well, considering that I’ve yet to see ANY sex education class that actually teaches the truth- that sex is the primary reproduction method for the human species and you should only do it if you want to reproduce- I’d say both sides are pushing bad sex education.

              • David Starner

                 Sex is the primary reproduction method for the human species, though that’s a choice we make as a species. “You should do it only if you want to reproduce” is not fact, it’s opinion. It’s bizarre opinion; it’s certainly not Biblical, so I don’t know where it’s coming from. Even if you only believe in sex in marriage, non-reproductive sex is a loving bond between many couples; if you’re pro-family, you should be for non-reproductive marital sex.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

                   There are plenty of ways that sex can be enjoyed WITHOUT causing those pesky pregnancies.  To name just one, homosexual acts almost never get folks pregnant.  That should be taught in sex ed.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Almost never? Because, what, we should teach kids that if they want to avoid pregnancies, they should just have gay sex?

              • Georgina

                 So anyone unable to have children, for any reason (say ovarian cancer); must NEVER enjoy making love?
                What a miserable person you are.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  99% of the joy of making love- is having the child.  So yes.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Liar. 100% of the joy of making love is connecting, physically and emotionally, with your partner.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  You said ‘your’.  It might apply to ‘you’ (wmdkitty) but I’m not so sure it applies to ‘your’ (Ted Seeber).

                  I’m beginning to think what we have here is a tendency to project one’s own life onto others, and hence make gross assumptions about other people.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  What we have is a definition of love that is greater than anything wndkitty has ever experienced.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  You have no right to judge what I have experienced, Kiddo.

                  Breeding babbies isn’t the be-all end-all of life, you know.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Nice catch — perhaps I should have said “one’s partner” instead.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Like I said, anybody who acts like a child, is a child.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Because it’s… “childish” to enjoy sex with one’s partner? What the bleeding FUCK have you been smoking, Kid?

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

                  Again go fuck yourself. Who hell are you to dictate what sex means to another person? Your mentality is dying thankfully.

              • Michael Brice

                “sex is the primary reproduction method for the human species and……….
                 …you should only do it if you want to reproduce.”Dammit! I have been doing it uneccessarily for decades. Nobody told me that rule.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Your biology teacher tried to when he taught you evolution, you just failed to listen.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Why do you think sex should only happen for reproduction?

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Evolution, when treated as a philosophy, can lead to some interesting conclusions.  One of those conclusions is that traits that are common to an entire species are there because they enhanced breeding and/or survival to breed.

                  Having pointed that fact out, I leave it as to an exercise for your own mind to discover which philosophical point of view is more correct:  That sex is only for recreation and we need to remove from our bodies the ability to procreate, either temporarily or permanently.  Or that sex is only for procreation and we need to preserve our fertility and not take poisons to remove it.Only one of these philosophies makes sense from a survival of the species standpoint- or even from a survival of the individual standpoint, since the default economics is for children to take care of aging parents, and if you have no children, you have nobody to take care of you in your old age.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Why only the extremes: sex ONLY for procreation or sex ONLY for fun?  No middle ground?

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  The middle ground requires a soul, and that is something I can not prove exists.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  The middle ground requires a soul

                  And why would you think that?

                  (and I feel like I’m coming off as some Socratic asshole only asking questions, but you are expressing what you would have to admit is a very minority viewpoint in a public form, so I’m curious, and this is taking us on twists and turns that I certainly never would have dreamed of)

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  The only reasonable middle ground is the unitive aspect; the use of sex to join two people together, either as master/slave in a power struggle, or as one soul in sacramental marriage.  But *either* of these require something no other species has, and that is a soul.

                  Without the existence of a soul, we can only judge ethics the same way evolution does for other species:  By it’s survival characteristics in evolution.  “Good” ethics thus become things that help the species or individual survive; “Bad” ethics are those that lead our particular DNA structure to dead ends.  

                  Not having children is a particularly spectacular dead end, evolutionary speaking.  It is in fact the main dead end that counts-and the reason why Mormons and Catholics will eventually be the only people left in the United States.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  2nd response- never be ashamed of Socrates.  The Socratic Method is an EXCELLENT way to question while staying humble, rather than arrogant.

              • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

                We’re a complexly ordered social species.  Sex is not just for reproduction.  It serves a number of social purposes. Purely reproductive sex is for cuttlefish and mayflies.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Sex for recreation is just using the other person for your own enjoyment without having any intention of actual love.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  ok, now I’m calling Poe.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Are you saying I don’t love my partner? Because I can assure you — despite being child-free — that I DO love him.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  I’m saying if you loved him, you’d love him enough to reproduce with him.  But you don’t love him that much- and so you don’t.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  So people who CANNOT reproduce don’t know the kind of love that you do, and have no business having sex.

                  Can they hold hands?

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Why ask me?  By your standards I’m just a misogynist. And by my standards, you’re just a a rapist.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  No, I love him more than that, in that I don’t want to saddle him with an entirely unnecessary responsibility that neither of us want.

                  Fuck off, breeder scum.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  If you believed in evolution,you’d want it.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                   I don’t know that a 
                  misogynist, nor have I said so.  I just think you have very strange ideas about what adults can’t decide to do together.  Thankfully your own very strange ideas don’t dictate what anyone else can do.

                  As for me being a rapist, you can only base that on gross assumptions with no real basis in fact, so it means as much to me as me saying you’re a kangaroo.

                • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

                  Sex for procreation is just using the other person for your own genetic legacy without having any intention of actual love.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Your genetic legacy will become love- a love so strong that 9 months later you have to give it a name, a love that will draw you out of your narcissism and make you get up in the middle of the night to change diapers.

                  And it is more wonderful than ANYTHING you New Atheists have to offer, or ever will.

                • tedseeber

                  Or at least say the postmodernists, for which sex has replaced God.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                 the truth- that sex is the primary reproduction method for the human species

                No, it’s the only reproduction method for the human species.  Or for most species, for that matter.

                you should only do it if you want to reproduce

                Good luck with forcing your asexualism on everyone else.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  There are other technically-assisted methods of reproduction since the 1970s.  But it is still the primary one.

                  And yes, for most species, which is why it amazes me the lack of belief in evolution shown in this thread.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson


                  There are other technically-assisted methods of reproduction since the 1970s. ” Fair enough.  I was thinking as opposed to asexual reproduction, but I think the topic here is putting penises into vaginas.  Or perhaps touching either of those with some other body part for any reason other than defecation or hygiene. You know, to rule out masturbation and oral sex.  I’m assuming you don’t approve of those either.

          • phantomreader42

             Your complete and utter inability to tell the truth under any circumstances for even a single instant is noted, TheodoreSeeber.  Every word out of your vile mouth is a self-serving lie.  Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? 

            • tedseeber

              No lies yet, unlike your worldview which is full of liars who can’t think for themselves and only know how to copy and paste.

              • phantomreader42

                 You’ve been caught in multiple lies, and you won’t even try to defend your idiocy because you know damn fucking well you’re full of shit.  All you can do is screech bullshit and pray to your impotent imaginary friend that people will be too distracted to notice that you’re a worthless waste of skin. 

          • coyotenose

             Your being a lying little sack of crap is also noted, Lying Little Sack of Crap. Enjoy remembering what a Lying Little Sack of Crap you are when you glance in the mirror while raging over not being able to mount an argument without being a Lying. Little. Sack. of. Crap.

        • James1_5

          Abortion is a VERY EASILY solved problem. KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Last I checked, slut-shaming doesn’t help.

      • Baby_Raptor

        That’s not a bad thing. Women ending pregnancies that they don’t want is only good. 

        • TheodoreSeeber

          The baby wants the pregnancy.

          • Zob

            You can’t “want” before you’re conscious.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              How do you know?  “Conscious” requires the ability to think and a soul, and cannot be proven in materialistic terms at all, and thus is a rather silly criteria.

              All beings, from single celled organisms on up, have an instinctual drive to survive.  Pre-born mammals need the mother’s womb to survive, just like you need air and water to survive.  Should we deny you air and water because you cannot prove that you are “conscious”?

              • Glasofruix

                  “Conscious” requires the ability to think and a soul

                Pretty sure only the ability to “think” is required, the imaginary mumbo jumbo is optionnal.

                Anyway, you shed more cells daily than an average abortion does, do you consider yourself a murderer?

                • tedseeber

                  As you defined think below, a silicon hard drive thinks.  Try again.

                • Glasofruix

                  My i ask you a question? Are you an idiot or a pathological internet troll?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

                   Trick question.  Both.

                • The Other Weirdo

                   I hate to bust in on this rather unorthodox and way-too exciting a discussion, and I just know I’m going to be called a misogynist and woman hater like I always do when these topics come up, but what the hells is a silicon hard drive?

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  I’ll give you a hint- there’s one inside the computer you are typing on.  When you define thought as merely regurgitation of fact, there are plenty of things in this world that think better than a human does.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  I’ll give you a hint- 
                  There’s no such thing as a “silicone hard drive”.  
                  We know what you’re talking about, but it’s not ‘silicone’.

              • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

                No such thing as a soul.  

                As for not being able to test if a person can think, we can give the person, oh what’s-the-word-for-it, you-know-you-give-them-a-series-of-questions-or-puzzles,…. oh yeah a ‘test’. 

                • tedseeber

                  So, because Google can answer questions on a test it can think and is therefore a person.

                  Congratulations, you just proved why lack of belief in souls is nonsense.

                • phantomreader42

                   Well, seeing as you have pitifully failed at every attempt to make any kind of argument, and displayed no ability to do anything but misrepresent the statements of others, you fail the Turing test and are therefore not a person.  You are, in fact, nothing more than a pile of excrement poorly sculpted into a crude mockery of a human form. 

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Now, now, excrement is at least useful (fertilizer!) — let’s not insult the fine feces of the world by comparing them to this guy.

                • The Other Weirdo

                   Google can answer questions on a test? When did that start? Why haven’t I received that memo?

              • coyotenose

                 Nothing about a person “requires” a soul. Consciousness is a complex metabolic process. You’re a dimwit in addition to being a lying little sack of crap.

                • tedseeber

                  And I suppose you can prove that?  Oh yeah, thinking is just what a silicon chip does.

          • phantomreader42

             It’s telling that you identify with an undeveloped parasite without a functioning brain, but deny the basic humanity of women.  That says a lot about what a vile piece of shit you are. 

  • Martin

    Are these pastors negating their tax-free status since they are entering politics now?  

    • coyotenose

       Yes, but the government won’t challenge them on it.

    • phantomreader42

      As I recall, they’re not allowed to ENDORSE a candidate and remain tax-exempt, and this particular pack of delusional death cultists aren’t endorsing a candidate, they’re  claiming BOTH candidates are unacceptable to the invisible man in the sky.  So whether these asshats are breaking the law might be a bit more of a gray area than the right-wing cults openly calling Obama (and ONLY Obama) the Antichrist. 

  • CelticWhisper

    It’s not as though Obama/Romney is the only choice.  There are at least 2 other candidates (Stein & Johnson), and perhaps others still that I (and, apparently, they) don’t know about.

    Voting third party is preferable to abstaining from the vote, because while non-voters can be written off as “Couldn’t be arsed to go to the polls,” third-party votes send more of a signal of “I care enough to vote and I think you both suck.”

    While I’m planning to cast a vote for Stein myself, it sounds to me like Gary Johnson would be their ideal candidate since he’s not explicitly pro-LGBT-rights (though, seriously, can’t they see the writing on the wall?  Christians have lost the “gay wars” in a big, bad way.) and is mostly let-the-states-decide on as much as possible.  Oh, and he’s not Mormon.  Because apparently that matters.  (Don’t get me wrong, Mormonism is batshit loony, but I don’t realistically expect that Romney would be able to get away with being “openly” Mormon in the face of national scrutiny.)

    • m6wg4bxw

      Your suggestion to use third-party candidates, as a way to express dissatisfaction, bothers me. 
      First, I am wholly against giving any candidate an unearned vote. No guessing; no popularity contest; no voting for to be on the winning team; no free votes. Second, whatever statement made by this action is necessarily a weak one. There is no way to discern which votes were earned by a third-party candidate, and the unearned votes s/he received which were meant to express dissatisfaction.Third, suppose enough people took your advice such that an undeserving third-party candidate won the election? Then what?

      Fourth, this method of expression depends upon third-party candidates. Without them, this method of expressing dissatisfaction with other candidates is unavailable.

      For a long time, I’ve thought that a “none of the above” option should be on ballots. It might should be worded differently (for example: “I care enough to vote, though I dislike all of  the candidates”). Since an option like this could be clearly worded, and fit for purpose, the message sent would be much more clear.

      • m6wg4bxw

        Pardon the ugliness in my previous post. I had it all in tidy paragraphs. I don’t know what went wrong.

        • Anonymous Atheist

          This commenting software has a habit of occasionally deciding to eat random line breaks.

      • CelticWhisper

         I see what you’re getting at.  Allow me to politely disagree with you on a few points though.

        1: This is fair enough, but for those of us who believe third-party candidates have earned their votes, not relevant.  Given that I was talking about voting third-party just because they’re third-party, though, I see where you’re coming from and agree insofar as it remains a matter of “The only criterion I’m voting by is that this person is not Obomney.”

        2. Yes and no.  True that individual votes can’t be backtraced to the voter unless the voter explicitly volunteers the information (which, even then, is unverifiable due to the nature of the secret ballot, voting machine hacking notwithstanding).  However, one potential accomplishment would be sending a message with numbers.  If the Republocrat candidates do much more poorly than anticipated as third parties consume a large portion of the votes, then the message can be strong enough that “People are pissed at you, you’re doing it wrong, shape up or ship out.”

        3. I submit that this is probably as much a matter of perspective as is Democrat voters thinking Republicans are undeserving and vice-versa.  We’ve had enough truly terrible presidents, however, from the main two parties that I’d be somewhat hard-pressed to expect a third-party president to do much worse, especially given that they’d have a vested interest in not screwing up since they already won against presumably steep odds.  I do see the problem, though, in having a president elected “accidentally” by a large contingent of apathetic or gratuitously-antipartisan voters who don’t actually vote based on political issues.

        4. True, but we have them now and might as well at least consider them in our voting strategies.

        I agree as well, though, that a “None of the above” option would be useful and a game-changer.  Probably a game-changer that (D) and (R) parties would NOT want to see come to pass.

    • http://twitter.com/KevinSagui Kevin Sagui

      Gary Johnson is explicitly pro-LGBT rights, and has been longer than Obama.  From his campaign page: “Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.”  That’s fairly explicit.

      • CelticWhisper

        Wow, I stand thoroughly corrected.  Good to hear that at least 2 out of the 4 main runners are pro-LGBT rights (and, yes, that Obama seems to be as well).

        Sucks for these preacher-creatures that their options are dwindling, but like I said before, christians really need to wake up and realize the gay-rights ship has sailed.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I saw this and thought “There are much better reasons not to vote for Obama than this”.  Killing random innocent people alongside terrorists at weddings seems an obvious choice.

    • coyotenose

       It sickens me that every other choice is even worse than that. Even the ones who are anti-war always turn out to be immensely fucked up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    Show me one statement where Obama, Biden, or their campaign have said they would fight for marriage equality. I haven’t seen it. They’ve expressed personal support and that is all, so I don’t know why it makes such a huge difference.

    • coyotenose

       I’ll venture that religionists are so used to trying to force their opinions on others through legislation that they have trouble imagining someone with power NOT doing that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

      Repealing DADT and part of DOMA. 

    • Stev84

      Marriage is mostly a state issue, so they can’t really fight for it a lot. At a federal level, they’ve done a lot for gay rights though. The DoJ is now actively litigating against DOMA. That’s huge.

  • Hello, my name is…

    The arguments used by opponents of gay marriage, including those used by pastors like these, are the same arguments that bigots used sixty years ago against blacks and interracial marriage. I’m a privileged white male. I should NOT understand this better than these community leaders.

    • coyotenose

       Also, grrr, that name was a joke, sorry. “Hello” is me.

      • coyotenose

         “Me” is Coyotenose. Damn you Patheos, update when I tell you!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705066677 Desiree Bell-Fowlks

    I can’t not believe what these pastors are doing.  The black community and others worked tirelessly with blood, sweat, and tears to fight for the right to vote.  Hoses and dogs were used against blacks trying to stand up for their right to vote.  Now these pastors want the black community to throw out the very right people died for.  Shame on them.

    • coyotenose

       I think Patheos ate my comment about how the arguments currently being used against gays and gay marriage are the same ones used in the 1950′s against blacks and interracial marriage. How do these pastors not know this?

      • MV

         Well, I imagine Rev. McKissic probably knows.  As the article notes, he is a Southern Baptist.  I can’t imagine how he functions due to the cognitive dissonance. My head is starting to hurt just thinking about it.

      • tedseeber

        Really?  Can you find a place that *anybody* ever said sex between a black and a white would never result in children?

        • Anonymous Atheist

          The comparison to interracial marriage opposition is due to the ‘it’s unnatural’ and ‘it’s against the bible’ arguments.

          Since many straight couples choose not to have children, or are physically incapable of having children, that’s beside the point. The homophobes are against gay/lesbian couples adopting unwanted children or using surrogacy/IVF, because they think they’re too ‘unnatural’/’unbiblical’ to be ‘allowed’ to raise children.

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          Actually, people argued that children of interracial marriages would be harmed, the same way that people still try to argue that children of same-sex marriages will be harmed. It’s the exact same “think of the children” rhetoric, used as cover for racism and homophobia.

        • coyotenose

           Anna and Anon already schooled you on this concept, so I’ll just add: Congratulations on being proud to be counted among Segregationists, Ted.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    This is one time I am a little ambivalent.  Personally, I don’t want this man to have a say in the government.  From his statement, it is evident that he is a world class ass.  The problem is that his lack of voting, gives other ass’s votes more power.   If this would were a prefect world, all evangelical Christians, black and white, would stay home, as it would be a sin for them to vote for a ‘Gay’ Obama and a Mormon Romney. 

  • A3Kr0n

    Isn’t Rev. A.R. Bernard breaking the law by telling people who (not) to vote for?

  • tedseeber

    80 years of all sides telling us that humans are worthless.  ALL else comes from that.  Either you are a vassal of the state or a vassal of private business, there ain’t no freedom either way.

    • JohnnieCanuck

      Strange that you would skip over the nearly 2000 years of being told that we are tainted with Sin before we are even born and that we are all miserable Sinners.

      The only way to escape this unverifiable condition pronounced on us by the Church, surprise, surprise, is to become a vassal of the Church.

  • Anonymous Atheist

    “Here’s a better idea for the members of those black congregations: Vote for Obama and get the hell out of those churches. Everybody wins.”

    Amen to that.

  • tedseeber

    As atheism proves, brains are worthless

    • Bcaveney9

       It certainly proved your brain is worthless.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      No… just you and your tiny little pea-sized brain.

      Fuck, my DEAD CAT could outmatch you in a battle of wits!

    • JohnnieCanuck

      Take yours out of storage. Who knows, someone might have a solvent that will be able to get all that religion gunk cleaned out and you’ll stop polluting everything you touch.

  • Roger

    Too bad there aren’t any other candidates, and there aren’t any other political parties in the US… (oh, and that’s called sarcasm, BTW.)

  • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

    Ted’s words are kinda hilarious considering the foundation of (most forms of) Christianity is that we are all born so intrinsically evil that we deserve eternal torture.

  • The Other Weirdo

    A bunch of years back, on the pilot for the TV series “Alien Nation”, one of the main characters called out a couple of black people who were demonstrating against  the alien kids being allowed to attend school with the regular, human kids, white and black. This was in the late ’80s. At the time, I thought it was overblown rhetoric. Now, 23 years later, I’m amazed at how prescient they were.

    • coyotenose

       Ack, nostalgia attack! That setting had so much beautiful social commentary, didn’t it?

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        I loved that show!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Leithiser/593361421 Chris Leithiser

    “When President Truman made the public statement on integrating the armed forces,
    I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he’s taking
    the nation,” 

    • coyotenose

       Oh snap.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FDGYHBEWVNGUG763L5X4TON3JQ Nazani14

    When their fellow churchgoers see them at the polls, they can always say they’re just voting for the lower offices on the ballot.

  • Findog53

    You all better hope they vote or you can kiss what you’ve fought for goodbye.

  • Monica Spangenberg

    Was that an actual Newsweek cover?
    This just confirms my belief that ANY Christian who judges, shames, blames, or criticizes – no matter WHAT their skin color is – just doesn’t really “get it”. What were the two things Jesus deemed were most important for those who would follow him? To love the lord God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as you would love yourself….

  • http://www.facebook.com/crossboy56 Andrew Bennett

    Not Voting will be a vote for Adolf Hitler

  • Plainlogic1

    Wow! Alot of people get angry if others don’t agree with their promiscuity. Why not practice safe sex until a person is ready emotionally and financially to have a child? Why are so many people quick to label someone who feels differently about a particular topic? Why are their’some’ abortions when condoms and personal responsibility would have easily prevented the unwanted pregnancy? Why are so many females quick to shout out, ‘ nobody tells me what to do with my body!’, when their very existence has been mandated by a pro-male government? It appears that when things go wrong it’s everyone else’s fault. You all need to stop name-calling, trying to proselytize others and take personal responsibility! If a person doesn’t have the common sense or they lack the responsibility necessary to make’adult’ decisions, then they should indeed be treated as a child and as such their lives and actions should be mandated accordingly.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X