|
|
First of all the book is a must read for any and all true Christians who want to be able to respond to those who try to make conservative Christian look mean. Powerful interview that will bless you.
THE STATE OF OUR GOVERNMENT-is A JUDGMENT FROM GOD.
dr. james white, a minister that i highly respect has nailed this issue as i have been trying to point out for years. every pastor, minister and christian laymen needs to pay close attention to his message here. allowing the secular media and liberal christian media to inform you about the state of our nation will deceive you. this video message by dr. white is eye opening.
|
The CHALLENGE of atheism and the christian response, this issue is one that the christian church is failing to properly and efficiently prepare their people to deal with and some are losing their faith as a result. we have the answers and the truth and that information must be provided to the church
|
These interviews with Kirk Cameron are great examples of how important it is for Christians to be sufficiently prepared to deal with atheist, liberal news reporters. Kirk means well but he failed to be ready and it cost him. While he did good, he could have done much better he had prepared better. See my commentary of these interviews below. Note, I did send my comments to Kirk but never received a reply. I know he is busy. Lets keep him in our prayers.
Kirk Cameron vs media on homosexuality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcaNqecbtyk
It is very important that when we as Christians are invited to appear on talk shows
that we learn all we can about the host, especially their religious and political views.
And we must bring our “A” game to such dialogues since they will be viewed by so
many and what we say cannot be retracted without embarrassment.
What happens to Kirk Cameron on far too many occasions is that he is too trusting
and to passive and leaves himself open for verbal sucker punches.
Please understand that this is not an attack on Brother Cameron whom I love,
respect and greatly admire for the work he is doing in ministry. It is only an
examination to see how we can best deal with those who try to silence us or make
our views look foolish or unloving or in any way misrepresent us.
The following examination of several of his and other interviews is presented as
helpful training lessons to help us better handle such interview situations should we
find ourselves in them either on the air or in private dialogues with hostiles.
PIERCE MORGAN SHOW
A classic example of what I am saying is the unfortunate exchange Kirk Cameron had with Pierce Morgan that resulted in such an outcry against Cameron.
When Pierce Morgan asked Kirk Cameron if homosexuality was a sin, it was a yes or no question and Kirk should have just said “yes” and forced Pierce Morgan to press the issue. Instead he went into details that he did not have to bring up and opened the door for misinterpretation and misapplication by the host and the many watching who were looking for a reason to accuse him of being a “homophobe”.
When Pierce Morgan asked Kirk Cameron what he would do if his son came and told him he was homosexual Kirk Cameron again went into too much detail. A simple statement that he would have a series of heart to heart and mind to mind discussions with him to understand how he came to that point and the ramifications of such decisions, and make sure he was doing well health wise, would have been sufficient. This would have forced Pierce Moran to press for more details and Kirk Cameron would have been in control of the dialogue. Instead Kirk Cameron made the mistake of assuming his host’s personal reply to the same situation (not knowing Morgan’s views), and was corrected and came off “seeming” less understanding and caring than his host. Additionally, Kirk Cameron allowed the hosts reply that he would tell his son it was great as long as he was happy- to go unchallenged. Kirk Cameron could have turned the table on Pierce Morgan and forced him to juxtapose his stated comment with loving his son, knowing the dangers involved. This would have eventually forced him into a dialogue on homosexual medical conditions and what morality is and where it is derived from and a number of key religious and philosophical questions that Pierce Moran was not willing or capable of handling. Homosexuals and their supporters don’t like focusing on the medical issues directly related to the homosexual orientation in such discussions.
When Pierce Morgan said that some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin, is incredibly destructive, Kirk Cameron should have replied “would that group include you?” Yes would no doubt be the reply. Cameron could have then challenged Pierce Morgan to explain what he based his conclusions on and forced him to commit to a standard of logic so that everyone would then here how he defends his world view and the weak foundation it rests on. I would have answered his comment about seven cities passing same sex marriage (SSM) laws, “what does that have to do with determining if it is right or wrong?” I would also say that more than 40 have not, so why is the small minority making laws for the majority to abide by? I would say “perhaps you can explain to me and the viewer’s why an atheist can be offended by a religious jester or statement that was a part of our nation’s founding principle and the courts can tell the majority not to make the jester or statement because you will offend the few who reject those principles?” And if he tries to slip past me by saying we are not discussing atheism, I would say “we were not discussing homosexuality until you injected it, but the points are connected, homosexuals are trying to force us to adopt a perspective and law that is opposed to our majority convictions and our nation’s founding principles and yet the courts stacked with liberals, homosexuals and atheists are illogically and in my opinion, illegally siding with the minority against the majority. The question is why? There is something seriously wrong with how our government, our schools and our religious institutions are being corrupted by immoral, atheistic and sudo-Christian individuals and organizations. Do you really want to talk about this?”
If Cameron was prepared to discuss this in detail, Morgan’s request for clarity would be an invitation to expose the truth. Morgan would only do so if he thought that he could refute such comments, but being prepared would deflate Morgan’s attempts. This is something Kirk Cameron could have done.
THE TODAY INTERVIEW WITH ANN CURRY
Ann Curry asked Kirk Cameron if he felt that he was encouraging people to hate “gay” people, Cameron gave a good answer when he pointed out that his comment was reduced to an inappropriate sound bite and did not reflect his feelings about how homosexuals should be treated, but Cameron failed to turn the table on Curry and catch her in her clear attempt to make it a one sided -protect the “gays”- from your negative views conversation. It is so clear that she asked him the same question after he had already answered only adding if he felt any responsibility for saying what he said about homosexuals, that it might encourage people to feel that it is okay to mistreat “gay” people, so Cameron should have expressed surprise at her question and asked her why she would consider objection to homosexuality and considering it a sin to be encouraging hate or mistreatment towards homosexuals. This would have forced her to defend her line of questioning and placed her on a defensive that would reveal her illogical view. To even make it more difficult for her he could have added, “if I had said the same thing about pedophiles or people who practiced having sex with animals would you have asked me the same question or would there have been the same backlash?”. It would have also given Cameron the opportunity to point out just how effective the homosexual activists have been in shaping how she and people like her think about simple comments that should not have resulted in the kind of backlash that it did. It would certainly have stopped her from proceeding in the direction she was going, knowing she would have to defend her line of questioning. And when she repeated her question, he could have pointed that out and then giving her a history lesson on the media’s one sided handling of the topic and the strangle hold homosexuals seem to have on the media which is in part due to their extensive presence behind and in front of the camera. The conversation would have quickly turned against Ann Curry and would not have served her purpose. She would have quickly moved on to something else.
Ann Curry then had the nerve to ask Cameron why he said those things knowing that it is going to cause people to “push back”. Cameron should have again turned the table on her expressing surprise at her question, and asked why he should avoid answering direct questions that are being curiously asked by his interviewers, because his answer would offend a group of people who disagree with his views. And he could have asked her why she had not acknowledged the real issue which is why did Pierce Morgan ask the in the first place knowing what I might say and the kind of “push back” that would occur? This would again force her to see the imbalance of thought involved and would have allowed him to again point out the faulty thinking that has resulted from effective homosexual activism. Why is it that rather than being able to intelligently discuss our differing views, we Christians have to endure being considered “homophobic”, “bigots” and hate mongers while homosexuals are viewed as the victims? And why do intelligent people allow unintelligent words like “homophobic” and misapplied words like “bigot” and “hate” to be so freely used by homosexual and pro-homosexuals?
I don’t think Ann Curry would have pressed that matter any further.
that we learn all we can about the host, especially their religious and political views.
And we must bring our “A” game to such dialogues since they will be viewed by so
many and what we say cannot be retracted without embarrassment.
What happens to Kirk Cameron on far too many occasions is that he is too trusting
and to passive and leaves himself open for verbal sucker punches.
Please understand that this is not an attack on Brother Cameron whom I love,
respect and greatly admire for the work he is doing in ministry. It is only an
examination to see how we can best deal with those who try to silence us or make
our views look foolish or unloving or in any way misrepresent us.
The following examination of several of his and other interviews is presented as
helpful training lessons to help us better handle such interview situations should we
find ourselves in them either on the air or in private dialogues with hostiles.
PIERCE MORGAN SHOW
A classic example of what I am saying is the unfortunate exchange Kirk Cameron had with Pierce Morgan that resulted in such an outcry against Cameron.
When Pierce Morgan asked Kirk Cameron if homosexuality was a sin, it was a yes or no question and Kirk should have just said “yes” and forced Pierce Morgan to press the issue. Instead he went into details that he did not have to bring up and opened the door for misinterpretation and misapplication by the host and the many watching who were looking for a reason to accuse him of being a “homophobe”.
When Pierce Morgan asked Kirk Cameron what he would do if his son came and told him he was homosexual Kirk Cameron again went into too much detail. A simple statement that he would have a series of heart to heart and mind to mind discussions with him to understand how he came to that point and the ramifications of such decisions, and make sure he was doing well health wise, would have been sufficient. This would have forced Pierce Moran to press for more details and Kirk Cameron would have been in control of the dialogue. Instead Kirk Cameron made the mistake of assuming his host’s personal reply to the same situation (not knowing Morgan’s views), and was corrected and came off “seeming” less understanding and caring than his host. Additionally, Kirk Cameron allowed the hosts reply that he would tell his son it was great as long as he was happy- to go unchallenged. Kirk Cameron could have turned the table on Pierce Morgan and forced him to juxtapose his stated comment with loving his son, knowing the dangers involved. This would have eventually forced him into a dialogue on homosexual medical conditions and what morality is and where it is derived from and a number of key religious and philosophical questions that Pierce Moran was not willing or capable of handling. Homosexuals and their supporters don’t like focusing on the medical issues directly related to the homosexual orientation in such discussions.
When Pierce Morgan said that some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin, is incredibly destructive, Kirk Cameron should have replied “would that group include you?” Yes would no doubt be the reply. Cameron could have then challenged Pierce Morgan to explain what he based his conclusions on and forced him to commit to a standard of logic so that everyone would then here how he defends his world view and the weak foundation it rests on. I would have answered his comment about seven cities passing same sex marriage (SSM) laws, “what does that have to do with determining if it is right or wrong?” I would also say that more than 40 have not, so why is the small minority making laws for the majority to abide by? I would say “perhaps you can explain to me and the viewer’s why an atheist can be offended by a religious jester or statement that was a part of our nation’s founding principle and the courts can tell the majority not to make the jester or statement because you will offend the few who reject those principles?” And if he tries to slip past me by saying we are not discussing atheism, I would say “we were not discussing homosexuality until you injected it, but the points are connected, homosexuals are trying to force us to adopt a perspective and law that is opposed to our majority convictions and our nation’s founding principles and yet the courts stacked with liberals, homosexuals and atheists are illogically and in my opinion, illegally siding with the minority against the majority. The question is why? There is something seriously wrong with how our government, our schools and our religious institutions are being corrupted by immoral, atheistic and sudo-Christian individuals and organizations. Do you really want to talk about this?”
If Cameron was prepared to discuss this in detail, Morgan’s request for clarity would be an invitation to expose the truth. Morgan would only do so if he thought that he could refute such comments, but being prepared would deflate Morgan’s attempts. This is something Kirk Cameron could have done.
THE TODAY INTERVIEW WITH ANN CURRY
Ann Curry asked Kirk Cameron if he felt that he was encouraging people to hate “gay” people, Cameron gave a good answer when he pointed out that his comment was reduced to an inappropriate sound bite and did not reflect his feelings about how homosexuals should be treated, but Cameron failed to turn the table on Curry and catch her in her clear attempt to make it a one sided -protect the “gays”- from your negative views conversation. It is so clear that she asked him the same question after he had already answered only adding if he felt any responsibility for saying what he said about homosexuals, that it might encourage people to feel that it is okay to mistreat “gay” people, so Cameron should have expressed surprise at her question and asked her why she would consider objection to homosexuality and considering it a sin to be encouraging hate or mistreatment towards homosexuals. This would have forced her to defend her line of questioning and placed her on a defensive that would reveal her illogical view. To even make it more difficult for her he could have added, “if I had said the same thing about pedophiles or people who practiced having sex with animals would you have asked me the same question or would there have been the same backlash?”. It would have also given Cameron the opportunity to point out just how effective the homosexual activists have been in shaping how she and people like her think about simple comments that should not have resulted in the kind of backlash that it did. It would certainly have stopped her from proceeding in the direction she was going, knowing she would have to defend her line of questioning. And when she repeated her question, he could have pointed that out and then giving her a history lesson on the media’s one sided handling of the topic and the strangle hold homosexuals seem to have on the media which is in part due to their extensive presence behind and in front of the camera. The conversation would have quickly turned against Ann Curry and would not have served her purpose. She would have quickly moved on to something else.
Ann Curry then had the nerve to ask Cameron why he said those things knowing that it is going to cause people to “push back”. Cameron should have again turned the table on her expressing surprise at her question, and asked why he should avoid answering direct questions that are being curiously asked by his interviewers, because his answer would offend a group of people who disagree with his views. And he could have asked her why she had not acknowledged the real issue which is why did Pierce Morgan ask the in the first place knowing what I might say and the kind of “push back” that would occur? This would again force her to see the imbalance of thought involved and would have allowed him to again point out the faulty thinking that has resulted from effective homosexual activism. Why is it that rather than being able to intelligently discuss our differing views, we Christians have to endure being considered “homophobic”, “bigots” and hate mongers while homosexuals are viewed as the victims? And why do intelligent people allow unintelligent words like “homophobic” and misapplied words like “bigot” and “hate” to be so freely used by homosexual and pro-homosexuals?
I don’t think Ann Curry would have pressed that matter any further.
The O'Reilly interview with Kirk Cameron
Here brother Cameron is in friendly territory and the host clearly not out to embarrass or use Cameron to inflame the homosexual activist community.
But here still, an opportunity to set the record straight about what is really going on with the same sex marriage and homosexual agenda was missed.
But here still, an opportunity to set the record straight about what is really going on with the same sex marriage and homosexual agenda was missed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lOfSNtKpxo
When O’Reilly asked Cameron how he would respond to a homosexual claiming that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, Cameron’s reply basically was that it comes down to who defines marriage and since only God can and did define marriage as being between a man and woman and no one can redefine marriage without causing damage to society. He failed to address the direct question of same sex marriage being a civil right. He made it a religion issue only which means nothing to a non-religious homosexual or straight individual.
Cameron could have addressed the fact that they have to define what they mean by civil rights since nothing that their orientation is based on has anything to do with civil rights.
Mychal Massie - chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21, made the point well when he stated:
“Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle.
Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.
Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one’s behavior and being unable to change the color of one’s skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country[1]
It is wrong for homosexuals to attempt to ride the civil rights train when they don’t qualify, and it is disrespectful to those groups of people who justly struggle for civil rights.
O’Reilly, prudently replied that a person who was not religious would contend that you can’t make laws based on what God said and asked Cameron how he would reply.
Cameron answered that we can make laws based on the majority rule and the majority want traditional marriage so it stays. While partly true, it is not wise to argue from that bases because it assumes that all law is based on majority opinion and will and that is not true.
Laws are established for the protection and benefit of the masses and are not always the result of the majority desire but of well thought out concerns to benefit all people. Additionally, given the significant influence that homosexuals have in media politics and education, it is quite possible that someday the majority will demand not only same sex marriage but a number of other godless changes that are now deemed unacceptable by societies’ standard. So it is much wiser to argue from a Constitutional - Republic base.
Cameron focused on the will of the majority, enforced by laws upheld by the courts, but O’Reilly understanding the problem, prudently asked Cameron about the possibility of the courts taking the initiative to change bad law when they are wrong and oppressive as they were in the sixties, hinting at how homosexual activist use the courts today. Cameron was unable to answer and acknowledged his ignorance of the political perspective and stayed on the religious perspective. This was unfortunate, because today more than ever, Christian leaders need to be well versed in current politics because it affects our everyday lives.
All Kirk needed to point out was that there are already laws in place that protect homosexual from any civil right violations, but orientation is not protected under civil rights laws nor should it be. Then he could have pointed out that what homosexual activists are trying to gain is special rights for their orientation and they want the government to put them in place and enforce them. That is not the governments job.
Homosexuality and the Bible
My hope is that brother Cameron applies himself to become more capable of handling the tough questions and attacks from hostile host on talk show.
O’Reilly was a friendly host and it was a good training opportunity for Cameron, but there will surely be more future show situations where Kirk Cameron will find himself in a set up situation and he will have to be ready to do intellectual battle and come out with his integrity intact.
Rest assure that when he does become proficient in his politics, the law and the art of debate to compliment his knowledge of the Bible, hostile host will no longer want to invite him to their Christian roasts.
[1] Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. “Homosexuality is not a civil right” 2007
When O’Reilly asked Cameron how he would respond to a homosexual claiming that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, Cameron’s reply basically was that it comes down to who defines marriage and since only God can and did define marriage as being between a man and woman and no one can redefine marriage without causing damage to society. He failed to address the direct question of same sex marriage being a civil right. He made it a religion issue only which means nothing to a non-religious homosexual or straight individual.
Cameron could have addressed the fact that they have to define what they mean by civil rights since nothing that their orientation is based on has anything to do with civil rights.
Mychal Massie - chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21, made the point well when he stated:
“Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and the desegregation of public facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle.
Homosexuals and cross-dressers may in fact be a lot of things, but an oppressed minority they are not. And I, for one, resent their temerity in suggesting that a rejection of their chosen lifestyle is in any way equivalent to what truly oppressed peoples in this country went through for the right to vote, sit at a lunch counter and/or stay in the hotel of their choice.
Homosexuals are not immutable – there is a difference between refusing to change one’s behavior and being unable to change the color of one’s skin. They are no more economically deprived than others, and they certainly do not have a history of political and historical powerlessness. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a civil right. Homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies per capita in the country[1]
It is wrong for homosexuals to attempt to ride the civil rights train when they don’t qualify, and it is disrespectful to those groups of people who justly struggle for civil rights.
O’Reilly, prudently replied that a person who was not religious would contend that you can’t make laws based on what God said and asked Cameron how he would reply.
Cameron answered that we can make laws based on the majority rule and the majority want traditional marriage so it stays. While partly true, it is not wise to argue from that bases because it assumes that all law is based on majority opinion and will and that is not true.
Laws are established for the protection and benefit of the masses and are not always the result of the majority desire but of well thought out concerns to benefit all people. Additionally, given the significant influence that homosexuals have in media politics and education, it is quite possible that someday the majority will demand not only same sex marriage but a number of other godless changes that are now deemed unacceptable by societies’ standard. So it is much wiser to argue from a Constitutional - Republic base.
Cameron focused on the will of the majority, enforced by laws upheld by the courts, but O’Reilly understanding the problem, prudently asked Cameron about the possibility of the courts taking the initiative to change bad law when they are wrong and oppressive as they were in the sixties, hinting at how homosexual activist use the courts today. Cameron was unable to answer and acknowledged his ignorance of the political perspective and stayed on the religious perspective. This was unfortunate, because today more than ever, Christian leaders need to be well versed in current politics because it affects our everyday lives.
All Kirk needed to point out was that there are already laws in place that protect homosexual from any civil right violations, but orientation is not protected under civil rights laws nor should it be. Then he could have pointed out that what homosexual activists are trying to gain is special rights for their orientation and they want the government to put them in place and enforce them. That is not the governments job.
Homosexuality and the Bible
- "I Now Pronounce You Man and Husband?": An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage
- What is the Definition of the "Definition" of Marriage?
- Marriage by Any Other Name is Still Marriage
- What Single-Parenting Can Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
- The Marriage Amendment: No Rights Are Being Taken Away
- The Same-Sex Marriage Debate: Who Has the Burden of Proof?
My hope is that brother Cameron applies himself to become more capable of handling the tough questions and attacks from hostile host on talk show.
O’Reilly was a friendly host and it was a good training opportunity for Cameron, but there will surely be more future show situations where Kirk Cameron will find himself in a set up situation and he will have to be ready to do intellectual battle and come out with his integrity intact.
Rest assure that when he does become proficient in his politics, the law and the art of debate to compliment his knowledge of the Bible, hostile host will no longer want to invite him to their Christian roasts.
[1] Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. “Homosexuality is not a civil right” 2007