Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Hateful? Who Is?


Last October I made a TV commercial for “Stand For Marriage Maine,” the Catholic-led organization to repeal the gay “marriage” law passed by the Maine’s legislature. We won, and it was a setback for homosexual activists nationally as liberal Maine became the seventeenth state in a row to vote against it. Wherever citizens vote, it loses, but fallout from bitter homosexual activists continues.

Three of us made the same commercial. My version was rejected, but Nokomis High School guidance counselor Don Mendell’s version ran for weeks. Now his job is threatened because two other guidance counselors filed complaints with Maine’s licensing board claiming he violated the NASW (National Association of Social Workers) code of ethics by appearing in the ad.

If there’s an occupation with more homosexuals than hairdressing or interior decorating, it’s social work. In the first complaint, social worker and guidance counselor Ann Sullivan claimed “Don [Mendell] has a history of being unsupportive of GLTBQ issues.” That long acronym would mean “Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, and Questioning.” Sullivan complained that “When Nokomis High staff assisted students in beginning the Gay Straight Alliance [GSA], Don was very vocal in his opposition to this group.”

Mendell should be commended for opposing a GSA at his high school, considering that President Obama’s embattled Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings was “the faculty advisor to the nation's first Gay-Straight Alliance” Jennings then founded GLSEN - the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network” - and used taxpayer money to teach fourteen-year-olds sexual techniques like “fisting” - too perverted to describe or this column couldn’t be printed in family newspapers. Jennings also passed out guides to gay bars in Boston, pointing out which ones specialized in “leather” fetishes. That’s code for homosexuals who prefer sick, sadomasochist practices such as those favored by Maine gay “marriage” activist Bruce LaVallee-Davidson, recently convicted of manslaughter. GLSEN gives such literature to students all over the country. Instead of being praised for trying to protect Maine students from depravity, Mendell is harassed by the state.

Days before the vote, I was invited to appear at a press conference where I spoke about some of this. Private school, and retired public school teachers were there, but I was the only active public school teacher present. Why? Mendell’s ordeal is a good example of what we can expect if we speak out against homosexual propaganda in school or even in private life.

In December, the Baldacci Administration ramped up pressure. According to the Sebasticook Valley Weekly: “Maine Assistant Attorney General Robert Perkins . . . has requested that Mendell turn over transcripts of the video commercial he made in support of a YES vote on the recent gay marriage referendum [and] provide copies of any ‘letters to the editor’ that he may have written in the past year concerning the gay marriage issue.”

That’s chilling.

Mendell says his First Amendment rights protect him from charges other counselors made to shut him up. Clearly, they’re supportive of propaganda groups like GSA and GLSEN who actively recruit students to their miscreant subcultures. Considering the average life expectancy of homosexual men is twenty years shorter than other men, it is the two complainants’ ethics which should be questioned, not Mendell’s.

Twenty years ago, homosexual activists jumped on the civil rights bandwagon with the dubious claim that homosexual orientation is biological or “in the genes,” for which there’s absolutely no scientific proof. Nonetheless, the majority of psychotherapists and social workers, like the two complainants, believe homosexuality is inborn and immutable. That’s the kind of propaganda GSA and GLSEN pushes in Maine and in thousands of schools across the nation.

But what if they’re wrong? What if schoolchildren are malleable and can be steered toward homosexual or transgender inclinations by exposure to GLSEN propaganda? It’s one thing for Maine public schools to provide “transgender bathrooms” (which some do), but it would be quite another if they should refer children to newly-opened “transgender clinics.” Children’s Hospital in Boston offers hormone treatments to prevent the onset of puberty in children as young as seven! According to Foxnews.com: “The drugs stop the natural flood of hormones that would make it difficult to have a sex alteration later in life, allowing patients more time to decide whether they want to make the [surgical] change.”

“‘Treating these children with hormones does considerable harm and it compounds their confusion,’ said Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University. ‘Trying to delay puberty or change someone’s gender is a rejection of the lawfulness of nature. . . . At some point in childhood,’ McHugh said, ‘many children role play as the opposite sex, but it is a social, not a medical issue.’”

Especially when they’re only seven.

That’s one direction in which homosexual activists are heading. Maine voters set them back and Don Mendell is feeling their wrath.

105 comments:

眼淚 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Irregardless said...

Although I always enjoy reading Educator McLaughlin's editorials, one really has to wonder at his constant, almost pathological return to the homophobic theme.

Again, I must revert to the Bard:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2

Ralph said...

Irregardless

So you think people who denounce homosexuality are closet homos? And you garnish that with a Shakespeare quote that you had to look up on wiki?

If I applied your immature way of reasoning to YOUR persona, I would have to conclude that you are a closet homophobe.

???

Poor, confused soul!

Irregardless said...

Ralph:

I read your comment several times and - with each subsequent reading - became less and less clear as to what you're trying to say.

But I applaud your effort (and that the spelling was all correct, too!)

Way to go!

Nathan said...

Ralph, your comment is just an ad hominem attack, which is bad manners and terribly bad rhetoric.

To those who oppose homosexuality and rights for gays, I ask this question: "How does it affect you?"

What effect does it have on your life? What does it matter if it's inborn or a choice, or if a gay couple wants to live together and call themselves married? If you're not gay, then who cares?

Don't answer about the decaying moral fabric, because you secretly want that: it means you get to sit in your towers and feel righteous while telling everyone else they are evil.

The gay marriage movement does nothing to straight marriage. A common argument is that it undermines the relationship between a husband and wife, but does it really? Marriage is only a word. If a law changes what it means to you, then maybe you didn't have the right definition in the first place.

Irregardless said...

Thank you for putting it so beautifully, Nathan.

I've been happily married for over 35 years and at no time have either my husband or I felt threatened by the Gay Menace.

I honestly feel that anyone in a secure, loving relationship (gay or straight) who's threatened by gay marriage and/or civil unions sincerely ought to look into their own hearts to find what's really wrong.

Anonymous said...

Tom just couldn't resist posting a gay bondage picture. The majority of gay and gay friendly people don't seek out such photos, yet Tom seems to make a hobby of it. Telling, quite telling.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Tom's obsession with using these gay pictures has got to be disturbing to his family. And what about the picture of the cute kids? Who are they? How obnoxious to use the picture of innocent children in your hateful rant against gays. Hopefully the parents of one will sue you.

Anonymous said...

So called straight people have their fetishes too, gays and lesbians don't have a corner on that market. Start giving this an equal and equitable part in your discussion and perhaps I can accept your ranting more easily. I have seen some really bad straight marriages. You simply say that there is no biological basis for being gay or lesbian but offer no evidence. except your obvious blind hatred. Yet you admit that there are some experts that believe it is a genetic thing. Their dubious claim is apparently backed by some serious research but you offer nothing. You have exposed your self as a narrow minded bigot and that is a shame.


I also see no real relationship between being transgendered and homosexual. Perhaps trying to change this at an early age is not the best way but pretending it is not a real problem will not change anything.

One man's truth is another man's propaganda. The door swings both ways Tom. Always has and always will.

Ralph said...

Nathan and Nondisirregardless

When I hold up a mirror for you (Irr..whatever) to see YOUR own picture in YOUR words it's an ad hominem attack?

Now THAT's intelligent!

You should really start to come to terms with the beginning defeat of your cultural marxist agenda. Or are you just trying to cope in your helpless, little way?

Is that what it is?

Helplessness?

Nathan said...

Another ad hominem attack, Ralph. I'm not using one, merely pointing out that you are. If you wish to debate the issue at hand I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you insist on attacking me as a person instead of my viewpoints, I will ignore you.

Stephen Casper said...

The following is from Media Matters:

The supposed brains behind the right-wing blogosphere went bonkers this week hyping the latest chapter in its wild hate campaign against Kevin Jennings, the openly gay "Safe Schools Czar" currently serving in the Obama administration. The latest charges, which highlighted the creepy right-wing fascination with gay sex, were rolled over days and presented as the ultimate take-down of Jennings. But alas, the serious press has been singularly uninterested in the story...

…it was blindingly obvious that the far-right hate brigade just didn't have the goods. And worse, when it didn't have the goods, `wingers made stuff up instead.
Take this Gateway Pundit “scoop”

Fistgate V: Youth Fisting Instructor Claims Kevin Jennings Knew About Class Content in Advance

In fact, when you read the breathless/hysterical post, nowhere was there any evidence (i.e. y'know, facts) to support the claim that the instructor in question ever claimed Jennings knew beforehand about the controversial content. None. Zero. But to make for a better headline Gateway Pundit just manufactured a claim. And honestly, that's what the right-wing blogosphere has been reduced to; just making shit up.
But bloggers can't very well spend their days and nights making stuff up and then turn around and act surprised and offended when actual journalists don't follow up the nonsensical 'scoops' they post. (Liberal bias!) The endless stream of hollow allegations the right-wing traffics in has now largely become background noise, albeit unpleasant and unwanted noise. They represent a cacophony of endless allegations that virtually never pan out.
But you can start to see the right-wing frustration bubbling up. With the launch of 'Fistgate,' this was supposed to be the week that the White House had to scramble to contain its Jennings controversy, as it spread like wild fire. Instead, it's Friday and it's crickets regarding Jennings beyond the secluded world of right-wing media.

Ralph said...

Nathan

You will ignore me?

Poor me, I don't know if I will EVER get over that ...

Irregardless said...

Ralph wrote:

"You should really start to come to terms with the beginning defeat of your cultural marxist agenda."

Let me be sure I'm understanding this. For Ralph, tolerance of gays = marxism.

Do I have that (you should excuse the expression) 'straight' ?

I've never lived in a Communist country (nor do I want to) but it seems to me that I've never seen Gay Pride Day parades in Moscow or Beijing.

But, hey, maybe I'm missing something...

Ralph said...

... and for anybody out there who has still an ounce of sanity and clear thinking left, let me put into perspective "Nathan's" take on homosexuality by slightly altering his main argument:

"To those who oppose murder and rights for murderers, I ask this question: "How does it affect you?"

What effect does it have on your life? What does it matter if murdering is inborn or a choice?

If you're not a murderer, then who cares?"


Do you understand that a society must have values and rules that have NOTHING to do with individuals in that society being "affected" or not?

I am not "affected" by murder but I sure support laws against murder and murderers

It is a question of societal health, not of individual gusto.

Sloppy, individualistic thinking won't get anybody anywhere in a cultural discussion. Instant, personal gratification is not the measure for a functioning society.

Ralph said...

Irregardless

Picking nits, hun? Why don't you respond to my point? You know, the one that shows you the mirror of your thinking template.

And yes, supporting the gay agenda IS part of the cultural marxist strategy. Like everything else that carries moral equivalence into capitalist societies.

Read Engels's treatise about the family as the nucleus of the capitalist society and all the vile Jo Gramsci stuff and you will get it from the horse's mouth. It's not like you have to take MY word for it.

It's time for many Americans to recognize cultural marxism for what it is. It LOOKS very different from an old style Soviet cruise missile but it is much more deadly than the gun and boots version of communism has ever been.

Harry said...

Ralph, get a grip and take your own advice - stop your sloppy, individualistic thinking.

What an incredibly moronic comparison with gays and murderers. How can murderers effect you?!? Are you for real?!? They can KILL you or a loved one! If they were allowed and tolerated then they could continue killing freely affecting tons of people. I can't bekieve you need to have this explained to you.

OF COURSE things are outlawed because they effect people.

SO....how does homosexuality effect you?

Try really thinking this time, enough with the loppy sophmoric thinking.

Harry said...

Another lie from our integrity challenged journalist is the passing out of gay bar flyers by Jennings when fact checked by Media Matters. Tom really needs to stop trusting radical right wing blogs. Or perhaps he knows they lie and doesn't care - pretty scummy, but some people stoop to such depths when their arguements can't be made by merit.

Interesting though that Tom knows the homosexual "code"!!

And what purpose again did the leather clad gay photos serve in your story? I mean other than the private time you spend "researching" and downloading the images.

Irregardless said...

Uh, Ralph?

It's been a sincere sensation and a genuine pleasure reading your posts, but I'm due back on the Planet Earth right about now, so I'll have to end this charming colloquy.

And, Ralph? As Harry so succinctly put it:

Get a grip.

Do it for the kids.

Harry said...

Here's another one - is this lazy journalism or dishonest journalism?
Either way a real hack.

Here are the facts about the moronic "gays die 20 years sooner" "study".

"Cameron's method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: "The method as you describe it is just ridiculous." But you don't have to be a trained statistician to spot the fallacy at its heart, which is, to quote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistician John Karon, that "you're only getting the ages of those who die." Gay men of the same generation destined to live to old age, even if more numerous, won't turn up in the sample.

Other critics rattle off further objections. The deaths reported in these papers, mostly AIDS deaths, will tend to represent the community defined by such papers or directly known to their editors. It will include relatively more subjects who live in town and are overtly gay and relatively few who blend into the suburbs and seldom set foot in bars. It will overrepresent those whose passing strikes others as newsworthy and underrepresent those who end their days in retired obscurity in some sunny clime.

Bennett is a busy man, but even he has access to the back of an envelope. A moment's thought might have suggested a few simple test calculations. Suppose he assumesѷildly pessimistically, given current incidence dataѴhat half the gay male population is destined to catch the AIDS virus and die of it. The actual average age of AIDS patients at death has been about 40. (Presumably protease inhibitors will extend average longevity, but that will only increase Bennett's difficulty.) For the number 43 to be the true average death age for the entire population of gay males, HIV-negative gay men would, on average, have to keel into their graves at 46. Looked at another way, if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early average age (11, actually).

Ralph said...

Harry

Thanks for confirming my point.

Although, you will never know how you did that. No matter how much you will torture your little room temperature IQ. (Now THAT was an ad hominem attack, if I ever saw one! Nathan, take note!)

You guys ARE funny!

Harry said...

Hey, thanks Ralph! It's nice we can confirm each others points...

...say, isn't that what gays do?

You ain't so bad, Ralph, you make me laugh too! (That "murderer" think was a CLASSIC gutbuster!) Like they say, I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused.

Gotta run Ralph, there is a gay moving down the block from me and it's really affecting me...yeah, I can't stop thinking about him! I see you have that problem too, huh Ralph? Can't stop thinking about Gays? Yeah, Tom has that problem too. Can't stop thinking about them, writing about them, downloading their images...

Weird what's own different people's minds...

Tom McLaughlin said...

It’s the usual stuff from the anonymous harpies: I’m a self-hating, closeted homosexual who is obsessed with sadomasochism and crippled with homophobia. I don’t think you harpies even read the piece - your responses are all boilerplate, pro-gay “marriage” cliches you’ve written over and over, ad nauseum. No responses about your ilk using the state to harass a guidance counselor for exercising his constitutional rights. That’s what the article is about.

It’s fine for homosexual activists to put their agenda in our faces over and over, but if we respond, we’re the ones with the problem - blah blah blah. Same nasty, cynical tone, same old-same old. It’s not working anymore, except with college freshmen. Get it? Keep it up though, it helps our side immensely.

When homosexual activists make a claim that homosexuality is innate, it’s up to them to provide the proof, not me. I didn’t admit anything like: “some ‘experts’ think it’s genetic.” Genetics is a science. Where’s the scientific evidence? It doesn’t exist. And you’re the same harpies asking Dawn for proof of God’s existence?

I did learn that irregardless is female - I think.

Nathan: While you’re ignoring people, can you include me too?

Tom McLaughlin said...

Stephen: “Fact-checked” by David Brock and George Soros on Media Matters? Are you kidding me? That’s where you get your data?

Kevin Jennings founded GSA and GLSEN in Massachusetts. He was a teacher at Concord Academy. He worked for years with the numerous homosexual activists in and out of Massachusetts state government. It was two state employees who put on the fisting demonstration at Tufts, where Jennings was keynote speaker. It was a GLSEN conference.

I’ve presented at dozens of educational conferences in Massachusetts and all over the country. To claim Jennings “didn’t know” those Massachusetts state employees were demonstrating fisting is laughable. When Mass Resistance exposed them they all denied it. Then had to retract their denial when Mass Resistance produced a recording of it on tape. When their lie was exposed, they threatened to sue MR for taping surreptitiously.

GLSEN can pass out gay “leather” bar guides to kids, but as a schoolteacher who is appalled, I’m homophobic to write about it? You’re in La-La Land.

It must be hard for you to watch the left-wing unravel so quickly. First Maine in November - yesterday Massachusetts, so I won’t go too hard on you. Change is hard, I know. It’s been a tough winter for you. Get some rest.

Nathan said...

Tom I'll only ignore if you stoop to logical fallacies. I'm happy to have a discussion, but only if everyone agrees to follow the rules of a logical discussion.

And by the way Tom, if your sources of information are conservative and Republican blogs (that seem have to done everything from exaggerating the facts to just plain making them up), you have no business criticizing anyone's sources as biased.

At least that was the assumption I made, because you didn't actually say why you thought Media Matters is so outrageous.

That's another logical fallacy you used to try to deflate Stephen's argument: appeal to ridicule. Seriously. Look it up.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Of course I'm ridiculing his argument. It's ridiculous. Do you know who David Brock is? George Soros?

I don't pretend to be inbiased Nathan. I'm a columnist and I wrote about bias a couple of weeks ago. Are you unbiased? Come on. I'm a conservative. As Margaret Thatcher put it: "The facts of life are conservative." I didn't make them up. Conservatism is the best working hypothesis with which to order them and make some sense of them that I've come across in my nearly 59 years on the planet.

I've been on the left, in the middle, and now I'm a right-winger. I admit it. The anonymous left-wingers commenting on this site don't admit it. They pretend to criticize me from the center. Is that what you think you are? A moderate? An impartial sojourner for truth? Too pure to be tainted by bias? This isn't a college debating society Nathan.

Would you have me pose as a dispassionate debater? That's not my style - not out here in the marketplace of ideas anyway. If it were just the two of us having a drink together, I could do that, and I could enjoy it too, but not here. This is an arena. There's a culture war going on here. I'm a soldier. I'm not impartial.

David Brock and George Soros are on the other side. I would not sit down for a drink with either of them.

pinko said...

I couldn't be more delighted by this latest epistle, Tom. I've been suggesting for weeks that you break out some of your extensive collection of gay porn - and here it is! The men in leather really hold a special appeal for you. I think it's adorable.

It's interesting to note that the men I know who are secure in their sexuality and masculinity don't give two shits about gay people getting married.

Tom McLaughlin said...

I don't care if you like to play Dungeons and Homos Pinko. I do care when people like you try to recruit my students to join you in your bacchanalian escapades.

Anthony Tiani said...

Once again, Tom and other conservatives think the government should step in and tell adults what they should and shouldn't do with there genitals.

Spin it any way you want, Tom. Plead for me and others to, "think of the children" until your pious heart sings songs of righteousness.

You think you have god-given moral authority in your corner, and you wish to impose that on everyone.

Plain and simple.

Nathan said...

Tom, you said you're a soldier in a culture war. The war as I see it has on one side the "soldiers" like you who are trying to tell everyone what they should think is right and wrong, and the regular citizens who want to be able to make that choice for themselves. In other words, those who are trying to convert others and those who just want to be left alone.

In regards to bias, I have no problem with you being biased. I do have a problems with you claiming as facts things that have been exaggerated; blogs in general are where anyone should go to get facts. And you still haven't explained why Stephen's source is ridiculous, besides the fact that it was founded by people who disagree with you.

Tom McLaughlin said...

What the heck are you guys talking about?

I'd just like to be left alone too, but homosexual activists are constantly pushing the envelope in schools where I work, while trying to redefine marriage and family - the basic unit of society - in my community.

When I speak up in response, I'm the one who is trying to impose my will? Do we live in the same world? Come on. Wake up and look around.

Anthony Tiani said...

Being concerned about what is taught in the classroom is one thing, but you want to control what strangers do.

Gay couples aren't going anywhere. Most only want the same rights as afforded to heterosexual couples. They were given that right until you and others took it away from them because YOUR definition of morality didn't fit THEIRS.

Tell me, Tom, did it feel warm and righteous forcing grown adults to conform to your worldview?

Pest Control said...

Well, Tom's blog is not the only place with an infestation of frustrated representatives of the church of moral equivalence.

Here's from the "Democratic Underground" via VfR (excellent blog, btw!). The cultural marxists are fast unravelling (were they ever "ravelled???).

I suggest emigration, folks!

Here goes:

"How the left feels

Cassy Fiano at Hot Air quotes Democratic Underground commenters' reactions to Scott Brown's election:

•BluDemocratGirl: F*ck the GOP, Ignorant Teabagging Fools, and the Independent Voters who stood up with that pathietic, porn star-wannabe bastard. Mrs. Coakley's campaign could've been stronger, but she ran it down to the drain. I'm pissed 'cause now the health care reform is now in jeopardy!

•Joe the Liberal: It absolutely sickens me ... to see this solid blue state have some sleazeball, degenerate, scumbag filth republican as their "representative". I'm even more sickened and disgusted to see Ted's seat, that he held for decades on end go to this piece of garbage, cookie cutter, bottom feeding, dirtbag republican.

•Odin2005: Another STOLEN election.

•Akoto: Teddy must be rolling in his grave right now.

•DainBramaged: All of you RePUKElican lurkers can go f*ck yourselves one race. F*ck you.You have NO F*CKING ONE to run against Obama in 2012 so go f*ck yourselves.

•AndyA: If sanity is a right wing, bigoted, homophobic Nazi, well ... yes I guess there will be sanity. Pretty faces often hide monsters within.

•TwixVoy: They are chanting like Nazis at his victory rally. Chilling. A glimpse of things to come.

Fiano adds:

Democrats thought Massachusetts was bad?
Just wait until we take back California."

Anthony Tiani said...

What does that post have to do with anything? You posted comments from strangers from an entirely different forum.

I could EASILY post a million cranky threads from a million cranky right-wing superstitious zealots.

Libertarians are pretty pro-gay marriage. Since when are they Marxists?

Try to stay on debate. I know it's hard.

Stephen Casper said...

“…while trying to redefine marriage and family - the basic unit of society - in my community.”

And if you were the old curmudgeon that you are today back in 1967 then you would have been equally upset about the Supreme Court “re-defining” marriage by making inter-racial marriages legal.


“When homosexual activists make a claim that homosexuality is innate, it’s up to them to provide the proof, not me.’

And I say, if homosexual haters make a claim that homosexuality is a choice, it’s up to them to provide the proof. Personally, all I need is the word of homosexuals that I know and trust.

Your outright lies and distorted spin on reality get pointed out to you weekly and yet to continue to relay crap from radical blogs, because hey, you are a “soldier” and the end justifies the means right? It’s ok to lie, manipulate, and be a hateful cretin if you are doing it in “god’s name” , right? You don’t even realize these sleazy tactics hurt your cause.

So you are upset that a guidance counselor is getting harassed, but you sem to have no problem with children getting harrassed. You believe that schools should be able to preach intolerance and make hateful and hurtful statements towards the children. But this bozo of a counselor belongs to an organization that prohibits being discriminatory towards the children. And yes, their code of ethics includes being discriminatory towards sexual preference. His views are not only at odds with his own professional organization but also the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Psychological Association, the American School Health Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, and the National Education Association. The guy, like you, seems to have a broken watch that is stuck somewhere in the 18th century.

DAWN said...

Homosexuality is a sin. It's a choice. A man chooses to have sex with another man and a woman a woman. It's not genetics like blue eyes and brown hair.

It's always been thought of, at worst a sin or at best a disorder, until recently. Now we are just trying to legitimize it as tho it's genetic and natural when it's not.

Homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and is listed as an abomination towards God. But then again look at all the other sins of the past we are now legalizing these days...murder, aka abortion, adultery aka divorce, etc. What's next?

They all have something in common. The breakdown of the family unit. And we wonder today why our kids are so messed up?

It doesn't take Einstein to figure this one out.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that's right Dawn, your book claims homosexuality is a sin. The thing is, your book is not the law. Our founding fathers intentionally wanted your book to have nothing to do with the laws of the land. Smart people, our founding fathers.

You believe in your book, but you can't prove it.

You believe homosexuality is a choice, but you can't prove it.

One day science will find the proof that it is genetic, but I'm sure you will still find reasons not to believe the proof. That is what blind faith does to you - it makes you deny reality.

Many kids today are messed up because society feeds them violence from a young age, they lack good role models, and they are brought up very frequently by parents who are horrible at parenting, whether they are straight, married, or not.

But it's easier to blame gays, right? Why look at all the real underlying causes when you have a convenient scapegoat. It makes you feel better about yourself - hey, YOU'RE going to heaven while those nasty sinners will go to hell!


No, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure this stuff out, but it DOES take somebody that uses their own mind to think instead of basing everything off of an old book they decided to believe in.

It's easy..go into things with no preconceived notions, examine the evidence, and think for yourself.

Or continue being a mindless sheep - it's up to you.

Anonymous said...

You want chilling?

A bunch of radicals making up lies about people for poltical reason to get them fired.

Didn't work though did it?

In this case the truth won out.

DAWN said...

"One day science will find the proof that it is genetic, but I'm sure you will still find reasons not to believe the proof."

One day? Well let's deal with that day when it comes. I'm glad that you admit there is no proof TODAY tho.

BTW...Attacking me is not helping your argument.

Don't even get me started on the founding fathers. I could talk all day on that subject.

Anthony Tiani said...

Dawn, once again you have shown your cards.

You want the government to be christian and not secular, contrary to separation of church and state.

Divorce illegal? Homosexual acts illegal? Those are the tenets of a theocracy. I, for one, enjoy not living in Iran.

At least you admit it though.

Anonymous said...

A SOLDIER??!!?? Tom??!!??

How insulting to real soldiers that are risking their lives to defend the freedoms and equality that the Tom's of the world fight AGAINST.

My grandfather was a REAL soldier and at 96 would still whip your butt if he read your trash and heard you call yourself a soldier.

Get real.

Jim said...

@ Anonymous who wrote, "Our founding fathers intentionally wanted your book to have nothing to do with the laws of the land. Smart people, our founding fathers."

I respectfully disagree...

"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" -Patrick Henry

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." -John Adams

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -Charles Carroll signer of the Declaration if Independence

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." -Alexander Hamilton

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." -Alexander Hamilton

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

"Without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience." -James McHenry Signer of the Constitution

Anonymous said...

The Faith of our Founding Fathers
By Dean Worbis


No one disputes the faith of our Founding Fathers. To speak of unalienable
Rights being endowed by a Creator certainly shows a sensitivity to our
spiritual selves. What is suprising is when fundamentalist Christians think
the Founding Father's faith had anything to do with the Bible. Without
exception, the faith of our Funding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was
best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke
of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."


The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based
Christianity

Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth."


Jefferson again
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

More Jefferson
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."


John Adams
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to
that book (the Bible)."

Anonymous said...

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse
than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to
massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not
dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book
(the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and
you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in
pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the
exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will
both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."


These Founding Fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having
escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the
people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of
Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise
of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The
Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood,
and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they - the Baptists -
who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They
knew you can not have a "one-way-wall" that lets religion into government
but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling
political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it
was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state;
"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the
Lord's."

Nathan said...

Jim's comment refuted in one sentence:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, December 15, 1791.

If they had wanted the bible to be a part of the law of this country, they would have made it so. That the above sentence is part of the Bill of Rights that make our nation great is proof enough to me that this is not a christian country.

Jim said...

Who is Dean Worbis?

Jim said...

Allow me to expand a little on what I meant in my founding fathers quotes post.

What I meant was America is a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

DAWN said...

Interestingly the atheists tend to lionize and exalt the statements of those who agree with them and ignore those who hold a religious or conservative viewpoint. That's why "selected" statements by Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin are frequently used and statements of other patriots are ignored.

For instance,do you know anything of Patrick Henry outside of his "give me liberty or give me death" speech? Probably not. Henry was vehemently opposed almost everthing Jefferson stood for particularly after he returned from France with his Enlightenment ideas. Did you know Henry ws the only governor in American history to be elected and reelected five times?

Only a few FF were deists and even then it's a far cry from the atheistic humanists of today. I know one started what we know today as Sunday School in America. One founded The American Bible Society. A few were ministers etc. It wasn't atheists who founded this nation. Our Ivy League Colleges started out as seminaries for the training of our future leaders.

The first act of Congress was the authorizing the printing of 20,000 Bibles. Did you know that? Where was the separation of church and state back then?

Did you know that ALL FIFTY state constitutions appeal to Almighty God? Also all 13 of the original state constitutions refer to Almighty God as the author of Liberty or mention their dependence on His providence to sustain them as a free people.

It's no coincidence that the more we shun God, as a nation the more freedoms we are losing.

The late Dean Manion former head of the Notre Dame law school said:

"Look closely at these self-evident truths, these imperishable articles of American Faith upon which all our government is firmly based. First and foremost is the existence of God. Next comes the truth that all men are equal in the sight of God. Third is the fact of God's great gift of unalienable rights to every person on earth. Then follows the true and single purpose of all American Government, namely, to preserve and protect these God made rights of God made man."

Ya...sounds like a bunch of atheistic Founding Fathers to me also.

James Madison referred to as "the father of the Constitution" was one of at least three Convention delegates who studied for the ministry. His definition of religion probably represented the thinking of 95% of the FF when he said that religion is "the duty we owe our creator."

Nathan said...

I'm certainly not suggesting that our founding fathers were atheists, but it would be wrong to say that they're all christians. What I'm saying is that they had the common sense to keep religion out of politics, which is where I believe it should stay. Believe what you want, but the government can't tell people what to believe.

And by the way, the 20,000 bibles you mentioned were ordered in 1777... while the revolution was still happening, 11 years before the ratification of the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Nathan, quit pointing out facts, like about the 20,000 bibles. You don't impress some people with your proof, your facts, and your "pseudo-science"

Peter said...

Interestingly the christians tend to lionize and exalt the statements of those who agree with them and ignore those who hold an athiest or liberal viewpoint. That's why "selected" statements by founding fathers are frequently used and statements of other patriots are ignored.

It goes both ways Dawn.

Jim said...

@Nathan and Anonymous

In 1812, President James Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
"An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia" Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

Tom McLaughlin said...

"My grandfather was a REAL soldier and at 96 would still whip your butt if he read your trash and heard you call yourself a soldier. Get real."

I think Gramps would be ashamed that his grandchild doesn't even have courage enough to write over his own name. Guess you didn't inherit any of his genes, you anonymous wimp.

pinko said...

Thanks Tom, but you should stop worrying about me and your students, and start worrying about your priest diddling your students. Haven't you been paying attention to where the real pedophiles hang out? Or is this part of your problem; a trip to the bondage confessional perhaps?

Also, Dawn dear:
Your book says wearing mixed fiber garments is against God's law, but I bet you have a whole closet full of them. If you're going to quote Leviticus you'd better be prepared to pay attention to ALL of Leviticus. No shellfish for you, tootsie!

Tom McLaughlin said...

You're absolutely right about that one Pinko. The Catholic Church had to learn the hard way about hiring homosexual priests. According to Michael Rose's book "Goodbye Good Men," some church officials estimated the percentage of Catholic priests who were homosexual in the 1990s at 40%.

Anthony Tiani said...

The Conservative Manifesto: Individual liberty for all--so long as the liberties aren't "icky" and fall within christian "morality".

Sort of like "...all men are created equal," meaning no women, blacks, non-land owners, Irish, etc....

Jim said...

@Anthony

My "gay marriage" point of view from a conservative who is against changing the definition of marriage.

- This is not a 'rights' issue. Gays currently have every single right that all other Americans have.

- This is not a debate about outlawing Gays or Gay behavior. Gays are currently free to live together and get "married" by any religious organization that accepts their behavior.

- This is not about imposing Christian morals onto Gays or any other citizen.

- What this debate is about is whether or not the STATE will change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to include two men and/or two women.

- Who/what is the State? The State is you, me, and every other voter. So since the debate is about whether or not the State should change the current definition of marriage, the State (e.g. you, me, voters) must make a decision.

- What has the State (e.g. voters) decided in Maine? The State has decided that the definition of marriage = one man and one woman. (Side note: Voters in 16 other states have mad the same decision)

Question for you:

- Can a person be against changing the definition of marriage and NOT BE any of the following: Homophobic, hateful, a closeted homosexual, a bigot, or a radical fundamentalist Christian?

Anonymous said...

But Jim, when you can state no rational reason WHY you are against "redefining" marriage what other reasons are there?

Harry said...

....oooh, the tough "soldier" is calling people wimps. Hell, my 94 year old grand-MOTHER is ready to take a whack at him!

DAWN said...

"Dawn dear:
Your book says wearing mixed fiber garments is against God's law, but I bet you have a whole closet full of them. If you're going to quote Leviticus you'd better be prepared to pay attention to ALL of Leviticus. No shellfish for you, tootsie!"

Since this was directed at me...the book of Leviticus was specifically FOR THE JEWS and reveals to the rest of us God's heart. We ARE NOT under the Jewish law today. You are reading a book of history. The Gentiles did not come on the scene (for the most part) UNTIL after Christ. The first Christians were Jews and they, as well as the Gentiles, were put under a NEW Covenant. The book of Acts records this history as well and what was expected of them.

You may want to read Acts 15 for the "new commands" aimed at the Gentiles coming into the church. They were told they did not have to come under the OLD Covenant.

Also, just for YOUR benefit Paul re-stated that homosexuality IS STILL an abomination in Romans 1 and in 1 Corinthians 6 among other places...UNDER THE NEW COVENANT.

Homosexuality violates the specific order of things. God knew how harmful this practice would be to mankind and He forbid it. He created marriage between a man and a woman and set boundaries for it. Of course, just like Eve did, we think it's ok to overstep what God has ordained. Not for long tho. He will not be mocked.

The shellfish thing? That was also done away with. You would know that if you really knew the book. Read Acts 10 (v10-16 specifically). Every single law under the Old Covenant had a specific reason attached to it.

DAWN said...

"What I'm saying is that they had the common sense to keep religion out of politics, which is where I believe it should stay."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You certainly are deceiving yourself. How much history do you know?

1774-the first act of America's first Congress was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible

1776- Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the Creator

1787 to 1788-State conventions to ratify the United States Constitution not only began with prayer but even met in church buildings;

1789-the first Federal Congress, the Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, appropriated Federal funds to pay chaplains to pray at the opening of all sessions, a practice that has continued to this day, with Congress not only funding its congressional chaplains but also the salaries and operations of more than 4,500 military chaplains

1789-on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor

1800-Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard `all ships and vessels in the navy,' with a sermon preached each Sunday

1853-Congress declared that congressional chaplains have a duty ...to conduct religious services weekly in the Hall of the House of Representatives

I could put down a ton more.

Soooooo I guess you're right. The founding fathers wanted NOTHING to do with religion in politics. Seems pretty clear to me.

Good Grief!

"And by the way, the 20,000 bibles you mentioned were ordered in 1777"

Yes, you are right, but it was still not only an act of Congress but they did this so the Schools (imagine that?) would have bibles since they saw a shortage of bibles during this time. So you get an A- for this one. :)

Andrew said...

Dawn,

I just don't get the notion that one's sexual preference is a choice. Did you at some point contemplate whether to be attracted to the opposite sex or not? Wasn't your preference--whatever it is and I'm not asking--something that you just realized you had, as opposed to something you decided upon? And if it was that way for you, how can you suggest that someone who has a different preference chose it? And if that person didn't choose it, how can we justify depriving the person of civil rights, such as marriage--a fundamental constitutional right? Any thoughts?

Tom McLaughlin said...

Andrew, you're off message. I can see you're reading the handbook and asking "When did you choose your heterosexuality?" But it seems you didn't get the memo that "preference" is inoperative. "Orientation" has been substituted, because "preference" has a subtle choice connotation. I suggest you sign up for a post-graduate sensitivity refresher course and get with the program or you'll find yourself bounced out of the activist community.

Also, you evidently didn't read Jim's posts above where he explained that you already have all the civil rights everyone else does. You can get married anytime you prefer. As you can see seventeen times in a row, the majority of Americans, even in the most liberal states, get upset when you try to change the definition of marriage.

We understand that you desperately want the rest of the world to tell you that homosexuality is normal and equivalent to heterosexuality, but that's not going to happen.

DAWN said...

Andrew,

There may be alot of things I'd like to do or "prefer" to do but because I'm a disciplined human being I don't do it.

I've already said that homosexuality is a sin. So it's a choice to sin or not to sin. Some say they are born angry do we give them a pass when that anger manifests itself? Or how about those who are addicted to drugs or alchohol when they say they were born with an addictive personality? Shrug that off as well? These are choices in life we make.

If a man wishes to have sex with another man, so be it. Go at it. Just don't ask me or anyone like me to legalize it as normal and good when it's not.

Also, don't say we're against people of the same sex loving each other. That's not it either (I hear that alot). I love other women and have close friendships with them but I don't have to have sex with them to prove it.

Anonymous said...

Herein lays the argument.

Homosexuals think they are normal.

I asked a lesbian couple recently "do you consider yourselves normal" - not in an offensive way, but just curious as we were already in a discussion about lifestyles - and the reply from both of them was a vehement "YES!" - that almost knocked me over with the volume.

Obviously a sore point. I guess in one sense I was expecting a "we are special, treat us like that", or "we are an exception", or at least "we are superior", or "we are living in the enlightened age of Aquarius" type thing.

You know something other than "yes".

I guess nature is abnormal then. Someone posted it could be genetics. Then does that mean they are a freak of nature?

I don't condemn homosexuals but sorry, it isn't normal.

So what is normal, today?

Good question, I used to know it was a choice, but now what used to be right is wrong, and what used to be good is bad.

---------------------
Isaiah 5:20 - Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Who'd thunk a guy some 2700 odd years ago would have known what today's normal standards would be like...

-tomax7

Anonymous said...

Once again, in the words of Founding Father John Adams:


"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Anonymous said...

anon: "It doesn't get much clearer than that."

Clearer about what? Yes, Mr. Adams may have said that, but the Constitution does say:

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Also realize none of the Founding Fathers were atheists but Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but not one that communes with His creation, aka mankind.

So yes, the US constitution isn't Christian based by the letter, but freedom of religion and expression is.

We're talking NT here as well.

-tomax7

DAWN said...

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."

It doesn't get much clearer than that."

Really? Did you know that a text taken out of context is nothing but a pretext? That's what you've done here.

The full context is from the Treaty of Tripoli (you failed to mention), Article XI and says:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

There's alot more to this than you're stating here. Muslim barbarians were attacking American merchant ships and enslaving "Christian" seamen in retailiation for what the "Christians" had done to them in the crusades centuries earlier. So this treaty was drawn up and signed by Adams. He didn't specifically write this quote but signed the treaty.

While it's true that the U.S. is not "federally" founded on the Christian system the Founding Fathers openly declared that America was a Christian nation and left it entirely up to the states.

Like I stated earlier (bears repeating) ALL 50 states openly appeal to Almighty God in their state constitutions.

This quote (taken out of context) is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. Obviously the Muslims thought so.

It's absurd to take this one quote out of context quote and say that Adams was suggesting or endorsing any provision that would have repudiated Christianity. He also said this to Jefferson concerning this Muslim conflict:

"The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours."

It doesn't get much clearer than that! Now you know the rest of the story.

Anonymous said...

Tripoli.

This translation from the Arabic by Joel Barlow, Consul General at Algiers, has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since it first appeared in 1797 in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session.

In a 'Note Regarding the Barlow Translation' Hunter Miller stated:

"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11.

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.

How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so.

Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."
(2 Miller 384.)

The Miller edition also contains an annotated translation from the original Arabic made in 1930 by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden; for text, see p. 1075.

http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/tripoli.htm#3

-tomax7

Anonymous said...

Here are some more founding father quotes that need to be spun into context.


I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Thomas Jefferson



"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.

It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation."

-Thomas Paine, "Of The Religion Of Deism Compared With The Christian Religion"



"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

DAWN said...

Again...it's well known that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were not religious. But even Jefferson, compared to today's atheists can look like a bible thumper if you read all his writings. But there were ALOT more FF's than just these two.

In fact the founding fathers were enraged with Paine's "Age of Reason" Here's a few comments from the OTHER FFs in response to Paine's piece of work:

John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”

Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”;

Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”;

John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work.

Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”

I could give you more. Oh and I love this:

In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58

Andrew said...

Tom,

Your reply to my first post seems to lump me with the 'bitter homosexual activists' your column assails, when I am simply suggesting that there is no principled basis to deny gay people the right to marry each other. FYI I am male, happily married to the same woman 37 years, four children, and took no part in No on 1. My orientation is conservative--genuinely so, in favor of personal freedom. So again, why should two consenting adults whose sexual orientation is different than mine (and maybe yours) be denied the fundamental right to marry each other just because some other people consider homosexuality not "normal" or sinful? Those people are entitled to their opinions, but why allow those opinions to limit someone else's freedom? And don't compare homosexuals to murderers, drug addicts, etc, as other posters have done. And don't fall back on what is "normal", because that is how Nazi eugenics got started.

And by the way, I completely agree with you that it is utterly reprehensible that Mr. Mendall is being persecuted for exercising freedom of speech. I disagree with him but he shouldn't be harassed for saying it.

pinko said...

Tom/Dawn:

Do you have parties every year when you celebrate the date you chose to be heterosexual? It must have been a momentous occasion for both of you, especially for Tom, in light of his rather obvious obsessions.

Now that NH gays are getting married, have either of you filed for divorce?

Peter said...

I hate people that decide to get diabetes, they shouldn't be allowed to get married either.

I celebrate the day I decided not to have diabetes on March 18!

DAWN said...

"I hate people that decide to get diabetes, they shouldn't be allowed to get married either."

This is nonsense. What does diabetes have to do with marriage?????

You can't choose your predisposed genetic heritage but you can choose whom to go to bed with.

Besides all that...hate has nothing to do with this subject. I don't hate homosexuals. Marriage is one man and one women. Period. Anything else is a circus.

If you "hate" R rated movies does that mean you "hate" people who go to them?

Alex said...

"If you "hate" R rated movies does that mean you "hate" people who go to them?"

No, but you also don't impose laws in their private lives to make them stop going to the movies.

Anonymous said...

The argument (made by somebody named Jin in an earlier post) that gay people have all the same rights straight people do is hokum. Straight people have the right to marry the people whom they prefer (or are oriented toward) whereas gat people don't. End of story.

The arguments against giving gay people the right to marry those whom they love boil down to these:
--it's against tradition.
--it's against religious teaching.
--it isn't "normal."

Tradition has never limited personal freedoms in the United States--otherwise we'd all be British subjects.
And our Constitution says that religious zealots do not get to establish their beliefs in law.
And "normal"? I submit that what is "normal" is the ability to tolerate difference and accept change.

Stephen Casper said...

"You can't choose your predisposed genetic heritage but you can choose whom to go to bed with."

Dawn, as has been explained to you before, of course you can choose whom to go to bed with...it is the primal, inner urge of what gender you are sexually attracted to that is what cannot be chosen any more than diabetes can be chosen.

As a straight male it is inconceivable to me that I could "choose" to be sexually attracted to another male....no WAY, I shudder at the thought and find it repulsive. I can only assume that since people like you and Tom believe this choice CAN be made that the thought IS conceivable to you, that your body does not send out NO WAY messages. Whether or not this is related to Tom's fascination with gays and photos of leather clad men, I don't know. But he obviously feels different about the possibibilites and "choices" of gay sex than I do.

pinko said...

Dawn - but marriage is not one man and one woman. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have both been married many times. John McCain dumped his handicapped wife for a young, wealthy chippy.

Or do you mean one man and one woman at a time?

Harry said...

I think Stephen really hit it on the head. I would very much like to hear Tom's, or any other person who thinks that homosexualty is a choice, response to this -

Can you conceive that YOU could "choose" to be sexually aroused by a person of the same gender?

Don't be wimpy and dodge the question.

Anonymous said...

Harry: "Can you conceive that YOU could "choose" to be sexually aroused by a person of the same gender?"

Yes. Depends on how dark one's heart is. Believe in a lie enough times, it becomes truth.

Choice is still choice. What we do with the choice is what separates the primates from human race.

In other words, one must control their thoughts and urges.

As for accepting 'change', I remember a recent presidential race with that theme. Wonder how it is going a year after.



-tomax7

Harry said...

So tomax, you are admitting that you can conceive of engaging in a sexual act with a homosexual because you could choose to find them sexually arousing?!?

Wow, good for you for admitting that you have same latent homosexual tendencies!

I expected that out of Tom, but not you too, Interesting.

Me, I can't imagine doing such things.

About that "change" thing, yeah, it is going real slow with all that partison opposition to every little thing regardless of what is best for the country.

But at least things ARE changing, ever so slowly, for the better, in many areas. It takes a lot to fight through the mess of the previous administration.

Go on back to your "imagining" now, tomax!

DAWN said...

Tomax7,

you brought up a good point earlier about those who call evil good and good evil and how that's exactly where we are now.

I was thinking about that on Monday when I watched TV. On GMA there was a spot on Oprah interviewing Bristol Palin about her choice to abstain from sex until marriage acknowledging her past mistake. It was clear that Oprah didn't support this declaration by Palin. Instead of encouraging her and praising her for a good decision she said "well good luck with that."

That afternoon Oprah had Rosie O'Donnell on her show and they were all huggie kissy and this time Oprah was real encouaging of Rosie's divorce from her homosexual lover and subsequent relationship with her new lover including the integration of 10 children from at least four homosexuals with who knows how many mommies involved.

This was totally backwards.

DAWN said...

"No, but you also don't impose laws in their private lives to make them stop going to the movies."

you mean sort of like imposing a law that I can't drive in my own private car without a seatbelt?

Alex said...

I don't disagree with you there, Dawn. If you want to do something stupid (not implying that you do) like not wearing a seatbelt, it is your choice. Call me a young hippie, but I use that same argument for the legalization of marijuana (just for the record, I don't smoke, nor have I ever. However, I see the case for legalization).

By saying this, though, you are opening up a can of worms. According to this logic, assisted suicide is A-OK, as is (going out on a limb) abortion.

Harry said...

Well, I guess Tom is too wimpy to come out and admit what tomax has - that he is able to picture himself getting aroused by another man if he chooses.

What's the matter Tom - having second thoughts about your "homosexuality is a choice" stance, or is your hesitation due to second thoughts about your own sexuality?

DAWN said...

"but I use that same argument for the legalization of marijuana (just for the record, I don't smoke, nor have I ever. However, I see the case for legalization)."

You can't use the same argument really because we know that, for one thing, marijuana is a gateway drug to other serious drugs. When we start seeing more and more drug use we start to see more and more innocents killed. That's NOT the same with me NOT wearing my seatbelt.

To some extrent Alex I agree with you because I'm all for freedoms but when it can potentially be for the harm of society we have to have these laws. These laws are NOT for the law abiding citizens like you and me but for the crazies out there who need their hand held and have to be told what NOT to do.

So I would be against the legalization of drugs because on these drugs people can and do some crazy things (like drive stoned) and hurt innocent people.

I wish I could say we didn't need these laws because everyone would do the right and decent thing and stay in their houses stoned. If they did, then by all means I'd be for it.

Anonymous said...

I guess you are for the criminalization of alcohol, Dawn?

Because if you are worried about people "drivig stoned" then you must be terrified about the much more dangerous drunk drivers.

The gateway drug arguement is rubbish.

DAWN said...

Are you minimizing the problem we have with drunk driving?

Because that's what it sounds like. I hope you never have to have some little child in your family die as a result of somebody else driving "high" or "drunk"

Then maybe you'd be singing a different tune.

Alex said...

So what we're generally moving to is that one can do stupid things (like not wearing a seatbelt or getting drunk) as long as it does not allow for the harm of others. if it doesn't directly harm others, then we have no right to impose on those God-given rights of the individual.

So, tell me again why you're against legalizing homosexual marriage?

Anonymous said...

MINIMIZING? Are you nuts, I'm saying just the opposite, that drunk driving, and drinking in general, is a MUCH bigger problem than pot smoking. I think that drunk drivers get off WAY to easy.

DAWN said...

For the same reason I'm against legalizing recreational drug use. It's harmful to families and society.

and going along with that...from a Christian POV it goes against God's laws for mankind. His laws are protective, reasonable and for a very good purpose.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, Alex! They can't answer that. They go on about "redefining" the meanings of words, and "sinful behavior" but they give NO examples of how gay marriage harms anyone.

And now wimpy Tom won't even answer a simple question because it blows his whole "choice" arguement out of the water.

DAWN said...

My apologies Anon. It seemed to me you were mocking me so that's how I took it.

I agree with you that alcohol is a very bad problem but both drugs and alcohol function pretty much the same way; impair people to the degree that under the influence of either they can be very harmful not only to themselves but to others as well.

Anonymous said...

I think that tom needs to get over the fact that his "student's are going to be expose to gay people no matter what. Would you fail a student if you knew that their parents were gay?

Anonymous said...

Harry. Your hand must cramp quite a bit from reading all the postings in here regarding homosexuality.

In your dreams I could live that lifestyle. You asked if I could, and I said yes, just like I could do many bad things, I have a choice.

Would I? No, it is repulsive, and unnatural act, but that's not what you wanted to know, just if I could.

Sin darkens the heart and without the light of God's Spirit shining in our hearts, everyone would digress into the cesspool we call modern society.

Atheists claim to have a moral knowledge, where did that come from? Atheistic parents and grand parents?

But I"m not here to debate atheism.

-tomax7

Harry said...

OK tomax, if you can imagine getting aroused enough by another man that you could perform your imagined acts, then so be it.

Me though? No,I couldn't possible do it. I would have the same amount of luck as getting aroused by looking at photos of cans of paint - none, i couldn't do it. But you can get it up for the guys!! If you ever decide to marry one of these fellows you can imagine boning, then I will support your right to do so!

At least you have the guts to discuss this, unlike the super wimpy Tom!! Whatta wuss that guy is, huh?

Anonymous said...

Harry, harry, harry.

Quit being a troll. You asked a question and twisted the answer.

It is a choice. I choose not to nor do I want to even think of it.

As for calling Mr. McLaughlin a wuss, I don't see you dialoguing things on your blog or appearing in TV standing up for what you believe in.

The wuss, it seems is you calling another human that without fear of physical or financial retaliation.

Then again, that is what trolls do.

Harry said...

OK wimpy Anon, I'm pleased to hear that you too think you could choose to get turned on by a man. But until you actually get that boner by looking at a naked man then you don't know for sure, do you?

Or have you already been able to do that?

You are just making wussy Tom look even worse by having wimpy "anons" fight his battles for him!

And to think he called himself a soldier!!!!

Tom McLaughlin said...

I like women Harry, and I'm faithful to one.

Harry said...

Ted Haggard was married as well, Tom. He too preached about the evils of homosexuality.

But you continue to avoid my question. Can you too decide to get it up for a naked man?

Alex said...

@ last anonymous

Thank you, Harry, for your logic. What you don't understand, anon, is that Harry is not attacking you. He is making a point, one that you are hopelessly missing. You said yourself that you cannot "even think of it." If men can't even think about the act, why do some choose to? Obviously, someone missed "Human Empathy Class 101".

And Harry is using the "wuss" rhetoric to make fun of Mr. McLaughlin's constant ad hominem attacks on the other anonymous posters. You just walked into the trap. But I wouldn't expect someone as ignorant as yourself to understand this. (Ignorant as in believing that men could "choose" to have sex with other men.)

Harry said...

Hey soldier boy...no answer yet? Tough question, huh? One that really makes you re-examine your theory about "choice".

Go ahead, man up and admit defeat.

Or continue being a wimp that goes into hiding with your tail between their legs.

Bailey said...

as a former student of Mr. Mclaughlin's, i had the distinct impression that he thought (rightfully) that conspiracy theories were quite silly. However, after reading a few of his articles, i have come to conclude that he only assumes "left, liberal" conspiracy theories are stupid, while he thinks that theories such as "the gay agenda" and "Obama is a Socialist" are truthful... i find it kind of hilarious actually.

by the way, that guy in the picture looks like he's having a good time, doesn't he?

mantronikk said...

Many in the glbt community want to normalize homosexuality to children WITHOUT the consent of their parents. I cover this Jennings dude at heteroseparatist.com.