Family Research Council Misses The Point Yet Again

Tony Perkins' Washington Update has this blurb:

Bench Pressing: Equality CA Urges Court to Strike Initiative

The clock is ticking on California's brief honeymoon with same-sex "marriage," and homosexual activists are doing everything in their power to make the court's May 15 verdict permanent. In a last-ditch effort to rob the people of their input in November, advocates of homosexual "marriage" are asking the high court to strike down the marriage protection amendment before it reaches the ballot. Using a tactic that same-sex couples test-drove in Oregon, the groups argue that the initiative "would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision." Unlike a simple amendment, a revision--as defined by California law--would require both voters' approval and that of the legislature. When liberals used this same argument to overturn the marriage protection amendment in Oregon last month, it failed. The court of appeals upheld the amendment, sending a powerful message on the effectiveness of a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

This week, Equality California is fine-tuning the strategy, suggesting that "if enacted, [the ballot initiative] would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees." (Translation: We recognize that the people of California oppose homosexual "marriage," and we'll use every possible loophole to circumvent the democratic process). Unfortunately for same-sex proponents, judicial activism may be common in California's courts, but the nullification of ballot initiatives is not. As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out, justices seldom intervene once an amendment has qualified for the ballot. Obviously Equality California is more afraid of the people's verdict than the court's. Join us in making more Californians aware of what's at stake this fall. Log on to www.frc.org/marriage to order your free marriage protection kit!

Just how many falsehoods and scare words did you see?
To show you exactly how absurd this line of argument really is, let us take that first sentence and change its meaning a tiny little bit: "The clock is ticking on California's brief honeymoon with [emancipation of slaves] and [abolitionists] are doing everything in their power to make the court's May 15 verdict permanent." If the subject were changed to reinstituting slavery, and that lying on a popular vote then slavery can simply be made legal by a popular vote. You cannot simply vote and take away the equality and rights of one group of people just because they happen to be a bit different in some aspect. Yet this is exactly what FRC and the California initiative are doing. They are attempting to repeal the civil rights equalization of gays. It is no different than the Jim Crow laws of the south and their fighting the entire civil rights movement of blacks.

This sentence repeats the inanity: "(Translation: We recognize that the people of California oppose homosexual "marriage," and we'll use every possible loophole to circumvent the democratic process). " Let me translate the translation: If a majority of Californians vote to kill all the citizens of Los Angeles and burn them for fuel, then the democratic process rules! And cheap energy to boot!! Unfortunately that completely ridiculuous analogy completely shows just how brilliant our founding fathers were and how ignorant the FRC and Tony Perkins. For if you were to use Tony's "logic" regarding our true democratic process, then he would support the murdering of every Los Angelean for fuel if California voted for it. Our founding fathers put in a safeguard against that "majority rules" abuse and desecration of the minority. It is those very same "activist" courts!

What if 50.1% of Americans voted to permanantly ban Tony Perkins to some desolate area of Antartica permanantly? would he look to "activist" courts to stay the decision, or would he just shrug his shoulders and say ok?


Look, its all very simple. America will adjust to this just like they did when it came to the civil rights movement of the 50s/60s. Equality is inevitable in the psyche of America. Some fight it, but they are on the losing end, as American history has shown. Opposite-sex marriages are not in the process of losing their value to their participants. It is just that their next door neighbors who happen to be gay, now have the exact same rights as they do.

Same-Sex Marriage.. A Question

Considering the complete apoplexy of the Family Researh Council over the recent California Supreme Court decision to allow same sex marriage. One has to wonder the simple..


Just what is the reason to fight same-sex marriage? I have been waiting for years for an actual reason, but I have yet to hear even the most modest of excuses/reasons. So what is it?


I mean I hear some railing about 'traditional' marriage, but we all know that reality shows there is no such thing. "Traditional" marriage has changed so much over the centuries... We've had plural marriages, arranged marriages, same-race marriages, "shotgun" weddings. Then there is the issue of divorce; is it Mosiac? Is it Pauline? Is it Jesusian? Is it a product of the 19th century? Is it modern? Is it Catholic pre-Vatican II or post? There seems to be nothing in the standard vernacular of 'traditional' which actually is traditional. Even the man-woman thing is flexible in history. The Greeks and Romans had differing views on this. Even Judeo-Christian views are highly flexible on this; what represented same-sex protectorate companionship and what difference from this was marriage? Jesus and his disciples? Jesus and the one specific disciple "whom he loved"? Paul and Titus? There is nothing there either in terms of male companionship and wedded protectorship at all.


So just what is the fierce apprehension of fundamentalist Christians to same-sex marriage? How does it 'destroy' the institution of marriage for all those currently wedded opposite-sex marriages?

Sometimes I hear non-sensical posturings about it being "harmful/detrimental" to children. Or that it will cause sexual-identity problems in children. Both of these are are unfounded and fear-mongering to boot. If children of straight parents have no sexual identity problems, then there would be no gays at all. That is so bleedingly obvious, I cannot fathom that that excuse is ever even honestly made. Gay parents do not make gay children. Gay parents make children who take their own paths and respect those who take other paths, because they understand them. Gay parents raise more straight children than they do gay children.

But there is one argument against gays and same sex marriage that does make sense. Hatred of gays and the desire to keep them pinned down as second-class citizens not deserving of the same rights and priveledges as straights. How could I possibly argue against blind hatred?

I cannot. The hatred of gays will always remain among these people. There is no arguing that and no changing that. They hate and they struggle to make their hatred the law of the land.

They have that right. They can continue to hate on gays and actively try to keep gays from enjoying the very same rights and priveledges they benefit from. They can do that.

But the same is true of those of us who support gay rights. We can fight and proclaim as well.

So then, just what is the problem with allowing others to live their lives as they want and enjoy the exact same rights as we enjoy?

The answer seems to be, as always, that these fundie Christians want to force their personal beliefs on all the rest of us.

And do you think that will stop with same sex marriage?

Let them profess, proclaim, and pursue activism all they want. That is their right. Just don't let them write their views into all of our laws.

Really. I am interested in knowing why this is so bad.

A New Day

50 some odd years ago, "traditional" marriage was redefined to be between one man and one woman. That was the landmark court decision "Loving" in which an activist court fillied with activist judges decided that the majority will of the people was notvalid and decreed against the will of the people, that interracial marriages were not only valid, but legally binding.

At that time, the Christian right went nuts. How could these mere judges decide what not only was legal, but what was moral? At the time of the decision of Loving, "traditional" marriage changed from being between "one man and one woman of the same race" to "one man and one woman." And yet the idea of "traditional" marriage remained.

Today we are witnessing another change of "traditional" marriage. Only this time it is not a change in terms of one man -- many women, to one man one woman and many concubines, to parental arrangement of marriage between one too-young man and one too-young woman without the benefit of love. We are now seeing love take precedence. Choosing whom to love and marry is now becoming an actual personal choice between two adults who love each other.

That is a most positive movement, but it is not frought with pitfalls. There are still Rick Santorum's and Family Research Council's of this world who claim that this freedom is actually the downfall of all of society because it perturbs "traditional" marriage. A "traditional" marriage which they crazily claim has never changed since God laid down his law. Even though it has changed quite frequently throughout history.

Keep this in mind as you observe not just what happens in California this year, but also with these Christian groups who proclaim adherence to "traditional" marriage. For they are the ones with a lack of knowing of history, even biblical history. They are dangerous.

Family Research Council Loses it Over McDonalds

As you may have guessed, I am on the mailing list of many, many Christian organizations. I rarely ever discuss them. But this one from the Family Research Council absolutely takes the cake. No. This one takes the cake, imprisons the baker, shuts down all the flour and sugar refineries, and burns all wheat and sugar cane fields...

So why are they all pissed off at hamburger pusher, McDonald's? Let's see:

Sadly, McDonald's is now financing attacks on marriage and the family as a new Corporate Partner of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

The NGLCC promotes businesses owned by homosexuals, but it also pushes the homosexual political agenda in statehouses, courthouses, and the halls of Congress. Thought crime ("hate crime") laws, homosexual and transgender "civil rights" preferences, and domestic partner benefits are top-priority issues of the NGLCC.

So I guess now families of Christians are not allowed to eat at McDonald's because MickeyD's allows gays to work there and have, you know, lives. So now gays cannot even be allowed to work and eke out a most meager living working at McDonald's and should just all be unemployed and starve to death because of their gayness. And a company that looks out for all its employees equally is a bad thing because well, I guess because all gays should just waste away and die from being denied any life or employment.

I suppose that's true Christian love for you: Be unemployed and die you filthy fags!

Of course the saving grace to all this: No one, not even the most ardent Christian will stop eating at McDonald's. So not only is this latest FRC notice stupid, it is completely butt-assed ignorant stupid.

Note: The entire release by the FRC is below:

McDonald's is funding homosexual activism--and I'm NOT lovin' it!

May 5, 2008 Refer a Friend
Apparently, serving McFlurries and Big Macs to the public is no longer enough to satisfy the hunger of McDonald's to make a cultural impact on the United States. Sadly, McDonald's is now financing attacks on marriage and the family as a new Corporate Partner of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

The NGLCC promotes businesses owned by homosexuals, but it also pushes the homosexual political agenda in statehouses, courthouses, and the halls of Congress. Thought crime ("hate crime") laws, homosexual and transgender "civil rights" preferences, and domestic partner benefits are top-priority issues of the NGLCC.

Richard Ellis, Vice President of Communications for McDonald's, was recently named to the Board of Directors of the NGLCC. In a press release, the NGLCC praised Ellis for his "vast Board experience with LGBT and advocacy related organizations." It's alarming that the overseer of McDonald's advertising campaigns directly geared toward families will now be a leader in the NGLCC's campaign to weaken traditional values.

The NGLCC's efforts on behalf of homosexuality threaten the family, the definition of marriage and the very religious freedom we hold so dear.

Here are two effective action steps you can take to get McDonald's back on course:

1) Sign the attached petition to McDonald's Chairman Andrew J. McKenna. FRC will compile the names and signatures and deliver them to McDonald's at their corporate headquarters.

2) Print out the attached flyer (Click here to download a PDF of the flyer) and bring it to your local McDonald's restaurant. Ask to see the manager, give him or her the flyer, and respectfully request that he or she notify the corporate offices that customers are upset about this policy. We ask that you NOT attempt to post the flyer in the restaurant, hand it out to customers, or put it on windshields in the parking lot--just bring it to the manager. Be polite, of course (the manager probably is not even aware of this new corporate policy). DO print additional copies of the flyer and give them to your friends, however, and ask them to take them to the local restaurant manager as well.

McDonald's has enjoyed enormous success providing affordable food to billions of people; it should resist the temptation to play politics with its business. Thank you for taking action, and may God bless you.

McDonald's is funding homosexual activism--and I'm NOT lovin' it!

Sincerely,Tony Perkins

President
P.S. McDonald's has thrived on selling an array of affordable products to American families. Please forward this email to your family and friends and urge them to sign this petition to get this American-grown company back on track.

I have a truly hard time putting into words just how vile, disgusting and immoral these people are. The irony is that these vile and disgusting people are perfectly free to individually and as groups hate on and demonize anyone they like; they are free to go to their churches and pray to their gods that all gays suffer under torture for all eternity, they are free to express their hatred in whatever manner they desire as individuals and groups and churches, they are free to live their lives in whatever manner they desire. But they turn around and claim that those who disagree with them have no rights whatsoever to enjoy those same freedoms they do. That is beneath contempt. Any Christian who claims to be a patriotic American and believe in the Constitution and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" should be fully ashamed of these Christian groups.

Atheist Morality

A while back I had an email conversation with a commenter (ok, it was Rhology) here who refused to accept that it was possible that a person who lacked any god-belief could be a moral person. I thought I had answered his questions completely in these posts I had written. (and later in this post.) He had a specific question posed:

Resolved: Any system of morality within an atheistic worldview can be based on nothing more than personal or at most societal preference for its value judgments.

Now when I had written in my posts that all morality actually has its root in society, and that morals which help any given society survive and thrive were considered useful and therefore kept, but those which were destructive either ultimately killed off the society, or those morals were discarded before the society died off. Virgin offerings to gods, cannibalism, incest are all things which had been practiced in the past and because they made the society as a whole unstable, they were subsequently considered "bad" moral guides. In that if they were continued to be practiced, the society would suffer and die off. Then those "bad" moral guides later became immoral.

In the same way "good" moral acts became morality. Such as not murdering, not stealing, etc.

But what about intermediate moral acts? For example having many wives, concubines. Those moral acts of millennia (or even centuries) ago are today now immoral. But just how much impact on society did those acts ever really have? Sure many other immoral acts occurred as a result (murder, for example), but their impact on society was not significant. For those civilizations continued to grow and thrive. It was only later when those intermediate moral acts became burdonsome in some way -- maybe financially, that they became, over time, immoral acts.

Even in today's society we have brand new issues which can go either way, they can be moral or immoral. Stem cell research, abortion, medical technology keeping a body alive long after the mind dies (Terri Schiavo), assisted suicide, same sex marriage. All these issues hang in the balance today.

So now we have a historical perspective with which to judge morality, specifically the morality of these types of issues. Let us take probably the easiest example, same-sex marriage. What is there that makes it appear to be immoral? Nothing. In no way does a man marrying another man harm anyone. It does not harm the children of that marriage in any way. It does not harm the marriages of the couples who live next door to that married couple, and it does not harm their children either. So if there is no harm caused to anyone, then how can it be construed at all to be immoral? If morality is defined to be that which strengthens society, then it is completely moral. If it neither harms nor hurts society, then it is intermediately moral, but still moral based on its effects on society. If it is immoral, then it harms society.

Marriage has changed drastically throughout history, we all know that is a fact. Plural marriage and concubines have been very common in history and have been accepted as moral. But that attitude has changed many times through history to where it is today, no multitudes of wives and the acceptance of concubines, just one woman and one man. But that is not the only way marraige has changed. Consider how just a few decades ago, even the one man-one woman structure had its limits as well. Both had to be of the same race, both white or both black. In many southern states (I refer you to Virginia v. Loving) there were laws against interracial marriage. This was only decades ago. Then the moral concept of marriage changed once again to allow for that new addition to the family of marriages -- interracial marraiges were now moral. So why can't the definition of marraige change once again? Why cannot men marry men and women marry women?

What is at the core of marriage after all? What makes marriage moral? Well love is the most obvious thing. But is it really the foundation of marriage after all? I think not, because even today there are many marriages that are "arranged" that is the parents of the couple decide that they should be united in marraige and the couple has no input in that decision -- they are essentially forced to marry. The foundation of marriage must be more basic than that. It must deal with providing a nuclear unit within a society that society can trust will act for its own best interests without intervention from the society. A family then is a marriage and offspring. The family acts as its own micro-society. Thus many of the duties and responsibilities of that larger society are offloaded onto the family and the marriage at its center. Thus the structure and scope of the marriage is irrelevant to its morality as long as it fulfills that duty and obligation: take responsibility of the offspring and the family unit from society and place it within the confines of the marriage. All marriages throughout history meet this requirement. MArriage types that do not are therefore immoral (i.e. the infamous Rick Santorum man-boxturtle marriage comment). So a same sex marriage would only be considered to be moral in this framework.

Now I am ready to respond to the thesis presented me and how I would respond. I think that all morality, no matter what its current source, is at its very core based on the framework I have just sketched out; that it is always, and always has been, based only on what works for society. Even in the most religious of mindsets, it has always only come down to society. The bible, and its moral code is the perfect example. No matter how a Christian wants to explain it, the fact is that the bible was the result of cultural moral ideals and was written as such, that a god was tacked onto it is not relevant. That biblical society in those biblical times found moral guides which worked for them and they encoded those morals in the bible. So even if one wanted to claim that all morality can only come from God, all their evidence is societal -- i.e. the biblical society surrounding the times of the bible. It is still society that determines what is moral and the way they do that is by sticking with what works and changing what does not. Clearly murder does not work, so it is immoral. But marriage works and it works in many different incarnations, so it is moral.

Therefore the real thesis in the original statement: "Resolved: Any system of morality within an atheistic worldview can be based on nothing more than personal or at most societal preference for its value judgments." is that atheism has nothing to do at all with morality. Atheism is simply a lack of god-belief (it is not a religion). But if lack of god-belief and God belief are not the actual root of morality then the thesis statement is a moot question. Atheism has no more to do with morality than does religion.

Now all of you must be stratching your heads at this point and saying to yourselves, "Hey wait a minute, both atheism and religion impact and influence what is considered morality." Yes that is true. They both do influence or impact morality. They can both even change morality. But the catch is that if either one changes morals in such a way that those morals now harm society, the morals must either therefore be altered again to protect society or the society dies. Which brings us full circle to the incontravertable fact that morals are the product of a healthy society, and not the other way around; a healthy society is the product of morals.

Thus my thesis is this: Both atheism and religion can influence morals in one direction or another; but society, by its long term health and stability, alone determines whether those moral changes are good or bad. Society is the key to morality, not religion or atheism.

Please note: In this essay I have used the words "good", "bad", good, and bad. I would attempt here to define them quickly and easily, but I do not think that is possible. Religion has a specific way of viewing "good" and "bad" through the lense of some magical sky daddy handing down what is good and bad. Ironically enough, for the most part they happen to coincide with the more common definitions of good and bad. I think theists getting them mixed up with holy and evil is the only real departure between the definitions. but that is another topic altogether.

Postscript: Maybe you noticed, but if you did not, this post had nothing to at all with the morality of an atheist. But I hope that it was understood that morality has nothing at all to do with religion or the lack thereof. I concede that both theists and atheists often attempt to change moral standards, but the standards themselves are neither based in a belief in a god or a lack of belief in a god.

A New Perspective on Traditional Marriage

This brief column on marriage makes a great point. The basic idea is if same-sex marriage goes against God's will, then why wouldn't atheists marrying also?



The point made is not only valid; but I cannot believe that I, or anyone else, never thought of it years ago. Actually, though, while the point is valid, I have to say that it has no impact on those conservative Christians who go about screaming "traditional marriage." The reason is simple enough, pure, unadulterated cynicism. They are not referring in any way to any form of "traditional" marriage. Why? Because they all already consider even the most secular of marriages (those that we of Las Vegas are famous for), ones performed by Justices of the Peace (while dressed up as Elvis or as a Space Alien) as completely valid forms of marriage. No religion, no God, just plain and simple man and woman saying "I Do."

Traditional has nothing to do with it at all. Conservative Christians get married all the time via secular Justices of the Peace in all sorts of places other than churches. So really the notion of God is not really a part of the equation at all. The equation has everything to do with bashing and ostricizing gays and nothing to do with the traditional. For if traditional = "God ordained", then anything outside of a religious (and Christian) marriage is not valid. Since Christians consider Jews, and Muslims for that matter, to be married -- as long as they are male-female -- then traditional has nothing to do with marriage itself. It is once again, only about being gay.
That is the problem revealed by this new perspective on marriage. That it is a sham statement by conservative Christians to call it a traditional issue, since it allows for marriages that they clearly do not consider ordained by God (i.e. marriages of atheists, jews, muslims, and Christians in secular settings). They aren't interested in the "ordained by God" aspect of their definition of marriage, only that they keep out TEH gays.

As The New Year Dawns

As you might already suspect, I do receive a lot of email from conservative Christian organizations. Mainly due to the fact that in order to be kept up on what they're up to, it is necessary to be on their contacts list. And this time of year is the worst, as they are all vying for every last dollar they can raise to fund their new year attacks on reality.

Here is one from the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins.

Stand Together for the Family!
December 26, 2006 Refer a Friend [Link Removed]

Dear Friend:

Before we ring in the New Year with family and friends, I wanted to write you one last time about what lies ahead.

As you've read throughout 2006, your support helped Family Research Council have a tremendous impact on the national policy debates of our time. By responding to alerts, contacting friends, voting on Election Day, and offering prayers, you've kept our political leaders aware of the convictions of pro-family Americans.

Now we're in the "calm before the storm." In just a few days the new Congress will meet. When they do, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and their allies will begin their fresh assault on everything from abstinence programs, to the child tax credit, to the Pledge of Allegiance. The drive to fund the killing of human embryos will gain steam. Advocates of thought-control hate-crimes laws will press their case, and liberal leaders like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will be listening - and anxious to please them.

FRC must be ready to fight back with new ideas and new strategies. By making a year-end gift, you can help us create a war chest to defend marriage and protect the unborn. If you can afford to make a tax-deductible year-end gift, you can rest assured we will put your donation to good use for the ideals we've always championed.

Our action alerts will be frequent in the new Congress, so let's brace ourselves and resolve to stay strong in the fight for the family. As always, it's an honor to stand with you in a cause that belongs to the God who blesses us with every good thing.

Contribute [Link Removed]

Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President

Funny. But isn't it a bit strange how fighting against same-sex marriage, and gay adoption is "pro-family"? And that now that Democrats are now in power, that the failed abstinance-only program is in jeopardy? It would seem that since teen pregnancy and abortion are up, this pro-family, pro-life group would be glad that Democrats are back in power and are going to make the changes necessary to bring those statistics down. I guess from their perspective, its better to have high teen pregnancy and abortion rates under the "abstinance-only, no contraception or sex-ed" program of Republicans, than low pregnancy and abortion rates under Democrats.

It is too bad that they define "pro-family" in such a way that all that matters is the sexual proclivities of all Americans and preventing gays from loving and raising families, as opposed to actually helping families in ways that matters, such as social aide, health care, higher minimum wages, and strengthening families via care that actually matters to real families.

Fun with absurdities

You know, any time I quote the bible to these truly screwed up Chrisatians, their response is not, as one would expect, civilized debate. Instead, I get slapped with a label -- stalker, obsessed, etc. This from blogs which offer public commenting. Go figure. Just go ask AnnieAngel or Josh Bozeman.

Well, none of their labels matters one whit to me. Let them call me names if that helps them sleep better at night, because I still beat them at their own game; the Bible of their "god". We all know that knowledge and proficiency of the Bible does not make one a good Christian, rather blind adherance to what their leaders/ministers/priests/reverands tell them to think is all that matters.

Unless it comes to their fallen leaders. Then they are totally silent. Ted Haggard? Who's that guy, he must be one of them atheists or worse yet, Catholics....

So let's see what Josh has to say about Jesus' mouthpiece, the Rev. Haggard.

[none]

Annie's mention.

[none]

Annie can't even seem to get past the idea that liberals are allowed to speak their minds. (Just out of curiosity, where is there more "preaching"? From liberals, or from self-righteous Christians and other conservatives?? Churches.. Churches.. Churches..)

So, as there is nothing of value in Annie's whine, I mean blog, let's jump back to sanity's worst nightmare; Josh. (Sorry, I am listening to Alice Cooper's "Welcome to my nightmare," and couldn't help using the apropos imagery.)

Anyway, while searching in vain for something, anything about Ted Haggard Josh had blogged about, I came across this jewel of utter inanity.

In America- a 12 year old girl cannot even go on a school field trip to a petting zoo without her parents consent. Yet, thanks to ultra-liberals, these same girls can kill their unborn babies without any permission or even mere notification of the pattern.

Notice, first of all, that there is no link, no shred of evidence that this is anything other than the fever dream of an addled brain. Where in this country can a 12 year old girl go and legally get an abortion? Which "liberals" are proposing this? I know of no one (NARAL, ACLU, etc.). But I do have this to offer, Kansas (defeated) Attourney General Phil Kline who wanted to get abortion records of minors who had legally obtained abortions so he could prosecute. (You know, Kansas, that middle-America bastion of San Francisco liberalism.)

"As attorney general, Kline sought to require Kansas health workers to report sexual activity of girls younger than 16, the age of consent. The workers filed suit, and a federal judge blocked the request. Kline then persuaded a state judge to back the subpoena for records of more than 80 women and girls who received abortions in 2003 at two clinics. He described it as a search for evidence of illegal late-term abortions and child rape." (emphasis mine)

I will stress this point one time for everyone to grasp. Minors all need "permission" for an abortion. Some states it is a doctor or judge, others it is an adult, but every state has that requirement. Josh is dreaming of some fantasy world in which his hate is totally justified.

Thanks to the “tolerant” liberals. They’re fine with a girl killing her baby and not telling her parents. That’s all good and well…now if that girl wanted to pray in school or write a paper and mention the word “Jesus”- the ACLU goons would be after her in a heartbeat. Too many Americans have their priorities all screwed up.

This is the best example of Josh merely conjouring up imaginary boogeymen to hate and vilify. I challenge any Christian child to read from their bible or pray with their friends during free time in school. If even one gets into any sort of trouble at all, anywhere in the country, I will publicly eat my words. The truth is, and I mean truth with a capital "T" is that there is nothing wrong or illegal about that anywhere. It only becomes a problem when Christian Children try to use public resources to try to convert non-Christian children to their beliefs, or that the school itself is used as a platform for proselytization.

Here's another nugget of reality which puts Josh firmly in the realm of fantasyland: The ACLU has defended Christian children in their right to wear Christian garb and speak on their own behalfs to their beliefs. Josh is wrong, and lives a lie so pervasive that one has to wonder what color his sky is.

On the one hand I am saddened that reality escapes Josh so, but on the other, he does offer concrete, up-close proof that Christianity and reality are not synonymous, and that accepting Christianity means denying reality.

Note: I really wanted to write a post about how Christians handled Ted Haggard, but it seems that the only person willing to say anything about him are those who either hung him out to dry (his power structure -- Dobson, Swank, et. al.) or his own ministry.

So I have but one question to ask all Christians (ok, two):

If God wouldn't/couldn't heal the heart of a leader/Christian/God-fearer like Haggard, then what chance does any low level Christian have of getting God's healing attention? How can you expect other gays to heal via prayer/putting their hearts in God's hands, if it didn't help Haggard??

Clearly, the answer to homosexuality is not the loving/healing power of trust in Jesus...

Gay Bashing, The New Creationism

I have a question for you, if you are a conservative evangelical/fundamental Christian what is more important to you, educating your own children in Christianity, or bashing gays?

Apparently, if you are a Southern Baptist, teaching your children is a clear second. Beating down gays and not allowing them their humanity (not to mention American rights) is of the utmost importance. Forget all that nonsense about "being a celebant gay" hogwash they used to push in the media. No, today's fundamental Christians don't even like gays who try to be (their twisted strain of) Christian.

So the next time you run across a fundamental Christian who (lies and) says that they have no problems with gays, as long as they don't act on their sinful impulses, remind them of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Mercer College.

Convention members were disturbed last year by a National Coming Out Day program on campus -- called the Mercer Triangle Symposium -- sponsored by a gay student group and supported by faculty and staff.

"The waters had been troubled for some time over a number of issues, but that seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back," said Wayne Robertson, chairman of the convention's administration committee and pastor at Morningside Baptist Church in Valdosta, Georgia.

Isn't it about time these Christians just came clean, and stated plainly what they really want to do; round up all gays, put them in Concentration Camps, and...

Brownshirts do still exist.


P.S. In case you're wondering about the title; here's the story. For so long now, those who took up the mantle of creationism pretended to like/be scientists. But as the years wore on, this became harder and harder to do, so now we have groups like Coral Ridge, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute who just flat out hate real science, and call all that is science nothing but the dogma of atheism. Also, as we have been witnessing in the last years/decade or so, homosexuality is being proven by scientists to be more genetically linked than ever thought before, placing homosexuality in the exact same realms of science that evolution has long since been a member.