Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Continues … Christian Exodus

The Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Continues … Christian Exodus

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

When the president told us that we are now in a struggle against ideological extremism (and no longer fighting a war on terrorism), he sure wasn’t kidding. (See video here in .mov format) So far this week, we’ve ‘struggled against’ uber-extremists Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson. Today, we will look at a pretty ‘interesting’ group forming in South Carolina called Christian Exodus. The struggle continues!

Is the Christian Exodus (“CI”) an extremist group? You decide.

According to their website, CI is “moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon” so-called “Christian principles.” Why? Because they believe that if they concentrate all of their efforts one state at a time rather than nationally– “we will redeem States one at a time.” Strange, I thought Jesus Christ (‘with the power of the Holy Spirit’) was the One who did the redeeming. Apparently, this group believes that they have cornered the market on the “Holy Spirit.”

Quite similar to the Taliban in terms of its desire, the Christian Exodus will try to fuse Church with State by “orchestrating the move of thousands of Christians” to South Carolina so that they may elect “State and local officials who will interpose” the beliefs of the Christian Exodus. To hell with what the other people want … quite literally, it seems.

So what has this group so pissed off? Take a guess. Yup, it’s the damn gays, the damn sodomy, the damn abortion, and of course, the right to bear arms. You see, God apparently loves guns, but hates the gay community. (Personally, I cant stand guns, but I no longer want the government taking them away from us either….heck, we may need them one day if this type of nonsense keeps up!).

Anyway, it’s funny watching how these people will get so ape shit over abortion, yet they never seem to give two shits for the innocent people who die in war as “collateral damage” or those innocent people who get killed via state-sponsored capital punishment.

You see, these people say they are sick and tired of “government endorsed sin.” (Aren’t we all?) But the strange thing is, these same people never seem to have a problem with torture, civilians bombings (unless the victims are white and preferably Christian), AIDS, famine, nor the genocide of non-Christians. How come it always seems like these types of religious fanatics only see the sin when they perceive it to be perpetrated upon them? Is that just a coincidence? Or could it possibly be that these people, apart from being a tad extreme in terms of their desire to transform America into a Christian theocratic empire, are also raging hypocrites?

I only have one suggestion for them though– instead of South Carolina, how about Guam? Yeah I know its not even a state, but heck, it would be kinda cool having them all out on one island. They could have their own little Lord of the Flies. Praise the Lord!

Powered by

About The Bulldog Manifesto

  • RKC

    Yup, I am against abortion.

    Abortion terminates innocent lives.

    Yup, I am against homosexual marriage.

    Any man can marry any woman — Two men or two women calling their relationship “marriage” is an affront to what marriage is all about — and has been for a very long time.

    Yup, I am against having innocent people die in war as “collateral damage”.

    There is no excuse for innocent people dying in any circumstance.

    Yup, I am against having innocent people killed via capital punishment

    If there is any question about innocence, that should preclude it.

    So far, does all this make me a hypocrite?

    And yup, I am in favor of people moving to any state where they can benefit from the cultural climate. Why not?

    Only a hypocrite would profess freedom and deny what any citizen has a Constitutional right to do.

    Anyway, it’s funny watching you get so ape shit over such a matter.

    Lighten up.

  • http://pewview.mu.nu Warren

    This is old news anyway. They don’t have any support among evangelicals, and little support among fundamentalists (and yes, there is a difference — don’t get me started on that one). I know some people who are pretty out there ideologically (some people say I am one of them!), but I’ve never met anyone who thought this was a good idea. I first blogged about this over a year ago (here), and it was probably old then.

    The only people paying any attention to this group are the people who are looking for a reason to make fun of religious people. The rest of us know that they’re idiots, and are far from representative.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Where are the posts about the ideological extremism of the left? Oh wait, we don’t need commentary on it, we can see it in action every day in regular postings here on BC.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Where are the posts about the ideological extremism of the left?

    oh, come now Dave. Check out any rant from Bambinek or Flanigan or actually many of your posts.

  • Bored Jones

    This kind of guy wants to find everything deplorable he can thing of no matter how disparate and throw them all together to slam against “the Christians”. Like some odd seventy percent – or whatever – Americans do not call themselves Christian.

    Does he think maybe, he will round
    us all up and gas us?

    Maybe he would like to shoot us,
    after convicting us of the sins
    of the world?

    These holier then thou leftists are
    a perfect model of self-righteousness
    and hypocrisy.

    I wish I could say they did not come from Christianity, but of course they came from the Christian West, and they even came from a perversion of our ideals.

    As for his great heart of which he claims to boast – how else could he condemn anyone else for not caring about mass slaughters – I find that genuinely appalling.

    What did these guys do during Rwanda? They pulled out, denied it, then they moved it and aided the genocidists!

    What did they do about Sudan? Nothing.

    What about this recent Niger famine? Nothing.

    Why is it when you go into any American city you don’t see leftist homeless shelters and soup kitchens, but only Christian ones?

    If these guys are so full of global love, where is it?

    Or, remember how much they cared about the Afghan people? They threw this global protest? But, which of them protested the 10 year invasion of the Afghans by the Soviets in which some odd two million Afghans died?

    None of them.

    They do not even think about it today.

    And we were just trying to remove a noxious regime, the Taliban. Why support the Taliban? At what cost their souls? (Pretending they have souls for rhetorical purposes…)

    I would like to see a genocide these guys don’t support the genocidists for. In fact, if they use the word, expect them to use it as a way to slander the Christian or the Jew… just as the Nazis and Communists did before them.

    Two common traits to these bugs: slander and murder.

    First comes the slander… then comes the murder.

    But, thankfully, in America, we Christians are the majority. Today. Hope to God we remain this way.

  • Bored Jones

    “I would like to see a genocide these guys don’t support the genocidists for. In fact, if they use the word, expect them to use it as a way to slander the Christian or the Jew… just as the Nazis and Communists did before them.”

    Oh, though such idiots would be entirely ignorant of this, the exact word “genocide” was not used until near the end of the Second World War — but the Nazis were saying the Jews were responsible for mass slaughter, and this is a capital offense to the consciences of men… of course, the problem is, the Nazis were lying.

    Though, I hesitate to even add that correct, because these fools are interested not in facts, but in accusations… in accusations to justify the murderous hatred within their hearts.

    What a shame this site is listed as “news” within Google News. It is merely a propgandist font for anti-Christian hate.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The Christian religion has become so politicized that some people are now apparently mistaking it for another political party, believing it apt to sanctimoniously compare Christians to “leftists” as if traditional, secular displays of partisanship are not sufficiently insulting to the national intelligence.

  • gonzo marx

    this politicization of christianity is mostly the responsibility of the so called “moral majority” Gary Bauer, Falwell, Robertson and the like…that tossed their hats into the ring, and exhorted their congregations, in the 90’s in support of Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution”…

    since then, the only “face” of christianity in the MSM has been from fanatics such as they, with very extremist positions, and always screaming form the and for the GOP

    it has been only recently that some sane folks from a more mainstream viewpoint have begun speaking out, clearly stating that polemicists like the ones i mentioned do NOT represent all of christianity…

    a few decent lectures in the last few months had a catholic Priest, a Jesuit, a Rabbi(orthodox) and a Reverend….all talking together, discussing and debateing….very good stuff, and NOTHING like the exclusionary drivel that the pet GOP holy roller stooges have been spewing…

    reap what you sow and all that, i guess…

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior!

  • Balletshooz

    Great use of analogy. Some of those “preachers” on the Christian channel do alot of attacking themselves, so they cant complain too much when it is thrown back at them. I have heard such rhetoric from Robertson, for instance, that “Liberals are more of an enemy to the US than Osama Bin Laden”, which is quite extreme.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Look for even more sane folks who are sick and tired of being associated with the “Moral Majority” (which is not likely moral and definitely not a majority) to speak out.

    It’s really getting bad out here. You cannot even quote the profound and ageless wisdom of the Scriptures without being mistaken for one of those anachronisms.

    Doesn’t the so-called “Religious Right” realize that they’ve made spreading the Word (which they claim to hold so dear) into a hazardous endeavor?

  • Balletshooz

    I wish there were more of those organizations out there, like Jim Wallis is trying to promote, he speaks about things I dont know alot about but it makes alot of sense what he says and it has alot more impact when some of those biblical phrases are put in the right context and their real meaning revealed. Someone today said that Pat Robertson and the like would have been the ones that strung up Jesus had he been around today

  • gonzo marx

    i’ve said it before, and will say it again…the moneycyhangers and Pharisees run the “Temple” in our Nation today…

    more’s the Pity…

    Excelsior!

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    Bored Jones,

    Come back off the ledge now.

    I love Christians. Problem is, these days, I don’t see many. I see many professing to be Christian. I see lots of Christian imagery, but I dont see christianity.

    You assumed that I was not a Christian?

    Sorry Charlie, but the real Christians are the ones working for peace. Not war.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I have noted that when progressive Christians use the Scriptures to justify a position, they use whole passages in their proper context, while those folks who try use the Scriptures to promote bigotry and injustice always quote single verses out of context.

    There’s a message in there somewhere…

  • gonzo marx

    ooooh…ooOOOOoooh…i know the Message…

    even the Devil can quote Scripture…

    did i win?

    Excelsior!

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    Here is what Mark Twain said:

    ” A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can’t legally be a Christian and a patriot–except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. The spirit of Christianity proclaims the brotherhood of the race and the meaning of that strong word has not been left to guesswork, but made tremendously definite- the Christian must forgive his brother man all crimes he can imagine and commit, and all insults he can conceive and utter- forgive these injuries how many times?–seventy times seven–another way of saying there shall be no limit to this forgiveness. That is the spirit and the law of Christianity.

    “Well–Patriotism has its laws. And it also is a perfectly definite one, there are not vaguenesses about it. It commands that the brother over the border shall be sharply watched and brought to book every time he does us a hurt or offends us with an insult. Word it as softly as you please, the spirit of patriotism is the spirit of the dog and wolf. The moment there is a misunderstanding about a boundary line or a hamper of fish or some other squalid matter, see patriotism rise, and hear him split the universe with is war-whoop.

    “The spirit of patriotism being in its nature jealous and selfish, is just in man’s line, it comes natural to him- he can live up to all its requirements to the letter; but the spirit of Christianity is not in its entirety possible to him.

    “The prayers concealed in what I have been saying is, not that patriotism should cease and not that the talk about universal brotherhood should cease, but that the incongruous firm be dissolved and each limb of it be required to transact business by itself, for the future.”

    – Mark Twain’s Notebook

  • alethinos59

    The problem with the Christian Right is that is has been, as mentioned already, so politicized that it is no longer recognizable as an actual “faith”. Rather it is a goose-stepping marching cadence rattled off by all those who KNOW what is WRONG with everyone else. They use all sorts of standard political tactics too – ones cleverly used decades before by those on the Left. “We’re the persecuted one! Everyone’s attacking us!”

    The reason you have the rest of us up in arms is because like most humans we can smell bullshit a mile off. We know you are “concerned” for anything other than ramming your narrow dogma down everyone’s throat.

    I don’t like many of the things that these supposedly “Christian” folk don’t either. But I recognize that we live in a vast, multi-layered country and that this ISN’T going to change no matter how hard we squeeze our eyes shut, click our heels and chant, “there’s no place like Little House on the Prairie!”

    If you want to change the country for the better then I suggest you do what I try and do daily – live a life Jesus would appreciate and lovingly, kindly and patiently, WITH NO HINT OF MORAL SUPERIORITY – because I sure as hell don’t qualify for a halo either – teach others the basics of spirituality. Which is the core of Jesus’ message – the Sermon on the Mount. The Golden Rule. And above all the EXAMPLE of HIS LIFE.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “which of them protested the 10 year invasion of the Afghans by the Soviets in which some odd two million Afghans died?”

    you mean all we had to do was protest and the Soviets would have stopped their ways? Why didn’t you say something sooner? Kind of makes the whole Cold War look foolish.

  • Nancy

    What IS the difference between evangelicals, fundamentalists, & other christians (comment #2), & why won’t they support each other? I thought they were all on the side of the religious reich? They all sound & act alike as far as I can tell….

    Gandhi said it well: “christianity seems like a fine religion…if only somone would practice it.”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As I understand it the basic difference between the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist is that the first refers to the focus of the church and the second refers to their perspective on the Bible. Evangelicals believe in expanding church membership through recruitment, ‘witnessing’ and missionary work. Fundamentalists believe in a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. So, you can have Evangelicals who aren’t Fundamentalists and Fundamentalists who aren’t Evangelical. However, in practice there tend to be a lot of churches which are both, because the same people are attracted to both movements in many cases. To make it more complex there’s also the Charismatic movement which is a kind of mystical christianity which also appeals to a lot of the same people as Fundamentalis and Evangelism, although it is by nature sort of inherently opposed to both of those movements, since its focus is on direct, spiritual comminication with God unhindered by much in the way of actual scripture or church organization. Charismatic christianity has a lot of the characteristics of a cult.

    Now, these three broad categories are entirely separate from the actual organized Christian sects like the Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans whose members may also be Evangelicals, Fundamentalists or Charismatics, or maybe not any of the above.

    Sometimes the churches help us out by putting something in their name which tells us what their orientation is. For example, if the word ‘bible’ or ‘word’ appears in the church’s name, it’s probably a Fundamentalist church. If the word ‘primitive’ is in the name it’s probably a Charismatic church. Another tell-tale sign is size. If a church is absolutely huge and/or has a broadcast studio, but is not clearly affiliated with any major religious sect, then it’s likely to be an Evangelical church of some sort.

    Does that help?

    I can give you an anecdotal example of what makes a Charismatic/Evangelical church special. When our local giant charismatic evangelical church decided to move its church/studio from Austin to Houston, over 3000 members of the congregation either moved with it and got new jobs in Houston, or committed to commute 6 hours every Sunday to attend all-day services. IMO that sounds more like a cult than a church to me.

    Dave

  • http://pewview.mu.nu Warren

    Nancy,

    ORIGINALLY fundamentalists were a reaction against theological liberalism. Many modern fundies would have never had anything to do with many of the people who founded the movement — and those people wouldn’t recognize fundamentalism today.

    Evangelicals are more willing to work with people (in spite of what you may have heard or experienced — I’m speaking in general) than fundamentalists. The biggest difference is how each group treats separation from “unbelievers.” Fundamentalists tend to wall themselves up, while evangelicals (for the most part) do not. Even more conservative evangelicals are often willing to work with people of other denominations on some projects (EVangelicals and Catholics Together, for example) — especially in political or moral issues where they agree.

    I’ve gone into more detail about this on my blog — check out these posts in particular:

    — this one talks about what a fundamentalist SHOULD be (historically) rather than what it has become.

  • http://pewview.mu.nu Warren

    Sorry — the urls didn’t show up.

    First one and Second one

    Dave: Fundamentalists are the original “mega church” people. Jack Hyles in Hammond Indiana was a big wheel in hyper-fundyism (what many of us have taken to calling IFBx, for Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Extreme). Ran busses everywhere in the area. HUGE numbers — in fact, numbers were all that mattered. That has changed, since some major scandals took him and his son out of power pretty quickly. Evangelism is one thing that evangelicals and fundamentalists have in common. High regard for the inspiration of Scripture is another.

  • Nancy

    Many thanks to both of you. BTW, all these christian (?) churches I see w/names like “Holiness” this or “Bretheren” that … are they considered protestant, or what? They aren’t catholic, obviously. Do they even come under that broad category?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Warren: From what I see around here there’s a real divide between small church fundamentalists and big church fundamentalists. The small churchers tend to be much more conservative in their adherence to scripture and the big churchers while still conservative place much more emphasis on evangelism and less emphasis on scriptural literacy as an end in itself.

    Nancy: Everything that’s not Catholic or some sort of Orthodox is protestant, And if it says Holiness or Brethren it’s probably something pretty far out in charismatic land.

    Dave

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Every church* falls into one of four categories: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Lutheran. Many Protestant churches don’t even know about their heritage, however.

    “Holiness” and “Brethren” are almost certainly Protestant, and usually “Holiness” tends to suggest a subset of Pentecostals.

    There is a lot of overlap between evangelicals and fundamentalists, and both words have been warped since their inception. Once upon a time, both would have been good things to be, in my view. These days I generally battle (graciously) against fundamentalists and am only sometimes willing to be lumped in with evangelicals.

    * I’m sure someone will claim to be an exception, but they’re likely wrong.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’d say three categories or maybe two. If you’re going to throw the Episcopal/Anglican churches in with the Protestants then you have to throw the Lutherans in there too. Neither are Calvinists, but they’re still protestants. And for most practical purposes you can lump the Catholics and all the loony orthodox churches together. To me one of the most interesting recent religious developments is the proliferation of crazy new sects of orthodoxy.

    Dave

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    This is really getting to be serious insider talk!

    Technically, the Anglicans are Calvinist, actually. The 39 Articles affirm four-point Calvinism, stopping short of only double predestination. Cranmer was a five-pointer himself, but had to satisfy royalty, and so gave up a point.

    Lutherans pre-date Protestantism by a little bit, which is why I treat them separately. Realistically, those two could be collapsed without bothering anybody but Lutherans.

    Conflating the Roman and Orthodox churches strikes me as a notably Western-centric view. :-)

  • http://pewview.mu.nu Warren

    Dave — if the church doesn’t believe in inerrancy of Scripture, then it’s not fundamentalist. That was the major issue that the original fundamentalists separated over — liberal theology was dead set against it. Without that fundamental, it’s not in the group/sect/whatever.

    And I know some great churches that aren’t strong on that particular doctrine. They aren’t fundamentalist churches.

    Part of the problem in the whole issue is that people have started calling any religious group they don’t like “fundamentalists.” That has lead a lot of people who are historic fundamentalists to give up the use of the name.

    Some interesting discussion is going on over at http://www.sharperiron.org/. Phillip, your buddy Phil Johnson posts over there — maybe you should go over and say Hi! (lol) I know he’d like to see some of the BHT folks over there ;-)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Conflating the Roman and Orthodox churches strikes me as a notably Western-centric view. :-)<<

    Close enough for me. They recognize each other as being sister churches, the patriarchs accept the Pope and the pope accepts them and there’s a certain reciprocity on policies and the like.

    Dave

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Have any of the commenters who make all the generalizations about various Christians ever attended the local congregations of these denominations, visited with the folks, learned of their lives, their pains, their goals, their work?

    To generalize from what you read in the paper or hear on blogs about the folks in the pews is pretty sad.

    Take us one at a time. Some are solid wonderful people. Some aren’t. Just like those in other religions and no relgion. Some are claiming to be Chrisitians and aren’t. Surprise. Some are rank hypocrites. Some are doing there very best to follow Jesus.

    In other words, those in the church are as different as those outside. I would argue and have begun a series of posts on this at my blog, that there are many practical advantages to Christianity. But I know some wonderful atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Muslims. One of the nicest guys I’ve ever run into was a Buddhist in Taiwan.

    So, maybe, some folks who come here would like to consider that Fundies or members of the Christian Right or evangelicals are no more deserving of offensive stereotyping than are folks of various colors, sexes, or countries of origin.

  • http://pewview.mu.nu Warren

    Randy —

    My own background is VERY fundamentalist. I grew up in a church whose pastor is now the editor of The Sword of the Lord (THE fundy newspaper for one major ‘camp’ of fundamentalists). I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist as most define the term, though I do hold to all of the fundamentals of the faith as set forward by the folks who started the movement in the early 1900s.

    I know more about the inherent infighting among the different fundamentalist camps than I really ever wanted to. I laugh every time someone calls Pat Robertson a fundamentalist (he never was, and most fundamentalists can’t stand him). There are so many different brands and camps of fundamentalism that you cannot simply call someone a fundamentalist and really do justice to what they really believe.

    NOW, of course, I’m a conservative evangelical. More precisely, I’m a student at Southern Seminary — home of Al Mohler (who was my systematic theology teacher for the last two semesters). So I see the whole discussion from both sides — the hardcore fundamentalist side, and the conservative evangelical side (which has been disowned by most fundamentalists).

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    When one is in leadership, one gets to see the garbage. And the leadership in Christian organizations and even little churches fight the same powerful urges of leaders everywhere. I have face grave disappointment at some of the leaders that I have trusted.

    However, within those imperfect lives there has generally been a true heart for Jesus. Kind of reminds one of David. What the folks who want to paint all fundies one way or another fail to do is the same things all bigots fail to do. Know the folks.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Yes Randy, I’ve been to all sorts of churches, many as part of my campaign for State Representative. They’re generally full of nice people. You may have missed it, but my explanation of various sects and types of Christianity didn’t paint any of them in a negative light. But on the other hand, nice people do get carried away from time to time when given bad advice and being told it comes from God.

    Dave

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    I sure wasn’t talking about anything you’ve said in this thread Dave. I went back to recheck. You made a couple of broad brush statements, but it seemed empathetic, like good sociology or anthro should be. I only use the bigot card for those who want to paint with that brush and demonize the folks.

  • gonzo marx

    so would that count statements like “the Looney Left” , Randy?

    pot…kettle

    with that said, i will reiterate…i rarely have problems with individuals..it is the organized churches, the false prophets of money hungry clergy, the power trippers with deliberate deceit,authoritarian dogmatists and the “leaders” of some of these “movements”, who seek only to impose their will at the expese of INdividual Rights….those i will always oppose…

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Glad to see you recognize the ‘looney left’ as the equivalent of a religious cult, gonzo.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    oh Mr Nalle…have i not denigrated ALL kinds of extremeism?

    as far “left” as i care for might be best exemplified in some of the Scandanavian countries…socialized governmental services, but health capitalism for the private sectors…

    not advocating it for anywhere else, but it seems to work for them well enough

    same with the “Right wingnuts”…taken too far, you also get into totalitarianism, but fascist style rather than “communist” style…

    i prefer things closer to the middle..with plenty of flexibility ad wiggle room for both sides…

    but then again, you know how much of a Jeffersonian i am…Franklin too

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Me too, Gonzo. However, even those leaders need understanding. You probably include Dobson in that group, and I believe that he may be the closest thing to David in this generation, except he is beyond reproach in his personal life, professional life, and even the financial way he runs Focus.

    The loony left only describes those on the left who are loony. Most of them. (Just kidding.)

  • gonzo marx

    Dobson?..omfg….

    i have heard his hate speech, seen his televangelism, read some of his work and watched him in horror on the news shows…

    he i place with the Mark of the Beast, my observations of him thus farwould make me state that he never wants to be within arms reach of me

    time to leave that “man” be…not good for my blood pressure…

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Just for fun and for a limited excursion. Name one thing he has said that you would call hate speach. Make sure he said it. Make sure it was in context, and not distorted by the MSM.

  • gonzo marx

    sorry…not fun for me

    i’ve never heardhim quoted by anyone, just goping by my own opinions from seeing him speak and on the chat shows

    and i have no desire to wallow in his shit looking for quotes

    just my own opinion on the matter

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Name one thing he [Dobson] has said that you would call hate speach.

    oh God, where to begin?

    He assaults families like mine in the media by saying that the foundation of our family is a dysfunctional relationship. He contributes to the high suicide rate of gay and lesbian youth by insinuating that the horrors they go through at the hands of extremists like himself are all their own choice.

    The constant assault on our community leads to low self esteem which results in higher drug use, higher rates of dangerous behavior like promiscuity which he then blames us for.

    I could go on, volumes that this man says and writes that attacks my family and treads on our civil rights by reinforcing outdated and proven false stereotypes, it just goes on and on.

    But the biggest hate speech of all that he promotes is that the recognition of loving relationships like those we have with our daughter will destroy the family foundation of America. That’s right, his publicly stated hate speech geared against young children preschool age like my own daughter causes all sorts of irrepairable damage to these innocent children as he says publicly that loving families like ours will destroy civilization.

    The man is evil and Godless. NO Christianity there.

  • gonzo marx

    w00t, heyas Steve…long time no viddy, little droogie

    glad to see i’m not the only one with this viewpoint of the man..

    objects in mirror are closer than they appear

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Steve,

    I’m a little late. Don’t know what the relationship is that you are describing. I could try and guess, but that might lead to all kinds of problems.

    Please, however, define hate?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Randy, my partner and I are raising a daughter. We seek the same protections, rights, privileges and benefits that you take for granted. Dr. Dobson says publicly that families like mine must not get these protections or the entire family foundation as YOU know it will crumble and civilization will be destroyed.

    That is hate speech along the same principles of Hitler. He demonizes his ‘opponent’. He portrays us as dysfunctional and counter to Life itself. It’s hate and it’s evil and believe me, IT IS HARMFUL. It does NOT follow the tenets of Jesus.

    But it does keep the coffers full apparently.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Where to start. Dobson takes no money from the ministry and has been independently wealthy from his early career, books, and seminars. Even royalties from his books sold by the ministry go to the ministry.

    The board of directors of the ministry who manage the financial aspects are a model for charities inside and outside the church. The % of funds used for fundraising is one of the lowest among all charities.

    So, while I know that the subject he deals with may not agree with you, it would be better for you and others who dislike Dobson or Focus to stick with the issues and not make rash observations that take away from your core arguments.

    Now to the issue that actually troubles you.

    I think part of my problem with the rhetoric in this area has to do with the use of hate and phobia. You and I may have even discussed this when I first came to BC, though I’m not certain.

    I think if you did an honest read of Dobson’s work, and listened to the heart of the man, you would not conclude that he hates you or your family in any way, shape or form.

    But I will agree that he does not favor your family form, believes it is disfunctional, and that, for you and your daughter it is not the best possible arrangement. That for society in general, it is not the best long term. That falls far short of hate.

    For instance, some child specialists believe that spanking a child is horrible and will have terrible results for that child. I would never suspect that person of hating families who spank their kids.

    When my daughter was a grad student at CSUSD in Social Welfare, one of her teachers said something like “Those Christian types usually spank their kids.” I was offended that she said what she said with disdain, as was my daughter. I didn’t count her as a hater. But I did see her as someone who had a warped view of the world, and who was teaching in an inappropriate manner. I also felt that her teaching could lead to inappropriate behavior on the part of her students in the future. Maybe even hurtful behavior.

    Dobson’s words, while very carefully chosen, and I have listened to him define words, backfill, and elaborate to be sure he isn’t misunderstood in areas like this that require great sensitivity, could never-the-less be used by others for hateful results. No question. But that doesn’t make him a hater. Doesn’t mean that he intended his words for that purpose, or was even negligent in using his words. It only means that this is a very difficult area where many folks have very strong feelings.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Randy, I will have to get back to this later with more detail but two things:

    First I never said he was a hater, so that negates half of your reply. You asked for hate speech, not for evidence of hate. The difference is monumental.

    Secondly, the public and repeated comparison of my loving family to the destruction of civilization is a far cry from a swat on the butt to a disobedient child.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Appreciate the distinction on point one.

    Not so big a distinction on point two. The UN has addressed spanking and attempted to outlaw it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Randy, when someone cannot get spousal benefits, or automatic transfer of property (protection against predatory family members who do not recognize the relationship), or hospital visitation rights, or a myriad of other issues because they spanked a child then get back to me on that one. Until then, it is INSULTING to compare all that gay couples go through to the negligable disdain that some people have over spanking. The UN can’t outlaw anything, however our rights are CURRENTLY denied.

    Loving gay Christians have their children ripped from them in a court of law by judges who set judicial rule aside and offer personal opinion on the immorality of the gay person (google Sharon Bottoms or “idaho gay dad loses custody”). There is NO comparison to spanking. It is downright insulting to us to even suggest otherwise.

    And as for studies that ‘prove’ children fare better in heterosexual parenting relationships, what are those compared against? It is skewed data to further an agenda and it slams and harms single parents as well as gay parents. Nowhere in this Christian movement is there any mention of a loving relationship, the indication is clear that Dr. Dobson and his ilk believe that a heterosexual relationship devoid of love and possibly including emotional neglect and abuse is preferable to the love of a gay couple.

    It’s to further an agenda, it’s as plain as the nose on your face and it’s evil. Period.

    This concept that only a man can teach this or that, and that only a woman can provide this or that (things like discipline or nurturing, etc.) is completely laughable. Only if you want your children to grow up thinking that women should wear dresses, be demure and tend to their man’s needs do we need to reinforce these outdated stereotypes in our children.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m not sure Dobson is full of actual hate. It’s more of a callous moral fascism which is insensitive to the humanity of those who don’t share his beliefs and is grounded in the assumption of divine righteousness which makes it acceptable to try to impose his beleifs on anyone regardless of their faith or lifestyle.

    I believe in his right to hold those beliefs and live the way that he wants, but when it starts to mess with our freedoms and the proper functioning of our government and our businesses it’s gone too far, and Dobson’s primary mission is to cram his moral fascism down the throats of the unwilling and thus reduce their freedom, and that’s not acceptable in our society, even if it’s done for their own good as he sees it.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    and for that comment, Mr Nalle gets today’s cookie…

    mark it on yer calendars , kiddies..

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I agree Dave. I also want to restate that I never said his motivation is hate. I don’t think it is. However he does demonize the innocent for political gain. His tactics are evil. Doesn’t mean he hates though.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors and tracks hate groups, lists the Alliance Defense Fund as a hate group. This group was co-founded by Dobson and is considered as hate filled as the Klan.

    source

    On the same page, it also lists the American Family Association, again founded and run by Dobson, as a hate group.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Since it was unclear whether you intended for me to continue past the page you sourced, and the subject changed to reconstruction views, I didn’t go on. Let me know if I should have.

    Dobson was the main source of funds and pressure to start the Alliance Defense Fund. However, if you do even a minute of research, you will find that the motivation for that was to counter the ACLU on many, many fronts.

    I don’t believe that Dobson has any investment in AFA, other than supporting some of their boycotts and generally agreeing with their thinking. I had some involvement with AFA back in the early 90’s when I was attemting to increase purity among our young with a book I wrote, radio interviews, TV interviews, lectures, etc. The Wildman’s are a bit over the top at times, but they are extremely nice people.

    Once again, we agree so far that Focus, and I would extend that to include the other groups, are not haters and not hate groups. The group you offer as stating that they are is not one that I have any respect for, but that would be an entire new thread.

    If what they are doing is hate speach, then we need to define hate speech, as compared to speech which states a point of view which you may not like, but that is their heartfelt belief.

    And, just for the record, but you and I spent a bit of time on this before, I don’t hate gays, and have or have had friends and employees who are gay. But I have grave concerns for where we are headed as a society when it comes to any sex outside of marriage, I realize the box that puts you in. I’m not sure how to resolve it.

    This issue is very, very hard to talk about, because it is so sensitive for everyone on every side of it. For the most part in the past, you have been pretty willing to hear me on this without turning it ugly. I really appreciated it. Maybe there is room for both of us and others on this thread to grow if we can keep it civil.

  • gonzo marx

    civil, eh?

    simplicity itself…

    are you willing to recognize that Steve, and others like him deserve the same recognition of Rights when it comes to their comitted relationship?

    simply put, can he enjoy the same priveledges and responsibilities of being “married” to his partner?

    you know..visitation in a hospital, beneficiary of benefits, custody of his children…

    on and on

    that’s what it’s about…Dobson and those like him say no…they believe thay have the authority to dey some folks the right to enter into a legally recognized committed relationship

    how about you?

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Actually, Gonzo, my recollection, and I’m pretty sure I’m right on this, is that those issues can be settled by contract in most states. I think that at least Dobson has said that is his position. Don’t know about the Wildman’s. Don’t follow them that closely.

    Next.

  • gonzo marx

    i asked you your position…i’ve heard Dobson’s

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>On the same page, it also lists the American Family Association, again founded and run by Dobson, as a hate group.<<

    I’m pretty sure this group was founded and is run by Donald Wildmon. I used to subscribe to their newsletter to keep tabs on the enemy, as they were publishing articles by my nemesis Prof. Marvin Olasky of the UT Journalism Department. Hmmm I wonder if I can dig up my old articles on Olasky for BC….

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    You know, we Ould Scotts would find the idea of a Randy Kirk quite amusing, though my Presbyterian Granny would not have approved.

    Dave

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Dave, thats a real hoot. I know the meaning of both my names, but had never thought about the combination before.

    When I married my wife, she had two daughters. I adopted them. One of them became Christian Kirk.

    Gonzo. With regard to those three, I would have no problem with any two or more individuals entering into a contract with regard to how they handled those three issues.

    And, quite frankly, I don’t have a problem with company’s offering health insurance benefits to couples who choose to call themselves couples for this purpose. But I think it should be the company’s decision, not any government’s decision whether to offer such benefits. I also think the company can choose to call Baloney, Baloney. So, if I have a roomate, and that’s what it is, they can’t be on my policy. If my mom moves in with me, she doesn’t get to go on the policy. Unless the company decides they are willing to do all of those things.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I think almost any insurance company would let you put your mom on your policy already. The question you raise is whether it’s the insurance company or the customer who should be allowed to establish the definition of family.

    If I choose to move in with the nice old lady who lived next door to me when I was growing up and take care of her in her old age because she has no family, can I count her as a dependent and put her on my insurance? Legally I can if I am assigned guardianship by a court, and insurance companies should recognize this as the equivalent of a family relationship in the same way you can put your adopted kids on your insurance.

    So what if I have two adopted kids and a stay at home same-sex nanny who takes care of them as their primary job and is therefore my dependent. Shouldn’t I be able to insure them as part of my household just like the adopted kids? Seems reasonable to me.

    Dave

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    If the employer is ok with that. I am to. Just don’t force me, as an employer, to offer that coverage.

    And Steve, in general, I am more concerned with heterosexual, casual living together arrangements, than with committed homosexual ones.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Randy, most states consider heterosexual ‘living together’ relationships to be the legal equivalent of marriage if they continue for a specified period of time, or if living expenses and bills are shared. This is what’s called ‘common law’ marriage, and those in this state are entitled to insurance benefits under state law in almost every state.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Since it was unclear whether you intended for me to continue past the page you sourced, and the subject changed to reconstruction views, I didn’t go on. Let me know if I should have.

    it is odd that I was under the impression that Dobson had much to do with the AFA. However, if you did go on, you would see that Focus on the Family is also tracked as a hate group.

    This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Dobson:

    As early as 1989, Dobson came under attack from a fellow conservative evangelical, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who accused him of “reprehensible” and “homophobic” use of false information about how AIDS is transmitted.

    Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF’s Web site is a Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: “Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them.” Another article claims that “the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids.”

    THAT is hate speech, Randy. Putting out misinformation and demonizing us. The last thing we want is your kids, we want civil rights for OUR kids. Dobson is evil and whether he feels hate in his heart or not is moot as he certainly has no problem demonizing us with slanderous AND FALSE hate speech. This inflicts harm on our community and our children and prevents us from getting the equality that the very principles of America would bestow upon us.

    If what they are doing is hate speach, then we need to define hate speech, as compared to speech which states a point of view which you may not like, but that is their heartfelt belief.

    Hate speech is demonizing the opponent and using falsehood. Both the demonizing and using misinformation is Dobson’s speciality. That is hate speech.

    But I have grave concerns for where we are headed as a society when it comes to any sex outside of marriage, I realize the box that puts you in. I’m not sure how to resolve it.

    You had asked for examples of hate speech from Dobson, so I gave it from my point of view which of course brings it around to same-sex marriage. Should you wish to abandon that train of thought we can go with this statement of yours and apply it to heterosexual society as well. You have concerns for society and think that sex outside of marriage causes problems.

    1) what does that have to do with the definition of family?
    2) why does my daughter not get the protections from the government yours does when you have no idea whether I am having sex or not?

    So what you are saying is that sex is the definition of marriage to you. Not love, not family foundation, but vaginal penetration?

    And Steve, in general, I am more concerned with heterosexual, casual living together arrangements, than with committed homosexual ones.

    I understand, but in my quest for my families civil liberties I have to force you to think about it. I have to put the debate on the table. We have to wade through the muck and the prejudice so we can get beyond it.

    As far as setting up contracts to get what marriage gives, yes that can be done, and when you consider that there are 1,000 federal rights/benefits and privileges and 700+ state rights, benefits and privileges, you are talking about an addition expense of over 100k for gay couples to get what you get automatically.

    Loan me the money and I will shut up, until then I will hold all supporters of Dobson accountable for the hate speech and will not shut up.

  • gonzo marx

    and here we find the nut of the matter…

    Randy sez..
    * Just don’t force me, as an employer, to offer that coverage.*

    spoken like a true segregationalist..who also quoted the Bible for justification when he claimed he didn’t care that blacks were free, as long as they didn’t try and eat at his lunch counter…

    or the ones that said they had no problem with women in the workplace, as long as they weren’t forced to hire them…

    on and on

    intolerance, an abrogation of “the pursuit of Happiness”…all these folks are asking is for the same Rights and Responsibilities as everyone else, NOT anything “new”…just Equal

    why is this so hard for some folks to comprehend?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.bobbogdal.com Bob Bogdal

    All the things I have read in here seem relevant, but the bottom line really is that fundamentalism of Christainity as well as any other religion or viewpoint is dangerous. I am a Christian and I can say with full confidence that our extremist right wing and their fundamental attitude is just as dangerous as the Taliban or any other extremist group. As a Christian I believe it is my duty to embrace everyone, include everyone , respect everyone and yes tolerate everyone. that does not mean I won’t call you on something as I see it, it just means I appreciate and respect your being as a person sharing this planet with me. I side with love and caring over pointing the finger at behaviour that does not meet my religions standards. Christ did not die to leave anyone else as boss. So all these people that claim they are doing what Christ wants are truly fooling themselves. The man himself said in the end times you will be better off praying in your closet alone than going to a church , why? because all the church’s of the world are misguided by the hands of mans need to control other beings.

  • gonzo marx

    Bob in comment #66 gets today’s cookie!!

    well said!

    /golfclap

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    I still think an employer should be able to hire whomever he wants, pay what he wants, give the benefits he chooses to, etc. The market will eventually decide if he is a winner or a loser.

    Having said that, I hope it is clear that I am sensitive to the fact that there are folks who have been and are being stepped on.

    For the moment, lets return to Dobson. He has written upteen books, is on the radio 1/2 per day 5 days per week for 25 years, and has 1000’s of additional appearances and writings to look through. If you had that much public material on you, I’m sure we could find a statement to impeach you on for every subject matter under the sun.

    Specifically, there is a big difference between what you want for you Steve, and the homosexual agenda as defined by Dobson. Again, in context you will see that this includes such things as lowering the age of accountability to 12 or even less, explicitly teaching homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality in the early grades, and gay marriage.

    My claim is that it is not hate or phobia (fear) to state that you don’t agree with these changes in our society. And it isn’t hate to demonize groups who have held outrageous parades in our cities or done despicable things in our houses of worship.

    Sure, it is easy to say that homosexuals needed to get our attention by doing these things, but it was not a great way to get our attention. It gave credibility to the stereotypes. And folks that act like terrorists do induce fear. It is the leadership and some of the groups that we are talking about, not the individual.

    Sex does not define marriage. That is an illogical corallary to the statement that sex outside of marriage is an issue about which I am passionately concerned.

    At the core, I believe that society will do best on a foundation of families containing two parents, one of each sex, who commit to one another for life, and have sex only with one another after marriage.

    Sure. That is a panacea. It will never happen. But I believe it is ideal. To the extent that we legislate away from that ideal, as we have been doing for 50 years, we will destroy more and more of those ideal families. And, by so doing, do harm to our foundations as a society.

    Thiry years from now I may be proven wrong, or those who think we can just have casual sex with whoever, whenever, make and break up families based on mood swings, and create families out of whatever groups feel like calling themselves a family may turn out to be wrong. But, if the second group is wrong, it will be way too late to turn back.

    Within that context, there have to be ways to work stuff out for those like you Steve. There have always been some who go on a different path and do just fine. To the extent that they do, there may be prices to pay in money, inconvenience, and even ridicule. You could be a Scientologist, be extremely overweight, or a member of the Green party. Each of these will create inconvenience, set you up for ridicule, and may even have a financial cost. Each may wish to reduce those negatives. More power to them. But if their attempt to do so infringes on my rights, then don’t be surprised if I fight to keep my rights.

  • gonzo marx

    so now, according to Randy and some others…Jim Crowe wears pink triangles

    faaAAAAaaaaabulous…

    me..i’ll go for equal Rights under the Law

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Specifically, there is a big difference between what you want for you Steve, and the homosexual agenda as defined by Dobson.

    well of course, Randy. Letting Dobson define what WE want is like letting Satan define what YOU want. I guess if the one is acceptable so is the other.

    And it isn’t hate to demonize groups who have held outrageous parades

    it isn’t hate to demonize parade-goers? Sorry, Randy, I do not feel you have a firm grip on reality. I mean that with all sincerity and best wishes. What’s next, it’s okay to demonize county fair goers?

    The parades are NOT an attempt to get you to notice us. It is an attempt to celebrate diversity and to be proud of ourselves in a world filled with such Christian hate.

    It is the leadership and some of the groups that we are talking about, not the individual.

    As it is with me talking about Dobson and not Betty Sue in the back pew.

    Thiry years from now I may be proven wrong, or those who think we can just have casual sex with whoever, whenever, make and break up families based on mood swings, and create families out of whatever groups feel like calling themselves a family may turn out to be wrong. But, if the second group is wrong, it will be way too late to turn back.

    Randy, this shows me that you are incapable of seeing the other side. I’m not talking about agreeing with the other side, I’m talking about SEEING it. So TO YOU, the ‘other side’ that you lump ME in with, is all about breaking up based on mood swings and calling groups families based on ‘if we feel like it’. Downright insulting.

    To me vows are sacred, and having been in a relationship for 18 years, I’ve been through more than my share of mood swings and we are still faithful and monogamous. You just don’t get it, Randy, you are incapable of even acknowledging that there are alternative viewpoints and orientations out there. And as such, there is no point in debating or trying to compromise. Rather the tactic of trying to squash your faith back into a darkened corner is the only option you present to us. So be it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    as far as the parades go, if people look at those parades and fear what they see, I can only say this:

    Obviously, nobody goes to work dressed in those uniforms/outfits. Parades, whether it is the Macy’s parade or the Irish St. Patty’s parade or whatever is about exaggeration. Our parades are about celebrating sexual diversity, which is NOT a choice. So our outfits are exaggerated accordingly. Don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    Nobody is advocating wearing those outfits in ‘real life’. You have to understand what a parade is all about. We are celebrating diversity in an exaggerated form in an intolerant world.

    If anybody truly things that we want to wear sparkly rainbow hair and thongs and stuff to work and/or in our daily lives, oh please, you do not have enough sanity to be left unsupervised in public. I’m just sayin.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Steve,

    You are so completely wrong. And I think you are seeing my comment through the prism of what you’re expecting to see.

    What percentage of homosexual relationships do you think are like that of you and your partner? Do you really think that if all or even the vast majority were like that, anyone would be paying attention?

    It isn’t the parade attenders. It was those who were dancing naked and doing unacceptable things in public on the floats. That’s what I mean by the prism you are viewing my statements through.

    Same thing with Dobson. No one is equating you with the list of things I stated unless you are. I am trying to show you that the rest of us end up lumping others together when there is outrageous behavior that isn’t condemned by those in the group that aren’t outrageous.

    Like the Muslim Extremists. Everyone is waiting for the moderates to say NOOOOOOO! One idiot Jew goes crazy in Israel and the whole nation goes – HE DOESN’T SPEAK FOR US.

    Dobson does speak for us and he is extremely moderate. To give you another example of our earlier discussion. He got in far more trouble for saying it was ok to spank 2 year olds than he has over anything he has ever said about homosexuals.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I see the gay pride parades and the attempts of people like Dobson to promote the ‘National Day of Prayer’ as being essentially similar. Any thoughts?

    Dave

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    I may be dense, but maybe if you splained it better Dave.

  • gonzo marx

    “Dobson does speak for us”…sez Randy

    now, read what you wrote about those folks and that parade, but flip the script and place “fundies” in there…

    and you folks bitch when you get lumped together

    after your bit about Dobson speaking for you, i have no more Laughter for the matter…thanks for the Reminder…

    “know your Enemy”

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    My point was exactly that, Gonzo.

    Just for fun, say Dobson in all of his public musings, said something really dumb, really outrageous, even more outrageous than its ok to spank a 2 year old. It wouldn’t destroy the vast work of his lifetime.

    But Gay Pride parades have been consistently X rated, which can’t be seen as a moral equivilent. And the folks who run Act UP can’t be shown to have a vast work of good to offset their terrorist acts.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    What’s to explain? Gay Pride marches are at least in part an effort to confront the general public with homosexuality and make them acknowledge and accept it. The National Day of Prayer and other Dobson programs are a similar effort to insert Christianity into daily life and force people to acknowledge and accpet it.

    Dave

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    The First National Day of Prayer was established in 1775. More evidence of ff intent. Dobson’s wife just agreed to head it up. It isn’t a Focus idea or project.

  • gonzo marx

    and who just used the word “terrorist” ??

    excuse me…have they strapped bombs to their bodies and blown anybody up?

    please define “terrorist”

    is it like burning young girls alive at the stake?

    utilizing hyperbole like refferring to activists as “terrorists” is a bit over the top..and just confirms my observations

    now i will gladly stand corrected if anyone can show me that this particualr group, whom i am unfamiliar with, can be defined as a “terrorist” group

    but i was serious about the burning of young girls

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    What percentage of homosexual relationships do you think are like that of you and your partner? Do you really think that if all or even the vast majority were like that, anyone would be paying attention?

    Randy, the number of relationships like mine is low BECAUSE of the societal pressure to NOT have relationships. Duh. When you can, as a gay teen, get kicked out of your home, sent to a Christian reeducation camp against your will, when you can face glass ceilings in corporations (although less so as time goes by), when you face ostracization and when your relationships do not get the societal recognition and protection then of course it all gets internalized and the relationships crumble.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that societal condemnation of something has a negative effect on that thing.

    It’s easier for two men to couple and then part ways than it is to face adversity like I do. Doesn’t make it all right though.

    It isn’t the parade attenders. It was those who were dancing naked and doing unacceptable things in public on the floats.

    They are free to be themselves. There are a great many of us, myself included, who would trade our parades for civil rights marches in a heart beat, but our community is diverse. Not everybody wants to settle down, not everybody wants what I want, just like not every heterosexual wants to live by your standards either. They will be themselves and they will celebrate THEIR diversity and that’s really what it’s all about. Tolerance and an exaggerated form of celebration.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    It’s our mardi gras. We’re just better at it.

  • gonzo marx

    Steve, the crux of the difficulty seems to be distinguising between individuals and personal Responsibility, and stereotyping behaviour that isnot understood

    typical of bigots

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Gonzo,

    Terrorism like spreading human blood on church pews or AID infected saliva on the doornobs of legislators.

    Steve, your hypothesis is potentially valid, but totally unproven. I suppose we will start to get stats out of Canada or European countries. I think I’ve read where there has been very few folks getting married where it is possible.

    We’ve already traveled a few months ago over the subject matter regarding natural propensities of males, and how that does play out now in the gay community. It might change under other circumstances. We just don’t know.

    And surely you understand that the in your face approach creates fear and loathing.

  • gonzo marx

    source please…police report would be nice…

    otherwise it’s not any kind of fact

    and still, mraises the level rto criminal, but terrorist?

    more hyperbole from bigots…we will see how factual the allegations are

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Its from 10 years ago. National Cathedral in New York City. I think it was a California Congressman. I wouldn’t even know how to Google it. It was major news at the time. Knowing how erudite you are, I just thought it would be common knowledge.

    I’ll try Googling Act Up.

  • gonzo marx

    even if true…it would be like the fundies that shoot abortion doctors…and isolated incident of criminals that shouold be held accountable to the Law…

    but neither example typifies the rest of the “group” …do they?

    as i stated, it is typical of bigots to stereotype , by definition

    deal with it

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    No. Act up counts itself as one of the most influential actors on the world stage today, with offices across the world. I think they have moderated their behavior. They were the ones who broke through security at the R National convention. See their website.

    So. No. Not isolated. But apparently toned down to illeagle, instead of terror.

  • gonzo marx

    so by that logic, we can paint the KKK as representative of all fundamentalists?

    they claim to represent all white christians, and tey have a website too!

    spare me the bullshit, and realize that people are individuals and not “types”…then deal with them as such

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    I condemn all aspects of the KKK, unaquivically. Now you and Steve condemn all aspects of Act Up and the public displays of those on the gay parade floats. I also condemn the guy who blew up the abortion clinic, or anyone who would use acts of terror or potentially harm another human being in their effort to end abortions.

  • gonzo marx

    easily condemn any killing of folks…

    did the people you are talking about kill anyone?

    but folks did kill those doctors

    did the people in that parade blow up any property??

    how many lynchings or pink triangle (cross) burnings have they done?

    still waiting to see any news item, or police blotter report

    otherwise it’s just unsubstantiated rumor

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Poor examples of equivelents. I condemn all their actions, even the ones that had nothing to do with killing. I have mentioned earlier about my growing up in Jewish neighborhood. I hate all aspects of the kind of nonsense that comes with hating others because of skin color, country of origin, ethnicity, or, yes, even choice of sexual partners.

  • gonzo marx

    but you wouldn’t extend benefits to a same sex partner in your own business

    that IS what you said previously

    so which time are you lying?

    for the record..i am hetero, happily married for 20 years this Pearl Harbor day
    just for clarifications sake

    and i fully support equal rights under the Law for all citizens

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    I hereby interrupt my hour off. I didn’t say I would or wouldn’t only that I would want the right.

  • gonzo marx

    just like the right to refuse service to a black man at a lunch counter under Jim Crowe?

    that’s not a “right”

    try harder

    Excelsior!

  • 1Potato

    Gonzo writes:
    “so by that logic, we can paint the KKK as representative of all

    fundamentalists?

    they claim to represent all white christians, and tey have a website too!

    spare me the bullshit, and realize that people are individuals and not “types”…then deal with them as such”

    Gee, I’m so glad the left doesn’t paint fundamentalist Christians with a broad brush, and instead treats them as “individuals”.

    BTW: How many have Christians have killed abortions doctors in this land of almost 300 million in the last 10 years? Two? I can pull up more stories about gays who raped and murdered young boys. Talk about blaming a millions for a few nutballs.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I believe the one incident of door licking was openly gay columnist Dan Savage? My apologies to Dan if I am wrong. It was an activist columnist that did the licking and also if you recall it was widespread panic of it being AIDS tainted, but that was entirely supposed to be the message. It wasn’t contaminated. That is my understanding of the story.

    It seems that a large part of the problem here is that not only do so many have a misunderstanding of what equality is all about, but there seems to be a tendency among millions of Christians to greatly amplify their demons. Whether it is the Islamic faith or people of alternate races, like this whole Minuteman hysteria going on, on the border, or whether it is just alternate lifestyles with the pat phrase ‘they want your children – boo!’, Christians give their demons great power in their mind. And then they label anything of non-Christian ideology as a demon.

    Beyond that, let me just add this, then I need to log off for the night: many of us, myself included, want, hope and pray to find a middle ground, a compromise with ‘the opposing side’. However because the opposing side is born of religious belief, compromise is not an option before us. I’m talking about the hard liners. And many of those hard liners are in control right now.

    These people offer false promises and do so under the guise of being of faith. These false promises run the line of civil unions but then once the deals against marriage are finalized, the legislation goes forth to ensure that there is no such thing as even a civil union. There is no compromise. We understand that and do not underestimate the intelligence of our political adversary. We are at a war, a cultural war, and what is at stake is the freedoms and liberties of millions of Americans, young and old. When it comes to freedoms and basic rights, there is no middle ground. Liberty will either stand or fall. When it falls, it will do so with the modification of historical documents which, unmodified, would be sufficient to stand now and cover all, or it will do so with the installation of puppet activist judges.

    And it will be done because a great many Christians demonize that which they fear, they fear that which they do not understand and they give their fears a lot of power over themselves.

  • gonzo marx

    hey now…soince when did i become “the Left”??

    i speak for no one but lil ole me

    and even that, just barely

    i used those cases as mere examples, and i do take each as individuals ( on those child molestation bits, do we get to count catholic priests ?)…
    now, have you been reading the entire conversation? or am i just to feel “special” about the fine attention?

    either way, you worship is duly noted

    that was sarcasm…you knew that, but i wanted to jmake certain it was clear for the next person that comes along…

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com randy Kirk

    Really elegant Steve until the last two paragaphs. But I’ll give you those as an extension of your passion.

    Compromise happens because of many factors. Sometimes compromise is a good thing. Sometimes not. Assume good motives in everyone until it is clear to everyone that they are possessed of evil intent. Patience.

  • Rob

    Do more research. Christian Exodus is against the war in Iraq.