• Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

ts4jc

~ Being Christian and Transsexual

ts4jc

Tag Archives: Democrats

The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 2

05 Tuesday Jan 2021

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Christian issues

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2020 Election, 2nd Amendment, 9-11, Abraham Lincoln, Articles of Confederation, Benjamin Franklin, Border States, bread and circuses, Civil War, Confederacy, Constitutional Union Party, Continental Congress, coronavirus, COVID-19, crisis, Declaration of Independence, Deep South, Democrats, Era of Good Feeling, extreme, Federalist, flyover country, Fort Sumter, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, free speech, George Bush, government expansion, guerrilla warfare, house divided, I-95 corridor, illegitimate, independents, James Monroe, John Adams, John Bell, limited government, lying, Missouri, moderates, negative rhetoric, news media, Pacific Coast, pandemic, patriotism, Pearl Harbor, political base, political sides, politicians, prayer meetings, President, Presidential Election, pundits, Reconstruction, religious freedom, Revolutionary War, Richard Nixon, Rutherford Hayes, Samuel Tilden, secession, shutdowns, slavery, Stephen A. Douglas, Stock market crash, Texas, Thomas Corwin, Thomas Jefferson, Tipping Point, twin towers, underground forces, unfriend, Viet Cong, War of 1812, World War II, worship

I continue with the discussion regarding the possibility of an imminent civil war in the United States.

Virus (crisis): The United States has faced many crises in its 245 year history. Indeed, it was a country born in crisis and its success was in doubt as it went through the birth pains of uniting the colonies, fighting a revolutionary war, struggling with an inadequate Articles of Confederation and keeping the European powers at bay until it could hold its own against them.

James Monroe

Except for a period during the two terms of James Monroe’s presidency (the Era of Good Feeling when the Federalist Party ceased to be viable), there has usually been a loyal opposition, even in times of crisis. But any disagreements over policy never reached a point where they exacerbated the crisis.

Here’s an example. At the end of my senior year of college, I was two credits short of graduating. So I took a U.S. History course at my local community college. Nearly thirty-three years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the professor advanced the theory that FDR knew about the upcoming attack and allowed it to occur to create an excuse to enter WWII and neutralize significant sentiment in the U.S. to stay out of the war.

There were nine official US government inquiries into the attack in the 1940’s, most during the war and all completed by the end of 1946. There were some accusations along the lines that my professor asserted. None of this prevented an ailing Roosevelt from being reelected in 1944 or caused the Democrats to fall from power. They did lose a considerable portion of their majority in Congress in the 1942 elections (something that happens frequently in off year elections), but regained about half of the House seats in 1944 and only lost one more Senate seat that year.

Imagine what such accusations would have led to had this scenario occurred during 2017-2020.

One of the things that concerned me was the reaction to the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Despite the closeness of the 2000 election and all the acrimony over the challenge to the results in Florida, in the immediate wake of the attacks the country pulled together. There was a spate of nonpartisan public rallies and memorials. Support for President George W. Bush and his response to the attacks was high. Attendance at worship services and prayer meetings also increased significantly.

I thought that the attack would be the defining moment for a significant portion of US History, similar to how the 1929 Stock Market Crash and the attack on Pearl Harbor defined that generation. I was wrong.  Within a year, partisanship in the political sphere and the media returned in full force. Worship service attendance returned to its pre-attack declining levels. Either the divide in the country was too strong or anti-terrorism was simply not enough of an issue to have staying power. Whatever the reason, the lack of sustainable national unity triggered my concerns.

Most of the biggest crises in US History have occurred in the year following a Presidential Election. Of course the start of the Civil War was precipitated in large part by the 1860 election, but other crises (the Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbor and 9-11) would appear to have been independent of the political process. We have to go back the U.S. declaring war on Great Britain in June of 1812 to find a time when a crisis occurred during a Presidential Election year. However, there was little fighting on U.S. soil during the campaign and election. Most of it was concentrated around Detroit which could not vote as Michigan had not yet become a state.

But the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred at the beginning of the 2020 election year with shutdowns being ordered as winter drew to a close. It both affected and influenced the method of voting in the later primaries and the general election. And the occurrence of the general election may have taken away the last hope that the country would be united in its efforts to minimize the devastating impact of the disease. It brought out all the worst behavior, whether finger pointing by politicians or charges and countercharges of selective reporting by the news media; not to mention charges of outright lying flung from all directions. At a time when the country needed to pull together, it flew apart. The climate was looking more and more like the 1850’s heading into 1860.

Voting validity/victory legitimacy: A close, hotly disputed election couldn’t have come along at a worse time. But considering the climate in the country, it was likely to happen.

It’s another in a 28 year string where the legitimacy of the Presidential election (or the President who was elected) has been questioned in one way or another.  During George H.W. Bush’s term as 41st President of the United States, there were the usual disagreements over policy that can be expected in a political system with two or more viable political parties.  And there are always people on the fringes with outlandish theories.  But even though he failed in his bid for reelection, there was never any significant discussion of his presidency being legitimate or his 1988 election being illegitimate. That hasn’t happened since.

Whoever holds the office of President of the United States on January 21, 2021, there will be a significant portion of the country who will consider that the election was stolen in some fashion, whether through fraudulent votes, voter suppression, or legal chicanery. The unwillingness of Richard Nixon to challenge the results of the 1960 election in Texas and Illinois for the sake of the country, combined with a likable and youthful new first family helped diffuse any rancor Republicans felt about the 1960 results. A devastating terrorist attack ten months after the 2000 election reordered the national focus and priorities away from that result.

The mood of the country is much uglier now. People on opposite political sides find it more difficult than ever to talk to each other. People unfriend each other and stop patronizing businesses over political opinions, real or perceived. At the root of this, most on either side cannot see any reason why their candidate would be considered illegitimate, but they can state numerous reasons why the other candidate would be. I do not know what will bind the nation’s wounds now, but it will need to be huge.

Academically speaking, it is interesting how similar the two sides are in many ways. But as a practical matter, it is scary. Both sides claimed that the incumbent President on the other side would not leave office on January 20.  Both sides claim the moral high ground and aver that the other side has a corner on the corruption market. At one time, both parties ran to the edge of their base during the primaries and to the center during the national election. Now they continue to run to the extreme of their base. They both try to perform the high-wire acrobatics of appealing to moderates and independents while denigrating the moderate members of their party and the opposition party. There is generally little reward given for statesmanship and compromise.

Each election cycle, the political pundits claim that this is the most critical election of our lifetime. Some of that is normal rhetoric: a way to encourage voter turnout by their political base. But in some ways it is a truism that has begun to reveal truth. The larger and more powerful that the federal government becomes, the more troublesome it becomes for that government to fall into the wrong hands. No matter which side of the political aisle you are on, try this thought experiment: imagine that the opposition party is sitting in the White House, has at least 75% of the seats in each house of Congress and has a 7-2 majority on the Supreme Court. Are you still in favor of an expansive federal government?

Conclusion

When I started this essay within a week of the 2020 election (and had been pondering it for months beforehand), I mentioned that over the past ten years, I had raised my estimate of the chances of a Civil War. As I’ve read online posts and talked to people, I am raising my estimates again. I now believe that there is a greater than 50% chance of some sort of Civil War starting and that it will be even sooner than in the next 15 years. Since it is still less than a 100% chance, possibilities remain to avoid it. But the trend is that those possibilities are diminishing.

The Alamo

Understand that the war doesn’t necessarily have to take shape the same way as it did in 1861-65. Yes, there are states that are talking about secession. You can quote Texas v White (1869) to me all you want. Just because the Supreme Court declared that a state has no right under the Constitution to secede from the Union, it doesn’t mean that one or more states won’t do so. And if more than one state secedes, that they won’t form a separate country. At that point, it will be up to the Federal Government representing the remaining states how to respond. And the final spark could be the same thing that happened at Fort Sumter in April 1861: the Federal Government asserting its claim on its property located in a secessionist state.

Remember that secession could happen in either direction. A couple of years ago, I read that for the first time in U.S. history, there were active petitions for secession in all fifty states. It didn’t matter whether those states were red, blue or purple.

The map would be different this time. The Pacific Coast (including Hawaii) and the I-95 corridor as far south as the District of Columbia would be on one side. Portions of the Atlantic Coast south of DC, the rust belt, the southern Rocky Mountain region and some other major cities would be the “border states”. The rest of “flyover country” would be on the other side.

But there is a different possibility. This time the war could take place by means of a coalition of guerrilla and underground forces with some similarities to the Viet Cong (which were eventually successful in overcoming the combined forces of the United States and South Vietnam.

Signs to look for that the chances of war are increasing:

  • Escalating negative rhetoric
  • Escalating use of more extreme political tactics (so-called “nuclear options”)
  • Increasing disdain of moderates and independents
  • Increasing support of secessionist movements within the several states, especially key ones (e.g. Texas)
  • Increasing debate over the limits of free speech and religious freedom
  • Increasing debate over interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and its limits
  • Increasing debate over the conduct of elections and voter eligibility

Stephen A. Douglas

What can be done to avoid the country splitting apart? Cooler heads need to prevail. But that is easier said than done. One way would be if moderates in both parties and political independents could unite to form a viable third party. But that is a difficult undertaking and it would have to be seen as a bipartisan movement, not dominated by elements of either existing major party. And such a party would have to be able to agree on core unifying principles.  Note that in 1860, the parties seeking compromise to preserve the Union (the new Constitutional Union Party with John Bell as its nominee and Northern Democrats with Stephen A. Douglas as their nominee) were unable to combine forces and finished third and fourth in electoral votes respectively in that year’s presidential election. The more extreme parties, the Republicans and Southern Democrats, finished first and second in electoral votes. (Note that the Northern Democrats finished second in the popular vote to Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans, but their votes were more evenly dispersed throughout the country and they only carried one state, Missouri.)

Note also that the Republican platform was more moderate in 1860 than it was in 1856. It called for abolition of slavery in territories and new states, but not in existing states. The more ardent abolitionists in the Republican Party were generally disappointed in Lincoln’s nomination as him being too moderate. Nevertheless, the Deep South perceived Lincoln’s election as a threat to their state sovereignty and right to continue the institution of slavery in their respective states. Seven states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy as a preemptive measure before Lincoln ever took office. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina did not secede until actual hostilities broke out. (The Confederate States of America also accepted Kentucky and Missouri into the Confederacy, but the secession governments in those states were only shadow governments that never took power. Kentucky managed to avoid internal hostilities but Missouri fought its own mini-Civil War, with the Union forces prevailing.)

There was one final attempt to mollify the South in early 1861. Named for its principal sponsor, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio, the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the abolition or reduction of slavery in the states where it existed legally in 1861 by either Constitutional amendment or action of the U.S. Congress. It passed in both houses of Congress and was endorsed by Lincoln in his first inaugural address. It was sent to the states for ratification two days before Lincoln was sworn in as President. The attempt was ignored by the first seven seceding states and the outbreak of war made it moot. The country had passed the brink of war and reached the point of no return.

Rutherford B. Hayes

Some would claim that when all else failed, the Civil War of 1861-65 was a necessary evil to eliminate the greater evil of slavery from U.S. soil. But the cost was high. Estimates of military deaths from the war range from 620,000 to 850,000. Civilian deaths add to the number. The South remained an economically disadvantaged region for close to a century.  And most blacks lost their franchise and right to hold office once the Federal troops were withdrawn and the Reconstruction Era came to an end (ironically as part of the compromise that decided the disputed election of Rutherford Hayes over Samuel Tilden in 1876). In some ways, we may still be fighting that war; in some minds, the seeds of that war have carried over to our current divisions.

Generally speaking, history is written by the victors. Therefore, the prevailing view was that the North had the moral high ground 160 years ago. Even so, there was a concerted effort over the past 100 years to paint the Confederacy as a noble lost cause. The battle against this romanticized view of the Southern reasons for the war continues to this day.

Which side has the moral high ground today? I find that each side has some valid claims and each side has done things to void such claims. History will ultimately have its say. Consider this bit of dialog from the movie “1776” when South Carolina threatens to vote against independence from Great Britain over the issue of slavery:

John Adams: If we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.

Benjamin Franklin: That’s probably true, but we won’t hear a thing. We’ll be long gone. Besides, what will posterity think we were, demigods? We’re men, no more, no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John; independence, America: if we don’t secure that, what difference will the rest make?

“We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin

Some may wonder which side I identify with. Truth be told, I have strong connections to both sides. It gives me a perspective that enables me to see both their strengths and their warts. But ultimately it is a distraction from the topic at hand: is the United States on the road to fracturing?

I’m sure some will disagree with my assessment about an upcoming Civil War. Some will find it preposterous, that there will be too much to lose by starting one. In 1861, we had no Social Security or Medicare. There were very few government employees looking forward to their government pensions upon retirement. And even if a person hasn’t reached retirement age, if they have a number of years in the system, they are likely to think twice about possibly forfeiting those benefits that they contributed to.

And how many people have been lulled into apathy by a culture of modern day “bread and circuses”? Keep the people entertained and well-fed and they will be malleable to whatever the government wants, so the theory goes. But 2020 saw a lot of disruption to both food and entertainment. The discontent meter was raised a few notches.

A 21st century civil war will not be an easy decision. Nor was it an easy decision for the residents of 13 colonies 245 years ago to break ties with what was their mother country for the vast majority of those sitting in the Continental Congress. But they reached a tipping point and subscribed to these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government … Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Thomas Jefferson

Have the people of the United States reached a tipping point once again? Will they soon? Has the government become destructive of the ends that the people desire, and if so, which side and which people? Has the general public suffered abuse to the breaking point that they are willing to risk personal security to regain the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that they believe they have been increasingly denied. From my perspective, I believe the trend is towards the answer “Yes”.  The closer we get, the harder it becomes to apply the brakes and reverse course.

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. – Mark 3:24-25

God bless,

Lois

Dear Ms. Caitlyn Jenner

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Transsexual issues, Living Female

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

1976 Olympics, advice, Bill of Rights, Bob Kane, Bruce Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner, celebrity, Christian, coming out, confidence, conservative, Cornell, counsel, decathlon, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Dennis Daugaard, Diane Sawyer, female, full-time, gold medal, headlines, HERO legislation, Houston, Hudson River, Human Rights, I Am Cait, Kardashians, Kate Bornstein, Log Cabin Republicans, Lower Hudson Valley, Montreal, MTF, naive, North Tarrytown, Olympics, overconfident, Pastor Ed Young, politics, prayer, Reality television, Renee Richards, Republican, Robert Kane, Rockland, silent, Sleepy Hollow, South Dakota, sports, suggestions, supportive, Tappan Zee Bridge, team manager, Ted Cruz, track and field, trans-hostile, Transgender, transgender community, transgender issues, transgender rights, Transition, Westchester, Wheaties

English: The Tappan Zee Bridge as seen in Tarr...

English: The Tappan Zee Bridge as seen in Tarrytown, NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve never met Caitlyn.  But we have a lot in common.  We both identify as female, transgender, Christian and politically conservative on a number of issues.  We both spent a significant portion of our respective childhoods within a few miles of the Tappan Zee Bridge (I was on the opposite shore from her).  And since I am only three years younger than Caitlyn, some of that time was concurrent (from November 1960 to the summer of 1963, according to my calculations, based on when my family moved there and Caitlyn’s family moving to Connecticut after her freshman year of high school).

We share a love of sports.  I lettered in four sports in high school.  However, it was a very small prep school and the only way my career in sports would continue was because I became the manager for the track & field and cross country teams at a Division One university (Cornell) with an excellent program for over a century in those sports.  While I had some evidence of athletic ability, it came in a body that was considerably more compact.

In fact, there was most likely only one degree of separation between us before she came out in public.  That is because as team manager, I met one of Jenner’s teammates on the 1972 Olympic track team and also had a nodding acquaintance with a former U.S. Olympian (Bob Kane) who would become the president of the U.S. Olympic Committee shortly after Jenner’s gold medal in 1976 Olympics.  And there are likely others in track & field circles that both of us know.

It seems that a lot of people are telling Caitlyn Jenner what she should and shouldn’t do.  I should think I have as much right to do so, if not more.  However, I have reached an age where I try not to tell anyone what to do; I only make suggestions.  And I admit that the suggestions I make to my tax clients are quite authoritative.

But I have no intention of sending a letter to her home to get intermingled with hundreds of other letters from fans and foes.  So I am posting it publicly.  If one of my blog readers or LinkedIn connections knows her personally and finds it worthy of passing along, so be it.

Dear Caitlyn,

After some downtime, you are finding your way back into the news again.  Criticism of you by people who are hostile to transgender people is to be expected.  But much criticism also comes from others within the transgender community.  Is it warranted?

Let’s start with something that was unquestionably positive for the transgender community: your contact of South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard regarding recent legislation that would have discriminated against trans youth.  Did your voice play a part in paving the way for the Governor, who admitted never having knowingly met a transgender person, to remedy that omission?  Did that in turn help lead to his eventual veto?  I’m sure it did.

What about your meeting with Pastor Ed Young, a prime mover in the defeat of the HERO bill in Houston last November?  You prayed with him and while that is always a blessing in general, hopefully the pastor could see the Holy Spirit in you as you prayed together and in your conversation as well.  But it also gave you the opportunity to share how hateful the pastor’s trans hostile videos have been.  Someone well battle-tested on the front lines of our struggle, Kate Bornstein, gave you kudos for that.

Yes, it is important to meet with others in the transgender community (and our allies) to continue to get educated on who we are as individuals and as a group.  But what progress do we make if we only meet with each other.  Only Nixon could go to China.  Only Kirk could negotiate a peace treaty with the Klingons.  I’ve made a positive impact with many (not all) Christians in my little corner of the globe.  But so far, there are only so many I can reach.

1976 Summer Olympics

1976 Summer Olympics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Caitlyn, please keep some things in mind.  First of all, there is only so much any one person can do.  I know that you were remarkably consistent in your decathlon scores, but you were able to train for those both physically and with technique.  Training to live as a woman in real life, undoing a lifetime of habits, is many times more difficult.  Plus the available coaching is far more rudimentary than anything you would have received in preparation for Montreal 1976.

Second, you are not alone in the work.  There are many others out here as well.  You don’t have to become exactly like them, but you also want to be careful about acting at cross purposes with them.

But most of all, Caitlyn, you don’t even have a year living full-time as you.  And with your lifestyle and opportunities, in some ways you have experienced less than most of us.  (Make note of Renee Richards’ hindsight about how unrealistic it was for her to spend her one year life experience by taking a cruise to Italy, living for a while in a real life Fellini movie and then tooling around western Europe in a sports car, before losing her nerve in Morocco on the steps of the hospital – twice.) Ten months ago, immediately after watching Diane Sawyer interview you, my biggest concern was that you still wouldn’t be you.  You know how to be a feted celebrity.  You’ve been there and done that forty years ago. But do you know how to be Caitlyn Jenner?  Make sure you treat yourself to the time you need to find out, away from the cameras, the banquets and even your entourage sometimes.

And this brings me to your remarks about Ted Cruz.  I am acknowledging up front that there are people who read the headlines and went nuclear without reading anything else that you said on the subject.  (Headline writers provoke more than inform.)  Indeed you acknowledge that Sen. Cruz has one of the worst records on trans issues when viewed by the transgender community.  What you don’t acknowledge is how unlikely it would be for Cruz or most Republicans today to be willing to even consider having a liaison with the transgender community.   When he met you prior to coming out, Cruz treated you as an Olympic gold medalist and sports hero.  As a little boy, he may have even idolized you on the front of the Wheaties box.  There is no reason to expect he will treat you so kindly now.

I truly understand the dilemma you face politically.  What do you do when the politicians and party whose values you tend to agree with on a broad range of issues: a) see people like us as moral deviants at best and part of the vanguard of end times wickedness at worst; b) refuse to believe our testimonies that this is who we are and have always known ourselves to be with respect to gender, and who continue to insist that we have made an immoral choice; c) don’t believe we have the right to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society enjoys: protection from job discrimination; proper medical care consistent with the findings of the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association; the ability to make life choices consistent with our innate gender identity; the right to safety; d) actively campaign to take away our recently-won rights (not special rights, just the “unalienable” right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)?

Some have quoted you (or perhaps assumed) that you believe that Republicans are better on transgender issues than Democrats are.  Later articles appear to have corrected that misquote, and you admit that Democrats are more favorable on trans issues.  So I am going to take it that the latter is true for you.  But I will share that when I first read the former, my impulse was that you needed to name names.  Just who are these supportive Republicans?

Then I remembered that the Log Cabin Republicans claim to advocate on behalf of transgender individuals, not just lesbians, gays and bisexuals.  So I went to their website.  I looked at their recent initiatives.  I looked through their press releases.  They congratulated you for coming out during the Diane Sawyer interview.  Since then, keeping in mind all the transgender oriented legislation and votes that have been in play since then in places like Houston and South Dakota, they have been totally silent on transgender issues.  It has been disappointing to say the least.

On the one hand, it is good to have a positive attitude and a belief that you can make a difference in Christian and politically conservative circles.  But while there is no crime in being naïve, it is not helpful to overestimate the speed with which you will be able to change hearts.  You have strengths: a warm, likable personality, a record of achievement that few people can match and access to channels that most of us will never come close to having.  But on the negative side, your association with Kardashian reality television and continuing with that format to some extent on your own show makes it easy for some people to dismiss you as a publicity hound.

Caitlyn, I know you have heard much of this before from many sources.  But you may not have heard it from a source who is similar to you in as many ways as I am: transgender, MTF, Christian, conservative, background in track and field (and athletics in general), and raised in the Lower Hudson Valley.  You and I understand how much work there needs to be done on transgender in the Christian and politically conservative communities.  At the same time, we are not willing to write them off as hopeless.

I have more that I could say to you, but I’d prefer to convey it privately, if indeed you should grace me with a personal contact.  Contact can be initiated through my blog or contact information on my LinkedIn page.

Caitlyn, I am in the habit of closing out my blog posts with scripture.  This verse is on a monthly prayer calendar for a Christian ministry I am associated with.  It is a perfect admonition from the Lord to leave you with.

Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. – Psalm 37:5

God bless,

Lois

Pages

  • Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

Recent Posts

  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 2 January 5, 2021
  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 1 January 5, 2021
  • Potential for an Individual Voter to Influence the Presidential Election November 3, 2020
  • Transgender and Pro-Life January 9, 2020
  • A Tale of Two Churches January 9, 2020
  • My Sermon on 10/20/2019 October 27, 2019
  • Salute to Misfile (and all my favorite comic strips) October 5, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 3 September 13, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 2 September 9, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit (Part 1) September 7, 2019
  • Non-Christians, Baby Christians, Discipleship and Moderation July 27, 2019
  • Scapegoats May 28, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VIII February 17, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VII February 11, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VI January 3, 2018

Categories

  • About Me
  • General Christian issues
  • General Transsexual issues
  • Just for Fun
  • Living Female
  • The Bible on transsexualism
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • July 2017
  • February 2017
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Recent Comments

ts4jc on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
Kelly on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
ts4jc on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy