Eat a queer fetus for Jesus - abortion extremists in SD crash a family-friendly event

[…] But at least I don't post this kind of crap on my site. […]

WAKE UP SOUTH DAKOTA is right!! The deception…I cant even describe it. We need to be on our knees for the LIFE issue…for the state of South Dakota…and we need people to rise up and BE the body of Christ in this state BEFORE the election! Pray for GOOD GOVERNMENT. Pray for JUST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. Pray for GOD FEARING GOVERNMENT.

[…] who crashed the Lifelight Festival. Pardon the title but the article is even more shocking… eat a queer fetus for Jesus. These are a just few of the headlines that caught my attention today and my discussion […]

These people are no more mainstream than the Westboro Baptist Church. The fact that you even give them attention amazes me. Doing so only ncourages them.
Another one of these "movements" you might find entertaining is called the Voluntary Human Extinction Project. It's just a bunch of kooks no one takes seriously.

sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] –noun
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

Wow, does no one have a sense of humor? My father is a pastor (of the anti-gay, anti-choice variety) and he finds my shirt quite funny. Apparently none of you understand satire. And, just to set the record straight (since I know you guys like everything/one to be that way) I had never heard of the CoE before reading this post. I came up with and made the shirt myself, and I wear it as a satirical response to so-called Christians who believe they know the mind of god. To point out the satire to people who asked me about the shirt I told them that, since god apparently doesn't like people to be gay and we know that people are gay from birth we should just end the scourge before it begins. I thought this would make the satire obvious, but apparently it is the view of some christians. One of the anti-choice pro-theocracy worker's response was "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." That is correct: A fellow working a booth that was arguing women shouldn't make their own medical decisions said that it made sense to eat gay fetuses. I know it has to be a difficult choice when you are weighing your desire to force people to ignore the way god made them against your desire to force women to make babies, but, I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I wear the shirt as a joke, anti-choice group takes it seriously and even says "that makes sense" and their fellow anti-choicers say that I am extremist. Wow.

Clark - at that level of dark and offensive it ceases to be an acceptable form of satire. I didn't see the shirt so perhaps it's home made. But I don't believe for a second you came up with that phrase. Have your dad call me. Wow.

I was the one who made the initial comment - be your shirt homemade or not, it was not a form of satire it was a form of offense; especially considering I have very close loved ones who are gay. You can say what you want but nothing about you spoke LOVE. You can give anything a spin to where people may comment "That makes sense". The truth is, your shirt and you were offensive. Don't try to play this as a joke. I too have a hard time believing you came up with the phrase.

People like Clark will be used mightily by God down the road. Let's bet that in 10 years, he will be a preacher, operating fully in the gifts of the Spirit - miracles, signs and wonders. I have a co-worker, who was a full blown aetheist, stirring up fires in his college days, but God grabbed ahold of him and now he is on fire and serving the Lord - teaching children to be God-fearing. He faces alot of warfare, of course, as the enemy tries to distract the kids.

May God grab hold of Clark's heart. We love you, bro!

Blessings to all!

Pastor Steve, this is truly a troubling post. What a disgusting 'slogan' showing how defiled their mind really is.

CoE ? You've used this abbreviation before.

Clark, you are not telling the truth about never having heard of this group.

I actually haven't heard of them. I did some research after seeing them on your site. I like to research things and get the truth before just posting stuff on the web.

Satire is supposed to be offensive. By definition (which I kindly posted for you above) satire contains ridicule and sarcasm in order to deride vice. This means it is offensive, especially to the subjects of the satire.

Joel - A disturbing mind is not one who makes a joke, but someone working an anti-choice booth who said that it made sense to eat gay fetuses.

Also, as a side note, every gay person I've met who has seen the shirt thought it was hilarious. Apparently gay people appreciate satire when they see it.

Clark, I was just wondering why you were no where to be found when security personnel were present in the vendor tent? Why you would show your face again when the coast was once again clear, and on top of that hand out material against the rules set forth by the festival which you were attending.

It would appear that you are trying to do nothing more then draw attention to yourself by peddling someone else’s slogan and twisted view of Gods word.
In case you’re unclear about the bible you claim to read, it says thou shall not kill. That seems to be clear enough to me.

You claim to have all these folks who think your shirt is humorous. I suggest you invite a few of them to come here and post their thoughts. I in no way find that statement to have any humor at all. As a mater of fact I find it so offensive that I won’t repeat it here. I would encourage you to wear it down to David’s this Friday night and see what kind of response you get. How about wearing it to any church here in South Dakota this Sunday and see what sort of feed back you get.

Thus far you have had a canned response to a canned quote which your trying to uphold on the on an unstable foundation of a skewed view of the Bible. I believe that you are so enveloped in the things of this world that you are no longer able to differentiate between what you have read on the internet and what are actually your own original thoughts.

I pray that the scales would fall from your eyes, and that your vision would be clear. That you truly understand that an unborn child is just that, a child, a creation of God, and also that homosexual people are as equally loved by God as heterosexual people. Every human on this planet does things God hates, but keep in mind that it’s action he hates, not the person. God loves you as much as he does me, and Joe Blow down on the street corner. WE are all equal in his eyes. Sin is sin and is punishable by death, but by his sacrifice we are forgiven, you, me and Joe…

God Bless you brother, I am sorry that you and I were unable to meet. I wish we could have prayed together.

Steven, sadly more than just South Dakota needs to wake up. It would appear that this onslaught of the enemy of our souls has caught the Church spiritually 'napping' while it ravages our unborn children. You have an ally who stands with you strong in prayer no matter how far apart we might be geographically. Keep up the good fight my friend!

Complete Faith, I commend your response to the article. I love the way you articulate the position of faith. God loves us all equally. We are not in a battle against homosexuals, nor are we in a battle against Clark. There is a larger enemy as I stated above, and we must wage the right warfare against the right enemy in order to be effective. We continue to pray.

The reason I did not continue to hand out flyers after I was asked not to is because I respect the rules. I was unaware that LifeLight had a policy against handing out literature and once I was informed of the policy I stopped. What strikes me is that people from the anti-choice booth actively went and found a security personel to tell me to stop. What was it about the literature they did not like? Was it the quotes from the Bible saying that fetuses were not life? There was nothing in the literature that was not taken directly from the Bible. Why did this group go out and find someone to make me stop handing out Biblical quotes? What are they trying to hide?

As a side note, I have worn the shirt to many gay bars. In fact, I even wore it to a national convention for an LBGT group. And all I got was compliments and hearty laughs. So far the only people who have had a negative reaction were anti-gay groups.

And if God loves gay people but hates their actions, why did he create them with the innate desire to love people of the same sex? That seems more like cruelty than love.

Clark - show me the reference in the Bible to fetuses not being life?

Read this - http://www.voicescarryblog.com/is-abortion-wrong-–-part-two/

How would I be welcome in those welcoming gay bars if I wore a shirt offensive to them?? They aren't so "inclusive" after all are they? In fact, they are highly intolerant.

You'd be welcome in our church and around all our people. We'd tell you to change shirts just like the public school would. It's highly offensive. Get a clue.

There is deliverance for you. Contact me when you weary of the gay lifestyle and I'll tell you more. God loves you.

Honestly, you approached my wife in the vote yes both… I was working security, she told me about it before I was actually working. It was not until you approached someone else in the both and were confronted by that person was security officially alerted.

I would invite you to argue your prospective on why an unborn child is not a life based on the bible, right here on this blog, with Pastor Steve's permission of course.

Clark, your logic is a little tiresome! If you were handing out pro-Republican literature at a Democratic convention and were asked to desist, it wouldn't be bacause the Democrats had something to hide, it would simply be proper manners and decorum.

Secondly, it's been said over and over again, if you have a faulty premise, you will arrive at a faulty conclusion. Your contention that God made "gay" people "gay" is shoddy thinking and does not in any way line up with the very Bible scriptures that you claim you were distributing at the Lifelight event.

Finally, you claim to respect the rules, but the truth is that you only respect them to the extent that they work for you. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life for unborn children, choose to call ourselves pro-life. That is our rule. In every single one of your diatribes you have referred to us as anti-choice. By your arcane logic should we therefore refer to you as pro-death?

Just a few thoughts for you to think through.

By the way, Clark, as an aside, why do you hide who you are by not providing a link. Judging from how much time you have to comment on the blog, I would suspect that you spend a fair amount of time on the internet and probably have some sort of reference to who you are.

Clark - I completely support your efforts to hand out pamphlets. This is a free country, and you could have fought to be there, but showed incredible amounts of respect for leaving when asked. I think it is hypocritical that pro-life groups can distribute materials at Life Light (I no longer live there, but remember when my sister came home with the red tape saying "life" - she since destroyed it when she realized what she was doing). Why is everybody so afraid of a differing opinion? Can't we both present arguments and let the educated public decide for themselves? If you believe your belief to be true, you should not be afraid - truth will be exposed.
By the way, republican groups do distribute literature at democratic gatherings. I was part of one of those groups before I came to my senses and became a democrat (and there were protesters at the DNC who were hoping to get arrested - listen to the news).
I don't think Clark should include any links to his existence on the web. Why would Clark want to be persecuted by extremists who hate dissent?

Why the fetus is not a human life, based solely on the Bible:
In Mosaic law the standard for criminal punishment was "life for life, Eye for Eye, tooth for tooth…" Ex 21:25. A couple of verses before this there is a discussion of punishment is to be given for different scenarios. If a women has a miscarriage because of a fight the man who caused it should be fined, but if she dies, the culprit must be killed. The Bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, not the expulsion of a fetus.
According to the Bible life begins when a baby draws its first breath: Genesis 2:7. Jewish law traditionally held that personhood begins at birth. Also, Christian western law has always traditionally held the same.
Many anti-choice groups quote the sixth commandment, but if you read any of the Old Testament it is clear that "Thou shalt not kill" applied only to a small group of people*.
Most scholars and translators agree that the injunction against killing forbade only the murder of Hebrews. It was open season on everyone else, including children, pregnant women and newborn babies**.
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" Psalm 137:9 Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage.

As a side note: spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions, as often as 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history.

*A few people the sixth commandment doesn't cover:
Ex 21:17, Deut 21:18-21, Lev 20:12, Numbers 15:32-35, Numbers 25:4-9, 2 Kings 2:23-24, Ex 12:29
**A small sampling of biblical commandments to kill children:
Numbers 31:17, Deut 2:34, Deut 28:53, I Sam 15:4, 2 Kings 8:12, 2 Kings 15:16, Is 13:16, Is 13:18, Lam 2:20, Ez 9:6, Hosea 9:14, Hosea 13:16.

Clark - The Exodus passage says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are interpreting it to say… the passage is saying that if the baby is born prematurely and there is no injury… just a fine is imposed or whatever the court demands. But life for life if the child dies.

You statements are just flat false. Christian western law charges people with TWO murders if a pregnant woman is killed. This just hit the news today….

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_county/bal-fetus0908,0,1384695.story

Didn't you read what I referred you to earlier?? It appears you are only reading the propaganda from liberal clergy who are ok killing judicially innocent children.

http://www.voicescarryblog.com/is-abortion-wrong-–-part-two/

Only a small liberal stream of Judaism held to delayed ensoulment up until QUICKENING, Clark. AND NEVER DID THEY SUGGEST PERSONHOOD BEGINS AT BIRTH as you say above. You are butchering Jewish tradition.

And you are very confused on the Biblical differences between judicially innocent and guilty shed blood and the shed blood of just war. Your list of passages commanding children to be killed is remarkable to me - you fully divorce ALL these passages from their theological context to get them to back your point. Look deeper Clark - why did God command all the cattle, people, children etc cleansed from the idolatrous land??? Was it really, as you suggest, because God is okay killing babies? Or, Clark, is there another point to glean as to why God would order a land wiped clean of any trace of an idolatrous people?

Psalm 137:9 is about God's judgment on wicked Babylon and how the sin of Babylon will result in God judging everyone severely - even their infants would not escape the judgment on the nation. Again, this passage does not teach God is okay with US killing our children.

No the Deity isn't the greatest abortionist in history - he gives and takes ALL life whenever he wants. We are not his judge. But he will judge us for taking his place as the taker of life.

You were not able to produce one passage that says a fetus isn't a human being. I'm going to save your comments here because they are classic butchery of the Word of God by people desperate to justify the butchering of unborn children. God help you.

What translation do you have? I've checked three and all of them are pretty clear on the Exodus passage: if the fetus dies because someone hit the woman the criminal must pay a fine, if the woman dies he must be put to death. Did you translate this yourself to come up with your "interpretation"?

And if someone respects life they would not order innocent children to be slaughtered because of supposed "sins" of their parents, albeit god or man. Isn't this exactly what the terrorists of 9/11 did when they slaughtered Americans living in sin? How are they any different then the Hebrews of the Old Testament? They both justify killing innocent men, women, and children by orders from their god to cleanse the land.

Trust me, traditionally western law has not recognized the fetus as a human until first breath. There have been recent changes as anti-choice groups push to change hundreds of years of precedent to fit their own twisted "traditional" values. If they are traditional then why have the courts followed other values for hundreds of years? Having taken Criminal Law in an actual law school I have read the opinions and laws so I know that this is the case. But your desire to force women into subserviance and your desire to force your beliefs on everyone else must overrule any tendency towards the truth.

I find myself wondering how many years a precedent has to stand before it becomes infallible…

I also wonder what the definition of "partial birth" is, as in partial birth abortion. Is that a breath in, but no exhale? or maybe it's just a shallow breath.

Isn't it a fact that baby's don't breath right away. I know this is true for watherbirth babies. So in your definition it would be ok to abort the child up to the point of the first breath, after it has left the mothers body? I wonder if you’re also ok with the standard procedure of ripping the child apart piece by piece or if you would prefer something more humane.

22And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate. 23But if mischief happen, then thou shalt give life for life,

22 “Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely.[a] If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,

22"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm,[a] then you shall pay life for life,

Footnotes:
[a] Exodus 21:22 Hebrew reads so her children come out - born prematurely, or miscarry

I'll walk you through the word study Clark/// The Hebrew word can either mean premature birth where the child lives or a miscarriage. The context solves the ambiguity - not a life for life penalty in vs 22 means the child was born but lived. Until verse 23, then the child clearly died - then it's life for life.

For every liberal Bible commentary you find that interprets it your way, I'll show you three that interpret it the opposite. You don't not have the weight of scholarship on your view.

Here's the deal in terms of your Bible interpretation method. You have found the only passage that could possibly be interpreted to say what you want it to say but in order to get to your conclusion you first have to cross out and cancel a dozen other unambiguous texts regarding the personhood of the unborn. But you don't care about that - you have wickedness you are desperate to find justification for.

Clark - glad you've taken a law class - so have I. You are wrong. Blame pro-lifers? Wild.

Are you now God's judge that you can question his respect for life? his ways are a bit higher than your ways - how long he lets sinful people live in defiance of him is fully his prerogative. You are all over the place with your reasoning. Are terrorists now the same as a coalition of nations fighting terrorists?

Don't answer my questions because I'm moving on now from my dialog with you on this post Blessings to you.

Psalm 139:13
"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb."

I was a PERSON (as in a real, human being) in my mother's womb, according to God.

By the way - The word 'fetus' comes from the Latin for 'offspring.' (Not, 'an inhuman, non-person.') Justification for the murder of innocent children is sadly and horrifyingly based on semantics.

You're treating these people like they are not fully aware of their hilarity.

Steve,
Are you familiary with the First Amendment? I didn't think so.

Seneca/klangsteiner - Do you think the First Amendment covers my right to preach Romans 1 regarding homosexuality being a sin? Or is that a hate crime,,,, forbidden speech?  My favorite part of the First Amendment is the part about the free exercise of religion.  Do you like that part?