Scuttlebutt: Court Rules Against Radical Groups
A quick note here. It's hard to get into the court records for this, but we have been told that the circuit court judge handling the lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Elections has ruled against granting intervenor status to Citizens for a Responsible Whatever and the Alliance Defense Fund. The groups had filed to help defend petitions that are alleged to contain thousands of invalid signatures and evidence of fraud. The petitions calling for a referendum on the recently-passed Montgomery County gender identity nondiscrimination bill were collected by the CRW in February and certified by the board. The new bill prohibited discrimination against transgender people in certain cases, and these groups are trying to re-legalize it.
A group of county voters filed suit to challenge the petition signatures, and Equality Maryland and other groups launched an intensive campaign to scrutinize every petition, checking that signatures were valid. If the petitions are declared invalid, the referendum will be thrown out.
You will be hearing the radical groups complaining, probably starting tomorrow. They love to say that a referendum is more democratic than our representative system of government, that it's better to have things voted on by the people. Their ideal is a system of government where the majority imposes its will on whatever minority annoys them at the moment -- in this case, transgender people. Not everybody in the county agrees with them about this.
I don't get all this fancy legal stuff, you know, but I am told that what this means is that the election board is going to have to fight the suit on their own; they won't have the backing of the huge, deep-pockets rightwing groups such as ADF, which was founded by leadership of Campus Crusade for Christ, Crown Financial Ministries, Focus on the Family, Coral Ridge Ministries, International Christian Media, American Family Association, and more than thirty other conservative Christian organizations.
The judge will rule on the validity of the signatures following a hearing that is tentatively scheduled for June. Now a complaint has been filed, the results of the petition review will be available to the judge, he'll look at the evidence and make a decision -- without a bunch of shower-nuts howling into bullhorns about the safety of children and the modesty of women, about predators and pedophiles and scary perverted men lurking in ladies' locker-rooms. He'll have the luxury now of deciding on the basis of the evidence. I wouldn't guess which way it will go, I've seen some of the petitions and I know there's some crazy stuff there, but I don't try to guess what a judge will decide.
All of this has to move pretty quickly in order to have ballots ready by November.
A group of county voters filed suit to challenge the petition signatures, and Equality Maryland and other groups launched an intensive campaign to scrutinize every petition, checking that signatures were valid. If the petitions are declared invalid, the referendum will be thrown out.
You will be hearing the radical groups complaining, probably starting tomorrow. They love to say that a referendum is more democratic than our representative system of government, that it's better to have things voted on by the people. Their ideal is a system of government where the majority imposes its will on whatever minority annoys them at the moment -- in this case, transgender people. Not everybody in the county agrees with them about this.
I don't get all this fancy legal stuff, you know, but I am told that what this means is that the election board is going to have to fight the suit on their own; they won't have the backing of the huge, deep-pockets rightwing groups such as ADF, which was founded by leadership of Campus Crusade for Christ, Crown Financial Ministries, Focus on the Family, Coral Ridge Ministries, International Christian Media, American Family Association, and more than thirty other conservative Christian organizations.
The judge will rule on the validity of the signatures following a hearing that is tentatively scheduled for June. Now a complaint has been filed, the results of the petition review will be available to the judge, he'll look at the evidence and make a decision -- without a bunch of shower-nuts howling into bullhorns about the safety of children and the modesty of women, about predators and pedophiles and scary perverted men lurking in ladies' locker-rooms. He'll have the luxury now of deciding on the basis of the evidence. I wouldn't guess which way it will go, I've seen some of the petitions and I know there's some crazy stuff there, but I don't try to guess what a judge will decide.
All of this has to move pretty quickly in order to have ballots ready by November.
posted by JimK at 8:53 PM
88 Comments:
Well that figures. Other than the decision of Judge Williams on the drive-by lawsuit in 2005, every judge, court, and Board of Education has ruled against the multiphobic nuts.
In June, when the EQMD lawyers demonstrate in court all the fraud committed by circulators and errors made by the Board of Elections, another judge will join those ranks.
Andrea- not anon
Yes and the showerheads and cronies who were saluting the judiciary over that first ruling are now claiming the judges along with the elected officials of MC are doomed to be replaced.
So Equality Maryland, GLAAD, GLSEN, PFLAG, Lambda Rising, NAMBLA, et al are accusing CRW of fraud and CRW can't defend itself?
Sounds fair to me.
Also sounds like a case that will go to a higher level court.
Actually, if you would bother to read you would understand that this case is not about the fraudulent nature of CRW or even its fraudulent tactics. It is about the validity of signatures certified by the Board of Elections. The Board has the responsibility to accurately certify petition signatures, and the suit challenges that they failed to do so. You would know, had you read the suit, that there were about 35 different categories of specific challenges to the actual signatures.
So there is in reality nothing for CRW, and certainly not, ADF, to defend. The signatures are what they are. If a circulator lied about witnessing a signature that circulator could be called to testify. But CRG as an organization has no standing in this case.
As for an appeal, sure, there is always the possibility of appeal, and that would be the Board's decision. Not CRW's.
Also sounds like a case that will go to a higher level court.
The Anonymous showernut reveals her desire to shop around for an activist judge...
Oh, I think they could appeal the denial of intervenor status.
Equality Maryland could care less about the democratic process. They want to make sure the public isn't heard.
AnonFreak-
What would have happened if the public voted on ending slavery?
Just wondering what you think would have happened.
I think the public rejected slavery. Abolition was a movement started in the churches, not among local legislators. The politicians, without public pressure, would have supported the business owners, for whom slavery was profitable. Now, the legislators want to enslave us and tell us who to associate with.
In your twisted mind, are you saying society's current treatment of trangenders is the moral equivalent of slavery?
AnonFreak said, "In your twisted mind, are you saying society's current treatment of trangenders is the moral equivalent of slavery?"
You should be one to talk about being twisted... Hahahaha!
You are the one who thinks that women should still be spoken to and not heard (if you follow the Bible the way you say you do).
"You should be one to talk about being twisted... Hahahaha!"
I think the Joker said this to Batman in one of the movies.
"What would have happened if the public voted on ending slavery?"
How about it, Drick, are transgenders living in the equivalent of slavery?
Or are you full of crap?
It was Atheist Bashing Week for me as I did three debates over the past seven days with a new crop of leading atheists.
First on Monday April 21 I debated philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong at Dartmouth before a large crowd. The 500-seat auditorium was full so they used an overflow room, which had hundreds more watching on a big screen. This was a scholarly debate in which Sinnott-Armstrong distanced himself from what he portrayed as the crude atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Against this village atheism, well represented among atheists who comment on this blog, Sinnott-Armstrong offered a more dignified atheism that he said recognizes the accomplishments of Christianity. In one revealing moment he event said schools and colleges should teach students that the crimes of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials, pale before the crimes of atheist regimes like those of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Overall this was an elevated debate, one of the more high-toned ones I've participated in.
Then on Tuesday April 22 I debated Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at Harvard. Here the audience was smaller, because Harvard is launching into final exams. But the debate was very sharp and lively. We didn't do the traditional opening statements followed by rebuttals and cross-examination and so on. Rather, a student panel posed questions to both of us, and we each answered, with the other person than having a chance to reply. This format suits me very well, and I found myself being able to develop arguments about epistemology and science more fully than in other formats. Later the atheist students who organized the debate complimented me on my performance, and one said that I had made numerous arguments that he had never thought of, and that were compelling him to rethink (although not abandon) his atheism.
Finally on Friday April 25 I debated the controversial Princeton philosopher Peter Singer at Biola University. This was the biggest event, with more than 2,500 in attendance. Since Biola is a Christian campus, the majority of those present were believers, although atheists were represented too. The Christian students treated Singer extremely well, which is not always how theists are received when they show up on secular campuses. I went first and focused on Singer's extreme views, such as his proposal that parents be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 28 days. Singer also thinks America and the West can learn from non-Western societies, not to mention ancient Greece and Rome, where children were routinely killed at much higher ages. Oddly enough this champion of infanticide and euthanasia also favors animal rights!
If this seems like a strange combination, the apparent paradox is resolved when you discover Singer's logic. Singer argues that we human beings are Darwinian primates. We are on a continuum with the other animals. It is Christianity, Singer charges, that came into the world and elevated human beings on a pedestal. It is Christianity that proclaimed that man is in the image of God, and that creation is for man's benefit. These ideas gave rise to the special dignity of man and human rights and moral principles such as "It is wrong to deliberately take human life." Singer thinks that now that we know God is dead, we should get rid of these principles and replace them with utilitarian considerations more in keeping with our animal nature. In a sense Singer is taking up Nietzsche's challenge--to rid our civilization not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality--and his homicidal conclusions, which many people find horrific, are only a working-out of his atheist logic.
Surprisingly Singer didn't want to talk about any of this during our debate. In a way I can see why: who wants to defend killing three-week old infants in the presence of a largely-Christian audience! Instead Singer wanted to argue about why a just God allows suffering in the world, not only the suffering of children but also of animals. I didn't want our debate to be like two ships passing in the night, so I happily engaged Singer on those issues. He is a lucid and gentlemanly debater, and he complimented me for eschewing Bible citations in favor of reason and logic and history and science in developing my arguments. I praised him for having the guts to come to a Christian campus and debate me, quite a contrast from the invertebrate Richard Dawkins who seems terrified to take me on even at his native Oxford.
All these debates will soon be up on the web. I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer. Hitchens and I already have a couple of rematches scheduled, and Singer has agreed to a second debate on the East Coast. I am also planning a debate next year with Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. The mathematician John Allen Paulos, author of the new book Irreligion, has approached me about debating and we are looking for the appropriate venue. Over the next few years I am hoping to assemble the most extensive existing archive of "God v. Atheism" debates. Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers. I wonder if atheist groups will have the confidence to air them at their conferences.
So far no takers though. And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: "Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh." Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarassing himself and destroying his public reputation! Won't it be hilarious if the "party of faith" is unafraid of opposing arguments while the "party of reason" cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.
Andrea- not anon
Dinesh is writing on our blog?
Apparently so, Andrea. Welcome, Dinesh!
Is the status of trans persons the same as African American slaves? No, of course not. We are the products of what George Will called the "dialectic of American progress." Therefore, we no longer deal with the actuality of slavery.
However, the attitudes which led to the economic development of slavery are still current in the minds of those such as yourself who denigrate and dehumanize, leading to an economic crisis for many trans persons. I have no need to exaggerate the reality to make a case to persuade the public. I have friends and acquaintances who have lost professional jobs, who cannot obtain jobs commensurate with their education, and I, also, unfortunately, know too many people who killed themselves because the isolation and rejection was simply too much. In some respects, for those women, life was worse than slavery, because slaves, at least sometimes, had their families and communities for sustenance. When a trans person is kicked out of her home/school/community/job the situation is far more dire.
Thanks, Dana.
So, we can say the dilemna of transgenders is the opposite of slaves and much like the dilemna of all people on our society. Transgenders have to learn to navigate, like everyone else, in a world of people who are free. That freedom includes the freedom to associate with and support who we please. Living in a free society includes the risk that some people might not like us.
There's no easy way to be free.
Am I full of crap, AnonFreak?
Nope, I am full of love for and understand of other human beings.
I meant to say, "understanding of"...not understand! Oops.
You are?
When you asked:
"What would have happened if the public voted on ending slavery?"
Were you trying to imply that slavery is a logical result of democracy?
If so, you're full of crap.
Still no crap here, just love.
I mean, you are the one who thinks that it's a sin not to cut one's hair a particular way (since you read the Bible literally instead of using those brains that God gave you to interpret passages).
You're the one who is full of crap-and-a-half.
You're just upset that your people were caught lying and now they are going to have to face the consequences of trying to obscure the democratic process (in this case, not RE-legalizing discrimination). That is what these "full of crap" comments are really about.
Stop being childish...
Oh, I see.
Well, can we have an answer?
When you asked:
"What would have happened if the public voted on ending slavery?"
Were you trying to imply that slavery is a logical result of democracy?
We need to know because, well, you might be full of crap.
One quick point, first --"transgender" is not a noun, it is an adjective.
On the second point, yes, trans persons must navigate in a free society like everyone else, but have to deal with far more ignorance and the resultant hostility that derives from that ignorance. That's what we call prejudice, and people should not be proud of their ignorance and prejudice.
As for freedom of association, I agree. We are talking about discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, not forcing people to go out to dinner together or to share pizza while watching the Super Bowl.
Our discussions here on sexual orientation have also been about educating people as to what it is and what it means, and on how the school system should present the sexual diversity of human beings.
I like your emphasis on freedom. I believe I, like you, should have the same freedom to live in this society, to access the same jobs and homes, to use the same facilities in an appropriate, civil manner. I believe we differ on the issue of whether people should have the freedom to deny me a job, or deny you a home, because of some innate facet of our existence. The trend in this society is to allow less discrimination of that kind, and I'm glad you've been able to benefit from that just as I have.
Anonymous:
I am in agreement with Dr. Beyer's observation: "As for freedom of association, I agree. We are talking about discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, not forcing people to go out to dinner together or to share pizza while watching the Super Bowl."You show your ignorance, and even disdain, about freedom of association when you make assinine statements like this: "Now, the legislators want to enslave us and tell us who to associate with."
Legislators do not "enslave" people by telling them "who to associate with." As Dr. Beyer said you are free to have the friends you choose, you can even join exclusive, restrictive clubs that ban certain people, and you can even attend a church that discriminates against those who do not accept its tenets, but you may not discriminate against citizens in the public sphere, especially in those areas that receive direct or indirect government sanction by use of tax dollars, because of characteristics that make them minorities in our society. Even my 10th grade Civics students understood that basic concept of our democracy.
An interesting point for you: the more people of diversity you associate with, the richer and healthier life you can create for yourself. Don't be afraid of people who are different from you!
RT
Don't agree with you guys. People should be able to hire who they want, serve who they want, rent to who they want. There are not enough people who would decline the economic benefit of engaging in these transactions with transgenders to represent any significant hardship to them.
Stick to personal suasion and stop trying to get the government to force people to act in a way they find disagreeable. Transgenders would be better off.
Nice civil tone though, Dana. Nobel Peace Prize, ya know what I mean?
I try my best, but during the early morning with some of the Anons it can be difficult.
Your opinion is noted, and is not unusual. Generally our society trends towards decency and most people can work things out. But when there is a major disjunction in the culture, say between black and white, your belief leads to gross inequality and economic stagnation. Certainly under those conditions we are unable to achieve the best outcomes, because we are limiting the creative input into problem solving.
Trans people have similar problems. Try being a transitioning physician and lose your practice and patients. Or an engineer with seniority, a great but unvested pension plan and terrific health benefits. I would bet that many who hold your beliefs wouldn't consider such an experience to be too pleasant. That anyone should be subject to such experiences because of ignorance and prejudice is unacceptable to me and most Americans. That we should teach our children that such discrimination is right I find appalling.
Great news about this year's Day of Silence!
You made it happen! You got involved along with thousands of other students. We’re hearing from all across the country (and from around the world) about how students participated in the Day of Silence. So far we know that there were:
6740 cities
1264 student clubs
7683 schools
20,000+ students who registered* (people are still registering)
6 U.S. territories
12 Canadian provinces
I bet the "Day of Truth (lies)" didn't have a fraction of that turn out. It's true!!! We have educated, fair-minded youth everywhere in the world!
Interesting news items this week:
A new survey finds that Americans are among the world's most Bible-literate people.
A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant. One gave birth to a boy today, mother and son are doing well.
The Defense Department has contracted with three companies that are closely tied to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and some lawmakers want to know if money from those deals supported the sect, whose ranch was raided this month after allegations of child abuse.
Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup.
More interesting recent news:
The past seven states to hold primaries registered more than 1 million new Democratic voters; Republican numbers mainly ebbed or stagnated. North Carolina and Indiana, which will hold their presidential primaries on May 6, are reporting a swell of new Democrats that triples the surge in registrations before the 2004 primary.
“Since the midterm election of 2006, Democrats have had an enthusiasm gap with Republicans,” said GOP strategist Scott Reed. “They have big crowds, raise more money and appear to have more excitement on the campaign trail. Couple this with turnout numbers, which are off the charts, and Republicans are going to have a big challenge in the fall.”
I'm really curious as to what "Bible-literate" means. I consider myself such, having not only read it through (including the Christian parts), but having studied it for decades, to say nothing about the the Talmud as well.
I imagine "literate" could very easily mean knowing simply the Adam and Eve story, something about Jesus, and one sentence from Leviticus.
Let me say until I know more I am not impressed.
Stunning said...
"So Equality Maryland, GLAAD, GLSEN, PFLAG, Lambda Rising, NAMBLA, et al are accusing CRW of fraud and CRW can't defend itself?"
--
Don’t forget about the North American Man-Stem Cell Love Association (NAMSCLA).
Marriage equality will clearly lead to marrying one’s stem cells.
Anon said:
“Don't agree with you guys. People should be able to hire who they want, serve who they want, rent to who they want. There are not enough people who would decline the economic benefit of engaging in these transactions with transgenders to represent any significant hardship to them.”
This is great Anon! Can you name the county where you live? I know a professor, a chef, an ex-president of her own building firm, a financial advisor, an artist, a teenager, and others (who all happen to be trans) who have had some very difficult times finding jobs – for example, the professor was out of work for over 2 years, even though positions she qualifies for have gone empty for several years – including in PA – where they actually HAVE a trans-inclusive non-discrimination law. It sounds like where you live people are very supportive and accepting of trans folks – I’d be happy to send them your way, and maybe you can introduce them to some folks that would like to hire them!
Thank you SO MUCH for your help!
Cynthia
"Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup."
This really is interesting. This has been a fascinating election and more surprises are ahead.
I think a turning point for Hillary was a the end of the Philly debate when asked why voters should vote for her, she said because she's a fighter.
Who could deny it?
That racist pastor really screwed Barack up and, even though Hillary is showing life, it's going to cause a lot of bitterness among blacks, who vote 90% Democratic, if Barack is denied the nomination. If just a fourth sat out, it would put Hillary at a big disadavantage.
It'll make a great chapter of history someday.
Anonymous thinks...
"I'd like to make a showing, but I'm too cowardly to address anything that's been said, so I'll just change the subject."
ST. PAUL, Minn. (Arpil 29) - Senate candidate Al Franken, dogged by accusations that he failed to file tax returns in California, said Tuesday he will pay about $70,000 in back income taxes in 17 states dating to 2003.
So now you’re too cowardly to address anything that’s been said, changing the subject, AND suggesting that two wrongs make a right?
What's your malfunction now, AnonFreak?
"suggesting that two wrongs make a right"
They don't?
Let's think about this.
Al Franken thinks he doesn't have to pay taxes unless he's running for something (wrong)
+
Barack Obama thinks it's cool to raise his kids in a church that tells them the government is trying to kill blacks (wrong)
=
Wrong
By golly, you're right, Emslob, two wrongs don't make a right.
This an official announcement:
The Association of People with Responsible Opinions is holding a protest from 5:15 to 5:20 today.
Anyone who thinks Al Franken is a big fat lying idiot should be silent.
The injustice of this guy taking advantage of the responsible tax-paying citizen is an outrage.
The response to this is going to shock Howard Dean!
I already see people warming up for their silence!
"By golly, you're right, Emslob, two wrongs don't make a right."
How would you know? Your morality’s based on a death threat.
Oh, AnonFreak.
I feel bad for you. You're just sad.
Anonymous, anonymous. Hush, we're trying to concentrate.
Anonymous:
To quote probably your favorite President, "There you go again". Once again you have stepped over the line with your vicious ad hominem attack: "By golly, you're right, Emslob, two wrongs don't make a right." You do this over and over and over...really tiresome.
Your morality is really despicable; I wish you would take your toys and go home. You stain this blog site.
Diogenes
Oh yeah, wow man, that was, like, so over the line!
It was so moving.
You could look anywhere at 5:15 today and see people not talking, silent, raising the consciences of America against the injustice dealt the taxpayer by Al Franken.
Who wouldn't be moved by the those who had to not say something?
http://thedartmouth.com/2008/04/22/todayd/4/
Dinesh,
We have a number of Anons. It would be useful if you could identify yourself when you post here.
I found this statement interesting:
"Living in a free society includes the risk that some people might not like us. There's no easy way to be free."
But there are ways that we can help our free society grow so that we can maximize everyone's happiness. And sometimes that involves either collective action through our democratically-elected representatives; other times that involves judicial application of the broad guarantees of the Constitution.
Slavery was not likely to end on its own, given the economic forces in our southern states in the middle of the 19th Century. And segregation was not likely to end without our American legal institutions actually taking the Constitution seriously, and then our elected branches responding to the moral imperatives of the Civil Rights Movement. The changes in the racial environment over the last half-century are, to a great extent, the product of changed societal norms encouraged and validated by the Government -- which, at the end of the day, is (we hope) the expression of the people.
Ultimately, what we work toward is the application of the Golden Rule -- a lodestar that good people, regardless of their theological views, agree upon.
"But there are ways that we can help our free society grow so that we can maximize everyone's happiness."
But let's exclude physical coercion as one of those ways, which is basically what legislation is when reduced to its essence.
Really, David, whether right or wrong, your opponents simply have a different idea about what true happiness is. It's a different concept than civil rights for racial minorities. Let's get government out of the conversation. They should referree with necessary rules about social engagement, not participate.
Don't mind Anon. She's just looking for *one* Democrat who might actually lose their race this fall. The tidal wave of change that's sweeping the country has got Anon and other Dinesh D'Groupies running scared.
Neo-conservates and Christianists have run this country right into the ground. Americans want to embrace the principles that made this nation a beacon of light and reason for the rest of the world: freedom and equality.
I'm curious, Dinesh, where exactly the "physical coercion" is here. Bull Connor and his dogs classifies as physical coercion. Demanding that applicants for the symphony orchestra be hired without regard to their sex is refereeing.
I don't think anyone here would argue that we may have different views of happiness. Some Christians get involved in social action, some enter a monastic life, some self-flagellate, some organize hate groups, and most just lead their lives. The same holds for just about anyone, religious or otherwise. Most people don't care about any of these issues until they are affected personally.
You suggest the government should referee without setting the rules, but refereeing without rules is an absurd concept. So the question then is, who sets the rules? In this country the rule book is the Constitution, which evolves, slowly, as the composition of the nation and its life evolves. Certainly this very debate is part of that evolution, with new technology as its vehicle but a debate no different than that of a New England Town Hall of three hundred years ago. Sometimes the level of debate is elevated, too often it's third grade. But it goes on, and is apparently drawing some interesting folks.
"You suggest the government should referee without setting the rules, but refereeing without rules is an absurd concept."
I didn't mean to suggest no rules. The rules should be the minimum to allow social interaction to flourish. Free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government- the government should only interfere with social interaction when citizens attempt to take these rights away from other citizens by force. Assaulting speakers, blockading petition gatherers, threatening reporters, etc.
BTW, you guys can call me Dinesh if you want but I'm not pretending to be him. I post excerpts from him sometimes because he always comes up with points I hadn't thought if before and I'm just interested to hear how you radical guys respond. I think I always add quote marks to clarify that.
Cynthia
Anon said:
“But let's exclude physical coercion as one of those ways, which is basically what legislation is when reduced to its essence.”
I agree with you 1000% on excluding physical coercion. You see, there IS some thing we can agree about! I find the last part of your sentence a cynical stretch though; if you follow that train of thought to its logical destination, minimizing physical coercion means eliminating all laws. I don’t think anarchy has ever been characterized in human history as a period of time low in physical coercion.
I understand your assertion that requiring people to treat others with dignity and respect even though they may be of a different race, religion, marital status, ethnicity, disability or medical condition under threat of fines or imprisonment does seem “extreme.” However, the personal cost to do so is trivial. How much extra effort does it take to be nice to someone instead of demeaning them? Does it really hurt THAT badly? Is your mental health going to suffer because you couldn’t call someone a kike, a dyke, a spic, a n_____, a fag, a dego, or a delusional transsexual?
I agree with you 1000% on excluding physical coercion. Unfortunately the guy who shot Lawrence King did not. The school kids who kept beating me up until I started acting more like a boy did not. Although that was thirty years ago, it still goes on. One of my teenage friends (who happens to be transgendered) was attacked by girls from her school (in Frederick County) with lit fireworks. They left dozens of small permanent scars on her face.
I agree with you 1000% on excluding physical coercion. Passing a law to let people know that our society expects folks to (at least publicly) treat trans folks the same way as other people, is not a huge imposition. It may force some people to bite their tongue on occasion, and try to measure someone based on there merits rather their stereotypes, but in a “civil” society, I don’t think this is too much to ask.
I agree with you 1000% on excluding physical coercion. My physical contact with people is usually in the form of a handshake or hug.
Peace,
Cynthia
Cynthia
You've got six more to go to get to 1000%.
Brilliant comment, Anon.
Btw, the post on "Atheist Bashing Week" had no quotes, so we accept the fact that those aren't some other Anon quoting D'Souza but the man himself.
And following his other responses, directly accepting his identity, if it really isn't him and you're usurping his identity then you are clearly guilty of identity theft. Blogging anonymously is one thing; pretending to be someone is wholly another.
Well, my apologies. I didn't do it on purpose.
Do you think I can get off with a light sentence?
Ask Dinesh. It's his identity.
oh, he doesn't mind
"Now a complaint has been filed, the results of the petition review will be available to the judge, he'll look at the evidence and make a decision -- without a bunch of shower-nuts howling into bullhorns"
I had no idea someone was planning to bring bullhorns into a judical proceeding. Those nefarious shower-nuts will stop at nothing, I tell ya.
Well, if any of the androgynuts from TTF shows up, we'll still get the bull.
I don't think Theresa will bring her bullhorn. All she needs is a return appearance by Adol Owens-Williams shouting "Heil, Hitler" at the judge.
You guys keep bringing up this anecdote. Don't know the guy and don't know the details of the incident but I'm guessing his point was that the County Council was acting fascist when they decided to dictate who its citizens have to associate with.
You have heard that the Nazi party came to power when a militant group led by a couple of gays went around intimidating anyone protesting or petitioning against government actions, right?
Anonymous:
I loved your snide little twist of the knife when you said: "Assaulting speakers, blockading petition gatherers, threatening reporters, etc."
What you didn't say is that freedom of speech seeks truth in intelligent discourse, not the kind of lying that the CRGers used at just about every petition-drive location in M.C. where you confronted basically unaware citizens with lies. Telling them that the law, the County Council, the County Executive were trying to enable perverts dressed as women to come into restrooms and shower rooms with the intent of raping women and their daughters is a despicable lie.
You undermine the concept of freedom of speech when you resort to such immoral speech as the cornerstone of your agenda.
That tactic, so commonly practiced in Germany during the 1930's, ultimately destroyed freedom of speech for the German people. Most people of good will in M.C. do not want that tactic used here and will vociferously oppose the CRG lies and the liars who spout them.
Diogenes
And you forget,
some of the those pushing the protest said that the men don't even have to be "dressed as women."
they claimed that the men could get by through saying "they feel like women."
Andrea-not anon
Thank you, Moron Anon- for once again justifying someone yelling
"Heil Hitler" and for repeating lies - blaming victims for the actions of the murderers. Today is Yom HaShoah, the day the Holocaust is commemorated in Israel and by Jews everywhere.
Your willingness to lie and justify the symbols of evil only clarifies- if that is necessary- the kind of person you are and the ideas you support.
It is interesting that shortly after Williams made his statement and was not condemned by the head of the MC Republican committee-who like you excused and justified the remark- the head of the committee was replaced.
"freedom of speech seeks truth in intelligent discourse, not the kind of lying that the CRGers used at just about every petition-drive location in M.C. where you confronted basically unaware citizens with lies."
Lies, in your opinion. The beauty of free speech is that those who know the truth are free to correct those who tell lies. And the hearers are free to decide for themselves. If all are given an equal chance to be heard, those who believe in democracy are confident that the truth will prevail.
"Telling them that the law, the County Council, the County Executive were trying to enable perverts dressed as women to come into restrooms and shower rooms with the intent of raping women and their daughters is a despicable lie."
To say that CRG said that is a despicable lie. They said these were the possible result of the law. They never said the it was an intentional result. How strong the possibility is- that's an opinion.
Oh, AnonFreak.
The thing is, CRG DID say those lies. I sat and listened to them (the petitioners) for a while before I tried to engage in them discourse. One woman was trying to keep up with her lie until I corrected her. She become so flustered and didn't really know anything about the law. She admitted that.
GRG simply tried to use fear tactics (just like the moron in the White House) to get people to do what they wanted. It's shameful but, as per usual, it is coming to light for the public to see.
Is Montgomery County too liberal for you, AnonFreak? Why don't you move in with your right-hand men down in Westboro? They like ignorant, hate-filled fake Christians like yourself down there. Well, at the WBC, anyway (I am sure there are plenty of sane people in that city...maybe??)
You say that employers should be able to hire anyone they want for any reason. Well, I think that counties should be able to let anyone in they want and keep those they don't want out. Hmm. I think we want the CRW out (as well as you), AnonFreak.
"Well, I think that counties should be able to let anyone in they want and keep those they don't want out. Hmm. I think we want the CRW out (as well as you), AnonFreak."
Well, I invite you to attempt to get such a law enacted.
Go ahead. Make my day.
"Why don't you move in with your right-hand men down in Westboro? They like ignorant, hate-filled fake Christians like yourself down there. Well, at the WBC, anyway"
I hope you send those guys at Westboro a nice box of fruit at Christmas, Drick. They seem to be the only argument you've got. Where would you be without them?
Don't all you haters conjure and recruit people like you think the gays do, AnonFreak?
You obviously have not read all my posts to you...Oh well. I guess I could really care less about what you say as none of it ever makes logical sense. :)
Good night!
"Thank you, Moron Anon- for once again justifying someone yelling
"Heil Hitler" and for repeating lies - blaming victims for the actions of the murderers. Today is Yom HaShoah, the day the Holocaust is commemorated in Israel and by Jews everywhere.
Your willingness to lie and justify the symbols of evil only clarifies- if that is necessary- the kind of person you are and the ideas you support."
The one lying is you, Andrea. You know perfectly well that this guy wasn't promoting fascism but warning against it. In the words of Yoda: unbelievably shameless, you are!
The Nazi form of fascism was indeed enabled by a couple of twisted gays who suppressed freedom of speech by physical coercion. When TTF tries to prevent open discourse, they should consider where the path they are travelling leads. Stop trying to prevent a discussion of the merits of this bill. You'll feel less slimy.
You know, Wyatt (too bad April 15th has passed) there has never been any attempt to discourage a civil discussion of the law. And once it goes into effect it will simply be one more law (most recently Kansas City, MO and Detroit) that will improve people's lives and about which your interest will fade.
The fact is, and there are plenty of witnesses, including the Council president, your circulators repeatedly lied. They didn't discuss what might happen; they shouted what will happen. They declared their baldfaced ignorance and slandered an entire category of people, none of whom they know or care to know. Many because they consider themselves good Christians; others simply because they are easily misled into fear-mongering.
My question for you is: where did they get their misinformation? There is no such data, there are no such reports. There is no research that would lead one to the beliefs you and your friends share. There is no public record of such events occurring anywhere in this country.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of straight white male predators, many of whom attend church.
So tell me why people like me get to be the subject of slander, yet you never have to defend yourself?
Nice try, Dana.
Stunning said...
"Lies, in your opinion. The beauty of free speech is that those who know the truth are free to correct those who tell lies. And the hearers are free to decide for themselves. If all are given an equal chance to be heard, those who believe in democracy are confident that the truth will prevail."
The new official CRW motto, via anon:
"The beauty of free speech is that if liars are given an equal chance to be heard, hearers will be free to decide for themselves."
--
"To say that CRG said that is a despicable lie. They said these were the possible result of the law. They never said the it was an intentional result. How strong the possibility is- that's an opinion."
Translation:
They only said that it’s possible that all gay people and their supporters are drug-addicted sex-crazed murdererous maniacs, they never said they had proof.
--
Let us know when you get to China, anon.
Nice try, Anon. Read and learn.
Clinical and Scientific Findings Regarding Sexual Abuse Perpetrators,
Victims, and Traditional Moral and Social Values
More than 100 reports in the scientific and professional literature, involving more than 35,000 subjects, indicate that rapists, child molesters, incestuous parents, and sexually motivated murderers are typically very conservative in their sexual and social values and sometimes more religious than average—suggesting that in many cases traditional sexual morality is a contributing factor in sexual abuse rather than a deterrent. At the First International Conference on the Treatment of Sex Offenders in 1989, there was broad agreement that Western societies with repressive sexual attitudes and traditional male/female roles are more likely to have high rates of all forms of sex crimes.
I think it was a pretty good effort myself.
You still haven't provided any data or links to your slanderous claims, while we can clearly label you part of a very large group of potentially dangerous predators.
Care to comment?
"You still haven't provided any data or links to your slanderous claims, while we can clearly label you part of a very large group of potentially dangerous predators."
You're a victim of your own imagination, Dana.
"On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of straight white male predators, many of whom attend church."
Really?
I know that gay predators have infiltrated one large historical church because they require celibacy vows among their clergy and so it was a good place for gays to hide without raising suspicion. This church erroneously had compassion on these gays and wasn't forceful enough in weeding them out and is now faced with enormous financial liabilities from lawsuits brought by the victims of these homosexuals.
Haven't heard alot about any lawsuits brought by victims of heterosexual abuse by priests. Maybe I was on vacation when those stories came out. Tell us about it.
You're reduced to ad hominem attacks, and, as usual, refuse to provide any information. Please provide data on all the transgender predators out there.
For general (not priests and altar boys) predators, you've seen the link posted above, and there are others which I'm sure the other posters will be happy to provide.
All I did was counter your nasty insinuation with a well-known fact:
Christian tolerance of gays in the Roman Catholic Church led to abuse. There is no comparable situation with straight predators infiltrating any church in such large numbers.
I've never made any statements about transgenders being predators, nor has Theresa, so I don't know why you're demanding data from me. Could be that imaginatory disorder acting up again. See a qualified professional about the possibility of obtaining some meds.
"ad hominem attack:"
Would a personal attack on a gay man be an ad homonem argument"
rrjr
No, that would be his usual relationship with his partner!
Stunning said…
"I know that gay predators have infiltrated one large historical church because they require celibacy vows among their clergy and so it was a good place for gays to hide without raising suspicion. This church erroneously had compassion on these gays and wasn't forceful enough in weeding them out and is now faced with enormous financial liabilities from lawsuits brought by the victims of these homosexuals.
Christian tolerance of gays in the Roman Catholic Church led to abuse"
You forgot to blame the victims for shuffling those predatory priests around from parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish to parish...
Donohue's Red Herring on a Pedophile Protector.:
Re: Bishop William Murphy, head of the Diocese of Rockville Centre:
"Murphy's participation went from reassigning suspected priests to other Boston parishes and arranging for priests to be transferred to dioceses in New Mexico, California, North Carolina and other states without fully revealing the clerics' history of abuse.
Murphy had a hand in dealing with some of the most notorious cases -- those of serial pedophile priests John Geoghan and Paul Shanley"
--
Seriously Stunning, if you’re going to go the whole gay = Catholic Church Bishop / Pope behavior thing, may as well take a page out of Bill Donohue’s book and just blame the victims outright for having gotten abused in the first place.
After all, you really can’t go any lower than the approval of Catholic-approved child sexual abuse.
For that matter, your really can’t go any lower as a human, than to approve of child sex abuse.
So you have nothing to lose, it's win-win.
Female Victims of Clergy Abuse
Women also allege abuse; Pedophile priests targeted girls, too; Girls among victims of priest molestation
"You forgot to blame the victims for shuffling those predatory priests around"
Did not forget at all, Emslob. The victims aren't responsible. The gays who committed this abuse are directly responsible for their own actions.
Indirectly at fault are Catholic authorities who felt misguided compassion and tolerated these gays, allowing them to work with children.
Lesson learned. Catholics are no longer tolerating gays in the clergy. The Pope actually forcefully denounced the gay agenda on his recent trip here but this was not generally covered by the press.
I know what you mean man, especially about how like, this Catholic authoritarian misguided-compassion for the tolerance of child-rape thing is sold by the victims as something bad. It’s like so totally unfair. ‘Cuz it’s like spozta be like all about these pedophile dudes, who-who, who like “allowed” themselves to be given what they wanted, via some stupid Vatican Decree or something. It’s like from the higher ups or something, like from “the” holy rollers or something, the big cheesmeisters, the head honchos- -in robes, and flowy gowns, with big protruding magnificent head pieces...just one giant fabulous never ending show for all the world to see...
But don't forget, if you don't come to church on Sunday, and give money, you'll go to hell for ever and ever and ever.
Owe. Moy. Gawd!
___
Again anon, let us know when you reach China.
Once again, "Anonymous" you distort facts. The Catholic Church has a problem with pedophiles! Gays are not the issue; pedophiles are the issue (and even His Eminence, the Pope and a huge percentage of Catholic clergy know this).
Were you the "Anonymous" who posted: "Female Victims of Clergy Abuse
Women also allege abuse; Pedophile priests targeted girls, too; Girls among victims of priest molestation"?
Read again...who is molesting girls...Catholic priests who are PEDOPHILES are responsible for molesting children.
And...I again appeal to the moderator of this site to put a lid on your offensive slanders, lies, and dehumanizing attacks on posters on this site. Please!!! give us relief from this obnoxious troll!!
Reader
Reader:
Hope you won't find it dehumanizing if I ask a question:
Is this or is it not a fact?:
The majority of victims who have won lawsuits against the Catholic over the sexual abuse by priests have been victims of same sex abuse even though those enjoy same sex rather than sane sex are a small minority of the population.
While you whine on about ny mentioning this, remember that Dana got the ball rolling by saying:
"there is plenty of evidence of straight white male predators, many of whom attend church."
TTF, it seems, can dish it out but they can't take it!
The Gay Purge
By scapegoating homosexual priests, the Catholic Church seeks to avoid a tougher look at its secret history of abuse.
By Cheryl L. Reed - March 27, 2002
From SALON.COM
The Vatican has come up with a simple solution to the Catholic Church's recent sex scandal: Eliminate gay priests. "People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained," says Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, responding to the sex scandals sweeping the American Catholic Church in recent weeks.
U.S. conservatives have also taken up the cause. Former drug czar and self-appointed "values" cop Bill Bennett told CNN last week that "the church has to consider the whole question as to whether it wants priests who are homosexual in orientation."
That answer may make sense to many, since the sex cases that have received the most attention have involved priests who have molested young boys. And turning the scandals into a "gay" issue allows the church to suggest that it, too, is a victim in the scandal. Rather than being responsible for pedophile priests, the church can portray itself as victimized by gays who have sneaked into the priesthood. But it blurs a central fact at the heart of the controversy: No one, including the church itself, seems to know exactly how big the sex scandal really is, who it involves or what role homosexuality plays in child abuse by priests.
At least one well-known clinical psychologist says he believes the victims are much more likely to be girls and women.
"There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual," says Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years. "The Vatican damn well knows that, and the leadership in the American church knows that."
Since 1974, Schoener and his staff at the Minneapolis Walk-In Counseling Center have consulted in more than 2,000 clergy sexual abuse cases. In a number of denominations around the country, including Catholic dioceses, he assesses priests and their victims and helps develop training programs to teach clergy proper boundaries. He has been involved in over 100 legal cases involving clergy abuse in Colorado, Florida, Texas and New Jersey.
"I would challenge the church to show me that there are more boys than girls being abused by priests," he says. "There are plenty of cases of girls and they are just not getting the visibility."
Though recently they have. On Thursday, when Pope John Paul for the first time denounced the "grave scandal" of priest sex abuse, saying that such men had betrayed their vows and succumbed to evil, a Washington priest was suspended after admitting he might have "crossed over the line" with at least one teenage girl. His admission came after two women contended that he had engaged in sexual misconduct with them when they were teenagers in the 1980s. Almost simultaneously, a former pastor in Santa Rosa, Calif., Don Kimball, stood trial on criminal charges that he raped and molested two underage girls 20 years ago. A former bishop testified that Kimball had admitted to him that he had molested teenagers -- and that he waited three years before doing anything about Kimball.
Many experts on clergy sexual abuse would disagree with Schoener's assertion that most victims of priest abuse are female, though no one has the comprehensive data to prove him wrong. And therein lies the biggest problem with the current sex scandal: In order for any concrete conclusions to be drawn, the church would need to assemble its own comprehensive list of abuses. So far, the church has not done so.
Schoener says that in his practice he sees six times more female (both adolescent and adult) than male victims of abuse from priests. But because the cases that make headlines usually involve boys, the public is being misled about the scope of the problem, he says.
The few cases litigated in public tend to involve a small minority of priest sexual predators who have numerous victims. In most cases, however, Schoener says, only one or two victims surface and the church settles quietly out of the public eye. He estimates that 98 percent of all priest sex cases are settled out of court.
"The sexual abuse of a boy is treated far more seriously, and is considered a far worse offense than girls or women, and there's no comparison," Schoener says, referring to public opinion evident in press coverage and jury verdicts. "The big damage awards go to the boy cases," he says.
Not only has media coverage created the impression that the typical abuse scenario involves pedophilic priests abusing little boys, but the church itself has strongly suggested that the culprits are homosexuals. Vatican spokesman Navarro-Valls earlier this month said the church recommended that seminaries reject all gays and declared the ordinations of gay priests "invalid," suggesting that a gay man who becomes a priest is like a gay
man who marries a woman who is unaware of his orientation. Because the church would annul such a marriage, the ordination of a gay man might be viewed as similarly invalid, he says.
Schoener became irate at the church's suggestion that the abuse stemmed from homosexual priests: "Any such statement that links homosexuality to these cases is bullshit. That's outrageous. They are playing on homophobia. It's a perfect group to nail. And it's also deflecting an attack on them."
Dr. Frederick Berlin, an expert on pedophilia and a member of the Catholic Church's newly appointed commission to investigate priest sexual abuse, says he thinks there are probably more male victims than female. But he isn't sure, and says it's possible that Schoener "may be absolutely right," since the church has delivered no concrete documentation. "Different people are seeing different things. What we really need is some kind of systematic look at the abuse in its totality in order for us to be really confident."
But A.W. Richard Sipe, a Catholic priest turned therapist who has written three books on priests, sex and celibacy and often testified on behalf of victims, says Schoener is right in saying that the majority of priest victims are female. He bases much of his research on personal interviews with priests who have been sexual abusers -- 129, at last count.
Continues at http://www.snapnetwork.org/priest_stories/the_gay_purge.htm
great- allegations
when you have some evidence, let us know
right now, the evidence is that gays infiltrated the catholic church and abused uner-age males
Andrea- not anon
Oh, thanks, Moron anon- so when I hear and see people screaming Heil Hitler- as the Neo-Nazis like to do when they march- they are actually against what they say. I have no reason to believe that Adol Williams is anything but a thoughtless idiot. You - someone who will excuse anything the Shower head supporters do- should not tell me what to think or feel. I don't feel slimy- I leave that to you and the bigots you support.
Dreary
Where you there when this happened?
If so, tell us the whole story and we'll help you figure it out. You seem to have trouble figuring out the context of things.
You can stop lying then. That will help you get rid of that slimy feeling!
BTW, the rest of the article above is just as insightful. (thank you anonymous hero)
-
It links to SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
From their home page, it seems to be a pretty comprehensive resource.
--
In regard to anon’s reaction, I felt lead to Google: denial "defense mechanism"
Which promptly lead to this article: Psychiatry 101- Defense Mechanisms, (Paraphrased and emphasis in original):
What are psychological defense mechanisms?
They are psychological strategies used individuals (and by extension--groups of indidivuals and even entire nations at times) to cope with reality and to maintain his/her self -image intact.
Level 1 Defense Mechanisms - Almost always pathological; for the user these three defenses permit someone to rearrange external reality (and therefore not have to cope with reality);
for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood. They include:
Denial - a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening.
Distortion - a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal need
Delusional Projection - frank delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature
--
And now back to Stunning:
"great- allegations
when you have some evidence, let us know
right now, the evidence is that gays infiltrated the catholic church and abused uner-age males"
Post a Comment
<< Home