California Legislature Approves Gay Day in Public Schools

[u2sarajevo]

California Legislature Approves Gay Day in Public Schools

Link

Sacramento, California – Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading California organization protecting parents’ rights and children’s innocence, condemns the passage of AB 2567, which will instruct all California public schools to “conduct suitable commemorative exercises” in support of the anti-religious, sexual-anarchy agenda of the late San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Today, the California Assembly passed AB 2567 on a 43 to 26 vote, Democrats for, Republicans silently against. Earlier this week, AB 2567 passed the California State Senate on a 22-13 vote, Democrats for, Republicans against. AB 2567 now goes to Governor Schwarzenegger, whose position is unknown.

“If signed into law, AB 2567 will mean an official day commemorating homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in California government schools,” said CCF President Randy Thomasson. “This will harm children as young as children as young as kindergarten. Every May 22, AB 2567 will positively portray to children homosexual experimentation, homosexual ‘marriages,’ sex-change operations, and anything else that’s ‘in the closet.’ Governor Schwarzenegger should say no to this very inappropriate bill, which has nothing to do with academic excellence.”

AB 2567 comes on the heels of last year’s school sexual indoctrination laws. When fully implemented, SB 777 and AB 394 will teach children in California government schools to support homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality via instructional materials, programs and activities, and school “safety” guidelines. In addition, the California State School Board this year implemented SB 71, requiring public schools that provide sex education to promote unmarried sexual activity with no restraints other than mutual consent.

“AB 2567 will further motivate parents to remove their children from the immoral public school system,” said Thomasson. “We’re encouraging parents to visit RescueYourChild.org to learn how to save their children while they still can. With public schools becoming sexual indoctrination centers, homeschooling and church schools are no longer parental options, they’re parental imperatives.”

According to the State Senate floor analysis, “This bill requires the Governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day…The designation of a day of significance triggers statutory encouragement for public schools to observe and conduct commemorative exercises suitable to the day.”

The text of AB 2567 states that “On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state” should be conducted; specifically, “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe...and…conduct suitable commemorative exercises.”

Under AB 2567, what will children in government schools be taught and how will children’s minds be “exercised?” The answer is whatever Harvey Milk believed or is said to have believed:

Religion is dangerous: “More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion.” (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

All doors of sexual experimentation must be opened: “If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door.” (Harvey Milk. Source: www.sacbee.com/111/story/1112044.html)

If you’ve ever had homosexual feelings, you must declare yourself gay or lesbian: “Milk believed strongly that coming out was the responsibility of every gay man and woman.” (Source: http://everything2.com/node/153707)

Gay and lesbian marriages are good and natural: “So much of the spirit represented with the Supreme Court's decision last week is the spirit of Harvey Milk and his legacy manifesting today in real change.” (San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on the unveiling of a bust of Harvey Milk at city hall, May 28, 2008. Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA3B10PV5C.DTL)

“This bad bill will teach impressionable schoolchildren the anti-religious, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of Harvey Milk,” said Thomasson. “The Democrats are so cocky, they have no qualms about pushing sexual indoctrination upon children in an election year. For the love of God, parents and their children, we implore Governor Schwarzenegger to veto AB 2567.”

[Flacolaco]

That's a joke, right?

[u2sarajevo]

Nope.

[Flacolaco]

So when is heterosexual day?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

So when is heterosexual day?

I am certain they will implement that 10-20 years after they approve Satan day.... which will be right around the corner at the current rate.

[Flacolaco]

When I asked my Dad why we moved away from Los Angeles at the end of our 3 year stay, he said "Because that place is #$%^&@ crazy."

[ty]

Oh, Arnold.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

When I asked my Dad why we moved away from Los Angeles at the end of our 3 year stay, he said "Because that place is #$%^&@ crazy."

Your Dad is apparently a very wise man...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

That's a joke, right?

Yes, it's a joke. Don't you know the easy trick of just hovering over a link to see what the original source is? In this case it's Save California dot com. That should tell you everything you need to know. No, quite as you suspected, Californians aren't trying to legislate a "Gay Day."

Here is what they are trying to do, as the legislation reads:

SEC. 2. Section 37222 of the Education Code is amended to read:
37222. (a) The following days in each year are designated and set
apart as days having special significance:
(1) The second Wednesday in May as the Day of the Teacher.
(2) April 21 of each year as John Muir Day.
(3) April 6 of each year as California Poppy Day.
(4) May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day.
(b) On each of the days designated in subdivision (a), all public
schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe those
days and to conduct suitable commemorative exercises as follows:

...

(4) On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey
Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions
he made to this state.

So they are trying to do--among other things such as encouraging "exercises commemorating and directing attention to teachers and the teaching profession"--is to remember Wilk's life and recognize his achievements and accomplishments.

Well, what were his achievements and accomplishments? Back to the proposed legislation:

(i) Harvey Milk was instrumental in defeating Proposition 6,
commonly known as the Briggs Initiative, at the General Election on
November 7, 1978, that would have banned gays and lesbians from
teaching in the public schools of this state.

Now, I don't know if that sounds that good to you or not, banning gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools.

But I would bet you dollars to donuts that you don't know your presidential history when it comes to California Prop 6 in 1978. Because Harvey Milk's tenacity would have died on the vine if it were not for...

Guess who? Go ahead, guess. It was Ronald Reagan.

This is from the LA Times:

Reagan Tamed a Rough Right
By Bill Boyarsky
June 07, 2004 in print edition B-9

When Ronald Reagan emerged on the California political scene in the mid-1960s, the conservative movement was a collection of ineffective, naysaying right-wingers huddling in Orange County and San Gabriel Valley backyards, feverishly parsing school books for signs of communist or pornographic influence and flirting with the oddball extremists of the John Birch Society.

Reagan taught manners to these misfits and, in the process, gave them respectability. He shared their intense patriotism, their economic and social conservatism and their militant anti-communism, but he was likable, more genial than fierce.

Most important, Reagan understood that a successful political movement had to be inclusive. Ironclad adherence to right-wing philosophy would not win the votes of moderate Republicans or of the growing number of Democrats disenchanted with their party’s support of strong civil rights laws and its soft attitude toward student demonstrations.

Charmed by his personality, enthralled by his speeches and celebrity and wowed by his political skills, California conservatives lined up behind him enthusiastically, as did conservatives around the nation in the years that followed. They became an essential part of what he called “a prairie fire,” sweeping through the growing suburbs of the West and the South and ultimately into the once reliably Democratic working-class neighborhoods of the Midwest and East.

The combination carried him from speechmaker in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign to two terms as governor, beginning in 1967.

As a reporter for the Associated Press in Sacramento and later as a political reporter for The Times, it was clear to me from the start that Reagan brought life experiences to politics that the ideological right-wingers who had previously dominated the movement simply didn’t have. That enabled him to make friends across the spectrum and to smooth over the rough edges that had previously characterized the state’s conservative movement.

The incident that I remember most fondly occurred in 1969 when the wire service branch of the American Newspaper Guild went on strike against the AP. The Sacramento bureau, where I worked, was in the Capitol, and we wanted to put a picket line out in front of our office. But there had never been a picket line inside the Capitol. We needed support and we knew the man who could help us – the conservative governor, Ronald Reagan, who despite his pro-business policies was, nevertheless, a former president of the Screen Actors Guild and the leader of a SAG strike in 1959.

We asked his press secretary, Paul Beck, to find out whether the governor would support us, and not long afterward, we received the go-ahead. With our picket signs sanctioned by the governor, we walked in front of the AP office during the few days of the strike.

It didn’t mean Reagan was a union lover; we all know that later, as president, he fired more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers. But I can’t help but believe that on a personal level, he retained a certain openness or at least sympathy for some of us working stiffs.

A far more significant example of Reagan’s view of life occurred in 1978 after he left Sacramento and was preparing to run for president. John Briggs, a right-wing state senator, was winning great support throughout California for an initiative that would have removed gay teachers from classrooms. The anti-gay movement, then starring singer Anita Bryant, was strong nationally and hard to ignore in Republican circles.

The anti-Briggs forces badly needed to win a prominent conservative supporter to their side and, against all odds, hoped it would be Reagan. They felt that the witch-hunting aspects of the initiative would offend his respect for legal institutions, and they were aware that he and his wife, Nancy, had long associated with gays in their years in Hollywood– but they worried that it would be a difficult political position for a conservative leader hoping to run for president to take.

Reagan met with initiative opponents, studied their material and, ultimately, at the risk of offending his anti-gay supporters in the coming presidential election, wrote in his newspaper column: “I don’t approve of teaching a so-called gay life style in our schools, but there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.”

His opposition turned public opinion around, and the measure lost with 42% of the vote.

Reagan was a conservative, but more than that he was a practical man. He understood that politics were not just about ideology, but about people and relationships. He demonstrated that with people as varied as Tip O’Neill, with whom he had an instant rapport, and Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom he oversaw the beginning of the end of the Cold War, and with a handful of ragtag strikers in the Capitol building in Sacramento.

That’s why on election night in 1980, when Reagan was voted into office, the United States was not a divided, polarized, 50-50 nation, as it was in 2000. Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter handily and steamrollered Walter Mondale four years later with votes from a wide and disparate cross section of America. And although Democrats mourned the losses, Reagan’s victories did not leave the nation bitter and resentful, as it is today.

So if not for Reagan's pluck and courage or whatever else you might deem fit to call it, Harvey Wilk doesn't get to be remembered and recognized (or Californians encouraged to do so, as the case may be) for his efforts in fighting that poposition that Reagan opposed. Oh, and that quote that Save California offered up as evidence that "all doors of sexual experimentation must be opened," or be damned? Here's another take on it, from the same proposed legislation:

(q) Harvey Milk had anticipated the possibility of assassination
and had recorded several audio tapes to be played in that event. One
of the tapes included his now famous quote, "If a bullet should enter
my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."

Give me liberty or give me death?

Look, I'm a straight guy and I'm quite comfortable saying that homosexuality just isn't for me and, as Reagan said, shouldn't be "taught" in schools. But I think I'm also well adjusted enough to live and let live. And when I read this from Save America, I just laugh:

With public schools becoming sexual indoctrination centers, homeschooling and church schools are no longer parental options, they’re parental imperatives.

Yeah, that's it. You need to somehow figure out a way to make sure that your kid doesn't develop any sexuality at all. Catholic boys schools and Catholic girls schools, with nuns to slap you with rulers. Sexuality has no place in adolescence...because we parents can't fathom the idea of our kids actually doing anything with those genitals they have. Because of course, it's not the homosexual "indoctrination" that is any real sort of issue...it's the heterosexual one. Teenagers are figuring out that their bodies have reproductive powers. They aren't supposed to know that until they are like THIRTY! Get 'em out of those Godforsaken schools and keep 'em on the family farm until we are done with 'em!

The whole thing just makes me laugh. We're going to legistate recognization for a Harvey Wilk, and that means it's a "Gay Day." How intellectually devoid can one organization (Save California!) be? There's lots of stuff the state recognizes. Is MLK day "Nigger Day"? Hell, they even take the day off with pay for that one! What is "Cesar Chavez Day"? Is it "Spic Day"? "Wetback Day"? I don't know.

The bitch of all is that we don't have a national holiday for Susan B. Anthony or whoever it was that blazed a trail and moved our collective humanity forward just enough so that women could vote. That was 1920, that we decided as a nation that women could vote. Not one hundred years ago. Wrap your mind around that.

And recognize the greatness of Reagan for not falling prey to the kind of bigotry that still does run very rampant in this nation (sanctioned or not).

[DirkFTW]

Yeah, that's it. You need to somehow figure out a way to make sure that your kid doesn't develop any sexuality at all. Catholic boys schools and Catholic girls schools, with nuns to slap you with rulers. Sexuality has no place in adolescence...because we parents can't fathom the idea of our kids actually doing anything with those genitals they have. Because of course, it's not the homosexual "indoctrination" that is any real sort of issue...it's the heterosexual one. Teenagers are figuring out that their bodies have reproductive powers. They aren't supposed to know that until they are like THIRTY! Get 'em out of those Godforsaken schools and keep 'em on the family farm until we are done with 'em!

This seems a bit overboard and extreme. It's not sexuality that is the problem; it is promiscuity. I believe God designed us to be sexual creatures in the construct and confines of marriage. This view has been and is being chipped away at daily. The reality of passing out condoms to adolescents and implicitly encouraging sexual exploration (via media and safe sex education) hardly seems commendable to those of us who believe a person should wait until marriage. It is not the command of waiting until 30; it is waiting until you have made a commitment to love a person through sickness/health, for richer/poorer, etc. Marriage was supposed to be a binding covenant between a man and a woman (before God). This nation's 50+% divorce rate has changed that calculus dramatically, so I completely understand if this sounds like utter bull to some of you. Just thought I'd share what I believe to be the more accurate opposing viewpoint.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I believe God designed us to be sexual creatures in the construct and confines of marriage.

Really? That's how you think God designed us? You think he had marriage in mind?

See, I think God designed us so that we would keep the species going. I don't think God cared whether you were a right-wing conservative or a bleeding-heart liberal. I think God gave you nuts and intended that you use them. You know, to keep His prized species going.

If you are married and you can give me anecdotal evidence that your reproductive organs don't work anymore unless you are with your wife, I will take that under consideration.

But, the divorce rate you cited suggests that this is not broadly the case.

I guess the bottom line would be, in regard to your argument, that if God intended our reproductive organs to work only with the one to whom we are betrothed, he didn't do so good a job.

Just thought I'd share what I believe to be the more accurate opposing viewpoint.

What are you drawing upon to establish "accuracy"?

[MaVs 41 BaLler]

WOOAH! Can i sign my school up for this?

Not.....

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by MaVs 41 BaLler

WOOAH! Can i sign my school up for this?

Not.....

Would you like to go to school on Martin Luther King day, instead of getting the day off? You like that holiday, don't you? The one that celebrates blacks getting a little credit? Even if it's not much, you know...

Hey, let the gays have their day, just like the blacks do. It's no skin off your back, and you get another day off school.

Well, except that the Gay Day isn't big enough to get you a day off school, like the Black Day is. In that case...carry on, young man.

[92bDad]

Obviously this is a an extremely touchy issue...no pun intended.

First off, let's not get into this discussion by slinging mud or name calling.

Those who choose to support and/or live within the 'Alternate Lifestyle' of Homosexuality do so by choice. Those who live with a skin tone, do so by birth.

Let's NOT make the two equal.

Martin Luther King was a great man, just like Ronald Reagan. Both were INclusive and seeked ways to bring people together because they believed in the good of people regardless of skin color.

Now in regards to "Gay Rights" or other "Gay" issues...I personally believe there is NO place for this in the classroom. If a teacher choose to practice 'Gay' sex, that is their choice, but they do not need to shed light on this in front of youth in the classroom.

Just as I don't believe that teachers who practice "Heterosexual" sex need to discuss how they share intimacy with their loved one.

Sex is a very powerful thing and perhaps it is the crack cocaine of dysfuntionality. People have taken an act that is so pure for a husband and wife, and turned into an agenda filled dysfunctional perversion.

Beit Homosexual sex, Gangbang, Rape, Girls Gone Wild, Pornographic, Priest and Boys, Teachers and Students, Incest...you name it, individual people have twisted and perverted it into their own selfish desire.

These things have existed since the beginning of time, it is the very basis of human nature and our desire to do whatever we want with no regard for others.

If this type of stuff is not sick enough, to see these issues politicized at the expense of our kids is down right abusive. If people want to force these things down to the kids, then teach it in your own home, celebrate those who believe and fight for "Gay" rights in your own private home.

I for one teach and do my best to live by Biblical principles and that is what I teach in my home. I don't force my views on people in a school setting...if my sons strike up a friendship and influence someone in terms of faith, then that is up to them...just as I would imagine they have friends who are peers who believe in other topics such as "Gay" rights.

But NEVER do I see it okay for someone in Authority in a Public School setting to promote one agenda or another. I don't believe a teachers should promote any Religiion nor any Agenda such as "Gay" rights.

The fundamental issue is the belief that to participate in a "Gay" act is a choice...while other subjects such as minority rights are due to how someone is born.

We can't avoid the Homosexual community, they wont let us...but we need to step up to the plate and be responsible with our children. Of course one action that can be done is to simply protest any "Gay" agenda by taking out kids OUT of school. Switch to Private Schools, Homeschooling...get them off the public school rolls and the school will lose the money for that student!!!

Of course this would require quite a few parents to actually step up to the plate and interact with thier kids and actually parent them.

Dang, does this open up another can of worms? Parents giving up their responsibility to parent to the school system?

A result of us growing up as latch-key kids...so we don't understand how to engage and interact with our kids...we believe that Schools are the Professionals...let them do it???

[wmbwinn]

"Save California" appears to have gone way too far. Thanks, Chum, for the data.

But, please don't ever again compare the civil rights battle of Martin Luther King to the gay rights battle.

You are comparing apples and oranges (and yes, I intentionally used a "fruit" pun).

If I were African American, I sure wouldn't want my battle equated to that.

_______________________________

Now, having said that, I think that the situation requires deeper thought and consideration. I appreciate that thinking people in California are emphasizing tolerance as the reason to have a Harvey Milk day.

But, do you not think that the celebrated day will be about homosexuality instead of tolerance?

Reagan said that he thought the laws present would prevent homosexuality from being taught in the school system. Unfortunately, Reagan was wrong.
Either there are not laws opposed to homosexuality being taught in school or there is an abscence of enforcement of those laws.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Obviously this is a an extremely touchy issue...no pun intended.

First off, let's not get into this discussion by slinging mud or name calling.

Those who choose to support and/or live within the 'Alternate Lifestyle' of Homosexuality do so by choice. Those who live with a skin tone, do so by birth.

Let's NOT make the two equal.

Martin Luther King was a great man, just like Ronald Reagan. Both were INclusive and seeked ways to bring people together because they believed in the good of people regardless of skin color.

Now in regards to "Gay Rights" or other "Gay" issues...I personally believe there is NO place for this in the classroom. If a teacher choose to practice 'Gay' sex, that is their choice, but they do not need to shed light on this in front of youth in the classroom.

Just as I don't believe that teachers who practice "Heterosexual" sex need to discuss how they share intimacy with their loved one.

Sex is a very powerful thing and perhaps it is the crack cocaine of dysfuntionality. People have taken an act that is so pure for a husband and wife, and turned into an agenda filled dysfunctional perversion.

Beit Homosexual sex, Gangbang, Rape, Girls Gone Wild, Pornographic, Priest and Boys, Teachers and Students, Incest...you name it, individual people have twisted and perverted it into their own selfish desire.

These things have existed since the beginning of time, it is the very basis of human nature and our desire to do whatever we want with no regard for others.

If this type of stuff is not sick enough, to see these issues politicized at the expense of our kids is down right abusive. If people want to force these things down to the kids, then teach it in your own home, celebrate those who believe and fight for "Gay" rights in your own private home.

I for one teach and do my best to live by Biblical principles and that is what I teach in my home. I don't force my views on people in a school setting...if my sons strike up a friendship and influence someone in terms of faith, then that is up to them...just as I would imagine they have friends who are peers who believe in other topics such as "Gay" rights.

But NEVER do I see it okay for someone in Authority in a Public School setting to promote one agenda or another. I don't believe a teachers should promote any Religiion nor any Agenda such as "Gay" rights.

The fundamental issue is the belief that to participate in a "Gay" act is a choice...while other subjects such as minority rights are due to how someone is born.

We can't avoid the Homosexual community, they wont let us...but we need to step up to the plate and be responsible with our children. Of course one action that can be done is to simply protest any "Gay" agenda by taking out kids OUT of school. Switch to Private Schools, Homeschooling...get them off the public school rolls and the school will lose the money for that student!!!

Of course this would require quite a few parents to actually step up to the plate and interact with thier kids and actually parent them.

Dang, does this open up another can of worms? Parents giving up their responsibility to parent to the school system?

A result of us growing up as latch-key kids...so we don't understand how to engage and interact with our kids...we believe that Schools are the Professionals...let them do it???

Amen, brother. Agree with all above.

Religion is a choice. Sex and other behavior is also a choice.
Issues of choice such as this need not be dictated or taught in school.

Race is genetic. Despite desperately trying to show behavior such as homosexuality being tied to genetics, no such genetic predisposition is shown.

[alby]

1. This one wasn't on Arnold.
2. I can't wait til I move back home to Texas. Three years in California is more than enough (two in the gaybay and one in socal)

[ribosoma]

So honoring a man who united the people of San Francisco and was assassinated by a right-wing crazy christian is "celebrating gay-day?" I am relatively certain that there is a profile of Harvey Milk on wiki, as well as his murderer, Dan White. There was a great documentary about Harvey called 'The Times of Harvey Milk' made in 1984. I know that the christian cultist websites might not want to portray him as a human being by linking to it, but I am sure that all of the highly-informed, critical thinkers who post here would check these sorts of things before regurgitating propaganda from the same ideology responsible for his murder.

I find it fascinating that evangelicals feel that their beliefs are so inherently weak as to need to force others to adopt them, but history is riddled with their collective psychoses. Try leading with your deeds and not your mouth and I bet that you would be able to convert people who weren't as insecure as you are, but where's the fun in that?

[ribosoma]

"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 that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

"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 that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)

That's one of the dumbest quotes I've ever read. I feel sorry for anyone that agrees with that line of thinking.

Debate if you will the origin and authenticity of the Bible. Understandable. But anyone who's ever spent any amount of time studying the Bible would never characterize it like that.

The majority of unfortunate acts of fanatical Christians throughout the ages have no basis in the teachings of the Bible.

[wmbwinn]

Ben Stein and I are tired of having to defend God. God didn't tell Southern Plantation owners that it was OK to own slaves but the Southern Plantation owners defended themselves with the Bible as the KKK did/does. God didn't tell GW Bush to attack Iraq and GW Bush never said anything like that but a lot of idiots think that God wanted that...
God doesn't tell Shia Muslims to destroy the Sunni, The Kurds, and seek to destroy the Jews.... But, they believe that anyway...

God didn't tell us to kill Gays either. He just told us to not be a Gay. So, by supporting the notion that homosexuality should not be taught in school, I am not saying that Harvey Milk should have been murdered... That is not what I believe...
------------------------------------




The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.



My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but ques tion what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards.

Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein

[jthig32]

I agree with the general mesasage of above, but just to nip this in the bud before someone else points it out, that entire body was not written by Ben Stein.

The part about Christmas trees was from him. However, the rest of it, starting with "In light of the many jokes..." was not written by Stein, and actually has several inaccuracies in it.

I would recommend running emails like this through Snopes.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by jthig32

That's one of the dumbest quotes I've ever read. I feel sorry for anyone that agrees with that line of thinking.

Debate if you will the origin and authenticity of the Bible. Understandable. But anyone who's ever spent any amount of time studying the Bible would never characterize it like that.

The majority of unfortunate acts of fanatical Christians throughout the ages have no basis in the teachings of the Bible.

From wiki:

Thomas Paine is sometimes known as "The Father of the American Revolution" for his writing advocating complete independence from royal rule—his pro-independence monograph pamphlet Common Sense was published anonymously on January 10, 1776 and spread quickly among literate colonists. Within three months, 120,000 copies are alleged to have been distributed throughout the colonies,[7] which themselves totaled only two million free inhabitants, making it the best-selling work in 18th-century America, with the exception of the Bible. Its total sales in both America and Europe reached 500,000 copies.[8] It convinced many colonists, including George Washington and John Adams, to seek redress in political independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and argued strongly against any compromise short of independence. The work was greatly influenced (including in its name – Paine had originally proposed the title Plain Truth) by the equally controversial pro-independence writer Benjamin Rush and was instrumental in bringing about the Declaration of Independence.

Loyalists attacked Common Sense with vigor. One such early attack, entitled Plain Truth, was written in 1776 by prominent loyalist James Chalmers. An expatriate of Scotland, Chalmers attacked Paine as a "political quack." Chalmers would serve as commander of the First Battalion of Maryland Loyalists in the American Revolution.[9]

Paine's strength lay in his ability to present complex ideas in clear and concise form, as opposed to the more philosophical approaches of his Enlightenment contemporaries in Europe, and it was Paine who proposed the name United States of America for the new nation. When the war arrived, Paine published a series of important pamphlets, The Crisis, credited with inspiring the early colonists during the ordeals faced in their long struggle with the British. To inspire the troops, General George Washington ordered Paine's "The American Crisis" to be read out loud to his men.[10] The first Crisis paper began with the famous words:

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.
—Published on 23 December 1776

In 1778, Paine alluded to the then ongoing secret negotiations with France in his pamphlets, and there was a scandal which resulted in Paine's being dropped from the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In 1781, however, he accompanied John Laurens during his mission to France. His services were eventually recognized by the state of New York by the granting of an estate at New Rochelle, New York, and he received considerable gifts of money from both Pennsylvania and – at Washington's suggestion – from Congress.

He served in the War as aide to Gen. Nathanael Greene, and appointed by Congress as secretary to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In his later years, he established himself as "a missionary of world revolution."

Feel sorry for Thomas Jefferson?

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Or John Adams?

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?

- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu.

- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Ben Franklin?

"But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance."

- Benjamin Franklin

James Madison?

Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Mark Twain?

The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes.... The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession -- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.... There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

- Mark Twain, "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice," Europe and Elsewhere (1923)

The Sumerian etymology for 'believer' not only meant 'follower of Bel' (the supreme deity), but also 'one worthy of being a slave'. Have at your beliefs. I choose reason, as did the folks quoted above.

[jthig32]

Most of the quotes you posted didn't deal with the issue I raised. I have no problem with you questioning the origin of the Bible, and the legitimacy of the religion it is the basis of.

I also have no problem with people that point out the atrocacities that have been performed in the name of God and religion. They are plentiful.

What I have a problem with is the characterization of the Bible as a book that corrupts and brutalizes mankind. Regardless of what you think Jesus was, be it the Son of God, a prophet, a normal guy, or a figment of someone's imagination, there is no denying that His message was one of love and compassion.

[chumdawg]

Jesus may been compassionate, but isn't the overarching theme of the bible that the goods guy go to heaven and the bad guys go to hell? And doesn't God say in the bible that he is a vengeful god? Aren't there stories of God imposing widespread destruction upon large groups of people (not counting wars), as in the destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah by fire? And doesn't the book of Revelations foretell a time when God will destroy all of humanity except His followers?

If so, there's a lot of violence there. There is also a lot of...oh, what's the word...whatever describes one tribe of people seeing it fit to war against any and all opposing tribes. There is a lot of antagonism in the bible, which usually ends in death. It is no surprise that there is also a lot of antagonism among humans, which often ends in death.

[alby]

I would like to take a second and point out that u2 made the title of the article pink.

nice touch

[wmbwinn]

Ribosoma, running through several of the founding fathers' opinions on religion does not give us anything other than several mens' opinions.

Now, as to the historical significance of those men saying those things, there is great import. It was for those views of Christianity as it existed in Europe that Americans created the separation of Church and State. Ben Franklin especially describes what happens when the Clergy are put in charge.

Now, Ben was a very religious man. It is common tradition in history that Ben Franklin lead the Constitutional conferences with an opening prayer...

_____________________________

Now, I think that it is very good to have Church and State separated. I wish that the Evangelical Movement would divorce itself of the Republican party and quit using politics to further its religious goals. This pattern brings disgrace to the name Christianity. It is generally seen in this election cycle that many Republicans are quite annoyed with the Christian Right. And, of course, Hucklebee showed how much the Christian Right could fracture a party. It was so fractured by the Religious Right that an idiot like McCain could win....

____________________________

Now, let us revisit what the separation of Church and State is all about...

Church is synonymous for religion. Religion is synonymous with belief. All are assumed to be faith based without having firm Science behind it.

It is my opinion that all such things should be separated from State. This includes various social movements which are God-less.

One such social movement that has no business in State is the popularity of homosexuality and the culture it spawns. Believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do (so long as you are not breaking laws in the process) but don't teach homosexual culture in school. Don't teach Baptist culture in school. Don't teach Islam in School.

Stuff like that belongs at home. Let parents re-claim their right and perogative to teach their own children the stuff like this that does not belong in school or any other State entity.

----------------------------------------------

It is easy to point at Hitler, Stalin, the KKK, Baptist support of slavery in the South in the past, and a great many other evils that have been performed in the name of God which were not done according to the actual teachings of God.

And, Chum, just because the Bible predicts/prophecies bad things to happen doesn't mean that God is "ok" with it. God gives people the right to make their own decisions. He knows that we will screw up and he knows exactly what will happen. Knowing what will happen and condoning what will happen are not the same thing. As to the Book of Revelations and several other locations where the end destructions are foretold, it does say that God himself will show up to END it. That would certainly imply He doesn't condone it...

You want to complain that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah??? Why would a loving God do such a thing???
Perhaps a loving God knew that the additional children born into that environment had no chance for anything except abuse. Perhaps the Flood and the Sodom story are examples of ending suffering...

----------------------------------------

And, finally, Chum/Ribosoma, most people who go to such great lengths to scream against Religion do so because they know they live against the pattern/commandments of God...

Somewhere recently on these pages you said something to the effect that Men were not designed to be married to one woman and to have sex with no others. You said something to the effect that your nuts worked with other women also...

Assuming that you are basically confessing to ignoring God, then your rants are just "sour grapes"

[chumdawg]

Assuming that you are basically confessing to ignoring God, then your rants are just "sour grapes"

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate on this?

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

So when is heterosexual day?

AAAAAA VERY merry un-homosexual day to YOU... to YOU!

[fluid.forty.one]

woah..

I made that reference without first seeing ribosoma's signature.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate on this?

The wicked take the truth to be hard...

Easier to fight against God and even call into doubt His existence when you can't/don't live by His precepts.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The wicked take the truth to be hard...

Easier to fight against God and even call into doubt His existence when you can't/don't live by His precepts.

What makes you think the way I lead my life is not in close accord to "His precepts," whether intentional or not?

Are you suggesting that God and "His precepts" have a monopoly on upstanding behavior, unblemished morals and ethics, charitable donations, contributing to society, and following the good ol' Golden Rule?

I think I'm hearing you say that only by following God and "His precepts" can a person be, or do, good.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What makes you think the way I lead my life is not in close accord to "His precepts," whether intentional or not?

Are you suggesting that God and "His precepts" have a monopoly on upstanding behavior, unblemished morals and ethics, charitable donations, contributing to society, and following the good ol' Golden Rule?

I think I'm hearing you say that only by following God and "His precepts" can a person be, or do, good.

I primarily have your own words (unless my memory is in error) regarding your thoughts that men were not designed to be with only one woman and, if I remember correctly, you said something like, "my nuts work with other women also".

If I have understood you correctly, then your lifestyle is outside the boundaries of the law of chastity as explained in the New Testament.

Now, I have not said that all good people are Christians.

Freud taught that the levels of motivation which framed behavior were basically:
1)behavior formed by fear of outcome
2)behavior formed by hope of outcome/reward
3)behavior formed by higher ideals (the "id")

A great many people have been fine upstanding citizens without believing in God.

Now, I have also not said that all Christians are good people. Bill Clinton proudly proclaimed himself a Baptist while Monica was under his desk...

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

woah..

I made that reference without first seeing ribosoma's signature.

"There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image; make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the Outer Limits."

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The wicked take the truth to be hard...

Easier to fight against God and even call into doubt His existence when you can't/don't live by His precepts.

YOU MAKE YOUR OWN CHRISTIANITY

I am completely okay with someone whose religious views sound like a bad episode of Flash Gordon calling me "wicked."

As far as your pile of opinion on Franklin goes, peep this:

SPEAKING OF "WICKED"

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Ribosoma, running through several of the founding fathers' opinions on religion does not give us anything other than several mens' opinions.

I can actually prove that Benjamin Franklin existed. It requires no faith whatsoever to do so. Also, what is the bible, if not a compilation, hundreds of years after the supposed fact, of "several men's opinions." Unlike yourself, I have yet to explain my personal ideas of God/the creative force/etc. with you. This is not only because of the fact that you are a complete stranger to me, but because I see such things as sacred to myself. My morality is formed by me, not an external construct designed to cover my cowardice with a consensus of like-minded people who are equally cowardly.

[wmbwinn]

Ribosoma once again rants and raves and leaves no content...

[chumdawg]

Freud's "id" didn't have anything to do with "higher ideals." His "id" was an entirely subconscious (or unconscious) engine that behaves completely instinctually, with no regard for reason.

But even so, Freud was a nutcase.

My observations about the evolutionary nature of male sex drive don't have any bearing at all on how I choose to employ my own. No, I never said anything about my nuts working with multiple women. I said that yours and mine both will, should we choose (or be evolutionarily compelled) to use them in that way.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Ribosoma once again rants and raves and leaves no content...

Wow, that's certainly not the impression I got. Did you even read it? With posts like this, you are really failing to hold up your own end in this otherwise thoughtful discussion.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Freud's "id" didn't have anything to do with "higher ideals." His "id" was an entirely subconscious (or unconscious) engine that behaves completely instinctually, with no regard for reason.

But even so, Freud was a nutcase.

My observations about the evolutionary nature of male sex drive don't have any bearing at all on how I choose to employ my own. No, I never said anything about my nuts working with multiple women. I said that yours and mine both will, should we choose (or be evolutionarily compelled) to use them in that way.

Pretty sure the "id" dealt with higher ideals such as behaving a certain way because it was "right" for higher reasons. Now, the "right" behavior of the "id" certainly had nothing to do with Christian morality.

Sorry I misunderestimated the meaning of your earlier words. Hope you don't behave like Magic Johnson did once upon a time...

So.... you tell me why you are opposed to Christianity (if you are).

And, Ribosoma: quit rewriting history every few years. There is no proof that Ben Franklin was a pervert or that he wasn't a deeply religious man.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Wow, that's certainly not the impression I got. Did you even read it? With posts like this, you are really failing to hold up your own end in this otherwise thoughtful discussion.

You want me to respond to a shady source that says that Ben Franklin was a pervert who liked pornography and was a member of an underground sordid sex group?

What I reacted to was Ribosoma's typical "elitist" statement that he won't lower himself to discuss his religious beliefs...

Easy to avoid a discussion that way...

I doubt he can defend himself.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You want me to respond to a shady source that says that Ben Franklin was a pervert who liked pornography and was a member of an underground sordid sex group?

What I reacted to was Ribosoma's typical "elitist" statement that he won't lower himself to discuss his religious beliefs...

Easy to avoid a discussion that way...

I doubt he can defend himself.

This was more than plenty for you to chew on:

My morality is formed by me, not an external construct designed to cover my cowardice with a consensus of like-minded people who are equally cowardly.