CRC Tries to Smear School Board, Fails
The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, you might remember, started life at the web site RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com. After the nationwide fundamentalist mandate of the 2004 elections, they thought there would be widespread support for the bright idea of kicking out the entire school board. The board had unanimously adopted a new sex-ed curriculum for 8th and 10th grades, and it mentioned (as it is required to, by state law) homosexuality, with an intelligent discussion of sexual identity. Sexual identity goes beyond the plumbing you're born with, it has to do with differences in feelings of masculinity and femininity and with gender roles in a society, as well as sexual orientation. It's a rather subtle thing, and some people didn't get it.
You can read the two curricula. There are links on the righthand side of this web page, click and see what 8th and 10th graders were going to learn. The sexual identity framework mostly came from the American Academy of Pediatrics, it's not some counterculture thing, it's just solid mainstream thinking from the medical experts. But some people couldn't understand it, or couldn't accept it.
Last week the Montgomery County Board of Education elected a new President and Vice President for the next year. You might find it interesting to see the announcement about this that the Recall Group, er, the CRC, put on their web site:
Yes, "both elected representatives approved" the curriculum -- that would be true no matter who the new officers were, because the board was unanimous in approving it.
And that comment that Sharon Cox "has stated publicly that homosexuality is 'mainstream'" -- why won't they give us a source for that? It is one of the few pieces of information that Google can't find. What was that quote, exactly, and what were the circumstances for it? I'd bet money Sharon Cox never said any such thing.
The "instruction of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender" is required by Maryland law, and is way overdue. Well, actually the transgender part is not required by law. That's probably one reason the school district didn't include it in the 8th grade curriculum.
The condom video ... yes? It was pretty good. And yes, if you're going to have anal and oral sex you need to know how to stay safe.
Inaccuracies? I don't think so. The video used data from the CDC. One thing had changed, the research was suggesting different advice about the use of spermicide with a condom. But, as you see, that's not the CRC's problem with it. Their problem was that the video existed at all, and that it mentioned anal sex, which is appropriate if you're going to talk about condoms. And especially in these times when AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex, it would be irresponsible not to mention it.
But it's that last comment that gets you -- the pure cynicism of it is unbelievable. They say, According to the latest national records collected by the FBI, the largest percentage of cases related to hate crimes were those involving religion and or race. Well, that's easy enough to check. The FBI's Hate Crime report for 2004 is RIGHT HERE.
And what does it say?
The FBI's summary says this:
For the CRC, all that matters is that sexual orientation is not one of the top two motivations for hate crimes. It's third, but that's too far down the list to mention.
That, people, is cynicism with a capital C. They actually want to make the argument that MCPS shouldn't teach about sexual orientation because it's only third on the FBI's list of categories of hate crimes.
They say they don't really want to recall the school board. Their attorney even told the Board "We love you." I don't know, what's your guess?
You can read the two curricula. There are links on the righthand side of this web page, click and see what 8th and 10th graders were going to learn. The sexual identity framework mostly came from the American Academy of Pediatrics, it's not some counterculture thing, it's just solid mainstream thinking from the medical experts. But some people couldn't understand it, or couldn't accept it.
Last week the Montgomery County Board of Education elected a new President and Vice President for the next year. You might find it interesting to see the announcement about this that the Recall Group, er, the CRC, put on their web site:
Dear CRC Friends,
On Tuesday, December 13, 2005, the Montgomery County School Board elected its new president and vice president. They are: Charles Haughey, President and Sharon Cox, Vice President.
As you all know, both elected representatives approved the now-scrapped revisions to the sex ed curriculum which would have allowed the instruction of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender for 12 year olds in the eighth grade. Also included at the tenth grade level was a video depicting the correct way to handle and put on a condom and instruction to use one for anal and oral sex. The video contained many inaccuracies regarding STD’s and rates of pregnancy with condom use.
Mrs. Cox has stated publicly that homosexuality is “mainstream” and needs to be taught to the students as a way to deter bullying in the public schools and help maintain a safe environment.
The Montgomery County public school system does not maintain any records regarding bullying or harassment of students in the schools. This was discovered after CRC requested all data from the school system on reported cases/causes of bullying. According to the latest national records collected by the FBI, the largest percentage of cases related to hate crimes were those involving religion and or race.
Yes, "both elected representatives approved" the curriculum -- that would be true no matter who the new officers were, because the board was unanimous in approving it.
And that comment that Sharon Cox "has stated publicly that homosexuality is 'mainstream'" -- why won't they give us a source for that? It is one of the few pieces of information that Google can't find. What was that quote, exactly, and what were the circumstances for it? I'd bet money Sharon Cox never said any such thing.
The "instruction of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender" is required by Maryland law, and is way overdue. Well, actually the transgender part is not required by law. That's probably one reason the school district didn't include it in the 8th grade curriculum.
The condom video ... yes? It was pretty good. And yes, if you're going to have anal and oral sex you need to know how to stay safe.
Inaccuracies? I don't think so. The video used data from the CDC. One thing had changed, the research was suggesting different advice about the use of spermicide with a condom. But, as you see, that's not the CRC's problem with it. Their problem was that the video existed at all, and that it mentioned anal sex, which is appropriate if you're going to talk about condoms. And especially in these times when AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex, it would be irresponsible not to mention it.
But it's that last comment that gets you -- the pure cynicism of it is unbelievable. They say, According to the latest national records collected by the FBI, the largest percentage of cases related to hate crimes were those involving religion and or race. Well, that's easy enough to check. The FBI's Hate Crime report for 2004 is RIGHT HERE.
And what does it say?
The FBI's summary says this:
In 2004, 2,046 [law enforcement] agencies reported 7,649 incidents involving 9,035 offenses. There were 7,642 single-bias incidents and 7 multiple-bias incidents. (See Tables 1 and 12.) Among the single-bias incidents, racially motivated crimes accounted for 52.9 percent, religious bias accounted for 18.0 percent, bias against sexual orientation accounted for 15.7 percent, and bias against ethnicity or national origin accounted for 12.7 percent. Disability bias motivated 0.7 percent of single-bias incidents.
For the CRC, all that matters is that sexual orientation is not one of the top two motivations for hate crimes. It's third, but that's too far down the list to mention.
That, people, is cynicism with a capital C. They actually want to make the argument that MCPS shouldn't teach about sexual orientation because it's only third on the FBI's list of categories of hate crimes.
They say they don't really want to recall the school board. Their attorney even told the Board "We love you." I don't know, what's your guess?
posted by JimK at 1:08 PM
91 Comments:
Well remember that rambling column by Blair Lee in Gazette Nov. 19, 2004 that labeled everything "mainstream thinking" in the universe on sex ed topic.
I saw that, too, Kay, in the Google cache. But that ... editorial (?) ... doesn't say Sharon Cox said homosexuality is mainstream. He puts quotation marks around the word "mainstream," but it appears he's quoting himself... I think it was supposed to be sarcasm.
JimK
Now here I was thinking that CRC still thought that the three organizations appointed to new CAC were "supporting homosexuality as natural and mainstream..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802135.html
As usual, these are just word games.
Natural -- sure, Throckmorton and the CRC would probbaly agree. Humans have been homosexual throughout recorded history. Regardless of whether you believe it's innate in some form, or influenced predominantly by environmental factors, or by misbehaving parents, it qualifies as natural. Even the most orthodox biblical reading would call it natural, if sinful. That's the whole point of cataloguing sins -- if it weren't natural, there wouldn't be an issue. It just wouldn't happen. Oh, unless Satan intervened, of course.
Mainstream -- everyone knows that we all mean "accepted by mainstream society and medical organizations as natural and valid, and those who identify as such deserve the equal protection of the law." The way they frame it is to imply that it means that everybody will soon begin behaving homosexually.
Ah, the "mainstream." Interest groups all want to say that their beliefs are in the "mainstream" and that those of their opponents are "outside of the mainstream."
Proponents of the proposed revised curriculum, myself included, repeatedly noted that EVERY mainstream American medical and mental health professional association concluded long ago that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that people can live happy lives consistent with their sexual orientation, regardless of whether it is heterosexual. The only reason I used the word "mainstream" was to exclude front groups, like the American College of Pediatricians, which were founded simply as vehicles to oppose, on ideological and/or theological grounds, the conclusions of the well-established organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.
Rather than fuss about words like "mainstream," we should look at the facts. And the facts are that what CRC wants for our health education is to ignore or contradict what the "mainstream" health professional groups tell us.
The FBI provides information on the breakdown of the hate crimes, showing the biases of the perpetrators as follows:
"Of the 1,480 reported offenses within single-bias incidents that were motivated by the offender’s religious bias, 67.8 percent were anti-Jewish, 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic, 3.9 percent were anti-Catholic, 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant, and 0.5 percent were anti-Atheism or Agnosticism. Bias against other (unspecified) religions accounted for 9.5 percent of the hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias, and bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group) accounted for 2.5 percent.
In 2004, bias against a particular sexual orientation accounted for 1,406 offenses within single-bias hate crime incidents. Law enforcement agencies reported that 60.8 percent of these offenses resulted from an anti-male homosexual bias, 21.1 percent from an anti-homosexual bias, 14.3 percent from an anti-female homosexual bias, 2.5 percent from an anti-heterosexual bias, and 1.3 percent from an anti-bisexual bias."
Once again the CRC gets it wrong. They have implied that Christians suffer more hate crimes than gays do but the FBI's facts say otherwise.
Thank you, Anon-factual. I was going to point this out. To state that Christians are victims of hate crimes is as ludicrous as stating there is a war on Christmas.
"Thank you, Anon-factual. I was going to point this out. To state that Christians are victims of hate crimes is as ludicrous as stating there is a war on Christmas."
Dana, you're wrong. persecution of bible-believing Christians is commonplace in the U.S. but is not reported because they are not perceived to be a minority as our country has a Christian heritage.
Still, the situation in the U.S. is idyllic compared to most of the world where to profess and teach Christianity is to risk your life.
Few kids get bullied for being gay because, appropriately, few teens are self-identifying and publicly declaring homosexuality. What exists is that "gay" is correctly considered an insult but it's doubtful whether the person making this insult is attacking a person because they actually think they're gay.
This, as usual, is all ludicrous.
First, please provide me with documented instances where Christians are actually being persecuted. And don't give me O'Reilly "War on Christmas" talking points. I agree with the comment that elsewhere some Christians have a very hard time of it.
Secondly, your gratuitous comment on "correctly considered an insult," which you thought you could slip through, is disgusting.
Thirdly, you didn't read the recent Time magazine article which described more teens than ever as coming out. But you do have a point. "Gay" is often not used to specifically refer to sexual orientation, because many of these kids either haven't expressed it or don't yet have it or don't even know what it is. What it usually refers to, and what I believe is the root cause of mosat homophobia in the first place, is misogyny. These kids are responding to their male peer who is not masculine enough for them, just as adult men are not comfortable with the thought of other men behaving femininely, whether it is in general behavior or sexually. So it is more a function of gender stereotypes than sexual orientation, and the two are often conflated in the public's mind.
"First, please provide me with documented instances where Christians are actually being persecuted."
Are you looking for everyday persecution or something on the Matthew Shepherd level?
"Secondly, your gratuitous comment on "correctly considered an insult," which you thought you could slip through, is disgusting."
Dana, to suggest that a normal person has this defect is obviously an insult.
"Thirdly, you didn't read the recent Time magazine article which described more teens than ever as coming out."
I read it. I also think it said that those few (although number of) kids aren't really subject to much persecution.
"But you do have a point. "Gay" is often not used to specifically refer to sexual orientation, because many of these kids either haven't expressed it or don't yet have it or don't even know what it is. What it usually refers to, and what I believe is the root cause of mosat homophobia in the first place, is misogyny. These kids are responding to their male peer who is not masculine enough for them, just as adult men are not comfortable with the thought of other men behaving femininely, whether it is in general behavior or sexually. So it is more a function of gender stereotypes than sexual orientation, and the two are often conflated in the public's mind."
I don't think you're right in the sense that bullies are out to attack any guy who acts feminine. Some insecure bullies, however, may be looking for anyone they can pick on and may conclude they can get away with doing it to a weaker, feminine type. It's actually more of an elementary and middle school problem- kids in high school are generally more mature. Also, they'll use the insult for anyone they feel contempt for- not just effeminate guys. In any case, teaching kids that some kids are born effeminate is not going to change anything. The idea that it would is actually ludicrous.
By the way, haven't you all said that most gays don't act effeminate anyway?
Now, show me again the attempt to smear the Board. CRC said Cox said homosexuality is mainstream (which I think you agree with) and said the new Pres and VP approved the horrible curriculum the Board attempted to push on the schoolchildren of the county. I'm surprised any of you would think that constitutes a smear.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ridiculous stuff Jim says on this blog eventually is used to demonstrate the bias of the Board on this issue. What a stooge!
I would also like to know of persecution of Christians in the US- not the kids who can't pass out bibles or preach the gospel in the school or praying in school. And lest we get into the Christmas thing- my daughter is playing Oh, Holy Night(and a second religious carol which escapes me- not being Christian) for the school concert this week- it is a public school. And I have never heard of Christians being murdered for their faith currently in the US- I think you were being insulting to suggest that by comparing the question to Matthew Shepherd.
Anon writes,
Once again the CRC gets it wrong. They have implied that Christians suffer more hate crimes than gays do but the FBI's facts say otherwise.
Really? I went back and read, and then re-read their statement, and as hard as I try, I can't find that implied. What the statement DID say, without giving the details of how exactly the numbers broke down within the various categories, is that religion and race were the two top categories. Put those two groups together, and you have over 70% of reported hate crimes in those two groups.
Now, break the numbers down within the religion category, and it is clear that Jewish motivated hate crimes claim over 2/3 of all religious hate crimes. A case can be made that some of these religious hate crimes could be ethnic in origin, and have been put in the religion column for purposes of classification. Am I making this case...no, not necessarily...I guess I am just wondering out loud.
However, the charge that CRC "implied" is more emotional projection than anything having a foundation in fact.
Another Anon writes,
Dana, you're wrong. persecution of bible-believing Christians is commonplace in the U.S. but is not reported because they are not perceived to be a minority as our country has a Christian heritage.
Everyone where I work (a public state university) knows that I am for the most part a bible-believing Christian (albeit of the Roman Catholic flavor). I have never experienced any kind of "persecution" or "dicrimination" of any kind whatsoever. With that said though I have read things said of Catholics, as well as Christians in general, that if said of any other group, esp. gays and lesbians would call upon them all sorts of opprobrium.
Truth be told, prominent political progressive groups have made it an article of faith in political action to scrub the "Public Square" clean of any and all religion. When the French established their constitution they made it clear that the Public Square would be completely free of religion. The course taken in this country has been a different one, though the angry (yes, angry...watch and listen to Michael Newdow...pity too, as he is such a bright guy...) secular left wants to change that and has utilized the least democratic branch of govt in their ongoing effort to achieve their ends.
And finally (for now at least), CRC threw out that FBI report to show that less than 1/5 of all reported hate crimes were attributed to sexual orientation while over 2/3 were attributable to religion and race. Now my understanding is that the MCPS justified their curriculum on the basis that hate crimes motivated by perceived sexual orientation were frequent. And then when the opposing side asked for documentation to back up such an assertion, were told that no such records were kept. True?
Orin Ryssman
Anon, you seem to know about this -- show me where Sharon Cox said that homosexuality is mainstream.
Not that it matters, but it looks to me like another thing the CRC made up.
JimK
Here is what CRC presumably was referring to in its reference to Sharon Cox. The Minutes of the 11/9/04 BOE meeting -- at which it unanimously adopted the CAC/Staff recommendations for curriculum revision -- state as follows:
"Ms. Cox commented on the concerns of the community predicated on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Personally, she was conficent that the material represents mainstream thinking, and it is important for students, who choose to participate in the curriculum, to be given the facts. Also, she thought it was important that parents have the opportunity to have their children excluded from certain portions of the health classes. This fact is widely advertised, and the permission slip must be returned with affirmative action for enrollment."
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, are pretty mainstream.
BOE Minutes are available on the MCPS website.
Jim and David
Don't know if Cox used the term "mainstream" or not. I just don't know why you two would consider that a smear- except that you're obsessed with discrediting every word that comes out of Michelle Turner's mouth.
It may be just my imagination but I think she's got you guys scared that CRC will win again in round two.
"Rather than fuss about words like "mainstream," we should look at the facts. And the facts are that what CRC wants for our health education is to ignore or contradict what the "mainstream" health professional groups tell us."
Actually, where you erred was in not asking yourself how these groups came to their conclusion. You were a poor example for the county's youth who should be taught the scientific method instead accepting polls of scientists, who after all are subject to the same pressures as the rest of us. Personal agendas should not be the basis for re-writing curriculums.
anonymous said, "It may be just my imagination but I think she's got you guys scared that CRC will win again in round two."
What about? Crying that CRC does not have a seat on new CAC and PFOX does? No one at TTF is afraid of a bigot like Michelle Turner that I can see. Just read the current blog and archives. Seems like they have her number and then some.
snow white
anonymous said, Personal agendas should not be the basis for re-writing curriculums.
Yeah just like Retta, Michelle and company tried to pull on old CAC when they got voted down. Let's see what letter did they write...what group started..oh yeah that multi pager letter and "RECALL THE MONTGOMERY SCHOOL BOARD."
CRCPrecious (aka Retta Brown)
Check this logic out!
«Posted on: December 10, 2005, 05:23:41 PM on CRC message board»
Ask Marilyn in the Parade Magazine of the Post this Sunday
By Marilyn vos Savant
Q-Some psychiatrists say they can help homosexuals become heterosexuals (not just in behavior-true heterosexuals) Do you think it’s possible?
A. I think change is possible, but only for individuals who were never truly gay in the first place and who have a strong motivation to recover their heterosexuality. Judging from the letters I receive, I suspect that some apparently homosexual people are really heterosexuals who are deeply phobic about the opposite sex or have other emotional problems. However, for people who have been gay since birth, no way!
www.parade.com and click on “Ask Marilyn” to respond
===============
Retta Brown writes:
I think: There have never been “gay” babies so that would mean that all homosexuals were never “truly gay”. : )
_________________
CRC wants her on CAC?
"anon free"
"No one at TTF is afraid of a bigot like Michelle Turner that I can see."
Well, it's hard to tell. The way you focus on her every word, you seem mighty, let's say, concerned.
Ha Ha HA HAA!!!
"Just read the current blog and archives. Seems like they have her number and then some."
They were spouting off the same malarkey before their last defeat. I don't think they got the right number.
"Ask Marilyn in the Parade Magazine of the Post this Sunday
By Marilyn vos Savant
Q-Some psychiatrists say they can help homosexuals become heterosexuals (not just in behavior-true heterosexuals) Do you think it’s possible?
A. Judging from the letters I receive, I suspect that some apparently homosexual people are really heterosexuals who are deeply phobic about the opposite sex or have other emotional problems."
Maybe they all are. DUH!!
"Yeah just like Retta, Michelle and company tried to pull on old CAC when they got voted down. Let's see what letter did they write...what group started..oh yeah that multi pager letter and "RECALL THE MONTGOMERY SCHOOL BOARD.""
Actually, theirs was a county-wide agenda not working for their own biased benefit.
Ho Ho HO!!
anonymous said,Well, it's hard to tell. The way you focus on her every word, you seem mighty, let's say, concerned.
No just easily entertained by the missteps of MT. Her mouth is her own worst enemy as others have pointed out.
Bigots are like that you know. Wonder if her cousin Steve who is gay feels loved by all her homphobic bigotry during this holiday season? Wonder if under his tree is a paid for therapy coupon from Michelle for reparative therapy with Richard Cohen who by the way is in need of some man hugs.
snow white
anonymous said, Actually, theirs was a county-wide agenda not working for their own biased benefit.
County wide agenda to teach bigotry and hate...yes that would be true for Retta, Michelle and unsavory company of CRC.
snow white
Retta Brown writes:
"I think: There have never been “gay” babies so that would mean that all homosexuals were never “truly gay”. : )
_________________
CRC wants her on CAC?"
Well, I do. And, sorry Kay, but the scientific evidence supports her point of view. Not conclusively but it's the most likely explanation for what evidence there is- not the very, very, imaginary "prenatal hormones".
Hee Haw
"County wide agenda to teach bigotry and hate...yes that would be true for Retta, Michelle and unsavory company of CRC.
snow white"
Stop subject shifting, Kay. We're talking who had a PERSONAL agenda.
You could call it bigotry and hate. Or you could agree with Marilyn vos Savant that many "gays" actually have emotional problems and call it care and concern.
Anonymous said....Well, I do. And, sorry Kay,
*********************
Obsessions and paranoia work like the above...sorry anon you are all on your own fighting with other posters who never agree with you. That would be just about everyone here right?
As for any scientific proof for anything Retta said...what is it?
Anonymous said....Stop subject shifting, Kay. We're talking who had a PERSONAL agenda.
Obsessions and paranoia work like the above...
anonymous said, that many "gays" actually have emotional problems and call it care and concern.
Care and concern from you??????????
Yeah with friends like you who needs enemies right?
"anon free"
anonymous said, "You could call it bigotry and hate."
and we do
snow white
As for any scientific proof for anything TTF says...what is it?
Dana Byer said," The way they frame it is to imply that it means that everybody will soon begin behaving homosexually."
Well didn't CRC and company say that the old proposed curriculum taught just that?
snow white
anonymous said...As for any scientific proof for anything TTF says...what is it?
Poor anonymous back to playing games whenever they cannot answer.
"anonymous said, "You could call it bigotry and hate."
and we do"
Meanwhile, while you play your games, more innocent kids fall into this trap and have their lives ruined.
Basically, homosexuality is a pathological adaption to compensate for perceived deficiencies. The farther you go down the path, the harder it is to get back. That's what most practitioners believed in 1979. It's what Marilyn vos Savant sees in the letters she gets from "gays". It's what's obvious to anyone without a political agenda. But, let's not talk about Jim while he's getting ready for his meeting.
"Poor anonymous back to playing games whenever they cannot answer."
Poor Kay. A little challenged intellectually but she spends a lot of time on the computer.
If TTF would ever cite one study that makes their case, we could discuss it. Claiming to have science on their side, they remain mute.
"Dana Byer said," The way they frame it is to imply that it means that everybody will soon begin behaving homosexually."
Well didn't CRC and company say that the old proposed curriculum taught just that?
snow white"
Nobody ever said everyone will begin behaving homosexually. That's another TTF lie. But there will be victims- drawn to this hoorible lie of a life and unable to free themselves without assistance- which TTF wants to make sure they can't get.
anonymous said, Meanwhile, while you play your games, more innocent kids fall into this trap and have their lives ruined.
What a nutty thing to say.
"anon free"
anonymous said....Nobody ever said everyone will begin behaving homosexually. That's another TTF lie. But there will be victims- drawn to this hoorible lie of a life and unable to free themselves without assistance- which TTF wants to make sure they can't get.
What a nutty thing to say. Free themselves from what?
"anon free"
anonymous said..."Poor Kay. A little challenged intellectually but she spends a lot of time on the computer.
Obsession and paranoia with me works like this for anonymous.
anonymous said,.... Nobody ever said everyone will begin behaving homosexually.
Well Johnny Garza and Steve Fisher both called the proposed curriculum an indoctrination program publicly. Now what did you think they meant?
One of the anonymices said, Basically, homosexuality is a pathological adaption to compensate for perceived deficiencies.
Who says...James Dobson Peter Sprigg, CRC, PFOX????? What if anything scientific says that? Richard Cohen and his nuttiness does not count.
snow white
'Brokeback Mountain' tops Satellite Awards
Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:14 AM ET
By Gregg Kilday
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain," the belle of the ball so far this awards season, took home four honors at the 10th annual Satellite Awards, an event organized by critics formerly affiliated with the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.
The gay cowboy romance won trophies Saturday for best motion picture drama, director, editing and song.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was named best actor in a motion picture drama for "Capote," and Felicity Huffman best dramatic film actress for "Transamerica."
Satellites in the motion picture, musical or comedy category went to "Walk the Line" as best film, Terrence Howard of "Hustle & Flow" as best actor and Reese Witherspoon of "Walk the Line" as best actress.
The event, organized by the International Press Academy, took place at the Four Seasons Hotel.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
*******************
'Brokeback Mountain' leads Golden Globe nominations
Clooney tapped for work in 'Good Night, and Good Luck,' 'Syriana'
Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 6:20 p.m. EST (23:20 GMT)
Heath Ledger, left, and Jake Gyllenhaal in "Brokeback Mountain"
'Brokeback Mountain' leads Golden Globe contenders (3:25)
Full list of nominees
• EW.com: Surprises and sure things
• Review: 'Brokeback' brilliant
• Buzz building for 'Brokeback"
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- "Brokeback Mountain," the story of two cowboys grappling with their love for each other, was the top Golden Globe contender Tuesday, picking up seven nominations, including best dramatic picture.
It also was nominated for best director (Ang Lee), best actor in a drama (Heath Ledger) and best supporting actress in a drama (Michelle Williams) as well as best screenplay, best original score and best original song.
The nominations came a day after "Brokeback Mountain" won the New York Film Critics Circle's best picture, best director and best actor (Ledger) awards. (Full story)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/13/golden.globes/?section=cnn_topstories
snow white
"not the very, very, imaginary "prenatal hormones"."
Well, Hee Haw, or Anon, or whoever you are. It's really not very hard to make you out to be the ignorant fool you obviously are, when you make comments like that.
If not for those imaginary hormones, you wouldn't exist. A tragedy, I know, for us all.
Orin,
I just returned from the CAC meeting, and won't have the time to respond to you this evening. I will try to remember tomorrow.
Dana
Anon said As for any scientific proof for anything TTF says...what is it?
Anon, do you think that scientists ever use the word "proof?" Sorry, but it's not in the vocabulary. And what is it that you would like "scientific proof" for?
Are you saying that you think there should be proof that it's moral and kind to show respect to people who are different from you? Because that's all we're saying.
Maybe you want proof that being gay is not a choice...? And can you tell me why that would matter? Is it that you believe it's okay to mistreat people for the choices they make, even when those choices don't hurt you in the least, but it's not ok to mistreat someone who does something involuntarily?
(Before you answer, remember: religion is a choice.)
There are some pieces of logic missing, I don't know what you think you're looking for. I don't think you know, and so you say silly things like "Where's the scientific proof?"
JimK
Dana writes,
I just returned from the CAC meeting, and won't have the time to respond to you this evening. I will try to remember tomorrow.
Ok...whatever...I just looked at the replies and figured that what I had written did not resonate with anyone. Sometimes that happens...
Regards,
Orin
Orin,
Anon writes,
Once again the CRC gets it wrong. They have implied that Christians suffer more hate crimes than gays do but the FBI's facts say otherwise.
Really? I went back and read, and then re-read their statement, and as hard as I try, I can't find that implied. What the statement DID say, without giving the details of how exactly the numbers broke down within the various categories, is that religion and race were the two top categories. Put those two groups together, and you have over 70% of reported hate crimes in those two groups.
Now, break the numbers down within the religion category, and it is clear that Jewish motivated hate crimes claim over 2/3 of all religious hate crimes. A case can be made that some of these religious hate crimes could be ethnic in origin, and have been put in the religion column for purposes of classification. Am I making this case...no, not necessarily...I guess I am just wondering out loud.
However, the charge that CRC "implied" is more emotional projection than anything having a foundation in fact.
>Orin, I think it’s a fair inference. We haven’t discussed race much, if at all, so why would CRC post such information? Just for informational sake? I think everyone here knows why – to try to slip it past us that religiously motivated hate crimes are more common than sexuality-oriented hate crimes, with the implication that it’s the poor, victimized Christian fundamentalists who bear the brunt. CRC have made that point before, so this is not a stretch. And, as the data make clear, it is Christians attacking Jews who make up the majority of those religiously-inspired hate crimes, just as it’s been for 2000 years.
In addition, there are many jurisdictions that are not legally required to report LGBT hate crimes, and hence do not so. Therefore, LGBT-hate crimes are under-reported.<
Another Anon writes,
Dana, you're wrong. persecution of bible-believing Christians is commonplace in the U.S. but is not reported because they are not perceived to be a minority as our country has a Christian heritage.
Everyone where I work (a public state university) knows that I am for the most part a bible-believing Christian (albeit of the Roman Catholic flavor). I have never experienced any kind of "persecution" or "discrimination" of any kind whatsoever. With that said though I have read things said of Catholics, as well as Christians in general, that if said of any other group, esp. gays and lesbians would call upon them all sorts of opprobrium.
>That may be the case, but I also see Christians saying hateful things about other religions and those who do not believe. I know you can take it, and those who are whining about it, like Fox News, are doing it for ratings, just manipulating their masses for profit. The bottom line is that, when liberals such as myself might criticize the content of your or any religion, we would be willing to die to defend your right to believe what you choose and practice as you choose. The same cannot be said of the fundamentalists.<
Truth be told, prominent political progressive groups have made it an article of faith in political action to scrub the "Public Square" clean of any and all religion. When the French established their constitution they made it clear that the Public Square would be completely free of religion. The course taken in this country has been a different one, though the angry (yes, angry...watch and listen to Michael Newdow...pity too, as he is such a bright guy...) secular left wants to change that and has utilized the least democratic branch of gov’t in their ongoing effort to achieve their ends.
>This can actually be a very important and serious discussion. I don’t see it as a problem as you might. I think organized religion has no business in the Public Square, and I believe it is fundamentalists’ desire to impose their beliefs on others that is the problem, not liberals trying to remove them. We all bring our moral core to the Public Square, and we can all discuss and debate that morality, much of which is shared, without Christian trappings and the spewing of dogma. I’m happy to meet and talk with any Christian or Muslim and discuss morality; it only degenerates when people start quoting chapter and verse and end up arguing that their god is more powerful than my god.<
And finally (for now at least), CRC threw out that FBI report to show that less than 1/5 of all reported hate crimes were attributed to sexual orientation while over 2/3 were attributable to religion and race. Now my understanding is that the MCPS justified their curriculum on the basis that hate crimes motivated by perceived sexual orientation were frequent. And then when the opposing side asked for documentation to back up such an assertion, were told that no such records were kept. True?
>See above. Maryland, for instance, only recently started collecting statistics. In addition, to use trans as an example, many anti-trans crimes have gone unreported over the years for many reasons. At times it’s not obvious. Sometimes the family is ashamed and will not allow that information out, particularly with suicides – and that’s when the family even knows, or is not buried in denial. With post-operative men and women you can’t tell anyway. I can personally say that I was fearful for myself for decades as a result of the hostile law enforcement culture, even in the blue states.<
anonymous wrote, "Hee Haw"
As usual the jackass side of anonymous shines through every day.
"anon free"
I certainly get my information from Parade magazine and someone who claims to be the world's smartest person. Why look to actual experts- when you can get your facts from an authority like Parade. I mean on vacation this year, my kids and I were shocked to learn of the destruction of the Eiffel Tower by termites- from the authoritative World Weekly News. I meanthey wouldn't print it- if it wasn't true, right?
Anonymous said, You could call it bigotry and hate. Or you could agree with Marilyn vos Savant that many "gays" actually have emotional problems and call it care and concern.
CRCPrecious as Retta Brown Writes about Marilyn vos Savant:
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2005, 11:04:17 AM »
I don't know. I thought she would fall in the same category as Ann Landers or Oprah
"anon free"
Dana Beyer writes,
I think organized religion has no business in the Public Square,
That opinion is fine as things go, but it is at odds with US history and American political theory. I understand those that rage against this are busily attempting to convince a majority in this country that there was never a religious influence in the Public Square.
and I believe it is fundamentalists’ desire to impose their beliefs on others that is the problem, not liberals trying to remove them.
From a very personal perspective I know that this assertion is factually incorrect. How do I know this?...when I graduated in June 1980 I attended a (voluntary) Baccalaureate service where the local Baptist Pastor gave an inspiring address/sermon. My maternal grandmother (of blessed memory) was as devout a Mormon as you would likely ever meet, and upon leaving commented that it was one of the finest talks she had ever heard.
Now, thanks to the ACLU and other like minded groups, all such services have been eliminated on school grounds (unless, of course, a group is willing to pay a rental fee to use the school facility).
While it does not rise to the level of persecution in this country, it clearly is first a case of the Left attempting to secularize this country in the way Western Europe has been secularized. And those of us that are religious are merely pushing back...the last time I checked I still had the right to vote, organize and express my opinion as a religious American.
Orin
Anonymous said, "You could call it bigotry and hate. Or you could agree with Marilyn vos Savant that many "gays" actually have emotional problems and call it care and concern."
Another Anon said, "Maybe they all are. DUH!!"
Here's the actual quote, "...Judging from the letters I receive, I suspect that some apparently homosexual people are really heterosexuals who are deeply phobic about the opposite sex or have other emotional problems."
She did not say "many" or "all" gays "actually" have emotional problems. She said she "suspects some" gays are straight people who are afraid of the opposite sex or have other emotional problems.
You do that all the time...lie, change the meaning of what was said, spin... whatever you want to call it.
I call it pathetic.
Aunt Bea
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Orin,
Thanks for your response.
I don't think anyone will argue with your right to "push back," as you say. As I said, iw ill defend your right to do so. I will not defend the right of the Right to lie, misrepresent, slander, etc. And you should understand that we will push back as well.
I'm sorry your maternal grandmother might have to attend such a service off school grounds or after paying a rental fee, but I consider that a small price to pay to forestall a more serious religious war. The question is not whether a pastor has a right to give such a speech, or your grandmother the right to listen to it, but that it cannot be given on PUBLIC school grounds.
As one who has made us aware of the politics of religion in Mormon country, I'm a bit surprised that you're so sanguine about inviting organized religion (back) into the public square.
Yes, I recognize that it used to be the norm. But so was slavery, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, homophobia and the like. And just maybe, instead of criticizing western Europe for having secularized, you might want to step back and review the last, oh, 1500 years of European history, culminating in the religious war known as the Holocaust and ask yourself if maybe the Europeans finally got it right.
I have no problem with you, or people like you. But I think you are also aware that not only do the evangelicals with whom you don't associate want to dominate political and social life in this country, but they already have, in the guise of the Republican Party. If you enjoy that, then keep supporting them. If not, the only way, as American hoistory has shown, to prevent religious wars, is to keep this country firmly a secular constitutional republic.
"anonymous said, Meanwhile, while you play your games, more innocent kids fall into this trap and have their lives ruined.
What a nutty thing to say."
Keep believing in that fairy tale.
"anonymous said....Nobody ever said everyone will begin behaving homosexually. That's another TTF lie. But there will be victims- drawn to this hoorible lie of a life and unable to free themselves without assistance- which TTF wants to make sure they can't get.
What a nutty thing to say. Free themselves from what?
"anon free""
Free themselves from bondage to the homosexual lifestyle. I thought you said they can't change.
"anonymous said,.... Nobody ever said everyone will begin behaving homosexually.
Well Johnny Garza and Steve Fisher both called the proposed curriculum an indoctrination program publicly. Now what did you think they meant?"
They mean the public schools are trying to brainwash students into a certain point of view and are trying to make sure no opposing view is heard. Has nothing to do with trying to turn the kids into homosexuals.
Truthfully, most homosexuals want people to remain heterosexuals because that's who they're attracted to.
"One of the anonymices said, Basically, homosexuality is a pathological adaption to compensate for perceived deficiencies.
Who says...James Dobson Peter Sprigg, CRC, PFOX????? What if anything scientific says that? Richard Cohen and his nuttiness does not count."
Again we see TTF claim science but their only argument is to say "nuttiness".
Epithets don't constitute a scientific argument.
"'Brokeback Mountain' tops Satellite Awards
Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:14 AM ET"
Hey, snow, did you go see this yet? If anyone has, I'd love to hear reactions.
"not the very, very, imaginary "prenatal hormones"."
"Well, Hee Haw, or Anon, or whoever you are. It's really not very hard to make you out to be the ignorant fool you obviously are, when you make comments like that.
If not for those imaginary hormones, you wouldn't exist. A tragedy, I know, for us all."
Actually, you're the ignorant one. The hormones exist. The idea bandied about by all these associations, however, that it affects sexual orientation is a complete fabrication.
All the data has shown that there are certain biological factors that make a person more susceptible to homosexuality. Since they aren't anywhere close to 100% determinative, however, there's another factor. Instead of accepting that certain people choose to fight these inclinations and succeed, gay advocacy groups have convinced scientists to say it's probably because of "prenatal hormones." Completely imaginary. All part of a civil rights campaign and an abuse of scientific authority.
"Anon said As for any scientific proof for anything TTF says...what is it?
Anon, do you think that scientists ever use the word "proof?" Sorry, but it's not in the vocabulary. And what is it that you would like "scientific proof" for?
Are you saying that you think there should be proof that it's moral and kind to show respect to people who are different from you? Because that's all we're saying.
Maybe you want proof that being gay is not a choice...? And can you tell me why that would matter? Is it that you believe it's okay to mistreat people for the choices they make, even when those choices don't hurt you in the least, but it's not ok to mistreat someone who does something involuntarily?
(Before you answer, remember: religion is a choice.)
There are some pieces of logic missing, I don't know what you think you're looking for. I don't think you know, and so you say silly things like "Where's the scientific proof?"
JimK"
Actually, Jim, all I did was to substitute TTF for CRC in some post from one of your gang, so I don't get your point.
The rest of your post is what I've been saying all along: your quest here is a civil rights issue. Can we all discuss on that level and drop the ridiculous references to science?
You say, "what does it matter if it's a choice?". Why, then, do you support teaching that it isn't? You've been dishonest about your motives. I know you think it's justified because it's a moral cause but it's just made everything worse. Be honest.
Anon, this might be a little hard for you to grasp, but I was just asking why it matters if it's a choice. I wasn't saying it isn't, I am only pointing out that arbitrarily hating people because of the choices they make, when those choices don't affect you in the least, is not really that much better than hating them for some biological trait they possess.
Never mind.
JimK
">Orin, I think it’s a fair inference. We haven’t discussed race much, if at all, so why would CRC post such information? Just for informational sake? I think everyone here knows why – to try to slip it past us that religiously motivated hate crimes are more common than sexuality-oriented hate crimes, with the implication that it’s the poor, victimized Christian fundamentalists who bear the brunt. CRC have made that point before, so this is not a stretch. And, as the data make clear, it is Christians attacking Jews who make up the majority of those religiously-inspired hate crimes, just as it’s been for 2000 years."
Orin is right. CRC made no such claim.
Anti-semitism didn't start 2000 years ago, it's been going on from the dawn of civilization. They are persecuted because they are God's people who brought God's message and people dislike God's message, which is that things need to change.
>That may be the case, but I also see Christians saying hateful things about other religions and those who do not believe. I know you can take it, and those who are whining about it, like Fox News, are doing it for ratings, just manipulating their masses for profit. The bottom line is that, when liberals such as myself might criticize the content of your or any religion, we would be willing to die to defend your right to believe what you choose and practice as you choose. The same cannot be said of the fundamentalists.<
Dana, you've simply redefined disagreement as hatefulness. I agree that some of those guys get kind of sarcastic. I know a guy who has a talk show on Fox and I always think he makes a bad impression in public but on the other hand he has lots of prominent liberal friends. They come to his book parties and attend debates and everyone seems to get along personally. The "hateful" charge is really worse than the sarcasm.
">This can actually be a very important and serious discussion. I don’t see it as a problem as you might. I think organized religion has no business in the Public Square, and I believe it is fundamentalists’ desire to impose their beliefs on others that is the problem, not liberals trying to remove them. We all bring our moral core to the Public Square, and we can all discuss and debate that morality, much of which is shared, without Christian trappings and the spewing of dogma. I’m happy to meet and talk with any Christian or Muslim and discuss morality; it only degenerates when people start quoting chapter and verse and end up arguing that their god is more powerful than my god.<"
The idea that Christians or anybody should compartmentalize their faith to make others feel comfortable is offensive. It just makes for an increasingly hypocritical society. If Christians, or anyone else, believes their religious beliefs are relevant to an issue they should say so. Trying to banish religion from our public life began with the Warren court and it's brought an increasingly wicked and degnerate society. The decadence is recognized by virtually everybody.
"I certainly get my information from Parade magazine and someone who claims to be the world's smartest person. Why look to actual experts- when you can get your facts from an authority like Parade. I mean on vacation this year, my kids and I were shocked to learn of the destruction of the Eiffel Tower by termites- from the authoritative World Weekly News. I meanthey wouldn't print it- if it wasn't true, right?"
Andrea, you're as bad as Kay with these rhetorical games. I don't read Parade- I only know about it because one of you posted it.
While not an authority, this woman is a populist columnist with heavy mail so her observations from that mail is notable.
You guys play so many games. First, no one can change. Then, if you do, you were never gay to begin with. It's all subjective and, really, you don't know what you're talking about. How dare you try and spread your ignorance to the next generation.
"Dana Beyer writes,
I think organized religion has no business in the Public Square,
That opinion is fine as things go, but it is at odds with US history and American political theory. I understand those that rage against this are busily attempting to convince a majority in this country that there was never a religious influence in the Public Square.
and I believe it is fundamentalists’ desire to impose their beliefs on others that is the problem, not liberals trying to remove them.
From a very personal perspective I know that this assertion is factually incorrect. How do I know this?...when I graduated in June 1980 I attended a (voluntary) Baccalaureate service where the local Baptist Pastor gave an inspiring address/sermon. My maternal grandmother (of blessed memory) was as devout a Mormon as you would likely ever meet, and upon leaving commented that it was one of the finest talks she had ever heard.
Now, thanks to the ACLU and other like minded groups, all such services have been eliminated on school grounds (unless, of course, a group is willing to pay a rental fee to use the school facility).
While it does not rise to the level of persecution in this country, it clearly is first a case of the Left attempting to secularize this country in the way Western Europe has been secularized. And those of us that are religious are merely pushing back...the last time I checked I still had the right to vote, organize and express my opinion as a religious American.
Orin"
This guy is so right on. What most of you don't understand is that people of many different religions oppose the homosexual agenda. Orin, and Michelle Turner, are Mormons. As an evangelical Christian, I have strong problems with their religious beliefs. Our common cause is not religious, it's concern for our children and the society they will inherit. The way you basically group all religions together as one is ignorant and biased.
"Dana Beyer writes,
I think organized religion has no business in the Public Square,
That opinion is fine as things go, but it is at odds with US history and American political theory. I understand those that rage against this are busily attempting to convince a majority in this country that there was never a religious influence in the Public Square.
and I believe it is fundamentalists’ desire to impose their beliefs on others that is the problem, not liberals trying to remove them.
From a very personal perspective I know that this assertion is factually incorrect. How do I know this?...when I graduated in June 1980 I attended a (voluntary) Baccalaureate service where the local Baptist Pastor gave an inspiring address/sermon. My maternal grandmother (of blessed memory) was as devout a Mormon as you would likely ever meet, and upon leaving commented that it was one of the finest talks she had ever heard.
Now, thanks to the ACLU and other like minded groups, all such services have been eliminated on school grounds (unless, of course, a group is willing to pay a rental fee to use the school facility).
While it does not rise to the level of persecution in this country, it clearly is first a case of the Left attempting to secularize this country in the way Western Europe has been secularized. And those of us that are religious are merely pushing back...the last time I checked I still had the right to vote, organize and express my opinion as a religious American.
Orin"
This guy is so right on. What most of you don't understand is that people of many different religions oppose the homosexual agenda. Orin, and Michelle Turner, are Mormons. As an evangelical Christian, I have strong problems with their religious beliefs. Our common cause is not religious, it's concern for our children and the society they will inherit. The way you basically group all religions together as one is ignorant and biased.
"Anonymous said, "You could call it bigotry and hate. Or you could agree with Marilyn vos Savant that many "gays" actually have emotional problems and call it care and concern."
Another Anon said, "Maybe they all are. DUH!!"
Here's the actual quote, "...Judging from the letters I receive, I suspect that some apparently homosexual people are really heterosexuals who are deeply phobic about the opposite sex or have other emotional problems."
She did not say "many" or "all" gays "actually" have emotional problems. She said she "suspects some" gays are straight people who are afraid of the opposite sex or have other emotional problems.
You do that all the time...lie, change the meaning of what was said, spin... whatever you want to call it.
I call it pathetic.
Aunt Bea"
How do you know that what she's saying doesn't apply to all "gays"? I personally think it does.
Anon said You guys play so many games. First, no one can change...
Anon, where did anybody say that?
JimK
"And just maybe, instead of criticizing western Europe for having secularized, you might want to step back and review the last, oh, 1500 years of European history, culminating in the religious war known as the Holocaust and ask yourself if maybe the Europeans finally got it right."
Dana, you just don't get it. The Holocaust wasn't a religious war- Hitler's final solution, which wasn't public knowledge, was based on his devotion to scientific principles derived from Darwinism.
"I have no problem with you, or people like you. But I think you are also aware that not only do the evangelicals with whom you don't associate want to dominate political and social life in this country, but they already have, in the guise of the Republican Party."
So their crime is success. Be patient. Evil will always make a comeback until God intervenes at the culmination of history.
If you enjoy that, then keep supporting them. If not, the only way, as American hoistory has shown, to prevent religious wars, is to keep this country firmly a secular constitutional republic.
"Never mind."
You probably have one, Jim. You just never use it.
Anonymous writes:
"Basically, homosexuality is a pathological adaption to compensate for perceived deficiencies. The farther you go down the path, the harder it is to get back. That's what most practitioners believed in 1979."
It is probably what most practioners believed in 1959 and 1949. But for at least the last quarter century, that is NOT what our health care professionals believe, and with good reason. They discovered, based on hard and often painful experience, that "therapies" based on those unproven assumptions were destroying "patients" and their families. That, along side the kind of scientific studies Dr. Wertsch presented at the Sept. 2005 TTF Forum, demonstrates that the positions taken by the AMA, etc. should be our guideposts.
None of Wertch's cited study proved, or even indicated, that sexual orientation couldn't be successfully resisted. At the incipient stages, it no doubt depends on motivation- some kids aren't raised with proper ideals.
anonymous said, "How dare you try and spread your ignorance to the next generation."
***********************
Hmmmmm I believe you are right in referring to this about CRC and their promotion of bigotry and hate. TTF'rs will certainly work against that hatefulness.
Anonymous said...
"'Brokeback Mountain' tops Satellite Awards
Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:14 AM ET"
Hey, snow, did you go see this yet? If anyone has, I'd love to hear reactions.
Check it out anon:
http://www.waynebesen.com/
snow white
I'd like to respond to some comments on my comments, but until I know that it was not Anon-inane who responded, I will just keep my peace. If it was Orin or EH or some other level-headed person, please let me know.
Also, I forget who asked, but I went to the trouble to post an analysis of Throckmorton's introduction to his sex-ed curriculum, and no one responded. So I won't bother to go any further.
And whoever made that comment about the Holocaust, don't bother to lecture to me. I know far more about German history than you ever will.
Oh, and if Jews are persecuted because they are God's people, then why have Christians been at the forefront of that persecution for the last 1900 years?
I wish I could come out and play, but I have things I need to do right now and the weather is in the 50's for the first time in many days...
For the record though because I want to be clear: I am a believing and practicing Roman Catholic. I grew up LDS (Mormon) and even served a full-time mission for the LDS Church in Brasil (talk about a waste of time!). However, back in 2001 I requested that my name be removed from LDS Church records as a member, and that request was granted in August (indeed, I received the letter confirming this action on my 40th birthday).
Also, I would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday...whether that is celebrating Christmas, Hannukh, Kwanza or simply getting together with family and friends to exchange gifts in friendship and thanksgiving.
Orin
Ok, now I have a little time to reply...
Dana writes,
I don't think anyone will argue with your right to "push back," as you say. As I said, I will defend your right to do so. I will not defend the right of the Right to lie, misrepresent, slander, etc. And you should understand that we will push back as well.
And neither will I...however, you seem to assume that the Vast Vight Ving Conspiracy are the only ones that "lie, misrepresent, slander, etc." As a conservative I understand that human nature is pretty much a constant, and that liberals are as prone to lying as are conservatives. In fact this reminds me of a favorite quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
In pretty much the same way as the Right can tell lies, so can the Left...a classic lie of the Left that still manages to make the rounds is that 1 in 10 are homosexual (when the figure is actually 3 to 5%, at best).
Dana continues,
I'm sorry your maternal grandmother might have to attend such a service off school grounds or after paying a rental fee, but I consider that a small price to pay to forestall a more serious religious war. The question is not whether a pastor has a right to give such a speech, or your grandmother the right to listen to it, but that it cannot be given on PUBLIC school grounds.
The practice I described was not stopped to "to forestall a more serious religious war," but rather to satisfy the few secular malcontents in American Society (again, I think the "poster child" for the secular malcontent could very easily be Michael Newdow).
Our public schools are supported by taxes that are collected from just about everyone...including those that self-identify as religious. Secular extremists have been so successful in scrubbing every last inch of public education clean of any trace of religion that one would never guess that US religious history remains one of the great shining moments in the history of humankind (not perfect, mind you, but relative to the history of so many other countries so much better, peaceful and accomodating).
And now, on top of all of this, it appearsthat many of these same advocates of secularism in The Public Sqaure want to fill this void with a brand of sex ed that is patently offensive to those that identify as religious (and here I am not just talking about those pesky evangelicals). As I have said before, if this trend is continued what those that support this will find are public schools that lack the widescale public support needed to carry on their mission. I went my last two years of high school in a school district dominated by Senior Citizens; needless to say, there was really never any money for anything but the bare essentials (for example, though there was space allocated for an indoor swimming pool for the school swim team, it remained a dirt lot for lack of funding). Dana, is this what you want?
Dana, continuing, writes,
As one who has made us aware of the politics of religion in Mormon country, I'm a bit surprised that you're so sanguine about inviting organized religion (back) into the public square.
The problem in Utah is not one of religion in the public sqaure per se, rather the shear concentration. I have developed this theory about humankind...put too many of any like group together and members of any group will exhibit a level of whackiness they would otherwise not exhibit. For example, gays and lesbians. Once while visiting a friend in San Francisco we went to Castro Street for dinner and a movie. What I saw was...well, a bit of an eye-opener. Since that time, I have had gay and lesbian neighbors in every place that I have lived, and I have never seen this same sort of behavior. Need another example? Ok, how about this...when the LDS Church wanted to build one of their temples in Nashville TN they found that every site they would choose would be nixed by the political powers to be of the area. It got to the point that the LDS Church finally had to threaten serious legal action before the local Baptist crowd understood that like it or not, those Mormons would have a temple of theirs smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Heck, I would find it challenging as a Roman (hence Papist) Catholic.
Bottomline is this: get too many of any single group together and concentrated in a certain area, and you are bound to see wierd things happen. It is human nature...something I make a point of never betting against.
Dana, again continuing, writes,
Yes, I recognize that it used to be the norm. But so was slavery, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.
The above comment, while revealing, is not surprising...I know I would not dream of saying (much less even giving thought to) of those that are secular what you seem to be implying here of those that are religious. So, are you saying that those that are religious and would like to see a place of accomodation for the same in the public sphere are the same as those that once advocated on behalf of slavery??? I have several dear friends that are as secular as I am religious and I don't feel or think that way about them...I am genuinely sorry if you feel this way, Dana.
Dana, again,
And just maybe, instead of criticizing western Europe for having secularized, you might want to step back and review the last, oh, 1500 years of European history, culminating in the religious war known as the Holocaust and ask yourself if maybe the Europeans finally got it right.
I will not go into the 1500 years you claim taught Europeans that secularism was the path to peace. What I will correct is your claim that the Holocaust was any sort of "religious war". This is factually incorrect, period. It is simply not so. About the only ones that claim anything remotely similar are Holocaust Deniers... I have read one complete account, from start to finish (the one written by British historian Martin Gilbert) on the Holocaust, not to mention countless articles. The political ideology of National Socialism (Nazism) was secular to its evil core. True, in places like Poland (for example), Hitler tapped into historic Catholic anti-semitism to accomplish his purposes. But make no mistake, his purposes were secular, not religious. Dietrich Bonhoffer, as well as other people of faith, recognized this, knew that their faith demanded that they do something, and then as often paid for that something with their very lives.
And finally, Dana writes,
I have no problem with you, or people like you.
In light of your own words that show a clear and consistent pattern of animus against religion and those that self-identify as religious, I find this difflicult to believe...and here I am thinking of past comments that indicate you believe that the United States is one step away from becoming "A Handmaid's Tale".
But I think you are also aware that not only do the evangelicals with whom you don't associate want to dominate political and social life in this country, but they already have, in the guise of the Republican Party. If you enjoy that, then keep supporting them.
In the last election it was not just Evangelicals that re-elected Bush, but Catholics (the figure I've heard is 4 to 5 million). In many ways I feel a kinship with evangelicals that I do not feel with self-identifying Catholics like Francis Kissling (Catholics for a Free Choice) or John Kerry, for that matter. I can even remember back to when I was LDS, and I thought that Sen. Ted Kennedy was many things, but certainly not a faithful Catholic.
Support them? I do.
If not, the only way, as American history has shown, to prevent religious wars, is to keep this country firmly a secular constitutional republic.
Again you have asserted something that has no foundation in factual history. If American history shows ANYTHING at all it shows how religion as well as those that self-identify as religious can participate in the Public Square as religious people, while still allowing those not interested in reigion to opt out and remain safe in their rights.
Before asserting anything more about American history and preventing religious wars you might want to read Daniel L. Dreisbach,a professor in the department of justice, law, and society at American University in Washington, D.C. and his book, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press; October 2003). While there are other titles, that is one of the most recent...
"In pretty much the same way as the Right can tell lies, so can the Left...a classic lie of the Left that still manages to make the rounds is that 1 in 10 are homosexual (when the figure is actually 3 to 5%, at best)."
The only thing I'd like to add to your post, Orin, is that this number is really slippery because it relies on self-identification and, even then, if any one of these self-identifiers actually undergoes a change in feeling, TTF says they never qualified in the first place.
By the way, I thought I had heard you say you were still a Mormon but sorry to have mischaracterized you.
"And whoever made that comment about the Holocaust, don't bother to lecture to me. I know far more about German history than you ever will.
Oh, and if Jews are persecuted because they are God's people, then why have Christians been at the forefront of that persecution for the last 1900 years?"
Everyone rightly denounces Holocaust deniers like the Iranian president. But who denounces people like you who insist on denying Hitler's motivations. He combined the ideas of Darwin and Nietzke and came up with the idea of a master race. He obviously contradicted church teaching and I challenge you to find any scriptural justification for the Holocaust. Hypocrites and pharisees will always be there trying to stay in favor with those in power but devout Christians resisted, some to the point of martyrdom.
Britney Spears is popular, too- gets a lot of mail as well -but I wouldn't base anything on it. I wouldn't accept anything from a "popular columnist"- oh, wait but her mail bag and column is better than the AMA. I am going to write to her about this lump on my arm- at least she will give me a popular answer- and nothing political like the AMA.
"Britney Spears is popular, too- gets a lot of mail as well -but I wouldn't base anything on it. I wouldn't accept anything from a "popular columnist"- oh, wait but her mail bag and column is better than the AMA. I am going to write to her about this lump on my arm- at least she will give me a popular answer- and nothing political like the AMA."
You keep setting up a false controversy, Andrea. What has AMA and Vos Savant and I said that contradicts each other. I've said we don't have the facts about the causes of homosexuality- AMA says that too. "Choice" and "disease" are words that can mean different things so AMA could be right, depending on their definitions. vos Savant says many people who think they're homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with emotional problems which also doesn't contradict the AMA. Drop the propaganda- everyone sees through it.
Anon, what vos Savant said was that she thinks most "ex-gays" are fakes, who weren't gay in the first place.
JimK
And a Merry Christmas to you, too, Orin.
Enjoy the weather.
Dana
"Anon, what vos Savant said was that she thinks most "ex-gays" are fakes, who weren't gay in the first place."
No, she didn't she said this.
"many people who think they're homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with emotional problems"
she then goes on to say that those people could go back to being straight
it begs the question, since statistics on homosexuality are derived from self-reporting and since you claim that anyone who changes just "thought" they were gay, how do you know that everyone who calls themself gay isn't really a heterosexual with emotional problems?
you don't, and no one else does either
There's actually an interesting point buried in here, which I believe Jim has blogged on in the past. In medicine we do take our patient's word for their feelings, while realizing that they may have reasons for shading the truth or outright lying. It's pretty obvious that when people in a homophobic culture are willing to admit they're gay, one should take them at their word. It's the other group, which denies any evidence of homosexuality, identity or behavior, who have all the more reason to obfuscate and lie about it.
There is a technique called penile plethysmography, where a man's erection can be measured with a strain gauge. As most guys know, it's pretty hard to hide an erection, and especially difficult with your pants down and a ring around your penis.
Well, at Western Michigan Univ. they studied two groups of men, one neutral on homosexuality, the other intolerant. They were told the study was about some other issue. They then measured the penile responses of both groups to video of gay porn. Lo and behold, the neutral crowd showed no sexual response, while the homophobic crowd got turned on. So that's scientific evidence that the incidence of male homosexuality is under-reported, if anything. And we certainly see this in public quite often, most recently with the Virginia state senator and the mayor of Spokane, WA.
Dana said....
Lo and behold, the neutral crowd showed no sexual response, while the homophobic crowd got turned on. So that's scientific evidence that the incidence of male homosexuality is under-reported, if anything. And we certainly see this in public quite often, most recently with the Virginia state senator and the mayor of Spokane, WA.
Thank you Dana for noting this. What we have seen is that sometimes those that show such fierce homophobic tendencies are often afraid they themselves are homosexuals.
Anon said, "vos Savant says many people who think they're homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with emotional problems which also doesn't contradict the AMA. Drop the propaganda- everyone sees through it."
Anon said, "'many people who think they're homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with emotional problems' she then goes on to say that those people could go back to being straight"
No she didn't say any of that. Here is the actual quote one more time:
In response to the question, "Some psychiatrists say they can help homosexuals become heterosexuals (not just in behavior-true heterosexuals) Do you think it’s possible?"
vos Savant said (emphasis mine),
"I think change is possible, but only for individuals who were never truly gay in the first place and who have a strong motivation to recover their heterosexuality. Judging from the letters I receive, I suspect that some apparently homosexual people are really heterosexuals who are deeply phobic about the opposite sex or have other emotional problems. However, for people who have been gay since birth, no way!"
vos Savant did *not* say "many people who think they're homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with emotional problems." She said she "suspects" "some" gays are actually heterosexuals with deep phobias of the opposite gender or other emotional problems. And she added that for those who have always known there was something different about themselves ("people who have been gay since birth"), which is the vast majority of gays, she said "no way," change is not possible.
We ain't buying the lies you are selling so stop trying to change what vos Savant said into something it wasn't. In fact, why don't you just "drop the propaganda- everyone sees through it."
Aunt Bea
Post a Comment
<< Home