New Ad
This struck me as a powerful advertisement from Faith in America. What do you think?
Kinda gets right to the point, doesn't it?
(Thanks to Pandagon for pointing this out.)
Kinda gets right to the point, doesn't it?
(Thanks to Pandagon for pointing this out.)
posted by JimK at 12:13 PM
57 Comments:
"Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr, is an outspoken evangelical, and in the last couple of years she and other black evangelicals have marched, protested, and written letters and petitions denouncing same-sex marriages. Polls show that black evangelicals' hostility to same-sex marriage is much stronger than that of white evangelicals."
San Francisco Chronicle
December 14, 2004
"In 1998, King's niece, Alveda King, barnstormed the country speaking at rallies against gay-rights legislation."
SF Chronicle
12-14-4
"Civil rights organizations and leaders across the spectrum are opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, including: Anti-Defamation League; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; National Council of La Raza; National Hispanic Leadership Agenda; National Organization for Women; National Urban League; and National Women’s Law Center. National civil rights leaders will urge the Congress to stop playing politics, oppose the amendment, and get back to business."
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=5121
"Rev. Bob Battle is an African American who grew up in segregated Mississippi. He also led a committee that chose the street that runs in front of the Minnesota Capitol to be renamed after King. Battle is convinced that if Martin Luther King were alive today, he would support a ban on gay marriage.
"Because he was 100 percent family. He knew that family was the thing that makes this country a great country," says Battle. "And then because of slavery, we as black folks were separated so much on purpose to keep us from growing into a family."
Battle also says King's theology would have prevented him from endorsing gay marriage. He says King believed in a Bible that stated God's opposition to homosexuality, and that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. A recent Pew Research poll found that 67 percent of black Protestants oppose gay marriage on religious grounds."
Minnesota Public Radio website
"A recent Pew Research poll found that 67 percent of black Protestants oppose gay marriage on religious grounds."
from HispanicPundit.com
"A while back, Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law At Harvard University, wrote this with regard to gay marriage:
Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.
I find the threat of religious intolerance and discrimination so obvious, so likely, that I find it hard to believe others don’t see it as clearly. Many proponents of gay marriage already (falsely) see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, so with that view in mind, it’s a small step to conclude that religions that teach against homosexuality or gay marriage, are just like a religion that would teach, say, racism or sexism.
In other words, proponents of gay marriage currently have a very difficult time distinguishing between bans on actions and bans on non-actions. Do you think this will get better after gay marriage is allowed? No, it clearly will get worse, especially with the next generation. After gay marriage is allowed, with each passing generation, more and more people are going to (falsely) see a ban on gay marriage as equal to a ban on race, or gender, or nationality. Let me ask you this, how would you see a religion that bans black people from its membership? If there were such a religion, there would have already been people who would have tried to remove the tax exempt status from that religion, who would argue that any politician who belongs to that religion be removed from office, and who would publicly chastise members of that religion, right?"
Corretta Scott King has a long history of supporting the gay political agenda beginning publically nearly a decade ago.
On March 23rd Mrs. King is quoted as saying at Richard Stockton College in Pomona, N.J., "gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."
Jim writes,
Kinda gets right to the point, doesn't it?
Actually, no it does not get to the point, rather it obscures the point. To compare the use of the Cross by the Ku Kluk Klan to hundreds, indeed thousands of years of orthodox, normative Judeo-Christian teachings is a perversion of the truth. Other than Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, I know of no major faith in the United States that fails to condemn violence and persecution of gays and lesbians. In the Catholic Church it is a mortal sin to commit violence or persecution against gays or lesbians, and just recently the leader of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, condemned in no uncertain words violence directed at gays and lesbians.
Anonymous wrote,
Anonymous said...
from HispanicPundit.com
"A while back, Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law At Harvard University, wrote this with regard to gay marriage:
Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.
Yes, this is the end-game of the "prophets" of tolerance...intolerance. What a cruel irony.
"Corretta Scott King has a long history of supporting the gay political agenda beginning publically nearly a decade ago."
Well, as the anon poster above showed, 2/3 of blacks disagreed with her. Problem is, she spent too much time in a co-dependency relationship with America's radical left. She started to lose touch in her later years.
Sasha R
"I've seen the PFOX/Liberty Counsel materials promoting "Gay to Straight" clubs. Does anyone know if such an animal has actually been founded somewhere (in one of those tens of thousands of schools). Would such a creature be illegal in a jurisdiction which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression? Or would it be permissible under legitimate viewpoint discrimination to exclude lgbt people who didn't want to change their sexual orientation?"
Just look at this from Robert yesterday. He actually think it should be against the law to even suggest that gays can change. Makes you wonder where this agenda is headed next.
SOS
You're not having a good week. Are you, Mr TTF?
Nifty Ice
I can't tell who "Nifty Ice" is that's asking, or who they're talking to, but I will note that most of the comments that have been pasted in here have not had anything to do with the post at the top. It's not like we determine right and wrong by taking a poll of African Americans, or asking some relative of a famous person what they think.
As far as Robert's question, I would be interested to see a "gay-to-straight club" that was not formed for the purpose of promoting anti-gay sentiment. If the members just wanted to meet as a kind of support group or something, there'd be no question of legality. But I doubt there would be such a thing. Somebody could form a "straight club." But why would they?
Hate groups would not be welcome on campus.
JimK
Orin said To compare the use of the Cross by the Ku Kluk Klan to hundreds, indeed thousands of years of orthodox, normative Judeo-Christian teachings ... No, Orin, that's not what they're comparing, and you know it. They're comparing anti-black religious bigotry to anti-gay religious bigotry. Not that big a leap, except that it's harder to admit it when it's us, as compared to some guys fifty years ago.
no major faith in the United States that fails to condemn violence and persecution of gays and lesbians... but how many fail to condemn discrimination and prejudice? Do you think "violence" is the only thing that hurts?
As for the "intolerance" hallucination, sometimes Americans are forced to live in freedom despite their wishes, respecting the rights of others. Tough. This scenario as described by this professor is BS. Look at all the kinds of people we have in America, putting up with one another. It doesn't hurt any.
JimK
JimK said...
Orin said To compare the use of the Cross by the Ku Kluk Klan to hundreds, indeed thousands of years of orthodox, normative Judeo-Christian teachings ... No, Orin, that's not what they're comparing, and you know it. They're comparing anti-black religious bigotry to anti-gay religious bigotry.
Yeah, I know...attempting to "piggy back" off the moral legitimacy of the Civil Rights Movement. Furthermore, the KKK has as much relation to religion as Fred Phelps...that is, none. In fact it was religion, actually the combined efforts of two great religious faiths...Christian and Jewish...that helped Americans to understand the importance of racial equality if the US was to realize its aspirations.
Not that big a leap, except that it's harder to admit it when it's us, as compared to some guys fifty years ago.
Have you even read the Faith in America website??? Go the the FIA's Mission Statement (found by following the link on the left hand side labeled "About FIA") and the first two paragraphs read,
The mission of Faith In America, Inc. is the emancipation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from bigotry disguised as religious truth. The world’s great religious traditions practiced within the United States of America emphasize the love of neighbor as well as the love of God. Compassion, justice, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people are their most authentic and noble expressions.
However, in the United States, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are victims of religious teachings based on ignorance and fear instead of knowledge and respect. This abuse of religion influences all aspects of public life in America, including civil laws and social attitudes. Because of it, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are denied equal rights and protection under civil law. They are discriminated against and socially ostracized. Physical violence against them is incited. In order to end the persecution of gay people in America, religious teachings that justify bigotry must be publicly exposed and denounced.
In other words, FIA is going to whip all those regressive, backwards, ignorant, cave dwelling troglydite religious fanatics that continue to believe and affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman into line. Wow, that is an ambitious plan...quite utopian, with totalitarian layering under a thin veneer of "tolerance".
no major faith in the United States that fails to condemn violence and persecution of gays and lesbians... but how many fail to condemn discrimination and prejudice? Do you think "violence" is the only thing that hurts?
Nope, I don't think that...and yes, the Catholic Church does condemn discrimination and prejudice. I guess what needs to be done here is that the terms discrimination and prejudice need to be defined. Also, there needs to be an understanding that some times there will be a tension between the desire to honor the principle of religious freedom and the desire to ban a form of discrimination. Should a church that considers the practice of homosexuality a "sin" be forced to hire a homosexual music director?
As for the "intolerance" hallucination,
Sorry to burst your bubble Jim, but this is no hallucination, ever heard of Ake Green of Sweden? Nope, it is not a "hallucination" at all...
sometimes Americans are forced to live in freedom despite their wishes, respecting the rights of others.
Interesting choice of words there..."forced to live in freedom"...was that a Freudian slip or what?
Tough. This scenario as described by this professor is BS.
Rather than engaging in name calling directed at a professor at Harvard University, you would be better served to engage her argument...but no, that is not as easy as dismissing the scenario with a two letter epithet.
Oh, and by the way, any of those wanting to know more about Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School can find her bio by simply Googling "Mary Ann Glendon". One of the things I think is particularly relevant is that one of her areas of expertise is "Comparative Constitutional Law in the United States and Europe"...so, she just might know more in this regard than you Jim.
Look at all the kinds of people we have in America, putting up with one another. It doesn't hurt any.
And just imagine, some of these people, desiring to lead a religiously devout life as a gay or lesbian have formed their own religious communities...ever heard of the Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ, Episcopal or Mennonite faith communities? All have statements, making it clear that they are "open and affirming" faith communities (and in a city the size of Fort Collins, with a population of 125,000 every one of them is present here). These religious communities are free to structure their faith the way they see fit and it is nobody elses business.
The intent of Faith in America is clear: to force the devoutly religious majority to get in line with the POV of the religiously progressive set (which interestingly enough is not only in the overwhelming minority, but a minority that is shriking as we speak...imagine that!). And the purpose is clear: reframe the issues with regards to same-sex "marriage" as is apparent from their ad using Justice Thomas. Laws banning interracial marriage were a denial of the essence of marriage as a man-woman union and designed to keep a man and a woman separated. Same-sex "marriage" is a wholesale redefinition of what marriage has long been understood to mean.
Not that this can't change...moral sentiments of the community can change and then legislators can be directed to change the laws accordingly. Just one small problem...everywhere this has been put to a vote, voters have reaffirmed their desire to maintain marriage as it is understood at present. Not to worry though, as homosexual rights advocacy groups know all they need to do is get the judicial branch of government to declare their desire as a "fundamental right" and viola! the principle of self-government can be dispensed with in favor of the collective "wisdom" of a majority of judges.
SOS said:
"Just look at this from Robert yesterday. He actually think it should be against the law to even suggest that gays can change. Makes you wonder where this agenda is headed next."
Dear SOS,
I most certainly do not think that it should be against the law to suggest that gays can change. This is America. I am asking whether a school club that exclude's gay people who don't want to change violates non-discrimination regulations where such things exist (in the same way that a club can not exclude people on the basis of religion). Here's what I think: a club can exclude people on the basis of their opinions: i.e. the Young Republicans can exclude people who oppose Santorum, and the Young Democrats can exclude people who support Santorum. So the GTS (Gay to Straight Club) can exclude people who think sexual orientation can not be changed, and the GSA can exclude people who think it can (except that I know of no GSA that would actually do that). But can a GTS club exclude people who not themselves actually undergoing an effor to change?
In the context of schools, it is hard to imagine a GTS club that is not promoting anti-gay efforts. Nevertheless, in the interest of erring on the side of supporting Freedom of Speech, if I were asked, I would advise my Student Activities Director to allow a GTS club. So there!
Please understand and address the nuance of what I am saying, rather than misinterpreting my statements.
Orin said:
"Yeah, I know...attempting to "piggy back" off the moral legitimacy of the Civil Rights Movement."
Orin, back in the early 70s, when I was a preteen, I attended Heights Baptist Church, the 2nd largest Baptist Church in Pensacola, and a mainline member of the SBC. I remember learning a number of things in Sunday school: 1)Gay men are child-molesters, and should be avoided and watched carefully; 2)the Bible says that blach children and white children are not to associate or play together, so that when we attend our newly integrated public schools, we should eat separately and sit in different parts of the room from the black children; 3)homosexuality is sinful, and gays can not be Christians; 4)women should obey their husbands; and other things I now disagree with. All of this was based on biblical teachings and supported by references to the KJB.
Given my early experience with evangelical Christianity, it is hard for me not to see religiously based opposition to gay people as equivalent to religiously-based support for Jim Crow laws. Religion has always been used to support prejudice.
Do you remember the controversy when it was discovered that Jimmy Carter's church in plains didn't admit African-American members?
That said, should churches be allowed to say anything they want? Of course, this is America. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist regularly attend and protest at all the Gay Pride festivals and parades they can. They are protected by the police, and can say whatever they want.
To long a comment. I have too much free time on my hands.
Robert
I'm sorry, Orin, but one minister in Sweden in a world of nearly seven billion people doesn't cut it. Typical Republican smear tactics.
No one has ever advocated that religious institutions have or will ever have to marry gay people, and you know it.
And you have still, never, given us a rational explanantion against marriage equality. All I ever read from you is about tradition, which is sweet but irrelevant, and how the voters still oppose it, as if that matters in a constitutional state.
Professor Glendon is entitled to her opinions and to express them. The quote you showed us was totally devoid of content and unbecoming a Harvard professor. Pure fear mongering.
And cut out the snide remarks about Freudian slips -- it's beneath you.
:1)Gay men are child-molesters, and should be avoided and watched carefully; 2)the Bible says that blach children and white children are not to associate or play together, so that when we attend our newly integrated public schools, we should eat separately and sit in different parts of the room from the black children; 3)homosexuality is sinful, and gays can not be Christians; 4)women should obey their husbands; and other things I now disagree with. All of this was based on biblical teachings and supported by references to the KJB."
Robert,
I would challenge your references here. #1 & #2 are not based on biblical references. Only the first half of #3 is biblical.
Anyway, if they gave you these references, let's see them.
Interested Party
Pentagon says homosexuality not a mental disorder
Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:25 AM IST
http://tinyurl.com/ryvwe
Anne
"Notwithstanding its inclusion, we find no practical impact since that appendix simply listed factors that do not constitute a physical disability, and homosexuality of course does not," the Pentagon added.
The 1996 Pentagon document, which had been recertified as "current" three years ago, had listed homosexuality as a mental disorder alongside mental retardation, impulse control disorders and personality disorders.
In fiscal 2005, which ended last Sept. 30, 726 military personnel were discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the Pentagon said.
Adopted by Congress in 1993, the policy allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces only if they do not reveal their sexual orientation and abstain from gay sex.
Those opposed to gays in the military have argued the presence of homosexuals could undermine good discipline and order in the ranks.
JK
If you think Gay to Straight Clubs [idea launched May 2, 2006] are hate groups, then by that reasoning you could classify GLSEN’s GSA’s as hate groups against heterosexuals, aka former homosexuals. GLSEN is the driving force behind GSA’s and if you look at the materials that they make available you will conclude GLSEN does not like former homosexuals or heterosexuals at all. They make such a big deal about how the world is so heterosexual in orientation and it makes them feel bad. [What can we do to stop people from always thinking that the world is heterosexual in nature? Let’s make heterosexuals feel bad too. [heterosexism brochure is an example] Show me something that comes from GLSEN that they may not agree with change is possible but they respect those that chose to change. Show me something from PFLAG. They spread hate and bigotry towards former homosexuals and heterosexuals. GLSEN and PFLAG actually produces printed information that alludes to this.
Would GLSEN be willing to include former homosexual information be given out in the GSA clubs? Would GLSEN be willing to endorse tolerance for former homosexuals? After all isn’t tolerance and respect for both groups of people? Actually GLSEN says tolerance for everyone however there are exceptions to this rule-some cannot have tolerance for criminals. Some people may believe that homosexuals are only heterosexuals with an attachment disorder that can be helped. Some people believe that homosexuals cannot change their feelings and therefore you have to learn how to be happy with those feelings. Both exist.
Precious
Orin, look at the statements that I quoted the other day, the CRC addressing the school board. Look at what they're saying about some materials that school counselors apparently have, that were produced by organizations who specialize in gay interests.
Ms. Turner: The provided resources ... oppose certain religious viewpoints ... This is offensive and against some parent's religion. ... denies tolerance for ... religious viewpoints critical of homosexuality.
Ms. Brown: ... One internet resource, for example, even presents only a favorable religious viewpoint of homosexuality without mentioning other, less favorable viewpoints held by many religions ...
Ms. Walter: Why is MCPS giving out religiously biased information to students? (meaning not her religion) ... -- and her complaint about the Canadian resource that discusses the fact that there's nothing about homosexuality in the Bible.
All three of these ladies are complaining that the school counselors should not have materials that encourage empathy for gay students -- on religious grounds. No one has said that every religion is like that, no one says that because the Klan is a Christian organization all Christians are bigots. But a lot of bigotry has been committed in the name of religion, and this poster addresses that point directly.
You can defend the churches if you like, but they're not under attack here. Bigotry is under attack, done in the name of the church. Not faith in God or devout belief -- bigotry. Hopefully they are not the same thing.
Oh, and the "Freudian slip" was nothing like that. To practice freedom, we have to practice tolerance, whether we want to or not. They're really the same thing. Unfortunately, some people in our country have had to be forced to practice freedom at various times in our history. Sorry, but it's the American way.
And note, being a Harvard professor (as was Timothy Leary) is a recommendation but it is not a certification of authority. I would be interested to hear, for instance, Noam Chomsky's take on this, or some other tenured professor -- there is plenty of room for disagreement. The question of whether people can learn to live together with groups that they previously rejected is not a legal one; it's fine for a law professor to speculate, but there is a vast body of research on exactly these kinds of situations, in sociology, anthropology, social psychology. The dynamics of group interactions is a fascinating topic, not easily summarized in a sound-bite.
JimK
anon wrote: "Those opposed to gays in the military have argued the presence of homosexuals could undermine good discipline and order in the ranks."
------------
Examples of please...
How about folks that do not change underwear or socks? How about those that hate the color red? How about those that hate body odor? How about those that are promiscuous?
How about...How about.....?
"undermine good discipline and order in the ranks"
Silly and anon knows it.
Anne
Precious said, "They spread hate and bigotry towards former homosexuals and heterosexuals."
Retta (Brown) "former homosexuals" are heterosexuals and always were.
lease don't perpetuate the "ex-gay" myth. They don't exist.
"ex-gays" are straight never were gay
Anne
the non-existent agenda:
"we have to practice tolerance, whether we want to or not ....Unfortunately, some people in our country have had to be forced"
"school counselors should ... have materials that encourage empathy for gay students"
empathy:
the action of understanding, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another
tolerance:
indulgence for practices differing from or conflicting with one's own;the act of allowing something
Well, hey, Precious, we haven't heard from you in a while.
If there were such a thing as a Gay-to-Straight club (and we can't find any evidence that any actually exist), we may ask, what is its function? I suggested that such a group might be a "support group," like maybe where guys meet to discuss difficulties they are having living the straight life. If that were the case, no one would oppose it. Why would they? It'd be like learning a new language or something. Nobody minds if a gay guy wants to try to be straight; you go to your meetings, you talk about it, who cares?
But you know as well as I do, that wouldn't be the reason they'd form such a club -- they'd form it to try to get other gay people to pretend they were straight, to deny themselves love and emotions that others experience. I said, I would be interested to see a "gay-to-straight club" that was not formed for the purpose of promoting anti-gay sentiment. That's because every statement ever issued by one of these groups -- PFOX, etc. -- is intended to persuade gay people that there is something wrong with them and they should stop being the way they are. You wouldn't disagree with that, would you? That is the message. It's your message, it's Regina's message, that's what the "ex-gay" thing is all about.
As for the absurd idea that GLSEN is "a hate group against heterosexuals," let me point out that GLSEN (or other groups you've mentioned at various times -- SMYAL, GLAAD, PFLAG, etc.) has made no effort to tell heterosexuals, including "ex-gays," they should be different. It isn't against anybody, it's for somebody. No matter how paranoid some people get about the "gay agenda," gay organizations are not trying to "recruit" straight people to switch. In my experience, they just want to be treated with respect. Yes, that requires a change for some straight people: get over it.
Those groups promote the idea that it's ok to be gay. I know you disagree with that, and that seems to be the bottom line. They say, gay people don't have to change, there's nothing wrong with them the way they are, beyond the usual stuff that's wrong with all of us.
As for their statements about "ex-gays," I'll bet they do sometimes complain about the constant insults, the "change is possible" billboards and I'll bet they express doubt that anybody really does change (because, as you well know, if "change is possible" it is extremely rare, and possibly nonexistent). But these groups don't "spread hate and bigotry towards former homosexuals and heterosexuals."
I think most gay people have either tried, or contemplated trying, pretending to be straight, if only to keep people from constantly insulting them, and my impression is that most gay people have some sympathy for those who choose to stay in the closet.
JimK
hey, didn't someone ask TTF to post up their explanation for why they qualify for 501c3 status?
what's the progress on that?
A charitable organization must make available for public inspection its approved application for recognition of exemption with all supporting documents. Pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the organization is required to provide copies of these documents upon request without charge. Penalties are provided for failure to comply with these requirements. For more information, see our frequently asked questions, the final regulations published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 1999-17, or Disclosure Requirements.
‘‘We are particularly concerned that [the school system] has still not released to classrooms the condom-use demonstration video, which was created at the request of students several years ago, who asked for help in learning the proper use of condoms ...,” said Hund, who is not on the panel.
NOTE: THIS IS A LIE
Four pediatricians who are consulting on the new curriculum suggested replacing the controversial video, which was designed to appeal to young people and was shown in some schools last year, with a more clinical demonstration video.
NOTE: UNCOPACETIC
When can we expect to see CRC's??????
We need bathroom reading.
Jeff
Anon, you just said this lady is lying -- could you please point out the part of her statement you mean? Her comment looks correct to me.
JimK
We are particularly concerned that [the school system] has still not released to classrooms the condom-use demonstration video, which was created at the request of students several years ago, who asked for help in learning the proper use of condoms ...,
"When can we expect to see CRC's?"
CRC is currently in the process of applying for recognition under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
where's TTF's approved application?
Which part?
"We are particularly concerned?"
"[the school system] has still not released?"
"at the request of students?"
"several years ago?"
"asked for help in learning the proper use of condoms?"
If she's lying, then I assume some part of this statement is not true. It looks OK to me, where's the lie?
JimK
Jim K asks of anon, "where's the lie?
**********
In anon's head to fill up the empty space there it appears.
Jeff
"at the request of students?"
"several years ago?"
"asked for help in learning the proper use of condoms?"
Cute. Are you saying that students did not request this?
I know we have been told by health teachers that that was how the new video came to be. I don't know this lady, so don't know where she got her information, but it is certainly what everyone involved in the process believes to be the case.
You must have facts in your possession otherwise, since you are confident in calling someone you don't know a liar.
Please share them with us.
JimK
Precious,
I would like to comment on your attack on GLSEN and PFLAG. Groups like GLSEN and PFLAG are concerned, just as American Medical Association and every other mainstream medical and mental health association, that “conversion” or “reparative” therapies that are based on the notion that people should change their sexual orientation are dangerous to the health of those upon whom these “therapies” are practiced. The record of “ex-gay” leaders “falling off the wagon” is certainly instructive. That does not translate to hating those few people who say they have changed their sexual orientation.
Conversely, presumably, you do not hate people who are homosexuals, even though you appear to believe that “homosexuals are only heterosexuals with an attachment disorder that can be helped.” To feel sorry for someone is not the same thing as hating that person.
I challenge you to show us a single GLSEN or PFLAG document that spreads hatred of heterosexuals. As a heterosexual PFLAG dad, I have been involved in DC Metro PFLAG for nearly a decade, and I have never been with a group of people who show more love and concern for their fellow human beings, both straight and gay.
You are entitled to your belief, however at odds with the experience and wisdom of the mainstream medical and mental health community. But your belief, once widely held, destroyed countless lives. I am thankful that my children did not grow up in a time when the adults around them held such beliefs.
teenager to teacher: Can you please show me how to use a condom?
Sound remotely plausible?
MCPS specifically said they were doing it at the request of health teachers who were concerned that other school districts had this and MCPS didn't.
Well does it matter who asked for the condom video to be created in that the video needed to be created while students and parents in pilot thought the condom video was a value added piece to sex ed and supported its use.
Anne
Anon ... are you saying that you called this lady a liar just because it doesn't seem plausible to you that students would ask for instruction?
Normally, I'd say this was an occasion where an apology was called for.
JimK
"Well does it matter who asked"
Does truth matter? That could be an interesting discussion for "teach the facts, INC.".
When are we going to get a look at that exempt purpose statement that TTF filed with the IRS and which it is required to disclose to the public by federal law?
"are you saying that you called this lady a liar just because it doesn't seem plausible to you that students would ask for instruction?"
No, I'm saying she's a liar because the producers of the video said they were doing it at the request of another constituent. NARAL and MCPS are both disreputable but I'm going with MCPS's word this time. And with two unverifiable assertions, plausibility would certainly be a factor in any court in the land.
What "constituent?" The producers worked for MCPS, the students would not have requested anything of them, and they would not necessarily have known how the project came to be. If you've got a fact that makes this NARAL person a liar, please lay it out for us, or retract the statement.
Oh, and whoever keeps bringing up this legal IRS stuff -- all that stuff is public record, go look it up. You're not impressing anybody by implying here that there's something shady going on.
JimK
"What "constituent?" The producers worked for MCPS, the students would not have requested anything of them, and they would not necessarily have known how the project came to be. If you've got a fact that makes this NARAL person a liar, please lay it out for us, or retract the statement."
I gave you the fact. The fact is this:
MCPS specifically said they were doing it at the request of health teachers who were concerned that other school districts had this and MCPS didn't.
They said it. It's a fact. The NARAList said it for impact, assuming she wouldn't be contradicted. She has no knowledge of a student requesting to be taught to use condoms.
"Oh, and whoever keeps bringing up this legal IRS stuff -- all that stuff is public record, go look it up. You're not impressing anybody by implying here that there's something shady going on."
The law says you need you have to supply a copy of the form to anyone who asks. Telling them to go look it up themself is a violation of federal law.
from irs.gov:
A charitable organization must make available for public inspection its approved application for recognition of exemption with all supporting documents. Pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the organization is required to provide copies of these documents upon request without charge. Penalties are provided for failure to comply with these requirements.
Anon, you've outdone yourself here. The health teachers say they responded to students' requests. You're scraping bottom calling this person a liar for stating what seems to be a fact.
You want the information, submit a request. It's no secret how it's done.
JimK
"The health teachers say they responded to students' requests."
No, they didn't. They said they were concerned because MCPS was not as up-to-date as other school systems. Face it. The NARAList made it up for PR purposes.
"You want the information, submit a request. It's no secret how it's done."
I'm requesting you put it on this website for public perusal. Are you denying the request? Are you a subsidiary of CTF (Conceal the Facts)?
Your slander of this woman is despicable.
As far as 501c3 information, you know how it works. Follow the rules: we do.
JimK
No rule against you disclosing this information. Indeed, the law is written to encourage it. Your refusal speaks volumes.
As for the NARAList, the truth is obvious.
Robert said:
"2)the Bible says that blach children and white children are not to associate or play together, so that when we attend our newly integrated public schools, we should eat separately and sit in different parts of the room from the black children;"
Interested party replied:
"#1 & #2 are not based on biblical references."
Dear Interested Party:
I'm not sure if I remember correctly (it has been about 35 years), but I think the story referenced was that of Jacob and Esau, the sons of Rebekah and Isaac, in Genesis 25-28. I do remember that that whole story was the part used to justify Jim Crow: one of the the children of Rebekah (Jacob) would be stronger than the other (Esau) and rule over him. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, and Jacob deceived Isaac into blessing him in place of Esau.
My point wasn't that I justify Jim Crow on biblical grounds. It is that the religious community in which I grew up did. Now they justify prejudice against LGBT people on biblical grounds. I don't myself see the distinction. I'm not all that interested in biblical exegesis; I'm sharing my impressions. I just don't respond positively when people explain that I am bad based on their interpretation of scripture. I've been burned (as were we all by that part of our national history). I just don't buy it when people say now that "that old interpretation was wrong, but what I am saying now is right;" seems like two peas in a pd to me.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Robert
Precious said:
"If you think Gay to Straight Clubs [idea launched May 2, 2006] are hate groups, then by that reasoning you could classify GLSEN’s GSA’s as hate groups against heterosexuals, aka former homosexuals."
Dear Precious,
We don't need to use reasoning to speak of GSAs; they actually exist. I've been to hundreds of GSA meetings at several schools. They're not hate groups. I will say that at some of the meetings kids display anger, about harassment, discrimination, the marriage amendment, things friends and family have said or how they treat them, and at religous attitudes as they understand them. The anger is at times a display of teenage angst, but it is often justified. Some of these kids have been through hell. They get angry at anti-gay groups such as FOF, FRC, CRC and PFOX. When we had our Fairfax board meeting in which people talked of eating feces and semen, boy were the kids mad.
But I've never heard a kid put down an ex-gay person. They seem to understand the dilemma. I certainly do.
I don't buy Ms. Griggs and Pfox's whole thing that gay people are discriminating and harassing ex-gay people (Wayne Besen is a little over the top sometimes in his criticism of Richard Cohen, but it's not harassment or discrimination). What people object to his your whole thrust that being gay is a disorder, that people should change, that people can change, and that that is a reason to oppose anti-harassment policies (which PFOX did in Fairfax), anti-discrimination policies (again which they opposed), hate-crimes laws, adoption, civil unions, marriage, service in the military, civil unions, and simple pride in ourselves as human beings.
On another point, you are simply wrong that GLSEN is the major force behin GSAs. My work with GLSEN involves keeping a list of contacts of GSA sponsors that I have located in Northern Virginia, and inviting GSA members to ecuational and social programs. Of the approximately 45 GSAs I know of in Virginia, only one was even remotely founded by intervention from GLSEN (and then only by bringing an interested student and teacher together). I'm on the board of a statewide organization (CEEVA) that supports GSAs, and it is not GLSEN. I'm going to a national conference on GSAs, and it's not GLSEN. You should ask about things before you make erroneous public statements.
BTW, why did you feel it necessary to discuss my mental health on you website?
Robert
"My point wasn't that I justify Jim Crow on biblical grounds. It is that the religious community in which I grew up did. Now they justify prejudice against LGBT people on biblical grounds. I don't myself see the distinction. I'm not all that interested in biblical exegesis; I'm sharing my impressions. I just don't respond positively when people explain that I am bad based on their interpretation of scripture. I've been burned (as were we all by that part of our national history). I just don't buy it when people say now that "that old interpretation was wrong, but what I am saying now is right;" seems like two peas in a pd to me.
Not a sermon, just a thought."
Thanks for trying to clarify, Robert.
I think racism is clearly condemned in scripture. Do you agree?
I think homosexual behavior is called sinful by scripture. Do you agree?
I think a biblical case could be made that to over-emphasize sexual sin as opposed to other sins is improper. Do you agree?
IP
IP writes:
"I think racism is clearly condemned in scripture. Do you agree?" IP goes on to discuss which sins should be emphasized and which should not be overemphasized.
Actually, I don't think the specific concept of racism is addressed in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. While slavery is addressed, at least in the Hebrew Bible, it is not specifically condemned. What we concluded in the last century is that, taken as a whole, the fundamental message of the Judao-Christian tradition, as it has evolved over the years, is that both racism and slavery are inconsistent with the underlying principles of both Judaism and Christianity.
Similarly, while male homosexuality (but not female homosexuality) is referenced in scripture, more and more people view strictures on homosexuality per se as inconsistent with religious core principles as slavery (even though the latter was condoned in scripture.)
So the issue is not which "sins" we should spend more time worrying about, but rather what is or is not sinful, in our evolving understanding of religion and faith traditions.
David
1.Check out the story of Jonah in the OT and the Good Samaritan in the NT.
2.What other scriptural principles are contradicted by the concept of sexual morality?
3.Why isn't Robert answering?
Robert went to Richmond for the holiday weekend.
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home