For better or worse, the 2008 Presidential election campaign is already underway. While it’s too soon to be thinking too much about specific candidates (I think there were at least 12 candidates the last time I counted), there are things Christians can be thinking about as they try to make wise decisions about who to vote for next year. Mark Daniels has an excellent series on the criteria that Christians should be using in approaching the election. (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)
If you are not a Christian, you should understand the basics of the message. These two videos are short, enjoyable, and helpful. Please watch them.
Subscribe by Email
Browse by Category
- * Best of WR (157)
- * Guides (38)
- * Series (45)
- 500 Words (4)
- Alcohol & Drugs (2)
- Amazon.com (4)
- Anarchism (1)
- Apologetics (112)
- Arminianism (17)
- Art (3)
- Atheism (119)
- Augustine (12)
- Baptism (1)
- Basics (4)
- Bible (24)
- Bible Studies (1)
- Bios (7)
- Black America (37)
- Books (251)
- Born Again (3)
- Buddhism (13)
- Calvinism (18)
- Capitalism (1)
- Catholocism (18)
- CCM (6)
- China (10)
- Church (109)
- Church Planting (2)
- Community (1)
- Complementarian (8)
- Cool Stuff (9)
- Creationism (192)
- Cults (1)
- Current Affairs (3)
- Dale (3)
- Death (3)
- Debates (15)
- Discipleship (4)
- Dreams (1)
- Economics (25)
- Education (35)
- Egalitarian (4)
- Entertainment (90)
- Environment (38)
- Ethics (22)
- Evangelical Center (8)
- Evangelism (9)
- Events (5)
- Feminism (11)
- G12 (2)
- Gamification (7)
- Gaming (2)
- Giants (1)
- God and Work (1)
- Government (3)
- Guidance (2)
- Gun Control (3)
- Health (35)
- Heaven & Hell (38)
- History (29)
- Holidays (1)
- Homeschool (3)
- Hope (2)
- Humor (117)
- Immigration (5)
- Inerrancy (10)
- Islam (137)
- Jazz (3)
- Judaism (3)
- Latino (8)
- Leadership (1)
- LGBT (146)
- Listomania (68)
- Love (2)
- Marriage & Family (26)
- Maths (5)
- Memes (7)
- Men's Issues (9)
- Mentoring (2)
- Missions (11)
- Molinism (11)
- Mormonism (5)
- Movies (8)
- My Two Cents (78)
- Narcisism (2)
- NDMF (2)
- Neo-fundamentalism (21)
- News (57)
- Obama (62)
- Orphans (1)
- Pacifism (7)
- Paradox (2)
- Paul (1)
- Peeves (7)
- People (3)
- Philosophy (18)
- Pneumatology (1)
- Podcasting (10)
- Poetry (3)
- Politics (155)
- Prayer (21)
- Preaching (6)
- Priorities (4)
- Pro-Life (80)
- Productivity (9)
- Progressivism (2)
- Public Policy (46)
- Quote of the Day (17)
- Racism (11)
- Reason (10)
- Sanctification (1)
- Satire (12)
- Science and Technology (68)
- Seasons of Life (4)
- Seminar (1)
- Seminary (4)
- Shopping (2)
- Sikhism (1)
- Skepticism (3)
- Slavery (5)
- Spam (19)
- Sports (7)
- Suffering (1)
- Tea Party (1)
- The Media (33)
- Theology (99)
- Throwback (1)
- Tripartite (9)
- Trump (13)
- Vegetarianism (1)
- Voting (1)
- War (7)
- Welfare (2)
- Words (1)
- Worldview (84)
- Worship (6)
- Writing (3)
- WWJD (2)
- Yoga (2)
By "Christian" if you mean "White Evangelical Protestants" then I would say it's a forgone conclusion. They will vote for the Republican candidate. If a chimp with a pro-life anti-gay marriage platform ran against a pro-choice, leave marriage up to the states candidate, conservative evangelicals would vote for the chimp. This is what happened in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections.
And conversely for libs – they would vote against jfk or even hillary if she was pro life. In fact, I'd fall over if they ever nominated a pro life person. Pot, kettle, black.
Three quick comments on this series:
1. Interesting point about voting for non-christians
I guess that needed to be said, but even more interesting, it appears to be a tacet endorsement of Romney, whose ideals probably match ours as much as any candidate, save Brownback, who is not electable, since he is so outspoken. But it's a good point that we should vote on values and issues, not religious affiliation.
2. Voting for justice
Well, he totally avoided the point that splits the evangelical left from the right – the fact that rightists want justice, but think that it is UNBIBLICAL to have that "justice" attempted through entitlement programs. His advice on this point seemed too mealy-mouthed and non-committal.
3. The cultural mandate
While his first post discussed why xians should be interested and involved in politics, he did not discuss at all the idea that we should be aiming to redeem society from the evils and terrors of unbiblical world views. Not that we want a theocracy, but that we have a duty to promote ideas that lead to peace, freedom, virtue, and personal responsibility.
And conversely for libs – they would vote against jfk or even hillary if she was pro life.
If Barak O'Bama was pro-life I would still vote for him so you're wrong there Seeker. I think O'bama has something very rare in politicians, he is is own man and a man of his word.
"Obama" isn't an Irish name. There's no apostrophe after the 'O' :)
LOL! You bet your Muslim petutie it's not Irish ;)
For people insistent that Christians are not a mass of people thinking in a single way – "Stop treating us as if we're a uniform group!" – the notion that voting guidelines would be written for Christians is interesting. And by interesting, I mean depressing. Every Christian should get to vote for whatever candidate they want, based on whatever rubric they want, and not have their Christianity questioned.
the notion that voting guidelines would be written for Christians is interesting. And by interesting, I mean depressing.
I would agree with you Sam. Except I don't look at it as guidelines.
I do like to know what candidates think (and how they will act) on the matters close to my heart. And I have never cared if the list was from any religious organization, unless it seemed biased. Some of them are biased.
I haven't read this whole thing but he does say I won't tell you how to vote. One reason for that is that I don't even know how I'll vote, especially since there's no way of knowing who the nominees will be. But another and more important one is that I would be loathe to suggest that any candidate is more Christian or more preferred by God over others in the race.
:)
"Obama" isn't an Irish name. There's no apostrophe after the 'O' :)
LOL! You bet your Muslim petutie it's not Irish ;)
BARAK 08'AMA
the notion that voting guidelines
Actually, they were biblical principles, not some narrow guidelines (not sure if you were implying that). And it is assumed that Christians do aim to follow scriptural guides, otherwise, why call themselves christians? As Lawanda points out, it doesn't even mention specific issues like abortion or sexuality
I don't think that we complain about being "treated as a group," but rather, what is objectionable is the abuse of negative stereotypes and misrepresentation of motives (e.g. "anyone who is against gay marriage is like Fred Phelps" or "you hate the poor because you are against government entitlement programs").
I look at all this Election discussion for '08 as just fodder. We're two years away from the Elections, and at least 18 mos to the Iowa Caucus.
However, I'll dip my toe into this one:
For people insistent that Christians are not a mass of people thinking in a single way – "Stop treating us as if we're a uniform group!" – the notion that voting guidelines would be written for Christians is interesting. And by interesting, I mean depressing. Every Christian should get to vote for whatever candidate they want, based on whatever rubric they want, and not have their Christianity questioned.
Sam, this is no different than the Republican or Democratic Party issuing a voter guideline pamphlet to their registered party members. Similarly, one can also point to the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and several other NGO's use of voter guides during upcoming elections.
This is a tempest in a teacup. As a person that considers himself to be a political realist and pragmatist, I don't find the use of voter guides from any one group to be objectionable.
However, there use is a statement of the current state of participatory citizenship in this country where it is easier for people to vote based upon a high-level recommendation made by a group they identify with than to thoroughly research an issue or a candidate (and their) positions and then make up one's mind if those positions are compatible with their own beliefs and where the country should head.
To put it in a more low-brow way, the country and most of the voting citizenry of this country is easily swayed by rhetoric and has the attention and concentration span of watching a music video. That may sound like a liberal elitist spin, and I frankly don't care if it does, but that is the reality with voters and the vast majority of issues. We think short term and not long-term.
We may be a long way away from the primaries, but generally speaking the Republican frontrunner the year before wins the primaries. So theoretically, whoever is leading the GOP this summer will most likely be the candidate.
The Democrats are a different story. They almost always bring someone out of nowhere or from behind in the polls. The frontrunner rarely ever wins. Think Clinton in '92 (out of nowhere) or Dean in '04 (frontrunner collapse).
We may be a long way away from the primaries, but generally speaking the Republican frontrunner the year before wins the primaries. So theoretically, whoever is leading the GOP this summer will most likely be the candidate.
Aaron, there is no such thing as a "sure thing" with regards to candidates from either party. If memory serves correctly, Reagan was behind in the polls up until the final 3 primaries before getting the nomination.
This piece in the WSJ is one that I think illustrates what can happen (based upon history). 2 years is a lot of time in the political life cycle, candidates can self-destruct, the economy can change, etc. That is why it pays to be pragmatic.
I right now don't see a clear leader within either party as a candidate, let alone one that is electable on national level after receiving their party's nomination.
Sam, this is no different than the Republican or Democratic Party issuing a voter guideline pamphlet to their registered party members.
And the article in question is even more innocuous than that. No candidate's name or stands on issues were mentioned, nor even the issues themselves. Rather, it was a philosophical discussion of the attitudes we ought to have when approaching voting. It was more about personal character than public values, which is kind of interesting because it is one step removed from the issues themselves.
It was a call to personal integrity and honesty rather than 'mere' values voting.
I right now don't see a clear leader within either party as a candidate, let alone one that is electable on national level after receiving their party's nomination.
Agreed, things can change overnight. But I still pray that Giuliani doesn't get the nomination or the Republicans are DOOMED.
1. Anyone opposed to equality for gay citizens isn't very much different from Fred Phelps. He views gays as being beneath contempt; so does anybody who believes that their love is worthless.
2. Voter guides are voter guides are voter guides. Christians should vote for the candidates they support, for whatever reason THEY support them.
3. Barrack Obama has got to be the front runner. He's a HELL of a candidate.
Anyone opposed to equality for gay citizens isn't very much different from Fred Phelps.
While I understand this comment, it shows:
1. Liberals fail to make meaningful distinctions between radial hate groups and people that disagree with them (out of laziness, stupidity, or spite?)
2. I think that opposing gay marriage isn't opposing equality, it is opposing special rights, and sanctioning of moral depravity and mental illness.
While I understand this comment, it shows:
1. Liberals fail to make meaningful distinctions between radial hate groups and people that disagree with them (out of laziness, stupidity, or spite?)
That is a bombastic generalization not based on fact. One can easily make the same generalization on the Conservative front as well. This is particularly true with respects to Conservatives not being lazy in reading and hearing from opinions on both sides of the fence.
I could cite some very specific examples of this across this country if need be. However, for this purpose of this discussion, I will use my ultra conservative Sister-In-Law as the example.
She is one who relies on the bully-pulpit of conservative talk radio and has trouble distinguishing the source of radical groups and those that disagree with her.
So, you see a very general statement such as the one you have made is not accurate at all. I can easily point the finger at conservatives with the same accusation that you have made.
I think this is a case of Seeker being quick on the draw and a little lazy in stating his point. It happens, but I am calling him on it (no personal attack intended).
for point of clarification in my previous comment, it is very easy to make the same generalization of Conservatives being lazy as Seeker had made about Liberals.
I inadvertently used a "NOT" modifier in my original post.
I can easily point the finger at conservatives with the same accusation that you have made.
No doubt. But I was responding specifically to the current trend among liberals (Rosie comes to mind) who equate Islamic terrorists and evangelical 'fundamentalists', a grievous and idiotic error. This, in my opinion, is one of the ways that childish liberal tactics play right into the hands of extremists.
Sam makes the same sort of comparison between hateful whack jobs like Fred Phelps and evangelicals who are opposed to the sanctioning of homosexuality. While he may feel that their goals and motives are the same, he shows his reactionary illogic by grouping his sane opponents with crazy people, a cheap and all too common liberal tactic.
Of course, the right has done this for years, trying to group all environmentalists in with the more radical and fringe groups (like Greenpeace?), or comparing the ACLU to communists. But I was knee jerking to Sam's grouping of anti-gay-marriage people with the whackos.
he shows his reactionary illogic by grouping his sane opponents with crazy people, a cheap and all too common liberal tactic.
Seeker,
Sanity and insanity particularly with respects on views, policies, and reality are a matter of one's own perspective. Anyone regardless of political and social philosophy can make that same claim that a group or association as crazy. It isn't that hard to do.
I could do the same thing as you could from a Conservative perspective. Those in opposition to your view would call you on it and give what they believe are reasoned arguments why you are wrong. You would disagree with them, of course, because you fundamentally disagree with them.
That does not mean one's logic is reactionary or cheap, it means one has a point of view which you may not (or in this case disagree with).
That's debate and discussion. It is a far too easy to write someone off as insane or illogical or one that uses cheap tactics.
My point really is that this is a question of semantics and labels. Most of us are to easily drawn into using generalization and labels to pigeon-hole those we disagree with rather than to try an engage and perhaps see things from the other side's perspective. That is not easy to do, but really we would all be better off if we could do it.
Silver,
Sanity and insanity particularly with respects on views, policies, and reality are a matter of one's own perspective.
It is a far too easy to write someone off as insane or illogical or one that uses cheap tactics.
What you say here is true to a certain extent but there is a serious mitigating circumstance. What if the person you are debating with really is illogical, insane or deluded. Meaning, not just from a certain perspective but clinically.
I like debating Seeker, but his fanaticism to the Bible has twisted his sense of reality into full blown delusion. Stewart and I got into this a little in a small exchange about the difference between "teaching" and "indoctrinating." Silver, like you, I think Stewart feels views, policies, and reality are a matter of perspective. But what if the shoe fits?
We, as a society, view cult members who follow David Koresh or Charles Manson as indoctrinated, not taught. What's the difference between a cult member and a creationist? Are they not also indoctrinated into creationism; a magical doctrine of supernatural beings, talking snakes and other implausibilities?
My point really is that this is a question of semantics and labels. Most of us are to easily drawn into using generalization and labels to pigeon-hole those we disagree with rather than to try an engage and perhaps see things from the other side's perspective. That is not easy to do, but really we would all be better off if we could do it. – Silver
I agree with you for the most part. However, if you have read or have had a "debate" with Seeker about creationism vs. evolution you quickly realize there is a complete lack of communication. Liberals can have a good meaningful exchange with Seeker on certain subjects but others, in which religion is involved, logic goes out the window. One of Seeker's favorite quotes goes something like "Before faith reason is king, after faith reason is servant." His faith makes him unreasonable so arguing logically with him is like talking to a wall.
To bring this back around, Seeker says Liberals fail to make meaningful distinctions between radial hate groups and people that disagree with them (out of laziness, stupidity, or spite?)
What liberals have trouble distinguishing between radical Muslims and radical Christians (creationists), is your (Seeker's) fundamentalism (view that your holy book as infallible source of truth which you thereby take literally). Whose religion is better or more valid is debatable but your fundamentalist indoctrination into religion is the same. Muslims have their madrassas where they learn the Koran is infallible truth and Creationists have their homeschooling where they learn the bible is infallible truth. So Seeker, since I am just a stupid, lazy, spiteful liberal, state clearly the difference between your fundamentalism (not your religion) and a Muslim fanatic's.
Cin,
What you say here is true to a certain extent but there is a serious mitigating circumstance. What if the person you are debating with really is illogical, insane or deluded. Meaning, not just from a certain perspective but clinically.
Sure, we can start calling in the shrinks, but honestly in the vast majority of situations where the label of insane gets thrown around it is just based upon labels and rhetoric. That is the reality of our civil discourse in the United States.
Even if you can discount that reality, in essence the insane are borderline genius and all of us are not really normal because "normal" is a relative state.
I agree with you for the most part. However, if you have read or have had a "debate" with Seeker about creationism vs. evolution you quickly realize there is a complete lack of communication
As Seeker will tell you, he and I have had live verbal discussions and debates on these topics. In many respects to the point of driving us to great distances of frustration with each other.
As folks have seen with my comments (I hope), is that I don't come from a political or religious ideology in looking at things. It's not that I don't have those pre-suppositions, but I am a realistic and practical person that also pays attention to the long-term view of history…I liken myself to being a humanist. I am not easily swayed by rhetoric from either extreme.
It makes for a good conversation and debate with Seeker. We don't agree on everything. Heck, I have yet to change his mind on things like Creationism, but that's not the point of the debate. The point of the debate at lease with folks that are set in their beliefs is to come to a practical and non-rhetoric based understanding of the other sides' views. With all due respect to my friend Seeker, it is a waste of time to try and change his mind, but it is worthwhile in engaging in a discussion.
We, as a society, view cult members who follow David Koresh or Charles Manson as indoctrinated, not taught. What's the difference between a cult member and a creationist?
Cin, I view that people at birth have no a priori experience of God, Cults, Fanaticism, Facism, or anything else for that matter In modern society, babies through the teaching of their parents (and no, I would not use the term indoctrinate) and also free will chose to learn a path in life. That path may be reflective of their parents religious beliefs or racist norms that are reflective of the environment that they live in.
With regard to the difference between religious teachings and Cults, it is a question of what popularly is regarded as acceptable from Societal norms. I hate to use this old war horse Hitler anology, but from a German's perspective after WWI, joining the Nazi party was within societal norms, after the war in retrospect it was almost like a cult.
My point is not that religion is the same as fascism, or cults are the same as religion in terms of learning, but there are expectations as to what is within societal norms. When a practice or group over-exerts its dominance in society at the expense of a minority to the point of oppression, then at some point down the road it may no longer be within the realm of societal norms (particularly in a free society).
I know Seeker will have a dramatically different view on this, but this is how I look at things from a historical , practical, and humanist perspective.
Anyone regardless of political and social philosophy can make that same claim that a group or association as crazy.
No, he is referring to a group we both agree is crazy (Fred Phelps), or like the Islamic terrorists, and then saying that his other ideological opponents are like them. It's cheap when it really is not true, despite any similarities between the groups. The essential elements that make a fringe group fringe, i.e. violence and outright hatred, are not present in modern evangelicalism, even though liberals often like to make such accusations (angrily, I might add).
That does not mean one's logic is reactionary or cheap, it means one has a point of view which you may not (or in this case disagree with).
That's debate and discussion.
That's right, but I would not let him get away with common logical fallacies such as straw man tactics, or ad hominem attacks, or in this case, guilt by association (You share some beliefs with Islamists, therefore you are just like them and all of your ideas must be rejected).
I have no problem with people attacking my reasoning, as Cineaste did recently accusing me of special pleading. However, I am wearied of this oft used liberal cheap trick, used ad nauseum to attack people of healthy faith, and in this case, it is egregiously inappropriate, not really just good argumentation.
It is a far too easy to write someone off as insane or illogical or one that uses cheap tactics.
Agreed, but in this case, I think the shoe fits.
Most of us are to easily drawn into using generalization and labels to pigeon-hole those we disagree with rather than to try an engage and perhaps see things from the other side's perspective.
Yep, that's what he did ;) Glad you see that.
but his fanaticism to the Bible has twisted his sense of reality into full blown delusion.
You have got to be kidding. So now you are basically taking the militant atheist tack saying that evangelicals are deluded. Because I don't believe your evolution myth? That is definitely where we "respectfully" consider the other deluded. Fully. And of course, over 50% of the American populace are similarly deluded. My, you must be one of the few with sense ;). What a scary world you must think we live in.
What's the difference between a cult member and a creationist? Are they not also indoctrinated into creationism; a magical doctrine of supernatural beings, talking snakes and other implausibilities?
If you are unable to describe the difference, then I rest my case that liberals like you have almost entirely lost their logical ability to meaningfully discern between good and evil, between their ideological opponents and insane people (because everyone who disagrees with them MUST be insane).
But let me suggest the answer. Indoctrination involves fear and demands for belief, rather than reasoning and evidence. Not only do most evangelical churches not demand that people believe in creationism (so no compulsion there, although you might find a limited amount of social pressure if the subject comes up), but they employ extensive use of reasoning from first principles, and examination of the evidence. Get it?
Your problem is that you think the miraculous is insane, and anyone who believes in such are insane. All the time, however, you maintain that you are an impartial agnostic. See the contradiction? Even worse, you would probably say that belief in God is illogical and insane. You give lip service to people of faith, but I think your real attitude is not so generous, hence your vitriol for me and those like me.
But real insanity is not seeing reality as it is. And since God is real, I would say that those who do not believe in God are out of touch with reality, and are therfore themselves close to being insane. Or as the scriptures put it, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"
Indoctrination involves fear and demands for belief, rather than reasoning and evidence.
And btw, this is exactly the tack that evolutionists take, esp. in the academic world. Public shaming and ridicule, even the threat of losing one's job, are all leveled against those who doubt the doctrine of evolution. Disallowing other perspectives, even in a Philosophy of Science class, is indoctrination.
Agreed, things can change overnight. But I still pray that Giuliani doesn't get the nomination or the Republicans are DOOMED.
Seeker, I would actually rephrase that statement and say that if Giuliani gets the nomination, the social conservative agenda and evangelical political movement is doomed NOT the Republican party.
Those items are not one in the same. Yes, there are a lot of folks with those convictions in the Republican party, but they are also in the other party.
Practically speaking, and this is projecting forward, should Guiliani get the Republican nomination, he is an electable candidate with voters on both sides of the aisle (maybe).
You have a fiscally conservative politician, who is viewed as tough on domestic security (9/11), that is also a moderate on many social issues. Now, those social issues stances you may be dead set against, but honestly, if he were to win you get half of what you want in terms of fiscal policy. That from a Political Science perspective is a powerful candidate with the electorate.
Short of an assassination, there aren't any obvious openings in terms of actual age within the Supreme court for new Presidential nominations. So a social policy conservative is not likely to have a lasting effect on policy in this country without another Republican super-majority in Congress, which I don't see happening for a while.
I still stand by original statement though, it is far too soon to predict the nominees, let alone the elections. All this talk is just theoretical at best.
Ha, I hope you stick around for a while to comment here Silver, I like your posts. We really need some moderation!
In response,
I liken myself to being a humanist.
Me too.
With all due respect to my friend Seeker, it is a waste of time to try and change his mind, but it is worthwhile in engaging in a discussion.
Such a discussion becomes rhetorical. It's almost like discussing, is there a God? It's an important question but the conversation will never end conclusively. I still debate because it pushes me to learn and explore the strength of my own beliefs and the limits of my knowledge. I have learned a lot about my self and religious people speaking to Aaron and Seeker even though many of our conversations spiral into dead ends.
With regard to the difference between religious teachings and Cults, it is a question of what popularly is regarded as acceptable from Societal norms. I hate to use this old war horse Hitler anology, but from a German's perspective after WWI, joining the Nazi party was within societal norms, after the war in retrospect it was almost like a cult.
In the past I have taken a similar position but it brought accusations of "moral relativism." The objection to moral relativism, using your Hitler example, would be …
So, Silver Hallide, would you say the Nazis were right or wrong? If morality is really only a matter of perspective "from a German's perspective after WWI, joining the Nazi party was within societal norms" how can you denounce the Nazi's? They were perfectly within their social norms. Yet, you do say that the Nazi's were morally wrong correct? By what standard do you say this? If you reply, "my own social norms", then that raises the question, what makes one set of social norms better than the another's? If you reply that social norms are all equal, non is better than another, then you can't denounce Hitler's Nazism.
You have a fiscally conservative politician, who is viewed as tough on domestic security (9/11), that is also a moderate on many social issues.
Yes, he's a Schwarzenegger republican, formerly known as a RHINO. You're right, a Giuliani candidacy would hurt the conservative agenda.
I have learned a lot about my self and religious people speaking to Aaron and Seeker even though many of our conversations spiral into dead ends.
Ditto. Actually, I have moderated some of my positions. I am actually on the fence about civil unions now, I have a better understanding for atheism, and I am for stem cell research if we engage safeguards, I no longer hold to the hard "this is a Christian nation" position (though I do hold to strong Christian ideological influence, not just a deistic-secularism), and I am no longer pushing for anti-abortion legislation that begins at conception, but at a later point around 4-8 weeks (what I think is a logical and defensible "point of personhood."
While these are still conservative positions, they are not all ultra-conservative. What's so funny to me is that I am perceived here as ultra-conservative, but in test after test, and in real life, I am more moderate than many conservatives. I didn't say I was really "moderate", just less polarized than many.
Of course, on certain issues, I am still not easily moved, like evolution, the morality and origins of homosexuality, and the uniqueness of Jesus. And of course, due to my often strong language, and failure to succumb to Cineate's and Sam's brilliant logic, I am called an extremist. Whatever.
This is in response to Seeker's post,
The essential elements that make a fringe group fringe, i.e. violence and outright hatred, are not present in modern evangelicalism
We disagree with what makes "a fringe group fringe." What makes a fringe group fringe is dogma, fanaticism, and fundamentalism. A group does not need to be violent or hateful to be considered fringe. I would say that Heaven's Gate the UFO cult, contrary to your criteria Seeker, are neither violent or hateful but they are definitly "fringe." Under my criteria, Evangelicals in general don't qualify as a fringe group, but creationists do.
——————————————————–
Regarding the guilt by association fallacy, IF I am guilty of associating fundamentalist Muslims with fundamentalist Christians, then you too Seeker must admit you are guilty of the same fallacy in regard to Atheists and Stalin and Darwinism and Nazism. If you don't concede this, then we can just continue as usual.
——————————————————–
You have got to be kidding. So now you are basically taking the militant atheist tack saying that evangelicals are deluded.
No, not Evangelicals. You specifically. Creationists in general.
Because I don't believe your evolution myth?
No, because you are unreasonable. People like you see this picture and tell yourselves "Unrelated!" Any rational human being should be able to see the similarities, the shared genetics, in this photo.
That is definitely where we "respectfully" consider the other deluded.
The difference is, you have no evidence to back your position. Evolution has hard evidence.
And of course, over 50% of the American populace are similarly deluded.
As Silver points out, so what? The German populace followed Hitler. They were also deluded.
…evangelical churches not demand that people believe in creationism (so no compulsion there…
Excuse me Seeker, most home schooling is for the express purpose to indoctrinate children into creationism. Also, can evolutionists teach evolution at "Christian" schools like Liberty "University?" No, evolution is barred.
…but they employ extensive use of reasoning from first principles, and examination of the evidence. Get it?
Again, this "extensive use of reasoning" from "evidence" stems from a doctrine of women coming from ribs, talking snakes, and species popping into existence. It's not science it's, you guessed it, religion.
…logical ability to meaningfully discern between good and evil.
There is no such thing as "good" or "evil." These are simply labels we put on what is "moral" and "immoral."
Your problem is that you think the miraculous is insane…
Nope, just deluded. People who believe in miracles are mistaking "despite great odds" as "miracle." A real miracle would be amputees growing limbs back without the aid of medicine or people coming back to life after being dead for, say 100 years or more. If these happen then I will no longer be a skeptic.
Even worse, you would probably say that belief in God is illogical and insane.
Illogical, yes. Insane, maybe some of the really fanatical zealots, yes. I would say ignorant and deluded mostly. Don't jump to the conclusion that I mean this in a pejorative sense. My parents believed in God. Many people I would call friends, like yourself believe in God. I respect the person, but I don't respect their religions. The character of a person and their God beliefs are separate things. I think this is where your stereotyping of Muslims is wrong but your assessment of Islam is correct.
You give lip service to people of faith, but I think your real attitude is not so generous, hence your vitriol for me and those like me.
As I just said, I think your faith is ignorant and delusional but you and your faith are different things. Don't apply my "vitriol" toward fundamentalism, ignorance and delusion to yourself. You agree that we need more Danish cartoons mocking Mohammed to force Islam to reflect upon its doctrine right? Well, I do the equivalent to creationists.
And since God is real…
Again, this is simply an assertion. You claim to know the unknowable. Logically, that does not fly.
Ha, I hope you stick around for a while to comment here Silver, I like your posts. We really need some moderation!
Cin, thanks. I have no intention of leaving. I may not engage in every discussion or argument, but I will be around and will poke my toe in where I feel there is value in providing additional context.
Public shaming and ridicule, even the threat of losing one's job, are all leveled against those who doubt the doctrine of evolution. Disallowing other perspectives, even in a Philosophy of Science class, is indoctrination.
Marriage is not a special right if anybody who is straight can have it. Clearly, it also isn't a special right what the regular and consistent damage done to marriage by straight people. Marriage is a legal arrangement between two people who love one another, which is what states ought to be in the business of sanctioning. Churches can figure out the rest.
Or, to put this another way, was the end of interracial marriage laws extending a "special right" to those who wanted to marry individuals from other races? Of course not.
Sam,
Marriage is not a special right if anybody who is straight can have it. Clearly, it also isn't a special right what the regular and consistent damage done to marriage by straight people. Marriage is a legal arrangement between two people who love one another, which is what states ought to be in the business of sanctioning.
OK, I will bite on this one. This is something that both sides of the extremes will rail against me on, but so what. I am being practical and a realist on this one.
I would, at its most basic level, agree with you. However, not at the level when it comes to the right to be married in a church.
The problem with this whole definition of marriage debate is the intermixing and confusion between the legal right to marry under the law and the legal right to be married in a church. Most social conservatives see this to be one in the same.
From a rational and practical standpoint, I would argue that a legal marriage certificate in terms as a right to visitation, naming of dependents should be the same as a civil union in the eyes of the law.
If you ignore the legal right to marry as codified in law within the United States, marriage in the eyes of the Church was codified and accepted long before there were laws regulating it. In fact, marriage licenses are a relatively recent occurrence.
The problem is we have at its most basic and emotional level is a question of semantics with respects to legal rights. The minute you call something "Marriage" from a legal perspective you get both sides of the debate in an emotional and philosophical way that can turn to be irrational.
What we need in this country if we are really interested in equality of rights from a legal perspective (forget religion for a moment). Is to simple take "Marriage" out of any reference from a legal document regardless of sexual orientation when it applies (as it does to practically every state in the Union) to recognition of a dependent, establishment of survivor benefits, recognition of visitation rights, and codification of tax deduction benefits. If you want, we can call it something innocuous like "Dependent Establishment Agreement," since from a legal perspective that is what you are doing when you take out a Marriage License under the law.
That at its very basic level is the issue here. Semantics. The term "Marriage" should be restricted to the ceremony that is conducted in the eyes of God and in a Church. While the legal act of recognizing a relationship in terms of legal benefits should be called something else. Period. The two are not mutually the same/
With regard to the religious aspects of Marriage, OK, sure there are some homosexuals that want to be able to get married in a church and have that recognized. I personally don't have a problem with that. However, that is a battle that one has to fight over with a Church. That is a religious, moral, and interpretation of the Bible question. That is something we can argue about all day to the end of time, but we will never agree on.
I know Seeker and I are far apart on this. And, I would anticipate that Louis, given our recent discourse, would be equally unhappy and call this racist. However, this position is a realistic and balanced approach.
You can never please everyone in this country. If the "fringe" on both unhappy, and you find a compromise then you are successful. Governing and social policy is about making choices and compromises. Without compromise, there can be no change and movement forward.
Silver, do you have a response to my "moral relativism" objection to you "Hitler Example?" I'd like to discuss that until Seeker pops in to rebut my post to him. :)
most home schooling is for the express purpose to indoctrinate children into creationism.
Cineaste, there are MANY pagans who homeschool. I'd say they make up at least 25% of the homeschooling community. I do not homeschool my kids for the express purpose of indoctrinating my children into creationism.
I homeschool them to keep them away from all the sex, violence, and drugs that I know are in the schools they attend. See, I actually put my kids in school for a couple of years (my younger two are still in ps in 4th and 1st grade). I do not like the bad attitude and bad friend problems resulting from attending public school.
I do not homeschool my kids for the express purpose of indoctrinating my children into creationism.
So do you teach them evolution as well? If not, then I would say in addition to keeping them away from "sex, drugs, and rock n'roll" you are also keeping them away from evolution by default.
Actually I do teach them about it. As theory.
I just have always been so close to my girls, and I hate it when in 4th grade one of them comes home crying because a mean girl started a rumor that she (my daughter) had had sex with a boy in her class.
I think it is sad that any 4th grader knows all about sex. And now my daughter knows all about sex, well how people can use sex to be horrible, by default, naturally.
That was one reason I took her back out this year. It was even worse in 5th grade. And then I decided I wasn't sending any of them to the middle school where the police have to be called to curb the violence in the lesbian bathroom either.
But you know, there are lots of things I teach my kids. I have them read from classic literature (Treasure Island was a bigger hit than I'd figured on…) and also we learn about psychology and medicine (homeopathic, but also mainstream too) and we have forayed into several different languages by her request (she is like her mama). And business and economy and we are starting algebra. All in 6th grade. Cool huh? It is so nice to be free to learn about "other stuff" when you are ready for it.
:)
Actually I do teach them about it. As theory.
But you've admitted that you don't even understand Evolution yourself. This just confirms everything I said above.
The picture that I get in my head when you say this is…
[Lawanda to children:] Here is what scientists think. We evolved from a common ancestor. It's a theory.
[Lawanda to children:] Here is Genesis. This is what God says.
And then I decided I wasn't sending any of them to the middle school where the police have to be called to curb the violence in the lesbian bathroom either.
This sounds like an attempt to be provocative. I can do that too…
Hanging out in the lesbian bathroom is my three year old daughter's favorite past time. Maybe our children should meet up there.
"Lesbian bathroom," give me a break Lawanda. Are you just trying to piss Louis, Sam, Me and Silver off for no reason by saying this?
You're being ridiculous for some reason. What's going on?
I will let my daughter read the primer you have so graciously provided for me (which I am nearly finished with, btw) :) She will ask me what I thought about it, I will tell her: I still think it is just a theory. A messy, albeit interesting, one, and we will most likely try to find some scientific writing with references about it, too.
I cannot help but believe the Bible, however. I am much more spiritual than scientific I guess.
I'm sorry you think I am being ridiculous. But do you not remember about the lesbian bathroom at my kids' middle school where they have had to call the police about 5 times this year because of the violence? I thought I had mentioned it before.
It is a stark reality for me. I think you may be in denial about how young people are…I don't know, maybe you will understand more when your daughter is older?
And I did not mean to upset Louis in the movie thread. I felt bad after I posted and he got mad. But really, it never occurred to me for reasons I already said.
Your opinions on homeschooling seem very one sided to me. I always get a bit defensive when people question my right to parent my own children. Especially when my children are so well rounded in their education and are growing up to be such sweet individuals. (so far!!)
But let me ask you this.
Why is it ok for Louis (or you or Silver or Sam or anyone) to get mad at any real or imagined slur about gay people? I think it is because being gay is the fashionable way to be different then the mainstream.
While I am ridiculous when I get a bit defensive about homeschooling. And homeschooling, which is a productive way to be different from the mainstream, is slurred and made out to be such an ignorant, intolerant, unjustifiable practice (not necessarily by you, but you obviously think homeschooling is awful)…. Anyhow, because it is not popular to want to teach your kids yourself, or let them learn at their own pace (my kids' pace happens to be faster than the average child), I get a lot of prejudicial and unkind remarks about my choices.
I have perspective on being in the minority and being repressed. I worry about homeschooling becoming illegal.
I will tell her: I still think it is just a theory. A messy, albeit interesting, one…
That's fine. What parts do you still find messy? I'm very familiar with it so I can help. I know you will not accept evolution but that should not be a barrier to understanding the principles and mechanics of evolution.
And I did not mean to upset Louis in the movie thread. I felt bad after I posted and he got mad.
I know that already Lawanda. I never said anything about it. I'm referring to your comments in this thread about lesbianism. Were you trying to be satirical (the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.)? You're speaking of lesbianism in the 6th grade. What's more, as if little girls group together in the bathroom and are corrupted by other little 6th grade lesbians into the lesbian "lifestyle." Honest to goodness, is this what you think?
Your opinions on homeschooling seem very one sided to me. I always get a bit defensive when people question my right to parent my own children.
Please point to where I questioned your right to parent your own children.
Why is it ok for Louis (or you or Silver or Sam or anyone) to get mad at any real or imagined slur about gay people?
Well, why is it okay for black people to get mad about racial slurs? It's a personal insult. You may not agree with someone's views so attack their views not the person or the people.
While I am ridiculous when I get a bit defensive about homeschooling.
You were being ridiculous with your homophobia, not for homeschooling. What I said about home schooling, which was started by liberals BTW, is that it's now mostly used by religious fundamentalists for the express purpose of indoctrinating their children into creationism. Why? Because, they teach evolution in the public schools. I'm simply stating the statistical truth.
You're speaking of lesbianism in the 6th grade.
I am speaking of violence, with very strong connections to lesbianism in the 6th-8th grades, and referring to it as one reason I am homeschooling. Sorry if that is offensive, but it is a reality.
And that was in response to your "accusation" that homeschoolers do so in order to indoctrinate their children into creationism. Not my "homophobia". (Oh yes, I am so homophobic.)
You may not agree with someone's views so attack their views not the person or the people.
And to which person should I apologise for attacking them instead of their views?
From < href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling">wiki:
According to a 2003 U.S. Census survey, 33% of homeschooling households cited religion as a factor in their choice. The same study found that 30% felt school had a poor learning environment, 14% objected to what the school teaches, 11% felt their children were not being challenged at school, and 9% cited morality.
According to the U.S. DOE's "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003", 85 percent of homeschooling parents cited "the social environments of other forms of schooling" (including safety, drugs, bullying and negative peer-pressure) as an important reason why they homeschool. 72 percent cited their " to provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason, and 68 percent cited "dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools."
I don't think of homeschooling as an opportunity to indoctrinate my children. But as a way to protect them. Which happens to be my job.
And homeschooling "started" because people happened to like their kids and want them to be well-adjusted and educated at the same time. :)
Lawanda,
And then I decided I wasn't sending any of them to the middle school where the police have to be called to curb the violence in the lesbian bathroom either.
Cin, beat me to this, but true to my word, I find that statement to be reflective of a stereotype…like bathrooms are favorite hangouts of homosexuals that will somehow attack, rape, or infect a heterosexual child.
I am not sure that that is what you intended, but it sure is inflammatory. Maybe it would be helpful to this group, before all this spins out of control, if you gave us a little more context than a generic generalization of the "lesbian bathroom."
Additionally, I do not have a problem with a parent's desire to home school their children. There are some undeniable benefits to doing so, but there are some inherent risks of isolating a child from experiencing and being socialized with children that are different from them (race, religion, socio-economic background). Those risks, if a parent is not very vigilant to prevent, can and do lead to the fostering of a stereotype.
Given the nature of society in the United States, I highly doubt the right to home school or send a child to a private school will ever go away. Now, if we want to debate whether, given that right, parents who choose to exempt their children from attending public school should still be required to pay taxes to support the public system…we can sure do that.
Why is it ok for Louis (or you or Silver or Sam or anyone) to get mad at any real or imagined slur about gay people?
I don't personally get mad at real or imagined slurs when there is no reasonable insinuation that it is a slur given the context of the discussion. As I said to Louis, and I will remind you of it here, the perception and understanding of a term to be derogatory is a matter of the context in which it is used. While, you may say something as being "gay" meaning lame when referring to a movie, I inherently understand that it not meant to be offensive (Louis' company excepted).
However, when one uses the term "lesbian bathroom" in the context that you did, I can easily discern a stereotype that is present from within that statement. Am I personally offended by that? No. However, without providing us with additional context why the "lesbians" in the bathroom were endangering your child, it is hard no jump to conclusions.
I think that is a reasonable way to look at this.
Ok, let me explain. I thought I had explained this before, but it has obviously been forgotten, or I didn't do it.
There is one particular bathroom at the middle school that my girls are supposed to attend which is referred to as "the lesbian bathroom" by students, teachers, and police officers.
In this particular bathroom, lesbian girls accost any student who comes in. They hide drugs in the toilets for each other, as well. They have made it their club house of sorts.
The police have been called to the school several times this year. Girls have been sexually assaulted, physically beaten, as well as merely harassed.
The other girl's bathroom in the school is on another floor. I have no desire to submit my girls to that situation whatsoever. And I think it is obvious there is not an easy solution, or else the community would do it. I think they are afraid to do much about it BECAUSE it concerns lesbianism, and our area has a very high population of homosexuals. But that is just my opinion.
I am speaking of violence, with very strong connections to lesbianism in the 6th-8th grades.
Okay, just so I can understand, you believe 6th-8th graders, who you also believe are violent, drug addicted, sex crazed, lesbians, have formed some sort girlie kiddie gang whose purpose is to rape, beat, and harass heterosexual girls in the bathroom of the local middle school. The police are afraid to do much of anything about it because these girls are lesbians. So, this is why you home school your own girls.
Did I sum that up correctly?
Why not, then, just refer to violent attacks in the bathroom and a generally unsafe atmosphere? This looks very suspicious to me.
I've noticed that people always claim they are so tolerant and not bigoted, but then proceed to use stereotypes and intolerant language. Words are important, here, and, however innocuous the intent, transmit meanings and messages. "Lesbian bathroom," "gay=lame" – this kind of stuff is code for homophobic attitudes. I'm sorry that you all feel I'm being too sensitive or hateful, but it's truth. Just claiming that one is not bigoted doesn't make it so. I've also noticed that straights make a lot of assumptions about sexuality – it's impossible NOT to notice. But when I point it out, they get all upset. After a lifetime of pinpricks, you beging to feel like you're bleeding to death.
Louis,
I've also noticed that straights make a lot of assumptions about sexuality – it's impossible NOT to notice. But when I point it out, they get all upset. After a lifetime of pinpricks, you beging to feel like you're bleeding to death.
Perhaps, it is the means of delivering your message that is the problem and is what generates the reaction that you receive from people. That is my specific observation here (having read this blog from the very start and then beginning to participate in the open).
There is a very distinct difference between making accusations and generalizations without give and take or facts to substantiate them versus a person who can successfully see things from the other person's point of view while still vehemently disagreeing with them.
If one screams at the top of their lungs that someone is a bigot, what does that achieve? Nothing, except you have expressed your opinion. Now, if the goal is to point out a issue, then one should be able to discern how to best go about finding errors or flaws in another's position in way that it may be better received.
Also, if this is something that you feel so strongly about, perhaps you should consider getting actively involved in policy within your own community. As witnessed by the "Tipping Point" (if you have not read the book, I highly recommend it) the best way to effect change is at a local and very small level, if it is generally accepted, it will become evangelized and widespread.
Words are important, here, and, however innocuous the intent, transmit meanings and messages.
Yes, words are important. However, without tone, inflection and context, words are meaningless. Black is a wonderful example.
If I say "black" without any modifier or context it means nothing really. Am I referring to the color, the sentiment or feeling reflected by depression or suicide, or am I referring to an African American (with or without derogatory sentiments).
If one jumps to immediate conclusions without recognizing the context in which a word is use, one is just as guilty as someone that intended to slur a specific group or label. It boils down to relying on emotion and personal bias to determine one's fate instead of thinking as a rationale human being with logic.
Louis, on this I am with you. I've already submitted Lawanda's description of the "lesbian bathroom" to "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" I believe her post is so outrageous that I just might get into the top 100 "fundie quotes" ever. Then again…
Lawanda, you're under some serious misconceptions about homosexuality that need to be addressed. I agree with Louis about this so I'm not going to defend you this time. Sorry, but you've justified a lot of his points about you. You've pulled off a "Kramer" or "Mel Gibson" classed faux pas of epic proportions. The sad thing is you don't even realize. Luckily, we are here to help you with this.
I highlighted my reasons for homeschooling from the wiki article.
you believe 6th-8th graders, who you also believe are violent, drug addicted, sex crazed, lesbians, have formed some sort girlie kiddie gang whose purpose is to rape, beat, and harass heterosexual girls in the bathroom of the local middle school.
I did not believe it at first. But since one of the children in my daughter's class had a big sister who was one of the accosted, and the police have been called on several occasions, I would guess that it is common knowledge now. I asked a police officer that I know, and he said it is getting worse.
And I did not say they only beat up or harass heterosexual girls. That was entirely you. I personally think it is just another way for already bullies to act out.
The police are afraid to do much of anything about it because these girls are lesbians.
I said I am of the opinion that they are trying to avoid doing anything about the whole situation because there is lesbianism involved and the area is one with a large homosexual population.
Why not, then, just refer to violent attacks in the bathroom and a generally unsafe atmosphere? This looks very suspicious to me.
It is the students and people who are dealing with the situation who have labeled it "the lesbian bathroom", from what I understand the bullies actually call it their "dyke" bathroom or something to that effect. But, I am not there, I am just going by what I have heard.
And that is enough for me to never send my kids to that school.
Cin,
Lawanda, you're under some serious misconceptions about homosexuality that need to be addressed.
In principle, I this I am in agreement with you and Louis on this one.
Lawanda, as a parent you have a right to make choices about your child's education. The question of the public school's bathroom being a danger due to physical assaut (e.g., a fight, etc) is definitely within the realm of a parents concern.
However, that is an administrative and disciplinary issue that the school district is obviously not able to deal with and is hiding behind excuses.
It does not matter who hangs out in a bathroom, homosexual, heterosexual, a young mobster in training, or the easter bunny. It boils down to what is the core threat to a child. If you believe the threat is that your child will somehow become a homosexual because of this disciplinary issue or that its the Lesbians fault because they hang out in there, then you do have some serious misconceptions about homosexuality. It would be the same thing as saying that all Hispanics are responsible for violence in a school, just because there are a children that are causing a problem and some of them happen to be hispanic. That is an act of over-reaching generalizations.
I did not believe it at first. But since one of the children in my daughter's class had a big sister who was one of the accosted, and the police have been called on several occasions, I would guess that it is common knowledge now. I asked a police officer that I know, and he said it is getting worse.
So, that begs the question of why the parent of the child that was accosted did not file a civil suit in court against the School District for not providing a safe learning environment. Similar suits have been filed and won within the state of California in terms of weapons, etc.
Additionally, while you took your child out of the school for their own safety, as a person that is worried about the community, why did you not try and organize a unified parent front to combat the issue directly with the School Board.
It is very easy to complain and avoid, it is very natural, but that does not solve a problem. Instead is defers the inevitable, the situation getting worse and someone being harmed.
S.H. makes some good points. However, since he/she claims to have read this blog since its inception, I'm surprised he could apply them to me here. I have tried, over and over and over again, to deal rationally with these people, marshaling every argument I can think of to change their minds, but to no avail. I'm sorry, but I've come to the conclusion that religion – particularly in its conservative and fundamentalist varieties – so warps the mind that it becomes immune to reason. If you believe that God decrees X, then pointing out X's unreality and/or irrationality is a waste of time. Any anger or hostility I show is a direct result of this situation. seeker, for instance, has shown himself, not only to be insensitive, but also harshly prejudiced when it comes to queer people: reasoning with him is pointless. There is no common ground possible.
If, then, you ask why do I post here? For one thing, I like to keep tabs on the enemy. Another reason is that christianists continue to infest gay blogs, newsgroups, and websites with their vitriol. Tit-for-tat.
Louis,
marshaling every argument I can think of to change their minds, but to no avail
Perhaps then, it is a recognition that some people's minds just can't be changed on certain issues period. One approach with respects to talking to the opposition is to point out an alternate way of thinking about things. Maybe that is what you are trying to do here, but if one accepts that you may not be able to change a person's mind it makes for a more realistic expectation of people and also for less frustration. It takes a great deal of time for ideas and attitudes to change with people.
That's my 2cents for you.
Lawanda, please read this. Please don't let this be you…
This woman's ignorance was lethal and it cost her.
It does not matter who hangs out in a bathroom, homosexual, heterosexual, a young mobster in training, or the easter bunny. It boils down to what is the core threat to a child.
I agree. However in this situation, it happens to involve lesbianism. As you can easily witness, if it in any way shows homosexuality in a negative light, all the sudden the words homophobic and bigot are thrown out.
I am sorry, but I think it is you all who are under misconceptions. I have noticed it over and over. It seems that if a person is homosexual, they are otherwise angelic. It is as if homosexuals are above molestation or violence. I don't know what gives you that idea, but it is very naive and ridiculous. I would think the "they are people just like you" would apply there too.
If you believe the threat is that your child will somehow become a homosexual because of this disciplinary issue or that its the Lesbians fault because they hang out in there, then you do have some serious misconceptions about homosexuality
I do not believe I ever even slightly inferred this. It is just that I am a christian and that of course makes me homophobic, which is the only reason I can figure that you all assumed that. I do believe that any child including my child might be sexually assaulted, however, by males or females. And this particular situation is a problem concerning lesbianism, because obviously boys do not have access to a girls bathroom.
that begs the question of why the parent of the child that was accosted did not file a civil suit in court against the School District for not providing a safe learning environment.
I am sure they are doing whatever they can. Along with the others involved.
It is very easy to complain and avoid, it is very natural, but that does not solve a problem. Instead is defers the inevitable, the situation getting worse and someone being harmed.
True, however, I have growing children and I do not have time to wait for the children of other people to learn how to behave reasonably in society. In the meantime, I enjoy having my kids at home, and I enjoy teaching them, and that (violence in their school, btw, not lesbianism) was only one of the reasons I listed for homeschooling.
It just so happened to throw a bad light on some lesbians, and so I have been accused of being homophobic which is a mortal sin.
And I am hurt Cineaste. I do not know which offends me more, the fact that you compare me to Kramer, or the fact that you lump me with evangelicals for something I did not do.
I never said I was homeschooling my kids because I didn't want them to become lesbians. The violence that has occurred that scared me away from their school happened to be perpetrated by lesbians using lesbian sex to hurt others.
So, it really bothers me that you are all trying to find a way to make the lesbianism a non-issue. I was more concerned with the violence and bullying, myself. It just so happened to be lesbian violence.
And here you are all trying to say that it is not an issue, because apparently I am being sexual orientationist by talking about a real life situation in which the "bad guys" are lesbians.
Yikes. And I am the one with misconceptions? Or stupid like Kramer? Or a homophobe? I think you all are Christianophobes!
Not all homosexuals are nice like Louis. Just like not all christians are nice like me. I don't claim them to be, but you sure seem bent on claiming that for homosexuals.
O sorry sorry sorry!!
Actually, domestic violence among gay couples, esp. lesbians, is much higher than in hetero couples. There may be many reasons that pubescent lesbians form their own clique, try to carve out their own "safety zones," and act out. Possible reasons for this "lesbian bathroom" probably include:
– the girls feel ostracized, and so are angry, like any other counter culture minority
– the girls are mentally unhealthy because they have rejected heterosexuality, that is, their own sexuality, and replaced it with a rebellious perversion. This is almost always due to bad gender experiences as children, including bad parenting and molestation
– More were molested by fathers or uncles (remember, gays have a higher incidence of having been victims of childhood molestation) or victims of domestic issues
Lawanda, further, I doubt that your critics have any real exposure to the awful social atmosphere of many, even most public schools these days. The abundance of gangs, drugs, alcohol abuse, sexual 'hooking up', and other worldly influences such as hyper-consumerism makes today's schools an unsafe and unhealthy place for most children to learn.
Even more, most critics of home-schooling have three problems, all having to do with their own ignorance.
First, they have in their mind some caricature of religionist isolationists training their kids to hate other races and religions, and indoctrinating them into some narrow ideology that includes teaching unswerving devotion to such "anti-scientific" ideas as creationism.
Second, they have little or no background in child psychology or education, and don't realize that home schooling is in many ways emotionally and educationally better for children than the mass production schooling of public education. They don't understand that the socialization aspect of home-schooling is not only overblown by alarmist populists, but every home schooler knows that their kids need friends, and involve them in more healthy social activities and social services, such as sports and 4H, than many public schoolers.
Third, most critics are totally unaware of the distinguished history of home schooling and home schoolers in America. They have little idea of the superior students, both then and now, that come out of home schools.
So don't you worry, I understand wha tyou are saying. And as I always say, stereotypes are not bad, it's just the abuse of stereotypes that is bad. Are lesbians and gays more violent than their hetero counterparts? In relationships, the answer is yes. Are all lesbians violent? Of course not.
And cin, feel free to submit any or all of my entries to Fundies Say the Funniest Things – I scan that blog all the time for savory quotes.
Seeker,
Actually, domestic violence among gay couples, esp. lesbians, is much higher than in hetero couples. There may be many reasons that pubescent lesbians form their own clique, try to carve out their own "safety zones," and act out.
As you and I have discussed many times, it is easy to make this sort of statement. I know you are probably rushed with the kids at home and the desire to spend time with them, but I am going to put you to task.
Please point to specific studies on both the right and left side of the fence that backs up this claim. I am right now somewhat skeptical of your claims based upon what you have just presented.
-Silver
The study I cited, though listed on a right leaning site, is from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but i guess that was for molestation. Here's a couple studies showing the rates of domestic violence among gays. This review of the literature says this:
I'll do more research when i get time.
You see! What's the point of talking with such people?
Thanks for fixing my italics! I am so sorry I do that. :(
– More were molested by fathers or uncles (remember, gays have a higher incidence of having been victims of childhood molestation) or victims of domestic issues
I think the rate of child molestation is just high, period. Higher than people want to realize. And this is why I keep an eagle eye out for any possible molesters. Be they gay or straight, young or old. In my family or in a school people want me to send my kids to.
I would say that most teen homosexuality is the result of peer and societal pressure, because I am of the opinion that most teen sexuality is the result of peer and societal pressure.
Some of the children perpetrators have likely been molested (not necessarily by fathers or uncles..) and some of the children simply want to be "in".
Either way, it is not a good situation. I thought we'd already discussed it, which is why I was totally blown away by all the accusations of bigotry (again) and the "you are under misconceptions about homosexuality" (again).
And I believe you have been proven right in this thread about this:
First, they have in their mind some caricature of religionist isolationists training their kids to hate other races and religions, and indoctrinating them into some narrow ideology that includes teaching unswerving devotion to such "anti-scientific" ideas as creationism.
Second, they have little or no background in child psychology or education, and don't realize that home schooling is in many ways emotionally and educationally better for children than the mass production schooling of public education.
Third, most critics are totally unaware of the distinguished history of home schooling and home schoolers in America. They have little idea of the superior students, both then and now, that come out of home schools.
Also, I believe that it has been proven right here in this thread that "gay" is a much more fashionable minority group to defend than "homeschoolers".
Which is so true to life. Because it is the way of our culture to care more about sex than education.
Parenting questions for Lawanda…
1. Did Betty do anything wrong?
2. If she did, where did she err?
3. What is the difference between the choices you would make and those Betty made?
4. On what points do you agree with Betty?
I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
Statements like "lesbians using lesbian sex to hurt others" are real head scratchers. What do you mean by this? Can you explain how lesbian sex hurts, let alone hurts others?
Cin,
Silver, do you have a response to my "moral relativism" objection to you "Hitler Example?" I'd like to discuss that until Seeker pops in to rebut my post to him. :)
I want to let you know that I have not forgotten about this and do want to continue this discussion. The whole argument concerning "moral relativism" is a big one.
I will try and address that before the week is out.
Statements like "lesbians using lesbian sex to hurt others" are real head scratchers. What do you mean by this? Can you explain how lesbian sex hurts, let alone hurts others?
Any sex hurts when it is forced on a person. If it is "done" to a child, whether the child says they want it or not, it is forced, and it hurts them.
It happened to be homosexual in this real life scenario, and somehow that is my fault, or the perpetrators should be excused (you are trying to excuse them because of their sexual orientation, in order to not hurt the gay community's good? reputation, is all I can figure.) because they are the same sex.
1. Did Betty do anything wrong?
2. If she did, where did she err?
3. What is the difference between the choices you would make and those Betty made?
4. On what points do you agree with Betty?
Well, yes, she was stupid (and I am sure she has suffered enough with guilt.) for only noticing something was bothering him when his grades started slipping and he started acting depressed. When he was finally a teenager!
People do not pay much attention to other people in this world, because they are too busy with their own issues. That goes double for parents and kids, because we are so psyched into thinking our kids have to have problems and that we (parents) have to be their enemy.
When you homeschool it is much easier to be sensitive to your child's emotions. When you actually spend TIME with your kids, you KNOW them better.
How hard is that to figure out?
I am not worried about my kids becoming homosexual, or sexual at all for that matter. I just do not worry about such a natural part of life.
Unless they become the target of molestation. By anybody. Having been there myself, I know what kind of real trouble it can cause you. I do not need studies.
I am not looking for sympathy. I happen to know that sexual molestation is extremely common, and I am not alone, quite the opposite. Which is why I am very zealous in guarding my children form it in any shape or form.
Which is why I do not understand why people, especially those with kids, are so nonchalant about the state of our children regarding sexuality, not to mention the state of our adults.
Lawanda, with due respect, :( You didn't answer those questions regarding Betty. Saying "Betty was stupid" really does not do anything. Go into specific details in your answers to those 4 questions because I swear to God you have me scratching my head in complete confusion.
1. Did Betty do anything wrong? (be specific)
2. If she did, where did she err? (be specific)
3. What is the difference between the choices you would make and those Betty made? (be specific)
4. On what points do you agree with Betty? (be specific)
Statements like "lesbians using lesbian sex to hurt others" are real head scratchers. What do you mean by this? Can you explain how lesbian sex hurts, let alone hurts others?
[Any sex hurts when it is forced on a person. If it is "done" to a child, whether the child says they want it or not, it is forced, and it hurts them.
So, you are saying lesbians are rapists, fine. Another question is how exactly do they rape? It's not as if they have the proper equipment.
1. Did Betty do anything wrong? (be specific)
yes.
2. If she did, where did she err? (be specific)
Betty should have been talking to her child about sex since he was small. By the time they are a teen it is too late to talk to them. Especially if you want rational conversations.
3. What is the difference between the choices you would make and those Betty made? (be specific)
I would (am) spending time with my kids, so that I know them.
4. On what points do you agree with Betty? (be specific)
I suppose you mean when I have to sit down and talk to my teens about their sex life? Instead of telling them all about celibacy I would ask them why they feel the need to have sex with whomever they are desiring to have sex with. I would tell them that waiting a while is always good when you are contemplating having sex. I would tell them if they cannot control their urges, to at least please protect their bodies, although I would specifically tell them the best protection is being with only one person. But then I would suggest that they go do something fun to get their mind off of having sex. :-p
I said Any sex hurts when it is forced on a person. If it is "done" to a child, whether the child says they want it or not, it is forced, and it hurts them.
To which you respond: So, you are saying lesbians are rapists, fine. Another question is how exactly do they rape? It's not as if they have the proper equipment.
Please. I think each of our words speak for themselves.
You are still avoiding the questions. This might help…
Bobby said he'd been hiding it for awhile because he was afraid I would reject him. I sat him down and told him that I loved him and that God loved him, but that his salvation was in danger if he did not resist his unnatural temptations.
If one of Lawanda's girls said this to her, she would probably respond similarly. Lawanda would say, "I love you and God loves you. Lawanda also believes that lesbianism is a sin and she would also probably tell her daughter to resist unnatural lesbian temptation to avoid sin.
I told him how being gay would mean he would live a shorter life, and that if he couldn't change his orientation he could be celibate like most the ex-gays are.
I don't know if Lawanda agrees with this or not.
He started crying saying something along the lines of "I knew you wouldn't understand! You're just like everyone else!" before running to his room and slamming the door.
This is indicative of the profound misconceptions religious fundamentalists have about homosexuality. The boys reaction is not surprising. Is it surprising to you Lawanda?
I talked it over with his therapist, who had the ludicrous idea that homosexuality was unchangeable and that trying to repress could lead to lots of psychological damage (I've dropped him and will try to be finding another therapist with more moral beliefs). I wouldn't be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay. That, or how homosexuality has engulfed the media, making it seem 'cool' and 'hip' and how they were just another oppressed minority.
Lawanda is in complete agreement with Betty here. Contrast Lawanda's statements below with Betty's statements above…
I'm worried what other effects will come out of this increasingly secular, immoral society obsessed with filth. – Betty
[I think it is sad that any 4th grader knows all about sex. And now my daughter knows all about sex, well how people can use sex to be horrible, by default, naturally. – Lawanda]
Let me say there is no association between you and Betty. It's her tragedy not yours. However, your thinking parallels Betty's and that has the potential to be lethal. Lawanda, do you think I am being cruel by illustrating the similarities you have with Betty?
No not cruel, but obtuse.
Ok:
You are still avoiding the questions. This might help…
Bobby said he'd been hiding it for awhile because he was afraid I would reject him. I sat him down and told him that I loved him and that God loved him, but that his salvation was in danger if he did not resist his unnatural temptations.
If one of Lawanda's girls said this to her, she would probably respond similarly. Lawanda would say, "I love you and God loves you. Lawanda also believes that lesbianism is a sin and she would also probably tell her daughter to resist unnatural lesbian temptation to avoid sin.
If one of my girls said this to me, I would be very surprised that I hadn't noticed it earlier. I do believe that women who have sexual relations with other women are sinning. However, I also believe that women who have sexual relations with men are sinning too. Unless they have sexual relations with one man, who they are married to.
This does not make me oblivious to the fact that I have sinned, and my kids will too. I would tell her exactly what I told you I would tell her. Allow me to repeat:
I would tell them that waiting a while is always good when you are contemplating having sex. I would tell them if they cannot control their urges, to at least please protect their bodies, although I would specifically tell them the best protection is being with only one person. But then I would suggest that they go do something fun to get their mind off of having sex.
———————-
I told him how being gay would mean he would live a shorter life, and that if he couldn't change his orientation he could be celibate like most the ex-gays are.
I don't know if Lawanda agrees with this or not.
I have no idea about any of that. But it would not make much sense if it were true.
———————–
He started crying saying something along the lines of "I knew you wouldn't understand! You're just like everyone else!" before running to his room and slamming the door.
This is indicative of the profound misconceptions religious fundamentalists have about homosexuality. The boys reaction is not surprising. Is it surprising to you Lawanda?
Actually I would say this is indicative of any parent who doesn't have a clue about how or what her child thinks on. Which I am trying to avoid by homeschooling (for one…also by paying attention to my kids now too.) And his reaction? Typical confused teen. Who btw, are very prone to depression and confusion about life.
————————–
I talked it over with his therapist, who had the ludicrous idea that homosexuality was unchangeable and that trying to repress could lead to lots of psychological damage (I've dropped him and will try to be finding another therapist with more moral beliefs). I wouldn't be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay. That, or how homosexuality has engulfed the media, making it seem 'cool' and 'hip' and how they were just another oppressed minority.
Lawanda is in complete agreement with Betty here. Contrast Lawanda's statements below with Betty's statements above…
"I think it is because being gay is the fashionable way to be different then the mainstream."
"gay" is a much more fashionable minority group
"It seems that if a person is homosexual, they are otherwise angelic."
"It really bothers me that you are all trying to find a way to make the lesbianism a non-issue."
"I would say that most teen homosexuality is the result of peer and societal pressure, because I am of the opinion that most teen sexuality is the result of peer and societal pressure."
"…some of the children simply want to be "in".
…again "you (secularists on this board) are under misconceptions about homosexuality" [Well, you are, or you seem to be from how you react to the words lesbian or homosexual coming from my mouth!]
– Lawanda
I'm worried what other effects will come out of this increasingly secular, immoral society obsessed with filth. – Betty
[I think it is sad that any 4th grader knows all about sex. And now my daughter knows all about sex, well how people can use sex to be horrible, by default, naturally. – Lawanda]
So are my statements untrue? Homosexuality is propagandized everywhere, especially in Hollywood. You do seem to want everyone to think it is so ok to be homosexual that homosexuals can do no wrong.
Do you not think that our culture is obsessed with sex? I believe you have stated that you agree we are.
I wonder how many Amish are homosexuals.
However, your thinking parallels Betty's
I disagree very much, and I think if you could get past your prejudices against me, you would realize it and change you mind.
So are my statements untrue?
I'm sure Betty was asking herself that same question after her son committed suicide. Poor deluded woman.
What about the man whose son hangs himself at the age of 33, in a drunken panic? The father had always been a drunk himself.
Do you feel as sorry for him for his delusional parental behavior? Or would you not blame his son's suicide on him like you do Betty's son's?
Of course, you did not ask for my input, but here it is.
1. Did Betty do anything wrong?
Yep
2. If she did, where did she err?
Many things. But first of all, what she did right was to believe that homosexuality was a sinful maladaptation.
But what she did wrong? First, she told him his salvation would be in danger. Not only is this bad theology, it's threatening, which of course, is the wrong tack.
Second, she warns him about the life consequences of such a decision. Of course, they should have discussed this previously, and bringing it back up now is probably not the right thing – I'm sure Bobby knows this already.
Third, she suggests lifetime celibacy as the proper response to having homosexual urges. This typical Catholic response denies the ability to heal from same-sex attraction, and puts an unnecessary and undoable burden – even priests shouldn't be required to be celibate, because very few can live that way.
3. What is the difference between the choices you would make and those Betty made?
First, with such a sensitive subject, the parent ought to first listen and try to empathize by asking questions before offering advice. Such questions as "How did you come to this realization? Do you think this is a lifelong decision, or just something you think you want for now? Are you doing this because of any one person, or because you are being pressured? Are you doing this because you don't find girls attractive?"
Second, you might be able to probe a little deeper, knowing the roots of homosexuality are in gender identity issue, often linked to molestation, physical inferiority, or overly macho male figures in a boy's life. You might ask "Bobby, can I ask you some really personal questions? I want to ask them because I want to be sure that you are making these decisions for the right reason? Has anyone ever sexually molested you? Another man or boy? If so, do you think that partly affects you?" Of course, they are probably not able to understand how such an event would affect them, but as a parent, this information may help you heal your son's problem (and it is a problem).
Thirdly, hopefully, you've already had talks about sex and waiting for marriage, and discussed the emotional and physical risks of promiscuity and pre-marital sex. Those same rules apply to homosexuals as well, and you should try to reinforce this by saying something like "You know, I don't think you are making a wise decision, but you have to decide such things for yourself. If you are going to be sexually active as a homosexual, don't forget what we've talked about – sex before marriage is damaging, and dangerous. If you catch an STD, especially HIV, your life will be negatively impacted, and may end early."
Fourthly, I think you should suggest, but not force, therapy for the child. Not necessarily aggressive ex-gay therapy, but gender identity and, if need be, therapy that helps people heal from sexual abuse.
Lastly, you have to reaffirm your acceptance of Bobby, but also express disappointment at his choice. He will be loved, but his homosexuality will not be viewed as OK.
4. On what points do you agree with Betty?
Only that he is loved, and God loves him, and that many therapists feed people the idea that their orientation can not be changed. The fact is, some can, and some seem to not be able. But taking away their hope, and telling them that it's OK, I don't agree with.
It's fascinating watching straights talk about homosexuality. It's like the Hindu parable of the blind men trying to describe an elephant.
Did either of you two religious intellectuals ever stop and think,
"Oh hey, maybe Betty's therapist had a point. Maybe all that education he received to become a doctor actually meant he knew what he was talking about. Maybe Betty should have not put the Bible before a doctor's medical knowledge. Maybe Betty's therapist was correct when he said, "homosexuality was unchangeable and that trying to repress could lead to lots of psychological damage." Maybe Betty should not have dropped her therapist just because she had problems with his not telling her what she wanted to hear. Maybe Betty was a God damn tool who drove her son to kill himself because she couldn't accept him for who he was. Maybe Betty's therapist was not "engulfed with the media" which makes homosexuality "seem 'cool' and 'hip' making gays seem like "just another oppressed minority" but was actually speaking the truth."
Did you ever stop and think, Betty fucked up? Did you ever ever stop and think, I (Lawanda, Seeker) think a lot like Betty?
It's fascinating watching straights talk about homosexuality.
Then don't hesitate to correct me Louis. You are the one speaking from experience yet I seem to be the one engaged in this debate defending gays.
Did you read this?
What about the man whose son hangs himself at the age of 33, in a drunken panic? The father had always been a drunk himself.
Do you feel as sorry for him for his delusional parental behavior? Or would you not blame his son's suicide on him like you do Betty's son's?
True story. Not one that resonates with you apparently, like Bobby's though.
Maybe Betty was part of the reason her son killed himself. Maybe not.
Maybe the psychiatrist wasn't doing his job. After all, Betty's son did end up killing himself in spite of already being in therapy.
Maybe every suicide can be traced to parental mistakes.
Maybe so can homosexuality or heterosexuality.
I do not think like Betty, except in this "God loves us".
And I guess heterosexuals are not allowed to discuss their thoughts on homosexuality unless they are thinking of becoming homosexual? What if they tried it and didn't like it? They don't count either? Too negative?
Seems a little like "I am the authority, no one else knows anything about it."
Fine Lawanda, it's obvious I have been hoodwinked by the homosexual media fashion blitz. Excuse me while I take my daughter to the lesbian bathroom.
I do think you've been hoodwinked about this. Much the same way that you think I have been hoodwinked by religion.
I do not think like Betty, except in this "God loves us".
["I think it is because being gay is the fashionable way to be different then the mainstream." -Lawanda]
["…homosexuality has engulfed the media, making it seem 'cool' and 'hip'…" -Betty]
I'm still be obtuse, sorry.
Ok, fine I agree with her there too. :-p
Lawanda, I pray one or more of your daughters turns out to be a lesbian. It would do you some good.
Then you're a damn fool.
[referring to Lawanda, of course]
Of course you are referring to me. Who else. I'd return the favor, but it would be rude.
And seriously, Betty may have made a mistake, but don't we all? Except Louis, I mean.
You still haven't referred back to the other suicide situation, in which the parent was a fool who totally screwed up, and pretty much caused his son's death by introducing him to alcohol as a teen.
Why is one parent's mistake so unforgivable to you? Because it was a religious mistake?
Oh and pray away! LOL
It's not a matter of making mistakes or being perfect (I'll leave that to the xians). It's a matter of malice and ignorance. If you really believe that "being gay is the fashionable way to be different then the mainstream," then you are, objectively speaking, a damn fool, and ignorant to boot.
If you really believe it is not fashionable to be gay, then you haven't looked into any media lately.
Oh and pray away! LOL
That went over your head too :( Never mind then.
I have to be blunt. That might work.
And I guess heterosexuals are not allowed to discuss their thoughts on homosexuality unless they are thinking of becoming homosexual? What if they tried it and didn't like it?
You are wrong. Betty was wrong about this too. If one is gay, it is not by choice. Lawanda does not choose whether she likes men or not. Lawanda just does. It works the same way for gays. It is not some big media conspiracy. There have been gays throughout all of human history. Gay is not a fashion statement.
Why is one parent's mistake so unforgivable to you? Because it was a religious mistake?
Betty's indoctrination into the belief that gay is a choice and that her son was the victim of some media scheme, makes Betty no different than ignorant nut jobs who kill their children through faith healing. Firing her therapist for telling the truth and not what she wanted to hear is unforgivable. Instead, Betty stuck to her ignorant beliefs about gays, which you both share. Look at the result.
You still haven't referred back to the other suicide situation, in which the parent was a fool who totally screwed up, and pretty much caused his son's death by introducing him to alcohol as a teen.
How is this relevant? Was the son a gay alcoholic?
This thread may reach 100 comments. It's been a long time since that has happened.
If one is gay, it is not by choice.
As discussed previously, this is a red herring. Conservatives who know nothing about homosexuality may say it's a choice, but informed people do not.
However, many of our childhood coping mechanisms and reactions to less than healthy social surroudings, while not chosen consciously, are still pathologic, and we can CHOOSE to do the inner work necessary to change.
Just because you can choose to change does not mean you chose in the first place, but the latter also does not mean that it is natural and inborn, any more than my rebellion against authority is healthy or natural – I can choose to address it, even if it has deep roots.
One hundred comments!!!???? Oh, why not shoot for 200 hundred. Seriously, with talk lesbian bathrooms and renewed discussion on moral relativism, anything is possible.
Speaking of moral Relativism…
Cin,
If morality is really only a matter of perspective "from a German's perspective after WWI, joining the Nazi party was within societal norms" how can you denounce the Nazi's? They were perfectly within their social norms. Yet, you do say that the Nazi's were morally wrong correct? By what standard do you say this?
I would apply the prevailing moral standard of the German population after Nazi's defeat in WWII to this if you want to talk about locality. Simply put, it was considered morally acceptable by the people (post WWI)to be a member of the Nazi party in light of the economic, political, and war based oppression under the Kaiser and the Allies. A solution to escape oppression, in the eyes of the people, was morally right when weighed against mass starvation and unemployment on the streets.
Upon defeat and realization of the mass murder of Jews along with swift international war crimes trials, it became apparent within local society norms that being a member of the Nazi party (in retrospect) was morally wrong.
If you want to talk about global and international morality, one could also say that it was not any more immoral for a German to be a member of the Nazi party before the mass slaughter of Jews than for a Serb to be a member of the Serbian Nationalist party at the start of the dissolution of Yugoslavia or being a Democrat in America for that matter.
From a religion based morality play, murder is morally wrong. However, how can one say in the moment of time when a country is just going through political change that being a member of a group is morally wrong? The answer, is that you can't if you do not really know what is happening on the ground. It was not until much later that the world learned of the Concentration Camps in Poland and Germany. To say that being a member of the Nazi's was morally wrong religiously at the time is presuppose that we all had a priori knowledge of the crimes being committed while they were being committed. …and that is a big leap.
We can go on and on about this…
Forgive me Seeker but I don't think I can continue with this subject matter. I feel as if I had led the horse to water. The horse won't drink. I feel like saying to the horse, "horse, you're being obtuse!" Then I realize that if I get mad at the horse for not drinking then it's actually me that is being obtuse. So, enough of this. The cavalry has come "Hi Ho Silver" to the rescue with a less contentious and far more interesting subject :) One sec Silver while I type a reply. We will get to 100 yet :)
[So, Silver Hallide, would you say the Nazis were right or wrong? If morality is really only a matter of perspective "from a German's perspective after WWI, joining the Nazi party was within societal norms" how can you denounce the Nazi's? They were perfectly within their social norms. Yet, you do say that the Nazi's were morally wrong correct? By what standard do you say this? If you reply, "my own social norms", then that raises the question, what makes one set of social norms better than the another's? If you reply that social norms are all equal, non is better than another, then you can't denounce Hitler's Nazism.]
If you want to talk about global and international morality, one could also say that it was not any more immoral for a German to be a member of the Nazi party before the mass slaughter of Jews than for a Serb to be a member of the Serbian Nationalist party at the start of the dissolution of Yugoslavia or being a Democrat in America for that matter.
In a way, I feel this is an evasion of my objection above for while it addresses the letter of the quote "from a German's perspective after WWI, joining the Nazi party was within societal norms" it does not address the point of my objection. To clarify, there was a core group of Nazi's, regardless of whether they knew about the concentration camps or not, who wouldn't have had any moral qualms about wiping all Jews from the face of the Earth. Would you say that these Nazi's were morally wrong? If not, is there any social group that ever existed throughout human history who you can point to and simply say, these people were morally wrong? You don't have to stick to 20th century atrocities like Passchendaele, Dresden, Nanking, Nagasaki and Rwanda; the Final Solution, the gulag, the Great Leap Forward, Year Zero or ethnic cleansing. Feel free to explore the depths of human depravity throughout history like the sack on Constantinople, the Inquisition, the annihilation of the American Indian, the slave trade, the French religious wars, etc. If and when you come to such a group, then apply the objection to moral relativism above. By what moral standard to you judge this group.
P.S. Here is a picture of my when I visited Hitler's Eagles Nest I also visited the Dachau concentration camp but I didn't need any pictures. I'll never forget it.
Forgive me Seeker but I don't think I can continue with this subject matter.
Fine with me, but I just wanted to affirm that Betty's response to her gay son was not the one that mature Christians should take – both Lawanda and I took issue with it, so just want to let you know that her response, while being one possible religious one, is not the one that us evangelicals identify with, though Catholics might.
Congratulations, seeker, you've finally realized you cannot argue with religious fanatics.
(Are you sure you're straight?)
Our society has several monstrous issues. The subject of this thread concerns one of the biggest monsters, in my opinion. It is one of those problems like obesity. We don't want to do anything about it because that means we may not get to do whatever we want whenever we want to.
That problem is the abuse of sex.
I began this aregument quite accidentally by referring to a sexual abuse. It proceeded to get ugly, because I offended Louis, who labels and defines his actions by his sexual lifestyle. And I offended Cineaste because his lifestyle pretty much revolves around sex as well.
Well, everyone is sexual. Whether they like it or not. Ok maybe I should say the majority of human beings are sexual.
But in our society, sex is over-used and abused. I am offensive because I point that out.
I tried to engage you, Cineaste, in a discussion about another suicide that was caused by the abuse of alcohol, so that I could point out how drugs and/or alcohol is abused and over-used resulting in child abuse that causes these reactions (suicide). To me, Bobby and Betty's situation was a result of our society's sex problem. Just like my cousin's suicide was a direct result of our society's alcohol problem.
You didn't want to hear it though. Because everyone has the right to live however they please as long as they don't hurt anyone.
You have deluded yourself into thinking that the abuse and over-use of sex does NOT hurt anyone.
So you do not want to admit that "lesbian" bathroom is a problem, or even that it is real. It is easier to call me homophobic and say I am just an ignorant christian!
You are passionate about global warming because you wish to prevent the extinction of the human race. Well, I am passionate about this because I would like to prevent the emotionally cannibalistic behavior of the people in our society. It is very destructive.
I think most homosexuality is a symptom of our society's over indulgence in sex. I also think that most teenage sexuality (before the age of 16 or 17 anyway) is a symptom.
I know that offends. I think if you look at the facts, without your feelings clouding the way you could see that. The reason you can't see it is because you LIKE living the way you do. Totally understandable.
But really before you shoot the messenger, take a keen look at the message. My message is simply:
Our sexual culture is not good for our children.
Read about how many children are reported abused and think of all those who do not report it.
<a href="http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Child+Sexual+Abuse§ion=Facts+for+Families" rel="nofollow">Child Sexual Abuse
A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal.
Some children become abusers themselves of other children too. Just a thought that you may not have had before…
And I offended Cineaste because his lifestyle pretty much revolves around sex as well.
Give examples of "my lifestyle pretty much revolving around sex."
I tried to engage you, Cineaste, in a discussion about another suicide that was caused by the abuse of alcohol, so that I could point out how drugs and/or alcohol is abused and over-used resulting in child abuse that causes these reactions (suicide).
The problem with your analogy is alcoholism and homosexuality are not alike. Your cousins suicide and Betty's blunder are separate, unrelated, and different in circumstance. The only commonality I can see is that they were both suicides. The parallels I foresee you drawing between these two tragedies will be based on sentiment. You've referred to this repeatedly but I can't respond because I don't see how it's relevant to homosexuality.
Ask Louis directly if he choose to be a homosexual or if it was the result of society, bad parenting or the media. You might think Louis is mean but he can and will tell you the truth about gays.
You have deluded yourself into thinking that the abuse and over-use of sex does NOT hurt anyone.
I believe too much of anything is bad. The problem is you are under the misconception homosexuality itself is abusive.
So you do not want to admit that "lesbian" bathroom is a problem, or even that it is real.
Want to know what I really think of this lesbian bathroom? I think that most or all that girl gang are heterosexual bullies. Lesbians are not common so it's a stretch that there are enough of them in one middle school to be willing and able to form a gang of 10 girls or more. I think that they were actually labeled lesbians by those they were harassing because bullying is seen as a masculine act and when applied to teenage girls, being called "manlike" must be a huge insult.
I think you have blown this whole bathroom thing out of proportion based upon your own misconceptions and hysteria. I think what is actually going on there is typical pubescent teenage girl bullying and wrongdoing. You've taken the bathroom's label, "dyke" (which was meant as a slang insult) literally instead of in it's proper context. I think you are the kind of person who can find a "lesbian bathroom" in every middle school across the country. You just have to look hard enough.
I think most homosexuality is a symptom of our society's over indulgence in sex.
It's not. Homosexuals have existed throughout human history.
The reason you can't see it is because you LIKE living the way you do.
I'm not gay. I could the way I do even if there were no homosexuals around.
Our sexual culture is not good for our children.
This is a completely subjective opinion. An opinion, I might add, that is heavily colored by one's religious background.
Read about how many children are reported abused and think of all those who do not report it.
I support anti child abuse efforts. I just view lesbianism about as abusive as girls going through puberty. You view lesbianism as sinful.
And I offended Cineaste because his lifestyle pretty much revolves around sex as well.
Give examples of "my lifestyle pretty much revolving around sex."
Do you not have sex regularly? My lifestyle revolves around sex. What I meant was … I think I offend you because you want to believe the excess of sex is non-existent. As evidenced by your comment that my opinions are subjective only to my religion.
The problem with your analogy is alcoholism and homosexuality are not alike. Your cousins suicide and Betty's blunder are separate, unrelated, and different in circumstance. The only commonality I can see is that they were both suicides. The parallels I foresee you drawing between these two tragedies will be based on sentiment. You've referred to this repeatedly but I can't respond because I don't see how it's relevant to homosexuality.
The problem is alcoholism and child abuse are very common cause/effect in our society, and abuse of sex and child abuse are very common cause/effect in our society. It has nothing to do with my sentiments. It has everything to do with the studies which show that teen suicide is often the effect of sexual abuse. Not homosexuality. Sexual abuse.
Ask Louis directly if he choose to be a homosexual or if it was the result of society, bad parenting or the media. You might think Louis is mean but he can and will tell you the truth about gays.
Just the fact that I have to ask him why he is homosexual ought to be a clue that it is something you do not are. (I know you and he disagree with that.)
I think that most or all that girl gang are heterosexual bullies. Lesbians are not common so it's a stretch that there are enough of them in one middle school to be willing and able to form a gang of 10 girls or more. I think that they were actually labeled lesbians by those they were harassing because bullying is seen as a masculine act and when applied to teenage girls, being called "manlike" must be a huge insult.
I don't know if they are homo or hetero, but the reason it has been labeled that is none other than GIRLS were SEXUALLY ASSAULTED by GIRLS. You are not there, and neither am I, but I know those who were and that is what happened. And that is why the labels were placed.
I think you are the kind of person who can find a "lesbian bathroom" in every middle school across the country. You just have to look hard enough.
I think that is your prejudice against me. Christianophobia is still afoot.
There are other middle schools in town that have no lesbian bathrooms. But they are not our district. Just my old school has that problem.
me: I think most homosexuality is a symptom of our society's over indulgence in sex.
you: It's not. Homosexuals have existed throughout human history.
So Anne Heche? She is an exception? No one else has ever done that? I did not say "all homosexuality is a symptom of…"
Are you denying that the media has influence over sexual orientation still?
Some studies have shown that people shown a movie about a distinguished gay politician were surveyed before and after the video and their views about gay people were more positive after the video. However, when they were shown anti-gay videos their views of gays were worse after they viewed it. These findings combine to reveal that the media does in fact have influence, however subtle, on people's ideas of moral right and wrong. The research concluded that repeated exposure to nontraditional families including gays and lesbians can cause people to be more accepting of them in everyday life.[citation needed]
However, portrayals of homosexuality and bisexuality in mainstream mass media (such as entertainment news broadcasts) generally fall within the tolerances of the larger society at the time.
We are more tolerant of homosexuality than ever. And that proves it.
The reason we are though, is because we are more tolerant of sex period. And the booming porn industry proves that.
I view lesbianism as abusive? No, I view sexual assault as abusive be it hetero or homo sexual assault. Apparently you do not.
Are you sure you're straight?
I'm sure, I've seriously explored that possibility while away from God, and though I am not your typical macho guy, and have been mistaken for gay, I am not the least bit attracted to guys, though I can appreciate a toned male body – but when I see one, I don't think "I want that" but "I want to look like that, it's cool."
I think homosexual thoughts are normal, seeker.
And because we are bombarded with homosexual behavior in the media, then more people have more homosexual thoughts, and then there is more homosexual behavior and then more of it in the media, and then more thoughts, and more behavior; and so on and so forth.
I think homosexual thoughts are normal
Depends what you mean by "normal." If you mean that temptation and impure thoughts are a common experience, I would agree. But to say that they are natural and OK, I of course, disagree.
Do you not have sex regularly
I do.
My lifestyle revolves around sex.
I'm happy for you.
What I meant was … I think I offend you because you want to believe the excess of sex is non-existent.
I'm not offended. Have as much sex as you want.
As evidenced by your comment that my opinions are subjective only to my religion.
You added the "S" after opinion.
The problem is alcoholism and child abuse are very common cause/effect in our society, and abuse of sex and child abuse are very common cause/effect in our society. It has nothing to do with my sentiments.
They are problems.
It has everything to do with the studies which show that teen suicide is often the effect of sexual abuse. Not homosexuality. Sexual abuse.
Teen suicide is the effect both of these and many other things. Betty's son killed himself because his mother couldn't accept him for what he was, gay.
Just the fact that I have to ask him why he is homosexual ought to be a clue that it is something you do not are. (I know you and he disagree with that.)
Words are too garbled to make sense out of.
I don't know if they are homo or hetero, but the reason it has been labeled that is none other than GIRLS were SEXUALLY ASSAULTED by GIRLS.
If you don't know whether they were homo or hetero, then you really have nothing to talk about.
You are not there, and neither am I
Translation: we don't know what really happened.
…but I know those who were and that is what happened. And that is why the labels were placed.
Let me guess, you agree with them.
I think that is your prejudice against me.
You do seem homophobic to me because you believe homosexuality is immoral and should be repressed. That's paranoia.
Christianophobia is still afoot.
I don't fear Christianity nor do I think Christianity is immoral.
There are other middle schools in town that have no lesbian bathrooms. But they are not our district. Just my old school has that problem.
How do you know for sure. Have you looked?
So Anne Heche? She is an exception? No one else has ever done that? I did not say "all homosexuality is a symptom of…"
So, what kind of lesbian is Anne Heche. Is she of the media or the natural variety?
Are you denying that the media has influence over sexual orientation still?
Yup. "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable." This sounds like your "lesbian bathroom" explanation.
We are more tolerant of homosexuality than ever. And that proves it.
Good. I'm tolerant of homosexuals, blacks, Christians and homosexual black Christians.
The reason we are though, is because we are more tolerant of sex period. And the booming porn industry proves that.
It's a step in the right direction.
I view lesbianism as abusive? No
Then stop whining about it.
I view sexual assault as abusive be it hetero or homo sexual assault. Apparently you do not.
Is that what you think? You're being very insulting and it demonstrates your personal prejudices toward me.
This is comment #103. We did it!
After reading all this, my reaction is that xians are really out of touch with reality. Lawanda is a typical case: she will go to any lengths to deny the reality of human sexuality – particularly its omnipresence and variety. Yes, Lawanda, human beings are sexual. It colors everything about us and our civilizations. This attempt to suppress and control it notwithstanding, it will have its way with us. You maintain that our society is perversely fascinated with sex, particularly our mass-media. And you also maintain that homosexuality is a result of this, something I cannot fathom. Well, I think that we are just being more honest and open about reality than societies in the past. Gays are not caused by this openness, we are just more visible. We are "out" rather than hidden – something that drives anti-sex advocates right up the wall.
Of course, xianity hates all this, for it is profoundly anti-sex and, ultimately, anti-freedom. One of its methods to control is to suppress and regulate the powerful force of human sexuality. Look at the efforts it has made over the centuries to bind human sexuality (and freedom) with the barbed wire of "sin"! Everything is sinful, even thoughts. Only organized xianity can "forgive" us for these evil impulses. Thus, we are controlled and our natural beings suppressed and perverted. The genius of it is that we even control ourselves, no real police state is needed! It is, in its essence, authoritarian and, even, fascistic in its impulses. It's history up to the present day is replete with attempts to subvert human freedom and substitute authoritarian thought processes and regimes. And it really and truly feels it should be free from interference because it has wrapped itself in the cloak of divine invincibility. [shudder]
Nowadays, with the advance of science and libertarian thought, people are breaking away from this form of slavery. And how the xians whine! They are fighting a losing rearguard battle to maintain their hold on our psyches. And, of course, their main target is homosexuality, for this is the lightening rod for human sexual freedom.Homosexuals just don't conform to the patriarchal straight-jacket constructed for us by monotheistic religion: our liberation is a direct challenge to their hegemony. Centuries of persecution, oppression, torture, and murder are now being exposed and swept away with contempt. Lawanda presents the case well. She desires a return to hypocritical Victorian mores: regulate and control sex, and force gays back into the closet. And what is her primary weapon? THE CHILDREN! Oh! The children are in danger! All adults everywhere must have their freedom curtailed because some child somewhere might be affected. Kinder Uberalles! All adult discourse and art and behavior must conform to some mythical 11-year old's sensitive psyche or else! Censor, legislate behavior, imprison – all in the name of the child.
Of course, this is all nonsense. Parents are responsible for their children, not the rest of us. And you can't use them as an excuse to oppress the rest of us with your medieval ideology. Children are both more resilient and more perverse than adults think. My living my life openly and freely doesn't harm them one bit, and the attempt to use them to curtail my freedom is contemptible. In fact, this aspect of religion remains supremely contemptible, and one of the primary reasons that it poses one of the biggest dangers to human freedom and civilization I can imagine (I especially include islam here). Monotheism is, by its nature, fascistic, and must be opposed by all who value liberty.
'Nuff said.
'Nuff said.
Dare I ?
I will.
me: You are not there, and neither am I
You: Translation: we don't know what really happened.
Query: How can we know ANYTHING?
It is obvious that the people who were assaulted are of no consequence to you whatsoever. I think that is rather sad.
me:…but I know those who were and that is what happened. And that is why the labels were placed.
you: Let me guess, you agree with them.
What is there to agree or disagree with? They said lesbian girls took over the bathroom and were sexually harassing, and assaulting other girls. Along with doing drugs.
Do you agree with the assaulters? Are you in their heads? Did they tell you whether they were REAL lesbians or fake lesbians, just sexually harassing other girls for kicks?
Then stop whining about it.
Do you two just want everyone else to shut up? I am not whining. I was talking about homeschooling my kids, and listing my reasons. If I am whining when I am talking about doing what I want to, then why aren't you and Louis?
me: I think that is your prejudice against me.
you: You do seem homophobic to me because you believe homosexuality is immoral and should be repressed. That's paranoia.
You do seem christianophobic to me because you believe christianity is ignorance and should be repressed. That's paranoia.
me: I view sexual assault as abusive be it hetero or homo sexual assault. Apparently you do not.
you: Is that what you think? You're being very insulting and it demonstrates your personal prejudices toward me.
I think from your posts you attempt to excuse anything if the word "homosexual" comes up.
Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable.
I believe the part I quoted was reliable. Unless the scientific method is now to be used only to prove that atheists and homosexuals are always right.
I cannot believe you deny media influence and then ask So, what kind of lesbian is Anne Heche. Is she of the media or the natural variety?
——————–
And what is her primary weapon? THE CHILDREN! Oh! The children are in danger! All adults everywhere must have their freedom curtailed because some child somewhere might be affected. Kinder Uberalles! All adult discourse and art and behavior must conform to some mythical 11-year old's sensitive psyche or else! Censor, legislate behavior, imprison – all in the name of the child.
Is it in the name of religion or because of the children?
Either way, if you do not see how our culture (of abuses) is threatening to children when presented with statistics, aka facts, then how can you know anything?
Eleven year old people are very real, if only for a short 365 days in their life. And what happens to them at that age may in fact affect your life. If they happen to be abused, neglected, and left alone to become a criminal, they may become some crazy murderer who hates gay people and decides to off you.
Religion is your cause; children your tools.
I'm for rational protective measures for children. Nowadays, things have gone way too far.
It is obvious that the people who were assaulted are of no consequence to you whatsoever. I think that is rather sad.
Logical Fallacy: Personal Attack (Ad Hominem Abusive)
What is there to agree or disagree with?
The labels.
Do you agree with the assaulters?
No. You don't either.
Are you in their heads?
No. You're not either.
Did they tell you whether they were REAL lesbians or fake lesbians, just sexually harassing other girls for kicks?
No. They didn't tell you either. "I don't know if they are homo or hetero" – Lawanda. Repeat, if you don't know whether they were homo or hetero, then you really have nothing to talk about.
Do you two just want everyone else to shut up?
No.
I am not whining.
"It really bothers me that you are all trying to find a way to make the lesbianism a non-issue." – Lawanda
I was talking about homeschooling my kids, and listing my reasons.
You quoted this, "72 percent (of home schoolers) cited "to provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason. This supports my statement, "(Homeschooling) is now mostly used by religious fundamentalists for the express purpose of indoctrinating their children into creationism. I'm simply stating the statistical truth." Lawanda may have other reasons to home school, like to protect her children from sex, drugs and rockn'roll, but she also falls into this 72%.
If I am whining when I am talking about doing what I want to, then why aren't you and Louis?
You are "whining" because you are bothered that we don't believe lesbianism is immoral or a sin like you do.
You do seem christianophobic to me because you believe christianity is ignorance and should be repressed.
Nope.
I think from your posts you attempt to excuse anything if the word "homosexual" comes up.
There is nothing to excuse. It's a free country.
I believe the part I quoted was reliable.
I don't.
Unless the scientific method is now to be used only to prove that atheists and homosexuals are always right.
How?
I cannot believe you deny media influence and then ask So, what kind of lesbian is Anne Heche. Is she of the media or the natural variety?
You said, "I did not say "all homosexuality is a symptom of…" I asked, "So, what kind of lesbian is Anne Heche. Is she of the media or the natural variety?" The question still stands.
——————————————————–
Louis, great post.
Lawanda, what you said to Louis is despicable. You are going too far. I hope Seeker or Aaron have read what you said because it can be construed as a veiled death threat. I think you should explain yourself and apologize to Louis.
Unless, Louis doesn't have a problem with it.
These people can't possibly intimidate me.
Of course, xianity hates all this, for it is profoundly anti-sex and, ultimately, anti-freedom.
Not really. That's like saying xianity is anti-eating because it condemns gluttony. The classic Christian view is that the "pleasures of the flesh" are meant to be enjoyed within the bounds of human design – wine, in moderation, food, with thanks and not to be abused, sex, within the bonds of marriage.
As for anti-freedom, freedom is a key theme throughout the NT. What you misunderstand about Christian freedom is that (a) freedom and virtue go together – it is the freedom FROM sin, not the freedom TO sin that you seem to promote. And (b) it is freedom from having to obey rules for one's righteousness – it is freedom from religious dictates – but again, not to "continue in sin," but free to be changed from the inside out rather than having to outwardly obey religious rules.
Lastly, (c), promotes freedom of conscience for each person. This means that people are allowed to have homosexual relations in their own homes without persecution. However, this does NOT mean that they can foist their disobedience to the moral law on society by seeking to have it sanctioned in the formal family structures of society.
You seem to want unlimited freedom, including freedom to poison society with vice, and think that anything less is "anti-freedom." Christianity is all about personal freedom, from sin, from religious rules, and to obey our own conscience towards God. But xianity is not about your "total freedom," but about true freedom – freedom to do what is right without compulsion, but out of an inward desire to draw closer to God and the truth.
And without regeneration, i.e. being born again, that is probably impossible to believe or desire.
The problem with your answer is your assertions, based upon nothing but your religious convictions. What is "sin"? Where is it? It is nothing but air – thin air which has no existence besides the assertions of the religious. For those of us who reject these religious ideas, it has no basis in fact. Everything that you religious people seek to impose upon us is illusory. Please prove that it exists. Otherwise, please shut up.
Please prove that it exists.
Perhaps a definition is in order. While a Christian may say that God determines what things are sin, it is no mystery, nor is it carpricious, at how these things can be identified.
Sin leads to death or injury, biblically speaking. There are some exceptions, such as the administration of justice by civil authorities.
Anything that leads to death is probably a sin, save pissing off people who want to kill you. So, anything that hurts other people, physically, emotionally, or spiritually, or hurts us, would be considered a sin. That means injustice, stealing, lying, murdering, coveting, sex outside of marriage (which arguably DOES hurt people, see my recent post on the new book Unprotected), adultery, and the like.
There are other biblical ideas, which I believe are not religious, by which we could define sin, such as doing things that violate our design (which are, of course, damaging to body or emotions). That would include, of course, homosexuality.
Freedom from sin means freedom from unnatural and harmful attitudes, practices, coping mechanisms, abuse of fleshly pleasures, and the like. Or as one writer put it, the lusts of the flesh (abuse of food and sex), the lust of the eyes (the desire to find fullfillment in posessions), and the pride of life (trying to find fulfillment in accomplishment.
These really aren't just capricious religious concepts, they are a sensible ethic.
One can have ethics without religious interference. Everything you say relies on such assertions as "biblically speaking" and "biblical ideas." For those of us who are not xian or jewish, these ideas are meaningless. I repeat "sin" is nothing but religious fairy dust.
I am not apologizing to Louis for saying something which should have had no affect on his poor homosexual feelings but should have shown him that any random event in any random child's life can affect his life as well, no matter who he is.
I do not hate gay people, but I do not control criminal's actions, and as Louis is so fond of pointing out, there are MANY people who do hate gay people enough to be violent toward them.
This attitude of yours that he needs to be apologized to, that everything I say to him is offensive, is exactly what I am talking about when I say: You do seem to want everyone to think it is so ok to be homosexual that homosexuals can do no wrong.
When he has actually said threatening things to me before. He is more violent in his speech than I would ever be! And he says actual threatening things to others too. And no one asks him to apologize. I would say we could assume from this thread, the reason for that is because he is gay.
And he never has apologized for anything. He cites all the past violence toward homosexuals as his reason for being allowed to be violent.
BTW, I did apologize to him for my slang, when it offended him because I am nice, and I try to love everybody. And when real offense is given, I will apologize.
What I said to him is true, however. He may not care what happens to children. But something that happens to children when they are young that could make them into a criminal could very well affect him if he is the target of said criminal for any reason.
Look at this again:
Cineaste: You do seem homophobic to me because you believe homosexuality is immoral and should be repressed. That's paranoia.
Lawanda: You do seem christianophobic to me because you believe christianity is ignorance and should be repressed. That's paranoia.
If I had never used the word "lesbian" this topic would have been fine, I think.
Look at this statement closely:
The police have been called to the school several times this year. Girls have been sexually assaulted, physically beaten, as well as merely harassed.
And find me some good in it. Ignore that the perpetrators were self-professed lesbians for a moment. Look at it, and tell me why we are arguing to begin with.
We are arguing because I am a christian, which in your opinions automatically makes me a bigot against homosexuals. Regardless of real events.
And I am supposed to apologize to Louis for offending him?
Please think about that. I think you are further and further proving yourselves to be christianophobes.
When he has actually said threatening things to me before… You do seem to want everyone to think it is so ok to be homosexual that homosexuals can do no wrong.
Provide examples. The worst thing I remember Louis saying to you is when he referred to you as “Ladumba.” I jumped in to defend you and told Louis that name calling was wrong and “boorish.” This site really needs a search box but I remember this clearly. I think you even sent me an email about it thanking me and I can pull that up if you want a reference.
When he has actually said threatening things to me before. He is more violent in his speech than I would ever be! …And he says actual threatening things to others too.
Back your accusations up. As it is, you sound like Adela Quested from “A Passage to India.” I don’t ever remember Louis threatening you with violence. I remember him calling you dumb.
He (Louis) cites all the past violence toward homosexuals as his reason for being allowed to be violent.
Point to an example of Louis being violent. I remember him calling you names, not threatening you. Or, implying that someone could kill you like you implied someone could kill him.
And when real offense is given, I will apologize.
Fine. It’s really between you and Louis. I felt you crossed the line. For example (and I do mean example ONLY),
If [gay teens persecuted by Evangelical Fundamentalists] happen to be abused, neglected, and left alone to become a criminal, they may become some crazy murderer who hates [Christians] and decides to off [Lawanda and all her children].
It is a hypothetical, but I’m sure some Christian parents would feel that statement crosses the line of good taste. This is like what you said to Louis but Louis is not making an issue of it, though I think he could. Louis shrugged it off though so that’s that.
Look at this again:
Cineaste: You do seem homophobic to me because you believe homosexuality is immoral and should be repressed. That’s paranoia.
Lawanda DOES believe homosexuality is immoral. Lawanda DOES believe homosexuality should be repressed (especially in the media).
Lawanda: You do seem christianophobic to me because you believe christianity is ignorance and should be repressed. That’s paranoia.
We define “Christianity” differently. Your literal interpretation, along with Islam’s, I DO believe is ignorance and delusion. I don’t believe you should be repressed though just like I don’t believe Islam should be repressed. I’m an equal opportunity non-oppressor. I DO believe in the separation of church and state.
If I had never used the word “lesbian” this topic would have been fine, I think.
This whole thing started with your sentence, “And then I decided I wasn’t sending any of them to the middle school where the police have to be called to curb the violence in the lesbian bathroom either.”
I’ll quote Silver to explain this to you…
Lawanda, the context you provided confirmed Silver’s words.
Ignore that the perpetrators were self-professed lesbians for a moment.
You contradict yourself. You said, “I don’t know if they are homo or hetero.” Your story is inconsistent. You have no credibility as someone who can tell us the truth behind what is going on with the “lesbian bathroom.”
We are arguing because I am a christian, which in your opinions automatically makes me a bigot against homosexuals.
I don’t care if your a Christian or not. Not all Christians are bigots toward homosexuals. Look at Andrew Sullivan. But you are a bigot toward homosexuals, Lawanda. Your stereotyping of lesbians and gays have made that crystal clear. Christians who believe homosexuality is immoral (That’s you Lawanda, Seeker too) are bigots (a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion). In your view, homosexuality is an immoral SIN, period. You won’t tolerate the idea that homosexuality is NOT immoral and is not a sin because it’s not what the Bible says.
Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals might believe Ted Haggard is an ex-gay but here’s a newsflash for you, Ted Haggard is still gay, he is just repressing it. Lawanda may choose to swear off men and be celibate, but that doesn’t make Lawanda an ex-heterosexual.
And I am supposed to apologize to Louis for offending him?
You’re a big girl now. It’s up to you. If I present a hypothetical which ends up having you and your children murdered is that offensive? By the same token, if you present a hypothetical ending with Louis murdered is that offensive? It’s your call.
I think you are further and further proving yourselves to be christianophobes.
I love my parents who are Christians.
For the record, I'm not offended, so Lawanda needn't apologize. I'm a big boy now, and realize that there are people in this world who are either so ignorant or so brainwashed that they can maintain absurd positions about sexuality that are out of touch with reality. My analysis above regarding xianity and sexuality stands. I'm not especially a christianophobe, although I despise certain forms of xianity and am distrustful of monotheism in general. I am interested in progressive xianity, particularly in its efforts to ditch the ridiculous and medieval leftovers from the past along with the more stupid aspects of the bible. I can see combining it with Buddhism to form a more spiritual and humanistic outlook. But the xianity professed by Lawanda and seeker and (even) the missing Aaron continues to repulse me.
I also think Lawanda should develop a thicker skin.
I think you are further and further proving yourselves to be christianophobes.
I love my parents who are Christians.
I love my cousins and uncles who are gay.
And I am supposed to apologize to Louis for offending him?
You're a big girl now. It's up to you. If I present a hypothetical which ends up having you and your children murdered is that offensive? By the same token, if you present a hypothetical ending with Louis murdered is that offensive? It's your call.
If [gay teens persecuted by Evangelical Fundamentalists] happen to be abused, neglected, and left alone to become a criminal, they may become some crazy murderer who hates [Christians] and decides to off [Lawanda and all her children].
I don't find that offensive. It is just as true as it is with Louis. And it is one reason why I am concerned for any children who are abused by anyone.
If I had never used the word "lesbian" this topic would have been fine, I think.
This whole thing started with your sentence, "And then I decided I wasn't sending any of them to the middle school where the police have to be called to curb the violence in the lesbian bathroom either."
I'll quote Silver to explain this to you…
Cin, beat me to this, but true to my word, I find that statement to be reflective of a stereotype…like bathrooms are favorite hangouts of homosexuals that will somehow attack, rape, or infect a heterosexual child.
I am not sure that that is what you intended, but it sure is inflammatory. Maybe it would be helpful to this group, before all this spins out of control, if you gave us a little more context than a generic generalization of the "lesbian bathroom."
Lawanda, the context you provided confirmed Silver's words.
Ignore that the perpetrators were self-professed lesbians for a moment.
You contradict yourself. You said, "I don't know if they are homo or hetero." Your story is inconsistent. You have no credibility as someone who can tell us the truth behind what is going on with the "lesbian bathroom."
I do not know if they are hetero or homo, but I told you they refer to each other as dykes, from what I understand. They are a gang of girls who sexually and physically display violence to other girls. And no I am not there, but I talked to people who are/were involved about it, because it concerned me, being as it was the school my girls would go to, if I decided not to homeschool them. I spoke to a mother of a victim, and I spoke to a police officer I know, who was called there for the situation several times.
I did not stereotype them. They labeled themselves. Just as Louis labels himself a homosexual, and you label yourself heterosexual atheist. And I label myself a christian mother (inferring of course that I am heterosexual).
This whole thing started because you think that to be my type of christian (an evangelical, although I do not identify with them much) means I "hate" or "do not tolerate" gays.
At least Silver was willing to let me explain. You jumped right in calling me provocative and homophobic, and continue to do so.
Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals might believe Ted Haggard is an ex-gay but here's a newsflash for you, Ted Haggard is still gay, he is just repressing it. Lawanda may choose to swear off men and be celibate, but that doesn't make Lawanda an ex-heterosexual.
So perhaps he was an ex-heterosexual and is gay now. I am sure all those times he lusted after women didn't count to make him a hetero. (I don't know if he did, but he certainly married one…)
So what does make one homosexual or heterosexual?
If I decided to swear off men and start doing women would I then be a lesbian?
I think sexuality is confusing, and a lot like a person's religion.
I also think Lawanda should develop a thicker skin.
You are probably right.
I love my cousins and uncles who are gay.
Are you okay with that? So homosexuality is not immoral? Or, do you love your cousins despite them being immoral?
I do not know if they are hetero or homo, but I told you they refer to each other as dykes, from what I understand… I did not stereotype them. They labeled themselves.
Well, this is supports what I said before, which is…
I think you have blown this whole bathroom thing out of proportion based upon your own misconceptions and hysteria. I think what is actually going on there is typical pubescent teenage girl bullying and wrongdoing. You've taken the bathroom's label, "dyke" (which was meant as a slang insult) literally instead of in it's proper context.
They use the word "dyke" with each other like African Americans use the word "nigger" with each other. You took "dyke" out of context and interpreted it literally. Most likely, these girls are heterosexual, not real lesbians.
you label yourself heterosexual atheist.
I label myself an agnostic (50/50 probability). I'm agnostic to the possibility of a God (Baruch Spinoza's God to be precise). I'm an atheist toward the existence of traditional religious God's like Allah, Jesus, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (1 in infinity probability). Basically, I believe that if there is a God, man can't conceive of Him, Her, It.
At least Silver was willing to let me explain. You jumped right in calling me provocative and homophobic, and continue to do so.
Well, clear things up for us then. You probably don't hate gays but you think 1. Homosexuality is a sin 2. Homosexuality is immoral. This is what the bible says. The bible itself does not tolerate gays (according to Seeker). Do you disagree with the Bible then? If you disagree with what the bible says about homosexuals then I was wrong about you.
So perhaps he was an ex-heterosexual and is gay now.
Now you are playing dumb :(
I am sure all those times he lusted after women didn't count to make him a hetero.
Ted Haggard lusts after women about as much as Lawanda lusts after women. Have you heard of the term sham marriage?
So what does make one homosexual or heterosexual?
Their sexual orientation.
If I decided to swear off men and start doing women would I then be a lesbian?
Do women make you horny or do men? Lawanda you can screw as many women as you want but if they don't do anything for you, and men do, you're still heterosexual. Your orientation does not change.
Wow, I go away for a day and look what happens!??! I meant to post this the other day, but the comment system kept crapping out (note to Seeker, fix that will ya?).
Given where things have gone, I am not sure this is all that relevant to the "lesbian bathroom discussion," specifically, but I think it is still relevant in terms of backing up statements that are described as "fact" with statistical data.
So here goes:
Lawanda,
I think most homosexuality is a symptom of our society's over indulgence in sex. I also think that most teenage sexuality (before the age of 16 or 17 anyway) is a symptom.
I know that offends. I think if you look at the facts, without your feelings clouding the way you could see that.
I am looking at this from a very objective perspective and respect your opinion (even if I don't agree with here).
However, it is one thing to say that you believe something is a problem based on your own personal opinion (e.g., the situation at your local school), but it is totally different to advocate something is a problem as "fact" without sufficient basis or reference of actual statistical data to back it up.
Objectively speaking, this is no different than my calling Seeker on his over-reaching statement that "domestic violence among gay couples, esp. lesbians, is much higher than in hetero couples. There may be many reasons that pubescent lesbians form their own clique, try to carve out their own "safety zones," and act out." when there was no real specific study cited that backed that statement up.
I would like to believe that despite all this heated and sometimes very personal discussion, that when citing something as a "fact" that we can be rational enough to point to a study or studies, or actual research that backs a claim up. I don't mean that everything should be backed up in this way, but you are talking about a trend in society with regard to attitudes, abuse, etc. Emotions aside, without quantifiable data to back such a statement like that up, most everyone is going to revert to their religious or emotional gut reaction to a subject like this.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, and right to act in the best interest of your children, but should not get upset by those that are skeptical of claims that are not backed up by data.
Put yourself in my shoes, if I was to tell you that by living in your neighborhood you are basically handing down a death sentence of Childhood Leukemia with your child, would you believe me out of hand? No, I bet you would want to see the source of that data, where's the risk factor coming from, etc. It's the same thing here.
At this time, I am skeptical of these claims because I have yet to see any studies (even with my limited time to Google it) that substantiate your claim in this matter.
I am afraid that when it comes to "social policy" type claims of "fact" around here (remove religious beliefs) we all need data or references to support it.
Also, a thick skin is required. :D
Respectfully,
Silver
You also have to factor in the fact that statistics can be manipulated at will.
Ring a bell?
History has a mad habit of repeating itself. We as a society both within the United States and the rest of the world have yet to prove that they can learn from the mistakes of the past. We are all far too self absorbed in the now and are looking for immediate solutions without any thought about the long term.
From an analogy point of view and without looking closely at the full text of the speaches that Louis is referencing (too tired at the moment to look), one can draw loose parallels between the events of the past and some of the arguments posed here as justification for heading off some of the problems with "sex and deviation."
I am not fully on board with the argument…again we did up the old corpse that is Hitler, but it is something that we can draw historical parallels to.
At its very core, I am an ardant believer that history and mistakes made in the past do repeat themselves and that a careful and thoughtful body politic can use those lessons to avoid similar mistakes in the present and future…but we seldom do.
(BTW, I believe this sets a record for comments made on a single post. Rolls eyes.)
Silver, my saying: I think most homosexuality is a symptom of our society's over indulgence in sex. I also think that most teenage sexuality (before the age of 16 or 17 anyway) is a symptom.
Is much the same as you saying: We as a society both within the United States and the rest of the world have yet to prove that they can learn from the mistakes of the past. We are all far too self absorbed in the now and are looking for immediate solutions without any thought about the long term.
The fact is that teen sexuality is at an all-time high. Proof: teen pregnancy rates. Homosexuality could be seen as at an all-time high merely because it is so widely accepted, could it not?
That is what I mean when I say look at the facts about sexuality.
Cineaste has proven that there is really no way of knowing who is or is not sexually oriented to be homosexual or heterosexual.
This is why I think it is so much like religion.
Anyone can say they are a christian. But if they are cruel or violent, they are not acting like a christian. Same with homo/hetero sexuality.
One could be a hetero – acting a homo, repressing their hetero tendencies, or one could be a homo – acting a hetero, repressing their homo tendencies. And who is to know which is which????????
As to this: Or, do you love your cousins despite them being immoral?
How about you Cineaste? Do you merely tolerate your parents' christianity? Or do you love them because they are christians?
I love my cousins because they are my neighbors (everyone is my neighbor). I love the ones who are not married and on their second, third, fourth significant other, be they gay or straight and the ones who are married to the same person forever. (like I am trying to be.)
"Homosexuality could be seen as at an all-time high merely because it is so widely accepted, could it not?
"That is what I mean when I say look at the facts about sexuality."
That's not a fact, that's speculation.
"One could be a hetero – acting a homo, repressing their hetero tendencies, or one could be a homo – acting a hetero, repressing their homo tendencies. And who is to know which is which????????"
Well, no one, obviously. However, there are many good reasons for a gay person to act straight, but can one think of any for a straight person to act gay (including having sex, being in a relationship, coming "out" to friends and family)? When one considers the genuine risk that being out entails, gay people have a lot of reason to stay in the closet and act straight – straights none.
Cineaste has proven that there is really no way of knowing who is or is not sexually oriented to be homosexual or heterosexual. This is why I think it is so much like religion.
Holy Non sequitur Batman!! Human beings are made of matter just like rocks. This is why I think human beings are so much like rocks.
How about you Cineaste? Do you merely tolerate your parents' christianity?
I have no problems with my parent's Christianity, though I lack belief in it. Yes, I love them too. You however, think gays are immoral and sinful.
I love my cousins because they are my neighbors (everyone is my neighbor).
So, you love your immoral, sinful gay cousins despite the bible not tolerating them. Good! Now say you love your neighbor Louis. We shouldn't hear anymore bigotry against gays from you anymore since you love them so much right?
Or do you love them because they are christians?
I love my parents because they are my parents.
The fact is that teen sexuality is at an all-time high. Proof: teen pregnancy rates.
It seems to me that being more open and rational about teen sex, rather than being culturally repressive, is key to the solution. I love what Marilyn Monroe said when asked what she thought about sex, "Sex is a part of nature. I go along with nature." In other words, sex is here to stay. There is nothing religion can do to stop it.
Teen pregnancy is very high in the United States compared to the secular Europeans.
Why are enlightened liberals light years ahead of the predominantly backward conservative United States?
Basically, liberal European teens are not as prude and therefore, ignorant about sex as conservative Americans are. They are educated about sex, tolerant toward teen sex, and use contraception.
"The main difference is that in the States sexual activity is considered a risk. Here we consider it a pleasure." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
Basically, liberal European teens are not as prude and therefore, ignorant about sex as conservative Americans are.
Yes, but being ignorant of the consequences of such irresponsible and sinful behaviors, they are paying the emotional and physical price for it in unstable marriages, record divorce rates, disillusionment about marriage, and I would bet, STD's. But hey, they are soo enlightened.
Such abuse of freedom is not called "enlightenment", it's called "vice."
…and I would bet, STD's
[In the United States, the teen gonorrhea rate is over 74 times higher than that in the Netherlands and France, over 66 times higher than the rate in former West Germany, and over 38 times higher than that in former East Germany.]
Read the post next time before launching into a canned response. Better yet, try clicking the links.
but can one think of any for a straight person to act gay
Cineaste said that the girls who sexually assaulted other girls, and called themselves dykes were really straight.
I think there is a very good reason for a straight person to act gay, but you are trying to ignore it and say it isn't true. That reason is the popularity of being gay in the media. Homosexuality is a hot ticket in Hollywood…..
—————————–
Cineaste, I am trying to get you to see how unfair you are being about this. According to you, we (christians) are homophobes because we do not approve of the act of homosexuality.
You do not approve of the act of christianity, yet you will not accept that you are a christianophobe just as much as we are homophobes!!!!
Look at this:
How about you Cineaste? Do you merely tolerate your parents' christianity?
I have no problems with my parent's Christianity, though I lack belief in it. Yes, I love them too. You however, think gays are immoral and sinful.
I love my cousins because they are my neighbors (everyone is my neighbor).
So, you love your immoral, sinful gay cousins despite the bible not tolerating them. Good! Now say you love your neighbor Louis. We shouldn't hear anymore bigotry against gays from you anymore since you love them so much right?
Or do you love them because they are christians?
I love my parents because they are my parents.
It seems to be all of your missions to point out every bad thing every christian has ever done or any hint of evil associated with christianity. Yet you do not think you are christianophobes?
(We mildly point out things that MIGHT put homosexuality in a negative light and you are all over it baby, yelling bigot and homophobe as much as you can.)
I am truly beginning to think you are christianophobic.
predominantly backward conservative United States
Basically, liberal European teens are not as prude and therefore, ignorant about sex as conservative Americans are. They are educated about sex, tolerant toward teen sex, and use contraception.
Americans are only educated about how much fun sex is by their parents', friends, idols'(in the media) examples. So they go out and do it and say to heck with the condoms, they cramp my style.
Pretty much the same way they go out and eat big macs and fries and ignore all the health food everywhere.
I think there is a very good reason for a straight person to act gay, but you are trying to ignore it and say it isn't true. That reason is the popularity of being gay in the media. Homosexuality is a hot ticket in Hollywood…
There have been gay people throughout all human history. So, it's not the media that makes one gay. We talked about this before.
According to you, we (christians) are homophobes because we do not approve of the act of homosexuality. You do not approve of the act of christianity, yet you will not accept that you are a christianophobe just as much as we are homophobes!!!!
Not Christians in general Lawanda, just fundamentalists who take the Bible or Qu'ran literally, like you. You are not homophobic simply because you do not approve, but because you believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful. Islam is also intolerant of gays.
I don't approve of eating olives. However, I do not believe olive eaters are immoral and sinful. Not only do you disapprove of homosexuality but you believe it's sinful and immoral.
It seems to be all of your missions to point out every bad thing every christian has ever done or any hint of evil associated with christianity. Yet you do not think you are christianophobes?
You being quite melodramatic. It's simple. When I see something irrational in religion, I point it out. Don't feel as if I'm picking on Christianity specifically, Jesus is just one of many Gods past and present, I don't believe in.
(We mildly point out things that MIGHT put homosexuality in a negative light and you are all over it baby, yelling bigot and homophobe as much as you can.)
Well, naturally. Fundamentalists do believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful. This is a bigoted and homophobic stance. It's just as ridiculous as if Louis had said all heterosexuals are immoral and sinful. If Louis did say that, you would see me making the same accusations against him as I do against you now.
I am truly beginning to think you are christianophobic.
[Shrug] You'd be wrong.
Americans are only educated about how much fun sex is by their parents', friends, idols'(in the media) examples. So they go out and do it and say to heck with the condoms, they cramp my style.
Pretty much the same way they go out and eat big macs and fries and ignore all the health food everywhere.
Well, it seems Americans can learn a lot from the Swiss, the Germans, the French, the Dutch and the Swedes. They have neither of these problems (teen pregnancy and obesity) that Americans have. And you know what? They are secular countries.