View Full Version : Prayapolooza in Houston
I can't resist. Two words - STOP IT!!
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) -- Saying "there is hope for America, and we will find it on our knees," Texas Governor Rick Perry has invited other governors to join him in a "solemn gathering of prayer and fasting" in August in Houston, according to the event's website.
Officially titled “The Response, a Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis,” Perry’s Pray-n-Fast will take place in Houston and be “a non-denominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting” featuring both governors and alt-governors (“Christian political leaders”).
Paying for the festivities is the American Family Association (http://www.afa.net/), whose leaders hate green dragons (http://gawker.com/5701679/get-the-christian-rights-hot-new-dvd-series-resisting-the-green-dragon), gays and their gay Home Depots (http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147506734), and Indian tribes (http://gawker.com/5716951/does-obama-want-indian-tribes-to-be-our-new-overlords), among other people and things. Because of the AFA's family value-style generosity, nobody will have to pay anything to deprive themselves of food with the popular party host. If everything goes according to plan, and no fights break out, attendees will "rise up and make a sound that will be heard in heaven." And then hopefully Jesus will come and take away all the "depression, addiction, fear" and other evils that have suddenly popped up in America, after more than two perfect centuries. excerpt from Gawker (http://gawker.com/5808777/rick-perry-hosting-prayer-event-for-govs)
Now, here’s the deal. It has to be Pray-n-Fast because Perry’s too cheap to spring for food. And I suspect the guy who can turn a basket of fish and bread into feeding a crowd would not be caught dead within a zillion miles of this event.
It’s gonna be held in Reliant Stadium. Here’s a picture of Reliant Stadium. The Texans play there and , like Perry, they are not very good at what they do either.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/reliant_stadium-300x181.jpg (http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/reliant_stadium.jpg)
But, I suspect this is a good place to have the Pray-n-Fast because just like football, this is an exhibition sport.
You know, if we could pray our roads fixed, our children educated, our airplanes landing safely, and Grandma’s failing eyesight to magically heal, I’d be there myself on my knees. But, instead, Rick Perry and his corporate buddies will tell poor people that they don’t need health care if they have Jesus, and education is nothing because the Bible has all the answers, and working from dawn to dusk seven days a week is what they should do because work honors God. And then they’ll pass the plate for these folks to contribute to Perry’s Presidential run. - Juanita Jeans Beauty Shop (http://juanitajean.com/2011/06/06/well-i-hope-it-works-better-than-his-whole-pray-for-rain-thing-the-drought-got-worse-after-that/)
Peace
flowerseverywhere
6-6-11, 4:35pm
Very scarey, especially the American family association.
Unfortunately, although I am an atheist, I do think many religious organizations do a lot of good in this world, but these extreme views are the ones that get the press and attention. Regardless of which god you believe in, I can't believe the message of hate for those who don't believe in your particular god or your particular interpretation of a holy book is going to get you into an imagined "heaven".
Instead of spending all the money putting on the show or people traveling there, how about helping a poor child or a homeless hungry man?
I love this...it is making libs heads explode, that people would actually go to their knees, pray to God and ask for help for our nation. Yall have fun with that, I'll be chattin with the big Guy!
Yea, because prayer has been so helpful in the past. :~)
What I love is that it's a prayer AND fast. Cause, you know, god loves hungry people and all...and it's a non denominational CHRISTIAN thing. Well, that's pretty specific isn't it. That pretty much leaves out everyone else, doesn't it.
Yea, because prayer has been so helpful in the past. :~)
What I love is that it's a prayer AND fast. Cause, you know, god loves hungry people and all...and it's a non denominational CHRISTIAN thing. Well, that's pretty specific isn't it. That pretty much leaves out everyone else, doesn't it.
No, I'm sure they'd welcome you if you wanted to attend.
Totally going to shop at Home Depot more now...
This won't be welcomed by all but...to demonstrate what Christians face nowadays, if there were some Moslem call to prayer or one of those onenss/bliss outs like they have in Austin it would be more accepted by some here than it is. My holy book, the Bible, says this about people who make fun of prayer
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
Now yell at me for judging..you judged me first ...
A lot of very sincere people attend things like this. I know - my parents go to things like this a lot. (I don't - I'm agnostic at best). I don't care for the intersection of faith and politics in this country (since when has it been written in the Constitution that to run for office requires you to be a born-again Christian?) but I also don't care for the indiscriminate mocking of those who truly believe that their concern for their country leads them to fast and pray. Would we mock those praying for an end to poverty? Or (my pet political cause) universal health care?
Fasting is also not limited to just Christians of a certain persuasion. It also pops up in just about every major religion as a spiritual discipline and is a valid spiritual exercise, just as meditation is.
I do get that the leaders of this event may (okay, probably) have political motives, but mocking the whole idea is unfair to those attendees for whom it will have genuine spiritual meaning.
My 2c, and I'm sure they won't be popular.
(May I take the opportunity to remind everyone at this point that I am a) an ardent advocate of separation of church and state, and b) an ardent liberal so don't take this as an endorsement of the politics tied up with this event. Just a reminder that not all who pray & fast are half-witted or Tea-Party-ers.).
The Storyteller
6-6-11, 11:40pm
The problem I have with this is not that people are praying and fasting. Nothing at all wrong with that. It is the fact that this is a governor of a state (and probable presidential candidate) who is calling on other governors to join him to pray for the crisis in our country. Free speech and freedom of religion and all aside, I think this is an incredibly demagogic, unamerican thing to do. I'm surprised you folks don't see it for what it is... insincere pandering by a cynical politician to good Christian folk.
I realize that this is viewed by some as blasphemy but in reality is there no end to this charade. When I see my beloved Gov. inviting his fellow Governors to attend this prayer session I immediately want to just throw up. This is not about religion, this is not about prayer, this is about bringing those that are dedicated to anything Christian into the Republician tent.
For a public official to tell me that I need prayer in school, that I need Christian values in my life , that if we bring together several thousand people to pray for rain - it will help.
Are you kidding? Is this the 21st century or are we still in the dark ages?
The irony is that I am not making this stuff up. It is real and for me it is scary.
Peace
Prayer is a wonderful thing and it works. The motives here are suspect. I'm a liberal democrat and have no use for the tea party or politicians who pander to them.
I'll be chattin with the big Guy!
God is decidedly not a guy.
flowerseverywhere
6-7-11, 7:49am
I just don't understand a lot of the biblical teachings.
Matthew 22:36-40 Love your neighbor as yourself.
Does that include homosexuals?
Though shall not commit adultery. Is divorce OK if you are a Christian?
The Sabbath day is one of rest. As a Christian do you hold a day to worship and not shop, work etc.
That is what confuses me. I can see the comfort people get in believing in god and spreading the good word. Many good works are done in the name of god- all over the world love and good will are spread in the name of god. But what about rallying against others (in this case homosexuals) and their beliefs? What about the taliban making women wear Burkas in public in the name of their god?
We can all find quotes to fit our needs and biblical scholars to back up our beliefs, but isn't all about being a good loving person, honoring our parents, not discriminating, loving our spouses (and being faithful) and children, not stealing and lying, and helping those who are downtrodden and sickly no matter which book you read?
I don't think the issue here is prayer - I think the issue is questioning the sincerity of the motives of those throwing the party. And I think people can research Rick Perry and the AFA (their web page appears to lay out what their priorities are) and decide for themselves. Maybe I'm being cynical but I expect more people coming out will be sure that you have to be Republican (and antigay rights, and a few other things) to be a Christian than went in.
I'm always disappointed by how venal folks can be when it comes to religion, especially Christianity, and how little understanding most have of separation of church and state.
There is no religious test for public office, there's only citizens voting their values. The fact that they may not reflect yours simply means that our system of governance works at the highest level.
I just don't understand a lot of the biblical teachings.
Matthew 22:36-40 Love your neighbor as yourself.
Does that include homosexuals?
Though shall not commit adultery. Is divorce OK if you are a Christian?
The Sabbath day is one of rest. As a Christian do you hold a day to worship and not shop, work etc.
That is what confuses me. I can see the comfort people get in believing in god and spreading the good word. Many good works are done in the name of god- all over the world love and good will are spread in the name of god. But what about rallying against others (in this case homosexuals) and their beliefs? What about the taliban making women wear Burkas in public in the name of their god?
We can all find quotes to fit our needs and biblical scholars to back up our beliefs, but isn't all about being a good loving person, honoring our parents, not discriminating, loving our spouses (and being faithful) and children, not stealing and lying, and helping those who are downtrodden and sickly no matter which book you read?
Or no book. Religion doesn't own morality, or cornered the market on kindness and goodness. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Any religion. Personally i want all my politicians to be non religious because then they don't have an excuse for their nasty behaviour. They can't hide behind some book written thousands of years ago when they discriminate. 'It's in the bible sooo, it must be so'
If a non religious politician votes to discriminate, then they have to own it.
So, if Rick Perry were to become president, this is his fiscal policy? Prayer? Really? Yea, take away grandma's medicare, then pray she can afford 75% of her health care expenses. Take away subsidised school lunches and food stamps then pray someone else makes the kid a sandwich. Gee, maybe there really is something to this praying stuff. It absolves you of any real responsibility.
But if his answer to the countries problems is to pray, why should we even elect him president? I mean, won't he pray for the country anyway? If he's a good christian and all... and doesn't he think people have been praying for the country all along, or does he think he's the only one who thought of it.
Isn't there something in the bible about people who pray in public? Who make a public display of their prayer? Think anyone is going to read that passage at his prayapolooza?
I'm always disappointed by how venal folks can be when it comes to religion, especially Christianity, and how little understanding most have of separation of church and state.
There is no religious test for public office, there's only citizens voting their values. The fact that they may not reflect yours simply means that our system of governance works at the highest level.
Yea, well, see here's the thing. I am not completely unfamiliar with the bible. And I know if these people were truly voting their values, or rather the values presented in the bible, (or rather the teachings of Jesus cause there is some pretty questionable values in the bible!) they wouldn't be voting for these republicans.
KWIM ;)
Being generally agnostic, I look at prayer in general kind of like CF lightbulbs or reusable grocery bags. They may not save the world, but there is a chance they could do some good and don't hurt anyone so why stand in anyone's way if that's their choice?
OTOH, I have a collection of t-shirts from events I consider absurd. They're just for fun, to provoke a little conversation. You can bet your booty I want a shirt from this event! This could even take over the #1 spot in my collection from the long time title holder: my O.J. Trial "Live at Five" t-shirt (shows OJ pulling on the glove).
poetry_writer
6-7-11, 9:53am
This forum doesnt allow disrespect of religions and spiritual practices unless it happens to be Christianity. The hateful posts, the mocking of my Saviours name....."Jeeeesus", from the OP of this thread......is very in your face and disrespectful of my faith. It is very hypocrital of this forum to allow Christian bashing.
*** MOD HAT ON ***
poetry_writer has a valid point. I don't know the religious make-up of these boards, although it appears to be predominantly Christian. I do know the US, where the majority of members are from, is predominantly Christian. We all know that politics and religion are the classic topics to avoid in polite conversation and we have both going with this thread. To most people a post with a mocking tone is nothing more than self effacing humor, but to others it can be hurtful. The goal of the forum guidelines is not to insure a sterile, completely politically correct environment, but simply to promote mutual respect and civil discourse. Please take care to direct comments toward the post and not other posters or their beliefs. If anyone wishes to take a deeper look at the religious implications of the OP it might be valuable to also start a thread in Spirituality & Religion to include the points of view of the regular posters in that section.
The Storyteller
6-7-11, 10:32am
God is decidedly not a guy.
True. Gender is only for purposes of procreation. Sex. I don't see God needing either.
This forum doesnt allow disrespect of religions and spiritual practices unless it happens to be Christianity. The hateful posts, the mocking of my Saviours name....."Jeeeesus", from the OP of this thread......is very in your face and disrespectful of my faith. It is very hypocrital of this forum to allow Christian bashing.
I edited the OP to remove the offensive spelling you mentioned. I actually think it is much more offensive to see a Governor bring Christianity into the political arena. I personally think that most people of faith would much prefer that we remain a secular in our political discussions but it just seems that is impossible. I don't think people realize how crazy it sounds to offer prayer as a solution to fiscal, environmental, and political decisions.
Shoot, “non-denominational Christian” leaves out the Catholics and a whole bunch of other folks who kinda thought they WERE Christian, like Presbyterians and Whiskeypalians and the like.
This is a designed public spectacle by a very despicable public figure. Like I said, I didn't make this story up - it is real and it is nuts!!
Peace
I think the press release erred in calling the event non-denominational. I've never known a Christian event that didn't want any and all who consider themselves Christian to attend. [Okay, maybe some Independent Baptists, but I seriously doubt Perry is an IB] The press release should have made that more clear. The term "non-denominational" doesn't mean that those who do belong to a denomination can't attend, just that no one denomination is sponsoring it.
You forgot Pastafarians Zig. ;)
I'm sorry if anyone was offended by us poking fun at this ridiculous event. Personally, I'm offended BY religion, in all it's forms, but I can't ask everyone to curtail their discussion of their faith.
What we can demand is that our political leaders not make a mockery of our very real and very serious issues in this country. Regardless of the personal comfort it may bring to someone, prayer doesn't work to solve problems. Never has, never will. Children's cancer wards are full of kids whose parents pray night and day. You can pray to pass a test, but if you don't study you're toast. Stuff happens, or it doesn't happen. That's just imperfect life in an imperfect world. Rick Perry might as well build a giant landing strip in west Texas so the martians can land and solve our problems, which is about what he's doing with this prayer thing.
It's a stunt, and an embarrassment to those of us who see it for what it really is. And really sad for those who will buy into this and go, and then vote for him because, well, he did hold that prayapolooza thing. Which of course is what he's betting on.
I don't have anything against anyone praying in private. it means nothing to me. There are plenty of people I respect. I don't respect their choice of religious belief any more than they 'respect' my choice of broccoli for dinner. It's really about the same and I don't believe religion demands any more respect than the yumminess of broccoli. But because I respect people, I don't force them to eat broccoli.
It's all relative really. I, and most here, didn't respect that nutter who said the world was going to end on the 21st, but one mans loony is another man's devout follower. What made him not deserving of respect? Because we ALL pretty much saw him as a nut job con artist. So forgive those of us who look sideways at the notion that mass delusion somehow makes it less of a loony idea.
But, back to the OP, this is a stunt and a scam. And he's running for President! :help:
If the intent of the OP was to knock Perry's involvement and motives - fair enough. The derision showed toward Christians in this post is way off base and this thread should be locked.
If the intent of the OP was to knock Perry's involvement and motives - fair enough. The derision showed toward Christians in this post is way off base and this thread should be locked.
Locked? Why? When a politician decides to bring religion into the public political arena doesn't that open it up to whatever public reaction that might occur? Perry did it with full knowledge of what and how it would be perceived. This is thread is just another example of why religion has no place in politics and yet it is defended, and even supported by those that actually think their private beliefs should be supported by others.
Peace
The Storyteller
6-7-11, 1:55pm
I have to disagree with our illustrious mod. I don't think there is anything sacred about religious beliefs. They should fair game for parody as any political position or belief. Where it would have crossed the line is if it attacked an individual for believing such and such thing.
If mocking libs for their exploding heads is fair game, mocking Christians in a general sense of the term should be as well, as long as the mockery isn't specifically directed at an individual on this board.
As to religious intolerance in general, try building a mosque near ground zero, see what kind of tolerance from Christians you get.
poetry_writer
6-7-11, 1:56pm
Thank you Gregg.......Zigzag,...... God is very much a part of the lives of many people in this country, so I dont believe you will ever see politics and religion separated the way you might want it to be if you are not a person of faith. We believe prayer works. And our country needs HELP. Not everyone perceives things in the same way.
poetry_writer
6-7-11, 1:58pm
I have to disagree with our illustrious mod. I don't think there is anything sacred about religious beliefs. They should fair game for parody as any political position or belief. Where it would have crossed the line is if it attacked an individual for believing such and such thing.
If mocking libs for their exploding heads is fair game, mocking Christians in a general sense of the term should be as well, as long as the mockery isn't specifically directed at an individual on this board.
As to religious intolerance in general, try building a mosque near ground zero, see what kind of tolerance from Christians you get.
No intention of getting into a war of words here so this will be my last comment on this particular thread and the mocking tone of it...If I mocked atheists, or anyone else, would that also be ok? Is it ever Ok to mock anyone? Can adults discuss and present their points of view without resorting to mocking, which many find childish? Just some comments for thought.
I guess I'm not seeing how encouraging people to pray constitutes a danger to the republic. If it works, great. If it doesn't, no harm done. I'll reserve my concern for more serious issues like the Canadian Threat or Peak Butterscotch.
Nor am I terribly upset by some of the views expressed here. I can't conceive of a deity that would be perturbed by puerile insults, so I can't see taking offense on God's behalf.
Thank you Gregg.......Zigzag,...... God is very much a part of the lives of many people in this country, so I dont believe you will ever see politics and religion separated the way you might want it to be if you are not a person of faith. We believe prayer works. And our country needs HELP. Not everyone perceives things in the same way.
I understand...the fact that "Not everyone perceives things the same way" is exactly why I think it is just flat wrong to organize a political rally under the pretense of using Christianity as a solution. What if this was a Muslim rally sponsored by a Islamic group - there would be outrage by the very people that are doing this - it is just not a way to have a political debate in a secular country. But these days it is used as a tool to get the vote.
You know and I know that praying by thousands to give us rain, to rid ourselves of this black socialist, or even to hit a homerun or score a touchdown, will not solve anything except to pander to those that believe their feelings are more important than anyone else's, that their religious beliefs are correct, and that our nation is dependent on the moral influence of their chosen deity.
Like I said - this is not the dark ages, of if it is I am in trouble because I will probably be one of the first to be "burned at the stake" for being a heretic. I can't think of anything quite as scary as religious frenzy.
Peace
I just don't understand a lot of the biblical teachings.
Matthew 22:36-40 Love your neighbor as yourself.
Does that include homosexuals?
Though shall not commit adultery. Is divorce OK if you are a Christian?
The Sabbath day is one of rest. As a Christian do you hold a day to worship and not shop, work etc.
That is what confuses me. I can see the comfort people get in believing in god and spreading the good word. Many good works are done in the name of god- all over the world love and good will are spread in the name of god. But what about rallying against others (in this case homosexuals) and their beliefs? What about the taliban making women wear Burkas in public in the name of their god?
We can all find quotes to fit our needs and biblical scholars to back up our beliefs, but isn't all about being a good loving person, honoring our parents, not discriminating, loving our spouses (and being faithful) and children, not stealing and lying, and helping those who are downtrodden and sickly no matter which book you read?
Actually if someone could reconcile this event with Matthew 6 (pretty much the whole chapter), it would make it more understandable.
The Storyteller
6-7-11, 2:41pm
If I mocked atheists, or anyone else, would that also be ok?
Yes. But lets be clear. I said beliefs, not people. There is a very big difference.
Liberals mock conservative beliefs and conservative mock liberal beliefs here all the time. I don't see why religious beliefs should be any different.
But then, I'm not a mod, so my opinion hardly matters on the matter. Not that it stops me from stating it, of course.
loosechickens
6-7-11, 3:00pm
Boy.......if anyone really thinks that Governor Perry is doing this sincerely, I have a list of TV preachers who are looking for donations.
It might be admirable for the governor to meet with a group of other governors and pray for their country. I don't happen to think that would be nearly so helpful as to work together with all to find solutions to the nation's problems, but certainly couldn't hurt.
BUT.....there could only BE a handful of governors and other leaders......so if sincerity of intention was paramount, one would think they could meet together, privately, pray their hearts out and I'd hope for the best for them. But since it's being held in a stadium, which means rooms for LOTS of people, one must kinda believe that the intent is to gather in lots of ordinary people who may be very sincere in their religious beliefs and want, themselves, to pray together for their country, and shake them down for contributions of a monetary nature.
Forgive me for cynicism, but I think there is about as much sincere Christian belief going on here with this occasion as it might be if they were sponsoring a world wrestling match.
Honestly, I see it as an attempt to manipulate and get political contributions from sincere people whose good intentions would be being shamefully manipulated for money.
I think politics and religion (at least by elected officials) ought not to mix in these sorts of ways. Obviously, everyone's mental integrity structures, morality, religious beliefs or lack thereof, etc. affect their secular life, but I just don't think that things like this spectacle do either Christianity, Rick Perry, Texas or anyone else any good.
And, if a mockery is being made, Rick Perry's cynical mockery of the sincere beliefs of legions of people for his own political purposes is worst of all.
That said, as LDAHL said, in the importance scale of things, let them do as they like. One could wish some more effective action on the part of paid elected officials, but.........
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:5-6
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/virginiamary.jpg
You quote Paul Begala? Pleeez...The arrogance of the pseudo-intellegentsia in Texas...Let's get real
As a Canadian, I probably shouldn't even comment, but....what happened to the separation of church and state? I am all for religion, but I don't think it has a place in politics, or vise versa. This could be a very slippery slope to start on.
As a Canadian, I probably shouldn't even comment, but....what happened to the separation of church and state? I am all for religion, but I don't think it has a place in politics, or vise versa. This could be a very slippery slope to start on.
Our constitution's first ammendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This simply means that there can be no official church or religion of the United States such as the Church of England. It's important to note the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part because that's what so many people would like to do to all elected officials.
You quote Paul Begala? Pleeez...The arrogance of the pseudo-intellegentsia in Texas...Let's get real
Paul Begala grew up in Stafford, which is right up the road from you, and he can tell some pretty dandy Nueces County stories himself. He went to the University of Texas and is actually the smarter half of Carville and Begala. He’s a local hero around here and rightly so. He’s a good man and he preaches something powerful. It was Begala who told me why I am a Democrat: “Am I my brother’s keeper? Yes!"
You know Rick Perry is a TINO. That is Texan in name only. He is the Texas version of Benedict Arnold. He has sold out handing over our roads to Spanish under the TTC. He has sold out to big Pharmaceutical Corporations trying to force young girls to take a vaccine claiming to immunize against cervical cancer. He sold out the school districts with his comment "The Texas Lege does not hire or fire a single teacher", after pushing to cut 6% of school funding and keep his 9 billion dollar "Slush Fund" for him and his cronies. The list is o and on. He is a genuine arse. And yet you defend him? Really?
Peace
Our constitution's first ammendment says:
This simply means that there can be no official church or religion of the United States such as the Church of England. It's important to note the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part because that's what so many people would like to do to all elected officials.
The founders wanted separation of church and state. The intent was simply based on the ideology that they had escaped from...the Church of England...they wanted to insure that the government would not dictate a church or religion as ruled by the government to rule man. They believed in the their new ideals and that freedom meant that we as individuals would choose our religion or not. This idea that we are a "Christian Nation" is hogwash. We are a secular nation and will stay that way as long a free-thinking people stand up to the lunacy of religious dogma as it pertains to politics. It is indeed a slippery slope when you have political leaders pandering to one set of religious ideals or morals. The Bible, Koran, Talmud, Tao-te-ching, and Veda, etc. should allbe considered equal in this country and have no place in our government.
Peace
The Storyteller
6-7-11, 9:55pm
As a Canadian, I probably shouldn't even comment, but....what happened to the separation of church and state? I am all for religion, but I don't think it has a place in politics, or vise versa. This could be a very slippery slope to start on.
That slope is done slipped.
The founders did not want a state religion. They had no intention of removing any religion from the nation or prohibiting the free belief in whatever religion a person felt an affinity for.
There is no basis to believe that they would deny religious principles from elected officials or government institutions. That is a modern concept.
flowerseverywhere
6-8-11, 5:51am
If I offended anyone I did not mean to, but back to what I wrote before "We can all find quotes to fit our needs and biblical scholars to back up our beliefs, but isn't all about being a good loving person, honoring our parents, not discriminating, loving our spouses (and being faithful) and children, not stealing and lying, and helping those who are downtrodden and sickly no matter which book you read?"
I have done a lot of reading of religious holy books and history of religions to try to understand but I am a long way from figuring it out. The questions I asked about even the ten commandments no-one tackled. But here is my most interesting observation here. This thread about this event has generated pages of responses. I recently posted a thread in Making a difference about a wonderful book I had read that showed how to really make a difference with your charitable giving to help the poorest of the worlds poor and it got one response.
How many truly "godly" people have you met in your life? People who seem to devote their life not to promoting themselves or gathering material goods but in doing good and living an admirable life? I haven't met many, but the few I have met have had a profound impact on me. One was a Methodist minister who had gathered not only his church but much of the small community we once lived in to start a soup kitchen and food pantry, raise money to dig a well in Africa, then send them all kinds of farming tools and a few bicycles, and solar cookers. He was still going strong 20 years later last I heard and it still doesn't matter to him what religion, race, sexual orientation or economic status you were, if you wanted to be a part of his mission, you were welcome. All the words in the world mean nothing, it is actions that say it all. With all the hot water our politicians seem to get into I don't think many are good examples of being a good Christian as almost anyone would define it.
I have never been a fan of Rick Perry, and while I know that he is doing this for political motives, the condescension (sp?) with which a large gathering of Christians to pray is viewed and the rhetoric surrounding it are , I think, mean-spirited. I also think a call to prayer for our nation, even by this guy, could be a good thing. Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech". Were words with similar tone directed towarded other groups of the population there would be loud screaming and gnashing of teeth coming from the left.
ETA: I know who Paul Begala is - stopped buying Texas Monthly for awhile because of that arrongant, wormy little city boy.
The Storyteller
6-8-11, 7:51am
Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech"... I know who Paul Begala is - stopped buying Texas Monthly for awhile because of that arrogant, wormy little city boy.
Priceless.
*** MOD HAT ON ***
Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech". Were words with similar tone directed towarded other groups of the population there would be loud screaming and gnashing of teeth coming from the left.
I strongly disagree and, in fact, find that all of the posters here have done an admirable job keeping their posts directed at institutions and/or topics and away from other posters. That is job one of the forum guidelines. I posted an earlier mod comment as a kind of preemptive strike, just a gentle reminder of the guidelines. It probably wasn't necessary, but we've all seen threads that mix religion and politics degrade quickly so maybe I was just a little jumpy.
The opinion of a devout Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or even those of us without any religion whatsoever all carry the same weight and deserve the same respect here in the forums. Threads will not be locked because someone was offended by another poster who offers their opinion without any sign of a personal attack or malicious conduct.
Simply put, there are no sacred cows. To those of you with strong religious beliefs I applaud your ability to accept things I can not. The question is whether or not someone devout in their belief is able to accept that others might hold a different view. If you can accept that then there is a lot to be gained from discussions like this. If that is difficult to accept I suspect there will be a lot of posts that could be considered offensive that are perfectly legitimate and well within forum guidelines.
The founders did not want a state religion. They had no intention of removing any religion from the nation or prohibiting the free belief in whatever religion a person felt an affinity for.
There is no basis to believe that they would deny religious principles from elected officials or government institutions. That is a modern concept.
That's a straw man Alan. You know perfectly well no one is advocating taking any one's religion away. The government (which I keep reminding is us) is not trying/wanting to abolish religion. Of course a persons values will direct his/her actions, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion (values I mean) as it has been proven again and again that non religious people hold the same values as religious people. Fiscal policy is not a moral value, it's an ideology. And allowing the republican party to conflate the two is where we have the problem.
There is a huge difference between a politician praying, and one who jumps up to a podium shouting, "Let us pray".
"There is a huge difference between a politician praying, and one who jumps up to a podium shouting, "Let us pray". "
Well said.
That's a straw man Alan. You know perfectly well no one is advocating taking any one's religion away.
So you don't want to take religion out of the public square? You don't want religion to be a factor in the way people vote or the way that elected officials govern?
Yes, it should be taken from the political arena. I said no one is trying to take any PERSONS RELIGION AWAY. But then, if your religion IS politics..is that what you are saying? That politics is religion and religion is politics? That's getting seriously into Taliban area.
No, religion should definitely NOT be a factor in the way government runs! It should not be a factor in how people vote, although you can't dictate personal actions/prejudice. We CAN dictate to our elected leaders. No religion as factor/cause/reason for any laws. Of course, again, we are NOT talking values. Values like don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, don't spread vicious rumors, don't kill, etc... are shared by ALL religious and non religious people. Those are values, and despite their belief to the contrary, the republicans have not cornered the market on or invented them. I do expect my leaders to hold and share my values, which I believe the majority of them do. On both sides of the isle.
Religion, on the other hand is, women will cover their heads, everyone will fast on Fridays, little boys will be circumcised, etc...
Ideology falls somewhere else, and this includes fiscal policy.
It just makes me see red when I see how the republicans have, as political strategy, blended values with ideology in that, a vote FOR them is a vote for REAL values, as opposed to voting for liberals, which by implication have no values. Even the so called (what a joke!) liberally biased media calls it the 'values vote' when referring to republicans. What a crock! And what a brilliantly political move for the republicans. And we just let it happen!
A community organizer is a laughable fool? If parents can't feed their little kids then, well, tough? Everyone doesn't really deserve equal education opportunities? Everyone doesn't deserve equal basic health care? These are a reflection of your values? Really? Maybe we don't share the same values. Or maybe you've just let the political strategist convince you that these ideologically driven notions are somehow part and parcel with values.
I have voted republican in the past, but not for a long long time, since they reformed themselves as the 'value vote', then tried to shoehorn their nasty ideology into my values.
I know the difference between values and ideology. I may not agree with the democrats all the time, but the values they try to honor, are the ones I value the most.
So you don't want to take religion out of the public square? You don't want religion to be a factor in the way people vote or the way that elected officials govern?
I know there's been a great deal of consternation in this country over these questions in respect to how people in the Middle East may govern themselves, how Islam could shape democracy there.
flowerseverywhere
6-8-11, 12:38pm
I have never been a fan of Rick Perry, and while I know that he is doing this for political motives, the condescension (sp?) with which a large gathering of Christians to pray is viewed and the rhetoric surrounding it are , I think, mean-spirited. I also think a call to prayer for our nation, even by this guy, could be a good thing. Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech". Were words with similar tone directed towarded other groups of the population there would be loud screaming and gnashing of teeth coming from the left.
If you could quote specific examples of what you considered to be hate speech it would be helpful for someone like me to learn and avoid being offensive.
Yes, it should be taken from the political arena. I said no one is trying to take any PERSONS RELIGION AWAY. But then, if your religion IS politics..is that what you are saying? That politics is religion and religion is politics? That's getting seriously into Taliban area.
No, religion should definitely NOT be a factor in the way government runs! It should not be a factor in how people vote, although you can't dictate personal actions/prejudice. We CAN dictate to our elected leaders. No religion as factor/cause/reason for any laws. Of course, again, we are NOT talking values. Values like don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, don't spread vicious rumors, don't kill, etc... are shared by ALL religious and non religious people. Those are values, and despite their belief to the contrary, the republicans have not cornered the market on or invented them. I do expect my leaders to hold and share my values, which I believe the majority of them do. On both sides of the isle.
Religion, on the other hand is, women will cover their heads, everyone will fast on Fridays, little boys will be circumcised, etc...
Ideology falls somewhere else, and this includes fiscal policy.
It just makes me see red when I see how the republicans have, as political strategy, blended values with ideology in that, a vote FOR them is a vote for REAL values, as opposed to voting for liberals, which by implication have no values. Even the so called (what a joke!) liberally biased media calls it the 'values vote' when referring to republicans. What a crock! And what a brilliantly political move for the republicans. And we just let it happen!
A community organizer is a laughable fool? If parents can't feed their little kids then, well, tough? Everyone doesn't really deserve equal education opportunities? Everyone doesn't deserve equal basic health care? These are a reflection of your values? Really? Maybe we don't share the same values. Or maybe you've just let the political strategist convince you that these ideologically driven notions are somehow part and parcel with values.
I have voted republican in the past, but not for a long long time, since they reformed themselves as the 'value vote', then tried to shoehorn their nasty ideology into my values.
I know the difference between values and ideology. I may not agree with the democrats all the time, but the values they try to honor, are the ones I value the most.
Peggy, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, too many to address individually.
I get it that you don't want any religious influence in the public square. I get it that you don't believe religion should play a part in how this country is run and I get it that you don't believe that people of faith should vote for like minded folks or that politicians should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to help shape their duties.
I also get it that many people mistakenly believe that government institutions and elected office holders are barred by the "Separation of Church & State" argument from allowing their religious beliefs to affect their civic duties and responsibilities.
My question to you is, do you also get it that we have a representative system of government and that all of our citizens have the right to vote their conscience as well as their values? Also, should your values take precedence over others values or are all other values simply "nasty ideology"?
Peggy, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, too many to address individually.
I get it that you don't want any religious influence in the public square. I get it that you don't believe religion should play a part in how this country is run and I get it that you don't believe that people of faith should vote for like minded folks or that politicians should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to help shape their duties.
I also get it that many people mistakenly believe that government institutions and elected office holders are barred by the "Separation of Church & State" argument from allowing their religious beliefs to affect their civic duties and responsibilities.
My question to you is, do you also get it that we have a representative system of government and that all of our citizens have the right to vote their conscience as well as their values? Also, should your values take precedence over others values or are all other values simply "nasty ideology"?
I think this is another area in which left and right talk past each other. The right seems to look at the establishment clause as a prohibition on government support of any particular church. The left view it more as a general purpose gag order.
I think this is another area in which left and right talk past each other. The right seems to look at the establishment clause as a prohibition on government support of any particular church. The left view it more as a general purpose gag order.
I think that most progressives (those that think practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves) think that the establishment clause was intended to ensure that all citizens should have freedom of conscience. We all should be able to choose our own religious path or none without interference from the government. The state should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice their beliefs. Also government should be prevented from enforcing anyone’s religious rules on the public.
Peace
Peggy, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, too many to address individually.
I get it that you don't want any religious influence in the public square. I get it that you don't believe religion should play a part in how this country is run and I get it that you don't believe that people of faith should vote for like minded folks or that politicians should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to help shape their duties.
I also get it that many people mistakenly believe that government institutions and elected office holders are barred by the "Separation of Church & State" argument from allowing their religious beliefs to affect their civic duties and responsibilities.
My question to you is, do you also get it that we have a representative system of government and that all of our citizens have the right to vote their conscience as well as their values? Also, should your values take precedence over others values or are all other values simply "nasty ideology"?
See Alan, now you're putting words in my mouth. Again, you are conflating values with ideology (thank you republican strategist). I said their IDEOLOGY was nasty. I also said i believe we ALL share the same values. At least I hope we do. When I vote independent, I'm voting a values vote. THE values vote, in my opinion.
No, religion should NOT play a part in how this country is run. I ask you, which religion should we pick to play this part? If there is prayer in school, whose prayer do we say? Whose prayer do we compel all the little children to repeat? Whose religion do we follow in making our laws? Do we make it a law that women dress a certain way? Do we eliminate battlefield medical care because some religions don't believe in blood transfusions? Perhaps we mandate all little boys get circumcised. Let's close bars on Sundays, or better yet, shut down all business on this 'day of rest'. This is what happens when we let religion become a consideration in the governance of a nation.
I'll say it again because you seem to keep skipping over this point, I do expect our leaders to be guided by our shared moral values, which have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Pick a successful society, any society, and you will find they have shared moral values. Even the totally secular ones. I realize this is hard for some to wrap their minds around, but it's the truth. You don't have to have religion to have moral values. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand (prison is full of religious people)
Yes, I do expect everyone to vote their conscience, but voting for an ideology is not voting for values, unless your values are reflected in that particular ideology. So, when you vote to defund medicare while giving yet another tax break to the very wealthy, what value is that connecting? I really want to know. Cause when I vote to maybe pay a little more in taxes to be sure the elderly are taken care of, the value I'm voting for is the one that says we will take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Do I know these people? No. Does that make a difference? No. My values are not driven by, or defined by, or dependant on any political party, or ideology.
My values are what guide me each day in how i live my life and treat people, especially those who are less fortunate than i am.
I am good, I am moral, and I'm actually a pretty nice person.
And I think god is a fairy tale.
I don't want my elected leaders governing by their particular religious belief any more than I want them passing laws regarding the tooth fairy.
I said their IDEOLOGY was nasty.
You'll have to explain that a little further before I can comment.
No, religion should NOT play a part in how this country is run. I ask you, which religion should we pick to play this part? If there is prayer in school, whose prayer do we say? Whose prayer do we compel all the little children to repeat? Whose religion do we follow in making our laws? Do we make it a law that women dress a certain way? Do we eliminate battlefield medical care because some religions don't believe in blood transfusions? Perhaps we mandate all little boys get circumcised.
I think you're confusing the concept of religion with specific religions. I would agree that no specific religion should be sanctioned by the government, although I also believe that no followers of an established religion should be forbidden from having a voice in or champions within a government.
And by the way, if you haven't heard, San Francisco would like to mandate that no boys be circumcised.
I'll say it again because you seem to keep skipping over this point, I do expect our leaders to be guided by our shared moral values, which have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Pick a successful society, any society, and you will find they have shared moral values. Even the totally secular ones. I realize this is hard for some to wrap their minds around, but it's the truth. You don't have to have religion to have moral values.
I'm not skipping over that point, you're just not recognizing it when you see it. Everyone expects their leaders to be guided by shared moral values, even the religious. You may disagree with the source of their moral viewpoints but that doesn't invalidate their right to express them or for an elected official to represent them.
As a totally secular individual, I completely agree that you don't need religion in order to have moral values, but I don't buy the argument that secular morals are superior to the religious ones. It takes a real ideologue to believe that.
My values are what guide me each day in how i live my life and treat people, especially those who are less fortunate than i am.
I am good, I am moral, and I'm actually a pretty nice person.
And I think god is a fairy tale.
I don't want my elected leaders governing by their particular religious belief any more than I want them passing laws regarding the tooth fairy.
I agree with everything preceding the last line and only quibble with it because you're insisting that you have representation which you would deny to others. Again, I'm not enough of an ideologue to insist upon such a thing.
Yes, I do expect everyone to vote their conscience, but voting for an ideology is not voting for values, unless your values are reflected in that particular ideology. So, when you vote to defund medicare while giving yet another tax break to the very wealthy, what value is that connecting?
I love talking ideology, but you can't mix strawman arguments with it and expect to get anywhere.
@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.
@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.
Since I am responsible for the OP I feel obligated to reply (out of remorse and uninvited). Where did you hear those "Raghead" slurs? beat their heads on the ground? Is that kinda like the up and down at your local Catholic Church?
My intent was indeed to make fun of people so naive that they would gather at a football stadium via the coaxing of our beloved Gov. Rick Perry to "pray" for our nation. It should be made fun of. Why not? You said in a earlier post that you agreed that Perry's motives were not anything other political pandering to the religious right.
Reliant Stadium is big enough to hold an indoor deer hunt. Rick is planning on filling it with people to holler at Jesus and to adore Rick Perry. I’m not saying his ego is big, but you could use it to jump-start a nuclear submarine.First off, let me explain that this is a pray and don’t eat all day function. That’s just damn unTexan. In Texas, you can’t have any manner of people gettin’ together without food being involved. Even Juanita knows that every child in Texas learns to eat fried chicken on a blanket on the church grounds. And, most Baptist churches in Texas have a bigger reception hall than sanctuary. Covered dishes are a sacrament in Texas.
So, in order to fill up Reliant Stadium, Rick Perry has had to associate with some odd groups. Like, for odd example, The American Family Association, which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
AFA insists that the “seculars” pick on them because they are Christians. There is hardly nothing creepier than whiny extremist Christians. Ho Boy, you’d think we were feeding them to the lions daily. They think gay people are gay just to piss them off, and women only want equal pay for equal work because it’s anti-Christian.
So, AFA insists they are normal and all the rest of us are crazy. Not even to mention that hell thing (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-political-news/prayer-event-perry-teams-with-controversial-group/). Rick Perry says that all people of all faiths are invited to his Six Flags Over Jesus event, but maybe not.
But Wildmon, AFA’s president, stressed the Christian nature of the event and said people of other religions were “free to have their own events.” He insisted his group did not hate anyone, but he said that people who do not embrace Christianity were headed for eternal damnation.
“It’s not just Jews or Muslims,” Wildmon said. “It’s anybody that rejects the free gift of salvation through Christ. The Bible teaches there’s heaven and hell. Those who believe go to heaven. Those who don’t go to hell.”
Don’t you think he seems a tad too gleeful about all this going to hell stuff?
But, Rick Perry is running for President so his giveadamner is broken. He’s willing to cahoot with anybody who can get warm bodies to Reliant Stadium.
One other thing: Rick says this event will not be political. The event coordinator is Wayne Hamilton.
Wayne Hamilton is the founding partner of San Jacinto Public Affairs. Hamilton was senior aide to Congressman Joe Barton as well as serving three State Chairmen. He served as Governor Rick Perry’s Executive Director of the 2003 and 2007 Texas Inaugural Committees and currently working with events and consulting for the Governor in Austin, Texas.
Yeah, sure. Not political. Not at all. Nope. Not. political.
- comments from Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop (http://juanitajean.com/2011/06/08/where-are-we-going-and-why-am-i-in-this-handbasket/)
Peace
You'll have to explain that a little further before I can comment.
I think you're confusing the concept of religion with specific religions. I would agree that no specific religion should be sanctioned by the government, although I also believe that no followers of an established religion should be forbidden from having a voice in or champions within a government.
And by the way, if you haven't heard, San Francisco would like to mandate that no boys be circumcised.
I'm not skipping over that point, you're just not recognizing it when you see it. Everyone expects their leaders to be guided by shared moral values, even the religious. You may disagree with the source of their moral viewpoints but that doesn't invalidate their right to express them or for an elected official to represent them.
As a totally secular individual, I completely agree that you don't need religion in order to have moral values, but I don't buy the argument that secular morals are superior to the religious ones. It takes a real ideologue to believe that.
I agree with everything preceding the last line and only quibble with it because you're insisting that you have representation which you would deny to others. Again, I'm not enough of an ideologue to insist upon such a thing.
I love talking ideology, but you can't mix strawman arguments with it and expect to get anywhere.
Alan, Alan,Alan...here you go again. You keep twisting my words to demonize me.
This is not a theocracy. THIS IS NOT A THEOCRACY! THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A THEOCRACY! Sorry to shout, but why are you insisting our elected leaders be allowed to govern/advocate for/ make laws to reflect their particular religion? Any religion?
Show me where I said our leaders couldn't practice their religion. Show me where I said secular values were superior to religious values. Actually, what i said was, WE SHARE THE SAME VALUES. As in, our values are the same, same moral values, values the same....get it! Wow! You are really invested into this whole republican meme.
How is it I have representation you don't? Do you mean representation as in, leaders who REALIZE THIS ISN'T A THEOCRACY? Who don't try to pray their way out of very real and very serious issues?
You haven't answered my question. How exactly do you want religion to figure into our public lives/public leaders? If you were truly secular then you would be offended by all this religion as politics/politics as religion crap. When you call it the 'values vote' then you need to be prepared to know that vote reflects your values. Again, defunding medicare for the elderly while giving a huge tax break to the wealthy reflects what value? Eliminating head start and WIC while giving another gift to the big oil companies reflects which value?
Are these really values, or political ideology?
If you don't really know the difference between political ideology and moral values, well, then, there really isn't any thing else to discuss. And the republican strategist have done their job. I'm sure they're proud! :(
I think the biggest problem with this whole thing is that Perry has invited other governors. If Perry and his followers wished to hold a prayer rally it would be one thing, but this basically pits politics against religion on a broad secular scale. Are you with us or are you against us, American Government??? As a good - strike, as a politically savvy governor, how could anyone actually stand up and say, "this priapalooza is a load of hooey, I'm not participating." He'd be blamed by the faithful for everything from plague to drought. I have a feeling all this is going to be bringing forth in Texas is a lot of claims of hypoglycemia in high places.
flowerseverywhere
6-9-11, 6:38am
@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.
thank you for your explanation. I thought most of the comments were respectful enough not to be offensive, and I think some of my interpretations were different than yours because I am coming from a different perspective. I have no problems if anyone wants to pray or fast, set up tents, go to stadiums, put up billboards etc. I just wish it was separate from the government and I get the feeling from reading about this event it is all a publicity stunt. I also wish they didn't involve organizations like that american family association that is very clear in their agenda of hate.
I have studied a lot about religion and religious beliefs, and attended a lot of churches. I went to a Sikh temple, Jewish synagogue, Roman Catholic Church, several Protestant churches from strict to liberal in my journey. As I met people of different faiths I would ask to attend a service with them and every single one was willing and proud to display their faith. I really wanted to understand and most people are more than willing to explain and share their beliefs to anyone who will listen with an open mind. In all of my reading and my witness of faith practice I never saw any mention of using faith to further your own agenda or spread a message of hate or discrimination. When I read the bible the biggest impression I was left with was the Jesus was accepting and loving of societies outcasts, the prostitutes, beggars, poor and disabled and used his love and example to bring them into the fold. What a wonderful ministry, full of love and joy. Unfortunately I don't think Rick Perry's event has even a sprinkling of the love and goodness of what I can figure out is true Christianity. You are lucky indeed if you have been able to embrace your God and use your faith to make the world a better place.
thank you for your explanation. I thought most of the comments were respectful enough not to be offensive, and I think some of my interpretations were different than yours because I am coming from a different perspective. I have no problems if anyone wants to pray or fast, set up tents, go to stadiums, put up billboards etc. I just wish it was separate from the government and I get the feeling from reading about this event it is all a publicity stunt. I also wish they didn't involve organizations like that american family association that is very clear in their agenda of hate.
I have studied a lot about religion and religious beliefs, and attended a lot of churches. I went to a Sikh temple, Jewish synagogue, Roman Catholic Church, several Protestant churches from strict to liberal in my journey. As I met people of different faiths I would ask to attend a service with them and every single one was willing and proud to display their faith. I really wanted to understand and most people are more than willing to explain and share their beliefs to anyone who will listen with an open mind. In all of my reading and my witness of faith practice I never saw any mention of using faith to further your own agenda or spread a message of hate or discrimination. When I read the bible the biggest impression I was left with was the Jesus was accepting and loving of societies outcasts, the prostitutes, beggars, poor and disabled and used his love and example to bring them into the fold. What a wonderful ministry, full of love and joy. Unfortunately I don't think Rick Perry's event has even a sprinkling of the love and goodness of what I can figure out is true Christianity. You are lucky indeed if you have been able to embrace your God and use your faith to make the world a better place.
Very, VERY well said. Thank you flowerseverywhere.
I was about to reply also, nicely put Flowers. You described the Jesus I know...
@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.
I can't make the leap from a thread title that mocks an event (that is by all indication a political stage) to saying the title mocks prayer in general simply because the word is used. As a mod I appreciate Zig knocking it down a notch in the name of civility, but as a participant I really didn't think that was necessary. Everything I read was directed toward this event and the political figure leading it, not at Christians in general or the practice of praying. There were certainly no racial slurs.
Rick Perry is apparently gearing up a presidential campaign. If he wants to be the leader of a country that includes a whole lot of people that are NOT devout Christians he is going to get, and deserves, a VERY high level of scrutiny for his actions. The fact that he chose now to stage this event speaks volumes to me. Truth be told the fact that he has anything at all to do with it speaks volumes. I won't question Gov. Perry's faith because I don't know the man, but even if he is a true believer this event wreaks of political grandstanding. Old Governor Perry's Tonic may not come in a bottle, but you can bet he is trying to sell something.
Alan, Alan,Alan...here you go again. You keep twisting my words to demonize me.
Now now Peggy, I'm not trying to demonize you. Just trying to nudge you out of your box a little.
You keep bringing up, and exaggerating, specific differences between two parties and then imply that it has something to do with religion. You also imply that a person's religious beliefs should have no influence on the manner in which they represent their constituencies.
You're right that this is not a theocracy, and I'm not advocating that, but religion is a major influence in the lives of a very large part of our population and there is no requirement that our politicians not allow it to influence their words, deeds or actions.
You haven't answered my question. How exactly do you want religion to figure into our public lives/public leaders? If you were truly secular then you would be offended by all this religion as politics/politics as religion crap.
In answer, I would prefer that everyone not be required to hide their religious views in order to be accepted. I am secular and secure enough in my beliefs not to be offended or intimidated by others beliefs. Thanks for asking.
I think that most progressives (those that think practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves) think that the establishment clause was intended to ensure that all citizens should have freedom of conscience. We all should be able to choose our own religious path or none without interference from the government. The state should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice their beliefs. Also government should be prevented from enforcing anyone’s religious rules on the public.
Peace
That would explain your shrieking "stop it" in bold caps at the start of this thread. Your concern over free religious expression.
The Storyteller
6-9-11, 9:28am
Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.
I find it hilarious. The whole thing is a freaking joke and deserves to be made fun of.
What a cynical ass this guy is. I hope he goes through with it and only a couple hundred people show up, half of them media. Any idea how it would look for a few hundred people to show up in a massive football stadium?
The only thing I resent about the whole thread is ZagMan saying the Texans aren't good at what they do and comparing them to Rick P. That is downright blasphemous. They are after all the best team in Texas.
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0923/espn_cowboys_cartoon_576.jpg
The Storyteller
6-9-11, 9:30am
That would explain your shrieking "stop it" in bold caps at the start of this thread. Your concern over free religious expression.
Which itself is his own free expression.
Just because someone wants it stopped doesn't mean they want to make it.
Now now Peggy, I'm not trying to demonize you. Just trying to nudge you out of your box a little.
You keep bringing up, and exaggerating, specific differences between two parties and then imply that it has something to do with religion. You also imply that a person's religious beliefs should have no influence on the manner in which they represent their constituencies.
You're right that this is not a theocracy, and I'm not advocating that, but religion is a major influence in the lives of a very large part of our population and there is no requirement that our politicians not allow it to influence their words, deeds or actions.
In answer, I would prefer that everyone not be required to hide their religious views in order to be accepted. I am secular and secure enough in my beliefs not to be offended or intimidated by others beliefs. Thanks for asking.
No Alan, what I'm trying to show is that it doesn't have anything to do with religion. That's the point. Where ever our leaders want to say they got their values from, they have to acknowledge that non religious people have the exact same values. They got them from somewhere, but not religion, so the right implying that good Christians should vote for them BECAUSE they are the christian/value vote kind of leaves a whole lot of folks out. And so many are convinced of this, faithful vote republican because, well, you know!
This is where I, and a whole lot of others have the problem. It's frightening, and not a little embarrassing to know how many people will maybe now vote for Rick Perry, or change their view of him because of this stunt. And it's so obviously a stunt. he looked around and saw this huge mass of people who can be bought by a few well aimed Amen's. And by inviting other governors, positions himself as THE 'christian value' vote.
Of course all faiths are represented by our members of government, although I do remember the huge outcry when it was 'rumored' that a Muslim member was going to take the oath on the Koran. But if a member stands up and says, 'I'm voting for this legislation because I'm christian', or 'I'm voting to pass this law because I'm Mormon' makes no sense, since religion IS circumcising, dress code and which day of the week you worship on. (god forbid if someone stood up and said 'I'm voting for this because I'm Muslim!)
They ALL share the same values that govern/guide our country. All of them, religious or non religious, so they really don't need to declare their particular practice, unless they are trying to own /hijack some particular value that all the others share anyway.
An example. If a member stands up and says 'I vote to discriminate against gays because I'm christian', well that should be an immediate dis qualifier since we are not a theocracy and this person has declared he/she will fight this based on his/her religion. It's a religious thing, and something we should fight against as a secular nation. Now Rick Perry can get on his knees at night and pray whatever he wants, that's his business. But when he publicly and politically prays to toss all gays into the sea, well, here's a guy who wants to write legislation for us all. Here is a guy who is publicly declaring/warning us that he intends to write legislation based on his religion.
Now just imagine if that Muslim member of congress held a huge Muslim rally to pray that all women wear burkas, then heads back to congress. Just put that scenario in your mind.
I guess the really frightening part of this is that it's so open, and so blatant and so in your face. See, all those governors are going to have to come up with plausible excuses for why they aren't going, when the only real excuse should be "Are you kidding? This isn't a theocracy. I'm not going to a christian political prayer rally!" But I guarantee you not one will have the courage to do so. And that is very very very frightening.
*I just want to add, thank god for spell check!
Originally posted by peggy
Of course all faiths are represented by our members of government, although I do remember the huge outcry when it was 'rumored' that a Muslim member was going to take the oath on the Koran. But if a member stands up and says, 'I'm voting for this legislation because I'm christian', or 'I'm voting to pass this law because I'm Mormon' makes no sense, since religion IS circumcising, dress code and which day of the week you worship on. (god forbid if someone stood up and said 'I'm voting for this because I'm Muslim!)
They ALL share the same values that govern/guide our country. All of them, religious or non religious, so they really don't need to declare their particular practice, unless they are trying to own /hijack some particular value that all the others share anyway.
Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.
There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?
loosechickens
6-9-11, 3:09pm
The Houston Chronicle has an interesting piece on Gov. Perry's "prayer" meeting:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/new/7602059.html
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry's Aug. 6 day of prayer and fasting at Reliant Stadium is generating significant heat nationwide, with critics protesting the exclusively Christian focus of the event and Perry's partnership with the controversial American Family Association, which advocates against gay rights.
Expressing objections on a variety of religious and cultural grounds, some opponents have organized a protest on Facebook, while others are urging the nation's 49 other governors invited by Perry to boycott the event.
To host the Reliant Park event, Perry chose the Mississippi-based American Family Association, a nonprofit that operates a network of 192 radio stations with 2 million followers that has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for what the SPLC calls the dissemination of "known falsehoods" about homosexuality. The AFA also has called for numerous boycotts against companies and entities it says "promote the homosexual agenda."
Critics also accused Perry of using a religious event to boost a possible presidential bid.
"I want to be clear that my criticism of the governor doesn't stem from my lack of appreciation for religion, rather it comes from my deep respect for religion and from not wanting religion to be prostituted for political purposes," said C. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Interfaith Alliance. "I think the people of Texas elected him to be the governor of the state, not the pastor of the state."
Gaddy also expressed concern that Perry is organizing an event that "is not just distinctively Christian, but would be exclusionary of non-Christians. What got my attention is the close proximity between him talking about the run for the presidency and the critical condition of our nation all defined in pretty much policy issues."
The website for the event, dubbed "The Response," includes a statement from Perry: "Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy."
Mustafaa Carroll, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Houston, said he regretted that the service would be strictly Christian.
"We're down with the prayer part," Carroll said. "I just wish they would join other people in the prayer. It would be more productive to ask the whole community."
Several gay rights organizations also decried Perry's partnership with the AFA.
"Governor Perry's decision to work with such blatantly anti-LGBT groups on an event billed as a day of prayer is disturbing," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization. "Governor Perry has called on governors from all other states to join him in recognizing the day of prayer. HRC is calling on governors across the nation to not support the August 6th event, and take a stand against the hijacking of religious values by those who actively work to suppress LGBT Americans."
'Hate group' label denied
Noel Freeman, head of the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, said his organization did not take offense with "the event itself. If Governor Perry wants to have a prayer event, that's his prerogative. The thing we take exception to is that his primary partner in this is an anti-gay hate group. They are primarily known for that fact. This was not a secret to either Governor Perry or his staff."
Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, rejected the label of "hate group" and characterized his organization's position on homosexuality as representative "of a lot of people who have traditional values."
"They want somebody to speak for them," he said. "We try to do that. We are reaching the Christian community with the truth about what is going on in our country."
He acknowledged that a stated purpose of the August prayer event initiated by Perry - to pray for an end to the "debasement of our culture" - refers to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by American society.
Accused of defamation
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, said the AFA - through blogs and radio programs - willfully disseminates falsehoods about gays and lesbians.
"This is a group that has repeatedly defamed gay men with the falsehood claiming that gay men molest children at rates far higher than heterosexuals. And this is provably, scientifically false," he said, citing research by the American Pediatric Association and the American Psychiatric Association. "This has been well-known for many, many years. So our feeling, the American Family Association is either consciously lying or has absolutely failed to do any kind of due diligence as it engages in the personal defamation of gay men in this country."
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, defended the governor's association with AFA.
"The American Family Association is an organization devoted to faith and strong families," she said. "We are pleased to have them as a sponsor for the event." She also denied that the event was politically motivated, saying Perry simply felt it was important to bring people together in prayer.
Potok said the AFA earned the "hate group" label based largely on the writings and radio program of Bryan Fischer, the AFA's director of issue analysis for government and public policy.
"He claims that gay people are responsible for the Nazi Party's murder of 6 million Jews. This is utterly false," Potok said.
Fischer could not be reached for comment, but in a YouTube video of a radio program discussion of Hitler, he states "virtually all of the brown shirts were male homosexuals" because Hitler found them to be especially vicious warriors.
Fischer also has asserted that gays should not be allowed to hold public office. Eric Bearse, spokesman for the prayer event, said organizers did not take into consideration the fact that Houston Mayor Annise Parker is a lesbian.
Mayor's response
Parker on Wednesday said she was aware of the AFA's anti-gay history, but she declined to criticize the event.
"No, I'm glad to have anybody's dollars coming to the city of Houston. They can come back on a monthly basis if they'd like as long as they spend money," she said. "I'm not responsible for their message. My job is to make sure that anyone who comes and chooses to use Houston as a convention venue has a safe time (and) is able to navigate the city, and we thank them for choosing Houston."
Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.
There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?
No, him opposing it doesn't make them a theocracy, but if they pass it based on religious views, or not pass it based on religious views, then they are skating pretty close, or even breaking the law, in my opinion. Sure someone can say I oppose this because it's against my religion, but he/she had better bring something more to the table than that, because we don't pass laws based on religious dogma. For every religion that opposes this you could find others who think it's fine, or even demand it. They have to say more than, my bible forbids this. Is it dangerous? Is it cruel, or torture? Rule of Law, not rule of god.
Why are they trying to outlaw it? Personally, I think it's between the doctor and the parents, and really circumcision isn't just for Jews you know. In our case, I left the decision for our son up to my husband feeling, as a man, he would have the perspective i didn't. I'm not familiar with this case but perhaps they are just trying to outlaw the Jewish practice cause if done the 'old school way' well, look it up sometime. You'll see why, if that is the intent which I think is maybe the case here. But again, I haven't heard anything about it.
Ok Alan, well I looked it up. I thought perhaps they were trying to ban it because of mezizah, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Apparently this has been brought before legislation in several states before being defeated. There is a school of thought that this is nothing more than male genital mutilation, and should be outlawed. They say female genital circumcision is outlawed so this should be too. I suppose I can see their point.
On the other hand, the WHO says circumcision has been shown to help prevent the spread of AIDS in developing nations, as well as preventing other problems. I guess in the US that isn't a factor as most new cases of AIDS are gay men and circumcision doesn't seem to help in those cases. Anyway it's an interesting case. Religious freedom in this practice should probably win out unless the opposing side can actually prove, at least to the courts satisfaction, that it is in fact torture and harmful. I don't think they have that many doctors on their side really as it's performed with anesthetic in a clean, hospital environment, mostly. This is probably one of those cases that won't make it very far, regardless of religious implications or not.
Loosechickens, is your entire post from the Chronicle or did you take a few liberties? just checkin...sounds a little lopsided for the Chronicle
Loosechickens, is your entire post from the Chronicle or did you take a few liberties? just checkin...sounds a little lopsided for the Chronicle
You are really trying hard.......
Peace
Its a yes or no question dude
Its a yes or no question dude
Well, loosechickens did provide a link to the source so you can compare that to his post if you want the answer....
loosechickens
6-10-11, 12:11am
yes, Catwoman......the piece is completely from the Houston Chronicle, not edited in any way, AND I posted the link to the piece as well, so I think I have to say that you ARE fishing a bit. Didn't you even check the link first?
It's the pits when the facts just don't seem to line up with your preconceived ideas, isn't it? ;-)
edited for: danged typo.......and to say that I don't believe I have EVER posted something here and attempted to "edit" it to change or alter the meaning and content of the piece, while I might certainly only excerpt portions of it, to illustrate a point I am trying to make. I also try to post a link to the complete item, especially if I don't put the entire piece in my post, so that people can go directly to the source and read the entire thing.
I don't "take liberties".
So, I am somewhat annoyed that it sounds as though you are accusing me of altering it because somehow it doesn't fit YOUR idea of how the Chronicle would feel about this issue, AND not even bothering to click on the link to read the piece yourself first.
As you'll note, by reading the article, many Christian pastors and others have found this ploy by our governor to be distasteful and inappropriate, just as many of us here have.
It's probably a little confusing because the link is to what appears to be a blog called Houston Belief, Believe Out Loud, which seems to be hosted by the Houston Chronicle, along with several others on pets/parenting/gardening/etc.
Yes, thanks, so it was a blog not a complete news article?
Yes, thanks, so it was a blog not a complete news article?
Since it looks like an integral part of the site, hard to say. best bet would be to write the editor and ask. this would be especially true if you take umbrage with the article as, core to the newspaper or not, it's being hosted on the newspaper's site and therefore being put forth with their name attached.
That's how it appears to me. The page heading makes no mention of the Chronicle although the copyright notice at the bottom does and there are several hundred comments on the article which doesn't seem likely on a newspaper story. The header on the page is different from the Houston Chronicle's main site:
http://images.chron.com/photos/2008/01/24/belieflogo_new/belieflogo_new.jpg (http://www.houstonbelief.com/)
That's probably why it sounds different than the newspaper.
It appears they are doing something right in Texas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html
Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.
There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?
I think the difference is that plenty of people choose to circumsize their male children for non-religious reasons, so while a jewish politician may oppose it for religious reasons, he can point to plenty of other reasons to oppose the ban, but no non-religious people are likely to believe that our elected leaders should be hosting a giant prayer session for a solution to our nation's problems. And frankly, as a non-jew, I oppose the circumcision ban at least partly on religious grounds because I don't think laws should be made banning what is, for some, a religiously significant thing.
Personally I don't care if Rick Perry wants to have his event, however rediculous I think it may be. I think that by doing this he's lost any chance of winning the presidency. No non-religious person, and plenty of religious people from any number of faiths, including Christianity, are likely to see it as I do, a clear indication that this man is incapable of coming up with and implementing real solutions to the nations problems. If this is the best idea he can come up with I shudder to think what a Perry presidency would be like.
It appears they are doing something right in Texas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html
Yea, here's how Texas is doing under Rick Perry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2147181/texas_on_the_brink_just_where_does.html
Some highlights:
"You get what you pay for - Texas ranks 49th in revenues collected per capita, and 50th in revenues spent. The state also ranks 44th on tax progressivity, meaning although it collects less taxes overall, more of a share comes from the working class.
Texas comes in dead last (50th) in percent of population over 25 who have a high school diploma. 46th in SAT scores, and 49th in teacher pay. But hey, the Texas school board has ordered that all schools teach the bible in the upcoming school year!
How does the family do in the Lone Star State? Texas ranks last in the percentage of people without medical insurance. It also ranks dead last in the number of covered children, 49th in level of payments for the Women and Infant Children (WIC) program, but 1st in the number of teenage births. Texas ranks 3rd in number of people living in poverty and 50th in homeowners insurance affordability.
And hey, Texan politicians come 3rd as to number of convicted public officials! Dead last in voter turnout, though. First in executions and 2nd in rate of incarceration only manage to get Texas up to 18th in murder rate. "
"What about the environment? Air pollution emissions, CO2 emissions, amount of volatile organic compounds released into the air, amount of toxic chemicals released into water, amount of carcinogens released into the air - all number one!"
"Texas ranks 46th in hourly earnings for manufacturing workers, 47th for union membership, and 48th in worker's compensation benefits paid per covered worker. Don't get hurt at work in Texas, eh?"
Are we proud yet? We're #1! We're #1! We're #......:(
Yea, because prayer has been so helpful in the past. :~)
What I love is that it's a prayer AND fast. Cause, you know, god loves hungry people and all...and it's a non denominational CHRISTIAN thing. Well, that's pretty specific isn't it. That pretty much leaves out everyone else, doesn't it.
Nondenominational means Christian, including all stripes: Lutheran, Methodist etc. To include all FAITHS would be ecumenical, which they aren't claiming.
poetry_writer
6-10-11, 12:26pm
Yea, here's how Texas is doing under Rick Perry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2147181/texas_on_the_brink_just_where_does.html
Some highlights:
"You get what you pay for - Texas ranks 49th in revenues collected per capita, and 50th in revenues spent. The state also ranks 44th on tax progressivity, meaning although it collects less taxes overall, more of a share comes from the working class.
Texas comes in dead last (50th) in percent of population over 25 who have a high school diploma. 46th in SAT scores, and 49th in teacher pay. But hey, the Texas school board has ordered that all schools teach the bible in the upcoming school year!
How does the family do in the Lone Star State? Texas ranks last in the percentage of people without medical insurance. It also ranks dead last in the number of covered children, 49th in level of payments for the Women and Infant Children (WIC) program, but 1st in the number of teenage births. Texas ranks 3rd in number of people living in poverty and 50th in homeowners insurance affordability.
And hey, Texan politicians come 3rd as to number of convicted public officials! Dead last in voter turnout, though. First in executions and 2nd in rate of incarceration only manage to get Texas up to 18th in murder rate. "
"What about the environment? Air pollution emissions, CO2 emissions, amount of volatile organic compounds released into the air, amount of toxic chemicals released into water, amount of carcinogens released into the air - all number one!"
"Texas ranks 46th in hourly earnings for manufacturing workers, 47th for union membership, and 48th in worker's compensation benefits paid per covered worker. Don't get hurt at work in Texas, eh?"
Are we proud yet? We're #1! We're #1! We're #......:(
And the rest of the country is doing swell under Obama ..not. You are quoting from what source? >8)>8)
Zigzagman
6-10-11, 12:56pm
Without getting into the minute details of what Texas is doing right or wrong under Rick Perry---my personal observation is that Texas is indeed business friendly. I also think that Texas, under Perry, might be considered overall the most conservative state in the nation. The Perry political machine would easily rival the legendary Daley political machine in Chicago. Perry is a self-serving hypocrite who somehow has convinced the voters of Texas to vote against themselves with his endless rant about secession, guns, religion, abortion, and "pull yourself up by your booststraps". He loaded up the Texas Education Agency with right-wing religious nuts who sole purpose was to change school textbooks to reflect a "born-again" philosophy, he even recently got legislation passed to bring in nuclear waste from everywhere to dump here and just magically the company over the project was Perry's largest campaign contributer, I could go on and on.
Texas under Perry has a spending problem - they (the Republican super-majority) refuse to spend money on the citizens of Texas.
He even created his own private slush fund from oil and gas taxes that only he can decide how to use (Rainy Day Fund). All of this while running up a 25-28 billion dollar deficit in the state budget. Were it not for the almost immune oil and gas business the budget would be in even greater shambles. He like to talk about "small government" and then pushes for emergency legislation for nanny government issues.
All of this and yet I suspect that he could get re-elected forever if that was his desire. That is the nature of the conservative voters in Texas these days. Many will talk about what a buffoon he is and then go to the ballot box and vote a straight GOP ticket - they simply cannot stand those damn liberals.
I tried to warn people around the country as I traveled when I worked about Bush in 2000 and how dangerous he was but somehow he also got elected twice!! I'll say it again folks - Perry is even more dangerous than Bush because he is much more power hungry. There is no limit to what people like him will do for personal gain for himself and his buddies.
Texas is what it is, but not everybody in Texas is a sleezeball. It is actually quite a purple state but with the redistricting that has taken place in the last 20 years it is very difficult to get a progressive elected to any statewide office.
Peace
loosechickens
6-10-11, 2:17pm
Alan, Catwoman, et al. The piece appeared on the religion page of the Houston Chronicle. If you look at the header on the link, it is the website of the Houston Chronicle www.chron.com and then the slash, etc., that leads you to the actual piece.
The point is that someone supposedly so familiar with the Houston Chronicle that she knows how THEY would report on an issue, surely would realize that www.chron.com IS the website of the Houston Chronicle.
When you link to an article, blog or any other content on a newspaper's website, the resulting URL when clicked on, will take you directly to the page in question. It's how the internet WORKS.
If she had any doubts, not only could she have read the whole link, she could have gone to the main website involved, www.chron.com to get to the main front page of the newspaper.
One could also go to the main website of the newspaper, and then click through to their religion section and find the piece directly that way.
Also, whether it appears on the regligion page, the front page, a blog or any other place in the newspaper, what IN it was "opinion"? What factual errors might have been in there? Was the Baptist minister quoted incorrectly? Has the Southern Poverty Law Center NOT listed the Family organization a hate group due to their spreading of misinformation, lies and bigotry against gay people?
Somehow, you seem to be insinuating again, this time that somehow, because it appeared in a piece on the religion page, as opposed to elsewhere in the newspaper, that it was simply "opinion" or "a blog", and therefore not factual. Please enlighten us as to factual errors, parts of the piece that are simply opinion or conjecture by the Houston Chronicle writer from the Austin Bureau that would be a basis for that.
The whole point is that Catwoman assumed, rather than investigated, and in a somewhat underhanded way, appeared to accuse, when it was easy enough to see that I had posted the whole piece, it WAS from the Houston Chronicle, not altered or edited in any way, and appeared in the religion section of the newspaper.
And you, also, post the logo at the top of the religion page, but don't bother to post what is directly beneath that, which is the headline, and author of the piece, a reporter for the Austin bureau of the Houston Chronicle. NOT a blog, NOT an opinion piece, but a piece of straight reporting from a Houston Chronicle reporter, on the religion page of the newspaper.
"Perry's upcoming prayer event draws sharp criticism
By PATRICIA KILDAY HART
AUSTIN BUREAU
June 8, 2011, 9:44PM"
That's all. People remember insinuations, even if they are unfounded, ill advised, and no attempt is made to see that they are accurate. So if one is going to insinuate, one should get the facts in a row before insinuating. Otherwise, it's simply an attempt to smear. JMHO
Alan, Catwoman, et al......
Sorry loosechickens, I simply thought that if someone familiar with the Chronicle found the tone of the article mentioned to be contrary to the newspapers editorial slant, it may be because the article didn't come from the paper proper, but rather from a blog hosted by the paper, which seems reasonable to me considering that the Chronicle logo appears nowhere on the posted link.
I have no interest in smearing you, even though at various times you've referred to me as a trouble maker, pot stirrer and rabble rouser and then just recently referred to my sincere efforts to form a more collegial relationship with you as being disrespectful of you. Based upon my being banned from the old forum within minutes of being critical of your over-reaction to another poster and then seeing what happened to the last poster to raise your ire on the new site, I think I know better than most what it means to attract undue attention.
I'm sorry if I've unintentionally contributed to your feelings of being disrespected. I can assure you that I know better than that.
loosechickens
6-10-11, 3:11pm
Apology accepted.....although I have to say that any reasonably intelligent person (which would certainly describe both you AND Catwoman) would have had no real difficulty in ascertaining that the piece in question was not a blog, not an opinion piece, but a piece of straight news reporting, by a Houston Chronicle reporter, on the religion page of the Houston Chronicle. Unless one WANTED to insinuate that it wasn't.
And, of course, there you go, insinuating again that somehow if you "displease" me, (because along with being an ordinary member here, I'm also a moderator), terrible things might happen and you might find yourself banned again, etc., when you know full well that I have no power whatsoever to "have you banned" (nor would I want to), since moderating decisions of that sort are made collectively, by the whole moderating team, only after attempts to work with the person repeatedly about violations of guidelines, etc., and are not something that "just happens" because one's opinions cause some moderator to be annoyed with you.
But.......carry on........ Is is straight now that I posted a straight news article, by a Houston Chronicle reporter, on the religion page of the Houston Chronicle, and was making no attempt to edit, alter, mislead or try to pass off a blog or opinion piece as a straight news article?
Look, I'm a Texan. This guy, Perry is MY governor. And I certainly don't want him to think he's representing ME with this hypocrisy of a grandstanding moment designed to propel him into national politics. If I had any sense at all that his motivation was sincere, it would be one thing, but it's a shameless attempt to manipulate lots of well meaning people into backing him because he's "showing himself to be such a fine Christian". Makes me want to gag, and I like to think that even were I a devout, believing Christian, I'd feel the same way.
Not to split hairs, but I still believe that the article in question is an opinion piece posted on an off-shoot of the Houston Chronicle site. The reasons I believe so are:
The site maintains a different header and logo than the Chronicle site and all of its top-level link pages.
The Houston Belief page is only accessible from a footer link.
The 'Home' button on the Houston Belief page takes you back to the Houston Belief logoed site rather than to the Houston Chronicle site.
At any rate, as a "reasonably intelligent person", I still have difficulty ascertaining that it is a "straight piece of news reporting" on the Houston Chronicle. Although others can certainly feel free to see it differently as the format of the entire site is a little muddled.
Backing out of the conversation now to help prevent it from getting out of hand.
The Storyteller
6-10-11, 3:53pm
Not to split hairs,
Of course not.
but I still believe that the article in question is an opinion piece
Those usually state they are opinion somewhere in the header of the article.
posted on an off-shoot of the Houston Chronicle site.
I think they calls those "Sections" in the paper version of a newspaper.
If you scroll down to the bottom the page and click "Home", it will take you to the home page of the Houston Chronicle.
loosechickens
6-10-11, 3:57pm
This is moving into "dead horse" territory, but........
From the Houston Chronicle website:
Patricia Kilday Hart is the new Austin-based reporter and columnist for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News. Hart is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, covered the Legislature for the Dallas Times Herald from 1981-1988 and co-authored Ten Best, Ten Worst Legislators for Texas Monthly from 1989 through the 2009 session. She is a Houston native and now resides in Austin.
And from Texas Monthly:
"Patricia Kilday Hart has written about Texas politics for nearly 20 years. She has contributed to TEXAS MONTHLY's "Ten Best, Ten Worst Legislators" story since 1989 and worked as a reporter in the Dallas Times Herald's Texas Capitol bureau. She is a journalism graduate of the University of Texas at Austin"
Alan, was the piece I posted Patricia Kilday Hart's opinion? Did it tell you how SHE felt about this, or was it a piece of factual reporting about how Governor Perry's proposed prayer extravaganza was being criticized in both the Christian community and by others? Was it a factual account?
We can beat this to death. Perhaps you, living in Ohio, are not familiar with the Houston Chronicle, although Catwoman certainly seems to be, if she considers herself expert on whether the piece "sounds like" something from the Houston Chronicle, but I am a Texas resident, of the general Houston area, and the Houston Chronicle website is on my favorites, and a site where I go to every day, and use as one of my regular news sources.
When I read this piece, I came to it right from the main page of the Houston Chronicle, during my daily looksee of the paper. I don't know exactly why you would have had difficulty.
We're boring folks to death with this by now, I'm sure. Heck, I'm even bored myself. And I think I've set the insinuations to rest sufficiently for anyone interested to ascertain. So......I'm off to eat lunch.
The Storyteller
6-10-11, 4:43pm
This is moving into "dead horse" territory, but........
http://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/uploads/21957_deadhorsebeat_4.gif
not a dead horse, big difference between a writer for Texas Monthly Magazine and Op-Ed pieces, blogs and actual news articles. You guys all know the difference, I'm just sleuthing to see what it news and what is opinion...
It looks as if "Believe Out Loud" is the name for the religion section of the Chronicle, It may only be for the online version as the page has forums and blogs as well. I just said all this to point out that when someone posts something citing a newspaper, nowadays you can get a lot of other stuff besides hard news as I believe is the case in this instance. It doesn't matter if it lines up with my beliefs or not - if it is opinion, that's what it is.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/d444f0707344012ee3c400163e41dd5b.gif
Chickens - the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't have high standing with everyone. They line up way to the left side of every issue. I don't ever get my facts from worldnet daily, although, I bet they would always agree with me. IMO, Southern Poverty Law Center has about as much credence as World Net Daily or Media Matters.
The Storyteller
6-10-11, 9:02pm
It looks as if "Believe Out Loud" is the name for the religion section of the Chronicle, It may only be for the online version as the page has forums and blogs as well. I just said all this to point out that when someone posts something citing a newspaper, nowadays you can get a lot of other stuff besides hard news as I believe is the case in this instance. It doesn't matter if it lines up with my beliefs or not - if it is opinion, that's what it is.
This is getting to the point of silly, but I think I will give this just one more shot. Seems to me it might be fruitful for folks to stop talking about the source and turn their attention to the substance of the article itself, whether or not they like the particular article.
I accessed NewsBank this evening through my local library's subscription, navigated to the Houston Chronicle, and searched the author of the article's name. The first hit was the below article.
Please note the name of the newspaper, the section, and the page... Houston Chronicle, Section A, page 1. I don't have access to the print version (which is where this article came from), but on most newspapers, Section A is the first one. Page 1 of Section A, then, would be the front page. I have never seen an opinion piece on the front page of any newspaper.
So, the article in question did indeed appear in the Houston Chronicle's print version of its newspaper on the front page. My educated hunch is that if you visit your local branch of your Houston Public Library and check that particular date for the Chronicle, you are going to find this article.
************************************************** ************************************************** ********
Perry's day of prayer draws some religious, cultural protests - Anti-gay group is hosting the exclusively Christian event here - Prayer: Political nature of the event is criticized
Houston Chronicle (TX) - Thursday, June 9, 2011
Author: PATRICIA KILDAY HART , AUSTIN BUREAU
AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry's Aug. 6 day of prayer and fasting at Reliant Stadium is generating significant heat nationwide, with critics protesting the exclusively Christian focus of the event and Perry's partnership with the controversial American Family Association, which advocates against gay rights.
Expressing objections on a variety of religious and cultural grounds, some opponents have organized a protest on Facebook, while others are urging the nation's 49 other governors invited by Perry to boycott the event.
To host the Reliant Park event, Perry chose the Mississippi-based American Family Association, a nonprofit that operates a network of 192 radio stations with 2 million followers that has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for what the SPLC calls the dissemination of "known falsehoods" about homosexuality. The AFA also has called for numerous boycotts against companies and entities it says "promote the homosexual agenda."
Critics also accused Perry of using a religious event to boost a possible presidential bid.
"I want to be clear that my criticism of the governor doesn't stem from my lack of appreciation for religion, rather it comes from my deep respect for religion and from not wanting religion to be prostituted for political purposes," said C. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Interfaith Alliance. "I think the people of Texas elected him to be the governor of the state, not the pastor of the state."
Gaddy also expressed concern that Perry is organizing an event that "is not just distinctively Christian, but would be exclusionary of non-Christians. What got my attention is the close proximity between him talking about the run for the presidency and the critical condition of our nation all defined in pretty much policy issues."
The website for the event, dubbed "The Response," includes a statement from Perry: "Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy."
Mustafaa Carroll, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Houston, said he regretted that the service would be strictly Christian.
"We're down with the prayer part," Carroll said. "I just wish they would join other people in the prayer. It would be more productive to ask the whole community."
Several gay rights organizations also decried Perry's partnership with the AFA.
"Governor Perry's decision to work with such blatantly anti-LGBT groups on an event billed as a day of prayer is disturbing," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization. "Governor Perry has called on governors from all other states to join him in recognizing the day of prayer. HRC is calling on governors across the nation to not support the August 6th event, and take a stand against the hijacking of religious values by those who actively work to suppress LGBT Americans."
'Hate group' label denied
Noel Freeman, head of the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, said his organization did not take offense with "the event itself. If Governor Perry wants to have a prayer event, that's his prerogative. The thing we take exception to is that his primary partner in this is an anti-gay hate group. They are primarily known for that fact. This was not a secret to either Governor Perry or his staff."
Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, rejected the label of "hate group" and characterized his organization's position on homosexuality as representative "of a lot of people who have traditional values."
"They want somebody to speak for them," he said. "We try to do that. We are reaching the Christian community with the truth about what is going on in our country."
He acknowledged that a stated purpose of the August prayer event initiated by Perry - to pray for an end to the "debasement of our culture" - refers to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by American society.
Accused of defamation
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, said the AFA - through blogs and radio programs - willfully disseminates falsehoods about gays and lesbians.
"This is a group that has repeatedly defamed gay men with the falsehood claiming that gay men molest children at rates far higher than heterosexuals. And this is provably, scientifically false," he said, citing research by the American Pediatric Association and the American Psychiatric Association. "This has been well-known for many, many years. So our feeling, the American Family Association is either consciously lying or has absolutely failed to do any kind of due diligence as it engages in the personal defamation of gay men in this country."
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, defended the governor's association with AFA.
"The American Family Association is an organization devoted to faith and strong families," she said. "We are pleased to have them as a sponsor for the event." She also denied that the event was politically motivated, saying Perry simply felt it was important to bring people together in prayer.
Potok said the AFA earned the "hate group" label based largely on the writings and radio program of Bryan Fischer, the AFA's director of issue analysis for government and public policy.
"He claims that gay people are responsible for the Nazi Party's murder of 6 million Jews. This is utterly false," Potok said.
Fischer could not be reached for comment, but in a YouTube video of a radio program discussion of Hitler, he states "virtually all of the brown shirts were male homosexuals" because Hitler found them to be especially vicious warriors.
Fischer also has asserted that gays should not be allowed to hold public office. Eric Bearse, spokesman for the prayer event, said organizers did not take into consideration the fact that Houston Mayor Annise Parker is a lesbian.
Mayor's response
Parker on Wednesday said she was aware of the AFA's anti-gay history, but she declined to criticize the event.
"No, I'm glad to have anybody's dollars coming to the city of Houston. They can come back on a monthly basis if they'd like as long as they spend money," she said. "I'm not responsible for their message. My job is to make sure that anyone who comes and chooses to use Houston as a convention venue has a safe time (and) is able to navigate the city, and we thank them for choosing Houston."
patti. hart @chron.com
Edition: 3 STAR
Section: A
Page: 1
Record Number: 5011664
Copyright (c), 2011, Houston Chronicle. All Rights Reserved.
The Storyteller
6-12-11, 6:34pm
Cat got your tongue?
Chickens - the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't have high standing with everyone. They line up way to the left side of every issue. I don't ever get my facts from worldnet daily, although, I bet they would always agree with me. IMO, Southern Poverty Law Center has about as much credence as World Net Daily or Media Matters.
SPLC routinely wins both civil & criminal lawsuits and are doing a fierce job of protecting the civil rights of many. Their Klanwatch is chilling - and they are doing a huge service to this country documenting the rise and trajectory of various hate groups around the country. I have tremendous regard for their watchdog status & advocacy role in defending civil rights.
SPLC routinely wins both civil & criminal lawsuits and are doing a fierce job of protecting the civil rights of many. Their Klanwatch is chilling - and they are doing a huge service to this country documenting the rise and trajectory of various hate groups around the country. I have tremendous regard for their watchdog status & advocacy role in defending civil rights.
Yes, but the problem with the SPLC is that they depend upon donations to fund their operations and there is lots of money to be made by defining an enemy and exploiting the generosity of others. Back in the mid 80's the SPLC's entire legal staff quit over the center's business model of defining and exploiting high payback cause's and dis-regarding issues that would be of greater benefit to the communities they espouse to represent.
Race/Gender/Religious hustling is a very lucrative business and the SPLC is good at what they do.
Yes, but the problem with the SPLC is that they depend upon donations to fund their operations and there is lots of money to be made by defining an enemy and exploiting the generosity of others. Back in the mid 80's the SPLC's entire legal staff quit over the center's business model of defining and exploiting high payback cause's and dis-regarding issues that would be of greater benefit to the communities they espouse to represent.
Race/Gender/Religious hustling is a very lucrative business and the SPLC is good at what they do.
so is your local congressman, who also depends on donations, large donations, to fund his shenanigans. Perhaps you should look into his/her dealings ans pay-backs. :0!
so is your local congressman, who also depends on donations, large donations, to fund his shenanigans. Perhaps you should look into his/her dealings ans pay-backs. :0!
That's true! You should never trust a professional politician either.
I tend to like the folks who get into politics after having had successful careers. People like Herman Cain and Allen West. You're much less likely to go wrong with people like that.
Storyteller, your lengthy diatribe in no way "shuts me up" or provokes the "cat got your tongue" reaction. You have a very similar approach to Loosechickens...
And like they always say If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull@#@!
The Storyteller
6-13-11, 10:16am
Storyteller, your lengthy diatribe in no way "shuts me up" or provokes the "cat got your tongue" reaction. You have a very similar approach to Loosechickens...
And like they always say If you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bull@#@!
Perry's day of prayer draws some religious, cultural protests - Anti-gay group is hosting the exclusively Christian event here - Prayer: Political nature of the event is criticized
Houston Chronicle (TX) - Thursday, June 9, 2011
Author: PATRICIA KILDAY HART , AUSTIN BUREAU
[Lengthy articled making the point it is the same article LC posted that you claimed was from some off shoot or blog, snipped for brevity]
patti. hart @chron.com
Edition: 3 STAR
Section: A
Page: 1
Record Number: 5011664
Copyright (c), 2011, Houston Chronicle. All Rights Reserved.
Check that... Houston Chronicle, Section A, Page 1.
AKA: the front page.
Again, go to your local library and check the June 9th Houston Chronicle. You will find the article you have been quibbling about.
I don't understand why you find that in the least baffling.
Yes, but the problem with the SPLC is that they depend upon donations to fund their operations and there is lots of money to be made by defining an enemy and exploiting the generosity of others. Back in the mid 80's the SPLC's entire legal staff quit over the center's business model of defining and exploiting high payback cause's and dis-regarding issues that would be of greater benefit to the communities they espouse to represent.
Race/Gender/Religious hustling is a very lucrative business and the SPLC is good at what they do.
Yeah, capitalism sucks.
Yeah, capitalism sucks.
I would disagree. Capitalism is the most successful economic model the world has ever known, and it is morally neutral.
The SPLC, as it has evolved, may use capitalistic tools such as marketing in their "watch" publications and sales in their fund raising activities, but they're not morally neutral as much as they are morally manipulative.
loosechickens
6-13-11, 2:47pm
Well, personally, I'm happy that the SPLC is watching the hate groups, doing their best to curtail their activities by going after them in court, etc. When I look at the folks they are aligning themselves against, if that is "left wing", then I'm happy to be one, too. One would think that even most rightwingers in this country would find it distasteful to be aligned with these haters, but.......
Hate group listingsMain article: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups
The Southern Poverty Law Center is named as a resource on the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes.[80] The SPLC maintains a list of hate groups defined as groups that "...have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." It says that hate group activities may include speeches, marches, rallies, meetings, publishing, leafleting, and criminal acts such as violence. It says not all groups listed by the SPLC engage in criminal activity.[5]
The SPLC reported that 926 hate groups were active in the United States in 2008, up from 888 in 2007. These included:
186 separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups with 52 websites
196 neo-Nazi groups with 89 websites
111 White nationalist groups with 190 websites
98 White power skinhead groups with 25 websites
39 Christian Identity groups with 37 websites
93 neo-Confederate groups with 25 websites
113 black separatist groups with 40 websites
159 Patriot movement groups
90 general hate groups subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic groups, and other groups espousing a variety of hateful doctrines,[81][82] which maintained another 172 hate websites.[83] Only organizations active in 2008 were counted, excluding those that appear to exist only on the Internet. In addition, SPLC reported there were 159 Patriot movement groups active in the United States in 2008, up from 131 in 2007, with at least one such group in every state. They maintain 141 websites.[84]
One would think that even most rightwingers in this country would find it distasteful to be aligned with these haters, but.......
Are you implying that those of us who lean right "are" aligned with "these haters"?
I would disagree. Capitalism is the most successful economic model the world has ever known, and it is morally neutral.
The SPLC, as it has evolved, may use capitalistic tools such as marketing in their "watch" publications and sales in their fund raising activities, but they're not morally neutral as much as they are morally manipulative.
I was being flip with you - I am not actually against capitalism per se; it's a specific system that is exquisitely well designed for it's desired outcomes. I have some quarrels around some aspects of the design - a much larger convo than this post!
One of the basic misunderstandings in the GP about not-for-profit organizations is that they can't/don't/shouldn't make a profit. These assumptions are false, which I think you are aware of, but many aren't. It's what the org DOES with its profit that's regulated.
So, my question for you is this: what do you mean by moral neutrality or moral manipulation? As a long time non-profit development professional what I see is that the SPLC is spot on about how they make their case, to whom, and why. I've not seen a NFP organization that I would label as morally manipulative, regardless of where their mission falls in the political spectrum.
This isn't a 'gotcha' question, I'm seriously curious about your view, as in all my years in the NFP world, I have never heard this said before.
Thanks in advance!
So, my question for you is this: what do you mean by moral neutrality or moral manipulation? As a long time non-profit development professional what I see is that the SPLC is spot on about how they make their case, to whom, and why. I've not seen a NFP organization that I would label as morally manipulative, regardless of where their mission falls in the political spectrum.
This isn't a 'gotcha' question, I'm seriously curious about your view, as in all my years in the NFP world, I have never heard this said before.
Thanks in advance!
I wouldn't think of lumping all NP's together but in the case of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center many people, including the Southern Center For Human Rights (http://www.schr.org/), agree that Morris Dees is a con man and a fraud. One of SPLC's own attorneys admitted (http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html) that the center's policies are designed to "cash in on black pain and white guilt".
With a world class direct-marketing strategy and a penchant for creating fear in the minds of potential donors, I'd be skeptical of of their morally manipulative work which all too often consists of selling fear. But, as always, maybe that's just me.
Before we get one foot nailed to the ground debating whether AFA is a hate group or just another "Christian Family Organization" (there seems to be hundreds of these groups, they must be quite lucrative?) remember that Harry Truman said that his Grandfather told him whenever a fellow tells you how good and holy he is you’d better run home and check that the smokehouse is locked. ;)
For Pete’s Sake, do not put another dumb hypocritical greedy Texan in the White House. I don't really care how much he prays and such.
Peace
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1015Perry1_e.jpg
Before we get one foot nailed to the ground debating whether AFA is a hate group or just another "Christian Family Organization" (there seems to be hundreds of these groups, they must be quite lucrative?) remember that Harry Truman said that his Grandfather told him whenever a fellow tells you how good and holy he is you’d better run home and check that the smokehouse is locked. ;)
For Pete’s Sake, do not put another dumb hypocritical greedy Texan in the White House. I don't really care how much he prays and such.
Peace
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1015Perry1_e.jpg
Wow, he's a hunk. Who is he?
I wouldn't think of lumping all NP's together but in the case of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center many people, including the Southern Center For Human Rights (http://www.schr.org/), agree that Morris Dees is a con man and a fraud. One of SPLC's own attorneys admitted (http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html) that the center's policies are designed to "cash in on black pain and white guilt".
With a world class direct-marketing strategy and a penchant for creating fear in the minds of potential donors, I'd be skeptical of of their morally manipulative work which all too often consists of selling fear. But, as always, maybe that's just me.
I'm a donor to SPLC, and have met Mr. Dees. I have great regard for the work the center does. Do you have some citations for your claims?
And, I'd still be most interested in hearing more about the morally neutral/manipulative discernment you make.
Thanks!
R
sorry Ziggy, for me and millions of others its ABO, anybody but Obama, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for goodhair.
Catwoman, do you really think that will help? For me a few years ago, and 4 years before that, it was ABB, but frankly I haven't seen much of a difference in the past 27 months from the previous 96. We've got even more wars going on, more bank bailouts going on (from what I saw no one in the mainstream press, except Planet Money, even mentioned the 1.25B purchase of garbage assets from banks that the federal reserve did even though this was nearly 50% bigger than the original TARP), the re-upping of the Patriot Act, more demonization of medical marijuana, etc. Regardless of what happens in November 2012 I expect the 48 months beginning in January 2013 will be pretty much the same as the previous 48 months. They'll be all about big, rich, connected people and corporations continuing to get rich at the expense and pain of all of us "little people".
I'm a donor to SPLC, and have met Mr. Dees. I have great regard for the work the center does. Do you have some citations for your claims?
And, I'd still be most interested in hearing more about the morally neutral/manipulative discernment you make.
Thanks!
R
I thought I did a pretty good job of providing citations, however, upon retrospect I should have taken the time to look up and properly cite the allegation regarding the Southern Center For Human Rights. This is a link (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001573)to an open letter from Stephen Bright, former director of the SCHR for your perusal.
As for my comments about selling fear, a simple google search will show lots of commentary and examples. In case you don't have the time, here's one (http://www.cis.org/immigration-splc)for your consideration.
On your request to discuss the morally neutral/morally manipulative discernment, I think that's probably best reserved for a thread of it's own. If you'd like to start one, I'll be happy to give you my thoughts on that as well.
Yes, jp1, I do think it will help because most of the problems you describe can be laid at the feet of BHO. He's gotta go!!!
Catwoman, I hope you're right. Personally I don't agree. Obama didn't start the problem, he's just continuing policies that were long in place before he arrived. The next occupant of the white house, whether he moves in in 2013 or 2017, will likely continue them.
Yes, jp1, I do think it will help because most of the problems you describe can be laid at the feet of BHO. He's gotta go!!!
Oh, oh, oh, yeah right! It couldn't have been anything GWB did, because he went directly to the Lord in prayer before he made the big decisions he did. Give me a break.
I thought I did a pretty good job of providing citations, however, upon retrospect I should have taken the time to look up and properly cite the allegation regarding the Southern Center For Human Rights. This is a link (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001573)to an open letter from Stephen Bright, former director of the SCHR for your perusal.
As for my comments about selling fear, a simple google search will show lots of commentary and examples. In case you don't have the time, here's one (http://www.cis.org/immigration-splc)for your consideration.
On your request to discuss the morally neutral/morally manipulative discernment, I think that's probably best reserved for a thread of it's own. If you'd like to start one, I'll be happy to give you my thoughts on that as well.
Thank you!
loosechickens
6-14-11, 2:02am
There are valid arguments for some of the charges leveled against Mr. Dees, and many have disagreed with the SPLCs focus on high profile cases, (and, yes, some personal grandstanding over the years, and marketing methods), but the SPLC and Mr. Dees and company hit on what has proven to be the most effective way to deal blows to hate groups, which is to go after their pocketbooks. And by taking them to court, and winning lawsuits against their assets, they have crippled the operations of a number of groups that were spreading hatred and advocating violence.
Most groups use the most lurid marketing possible.....face it, the Family Association under discussion as a sponsor of the planned "prayer" extravaganza has done it's own lurid marketing, and in their case, outright lying, about gays and lesbians, and has played on the fears of homophobic and fundamentalist people to gin up fears of "the homosexual agenda", "destroying our young people", etc.
The Democrats send out literature that makes it seem that if Republicans are elected, our country will fall apart, and the Republicans seem to think that somehow Barack Obama (and not Congress) is at fault for everything that is wrong in this country, including much that was going on or had already happened before he even became President. Marketing is mostly what happens in this society, and most want to push their agenda, as opposed to asking themselves what behaviors would be best for our society and how they can compromise and work with people of varying viewpoints to move our country forward. That is just reality.
I don't think that most who "lean right" support hate groups, Alan, and that isn't what I said. I should hope that all Americans of any intelligence, right or left, would want to stand up against hatred and violence against any people as a group, especially when such groups are being attacked simply for their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
As I said, I'm glad that the SPLC is there, standing in the breach, trying to protect against hatred. Perhaps there are people (I'm sure there are) who see the American Family Association as standing in the breach, trying to protect "real Americans" from that homosexual agenda, gays trying to subvert and destroy Christian young people, etc. I'm just not one of them, and I hate that my governor is associating himself with such hatred and bigotry.
I don't think that most who "lean right" support hate groups, Alan, and that isn't what I said. I should hope that all Americans of any intelligence, right or left, would want to stand up against hatred and violence against any people as a group, especially when such groups are being attacked simply for their race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
I agree that's not what you said.
One would think that even most rightwingers in this country would find it distasteful to be aligned with these haters, but.......
But it is what you implied. Thanks for almost clearing that up.
loosechickens
6-14-11, 2:36pm
Well, certainly SOME rightwingers are supportive of those groups, since most of those groups have a distinctly "rightwing" flavor and orientation. But I certainly don't think most Republicans/conservatives would countenance the KKK, Aryan Nation, etc.
But to call the SPLC "left wing" or say that it comes down on the "left" all the time, because of their work against such groups is to say, I guess, that care about civil rights, protection of vulnerable groups being discriminated against, harassed, mistreated and lied about is just a "left" issue, as opposed to an American issue. Which puzzles me. Because it's hard for me to see anyone, right or left oriented, who would want to defend hate groups, or call the people who fight against them "left". I would think that fighting against hatred and bigotry would be an AMERICAN issue, and as such, people would be standing up against it, not supporting it.
Which is why I am angry and upset that my governor is aligning himself with a group that preaches hate and lies and misleads about gays and lesbians in an effort to raise money through fear that the "homosexual agenda" is going to take over our country, and "those people" are going to defile our young people, molest them and are sexual predators just by being gay or lesbian. We should ALL be standing up against such stuff.
Thanks for "almost" understanding. ;-)
Regarding the SPLC, I don't believe Mr. Dees had anything to do with the actual CREATION of the various hate groups (listed in LC's earlier post) that the organization chases after. I do think Mr. Dees and several attorneys at the SPLC have become very wealthy targeting this niche. There is a lot more public sentiment on your side and a lot less competition there than being a lawyer chasing your garden variety ambulance! Mr. Dees, et al, have identified a market and done an admirable job of securing their position in it. When you really stop to think about it you realize that the more high profile cases the SPLC takes on the more it will cause the groups they target to "take up the cause", essentially creating more and more potential profit centers for the SPLC going forward. It is a brilliant strategy! It's like the Walton family got Target to hang out a banner that says, "If red isn't your favorite color you should go to Wal-Mart". What do you suppose the numbers really are? For every person that joins a hate group and makes some noise how many others contribute to the SPLC to combat them? Ten? One hundred? Mr. Dees' posturing in the public eye may be that of a left leaning civil libertarian, but in practice he is a dyed in the wool capitalist. I admire their business plan.
Morris Dees made $344, 809 in 2010. Hardly an outrageous salary for an attorney of his specialty and at the national level.
If you want the financial details, here's where you find them:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2010/630/598/2010-630598743-06c27181-9.pdf
Guidestar ( http://www.guidestar.org ) is a great free website for accessing the financial data of NFP organizations. Before you donate, DO YOUR RESEARCH!
And Warren Buffett's official salary at Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000, but he was somehow able to overcome that handicap to become the third richest man in the world. I don't criticize Mr. Dees at all for making money, but don't be fooled by the SPLC marketing campaign that tells you he is sustained by his cause because he only nets $809 in a year.
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_990_1010.pdf
The 2009 Form 990 for the SPLC. Very informative. There is a lot of profit in non-profit, you just can't take it as, well, profit.
And Warren Buffett's official salary at Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000, but he was somehow able to overcome that handicap to become the third richest man in the world. I don't criticize Mr. Dees at all for making money, but don't be fooled by the SPLC marketing campaign that tells you he is sustained by his cause because he only nets $809 in a year.
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_990_1010.pdf
The 2009 Form 990 for the SPLC. Very informative. There is a lot of profit in non-profit, you just can't take it as, well, profit.
That income figure is 89 million, BTW.
Warren Buffett's enterprise is a for-profit business. There are many more options to hide $$ in a for profit than in a NFP. I've filled out 990's, and there are no hiding places for cash in the NFP world.
And yes, NFP's are a business, like any other; something that very few people understand, I do believe. It's perfectly acceptable, in fact necessary, to take in profit. What happens with the profit is the difference. In a for-profit, profits are paid out in salaries or shareholder earnings. In a NFP, they are plowed back into the mission.
NFP's pay executive salaries along the very same lines as for-profits; that is to say depending upon the job description and the income of the organization. It is rational to pay a top executive a top salary - if it can be afforded - to make sure the organization runs well. The idea that those of us in the NFP world should somehow work for peanuts is stupid... we have all the same expenses that everyone else does. It's great to work for a lofty mission, but it's work all the same.
NFP's generally have 2 revenue streams - earned income & unearned income. Earned is just that: fee-for-service income. That can be market rate or cut rate; it's up to the organization. Unearned income encompasses individual gifts, foundation gifts and grants, government grants, & in-kind contributions.
Every NFP creates an income & expense budget each year. In early years, NFP's spend way more than they take in starting up their fundraising arm - it's a line of business. Like any other start-up venture, it takes about 5 years for fundraising to become profitable. (The only criticism I have of Guidestar is that the ratings they give NFP's don't reflect this fact, and young NFP's may have lower ratings due to spending more on fundraising than is the desired percentage, and that more mature orgs spend.)
One can easily see what the overhead is at a NFP - just ask to see their audited annual report. If they don't have a big enough budget to get audits, look at their profile in Guidestar. Ask them about their cost of doing business! NFP's want to tell potential donors about their fiscal picture. Okay, I gotta get back to writing our case statement for a major donor campaign I am launching next month!
The Storyteller
6-14-11, 6:20pm
I am often surprised at where threads wind up.
Amen and Amen (http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2011/06/houston-clergy-council-opposes-perrys-prayer-rally/)!!
Gov. Rick Perry’s upcoming prayer event has concerned progressive Christian leaders in Houston, who have written a letter criticizing the governor for excluding non-Christians, partnering with an anti-gay group and blurring boundaries between church and state.
“We ask that Rick Perry leave the ministry to us and refocus his energy on the work of governing our state,” the Houston Clergy Council wrote (http://houstonclergycouncil.org/) in a letter signed by 24 local leaders, many of them Unitarian Universalists or members of other denominations that welcome GLBT Christians.
“We wanted to let people know that there are people of faith who have different stances than Gov. Perry. Often the only faith that gets covered is the religious right,” said Rev. Becky Edmiston-Lange, of Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church. “We are clergy persons who support the rights of all people, no matter who they love or how they worship.”
They argue that the nature of Perry’s event, scheduled for Aug. 6 at Reliant Stadium, does not fit with Houston’s religious diversity.
Their criticisms echo a chorus of concerned groups (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7602059.html), including the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, the Houston chapter of the Council of American-Islamic relations and the Interfaith Alliance. About 300 Texans plan to protest (http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2011/06/2011/06/perry%E2%80%99s-rally-at-reliant-prompts-protest-critics/) the event, and the Houston Clergy Council may schedule a pro-tolerance speaker as counter-programming to Perry’s Christian-centric message. Houston’s biggest evangelical megachurches– Lakewood Church, Second Baptist and Houston’s First Baptist– have applauded Perry’s efforts to draw national attention to the need for prayer. >8)
Only one other governor (http://www.chron.com/channel/houstonbelief/photogallery/RSVPs_to_Perrys_rally.html#26720130) has committed to join Perry at the event.
Peace
What's wrong with Perry holding one and inviting everyone (as he did)? The people who disagree with him can stay away or have their own (which I'm sure they will). I think it is the height of intolerance and hypocrisy to denounce Perry's event when they are free to attend or not, believe as they wish or not..Sigh...the lefties always need something to screech about so nobody is looking at the state of the economy or the # of wars we are in (declared or not)....
loosechickens
6-14-11, 10:27pm
Just for the record, Gregg: from Wikipedia:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center has won many notable civil resulting in monetary awards for the plaintiffs. The SPLC has said it does not accept any portion of monetary judgments.[24][25][26]"
What the SPLC HAS done is managed to bankrupt a number of the hate groups, neutralizing their ability to spread their hatred, since money collected by them from their followers is seized by judgements, etc., awarded by courts to the people they were found guilty of having wronged.
hehehehehehe.....I thought it was CATS who "screeched", Catwoman..... ;-)
If Governor Perry, in a capacity as a private citizen, wishes to join a prayer group with anyone he likes, that is up to him. But when he as the governor of a state, invites other governors and leaders to join him in an event focusing on one religion, and only a certain faction of that religion as well, co-sponsored by a group that spreads lies, hatred and bigotry about a portion of Texas's citizens and others all over this country, then I'm certainly going to speak out about it, although I'll leave it to cats to "screech".
Need to qualify that that is your opinion Loosechickens about the lies, hatred and bigotry being spread by the group. Again, just because they are on SPLC's hitlist, doesn't make it real, or true or mesh with everyone else's opinions or beliefs. That you state that outright without any quantifiers in itself disingenuous - it may be true for you but it is not a universal truth.
loosechickens
6-15-11, 12:25am
Catwoman, it certainly is not just MY opinion about the lies, bigotry against gays and lesbians being spread by the American Family Association. And the SPLC is certainly not the only organization calling them out for that bigotry and spread of misinformation. You may or may not be in harmony with their beliefs (I have no idea whether you are or not), but plenty of organization and persons other than myself and the SPLC think they ARE fomenting and spreading bigotry and hate speech.
From Wikipedia, on the piece about the American Family Association: this excerpt about their speech and attempts to smear gays and lesbians:
The AFA has been criticized by a number of organizations for their stance against homosexuality.[18][80][81]
In 1998, the popular Internet filtering software CyberPatrol blocked the AFA's web site, classifying it under the category "intolerance," defined as "pictures or text advocating prejudice or discrimination against any race, color, national origin, religion, disability or handicap, gender or sexual orientation..." AFA spokesman Steve Ensley told reporters, "Basically we're being blocked for free speech." CyberPatrol cited quotes from the AFA for meeting its intolerance criteria, which included: "Indifference or neutrality toward the homosexual rights movement will result in society's destruction by allowing civil order to be redefined and by plummeting ourselves, our children, and grandchildren into an age of godlessness"; "A national 'Coming Out of Homosexuality' provides us a means whereby to dispel the lies of the homosexual rights crowd who say they are born that way and cannot change"; and "We want to outlaw public homosexuality...We believe homosexuality is immoral and leads ultimately to personal and social decay."[2][19][81] [82]
On October 19, 1998, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, led by Leslie Katz, wrote a letter to the AFA in response to an advertisement placed in the San Francisco Chronicle by the AFA regarding homosexuality and Christianity. The letter stated:[83]
Supervisor Leslie Katz denounces your rhetoric against gays, lesbians and transgendered people. What happened to Matthew Shepard is in part due to the message being espoused by your groups that gays and lesbians are not worthy of the most basic equal rights and treatment. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a direct correlation between these acts of discrimination, such as when gays and lesbians are called sinful and when major religious organizations say they can change if they tried, and the horrible crimes committed against gays and lesbians.
During the same time, the City and County of San Francisco passed two resolutions. Resolution No. 234-99 "calls for the Religious Right to take accountability for the impact of their long-standing rhetoric denouncing gays and lesbians, which leads to a climate of mistrust and discrimination that can open the door to horrible crimes such as those committed against Mr. Gaither."[84] and Resolution No. 873-98 was specifically directed at "anti-gay" television advertisements. AFA unsuccessfully challenged these actions as violating the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment in American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco.[83]
In 1998, multiple organizations voiced criticism of a series of AFA sponsored full-page newspaper advertisements that promoted religious ministries involved in the ex-gay movement. In response to the advertisements, the Religious Leadership Roundtable said the ads employed "language of violence and hatred to denounce other people." IntegrityUSA criticized the ads, calling them "evil" disregarding Christian teachings about the "dignity of every human being." DignityUSA also criticized the advertisements, which they said were "misleading and destructive."[85]
In July 2000, the AFA sent out emails and letters calling for openly gay Arizona Republican United States House of Representatives member Jim Kolbe to be barred from speaking at the Republican National Convention.[86] The AFA also said that Kolbe should be arrested when he returned to his home state, as because Kolbe is gay, he was violating an Arizona law that banned sodomy.[87] Equality Mississippi, a statewide LGBT civil rights organization which has voiced opposition and criticism towards the AFA's activism regarding homosexuality, felt that AFA's action was constituting and encouraging violence towards the gay community.[88]
In 2005, Equality Mississippi publicly spoke out against the AFA for the use of copyrighted images on the AFA web site in its boycott against Kraft Foods for being a sponsor of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. The photographs, which were used without permission, were owned by and retrieved from ChrisGeary.com. Equality Mississippi encouraged ChrisGeary.com to file suit against the AFA and offered to support the suit.[89] As of March 2009[update], the images were still on AFA's web site.[90]
The American Family Association has objected to having their comments on homosexuality described as homophobia and akin to racism or sexism, saying that their beliefs are based in religion.[91]
Former AFA California leader Scott Lively[92][18] is a co-author of The Pink Swastika which claims that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were gay. He has since co-founded Watchmen on the Walls.
In May 2010, Bryan Fischer, the AFA's director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy,[93] wrote a blog post on the AFA website[94] detailing allegations that Adolf Hitler was a homosexual, and concluding that gay people in the military caused the Holocaust: "Nazi Germany became the horror that it was because it rejected both Christianity and its clear teaching about human sexuality. These are mistakes no sane culture should ever make again."[94]
In June 2008, AFA's news website, OneNewsNow – which had begun replacing all instances of "gay" with "homosexual" in re-posted Associated Press articles[95] – changed an AP profile of Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay, rendering his name as "Tyson Homosexual".[96][97][98] OneNewsNow similarly altered the name of basketball player Rudy Gay, naming him "Rudy Homosexual".[99][100] The gay rights website GoodAsYou.org, which "has long chronicled the AFA's practice of changing AP copy to suit its conservative agenda", spotted the errors. Tyson Gay was upset with the mistake.[101][102]
loosechickens
6-15-11, 12:52am
we've clearly moved into "dead horse" territory regarding whether or not the American Family Association is disseminating hatred and bigotry in their speech. I guess if one agrees with them, it's just "free speech" and "the bible agrees with me", and if one is standing up for equality and nondiscrimination for gays and lesbians, this group is clearly in the hate and bigotry business. And never the twain shall meet.........
I'm noticing that Governor Perry seems to have stepped off of something of a cliff with this "prayer" extravaganza....he only has one governor who's joined him in his efforts, and it sounds like that one is kind of trying to back out of it. It's possible that Governor Perry exists in a bubble of people who believe just as he does and as the American Family Association does, and has kind of miscalculated the ability of the majority of Americans to not accept this kind of stuff from an elected official in his offical capacity as the governor of a state. It may play well in the bible belt of Texas, but since he was most likely planning it as a big boost toward his ambitions toward a national career, possibly a BIG mistake.
We shall see, I guess.
drowning in your rhetoric here LC, though that was your desired effect...point being maybe some of those nasty Christians praying with Rick Perry believe that homosexuality is, sharp intake of breath, a sin... if them saying that outloud is "lies, hatred and bigotry" then free speech in this country is lying prone with the bootheel of an intolerant left atop its throat...You can spin as much as you want to spin, its a matter of opinion, beliefs, etc..
Yikes, I just looked AFA up. Ugly stuff. Homophobia and bigotry will die eventually. I am really looking forward to the cessation of the so-called "culture war". That's a poisonous term. They certainly remind me of how glad I am to live in a secular, pluralistic society.
From the website:
PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT
The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.
PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT
The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.
Really? Really? You feel threatened or initmadated by this statement? Loosechickens, point from my above post - you disagree with these people and feel that your way is the only right way - as do they. This is America, all points of view are welcome. The SPLC has on its website a "crosshairs" as a cursor - Do you not think that the left does damage to good people when they lump everyone in the same wagon? Good causes are harmed by the bigotry of the left. The method of "drown them in rhetoric, shout em down" is another form of thuggery used by the left. I can't believe that a group of Christians praying for this country upsets you so.
The devil is in the details. It really comes down to what exactly you are praying for - vague platitudes like "praying for your country" sound ok (although personally large groups of people mixing religion and nationalism gives me the willies), but it's when you get down to the specifics that it can get ugly.
While AFA's philosophical statement sounds ok, rooting through their website they present an agenda I find very distasteful and overwhelmingly and actively anti homosexual. Regardless of Perry's motives, I think he picked a poor sponsor.
BTW, using terms like "left" lumps everyone in the same wagon, and does damage to good people.
That income figure is 89 million, BTW.
Guessing your figure of $89M was Mr. Buffett's INCOME last year. Your previous thread gave Mr. Dees SALARY of $809 which is why I responded with Mr. Buffett's SALARY. Shoot, even I have a salary which makes up only a portion of my income. We just need to be comparing apples to apples here.
Warren Buffett posts his personal tax returns every year. Morris Dees, as far as I have found, does not. As the head of an organization that brings in tens of millions of dollars per year I would argue that Mr. Dees is absolutely entitled to a salary and benefits commensurate with someone in the same position at a for profit company. I do not know how much Mr. Dees makes (aka, his INCOME) in a year. I do not know who pays his health insurance premiums or what kind of house he lives in or what kind of car he drives. If we are to believe his income is truly limited to $809 then Mr. Dees is going to have a hard time making it in a box under a bridge. He doesn't appear to be struggling that hard. He was keynote speaker at an event in my area last year (I did not attend). Tickets for the luncheon were $140 and up. Mr. Dees, along with his entourage, arrived by private jet and was taken to and from the event at the s****iest hotel in the area in a limo. I don't think for a minute that Mr. Dees paid for all of that out of his own pocket. I would guess the plane ride and some of the other perks were "donations". Heck, just the fee to LAND his plane here was more than his $809 annual salary.
Just for the record, Gregg: from Wikipedia:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center has won many notable civil resulting in monetary awards for the plaintiffs. The SPLC has said it does not accept any portion of monetary judgments.[24][25][26]"
You guys are reading me wrong or I'm saying it wrong. I am NOT criticizing Mr. Dees or the SPLC. I think they do a lot of good work and I'm glad someone is there to take on these hate groups. The SPLC has a very strong record and Mr. Dees is a very charismatic leader. All I'm saying is lets call a spade a spade. It is incredibly naive to cling to a belief that the SPLC is strictly an altruistic cause. I would not expect the lawyers there, including Morris Dees, to work for "peanuts". There are plenty of perfectly legal ways to support high income lifestyles using a non-profit corporate structure. What's disingenuous to me is the tendency by some to criticize the CEO lifestyle in one thread and then ignore the exact same perks granted to the leader of what is seen (by some) as a charitable organization in another thread. The CO2 being emitted by Mr. Dees jet is the same greenhouse gas emitted from any other CEO's jet.
Just when I thought I had heard it all - now Rick Perry is telling America that he is a prophet?? Is this a case of good cop/bad cop? He is really making the rest of the GOP look smart. Perry just stop it, you are making Texans look like a bunch of morons. >:(
Governor Rick Perry appeared on the Fox News network for an interview with Neil Cavuto. Cavuto made the somewhat dubious statement that Perry is "very popular outside your state, still popular but not nearly as popular within your state."
Asked why Texas wasn't exactly in love with him, Perry said "I say that a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown. That's both Biblical and practical."
It's not that conservatives don't like Perry because he tried to force innocent sixth-grade girls to be given the "slut shot" (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/05/five_texas_sluts_worth_admirin.php?page=2) anti-STD vaccine Gardasil, or to impose a billions-of-dollars boondoggle of a highway/rail/hoverboat/flying car transportation system throughout some of the emptier parts of the state.
And it's not that moderates don't like him because he wants to give carte blanche to polluters and slash the state's education system to shreds.
It's because neither group recognizes the Prophet-like genius of Rick Perry.
Peace
That is a statement that is used frequently when someone is not received well or thought of well in their home state/country. He is NOT calling himself a prophet. Again, half-truths and twisted mis-quotes do not enhance anyone's clarity. Not defending some of his bad actions at TX Gov. I am just tired of twisted, misconstrued information on all sides of the equation. No mas, from now on I am the truthmeister (or meistress).
Just when I thought I had heard it all - now Rick Perry is telling America that he is a prophet??
[/I]
Where's Lucian when you need him?
That is a statement that is used frequently when someone is not received well or thought of well in their home state/country. He is NOT calling himself a prophet. Again, half-truths and twisted mis-quotes do not enhance anyone's clarity. Not defending some of his bad actions at TX Gov. I am just tired of twisted, misconstrued information on all sides of the equation. No mas, from now on I am the truthmeister (or meistress).
Catlady - As an educator in Texas, I find it amazing that you continue to support this guy who has publicly and proudly destroyed the education system (already pretty sad) in this state. Exactly what do you like about him? That he an Aggie? Is that all it takes?
Peace
The Storyteller
6-15-11, 10:52am
Yeah, its just an expression. I wouldn't make too much of it outside a humorous anecdote considering his wannabe massive prayer rally.
hum, I wonder if gay people sit around obsessing about the sex lives of AFA members? Where's that website?
PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT Really? Really? You feel threatened or initmadated by this statement? ... I can't believe that a group of Christians praying for this country upsets you so.
Not by the statement, but by the manner in which it's moved into action. I have a strong gratitude for religious freedom in this country, which means AFA members deserve to be protected from government prosecution for their private beliefs and to enjoy the freedom to worship, as distinct from their public actions.
However, I also have a dedication to making sure that the biases which are evident in their online statements - the political actions and attempts to put their religious beliefs into policy and law - are stopped.
For instance, the headline of an article troubles me:
"Homosexual adoptions victimize children"
It's harmful, and inaccurate. There are real-world consequences of this kind of mean-spirited article. I wonder, if this organization is so Christian, where is the call for understanding and dialogue (obviously my bias about what it means to be a Christian)? AFA is free to believe what they will about Gay parents, and the moment they move to enact this bias into policy, or attempt to influence our democracy from the basis of this bias, that is concerning. I do find some of the writings on the website as hateful, which is sad.
We are not a Christian nation as AFA states, we are a secular, pluralistic society. Ultra conservative Christian organizations hit the same nerve in me as any other ultra conservative religious group does - what AFA publicly promotes is the same hate speech that Al Qaeda promotes. I have Muslim family, and I support their right to worship with as much vigor as I do Christians, Jews, and so forth. I also stand against violence in speech and action assigned to any religious or political group, and the ugliness of the public presentation of AFA deeply concerns me.
Here's an example of the kind of public behaviors by public employees that are fed by misleading information about Gay people. What the staff person said and did is unconscionable. His private views are protected; his public actions are not. I'm concerned that the anti-gay actions advocated by AFA and other activist religious organizations seed this type of highly regrettable discrimination :
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/14/bible-cited-as-reason-for-kicking-gay-men-out-of-public-pool/
Ziggy, you insult me and I'm sure you don't have that short of a memory...I do not like Perry, how many times to say it? I am now - Catwoman defender of the truth, whether it hurts my side and helps your side or vice versa. Ricky did not call himself a prophet, he used an analogy, c'mon.... Also, apparently, I need to be Catwoman, bull#$%# sifter...
Again, my position will continue to be - ABO - Anybody but Obama - if Rick Perry is his opposition, I said I would hold my nose and vote for him.
Aggies do have an Honor Code ya know. That. Is. All.
Ziggy, you insult me and I'm sure you don't have that short of a memory...I do not like Perry, how many times to say it? I am now - Catwoman defender of the truth, whether it hurts my side and helps your side or vice versa. Ricky did not call himself a prophet, he used an analogy, c'mon.... Also, apparently, I need to be Catwoman, bull#$%# sifter...
Again, my position will continue to be - ABO - Anybody but Obama - if Rick Perry is his opposition, I said I would hold my nose and vote for him.
Aggies do have an Honor Code ya know. That. Is. All.
Hopefully you won't have to hold your nose! I hope none of us have to do that. I am sorry you're not an Obama supporter - I've benefitted from his policy actions, and believe the country as a whole has too. I don't like everything that's happened, but I do believe we're on the right path... and of course, I pray that everyone in this country lives in a community they love, in a home they can afford, with adequate food, water, health care, schooling, family and love. We're all pretty much of the same basic human needs after all.
Blessings! I hope your day ROCKS!!!
Zigzagman
6-15-11, 12:29pm
Ziggy, you insult me and I'm sure you don't have that short of a memory...I do not like Perry, how many times to say it? I am now - Catwoman defender of the truth, whether it hurts my side and helps your side or vice versa. Ricky did not call himself a prophet, he used an analogy, c'mon.... Also, apparently, I need to be Catwoman, bull#$%# sifter...
Again, my position will continue to be - ABO - Anybody but Obama - if Rick Perry is his opposition, I said I would hold my nose and vote for him.
Aggies do have an Honor Code ya know. That. Is. All.
You know I love ya!! I fear that too many people think just like you. I saw that in Texas just this election cycle. Instead of voting for the best person they voted a straight GOP ticket because they just could not force themselves to vote for the party of the "socialist". We had a opportunity to really have a honest and true leader instead the "conservatives" just could not force themselves to think in terms of issues - it just wouldn't be cool. Instead we got a GOP super-majority in the state and it will cost all of the citizens of Texas because of it.
At some point in my life I hope the South can get over their bigotry, racism, and redneck-ism. I have had to stomach it all of my life and it gets very tiring.
Proud of Texas - Ashamed of Rick Perry!
Peace
loosechickens
6-15-11, 2:58pm
"drowning in your rhetoric here LC, though that was your desired effect...point being maybe some of those nasty Christians praying with Rick Perry believe that homosexuality is, sharp intake of breath, a sin... if them saying that outloud is "lies, hatred and bigotry" then free speech in this country is lying prone with the bootheel of an intolerant left atop its throat...You can spin as much as you want to spin, its a matter of opinion, beliefs, etc.. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catwoman, RedFox and others have said what I would say, but even better, so I won't bother to say all I could say. Of COURSE the American Family Association and the people who you are calling "nasty Christians" have very right to believe as they like. If they believe that homosexuality is sinful, and they feel those tendencies in themselves, they are free to "pray the gay away" from themselves, and do whatever feels necessary to make sure that they do not "fall into sin", by remaining celibate, or whatever suits their fancy.
I defend every person's right to have the religious beliefs they have and to live their own lives in accordance with those beliefs.
However, America is not and never has been a "Christian Nation", but is a secular, pluralistic society made up of citizens of many religions, none at all, as well as the many variations of Christian belief.
Where it comes to the American Family Association and other organizations similar to them is their efforts to impose THEIR religious beliefs on others, try to get laws passed that will affect or control those citizens who are not of their religious belief and do not share their outlook. And to try to do so by spreading demonstrable falsehoods about the people they feel are "sinful", and trying to control their lives.
When gay and lesbian organizations attempt to prevent Christian men and women from getting married, when they try to get laws passed to infringe on their rights, when they spread lies about them, and try to prevent them from enjoying the equality with every other citizen in this country, then I will speak out against any such organization. But, as Peggy said, I don't see gays and lesbians sitting around obsessing about the sex lives of fundamentalist Christian people, so it would seem reasonable for such Christian people to keep their noses out of the bedrooms and away from the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
It is FINE to think being gay is sinful if you want. It's fine to absolutely think that getting an abortion is wrong. And in such cases, I would not only support, but encourage one of those religious believers to fight against their own "gayness" if they find themselves in that situation, and to refuse to get an abortion if they find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy. that is, after all, what choice means.
Where the difficulties come is the trying to take choices away from others, to try to make THEM comply with YOUR religious beliefs by trying to pass laws based on those religious beliefs that affect others than just those who believe as you do. That's where the rubber hits the road......
loosechickens
6-15-11, 3:10pm
Gregg......I totally agree, and whether it is a nonprofit corporation, or a profitmaking one, there is nothing wrong with the leaders of such organizations being paid excellent salaries (although I would question whether any human being at all is worth hundreds of millions of dollar per year in salary, especially if the ordinary workers make peanuts).
I don't remember anyone saying that the SPLC is just a completely "altruistic" organization....heck, even my cousin, a Lutheran minister in a large city for a number of years made an excellent living doing it, although his motivations in going into the field were certainly altruistic, and perhaps Mr. Dees' were as well. I'm not able to judge. And if he's made a fine living doing good, then great.
As the Quakers used to say....."there's no sin in doing well by doing good".......
I am pleased that there is an organization that tracks these hate groups, tries to prevent some of their hatred activities by taking them to court when they break laws, discriminate, etc., and getting money judgement from them. It's been an inspired, assymetric tactic.
You don't have any complaints from me about what you're saying.....I agree, pretty much with what you're saying.
From Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop (http://juanitajean.com/2011/06/15/rick-can-crawl-back-into-his-10000-a-month-rent-house/)......
Peace
The national media (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/the_time_rick_perry_said_he_wa.html) is on this like green on grass.
… in December of 2000, when Perry was about to take over the governorship from president-elect Bush, he said something that could come back to haunt him. “Certainly, you are not going to see a great philosophical difference between Rick Perry and George Bush,” he said (http://lubbockonline.com/stories/121500/sta_121500024.shtml). “We share the same type of philosophy.”
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ss-110613-rick-perry-bush.grid-6x3.jpg (http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ss-110613-rick-perry-bush.grid-6x3.jpg)
And a little reminder from Molly and Virginia Mary –
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/252582_179139675477065_100001431006492_466649_4514 743_n.jpg (http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/252582_179139675477065_100001431006492_466649_4514 743_n.jpg)
poetry_writer
6-15-11, 5:49pm
You know I love ya!! I fear that too many people think just like you. I saw that in Texas just this election cycle. Instead of voting for the best person they voted a straight GOP ticket because they just could not force themselves to vote for the party of the "socialist". We had a opportunity to really have a honest and true leader instead the "conservatives" just could not force themselves to think in terms of issues - it just wouldn't be cool. Instead we got a GOP super-majority in the state and it will cost all of the citizens of Texas because of it.
At some point in my life I hope the South can get over their bigotry, racism, and redneck-ism. I have had to stomach it all of my life and it gets very tiring.
Proud of Texas - Ashamed of Rick Perry!
Peace
Move then.
When gay and lesbian organizations attempt to prevent Christian men and women from getting married, when they try to get laws passed to infringe on their rights, when they spread lies about them, and try to prevent them from enjoying the equality with every other citizen in this country, then I will speak out against any such organization. But, as Peggy said, I don't see gays and lesbians sitting around obsessing about the sex lives of fundamentalist Christian people, so it would seem reasonable for such Christian people to keep their noses out of the bedrooms and away from the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
I'm not that familiar with the American Family Association so I'm curious. You're implying that they are "trying to get laws passed to infringe on their rights". May I ask which "rights" they're attempting to infringe upon?
I'm not that familiar with the American Family Association so I'm curious. You're implying that they are "trying to get laws passed to infringe on their rights". May I ask which "rights" they're attempting to infringe upon?
Well Alan, actually being sub-standard humans, they don't actually enjoy all the rights we 'normal' folk get. At least not in all states. They can't get married in most states and the AFA is trying to keep it that way as well as reverse the right in the states that do recognize the fully 'humanness' of gays. They also advocate arresting gays cause there are still laws on the books against sodomy because, of course, what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms is the governments business. If you're gay that is.
So, in a way you're right in that they aren't infringing on real 'rights' cause they don't really exist, if you're gay.
EQUALITY FOR ALL!! Well, no, not really. Just kidding.
May I ask which "rights" they're attempting to infringe upon?
I would say generally the inherent rights to a safe and secure environment within which we can raise our children, hold jobs, and live our lives. The rights of Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness.
So, if I wanted to marry my sister or perhaps my neighbors wife, that would be the same thing wouldn't it? Not allowing me to do so would be a violation of my "rights" since my neighbor had the right to marry his wife and virtually every other male on the planet would enjoy the right to marry my sister.
Granted, I don't actually want to do either of those things, but if I did, are my "rights" actually being violated? And would I be correct in labeling anyone who disagreed with me as a "hater" or a "hate group"? I'm just trying to understand this whole argument of "rights".
I have some confusion on this...gay people do what they want in their bedrooms, heterosexual people do what they want in their bedrooms...its all about what people do in their bedrooms right? so who is stopping that?
Here's a short list - I've seen several references that there is on the order of 1400 "rights" conveyed by legal marriage:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
In terms of the state, marriage is a legal economic entity - denying it to same sex couples would be akin to denying homosexuals the right to form corporations or partnerships.
All of the things you have listed above can generally be handled through legal channels other than the proviso of marriage. Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally. I'm going to step on a lot of toes here but I think this hysteria is caused by a few reasons: 1. Politicians see gays as a voting block hence creating issues where there are none to create a rallying cry and a venue for promises of rewards for votes. (Gay community is being shamelessly hustled and used by policiticans). 2. In a further effort to create a "minority" status for gays, politicians are exploiting gays and their issues. As far as I know gay people come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Sexual preference does not a minority make. If that were the case foot-fetishists could have their own minority status, etc. etc.
Personally I think the state should not be involved in marriage at all - it's clearly a religious institution and if as you say that the legal side can "generally" be handled through legal channels (it's only fair to have all people jump through the same hoops), there's no real reason for the state to be involved. It would also remove all politics from the issue.
On the other hand, I think civil unions are a great idea - like a corporation all the legal details are spelled out and attached to a simple label. Rather than bringing your box of legal paperwork to the hospital to try to prove to their legal department why you should be allowed to see your dying partner.
"Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally." I guess the difference there is that they had the choice.
Personally I think the state should not be involved in marriage at all - it's clearly a religious institution and if as you say that the legal side can "generally" be handled through legal channels (it's only fair to have all people jump through the same hoops), there's no real reason for the state to be involved. It would also remove all politics from the issue.
On the other hand, I think civil unions are a great idea - like a corporation all the legal details are spelled out and attached to a simple label. Rather than bringing your box of legal paperwork to the hospital to try to prove to their legal department why you should be allowed to see your dying partner.
"Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally." I guess the difference there is that they had the choice.
++1
Personally I think the state should not be involved in marriage at all...
Amen Brother Creaker.
So, if I wanted to marry my sister or perhaps my neighbors wife, that would be the same thing wouldn't it? Not allowing me to do so would be a violation of my "rights" since my neighbor had the right to marry his wife and virtually every other male on the planet would enjoy the right to marry my sister.
Granted, I don't actually want to do either of those things, but if I did, are my "rights" actually being violated? And would I be correct in labeling anyone who disagreed with me as a "hater" or a "hate group"? I'm just trying to understand this whole argument of "rights".
Oh Alan, really? Are you really going to trot out the 'ol "if we let women vote then we have to let dogs and cats vote"? It's the goofiest argument ever. It's really NOT a slippery slope from affording gays all the rights 'we' enjoy to incest, harems, or life as we know it ending. Your hair won't fall out (or grow on your palm), daughters won't marry fathers, and unfortunately your neighbor won't stop beating his wife.
Are you worried about the sanctity of marriage? Ok, well then, lets out law divorce. Cause that is what is destroying families, not Steve and Dave holding hands down the road.
You keep saying you are non religious. So why do you care? All the arguments are religious based.
Oh Alan, really? Are you really going to trot out the 'ol "if we let women vote then we have to let dogs and cats vote"? It's the goofiest argument ever. It's really NOT a slippery slope from affording gays all the rights 'we' enjoy to incest, harems, or life as we know it ending. Your hair won't fall out (or grow on your palm), daughters won't marry fathers, and unfortunately your neighbor won't stop beating his wife.
Are you worried about the sanctity of marriage? Ok, well then, lets out law divorce. Cause that is what is destroying families, not Steve and Dave holding hands down the road.
You keep saying you are non religious. So why do you care? All the arguments are religious based.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're talking about although I do find your last line interesting.
I can't speak for all the arguments as I'm not sure what they may all be, but the one I keep seeing here and elsewhere has to do with civil rights. I still don't understand that line of reasoning which, by the way, doesn't have any religious aspect to it at all. Perhaps you could explain?
loosechickens
6-16-11, 2:52pm
In a word, Alan, just as the "Bible" was used as an excuse that it was o.k. to have slavery, just as the "Bible" was used as the reason why Jim Crow laws were perfectly all right to discriminate against African-Americans, the "Bible" is the source that is used to justify continued discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens. So, as in the other examples, it IS a civil rights issue, but the arguments that are used to continue the discrimination are usually religion based.
Catwoman: You said, "All of the things you have listed above can generally be handled through legal channels other than the proviso of marriage. Many heterosexual couples who choose not to marry face these issues and find ways to handle them legally. I'm going to step on a lot of toes here but I think this hysteria is caused by a few reasons: 1. Politicians see gays as a voting block hence creating issues where there are none to create a rallying cry and a venue for promises of rewards for votes. (Gay community is being shamelessly hustled and used by policiticans). 2. In a further effort to create a "minority" status for gays, politicians are exploiting gays and their issues. As far as I know gay people come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Sexual preference does not a minority make. If that were the case foot-fetishists could have their own minority status, etc. etc. "
Perhaps you are not intimately acquainted with a number of gay people, or do not have family members who are gay and meet with legal discrimination every day of their lives, as well as personal discrimination and bigotry. Those of us who do, and see the obstacles, discrimination and bigotry they face, often feel very differently.
It's really all over but the shouting, although full rights for gays will still take awhile. But at this point, for the first time in this country, a plurality of citizens believe gays should have the right to marry, a plurality of citizens believe that gays should serve in our military openly (as they have throughout our history, closeted), and a plurality of citizens believe that gay families can provide the same love and care to adopted kids as heterosexual couples or singles........the bigotry centers in an always smaller, but still very vocal minority. Such as the American Family Association under discussion.
AND, even when those people were in the majority, it didn't mean they were right. Before civil rights for African-Americans, if whether Jim Crow laws should be maintained had been put up for votes in the south, a huge majority would have voted to keep them.
My husband has two business partners who are gay as is his right arm, his admin. asst. They do quite well in society, church, business, etc. We consider them dear friends and routinely spend time together. I do not however, need to talk to them about what they do in the bedroom or their legal issues. The same as with any other people....You do gays a wrong when you set them up for pitfalls - expecting society to treat them one way when what is needed is just to focus on the real business at hand. That is EQUALITY.
The gnashing of teeth and moaning over gay rights is a manufactured talking point of the left - there always has to somebody the big bad Republicans are hurting...You let yourself be used by the democratic machine as does everyone else who keeps this issue front and center instead of letting EVERY American enjoy and compete under the right and priveledges we already have.
loosechickens
6-16-11, 3:24pm
Perhaps if you DID talk to them, (if they would be honest with you, given your outlook and politics) about legal issues, rights that others enjoy that they do not, and discrimination they may have faced and still face, you might be very surprised.
I work, as a heterosexual person, toward full rights and nondiscrimination for gay people in honor of my uncle Jack, now deceased, a number of dear friends, children of dear friends and others. I don't believe the difficulties they face are some "manufactured issue", and until they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us, I'll continue to do so.
I believe it would diminish my friends if I pigeon-holed them as "gays"...They are X, Y, and Z my friends and business associates. We talk about travel, art, food, wine, etc. They do not ask me about my sexual habits nor I them. That is a level playing field. If you ask Joe Blow off the street about his legal issues and discrimiation you will get an earful from just about anybody. This is since time immemorial. Its time to put that to rest along with all the other manufactured special interets in this nation. They are vote-getting political mechanisms as well as "labels" which bring with them, in many cases, a push to "the front of the line" for goodies and handouts.
"You do gays a wrong when you set them up for pitfalls - expecting society to treat them one way when what is needed is just to focus on the real business at hand. That is EQUALITY. "
I agree with your words so much - it's amazing we attach such different meanings to them.
I believe it would diminish my friends if I pigeon-holed them as "gays"...They are X, Y, and Z my friends and business associates. We talk about travel, art, food, wine, etc. They do not ask me about my sexual habits nor I them. That is a level playing field. If you ask Joe Blow off the street about his legal issues and discrimiation you will get an earful from just about anybody. This is since time immemorial. Its time to put that to rest along with all the other manufactured special interets in this nation. They are vote-getting political mechanisms as well as "labels" which bring with them, in many cases, a push to "the front of the line" for goodies and handouts.
so, what you're saying is, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist? That gay people are perfectly happy, or should be, in the closet? I guess your friends have learned to just shut up and sit down when dining, and socializing with their "good friends".
Do you deny the republican party, and the AFA, is trying to deny full marriage rights to gay people? how is that equality?
Why should you be allowed to go from A to B, and the gay couple has to sidestep past XYZ before going to B, but then only if his lawyer has dotted the I's and crossed the T's. And this must be repeated for each and every 'right' they want that you enjoyed simply by getting married. Once.
Oh, and don't tell me about it cause I don't wanna hear cause ignorance is bliss.
You know, I'll bet they don't consider you as 'good' a friend to them as they are to you.
Peggy, you presume way too much. Please continue to be happy with all your preconceived notions - I relate to PEOPLE as people not the issue du jour. My politics and personal//religious beliefs are out there for everyone to see - You can twist the definitions to suit your causes
so, what you're saying is, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist? That gay people are perfectly happy, or should be, in the closet? I guess your friends have learned to just shut up and sit down when dining, and socializing with their "good friends".
Actually what I'm saying Peggy is, stop making an issue where there is none.
so, what you're saying is, if we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist? That gay people are perfectly happy, or should be, in the closet? I guess your friends have learned to just shut up and sit down when dining, and socializing with their "good friends".
Actually what I'm saying Peggy is, stop making an issue where there is none.
I beg to differ. I think it is indeed an issue, more correctly a civil rights issue. Why should a group of people be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation? Why should a gay couple not be guaranteed the same rights as a hetero couple? Why should the government be allowed on a state by state basis to decide who is decent and who is not, who is entitled to spousal benefits and who is not? Why, just why?
This is where we stand in Texas. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/lawrence-texas-homosexual-conduct-statute)
Wed Apr. 13, 2011 12:01 AM PDT
Eight years after the Supreme Court deemed Texas' anti-sodomy statute unconstitutional, the state's penal code still lists "homosexual conduct" as a criminal offense—and Republican lawmakers are fighting to keep it that way.
A pair of identical (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB604) bills (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2156) that have been introduced in the Texas House would delete language from the state penal code making "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" a misdemeanor offense. Under the proposals, a clause in the state's health and safety code that cites the criminal statute and states that homosexuality is "not an acceptable lifestyle" would also be repealed.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/national/27GTEX.html) that the state's enforcement of the "homosexual conduct" provision was unconstitutional. In that case, two men were arrested for having sex in their bedroom, after a neighbor phoned in a phony weapons complaint. Texas, which at the time was one of 14 states with anti-sodomy laws on the books, has noted the Lawrence decision in its online penal code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm), but it takes a full act of the legislature to repeal a law.
"By removing it from the statute, it says Texas is both literally and figuratively complying with the law and making that known to its citizens," says Coleman. "This is a legal issue, not a social issue. It would be like still having on the books that an African-American couldn't marry an Anglo."
Peace
I'm quite offended that both Peggy and LC think that I must not be "enlightened" enough to have real relationships with these friends I spoke of. That in itself is the height of arrogance and being judgemental. Unbelievable....
And Scarlett loved her darkies...as long as they knew their place. :~)
Mangano's Gold
6-16-11, 9:33pm
I think they are going to need some star power to fill up a stadium that big. This has the potential to be a huge flop.
I'm quite offended that both Peggy and LC think that I must not be "enlightened" enough to have real relationships with these friends I spoke of. That in itself is the height of arrogance and being judgemental. Unbelievable....
Yes, but you almost ask for it. You state that the gay issues are manufactured by the left. How ridiculous. You deny all of the inroads made by the GLBT movement since before and after Stonewall. The GLBT community and its friends did NOT manufacture these issues. Possibly your friends who work for your husband don't want to make any waves by having an honest discussion with you. Maybe they feel there jobs would be at stake.
You mention giving everyone EQUALITY. Well, how do you think the GLBT community will get full equality without bringing their issues into the political "sphere"? Laws have to be passed and overturned for full equality. The GLBT issues are civil rights issues that have permeated all facets of our social, cultural, religious, political, philosophical, etc. lives. How sad that we can't all remember that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone, because, after all, they do not "choose" their lifestyle. IMHO, even if a lifestyle is a choice, it is worthy of equality.
Peggy - outrageous remark and I'm reporting you
@Polliwog - I said two of his Business Partners are gay, not work FOR him...equal footing here. His admin asst. is also a gay man.
So, if I wanted to marry my sister or perhaps my neighbors wife, that would be the same thing wouldn't it? Not allowing me to do so would be a violation of my "rights" since my neighbor had the right to marry his wife and virtually every other male on the planet would enjoy the right to marry my sister.
Granted, I don't actually want to do either of those things, but if I did, are my "rights" actually being violated? And would I be correct in labeling anyone who disagreed with me as a "hater" or a "hate group"? I'm just trying to understand this whole argument of "rights".
This reminds me of the "I want to marry my dog" issue. (No one ever remembers that the dog is underage fer Gawd's sake!)
I think I'll rely on a bit of science here, and maybe some common sense. Marrying your sister is inappropriate and taboo based upon the appropriate boundaries of familial relationships, in themselves grounded in a long time understanding of the genetic risks. Marrying your neighbors wife is between you & them! If you're referencing polygamy, that's another topic.
The arguments against the state endorsing marriage between same gender couples are neither scientifically grounded nor made from common sense. Legal marriage is a civil right granted by the state to protect its interests largely in the realm of childrearing & assuring that divorce is equitable so that children don't end up being dependent upon the state for support. It's a 3 party contract between the betrothed and the state. Any prohibition against legal marriage of two consenting adults is by itself illogical. Same gender couples acquire property & have children - the two primary activities within a marriage that the state has an interest in. Not all marrying couples do either or both; nonetheless, the state hedges its bet by contracting equally with all who marry.
Religious marriage is a sacrament, and every church has as its absolute right to take whatever stance they wish regarding marriages of many kinds. No one has a civil right to a religious ritual. Catholics don't recognizes divorce and remarriage.
So, advocating for the state to license same gender couples to mary is really of both civil rights; having access to the same legal protections as other married couples, which are specified within the binding contract that is marriage, and one of common sense. Ditto for federal recognition. Same gender unions have always been a part of human society. Acknowledging this by the granting of equal civil rights in marriage is an important step in so many ways.
I don't understand the objections to it. Perhaps you could explain those to me.
I have some confusion on this...gay people do what they want in their bedrooms, heterosexual people do what they want in their bedrooms...its all about what people do in their bedrooms right? so who is stopping that?
If it were that simple, it wouldn't be an issue. My marriage certainly doesn't stop existing outside the bedroom. It also exists in all our financial affairs, including co-owing a mortgage, etc. It exists in our legal affairs with children, title to the car, auto insurance, our federal tax returns, our Living Wills (which we don't have yet - but I will some day, thanks for reminding me!), each of our rights of survivorship; the list goes on & on. It's near-impossible to make a civil agreement piece by piece which replaces the complex weave of civil rights which legal marriage confers.
It's also a very important rite-of-passage in our society. Marriage confers a particular status to couples and families. I experienced this when I married my DH after living with him for 7 years. His kids - my steps - immediately felt different about our family. That's the socio-cultural significance. It's about belonging.
So, no, what happens sexually between any two people is not what marriage is about. But hopefully that's some of the good stuff!
Peggy - outrageous remark and I'm reporting you
@Polliwog - I said two of his Business Partners are gay, not work FOR him...equal footing here. His admin asst. is also a gay man.
who you gonna report me to? Rhett Butler? :laff:
OK, well maybe it was a little over the top, but I was trying to make a point. Saying things should just stay the way they were cause it worked for me doesn't fly. it may have worked for you, but it ain't working for gay people.
So, if you're not gay, what do you care? Really, what's the objection?
There are several people in my life that I consider friends who happen to be gay, a few of them I've met through my brother who is also gay. I've never had any problem posing any question to them and they certainly have no problem discussing the gay topic du jour with me. In fact gay (rights) issues often make up a significant portion of our conversation. What I can not imagine is having someone you care about in your life who is gay and NOT spending time discussing these topics. I guess "friend" is a subjective term with a different meaning to everyone.
On a related note, my brother turned me on to a story of a group of clergy in my very conservative home state of Nebraska. It seems more than 100 ordained (Christian) ministers have signed a proclamation stating that they do not believe homosexuality is a sin. One of the signers, a Rev. Eric Elnes, said, "We believe homosexuality is not a sin. It’s not a birth defect or a choice. God created people this way. And if God created them this way, they need to be honored for who they are, and fully included in church life and wider society". I don't know how you could say it any better than that. I am VERY proud that a group with such an enlightened view was able to put this together in Nebraska. It should give hope to all y'all down there in Te-jas. Here is a link to the story...
http://www.ketv.com/r/28214658/detail.html?taf=oma
Peggy should be censured in some fashion for that remark. Is that is Gregg?
Whatever happened to mud wrestling?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQF4KuTZbCxLzyMuM84CM7DnndsJfC3q iTpSxMJ1f9IQu3HAIjohA
Peace
*** MOD RESPONSE ***
Catwoman, the response that I believe you are referring to may not have been the most tasteful post in this thread, but it does not violate forum guidelines so a formal reprimand would not be appropriate. How a thread about Gov. Perry's prayer meeting morphed into a gay rights discussion is one of the great mysteries of internet discussion forums, but it is a valuable and important topic. You seem to be in the minority which is never an easy position to be in, but it makes your opinion all the more valuable to the conversation. Thank you for your willingness to participate. The more we can all learn about other points of view the more tolerant our society will become.
Everyone: not that the line has been crossed, but please continue to practice the art of civil discussion for which you are so famous. Read twice, post once.
Hey Zig, you have the video to that? :moon:
How a thread about Gov. Perry's prayer meeting morphed into a gay rights discussion is one of the great mysteries of internet discussion forums
The sponsor of the "Prayapolooza" prayer meeting in Reliant Stadium appears to be an anti-gay organization. I think this alone shows the stupidity of Rick Perry. It makes me wonder if he goal was more about publicity than anything. He is well known to be trouble maker and seems to be proud of it. I think the American public really likes the "American Idol" form of campaigning - we seem to have lost the fine art if humility and modesty.
Peace
Peggy should be censured in some fashion for that remark. Is that is Gregg?
Censured? For what? For saying this all reminds me of a character from 'Gone With the Wind'? Have you ever read Gone With the Wind? Actually, your opinion is very much like many in the south before the war. They couldn't for the life of them understand what more the blacks could want. They had food, shelter, and many were treated 'nice' in that maybe they weren't beaten. And I'll just bet there were cases of 'friendships' between black and white. But that didn't change the status of the black. And I'm guessing master and slave didn't sit around 'discussing' the slaves issues. But that didn't mean they didn't have issues. It just wasn't discussed.
Same with voting rights for blacks, or women. Some, like Alan, would suggest that granting rights are a slippery slope to, well I'm not sure, but something horrible that will end life as we know it.
But if granting equal rights is a slippery slope, then hand me my sled, cause I'm riding it all the way!
@Peggy - you are full of stereo-typical prejudicial thinking. Read a good book recently titled "Arguing With Idiots.." good read, you might enjoy it.
Some, like Alan, would suggest that granting rights are a slippery slope to, well I'm not sure, but something horrible that will end life as we know it.
But if granting equal rights is a slippery slope, then hand me my sled, cause I'm riding it all the way!
You mis-interpret me. Rights are not granted, they are inalienable. Entitlements are granted, and laws which take away freedom of choice, freedom of association and freedom of expression are heinous. Simply declaring something a right doesn't make it so IMHO.
Any group which attempts to use the legal system to grant themselves an entitlement or take away others freedom of association and expression will find resistance. It is a hard task to undo thousands of years of social convention in the course of a generation or two and anyone or any organization who labels those who don't get on board soon enough as haters, racists, etc., do their cause a dis-service.
@Peggy - you are full of stereo-typical prejudicial thinking. Read a good book recently titled "Arguing With Idiots.." good read, you might enjoy it.
I think this one does cross the line. Personal attacks don't forward this discussion.
*** MOD HAT ON (AGAIN) ***
This is mainly said for general reference. Any issue of censuring, should it ever become necessary, is done privately, not in this public domain. Mods here will not conduct drum head trials, public floggings, etc. We work very hard to adhere to the forum guidelines of etiquette and civil discourse to help make this an inviting place to share your views and in order to minimize ANY possibility of censorship on the part of the mods. I assure you all that would be the slipperiest slope of all. If anyone has any questions about the guidelines and what is, or isn't, acceptable please feel free to contact any of the mods or admins.
Creaker is absolutely right: personal attacks do NOT forward discussions. Keep it civil.
It is a hard task to undo thousands of years of social convention in the course of a generation or two and anyone or any organization who labels those who don't get on board soon enough as haters, racists, etc., do their cause a dis-service. Interesting point. I think ... the world moves a lot faster than it used to. We once had a convention that surely Some groups were less deserving or inferior to others. Africans were an inferior race, period. "Mongoloids" were next down on the list, etc. Very heirarchical, place-on-the-ladder organization of thought, without much shift at all. About 100 years ago, we moved as a society to shifting that heirarchy around. Ok maybe women weren't inferior, but surely African Americans were. Ok, well maybe not them either, but surely Hispanics. And so on. Basially reshuffling who stood where on the ladder.
It seems to me that the world may have reached a tipping point with this in recognizing that perhaps this isn't a ladder at all, and no group necessarily stands lower than any other. Not everyone has shifted this elemental way of organizing their thought process, there are still whole societies in which respect revolves around some un-chosen characteristic like sex or family of origin, one's "place" (on the ladder) but this basic internal organization strategy in the brain seems to have changed for many people.
I get what you're saying about patience, Alan, but I think the majority here on these boards have shifted their thoughts or if they are younger, were born without the heirarchy mind-set and are impatient for others to "see the light" as far as a non-heirarchical frame for any and every group. It's not really about gays, it's about rethinking the idea of listing groups in order of valor or virtue at all. For people coming from a non-heirarchical place, it's sort of mind boggling to think that each and every group still needs to be individually sniffed over for decades before being granted the respect and privilege that other groups enjoy. If you're coming from a place of non-heirarchy, arguing about the validity of gay rights seems as illogical as arguing whether blue is as good a color as green.
Patience IS a virtue, and a good tool for getting things done over time. But it's sandpaper on the soul for all of us to be coming from such varying perspectives and try to gently understand the POV of others that seems so obviously wrong. Maybe that's where patience really comes in. :-)
What is civil about responding to someone's post with what amounts to an accusation of bigotry? If she had directly called me a name - then would you have done something about it? The comparison to my views with slave-holding southerners in "Gone With the Wind" is again the cattiest, least profitable remark one can possibly make. Did that make a contribution to this discussion other than to make Peggy feel as if she sits in the morally superior postion and sneers down at the less-enlightened southerner? Usually these discussions are good for thought. Apparently I need some anti-venin cuz I have been snake-bit. You are right personal attacks do not add to the discussion, they shut it down. It could have been enlightening but it just stung - and not from truth - from viciousness.
loosechickens
6-17-11, 3:03pm
Catwoman, I'm sorry for being so long in getting back to you....I just now got on.
I don't have any idea whatsoever of how the friendship, acquaintanceship, business relationship, etc., you may have with your husband's business partners, or employees who happen to be gay, works.
I can only speak from my own experience, or what is said to me from friends who are gay, and I would find it very unusual to have any kind of close relationship with a gay person these days, and not have gay issues, gay rights, discussions of discriminations faced, etc., talked about. My friends who are gay are intensely interested in all the things that affect their lives. And because of that interest, those issues are often discussed with their friends, including us.
So my ASSUMPTION (and please note, I am saying assumption, because I am not privy to the ins and outs or depth of your relationship with said people), my impression would be that you have a business relationship. It may be friendly and "warm", as you say, and YOU may consider those people your friends, but I would almost bet that were you able to get an unvarnished opinion from THEM, and they were honest, they would not consider what you describe as a real "friendship" at all. After all, a friendship with a Christian, very conservative Texas heterosexual, with all that connotes in political outlook, the attitude toward gay equality and gay rights, including marriage to most Christian, conservative, Texas heterosexuals, would be something very difficult to have to negotiate, if any real relationship were to be taking place.
And if that relationship carefully skirted around issues that are of extreme interest to gay people, sweeping them "under the rug" so to speak, it would be a business association, and not a real friendship at all. Of course the subject might not come up between you. Why would it? Do you really believe they don't understand completely your religious and political views?
Rest assured, whether you see it or not, it would be an extremely RARE gay person today who would not be very concerned about issues of equality, rights, etc. If they aren't talking to you about their concerns, it speaks volumes as to what the real, underlying relationship is between you, as opposed to just something that "just never comes up". YOUR idea of what constitutes a real friendship and theirs may be a very different thing.
And then again, who knows? These are people you are acquainted with in real life. Why not ask THEM how close your friendship is, and if it IS as close as you seem to feel it is, why they aren't talking to you about issues that affect their lives.
If they are anything like gay friends from back in the rural, very fundamentalist Christian area of PA where my sweetie came from and where we lived for many years, they are, even if "out of the closet", probably VERY interested in not "making waves" in a community where they cannot feel complete acceptance, since a large proportion of the population would see them as sinners, immoral, unnatural and perhaps even a threat to their children (as propagandized by the American Family Association). In a world where hellfire and brimstone is preached from the pulpit against homosexuality, I suspect that the heterosexual people they REALLY feel comfortable with are few and far between. JMHO
Actually LC, they are highly educated professionals - I want to say - Episcopalians - in a moderately sized coastal city, not your rural backwater, no banjos playing in the background.
loosechickens
6-17-11, 3:17pm
hmmmm....just so YOU understand that a moderately sized coastal city in Texas is still not a really gay friendly place.... ;-)
So......even in a moderately sized, coastal city that has Episcopalians, there are still folks who think that gay rights or gay equality is just something "dreamed up as an issue by the left"? Just askin'...........however cosmopolitan it might be by Texas standards...........
Our rural area of PA hard along the NY border was close enough to places like Ithaca NY and Cornell University to go up there for lunch (when you began to think that the whole world must eat Wonder Bread and only iceberg lettuce), but there were plenty of figurative banjos there.......
right.... please tell me all about MY life...
and Yep, there are people who feel like I do in all parts of the nation and world, its not really a good idea to paint everyone with the same brush now, is it?
I know several gay couples and have known many through the years. My DW owned a beauty shop in Houston Galleria area for many years and she actually recruited gay hairdressers because they and their flamboyant attitudes were desirable.
Living in rural Central Texas I am now seldom exposed to the gay community (although everyone used to say that Austin was a mecca for gays in Texas) but a similar analogy for me is the religious community. I am a flaming liberal, always have been. I am constantly in conversations about conservative issues with my neighbors. Their reaction to me and my DW range from never speaking to us again after finding out we are heretics to others being totally non-judgmental with regard to religion (or at least to my face).
I don't think you can have much of any kind of relationship with people without some issues becoming a topic of conversation. Sex, religion, and work are common topics where I live. In the case of religon it is really the center of most people's live especially in a rural community - it is their way to connect with each other and believe me their opinions are strong publicly and privately.
I guarantee you that is the reason for Gov. Perry hosting this prayer festival. In Texas like most of the bible belt there is no better way to attract conservative voters than religion - it seems to be almost their purpose in life. So in that regard this is a clear message to the religious community and the more outrageous it is the better the right likes it. They have a cheerleader in Perry (formally a cheerleader at Texas A&M) for their agenda and there are not lines of separation between church and state for people like that.
For him to deny it is just not being truthful.
Peace
loosechickens
6-17-11, 3:42pm
Catwoman.....you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. About anything. But if your viewpoint is to see gay rights and equality for gays, including the very basic right to enjoy the benefits of marriage the same as any other citizen, as something that gays are being manipulated into by "the left" for their own political reasons, you are going to find yourself in an ever decreasing minority. The country has moved on, just as it moved on in the question of civil rights for African-Americans.
I am old enough to have traveled in the south when there were "colored" bathrooms and water fountains. My own mother thought she was VERY enlightened because when they were home alone, she sat in the kitchen and had lunch with the maid. My grandmother called black people "darkies", and my very religious uncle pitched a fit when a black couple showed up to sit in HIS church.
Those were VERY common attitudes among whites in those days. Honestly, when I was young, I don't even remember QUESTIONING that the black people couldn't use the public swimming pool, and I was in junior high when schools were integrated after Brown vs. the Board of Education, although in the case in our school, it meant only that two very frightened young black girls came to our school, and when I talked to them in the lunchroom, I was ostracized by my other friends.
TIMES CHANGE......and they don't change evenly, or at a pace where the people who ARE in the privileged group think is appropriate or in line with their beliefs and views. And sometimes those people would like to pretend that the desire for change, and the push toward politicizing that change, which is necessary for it to happen, is something that some group (on the opposite political side of the abyss) is manipulating people who would otherwise be satisfied with the status quo, for their own reasons.
As Kib says.......this is fast becoming a moot point, especially with young people. Attitudes about gays and lesbians are almost polar opposites in the under 35 as opposed to the over 50 demographics. Demographics, if nothing else, will turn the old ideas of how gays should live, and what they should be "satisfied" to have on its head.
The attitudes displayed by the Christian fundamentalist right about gays are fast becoming obsolete. As is the long used refrain "but the Bible agrees with ME", when used to discriminate, just as it was used to support slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the other ways that a dominant group found to discriminate against others. Sorry.....that's just how it is.
edited to add: Gregg is correct.....you are to be commended for hanging in there on this discussion when you find yourself in such a minority. It's hard to be the person that many other are disagreeing with......I've found myself in that situation more than once, and it's not fun.
Well, even if my viewpoint is becoming obsolete...there are still a few Jews who keep kosher...I'm good with being a minority:)
As Kib says.......this is fast becoming a moot point, especially with young people. Attitudes about gays and lesbians are almost polar opposites in the under 35 as opposed to the over 50 demographics.
My own kids grew up with a gay uncle so its a no brainer for them. Several of their friends did not have anyone so close who was gay. Even so, I have yet to hear any person from that group (now up to age 27 or so) ever question that gays should have all the IDENTICAL rights and privileges that any of the rest of us do. Note: IDENTICAL, not special. Those friends are from a very wide demographic. The primary thread they all share as a link is education. Most of them met in school and most continued through college and beyond or are still there. Since it usually stands that our leaders are well educated I am quite hopeful that discrimination for something over which the individual has no control is quickly dying on the vine. The new up-and-coming leaders of this country will have other issues that need their undivided attention.
My own kids grew up with a gay uncle so its a no brainer for them. Several of their friends did not have anyone so close who was gay. Even so, I have yet to hear any person from that group (now up to age 27 or so) ever question that gays should have all the IDENTICAL rights and privileges that any of the rest of us do. Note: IDENTICAL, not special. Those friends are from a very wide demographic. The primary thread they all share as a link is education. Most of them met in school and most continued through college and beyond or are still there. Since it usually stands that our leaders are well educated I am quite hopeful that discrimination for something over which the individual has no control is quickly dying on the vine. The new up-and-coming leaders of this country will have other issues that need their undivided attention.
+1
poetry_writer
6-17-11, 4:29pm
Catwoman.....you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. About anything. But if your viewpoint is to see gay rights and equality for gays, including the very basic right to enjoy the benefits of marriage the same as any other citizen, as something that gays are being manipulated into by "the left" for their own political reasons, you are going to find yourself in an ever decreasing minority. The country has moved on, just as it moved on in the question of civil rights for African-Americans.
I am old enough to have traveled in the south when there were "colored" bathrooms and water fountains. My own mother thought she was VERY enlightened because when they were home alone, she sat in the kitchen and had lunch with the maid. My grandmother called black people "darkies", and my very religious uncle pitched a fit when a black couple showed up to sit in HIS church.
Those were VERY common attitudes among whites in those days. Honestly, when I was young, I don't even remember QUESTIONING that the black people couldn't use the public swimming pool, and I was in junior high when schools were integrated after Brown vs. the Board of Education, although in the case in our school, it meant only that two very frightened young black girls came to our school, and when I talked to them in the lunchroom, I was ostracized by my other friends.
TIMES CHANGE......and they don't change evenly, or at a pace where the people who ARE in the privileged group think is appropriate or in line with their beliefs and views. And sometimes those people would like to pretend that the desire for change, and the push toward politicizing that change, which is necessary for it to happen, is something that some group (on the opposite political side of the abyss) is manipulating people who would otherwise be satisfied with the status quo, for their own reasons.
As Kib says.......this is fast becoming a moot point, especially with young people. Attitudes about gays and lesbians are almost polar opposites in the under 35 as opposed to the over 50 demographics. Demographics, if nothing else, will turn the old ideas of how gays should live, and what they should be "satisfied" to have on its head.
The attitudes displayed by the Christian fundamentalist right about gays are fast becoming obsolete. As is the long used refrain "but the Bible agrees with ME", when used to discriminate, just as it was used to support slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the other ways that a dominant group found to discriminate against others. Sorry.....that's just how it is.
edited to add: Gregg is correct.....you are to be commended for hanging in there on this discussion when you find yourself in such a minority. It's hard to be the person that many other are disagreeing with......I've found myself in that situation more than once, and it's not fun.
Sorry you encountered racist attitudes in your family. Its very disheartening. Do you consider all Christians to be fundamentalist wackos? Your post seems to say so. Correct me if I am wrong. Do you routinely ask people about their sexual orientation? Do you think all Christians hate gays? I know I am tossing out a lot of questions, but I would be interested in hearing your reply. Thank you.
What is civil about responding to someone's post with what amounts to an accusation of bigotry? If she had directly called me a name - then would you have done something about it? The comparison to my views with slave-holding southerners in "Gone With the Wind" is again the cattiest, least profitable remark one can possibly make. Did that make a contribution to this discussion other than to make Peggy feel as if she sits in the morally superior postion and sneers down at the less-enlightened southerner? Usually these discussions are good for thought. Apparently I need some anti-venin cuz I have been snake-bit. You are right personal attacks do not add to the discussion, they shut it down. It could have been enlightening but it just stung - and not from truth - from viciousness.
Oh chill out! Step back, take a breath, and invite one of those 'good friends' over for a cup of coffee and have a heart to heart. If you are such good friends as you think, they will appreciate it more than you can imagine. A good friend might start with something like, "people keep saying gays are discriminated against. Are you? I really want to know because what affects my good friends affects me. What is important to my good friends is important to me."
Try that, then get back with us.
Oh and I will ignore your insults and calls for censure. I realize you feel very, very, VERY strongly about this. In view of this society and how it's changing, you're wrong, of course, but that doesn't change your feelings and I can accept that.
You find an accusation of bigotry insulting? Well, I find actual bigotry insulting.
I 'll tell you one thing though. It is heartening to see how many different people of different ages, from all walks of life, represented by the folks on this board, are tired of the bigotry and discrimination. It tells me that it won't be long before we will look back on this time and wonder what ever took us so long. Like granting rights to blacks and women.
My beautiful daughter thanks you all.
Thanks Peggy. I assume you speak on behalf of the forum with your "Try that and get back to us." advice. There is nothing I could say to you right now that would be appropriate. The smug arrogance with which you dispense advice must be a comfort to you. Enjoy.
You mis-interpret me. Rights are not granted, they are inalienable. Entitlements are granted, and laws which take away freedom of choice, freedom of association and freedom of expression are heinous. Simply declaring something a right doesn't make it so IMHO.
Any group which attempts to use the legal system to grant themselves an entitlement or take away others freedom of association and expression will find resistance. It is a hard task to undo thousands of years of social convention in the course of a generation or two and anyone or any organization who labels those who don't get on board soon enough as haters, racists, etc., do their cause a dis-service.
I know we've had this discussion before Alan, what is a right. I still believe rights are something that is granted by your society/group/clan whatever. Nothing is inalienable, which means it is unable to be taken away or transferred. I guess a few things are inalienable, like your intelligence or your personality. Those things can't be transferred or taken away. (ok maybe with the use of drugs, but that's getting into a strange and grey area) who your parents are is inalienable.
But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can absolutely be taken away. Or granted. Even life itself isn't inalienable in that the next bigger, stronger one can come and snuff yours out.
We, as a civilized society, came together and decided which rights we, the citizens, would enjoy. Life, of course. Murder is against the law, our laws. Liberty, sure. If you haven't murdered. Then you lose your liberty. The pursuit of happiness. That's a tough one, with lots of qualifiers. Those who are drowning in debt from a catastrophic illness aren't at liberty to pursue happiness. Gays who only want to marry the one they love aren't allowed to pursue this very basic happiness. We have inalienable rights because WE said they were, which kind of cancels out the inalienable part. But, this is an old discussion for another thread. :)
Change is hard, but sometimes necessary. And sometimes it's necessary to drag the last 'defenders' kicking and screaming into the next reality. Cause if we just wait for them, then nothing will happen. It's time. This is going to happen, and we, the people, have said it will be so.
This politician, who wants to lead and write legislation, and make laws, aligning himself with this hate group is George Wallace standing in the school house door.
Gingerella72
6-17-11, 5:51pm
There are several people in my life that I consider friends who happen to be gay, a few of them I've met through my brother who is also gay. I've never had any problem posing any question to them and they certainly have no problem discussing the gay topic du jour with me. In fact gay (rights) issues often make up a significant portion of our conversation. What I can not imagine is having someone you care about in your life who is gay and NOT spending time discussing these topics. I guess "friend" is a subjective term with a different meaning to everyone.
On a related note, my brother turned me on to a story of a group of clergy in my very conservative home state of Nebraska. It seems more than 100 ordained (Christian) ministers have signed a proclamation stating that they do not believe homosexuality is a sin. One of the signers, a Rev. Eric Elnes, said, "We believe homosexuality is not a sin. It’s not a birth defect or a choice. God created people this way. And if God created them this way, they need to be honored for who they are, and fully included in church life and wider society". I don't know how you could say it any better than that. I am VERY proud that a group with such an enlightened view was able to put this together in Nebraska. It should give hope to all y'all down there in Te-jas. Here is a link to the story...
http://www.ketv.com/r/28214658/detail.html?taf=oma
As another fellow Cornhusker this makes me very, very glad to learn! Thank you for sharing, Gregg. I can only hope that the rest of Nebraska clergy feels this way and not only the "more enlightened big city Omaha clergy."
loosechickens
6-17-11, 11:11pm
"Sorry you encountered racist attitudes in your family. Its very disheartening. Do you consider all Christians to be fundamentalist wackos? Your post seems to say so. Correct me if I am wrong. Do you routinely ask people about their sexual orientation? Do you think all Christians hate gays? I know I am tossing out a lot of questions, but I would be interested in hearing your reply. Thank you." (poetry_writer)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The racial attitudes expressed in my family (and in many, many white families in the fifties.......remember the "white flight" to the suburbs, to get away from "THEM"?) were very common at the time. With time, my family's attitudes changed. My father was one of the first in his business to hire and promote minority managers, which was a huge step forward for him. My mother grew and changed, began to see the error of seeing African-Americans as somehow "less than" she and her family and friends, although, sadly, my grandmother, even in her last illness, embarassed us all by pitching a fit because she was placed in a room in the hospital with a black woman (who, luckily had far more grace and dignity than my grandmother), died without changing her viewpoints. My uncle came to accept black families in his church, and his son, who became a Lutheran minister, not only worked for civil rights, but has never shown prejudice and has friends of all races, religions and sexual orientation.
SO....it is possible to change, although change is hard, and seems to come more easily to the young than to those who are very set in their ways.
And, of course I don't think all Christians "hate gays". I'm not even sure that very bigoted fundamentalist Christians "hate" them, but rather, fear them, fear that somehow their own families will be "sullied" by the "sinfulness", etc., which makes gays and lesbians who grow up in fundamentalist Christian families have a hard row to hoe, but many, many Christians, as they were in the matter of civil rights for African-Americans, not only accept, but support equality for gays, marriage for gays, and full civil rights, as they would support for anyone else.
To me, (and you may disagree), it is not the "Christianness" that is the problem, it is the fundamentalist, black and white thinking, which is really no different in many ways from the black and white thinking of the Muslim fundamentalists and the Taliban, or those of any other religion who hold absolute, "my way or the highway" viewpoints, and use passages from religious books to reinforce and amplify their prejudices. (Although, conveniently ignoring other passages, with which they do not agree).
I don't "routinely" ask people their sexual orientation, and honestly don't need to, as most gay and lesbian people, and straight people, for that matter, are open as to their orientation, making it obvious, as we get to know them. I'm sure that I know people very peripherally that I have no idea whether or not they are gay or straight, but most people that I actually KNOW, it's an open acknowledgement and knowledge, and people are accepted for themselves, with gayness or straightness just one more aspect of their personhood, not necessarily the defining factor, any more than my straightness is a defining factor for me.....just part of who I am.
Here's what I think. I think that people who have fears and prejudices (and yes, extending into bigotry sometimes), have a tendency to look to their religion, for example, to buttress what they already believe. So, some Christians, having fears and dislike of gays, or fears about their "sinfulness" (and that it might, somehow, be "catching"), look in the Bible, search the Old Testament, and say, "see.....see......the Bible agrees with me!". (there was someone famous one time who said, "isn't it amazing that people's gods all seem to have the same prejudices that they have?").
The fact that they consider themselves followers of Jesus, and Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality, and a great deal to say about accepting one's brothers and sisters, and loving all people, caring for the poor, etc., doesn't seem to compute. Only the words in the Old Testament that reinforce their own prejudices are used for buttressing their argument.
They don't boycott the Red Lobster because people are in there eating shellfish, or think that people should be put to death for not honoring the sabbath, or disrespecting their parents. They don't believe it is o.k. to sell their daughters into slavery, etc. All things that are in that same Old Testament, but are things they no longer believe. But the things that are in the Old Testament that agree with their own feelings are somehow sacrosanct. It doesn't make sense.
Which is why attitudes are changing, because the religious arguments against gay rights and gay marriage have no more basis in fact than forbidding marriage between races, or using the bible to justify Jim Crow laws in the south back in the day, or slavery (because it was in the bible) even earlier.
Prejudices die hard....it takes awhile. But they never change unless we go through these uncomfortable times, upset some sacred applecarts, and finally, have the last generation that still holds the prejudices to move onto their next appointed existence. That is slowly happening with African-Americans......(who, born during WWII, and growing up before civil rights, could have believed back in the fifties that we would elect a mixed race President?), and attitudes of racial prejudice are far more prevalent in older people than in younger ones. It's the same with sexual orientation....older people, especially people of a specifically fundamentalist religious belief, have a very hard time with it, but younger people see it as almost a "non-event", and have a hard time even imagining why gay people even have to fight for their rights, such as being able to marry the person they love, or in areas like serving in our military, where gays have ALWAYS served, even if closeted, and where pretty much every other democratic country in the world has been having them serve openly for a long time. We're really in the backwater in that area, too.
I go on and on, but I hope I've answered your questions. Change is harder for some people than for others, and some cling to old prejudices long past the time to have laid them down. But time will solve the problem. That, and people being willing to stand up for justice, civil rights and fairness. It is, after all, the American Way.
poetry_writer
6-18-11, 10:42am
"Sorry you encountered racist attitudes in your family. Its very disheartening. Do you consider all Christians to be fundamentalist wackos? Your post seems to say so. Correct me if I am wrong. Do you routinely ask people about their sexual orientation? Do you think all Christians hate gays? I know I am tossing out a lot of questions, but I would be interested in hearing your reply. Thank you." (poetry_writer)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The racial attitudes expressed in my family (and in many, many white families in the fifties.......remember the "white flight" to the suburbs, to get away from "THEM"?) were very common at the time. With time, my family's attitudes changed. My father was one of the first in his business to hire and promote minority managers, which was a huge step forward for him. My mother grew and changed, began to see the error of seeing African-Americans as somehow "less than" she and her family and friends, although, sadly, my grandmother, even in her last illness, embarassed us all by pitching a fit because she was placed in a room in the hospital with a black woman (who, luckily had far more grace and dignity than my grandmother), died without changing her viewpoints. My uncle came to accept black families in his church, and his son, who became a Lutheran minister, not only worked for civil rights, but has never shown prejudice and has friends of all races, religions and sexual orientation.
SO....it is possible to change, although change is hard, and seems to come more easily to the young than to those who are very set in their ways.
And, of course I don't think all Christians "hate gays". I'm not even sure that very bigoted fundamentalist Christians "hate" them, but rather, fear them, fear that somehow their own families will be "sullied" by the "sinfulness", etc., which makes gays and lesbians who grow up in fundamentalist Christian families have a hard row to hoe, but many, many Christians, as they were in the matter of civil rights for African-Americans, not only accept, but support equality for gays, marriage for gays, and full civil rights, as they would support for anyone else.
To me, (and you may disagree), it is not the "Christianness" that is the problem, it is the fundamentalist, black and white thinking, which is really no different in many ways from the black and white thinking of the Muslim fundamentalists and the Taliban, or those of any other religion who hold absolute, "my way or the highway" viewpoints, and use passages from religious books to reinforce and amplify their prejudices. (Although, conveniently ignoring other passages, with which they do not agree).
I don't "routinely" ask people their sexual orientation, and honestly don't need to, as most gay and lesbian people, and straight people, for that matter, are open as to their orientation, making it obvious, as we get to know them. I'm sure that I know people very peripherally that I have no idea whether or not they are gay or straight, but most people that I actually KNOW, it's an open acknowledgement and knowledge, and people are accepted for themselves, with gayness or straightness just one more aspect of their personhood, not necessarily the defining factor, any more than my straightness is a defining factor for me.....just part of who I am.
Here's what I think. I think that people who have fears and prejudices (and yes, extending into bigotry sometimes), have a tendency to look to their religion, for example, to buttress what they already believe. So, some Christians, having fears and dislike of gays, or fears about their "sinfulness" (and that it might, somehow, be "catching"), look in the Bible, search the Old Testament, and say, "see.....see......the Bible agrees with me!". (there was someone famous one time who said, "isn't it amazing that people's gods all seem to have the same prejudices that they have?").
The fact that they consider themselves followers of Jesus, and Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality, and a great deal to say about accepting one's brothers and sisters, and loving all people, caring for the poor, etc., doesn't seem to compute. Only the words in the Old Testament that reinforce their own prejudices are used for buttressing their argument.
They don't boycott the Red Lobster because people are in there eating shellfish, or think that people should be put to death for not honoring the sabbath, or disrespecting their parents. They don't believe it is o.k. to sell their daughters into slavery, etc. All things that are in that same Old Testament, but are things they no longer believe. But the things that are in the Old Testament that agree with their own feelings are somehow sacrosanct. It doesn't make sense.
Which is why attitudes are changing, because the religious arguments against gay rights and gay marriage have no more basis in fact than forbidding marriage between races, or using the bible to justify Jim Crow laws in the south back in the day, or slavery (because it was in the bible) even earlier.
Prejudices die hard....it takes awhile. But they never change unless we go through these uncomfortable times, upset some sacred applecarts, and finally, have the last generation that still holds the prejudices to move onto their next appointed existence. That is slowly happening with African-Americans......(who, born during WWII, and growing up before civil rights, could have believed back in the fifties that we would elect a mixed race President?), and attitudes of racial prejudice are far more prevalent in older people than in younger ones. It's the same with sexual orientation....older people, especially people of a specifically fundamentalist religious belief, have a very hard time with it, but younger people see it as almost a "non-event", and have a hard time even imagining why gay people even have to fight for their rights, such as being able to marry the person they love, or in areas like serving in our military, where gays have ALWAYS served, even if closeted, and where pretty much every other democratic country in the world has been having them serve openly for a long time. We're really in the backwater in that area, too.
I go on and on, but I hope I've answered your questions. Change is harder for some people than for others, and some cling to old prejudices long past the time to have laid them down. But time will solve the problem. That, and people being willing to stand up for justice, civil rights and fairness. It is, after all, the American Way.
Have you met any atheistic or agnostics kooks or just Christians? I seldom see it mentioned but I have indeed met atheistic nutballs.
loosechickens
6-18-11, 2:08pm
"Well, even if my viewpoint is becoming obsolete...there are still a few Jews who keep kosher...I'm good with being a minority") (catwoman)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's fine. And, so long as those Jews don't try to paint others, who are not even Jewish as "sinful", "unnatural", or dangerous if they don't keep kosher, too, and so long as they don't try to influence the passage of legislation that would force people who are not Jewish to adjust their eating habits to conform to said Jewish peoples' idea of what is correct, in accordance "with G-d's wishes", etc., they'll get no argument from me.
loosechickens
6-18-11, 2:16pm
"Have you met any atheistic or agnostics kooks or just Christians? I seldom see it mentioned but I have indeed met atheistic nutballs." (poetry_writer)
---------------------------------------------------
Of course.....alas, "nutballs" come in every religious persuasion, including no religion at all, or doubters. They come in all sizes, races, religions, sexes and every other way you can slice and dice the human race into groups.
At the moment, in issues regarding gays and lesbians in this country, the very fundamentalist Christian "nutballs" are in the public eye. But that doesn't mean that "nutballs" don't exist in other religions and in people with no religion at all, and everywhere. Not to worry. And even large number of Christians do not believe what the Christian "nutballs" as you call them, believe.
I don't think ANYONE, really, is a "nutball". I think sometimes people have very rigid thinking, lots of fears and anxieties, and act out those fears by trying to control the world around them, including others in that world. It isn't enough for them to hold a view that something is wrong, and therefore endeavor themselves not to do or be what they think is awful, but feel the need to reach out and make sure that others aren't able to do or be, as well.
Large, large numbers of Christian people, Christian pastors and other leaders, theological thinkers, etc., do not agree with the fundamentalist Christian outlook on gay people as portrayed by organizations like The American Family Association. Many Christians are working hard for equality for gays and lesbians, and some denominations are supportive of gay marriage, etc.
Don't try to see "Christians" as monolithic, because they are not. Mainstream Christians are probably larger in numbers, but not as vocal as the ones spreading misinformation and bigotry regarding gays. Sometimes the loudest voices are who are heard, not the ones from the deepest thinkers or the ones who have really taken the teachings of Christ to heart. JMHO
Loosechickens said: "They don't boycott the Red Lobster because people are in there eating shellfish, or think that people should be put to death for not honoring the sabbath, or disrespecting their parents. They don't believe it is o.k. to sell their daughters into slavery, etc. All things that are in that same Old Testament, but are things they no longer believe. But the things that are in the Old Testament that agree with their own feelings are somehow sacrosanct. It doesn't make sense. "
THANK YOU Loosechickens; that is a thought I have been trying to put into words and couldn't.
Zigzagman
6-19-11, 11:04am
From a blog (http://www.meanrachel.com/2011/06/blind-response.html) here in Austin - I think expresses the real issue with the Prayer service to be held in Houston by Rick Perry.
********
I didn't buy it when Rick Perry pretended to shoot a coyote during the last gubernatorial campaign and I'm having a hard time believing that Rick Perry pretending to care about the nation's problems by hosting a national day of prayer is actually going to convince any of the 4.3 million Texans who live in poverty that he does. As for fasting, Rick Perry starving himself for a day isn't going to trick those in this state who go hungry for weeks on end into thinking they are full.
Wrapping up both of these ideas into a fancy website littered with platitudes (http://theresponseusa.com/) isn't going to fool God, either.
We're all friends here so I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Praying is easy. A person can feign concern, close their eyes and raise their hands upward toward the heavens all without having to fix their hair.
In other words, praying is perfect for Perry.
What's not easy, and what requires a little more hair gel than quoting passages from Joel (http://theresponseusa.com/why-the-response.php), is actual work.
Work is being homeless.
Work is walking to a bus stop every day in the 100-degree heat.
Work is teaching yourself what public schools failed to teach you.
Work is losing a job.
Work is looking for a job.
Work is waiting for food stamps.
Work is having pain but not having the resources to make it go away.
Rick Perry's right on one thing: Texas can do better. But to be better, we're going to have to work at it. Work is not closing your eyes and praying for those you don't want to see.
It is opening your eyes and helping those you can.
Peace
... to be better, we're going to have to work at it. Work is not closing your eyes and praying for those you don't want to see. It is opening your eyes and helping those you can.
What a marvelous quote. Thank you, Zigzagman and Blogger!
ApatheticNoMore
6-19-11, 2:22pm
Work is teaching yourself what public schools failed to teach you.
Basically something ALL of us who went to the public schools have to do, do, and continue to do every day. Because the whole view of the world we grew up with has nothing to do with current reality.
But to be better, we're going to have to work at it. Work is not closing your eyes and praying for those you don't want to see.
It is opening your eyes and helping those you can.
Peace
Also my favorite line from your quote Zig, thanks. Pretty salty advice for those of us from outside the Lone Star State as well.
Beautiful Zig. Just, beautiful.
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 11:30am
"Well, even if my viewpoint is becoming obsolete...there are still a few Jews who keep kosher...I'm good with being a minority") (catwoman)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's fine. And, so long as those Jews don't try to paint others, who are not even Jewish as "sinful", "unnatural", or dangerous if they don't keep kosher, too, and so long as they don't try to influence the passage of legislation that would force people who are not Jewish to adjust their eating habits to conform to said Jewish peoples' idea of what is correct, in accordance "with G-d's wishes", etc., they'll get no argument from me.
But arent you doing what you accuse of others of doing when you demand that any group believe a certain way? You say Jews cant paint anyone as sinful or unatural. You demand Christians phrase things so as not to offend anyone. For example, if I said I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God. You'd come after me (verbally speaking). So you are demanding that others "dont" do a certain thing. Yet you say they cant do certain thing or have certain beliefs.
loosechickens
6-21-11, 3:05pm
Au contraire, poetry_writer. If you said "I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God", I would both respect your view and defend your right to believe it. I don't happen to believe that myself, but I feel you have every right to believe it and govern your own life in accordance with that belief.
However, you can't say, as FACT, "The only way to God is through Jesus Christ", both because it is a BELIEF and not a FACT, and because you have no real right to force your view on others.
It's a subtle difference, but very real. It's what makes it just fine to say on these boards, "I believe such and such", but not o.k. to say, "My way is the only truth, and anyone who doesn't believe as I believe is following a false religion", and in fact, is outside the guidelines of the forum.
Those Jews (of the above illustration by catwoman, not to be confused with actual Jews) can BELIEVE that anyone who doesn't keep kosher is sinful or unnatural. They are free to BELIEVE whatever they like. What they CANNOT do in a pluralistic, secular society, is to force others to adjust their behavior, eating habits, etc., to conform to the Jews' belief that the peoples' actions are sinful, etc. Or to try to get legislation passed that would allow only kosher food served in restaurants open to the public, say.
So the members of the American Family Association can believe that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and unnatural, and so long as they use that belief to govern their OWN behavior in those matters, and not attempt to get laws passed to make other people conform to their beliefs, it's fine. We may see them as prejudiced, and that is OUR right to believe them to be prejudiced, but it wouldn't be all right, say, for us to say, "Well, they are prejudiced and believe something that I don't believe, and therefore, we should make laws discriminating against them, and preventing them from exercising free belief in whatever they want to believe, IN THEIR OWN LIVES. And, in fact, since we think that they are not only prejudiced, but wrong, they shouldn't be allowed to hold their views." That would be completely wrong, and discriminatory.
Remember, that the whole focus of this thread was whether it was appropriate for an elected Governor of a state, in his official capacity of Governor of ALL Texans, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., gay, straight, etc., to sponsor a prayer extravaganza directed to one specific religion, and on top of that have a cosponsor that has a strong anti gay and lesbian public presence, when said gays and lesbians are Texas citizens, and some significant number of Texans are not even Christian.
Which has little or nothing to do with whether Christians or anyone else is free to believe what they like. We have separation of church and state in this country, whether those of the dominant religion want to face that or not.
Does that make sense to you? There is a very clear distinction, but often difficult to see, particular if someone is seeing BELIEF as FACT, when they are, in fact, two completely different things.
poetry_writer
6-21-11, 4:15pm
Au contraire, poetry_writer. If you said "I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God", I would both respect your view and defend your right to believe it. I don't happen to believe that myself, but I feel you have every right to believe it and govern your own life in accordance with that belief.
However, you can't say, as FACT, "The only way to God is through Jesus Christ", both because it is a BELIEF and not a FACT, and because you have no real right to force your view on others.
It's a subtle difference, but very real. It's what makes it just fine to say on these boards, "I believe such and such", but not o.k. to say, "My way is the only truth, and anyone who doesn't believe as I believe is following a false religion", and in fact, is outside the guidelines of the forum.
Those Jews (of the above illustration by catwoman, not to be confused with actual Jews) can BELIEVE that anyone who doesn't keep kosher is sinful or unnatural. They are free to BELIEVE whatever they like. What they CANNOT do in a pluralistic, secular society, is to force others to adjust their behavior, eating habits, etc., to conform to the Jews' belief that the peoples' actions are sinful, etc. Or to try to get legislation passed that would allow only kosher food served in restaurants open to the public, say.
So the members of the American Family Association can believe that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and unnatural, and so long as they use that belief to govern their OWN behavior in those matters, and not attempt to get laws passed to make other people conform to their beliefs, it's fine. We may see them as prejudiced, and that is OUR right to believe them to be prejudiced, but it wouldn't be all right, say, for us to say, "Well, they are prejudiced and believe something that I don't believe, and therefore, we should make laws discriminating against them, and preventing them from exercising free belief in whatever they want to believe, IN THEIR OWN LIVES. And, in fact, since we think that they are not only prejudiced, but wrong, they shouldn't be allowed to hold their views." That would be completely wrong, and discriminatory.
Remember, that the whole focus of this thread was whether it was appropriate for an elected Governor of a state, in his official capacity of Governor of ALL Texans, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., gay, straight, etc., to sponsor a prayer extravaganza directed to one specific religion, and on top of that have a cosponsor that has a strong anti gay and lesbian public presence, when said gays and lesbians are Texas citizens, and some significant number of Texans are not even Christian.
Which has little or nothing to do with whether Christians or anyone else is free to believe what they like. We have separation of church and state in this country, whether those of the dominant religion want to face that or not.
Does that make sense to you? There is a very clear distinction, but often difficult to see, particular if someone is seeing BELIEF as FACT, when they are, in fact, two completely different things.
If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that.
However, you can't say, as FACT, "The only way to God is through Jesus Christ", both because it is a BELIEF and not a FACT, and because you have no real right to force your view on others.
I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.
As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there?
treehugger
6-21-11, 4:47pm
If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that.
Personally I don't care if you call it a fact or not. Believe what you (general you) want to govern your own life. Where we (as a country) need to draw the line is allowing people to vote/enact laws that take away rights from people based on their beliefs/personal facts.
There's a giant difference between someone who says they think gay people (or anyone different from them) are sinners (absolutely nothing legally wrong with thinking this) and people who vote to take away civil rights of minorities (I will speak out and vote against this till the end).
Taking away civil rights should only be done when there is a clear benefit to society as a whole (imprisioning felons, for instance) and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which is, of course, protected.
Kara
loosechickens
6-21-11, 9:16pm
"I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.
As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there? " (Alan)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
You know that, Alan. We've been over this ground over and over on these forums. Beliefs are fine. Stating one's beliefs are fine. What is not fine is stating those beliefs as fact, and proselytizing that belief as anything other than what it is, a belief.
loosechickens
6-21-11, 9:23pm
"If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that." (poetry_writer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you DO believe that to be fact, and believing that, base your life and death on that belief. There is nothing WRONG with that, poetry_writer. Can you hear what I am saying? We ALL have beliefs, attitudes, ethical standards, etc., that we base our lives on. I have beliefs that I base MY life on, but I wouldn't attempt to say that my beliefs are fact, and therefore others should conform to them. It is sufficient for me to govern my OWN life by those beliefs, and leave others to govern their lives by the ones they hold. I respect and defend your right to not only hold what religious beliefs you hold, but to believe them to be true and to govern your life by them.
You may believe what you like. You may base your life on that belief. And you should. That is not a problem. Where the problem comes is in moving away from the "I believe" into "this is fact" (meaning it is provable, which even theologians understand is why they call it FAITH, as opposed to FACT).
No atheist can come on these forums and say, "There is no god, and the whole thing is hooey". The most they can say is "I believe there is no god, and the whole thing is hooey". It's just how it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one can state something as FACT that cannot be shown to BE a fact. And religion (all of them, or the lack of any) is the same, a belief system, not a factual system. Which is why you need faith to be a believer. Because there is no way to prove it. Just as there is no way to prove there IS no god.
loosechickens
6-21-11, 9:37pm
AND, I keep trying to bring this back to what was actually under discussion....not peoples' beliefs, but their ability to mix religious beliefs and government action together, which in this country, which has separation of church and state, means that official government actions cannot favor one religion over another, but must govern and guard that their actions do not discriminate against one religion in favor of another, or make laws and push for legislation based on religious grounds of belief.
The Jews, mentioned by Catwoman, could hold whatever beliefs they wanted about keeping kosher, but if they were elected to office, and went about trying to make this country into a "kosher country", passing laws that restaurants, food processors, etc. had to present their product according to kosher law, and that people who were not Jewish had to keep kosher houses, too, that would be a huge violation of the separation of church and state.
It's easier for us to see when the religious beliefs in question are held by a minority religion, like being up in arms about Sharia law, but difficult for many when the beliefs in question are a dominant view, held by a majority of citizens, to see that the attempt to impose religious beliefs and make laws according to them is no different, whether it's Christians doing it, or Muslims, or the aforesaid Jews. Since they are in the majority, many will actually say "this is a Christian nation" which is simply not true. America is a secular, pluralistic nation, with separation of church and state, and comprised of citizens of many different religions including none at all, and each has exactly the same right to their beliefs as any other. And none have a right to impose their own religious beliefs on others. It's how the system works.
I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.
As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there?
To mix phrases, I think the right of a person to swing their beliefs stops at the edge of my nose.
To mix phrases, I think the right of a person to swing their beliefs stops at the edge of my nose.
But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.
But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.
Actually I agree with the statement you made - people can say whatever they want, I can do the same. Censure does constitute a form of force - but only if there is action taken. Verbal censure is just more thought and words. But when you are at a point where only unaccepted facts and censure are occurring, there is no discussion taking place.
The Storyteller
6-22-11, 10:37am
I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
Fortunately, you are the moderator for neither this forum nor the spirituality forum, as it is clear you don't know what proselytizing is. I can most certainly say there is a God and the only way to heaven is through Him, or the opposite without prefacing it with "I believe". That is a given. I pretty much see anyone's statement of faith or opinion to be just that, without the need for qualifying statements.
To say otherwise would be to say that you, LC, proselytize constantly, as you very rarely use qualifiers for anything you say. I think most people here, however, are bright enough to know you are just stating your opinion.
But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.
Actually, this has merit. There is no god and I think religion is hooey, is different than saying there is no god and I think YOU are hooey for believing that. (or stupid, or foolish or whatever) Since perception is reality, this is my reality, just as your belief in god is your reality, and each knows the other is speaking for themselves and their reality. For you and everyone in your world (which includes me and everyone on this board) there is a god. I beg to differ.
Now if I say there is no god and from now on anyone on this forum who says there is will be banned, that is discrimination and censure.
For Perry, in his capacity as political leader, his and the AFA's reality most certainly does not include a good number of Texans or the country at large. And he has given notice, by holding this rally in his capacity as political leader, that he intends to try to form our government to his religious reality. Fair enough. We've been warned. And as a secular pluralistic nation we should shout this guy down without question. The other governors have essentially done that by declining his invitation, although none that i know has the backbone to say why.
whatever our political leaders religious reality is, is their private matter, and of course we expect them to be guided by their own beliefs as to their conduct, honesty, integrity, etc.. But as most religions share their beliefs in that regard, we don't even really need to know which religion they subscribe to. Or no religion since we know morals are not connected to religious belief.
But religion is a tricky thing. It doesn't just demand you be good and kind and moral, which we can all agree on, it also demands women cover their heads, or whole bodies, or everyone eat a certain way, or you wear special underwear, or that gay people are sinful and dirty.
This is why our founding fathers said believe what you want but keep your religion to yourself. Of course that's not a direct quote so don't try to call me on that or derail the thought. ;)
Even the bible instructs you to pray in your room by yourself.
As a kid growing up in a Texas old money environment, I was taught by osmosis that it was impolite to discuss matters of money, religion or politics with anyone outside your family or closest friends. I still believe that especially with religion - to each his own but keep it to yourself.
I can most certainly say there is a God and the only way to heaven is through Him, or the opposite without prefacing it with "I believe". That is a given. I pretty much see anyone's statement of faith or opinion to be just that, without the need for qualifying statements.
I have to agree Storyteller. Proselytizing is, IMO, actually trying to convert people to your way of thinking, most commonly in a religious sense. It is an active practice and a line that I don't see being crossed by someone making simple statements, qualified as opinion or not. It's also a moving target from the moderator perspective. Example: its not uncommon for you and I to end up on opposing sides of a political debate around here. When I lay out my case I'm certainly trying to convince you that my point of view has merit. Am I trying to convert you to a right wing, ammo hording, Fox watching, twinkie eating conservative? Not really, but it wouldn't be that big a stretch for someone with no history around here to read my posts and think that I was.
Moderation of a group of intelligent people with strong, well thought out opinions is pretty easy. It's mostly just a matter of tossing out occasional reminders to keep emotions, most commonly frustration, in check while posting. If anyone was to come in here and try to proselytize in the true sense of the word they would likely be shot down by other posters or simply ignored out of existence before the moderation gun could be drawn.
loosechickens
6-22-11, 3:00pm
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately, you are the moderator for neither this forum nor the spirituality forum, as it is clear you don't know what proselytizing is. I can most certainly say there is a God and the only way to heaven is through Him, or the opposite without prefacing it with "I believe". That is a given. I pretty much see anyone's statement of faith or opinion to be just that, without the need for qualifying statements.
To say otherwise would be to say that you, LC, proselytize constantly, as you very rarely use qualifiers for anything you say. I think most people here, however, are bright enough to know you are just stating your opinion. (Storyteller)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear you Storyteller, but the reason why, over time, on these forums, we kind of developed the place where opinion slipped over into proselytizing as being where "I believe that" morphed into "This is The Truth", is because when people moved from stating their beliefs about religion to defining what Truth was, it was closely followed with "and anybody who doesn't believe that is following a false religion" or something similar. It was more of a way of steering conversations into expression of opinion as opposed to stating an opinion, which might or might not be shared by many others, as fact, since what was often stated as "The Truth" was really just one person's particular religious belief, which in effect was accusing all others who didn't hold that view of having a religion that was not the "correct" one, that's all.
I understand completely that to a person, their particular religious beliefs are "truth", otherwise they wouldn't be believing in it. What we've tried to do on the forums here is to allow people to share their opinons and beliefs, but have not allowed statement of beliefs to be presented as "facts", especially when such "facts", not only could not be proven, but implied by their very "factual" content and tone, that anyone who held other beliefs was simply wrong.
We had several instances of people coming onto the forums, often with more interest in converting or proselytizing than in sharing their own beliefs. So we kind of developed a way to ensure that it was o.k. to state beliefs, but not o.k. to make comments that presented beliefs as "The Truth", excluding all other religions or lack thereof and sweeping them into the dustpan of "False".
If someone were to come onto these boards and say that unless one converted to Islam, they are damned, and that the only truth is that espoused by Islam, and anyone who believes differently is worshipping a false god and will end up in hell, most people here would feel that their own beliefs were being completely disregarded, and that the poster was, in effect, saying that whatever they believed was wrong, factually wrong, and that this poster knew best and they'd better listen because whatever religion THEY were following was wrong, wrong, wrong.......
We haven't wanted to have that atmosphere on these forums. Which was how we tried to arrive at a point of division that allowed everyone to be able to state their own beliefs, but not to post in a way that denigrated or dismissed other peoples' religions, and considered that only the poster's idea of "The Truth" was correct.
And that applies to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists, as well as members of all religions found on earth. We are all free to state what we believe, but not allowed to state that our belief is the only "correct" one, that we have some kind of handle on "The Truth", although we are free, ourselves, to believe that we do.
It's hard, because this is a board that encompasses people of a number of different religions (or even various forms of one religion, such as Christianity. One of the biggest upsets on the forum board was an ugly fight as to whether or not Mormons were or were not "Christian"), and also people with no religious belief system at all. So we've tried to find a line at which we could show a point where opinion and belief becomes proselytizing and insistence on one's beliefs being the "Only Truth".
I'm sorry if you don't like how we've tried to evolve to deal with these questions. It's not ME who is saying it. It's been the way that, over time, we've tried as a forum to find a way to accomodate peoples' beliefs with not allowing people to trample on other people's beliefs by insistence on their own being the only "True One".
Hope this helps........religion, like politics is always a very emotional subject, so it's been a bit more necessary to have stricter guidelines and less opportunity for hissy fits than if we are just arguing as to whether a salad spinner is necessary, or whether cloth or disposable diapers should be used. And since even THOSE subjects have managed to start firestorms of hurt feelings, you can only imagine how much hurt and upset can ensue if we don't put pretty basic stop signs up in areas like religion and politics where people are often willing to burn the village down to save it to see their own view up there on top, proclaimed as "THE TRUTH".
Judging from the back-to-back moderator responses, I'm not sure there's consensus on just how broadly you can distort the definition of proselytizing. It sounds more like someone expressing a personal preference rather than communicating a forum guideline.
Maybe you guys should work on that before you start taking actions. Remember, actions always have consequences.
loosechickens
6-22-11, 4:10pm
I don't see anyone "taking actions", Alan, and it's always been a dicey thing, requiring collective moderator involvement in every specific case, to come to a conclusion as to at exactly which point a specific poster has crossed the line to a point where any action would be needed. In the some years that I've been a moderator, there have only been a few instances where actual action WAS needed, so it's not something that comes up on an everyday basis.
Also, some moderators have lived through more of these dicey situations than others, so some may get uneasy at where a discussion is going before one who hasn't been down that slippery slope a few times before.
I posted my post before seeing Gregg's, and he probably posted his before seeing mine. Doesn't mean there is any real disagreement, only that it is difficult to see a "bright line" in any specific case, which has always made it difficult, and ended up leading to us trying to come up with a guideline that would give people a better idea of what would clearly be o.k., and what could lead to problems, that's all. And, as Gregg said, " It's also a moving target from the moderator perspective." which makes it even more difficult.
ALL of our things here are subjective, as we are human beings and human beings are, by their nature, subjective, although we try as hard as we can as moderators to be as objective as possible.
We have tried to have something of a bright line to define where expression of one's beliefs drifts over into proselytizing, but sometimes it almost gets to the point as it did with a famous Supreme Court judge and pornography....."you know it when you see it".
Which is why, on the few occasions where "action" is actually needed, it is carefully discussed, consensus is taken, differing views are explored, and finally a decision is made. None of this can be cut and dried into an "if this, then therefor, that" unfortunately.
Ideally, we will ALL, as Gregg hopes, be intelligent people, have respect for others beliefs and be able to deal with these things without actions ever having to be taken. Some seem to believe that "action" happens as a regular thing, but that is really not so, and during the some several years I've been a moderator, I can almost count the times on the fingers of one hand, and certainly by using the fingers of two, have several left over, on the total of and real "actions" taken for ANY reason, politics, religion, diapers, salad spinners, or whatever.
I was trying to give guidance as to why and how we've tried to steer away from declarations of religion as fact, when there is no way to extract "fact" from the declarations, and there IS a huge potential for hurt feelings, discord, confrontations and bad feelings. What we WANT to foster here is free discussion, respect for each others beliefs, hopefully all of us learning things from those with which we do not agree, and coming away from the forums feeling they have been a positive experience.
Which I'd hope that all of us would want to see, regardless of worldview, political stance, religious belief or lack thereof, etc.
Thing is, it IS a somewhat gray area, and I think we moderators are occasionally put in a place where the guidelines are not entirely black and white. There have been a handful of posters in the last ten years, primarily new people, who have jumped onto the boards with no agenda other than to visit the S&R forum and browbeat the sinners there. "X wouldn't happen to you if only you accepted My Religion as the truth." To me, this is a roundabout way of calling someone an ugly name; I wouldn't moderate on the term proselytizing as much as disrespect. Personally, and again this is a gray interpretation, I don't care if someone proclaims their position to be the truth all day and night, as long as this doesn't directly or indirectly imply that everyone else is bad/wrong/evil/blind/stupid/destroying the world/deserving of misery and the pit of hell for not sharing it.
None of this can be cut and dried into an "if this, then therefor, that" unfortunately.
But that's exactly what you've already done when you declared that you would consider any declaration of a belief as fact, to be proselytizing. That coming after you cautioned a poster on doing so.
Considering that now two other moderators have declined to go so far in their intrepretation as you, that leaves the rest of us (if I may be so bold as to speak for the rest of us) curious. Will we be moderated based upon clearly defined guidelines, or will be moderated based upon the personal feelings of an individual moderator?
What we WANT to foster here is free discussion, respect for each others beliefs, hopefully all of us learning things from those with which we do not agree, and coming away from the forums feeling they have been a positive experience.
And how does the doubt that you've introduced into this subject contribute to promoting a positive experience?
loosechickens
6-22-11, 4:30pm
And really, as I look back over the years, the only time moderators have been driven to actually take action against a poster has been when there have been egregious violations that took the fast track down the slippery slope from stating that person's beliefs right to "All of you are damned, worshipping false religions, and unless you accept what MY religion is as truth, you are all going to burn in Hell", or some equivalent, depending on the religion.
I tried to point out that prefacing one's statements with "I believe......" or some such idea implied BY the statement, they could keep from getting into the weeds. Usually, in such cases, when people do not state or imply that they are stating their beliefs, they pretty much lose their audience, anyway, so their intent is unfulfilled.
Alan, you love to argue the "head of the pin" kind of things.....I know that debate is your mother's milk, etc., but this has really only been a problem for a few, the examples were egregious and offensive, and what is being said here on these threads in recent days hasn't risen in any way to such offense. No need to make mountains out of molehills, just to caution people that when they wander into the stating of beliefs into stating those beliefs as facts, not just to them, but should be facts to everyone, there's a problem, or the potential for a problem.
There IS a grey area, and hopefully most of us won't rush immediately into it to see just how close we can get our toes to or over the line and out of it completely........ ;-)
Well ... the reason we have a number of moderators instead of just one is because there is, indeed, some leeway in interpretation. We DO want to promote a positive experience! When we are forced to call a mod meeting it's because someone is not having / creating a positive experience, and we do our best to figure out why and what to do about it. We're not the Supreme Court, just a bunch of people trying to make common sense decisions based on guidelines as well as our own perceptions. (And sooo much happier when the need for this doesn't arise in the first place!!)
Alan, you love to argue the "head of the pin" kind of things.....I know that debate is your mother's milk, etc.,
Somebody's gotta do it! ;)
loosechickens
6-22-11, 4:39pm
Originally Posted by loosechickens
None of this can be cut and dried into an "if this, then therefor, that" unfortunately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's exactly what you've already done when you declared that you would consider any declaration of a belief as fact, to be proselytizing. That coming after you cautioned a poster on doing so.
Considering that now two other moderators have declined to go so far in their intrepretation as you, that leaves the rest of us (if I may be so bold as to speak for the rest of us) curious. Will we be moderated based upon clearly defined guidelines, or will be moderated based upon the personal feelings of an individual moderator? (Alan)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the original question, Alan, (and forgive me, I haven't gone back through the thread to find it) was something to the effect that the poster thought that I only would come down on Christians proselytizing, but bet I'd be fine with an atheist coming in and saying "there is no god, and religion is all hooey", as a statement of fact.
And, I came back and said that nope, I would consider it inappropriate for an atheist to do that as well.
How it would work, if I had more of a hair trigger on this question than some other moderators would be that I might say, "don't you think this crosses over the line?", and if other moderators disagreed, nothing would be done.
People will always be moderated based on a consensus decision, after discussion by all moderators, so it's never done by one single moderator, (obviously, I'm not talking about in thread cautions by moderators to mind our manners, etc.). When it reaches a point where a moderator believes that someone has violated the guidelines to the point where action is needed, it's taken to the moderator forum where it is fully discussed before any action is taken, and action is only taken after we are all comfortable with what is to be done.
I'm sorry if you think I've introduced doubt into the process. My intent was to try to clarify a bit, but may well have confused the issue even more. If so, carry on, secure in the fact that if I have a more defined idea of what might cross the guidelines than other moderators, no member will be subject to my opinion resulting in any action unless the other moderators agree, and we come, together, to an agreement as to what the appropriate action should be.
edited to add: as kib says.....what we LIKE is to not have any stuff even have to come to that point....we've all got lots better things to do in our lives than to sit around in the moderator board trying to figure out how to deal with stuff that people should have been able to see would cause problems and self discipline themselves not to cause the mess in the first place. Thank goodness that MOST here do just that, and times that lots of moderator discussion and/or action are needed are few and far between.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.