32 Responses to “Tea Party guru blasts Muslims’ ‘Monkey god’”

1. José Says:
   May 20th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

   Wow. If the Tea Party folks ever want to lose their image as a bunch of loud, intolerant nuts then they need to muzzle this fellow. The things that he has said are amazing. KY GOP senatorial candidate Dr. Rand Paul has a similar problem right now, and it’s because people are finding out what he really stands for.

   Notice that Williams did apologize for his “monkey god” statement…to Hindus! Lord Hanuman is a respected and loved deity in the Hindu faith, and he is in fact a monkey. But where does he get this “monkey god” business? I wonder if he confused Hinduism with Islam. That wouldn’t be much of an excuse, though, because it would show just how ill-informed he was.

2. Caleb Powers Says:
   May 20th, 2010 at 3:40 pm

   The teabaggers are cultural hegemonists and racists of the highest order, Rand Paul included. Otherwise, they wouldn’t attract so many racists and anti-Semites, none of whom they ever seem to call out. They are Archie Bunker personified, without the humor.

3. Christopher Johnson Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 10:24 am

   ALL Tea Partiers are racists? Nice broad brush ya got there. Since thugs like SEIU exclusively back Democrats and since Democrats back statist solutions like the health care monstrosity, I guess you’d be offended if I declared that ALL Democrats were brownshirts or closet Marxists.

   By the way, you do know what “teabagging” is, don’t you? It’s a bizarre form of sexual expression that I understand is popular among homosexuals so it seems a bit strange to apply such a term to the Tea Partiers.

4. Justin Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 11:34 am

   Not sure what he is getting at with the monkey god description, but his larger point is correct: the religion of Islam does encourage terrorism. A casual perusal of their holy book confirms that. The terrorists aren’t making it up, they are more than happy to show you exactly which Koranic passages they are using to support their actions.

   As for Rand Paul, how is he racist? Civil Rights laws prevent discrimination against blacks at lunch counters, but MANDATE discrimination against whites in hiring, contracts, and promottions. The Civil Rights laws are INSTITUTIONALIZED anti-white racism, that is a fact. No one of good heart can defend such blatant hate laws.

5. Caleb Powers Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 12:46 pm

   That’s right, Justin, everything I ever thought about civil rights is wrong. The Republican Party is apparently the best friend the black man ever had, the teabaggers (and yes, Christopher, I use a derogatory term for them to express my deep contempt for the movement) are not Klansmen in drag, and Rand Paul will no doubt win the NAACP Brotherhood Award later this year.

   The idea that any form of affirmative action is discrimination against whites is absurd; white people still run America. When blacks start becoming bank presidents and high ranking executives in corporate America, and there is a glass ceiling for well qualified whites, I might have some sympathy for your view, but that’s certainly not true now. If anything, the atmosphere of tokenism in most businesses is worse than the blatant discrimination was fifty years ago.

6. José Says:
   May 21st, 2010 at 8:25 pm

   Regarding religion and violence, everything that Justin says about Muslims and the Koran could be applied to Christians and the Bible. Maybe not to the same extent today but that may have more to do with differences in culture, education, history, geography, and secular society than it does with theology. There are a great many Muslims who live peaceably with others, and there are many Christians who follow a creepy militaristic version of one we call the Prince of Peace.

   It’s unfair to blame an entire religion for the actions of a minority. I don’t expect to apologize for misguided Americans who invoke the name of Jesus Christ when they bomb buildings, assassinate civilians, and plot the violent overthrow of our government. Neither should the peaceful adherents of Islam have to answer for radical extremists who wage war in the name of Allah.

7. Justin Says:
   May 22nd, 2010 at 12:25 am

   Jose, that is the thing, I am not talking about culture. I am talking about the source of eternal truth, the Koran. People and their cultures are variable, but the Koran validates violence done in the name of Islam.

   A great many good Muslims ignore the Koran’s call for violence, but that doesn’t mean its not there. I am not “blaming an entire religion” or “villifying an entire people”.

   The charge I am leveling is specific and incontrovertable: the Koran validates and encourages violence in the name of Islam.

   That cannot be said for the teaching of Jesus.

8. John Hamilton Says:
   May 24th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

   Justin, maybe not the teachings of Jesus, but have you read some passage in the Old Testament lately? Some of that stuff makes the Koran look tame. As a conservative, I don’t support Williams’ characterization of Allah as a “monkey god,” though I see what he was getting at—basically a god they can “monkey around” with to fit their warped desires.

   There are weirdoes in every cause, religion or movement. It merely shows a lack of genuine concern for others when we hold up one person as representative of the whole. Ariana Huffington, where this story was posted, has made some pretty banal statements herself. Likewise, Mr. Williams is lumping Muslims into a group based on a lunatic fringe. (Virgins in heaven? Come on, how can you be in heaven and also be a virgin? Virginity is hell!)

   Same goes for the reference to “teabaggers.” I can see using the term if we don’t know what it means (e.g. “Great White Hope”), but once we continue to do so after being educated on it’s derogatory nature, shows a disturbing lack of civility. I know Tea Party members who are kind old grandmothers and respected businessmen and laborers. Such terms only fuel resentment and not genuine understanding. They have valid points, even if you don’t agree with them, just like the majority of peaceful and kind Muslims in the world.

9. Justin Says:
   May 25th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

   Good catch, John, you will notice I specified the teachings the Jesus. I am well aware of the many blood-soaked pages of the O.T. I condemn the Nazi-like endeavor of Zionism that bases its principles on O.T. claims and methods as well.

   The thing that is disturbing about the violent Muslims is that they are not necessarily the “lunatic fringe”. They are more like the the “hardcore center”. They are taking their holy book seriously, and acting on it. They themselves make a persuasive claim to represent true Islam.

   Again, it is incontrovertable that the Koran labels as condemned hypocrites those who are not willing to kill and die in defence of the religion.

10. Caleb Powers Says:
    May 25th, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Is that any different than Christianity, on a practical level, Justin? While arguably Jesus taught nonviolence (though he did note that be came bringing a sword, not peace), his followers soon changed course, and we’ve had sectarian violence from the Crusades forward, up to the present day.

11. José Says:
    May 25th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Speaking of the present day, how about those fellows who gunned down police officers in West Memphis, AR? They were associated with a white supremacist group called “the Church of Jesus Christ Christian”. Then of course you have the Hutaree militia in Michigan, another Christian hate group. And of course there are others. It wouldn’t take much to build a case that Christianity is a dangerous terrorist organization. Heck, even their founder was executed for anti-government activities.

    Even though Justin and I may agree that Christ was real clear when talking about peace, it’s pretty danged obvious that more than a few so-called Christians read the Good Book in a very different way (and that includes the parts in red letters). Likewise there are millions of Muslims who contend that theirs is a peaceful religion, which they can prove by pointing to the passages from the Koran, the very same book used by radical members who seek blood in the name of Allah. If you want incontrovertible facts, them is it. Anything less is a half-truth.

12. Julian Malakar Says:
    May 26th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Defending faith or freedom from aggressors is holistic approach. These rights are being honored in every religion or in every democratic society since beginning of human life on earth. Therefore war is not uncommon in any nation either to defend its faith or political sovereignty from definite enemies. But war against innocent civilian to avoid direct confrontation with powerful government is nothing but devil’s work in the name of god. No one can establish the facts that the faith “Islam” was attacked by any government, group or faiths in the world that innocent people are being killed around the world. There is nothing wrong calling the terrorist’s god as monkey god.

    Those who blame Christianity (a religion based on Christology) for any killing are wrong. Christian openly criticize any unjust killing and the Bible discourage fighting rather encourage to turn the other cheek. Matt. 5:39 “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

13. Caleb Powers Says:
    May 26th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    I guess the Crusaders, the Hutaree Militia, and the KKK didn’t read that verse, Julian. We all agree that much of Christian teaching is nonviolent, but Christians haven’t always been. If we insist that others not blame Christianity for the acts of Christians, we’ve got to give other religions the same courtesy.

14. John Hamilton Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Well said, Caleb. We’ve got to take all groups, factions, and even individuals on their own merits and avoid lumping everyone into broad categories. That is what makes Mr. Williams’ statement so unfortunate—it only fuels more resentment. Any violence, even in speech, should only be used as a defensive action, and only after all other reasonable attempts have failed, and life or freedom is truly on the line.

    That said, it may be true that Islam’s center may be “hardcore” rather than the fringes, but I think the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, even if they are out on the fringes. The Muslim rug must have some really big fringes. It may be up to the Muslims to purge their core, like the Protestants did during the Enlightenment in Christianity.

15. Caleb Powers Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Fundamentalism, John, is the key. Whether they be fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, and they all have fundamentalists, they tend to cause trouble.

16. John Hamilton Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Question is where is the line between mainstream and fundamentalism? Because we Mormons don’t drink coffee, does that make us fundamentalists? Or the fact that some church insists on baptism by immersion? I think it boils down to “literalism” in the sense of irrational reliance on a source outside their own logical mind that creates fundamentalists. People who rely on a bible or person to the ignorance of all else, or to some inane or inconsequential doctrine (like the orthodox Jew not pushing an elevator button on the Sabbath), are the people that scare me. Mr. Williams may be slipping into this category within the political realm. Some may say we Mormons are fundamentalists because of our reverence for the prophet of our Church. I like to think we revere the office and not the person in it specifically, but sometimes I get scared when talking to fellow Mormons who seem to revere Thomas S. Monson specifically beyond his official capacities. Good thing so far our prophets have all been good men. Anyway, I’m rambling again. Thanks for letting be spout off.

17. Julian Malakar Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Liberal are those who do not follow what they believe, who do not practice what their faith teaches, who are half-hearted standing on two boats and easily falls from their faith with little wind that flows against their faith.

    Finding the best practice to follow in any faith system is ever challenging. Christian denominations would never be in one mind to determine best practices of Christianity, other wise all Christian would have been in one body as Christ hoped and prayed for oneness like Holy Trinity before His death. Who is to blame for false teaching against holiness of humanity that kills innocent people, religions, individual or groups? I believe not the religion unless the faith itself teaches for propagation of its faith. No god/s needs human assistance to propagate his/her (god’s) name. If s/he (god) needs he is not god/s. Christian spread good news for individual benefits (salvation) not for God’s survival

    Leaders in any religion are responsible for false teaching because of motivation, either politically or innocent interpretation, only God can judge, we have no way of knowing every detail to make educated judgment for good or bad, we are simply a sheep just follow them. I am not an Islam believer but I know Prophet Mohammad teaches to avoid conflict, to practice “his-his whose-whose” policy when difference of opinion arises. In order to avoid current situation where innocent people are being killed whether Muslim or non-Muslim (71 people were killed yesterday in two different mosques in Pakistan) Prophet Mohamed preached in his last sermon in Arafat not to acts excessively with religion. Today’s killings in religious places whether it is in mosque, church, Hindu or Sheik temple or any innocent killing are result of excessive use of faith. Christ also warned those Christian who are Christian by show, but not by practice. Excess of anything is bad. Actually no religion teaches bad staff, but excessive practice of their faiths make difference in real world as it does in excessive practice of freedom of press.

18. John Hamilton Says:
    May 28th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Well said, Julian. God does not need us to spread His truth. The key here is arrogance. It is the hight of arrogance to assume that we need to kill an innocent and unsuspecting person in God’s name. There is a special place in hell for such individuals—one of their own making. I think we can isolate these warped individuals from their overall religion and culture, however, and not collect them all into one camp. That is only accusing innocents in turn and may eventually lead to killing them in the name of OUR God if we don’t check our own arrogance.

19. Caleb Powers Says:
    May 29th, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Julian, I ‘m a liberal. I challenge you to show me where I do not follow what I believe, or follow what my faith teaches. I think what you mean, Julian, is that liberals don’t believe what you believe, and you can’t imagine anyone else believing differently. I assure you, Julian, speaking for myself and the lonely liberals I know, we’re quite consistent between our beliefs and actions, a trait you holier than thou conservatives might want to emulate. I have gone through many troubles in my life, and I can assure you that my liberal faith has served me well, and no doubt far better than your intellectually dishonest approach, Julian. Liberal and conservative are belief systems, and neither is inherently dishonest, though many of your stranger ideas are.

20. José Says:
    May 31st, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    “Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.” [Wikipedia]
    According to this narrow definition I would argue that Mormonism is properly considered a fundamentalist belief system. How many other religious groups would you describe this way? The Amish, Quakers, and Shakers, perhaps. And probably Islam.

    It’s a pity that fundamentalism has taken on a perjorative connotation because the definition above is so useful. I would guess that a good many religions and denominations would accept the description but not the label.

    More commonly, I think that many people define fundamentalists as ones who protect their core beliefs by avoiding examination, questions, reason, etc. Any challenges to the faith, asking why the beliefs are correct, are met with some version of the non-answer “Because!” In that sense, Islam doesn’t seem so fundamentalist. They have a pretty well-defined history that ties together nicely and produced a book of holy scriptures, complete and clear in the original text and studied in the original language. (In comparison, our Christian Bible has numerous problems with canon, source material, and translation.) Granted, there are multiple branches of Islam with different teachings but I think that, if challenged, each branch would readily explain why it is the true version.

    This topic does lead me to ask, though, how the LDS church regards engagement with other beliefs. To the best of my knowledge there are no Mormon scholars who participate in the Society of Biblical Literature or the American Academy of Religion, two of the most noted groups of religious scholars. Nor does the LDS church belong to ecumenical groups such as the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. (Admittedly, neither of the two largest Christian churches in the USA are members of the NCC or WCC though the Roman Catholics actively participate in WCC gatherings with special observer status.) Perhaps they were not invited, but given the enormous breadth of diverse beliefs within these organizations I would guess that it is the Mormons who choose to remain disconnected from dialogue.

21. John Hamilton Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 7:45 am

    José, the Mormons do participate in some interfaith societies. I can’t name them right now, but some of my religion professors at BYU were members of several societies and/or organizations that also had Baptists, Catholics, and other denominations. We currently have a good relationship the the Catholics, which is weird, since we once had called them “the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil.” Anybody can repent, I guess. As to the National Council of Churches, we were specifically un-invited. We were told we must disavow the Book of Mormon as authentic scripture in order to become a member. We could still accept it as an inspirational book, but not authentic. The largest spin-off of our church, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, now called the Community of Christ, which was started by Joseph Smith’s son, couldn’t resist the prestige, or whatever, and de-canonized the B of M and is a member. As to the WCC, we have publicly denounced it as corrupt and counter to the God-granted freedoms necessary for our interpretation of salvation, etc. Maybe it’s our “fundamentalist” streak, but we get particularly nasty about things like communism and certain extreme examples of socialism, which, at least back in the day the WCC seemed to be actively promoting. These pronouncements were made right over the pulpit in our General Conference addresses years ago. Them bridges are burned, I guess. Don’t want to piss off a fundamentalist, ya know.

22. John Hamilton Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 8:13 am

    As far as Islam goes, they’ve got their own fundamentalist and mainstream elements. In my experience, which granted is limited, I’ve met a few, and they seemed quite rational and open to criticism and introspection. I haven’t met any “wild-eyed” “monkey-god” worshipers. My brother-in-law has traveled in several Islamic countries and knows Arabic fairly fluently (we suspect he may be CIA—oops, he may be monitoring this), says that all the Muslims he’s worked with were caring, open and very hospitable people. They are no different than us, he says. There is merely a small cultural element, which we have too, only smaller (probably), that is violent and unreasonable.

23. Julian Malakar Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Caleb, your claimed and throwing a challenge as stated above in posting dated 5/29/10 in maintaining perfect Christian life with liberal views on Christology is very interesting. You being an Anglican Christian under the province Episcopal Church (TEC), USA, look! What you did to a traditional, established, 3rd largest in the world (about 80 millions), Catholic Church with your liberal interpretation on sexual behavior, resulting followings:

    1) You fragmented (by your liberal views) body of Christ further and added one more piece already saturated Christian world with thousands of denominations. 2) Your actions confused traditional Christian believe in creation: a) principle of humanity with two sexes only, male and female, b) sexual love is for family making, not for fun, business or political issues, and family is core value for Christ’s peace that He gave to Christian and for which He is the “Prince of Peace”. 3) With your liberal views, you interrelated love between King David and Jonathan as gay’s love, ignoring truth on bondage of friendship without sex. 4) You confused people interpreted Christ as gay, because He was unmarried (evil thinking). 5) Your liberal views devalued the Bible as word of Holy God, where as all Christian knowledge originated from the Holy Bible. 6) You do no believe historical Christ is resurrected from death after 3days and biblical stories are historical truth not myth. 7) You do not believe life after death and God’s kingdom in heaven as Christian faith teaches you. 8) You do not believe Christ is the only way to go to His father, the creator of heaven and earth.

    Do you need more evidence that your liberal views prevented you from believing what your faith teaches you to believe? You are half hearted grabbed with one heart world knowledge (by liberal views) and with the other, godly knowledge derived from the Bible. You lost faith believing Christ as the only redeemer and that no other god/s can take you to Holy God the father, no matter how good you are as human. Degree of happiness is not the measuring stick of finding truth nothing but whole truth. To be happy you do not need to believe God, because His creation allows everybody good or bad equal opportunity to get rain water. Please be noted that my faith originated from teaching of the Holy Bible, the word of God, not from a modern day historian or scientist’s unscientific believe. If I am wrong in interpreting biblical truth I wish God would forgive me as per His Big Heart.

24. Caleb Powers Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Julian, buddy, I know you believe deep deep down that if eI would just shut down my brain and join your deadheaded revolution, everything would be okay. You spout this stuff, which is a mix of lies, distortions, misunderstandings, and half truths to the point where no one, myself included, could sort it out.

    You seem to ascribe various beliefs to me that I’ve never adopted, including some drivel about Jonathan and David that I assure you, Julian, I’ve never said or believed. You seem to agree at one point that I am at least in the mainstream of the Episcopal Church, which is true, but other than that, you’re just bloviating about things you don’t understand.

    The bottom line, Julian, is that I don’t agree with you, I think your views are the height of both arrogance and ignorance, and have nothing to do with traditional Christianity. If those things are what you want to believe, fine, but don’t try to foist it off on the rest of us.

25. José Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    John, thank you for the two informative responses. I did not realize that the NCC put such a barrier to membership for the LDS church. It’s a tricky business regarding where you draw the line (and I think that everyone would put SOME line SOMEWHERE). I can see where the Mormon scriptural canon would be a deal breaker for many Christian organizations, perhaps even moreso than the Mormon Christology. As for the WCC, I have a friend who is a member of the body so I hear a number of reports about their meetings. Surely there are plenty of WCC delegates who adhere to liberation theology and socialist economic models, but the Orthodox branches (both Eastern and Oriental) are amply represented too and they wield influence that is disproportionate to the sizes of their congregations.

26. Julian Malakar Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Caleb, by the preposition “you” I mean in general “liberal views”, not personalizing you. Don’t you agree with me that because of liberal views on theology by majority Episcopal leadership, Church is now divided and Anglican Communion would be divided soon, is creating division in body of Christ healthy for Church? I do not know your personal interpretation about love of King David and Jonathan, son of king Saul but it is general conscientious among gay people that their love affair is pure gay love to justify gay’s cause. Please note we are discussing “monkey god” based on practice of religious faith by two groups “conservative” and “liberal” and not attacking your faiths. I would appreciate your comment on my views as “arrogance” and “ignorance” referring to incidents in my writings that contradict with biblical perspective. I discussed earlier my personal faith based on biblical truth, but yours are mixture of world knowledge as well as partial biblical truth am I wrong? Please correct me if my views are incorrect as per biblical truth in any writtings.

27. John Hamilton Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    José, interesting stuff. I’m unfamiliar with the make-up of the WCC. That’s great that they also have conservative sects as well. Incidentally with the NCC, I think the line could be drawn where the state draws it. If a country, or most countries, recognizes a particular church, that would be good enough in my book. We Mormons were chartered in the state of New York in 1830 (though the state of New York has since lost the documentation, blasted bureaucrats!), and re-chartered in Missouri and Illinois shortly thereafter. We get the tax-exempt status as a church and so forth. Would think that would be enough. I for one wouldn’t mind if this organization was simply to help foster understanding between churches, but I wouldn’t like it much if the organization itself starts taking official (or unofficial) stances on issues, like they were speaking for all their members.

28. John Hamilton Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Caleb and Julian. Love to see you two going at it again. Got to get me a popcorn machine and put it right next to the computer. As much as I hate to admit it, I’m rooting for Caleb most of the time. I’m sure I’m going to need to do some serious repentance for that someday.

29. Julian Malakar Says:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am

    John, Caleb and I, in reality represents reality of difference of opinion in one issue. It is healthy like your pop corn for a democratic society. Under Christianity, there are thousands of denominations, means thousands of opinions about salvation thru Jesus Christ. Are all denominations in right directions for salvation? Only God knows, we are sheep. Leaders who take decision for sheep and create a denomination would be accountable to God at the end, I believe so.

30. John Hamilton Says:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    I agree with you there, Julian. I’m not so worried about the split in the Episcopal Church over the gay issues. Everyone should be free to worship God however they choose. I think calling each other “sinners” may not be the best approach. Some things are defiantly sins and others are differences of opinion. As long as our opinions are honest, and we are being honest with ourselves, I think there is understanding on God’s part. His grace makes up for our ignorance, imperfections and challenges. As long as the “gay” sects and the “straight” sects of a church agree to peacefully coexist, even if they feel the need to split into separate congregations, I see no issue worth getting angry about. If we let anger in, we run the risk of eventually committing “real” sins (like hate and murder) over what started out as an honest difference of opinion. This happened centuries ago in the Islamic religion. A difference of opinion led to a split and then to murder and now we have Shiites and Sunnis killing each other over it today.

    I see your opinions about the Bible could go down this road if you don’t remind yourself from time to time that these are only your opinions, or the insight God has chosen to give to you. He may very well have given further light and knowledge to someone else that may correct or expand your interpretation. You can have an open mind to other’s ideas while still holding onto and expounding what you feel to be right. I got to do that with Caleb often, so I feel your pain, but in the process you may learn a lot.

    Well, that’s my sermon for the day. Thanks.

31. Julian Malakar Says:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    John, good sermon, technically I agree with you that in one point we have to agree with disagree like turning other cheek if somebody hurt you for peaceful coexistence, and not allowing devil activating our negative character as you said for killing each other, like Shiites and Sunnis and worship “monkey god”.

32. Caleb Powers Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Julian, for once, you ask an interesting question: “is creating division in body of Christ healthy for Church?”

    And the answer has always been yes. When the protestant reformation occurred a few centuries ago, it was decried by the Roman church as heretical, and as creating a division in the body of Christ. Well, Julian, you tell me, was it positive or negative? How’d you like to have to kiss the ring of some bishop and believe that whoever the current occupant of the throne of St. Peter happens to be is spiritually inerrant?

    When liberal churches like the Episcopal Church began demanding equal rights for minority groups in the ’50s and ’60s, the conservatives all said we were creating a division in the body of Christ. You tell me, Julian, you want to go back to segregation? When we began ordaining women in the Episcopal Church, they all said that we were creating a division in the body of Christ. Well, Julian, once again, you want to go back to the days when only men could be priests? They’ve still got that in the Roman church.

    In fact, Julian, the argument that something or other is creating a division in the body of Christ is the oldest, lamest, and weakest argument anyone has ever come up with to discourage change. If we didn’t create a division in the body of Christ every now and then, there’d be no progress.

Leave a Reply