by OneVike
Does everyone remember the Duke Lacrosse rape incident where three white team members were accused accused of raping a black "exotic dancer", and there was absolutely no evidence to support her story? Remember the way the MSM got on board with Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton and the whole whole PC world came down upon the boys involved and the whole team was destroyed by the lies.
Well I will be most interesting to watch the Duke faculty respond to the recent allegations towards one of their own. Oh, you say you haven't heard anything about Frank Lombard, the associate director of the Center for Health Policy at Duke University charged with the crime of offering his adopted 5-year-old son for sex? I am sure ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, SF Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, CNBC, MSNBC, PBS, FOX, and all the other MSM outlets are still working on their final draft of the story. After all they would not want to jump the gun and accuse anyone of doing something they did not do, would they?
See, I ask this because of the way they all wasted little time in responding to the allegations against several white Duke Lacrosse players who were accused of raping a black stripper. I remember when the media touted the 88 professors and faculty members who signed a statement accusing the players of racism and rape. Along with the MSM, They cared so much about the presumption of innocence, that they demanded the Lacrosse team be disbanded and ejected from campus. However, when it was proved they were innocent, not one member of the faculty of any of the professors who the statement ever apologized for the miscarriage of justice or for the way the team was humiliated in public.
Now we have a Duke faculty administrator himself arrested for pedophilia and sexual abuse by the FBI and there is silence from the faculty, and the MSM. Not only that, but the boy is black and the black community is quiet. Where is Sharpton? Where is Jackson? And where is our President? Or the congressional members of Congress who are demanding reparations for slavery of blacks in America?
In the detective's affidavit it states that Lombard identified himself online as "perv dad for fun", and says that in an online chat with the detective, Lombard said he had sexually molested his son, whom he adopted as an infant. The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy, and even suggested which hotel he should use. Lombard was charged in federal court in Washington with attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with a child. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Also according to the affidavit, Lombard bragged to the detective that "the abuse of the child was easier when the child was too young to talk or know what was happening, but that he had drugged the child with Benadryl during the molestation." Dr. Judith Reisman Ph.D. who has researched this type of activity extensively points to this pattern of child sexual abuse and male homosexuals that should be seen as a validation of studies suggesting that homosexual men are more than 40 times more likely than the general population to molest young boys. Dr Reisman said that these clearly show that "You're looking at a much higher rate of abuse,". This goes right in line with other studies that show homosexuals are more likely to have been abused themselves as children. Statistics also show that children that are abused are more likely to become abusers with as many as 70% of parents who abuse having also been abused themselves.
You can read more about it (but beware it is pretty sick with all the details) here: Frank Lombard Was Looking For Some "Perv Fam Fun".
More and more we are seeing black infants being adopted by homosexuals because many local social service agencies consider the black adoption by a white homosexual men a great way to show how open they are to all lifestyles. These children are adopted as infants, often at great expense, while never knowing anything different than the idea it is ok to be gay. This is why the homosexual activists raised such a stink for the right to adopt. It is just one more shameful way our society has allowed the homosexual culture to go mainstream as we just sit back allowing them to adopt infants and raise them as homosexuals so they can propagate their sick lifestyles.
One last thing I learned as I prepared this story. It seems you can pick up almost any gay travel guide, and see a good portion of them telling you where you can find underage boys in the destination of your choice. Look at normal, (Yes I said Normal), travel guides and you will never see such despicable information where perverts can find underage boys. Amazingly the article I read says that nearly 100% of gay travel guides have this sort of information, while 0% of non gay travel guides have such information.
Thanks, until I checked out Post Scripts I was totally unaware of this. Then as I looked into more about this story, I found this on a website about the community he lived in, called “Eno Commons Cohousing Neighborhood”. Here is their address, http://www.enocommons.org/
It seems to be a leftist community that claims to be a “Paradise for Children”. I'm not sure what kind of child's paradise it is, but it is certainly a haven for those whose diversity-worshipping morality can enable Lombard’s pedophilia desires. Look at the way it touts its common meals, enforced recycling, and every other possible sign and symptom of the perfect political correct society that says, "I'm OK, Your OK". They claim their community “creates a sense of extended family”, but how soon will it be revealed that this pervert has molested other children in this pedophilia friendly neighborhood?
Then as I continued looking into this eco-community, I found this little gem. It seems they also have what is called an adult-child "secret pal week" event that runs through Valentines day every year? Here is what the web site says about this so-called secret pal week.
"Secret Pal brings neighbors together;
Seven years ago Suzanne started the Secret Pal week tradition to celebrate Valentine's Day at Eno Commons.
The goal of Secret Pal week is to promote interaction between adults and kids. Adults are asked to volunteer to be a secret pal and are matched with a child. During the week leading up to Valentine's Day, the adults give their secret pal children little gifts and clues, but the adults keep their identity a secret. At the end of the week, the kids prepare the brunch.
It is fun watching the kids huddling together trying to guess who their secret pal is. Can you think of a better way to connect kids with adults?
What was it Hillary said when she was the 1st Lady? Oh yeah, “It takes a village”. I guess it takes a village to put a man like Lombard in a position to work his evil.
It also looks like the community is circling the wagons and not allowing the media any interviews. I read this on the Raleigh Durham newspaper web site called "The News & Observer"(http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1586521.html)
"The residents ordered a reporter to leave the neighborhood. Then they put up a roadblock with a "no trespassing" sign and a Subaru greeted visitors Saturday to Indigo Creek Trail, a private street in the 22-home neighborhood."
Hmm, are we worried about a little publicity? I'll bet these wackos loved it when the media stormed the homes and dug into the private lives of the Lacrosse players accused of raping that stripper.
Quite informative!!
Thanks for sharing.
Stay connected with friends at global personal networking.
More about Frank Lombard from 27 November, 2007:
Frank Lombard, associate director of the Health Inequalities Program at Duke’s Center for Health Policy, recently received funding for two research projects on services to patients with HIV/AIDS in this area: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is providing nearly $2.5 million to fund CADET (the Carolina Alcohol and Drug Abuse Expansion Team); and the Health Resources and Services Administration has provided more than $1.5 million to develop a Regional Health Information Consortium (RHIC) in partnership with Wake Forest University Health Sciences.
Now for those who will call me homophobic, I want everyone one to know that this pervert who talked to the FBI on Yahoo Messenger was molesting this boy and even putting portions of his sick act out there for others to see on the web. But remember, in America........
He is innocent until proven guilty.
Unless of course you are a white Lacrosse player who is obviously guilty of raping a black stripper until you are proven innocent.
Can we find some more information about this pervert, we need to know what we can about his parents, brothers and sisters, and anyone who might support him so we can destroy them like the media tried to destroy anyone closely related to the Lacrosse players.
Every man who ever molested a boy is a homosexual pedophile, otherwise they would be molesting little girls, and just be a pedophile. And some who frequent this blog want these individuals to have the same rights a heterosexual couples, well this is what you support by supporting what you defend.
Would it be fair to suggest that this dirtbag is a registered Democrat?
Since there's nothing in story that gleefully talks about his Republican credentials. Nor is there anything about him being a Priest of a Catholic church. I think it is very smart to suggest this guy has all the markings of an atheist Democrat, or maybe a member of one of those liberal churches that believes God condones perverted behavior.
Just consider the fact that this was a gay adoption by a liberal living in a quasi-commune while working at a big-time university that is crawling with anti-American communists who hate traditional American values or and anything that is considered normal in our society.
I mean if this was a Republican, the media would be all over it like white on rice! So by default he must be a Democrat.
Anytime anyone tries to tell you male homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and they are collectively just like everyone else, just keep this one FACT in mind.
A homosexual man is 44 times more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual male.
Now I understand not all gay men are predators, but please don’t tell me collectively, as a group, that the Boy Scouts are evil for refusing not to ignore the facts.
OK, I found this on a site that ran a story about the Duke Professor and his little plaything. It was posted as a comment to the story and I thought it needed to be spread around. Considering Keith Smith wrote a book about an incident that happened to him as a child and that he is peddling it, I thought a plug for him would be good. I am pasting his complete comment as he posted it.
As for this sick perverted homosexual and any other adult that preys on children, death is too good for them. They need to be put in prison for life, and I mean the general population where they can get the justice they deserve.
------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- ------- -------- --------
By Keith Smith
Thank God Lombard was stopped before the baby was sold for sex. Let’s pray the child gets the love and support he needs to grow up strong and live in peace.
My name is Keith Smith. I was abducted, beaten and raped by a stranger. It wasn’t a neighbor, a coach, a relative, a family friend or teacher. It was a recidivist pedophile predator who spent time in prison for previous sex crimes; an animal hunting for victims in the quiet suburbs of Lincoln, Rhode Island.
I was able to identify the guy and the car he was driving. He was arrested and indicted but never went to trial. His trial never took place because he was brutally beaten to death in Providence before his court date. 34 years later, no one has ever been charged with the crime.
In the time between the night of my assault and the night he was murdered, I lived in fear. I was afraid he was still around town. Afraid he was looking for me. Afraid he would track me down and kill me. The fear didn’t go away when he was murdered. Although he was no longer a threat, the simple life and innocence of a 14-year-old boy was gone forever. Carefree childhood thoughts replaced with the unrelenting realization that my world wasn’t a safe place. My peace shattered by a horrific criminal act of sexual violence.
Over the past 34 years, I’ve been haunted by horrible, recurring memories of what he did to me. He visits me in my sleep. There have been dreams–nightmares actually–dozens of them, sweat inducing, yelling-in-my-sleep nightmares filled with images and emotions as real as they were when it actually happened. It doesn’t get easier over time. Long dead, he still visits me, silently sneaking up from out of nowhere when I least expect it. From the grave, he sits by my side on the couch every time the evening news reports a child abduction or sex crime. I don’t watch America’s Most Wanted or Law and Order SVU, because the stories are a catalyst, triggering long suppressed emotions, feelings, memories, fear and horror. Real life horror stories rip painful suppressed memories out from where they hide, from that recessed place in my brain that stores dark, dangerous, horrible memories. It happened when William Bonin confessed to abducting, raping and murdering 14 boys in California; when Jesse Timmendequas raped and murdered Megan Kanka in New Jersey; when Ben Ownby, missing for four days, and Shawn Hornbeck, missing for four years, were recovered in Missouri.
Despite what happened that night and the constant reminders that continue to haunt me years later, I wouldn’t change what happened. The animal that attacked me was a serial predator, a violent pedophile trolling my neighborhood in Lincoln, Rhode Island looking for young boys. He beat me, raped me, and I stayed alive. I lived to see him arrested, indicted and murdered. It might not have turned out this way if he had grabbed one of my friends or another kid from my neighborhood. Perhaps he’d still be alive. Perhaps there would be dozens of more victims and perhaps he would have progressed to the point of silencing his victims by murdering them.
Out of fear, shame and guilt, I’ve been silent for over three decades, not sharing with anyone the story of what happened to me. No more. The silence has to end. What happened to me wasn’t my fault. The fear, the shame, the guilt have to go. It’s time to stop keeping this secret from the people closest to me, people I care about, people I love, my long-time friends and my family. It’s time to speak out to raise public awareness of male sexual assault, to let other survivors know that they’re not alone and to help survivors of rape and violent crime understand that the emotion, fear and memories that may still haunt them are not uncommon to those of us who have shared a similar experience.
My novel, Men in My Town, was inspired by these actual events. Men in My Town is available now at http://www.Amazon.com
For those who suffer in silence, I hope my story brings some comfort, strength, peace and hope.
For additional information, please visit the at Men in My Town blog
"Look at normal, (Yes I said Normal), travel guides and you will never see such despicable information where perverts can find underage boys."
Or girls.
Hetereos are every bit as disgusting in this regard. What is your point? That homos are worse cause they're homos? Chauvinist!
You is all of you pigs. And we can't put every single instance of piglike behavior on the front page. Gotta save room for the adverts.
I heard about this through the mainstream media--I don't know how anyone could have missed it.
In fairness, Michael Jackson has been stealing the spotlight lately . . . . . .
I do hope before we all judge this person based upon evidence we are unable to personally verify, we remember what we have been taught about judging others.
Well, if it ain't the known liar. This is where Quentin lied about me, and OV and Freepmanchew backed me up with evidence
Evidence Quentin Lies
Hey Quentin, I read the AP story, guess what?
Nowhere in the story does it mention the perp is gay and living with another man. It completely ignores the fact the boy is his adopted son whom he adopted when the boy was an infant. Then the AP story never mentions the boy is Black.
So yea they reported it, but when you read it you never get the whole story. Why is there such an attempt to cover up the facts? Why did the Raleigh paper take the story off their site? Why did the University circle the wagons and remove any information about him? (snip)
I was happy to see that this horrible story was being talked about, until I read the hate that you posted with the disgusting facts of this story. I read about this on Sunday, first on Huffington Post then linking to ABC News website. I couldn't believe what I read so I went to the local news stations site (WRAL.com) and they reported the horror story in even more detail. By this time I was sobbing and couldn't fathom eating dinner. I have a 2 year old and a 7 year old. When confronted with something so vile you always think of those closest.
This is a story that needs to be talked about.
Pedophilia and child abuse must not be swept under the rug and forgotten. There is no such thing as a "funny uncle" or "odd neighbor". These people are troubled beyond words and must be dealt with the harshest sentences possible.
That said this has nothing to do with Homosexuality and everything to do with Pedophiles.
Pedophiles will abuse girls or boys, they rarely have a preference. Sadly boys are often targeted because it is more difficult for medical professionals to physically identify sexual abuse on a boy.
Pedophilia is about power and control in it's most deviant forms, not sexual gratification.
It is my understanding that the community that the creep Lombard lived in is very popular and a model for other community housing complexes. To blame this on the housing community or the occupants desire to protect their homes as well as the 2 little boys identity is just dead wrong.
To say Duke is sitting on it's hands and not helping with the investigation is wrong as well. They have opened all of their computer files and records to investigators and worked with the FBI before the arrest of Lombard happened.
I believe also that to quote PHD studies is a fine way to understand a particular issue. But, highly biased studies with prejudice that have already been stated as unreliable are only useful to you to promote your misguided agenda of hate.
You do this awful story an injustice. Instead of looking for the harshest sentence for this disgusting man (20 years max? how about 120 years max) or healing, therapy and a safe home environment for these poor babies you choose to paint this as a homo- hate filled rant.
Pull your homophobe head out of your back side long enough to understand that this has nothing to do with sexuality, politics or academia and everything to do with abuse at it's most vile form and the poor, scared little victims.
Sorry you took it that way, but you are wrong and a liar to boot. Nowhere in the main stream media have they even come close to telling the truth about this story. To say this is just about pedophilia, just allows those who have been getting away with it to continue to think they are no different than heterosexuals.
Tom left a comment where he stated that, "Every man who ever molested a boy is a homosexual pedophile. Well he is correct. By far the majority of children who are molested are boys who are molested by adult men. I do not mean to make it seem as though pedophiles of any stripe are worse or better then any other, but we have a big disconnect in this country where people fail to see that Homosexuality is a dangerous sickness, that destroys the lives of those who get caught up in it.
There is only one way for homosexuals to pass on there sickness, and that is by molesting boys. I do not care what those who deny it say, they are just in denial of the truth. The statistics back up my claim, and every man who has come out of that lifestyle has admitted it. Interesting how there has never ever been a documented case of a former homosexual who said they were not molested by an adult male of another more dominant teen male when they were young.
We need to stop dancing around the facts and quit being afraid of the people like Libby, Quentin, K, and others who throw around the word homophobic everytime their beliefs run smack into the facts. This man knew what he wanted to do to that boy the day he adopted him, and our society helped him do it. That is a crime and the people who allowed the adoption to go forward should be sent to prison with him.
Until we as a society quit excusing perverted behavior and justifying those who practice such sick behavior, we are going to continue to have these incidents occur. So do not fool yourself into thinking that homosexual behavior are normal, because it is not. Another thing that is rarely reported, most men who molest girls also molest boys, perversion is perversion I agree, but it all begins at a young age when someone twists a child understanding of love and affection. When they become adults they continue the habit of passing on the sickness to others.
When I read comments by individuals who say God would condone perverted behavior, and they call those who tell the truth names it saddens me. It saddens me because they are also to blame for children being molested. They are because they excuse behavior that needs to be taught in order for it to continue from generation to generation. It is a sickness of the mind and it can only be helped by telling the truth not by telling lies. True love comes from being truthful even if it means you will lose a friend.
"Sorry you took it that way, but you are wrong and a liar to boot."
Why do you have to do this? If you must, it goes at the end of the post, not the beginning. Neither Katie, nor anyone else read any further, you having shot your credibility all to hell.
"This man knew what he wanted to do to that boy the day he adopted him, ...."
But you are still not telling us what makes sexual abuse of little boys worse than sexual abuse of little girls. They are equally abhorrent. And I have to say, only a homophobe AND a misongynist would try to tell us otherwise.
"Every man who ever molested a boy is a homosexual pedophile, otherwise they would be molesting little girls, and just be a pedophile. And some who frequent this blog want these individuals to have the same rights a heterosexual couples"--Tom
Really? Please show me, who here has said that they want pedophiles to have the same rights as heterosexual couples? I'd like to know so that I can avoid them.
Unless, of course, you're conflating all homosexuals with pedophiles. In which case, let me know so I can avoid you.
Also, what katie Cook said. You should be ashamed of yourselves, using a tragedy like this as a political tool.
Evidence Fred Jake lies:
"The Muslim in the White House..."--FJ
You might as well shout from the rooftops, "I have no credibility! MOCK ME!"
"Interesting how there has never ever been a documented case of a former homosexual who said they were not molested by an adult male of another more dominant teen male when they were young."--OV
Um...
What the hell are you talking about?
What do you mean a "documented case?"
Is there a survey I don't know about in which 100% of gay men said they were molested as a child? Highly doubtful.
I know plenty of actual gay men who have said that they have never been molested.
"When I read comments by individuals who say God would condone perverted behavior, and they call those who tell the truth names it saddens me. It saddens me because they are also to blame for children being molested. They are because they excuse behavior that needs to be taught in order for it to continue from generation to generation."--OV
OV, you once posted an article in which you argued that women getting the right to vote was one of the worst things that ever happened to our country. Would it be fair of me to say that because of this article, you are to blame for the abuse and rape of women? That is exactly what you are doing here.
What?
Where did anyone say that all homosexuals are pedophiles. No one did. You people, try continually to take this great country down to a level of depravity that the world has not seen since the days of the Roman Empire. If that is what you want, then get ready for a dictator that will come along and rule you with a iron fist that will make you beg for the days when America had remembered that it was the laws of God that made this country great.
How have you all gotten so far off the course of the dudes article? His whole point was how the MSM refuses to write stories that have all the facts. have you read what the Ap wrote? well maybe I should show you. What follows is the original AP story that every friggen news organization has been working off. That is why blogs are so important, they do what the MSM will not do. Tell the whole story. You talk about politics, it is the MSM that i splaying politics by nit h=telling the whole story.
The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.
As the American thinker said, and I quote,
"I am afraid that as far as the media and academic communities are involved, it is not the crime itself that matters, but rather whether the alleged perp is a member of an "oppressor" group. Although white, Lombard is gay, so in the interest of avoiding unpleasant stories involving homosexual adoption, the media is anxious to shut down public interest in the affair.
However, the outspokenness and willingness to judge in advance a case involving white jocks - easy targets - of Duke and media, inevitably place a spotlight on their handling of another Duke rape allegation"
Now for the original Ap story for you morons who refuse to see how dangerous the waters we tread really is. When the fifth estate does not keep everyone's toes to the fire we have no free press.
------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ -------
Jun 26, 5:02 PM EDT
Duke Univ. official charged in child sex case
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering a 5-year-old boy for sex.
Frank Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department.
According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Detective Timothy Palchak, an unidentified informant facing charges in a separate child sex case led authorities to Lombard.
Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person - who he did not know was a police officer - to travel to North Carolina to have sex with a child.
The detective's affidavit charges Lombard said in an online chat that he had sexually molested the boy. The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy and even suggested which hotel he should use.
Lombard was charged in federal court in Washington with attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with a child. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
He appeared in federal court in Durham, N.C., on Friday before Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon. At the hearing, Lombard agreed to be transferred to Washington for a later court hearing. His lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs at Duke, said Lombard has been employed with Duke University since 1999. He is now on unpaid administrative leave.
"Duke is cooperating with the investigation," Schoenfeld said. He said the university was notified of the incident after Lombard was arrested.
Authorities executed a search warrant Wednesday evening at Lombard's home, according to court documents. The papers show investigators seized two webcams, five computers and a sex toy, among other items.
---
Associated Press writer Mike Baker in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.
------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ -------
Take a tip from someone who was on the wrong side of the track when it came to sexual desires and political beliefs. The powers that be want this country and it's morals destroyed.Those of you who complain about the zit on your nose, just pop it and quit bitching at the those who told you it is there.
This pedophile had plenty of enablers--enablers in his cultish homosexual championing church, ECOTA, and enablers in his leftist oh-so-politically correct neighborhood commune, the “Eno-Commons.” Once again, political correctness prevents the mainstream media from reporting the full story:
True Anglican Blog
Imagine if Lombard were a straight pedophile who was a member of a cultish church and lived in a commune-style community? The media would give it 24 hour a day coverage. But because Lombard is a homosexual, the media won’t hardly even mention that his victim was a black child.
This is sick, Do not be politically correct on this one. Speak The truth, which is: Same-Sex-Pedophilia is homosexual by definition. In this case, the criminal had a preference for a very young subject to practice his “lifestyle” with. Too many homosexuals present an unnecessary risk for their intended victims. The risk can be minimized by registering homosexuals as a class of “Sex Offenders”. Laws should be passed ASAP that will allow these sex offenders to fully repent and voluntarily undergo “Reparative Therapy” (behavior modification)that has proven effective when thse subjects are sincere. If Homosexuals refuse to change, the government should chemically castrate them with hormone therapies or maybe track/monitor them through implanted RFID technology. Homosexuality is only one form of sexual addiction and mental illness. It is treatable.
This Lombard deviant was also a “a licensed clinical social worker with a master’s degree in social work” per the News Observer
What I would like to know is what adoption agency, county or state child welfare dept. approved the adoptions of these children? Was this Lombard Deviant simply given the Adoption Green-Light, because of his title and position at Duke University? This is not about heterosexuality or homosexuality..this is most definitely about how these adoptions occurred in the first place...of which I have seen relatively few comments made about whether here or elsewhere in reports. I really would like to see a full investigation into how these adoptions were approved and by whom! The Adoption Approvers also need to be sitting in the Hot-Seat...because without ‘their’ approval, these poor children would never have been put in the custody of this horrific deviant. What did this child-rapists Home-study consist of? Was there even one? Was the adoption granted simply because of his title and position at Duke University? Are less stringent adoption requirements required for black/hispanic/minority children? One really, really has to question how & why these children came to be in the custody of this child-rapist in the first place…
The story is quite disturbing on many levels but Chris hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.
Investigations into how this child was adopted are definitely in order.
OV is accurate. We can't rely on the MSM to look into it. they're busy obssessing about Jacko and Vanity Fair's epic novel smearing Sarah Pallin.
Tina
My daughter was molested and her attacker was a heterosexual creep who ended up serving 8 years.
However on this topic, I wanted to vomit when I read this. That poor baby. He needed a home and he was turned over to a sexual deviant who wanted to pass him around like he was a frisbee. Horrible, horrible, horrible!
The very exact same moral and social blindness that gave Lombard literally millions of dollars of taxpayer money to advance a dehumanizing healthcare agenda under a guise of equal access also allowed and even encouraged him to adopt an innocent child for homosexual abuse.
It is no coincidence that Lombard was very much at home in the contemporary healthcare-education bureaucracy, where no one has the guts to question whether it is sensible to allow a young homosexual male to adopt a male child. One can only wonder how many of Lombard’s co-workers simply looked the other way and ignored signs of sexual abuse because, in their world, it would be “politically incorrect” to suspect such a thing.
It’s no coincidence that the advocates of so called “universal heathcare,” homosexual adoption, embryo exploitation, euthanasia, and abortion are one and the same. We are in the process of handing over control of our healthcare, and other fundamental aspects of our lives, to the enablers of the Frank Lombards of this world.
To the people who said “Don’t assume he was a homosexual” etc, the facts are in the warrant - He is gay, he has a gay partner, he admitted molesting the child, and he invited a policeman to come over and molest his adopted son. And this guy got millions of dollars in tax money for “health inequalities” for homosexuals. Nice. This is what mainstreaming perversion leads to.
First and foremost, Frank Lombard is a sociopath. Only a sociopath could have no regard for the emotional and physical well-being of another human being, particularly that of an innocent child. Once we can accept that personality disorder, we can move beyond the discussion of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality and child molestation.
Parents and teachers need to re-evaluate how and what we teach children about identifying dangerous people who will cross their paths. Lombard’s partner, co-workers and friends were obviously ill-equipped to identify him as sociopath, and yet there were doubtless numerous incidents that would have provided clues.
Unfortunately, in this politically-correct climate, too many people are unwilling or unable to make logical, value-judgements about another’s behavior, especially when that person is gay.
I have no doubt that Lombard’s heterosexual family and friends have chalked up his behavior to being gay; and his partner is no different than the girl friend or wife of a hetero predator who turns a blind eye to the obvious for their own reasons.
There is no ‘cure’ for pedophilia (homo or hetero) because they are sociopaths. These people will never control their disgusting impulses because they don’t want to. That is why the 20 yr. sentence that Lombard is facing is so offensive. It’s time to put pedophiles in forensic hospitals for life.
I am so sick over this. I hate this man so much, and he hasn’t even been found guilty. A pedophile baby rapist cannot be cured. There is nothing for him on this earth, he can serve no purpose. He should be destroyed like the mad dog that he is.
According to WRAL-TV, the child that was victimized was black and Mr. Lombard told his internet chat partner that he specifically adopted a black child because they were easier to adopt than white children. Before y’all go there with the ‘it doesn’t matter what race the child was’ soapbox, trust me, the outrage would have been many more times worse had the situation been reversed (white child/black man).
Highly interesting, but not entirely coincidental, that this man, Frank Lombard, who speaks so fluently the “compassionate” language of the modern healthcare bureaucrat, who is a member of the healthcare/education bureaucracy’s upper elite, who has raked in literally millions of dollars in government grant money for his highly politicized healthcare “research,” has now been arrested for trying to prostitute his adopted five year old son. Such is the morality to whose apologists and enablers we are preparing to hand over control of our healthcare on a national scale through the deceptive concept of “universal access.” This will be a system of euthanasia, abortion, embryo exploitation, and--perhaps worst of all--politicized healthcare access based on membership in a favored group or a disfavored group: In that system, a homosexual who contracts AIDS or other STDs will not be disfavored because of his “lifestyle choices” that create health risks, but a 60 year old “Type A” white male will be required to make “lifestyle changes” and take anger management courses before he can be approved for a heart transplant. The exact same moral and social blindness that placed Lombard in a position to advance a radical healthcare agenda under a guise of equal access also allowed him to adopt an innocent child for the purpose of sexual abuse.
Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.
For example: Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.
Yes, deplorable, unforgivable, sick, sick, sick! He should never again be in the same room with a child. But shame on whoever assumes a connection between pedophiles and gays. Let’s cut the gay bashing. You are smarter than that.
Read this article that intelligently parses this issue: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse:
"Fed Up," you clearly have no respect for individual freedom. The idea that the sex lives of consenting adults should be policed is disgusting, vile, and without a doubt un-American. You are not a conservative. Conservatives believe in limiting government intrusion into people's lives. You believe that we should register people who have committed no crime other than being attracted to people of the same gender. Maybe we should have them wear little stars too, so they can be identified on sight? You are not a conservative, you are a Nazi.
We cannot assume that every homosexual is a potential child predator. Ever heard of a little thing called "innocent until proven guilty?" But again, your insane rant proves that you have no respect for any of the principles this country was founded upon whatsoever, so I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't.
Funny how much attention was given to the Duke students who were falsely accused of raping a hooker a few years back. You don’t find anything about this case in the national media of a Duke Professor raping and pimping a 5 year old boy. They would hate to make a gay pedophile look like bad. It might hurt the gay marriage push. It would not be politically correct. Where is all the outrage the Duke faculty showed against the boys on the team?? Where is the New York Times front page cover story? What hypocrisy.
LIN, Jack Lee from PS speaking now, I don't think our author is in anyway gay bashing. He has pointed out there was imperical evidence from psychological studies to assert gay males are disproportionately more responsible for molestation of little boys than any other person. I don't know that we ca say it is 35 times or 45 times more likely, that they would be child molesters, but it is certainly a very high number and that much should not be in question anymore, the evidence is out here. You don't consider talking about statistics from studies as "gay bashing" do you?
Dan you are exactly right. Clearly a double standard for which there is no cover, no excuse, this is blatant hypocrisy by people who want to wear the mantle openess, caring and compassion. Covering up, telling half the story...that's their openess, care and compassion? How un-liberal of them.
"Where did anyone say that all homosexuals are pedophiles. No one did."--Sue
No, no one outright said that, but Fred Jake fairly heavily implied that with his non-sequiter from "pedophiles" to "equal marriage rights."
"To the people who said “Don’t assume he was a homosexual” "
I don't think anyone said that either. What we said is not to assume all homosexuals are pedophiles.
I'm also getting tired of people trying to make the connection between pedophilia and favoring universal health care. The mind just boggles at trying to figure out what goes through someone's mind when they write something like that. It's actually kind of entertaining.
The idea that the sex lives of consenting adults should be policed is disgusting, vile, and without a doubt un-American.
No what is un-American is people like you who want to proliferate disgusting behavior like homosexuality and claim it is normal. Ever try to plug two electrical appliance cords into eachother, it don't work. Neither does two men trying to plug into eachother. It ain't natural so quit trying to convince others it is.
Conservatives believe in limiting government intrusion into people's lives. You believe that we should register people who have committed no crime other than being attracted to people of the same gender.
Yes I do, statistics show that the majority of sexual transmitted diseases come from the homosexual community and gets transferred via bisexual relationships to women. If we had registered homosexuals we would know who transmitted AID's to the American gay community, which ultimately killed Rock Hudson even.
Ever heard of a little thing called "innocent until proven guilty?"
You mean the kind of innocent until proven guilty this perverts faculty at Duke offered the Lacrosse team members that were accused of raping the black stripper? I would bet a dollar to a dime that this homosexual pervert signed the petition that demanded the young men be ran out of town on a rail.
He should be removed from the earth immediately !!!!
Why on EARTH are homosexual men allowed to adopt little boys? Percentage wise, homosexuals strip little boys of their lives forcing anal and oral sex acts far more than heterosexuals...there was NO MOTHER in that house to keep this pervert from trying to get a stranger to rape his own adopted child!Put him in stocks and let the people of NC take care of him. Or....FORCE HIM TO HAVE SEX with a WOMAN! (And of course, while in prison, make sure all the boys have a chance to pleasure him.)
There were two other children at home who were taken into protective custody. Were they adoptees as well? Is this monster a single ‘dad’? As for his being a homosexual, I don’t know that they are statistically any more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals, but that is nuance that doesn’t matter much. Our laws should be changed so that they are emasculated after being found guilty. There is no cure for this condition other than removal of sexual desire and apparatus. I hope the other prisoners kill him not have sex with him ...
What the liberals are trying to cloud over is how the AP and others omitted such answers to big questions about this case which seems to suggest that homosexuals are targeting young people of color for adoption. We have studies that show that adopted children of homosexuals are more likely to identify themselves as homosexual. We also know there is a body of evidence that shows that many gay males have indeed been molested and become abusers themselves at a much greater rate than the average population. I know the gay activists will deny this outright but I welcome you to look at the numerous studies outside the ones conducted by activists.
These are the questions it seems liberals do not want to have answered and they should be ashamed. We did not make this about race but it is about race. Frank Lombard made it about race when he talked about how easy it was to adopt little black children. Shoot they didn't even want anyone to know this guy was gay and a leader in his liberal church and a prominent member of a leftist gay/bisexual/transgendered commune. Let the debate go on or do homosexuals and liberal Gay Duke staff studying AIDs get an automatic pass?
Frank Lombard stated to the cops that he chose an African American boy for adoption saying they were "easier to adopt than white" children. He adopted two boys. How does a gay man adopt two little black boys boys and abuse them for years in a close knit leftist commune that prides itself with communal dinners and being environmentally friendly?
I think this is a serious race issue if as it seems that minority children are finding themselves being adopted in greater numbers by homosexuals men. Why are any homosexual men adopting these children. The media and liberals can work to cloud this issue all they want but the truth is coming out and you can bet that had Frank Lombard been a straight administrator at Jerry Fawell's Liberty University and he had adopted two African American kids and was found to have molested them and he was the Deacon of a tradition Baptist church you and living in an conservative commune you can be certain that the AP and the whole media in spite of their fetish with the freak Michael Jackson would find a way to squeeze it in.
I want to thank the author of this article for pointing out the way the MSM is covering up this whole disgusting episode of gay pedophilia.
It doesn’t matter what race the little boy is. The fact is he was victimized by a dirty, nasty pervert who should be strung up by his d**k till he’s dead.
It is really sad to read that this pervert targeted an African American kid because it is “easier”. Then consider that the commune itself itemized the number of “people of color (all children)” at 11%. This goes to the heart of the idea that Gays are targeting the black community and the black communinity is just sitting back and allowing it to happen.
I don’t believe gay men should ever adopt children period but let us take this opportunity to have this debate or is the media’s stand on homosexuality one of speak no evil, hear not evil, and see no evil? It is a danger to allow any group to go without question. Even African American males aren’t afforded the kind of indifference to there race that homosexuals who pride themselves on telling everyone that that are proud to be gay are afforded when they are catch in such situations.
It is a disgrace. No one should be above question and no group should be protected from public scrutiny. Why those who support the gay community help conceal the sad truth I will never understand.
The fact that he targeted black children by race because he could more easily obtain them for the purpose of harming them just digs another pit of utter reprehensible disgrace -- racial contempt -- to his crimes against humanity here, if it is even possible to plumb the depth of this sickening perversion of fatherhood and justice.
This is yet another indictment of the hypocritical MSM, who would jump all over the race issue if the perv were a white straight man and the child were a black female; or worse, if the perv were any kind of a priest or pastor. The media cherry-picks which crimes against children will be publicized according to how desperately they want to promote the fairy tales about some favored group -- they are willing to let a little child be sodomized and harmed for life rather than publicize a sinful disgrace by a gay man.
It's just wrong for the media, who are supposed to be objective reporters, to twist the truth to try to defend wishful thinking about an unproven social experiment like gay adoption. Thirty years is the standard for observing and evaluating changes in the area of social science; instead of facts and research, we have been bombarded with an endless bandwagon of enthusiastic "human interest" promotion about ideal gay "families." This poor child was a victim of the shoddy journalism establishment as much as of the looney universities and this Duke employee pervert who worse than took him for a slave.
All the whitewash going on here is as little disgusting. The church he went to is silent, his commune has removed any information suggesting they were ever advertising themselves as gay friendly. Duke University has not released any condemnation only a very terse statement even though the charges are not questionable in this case. The silence is just amazing.
I mean could you ever see this kind of thing going un-investigated if this commune was a bunch of Mormons from Eldorado Texas? Has anyone checked out the remaining kids to see if Frank abused them? Isn’t that standard protocol in these cases? There is a clear effort to make Frank Lombard disappear and absolutely not acknowledge that this is a gay man who admits to targeting African American kids for molestation because as he put it it was “easier”.
The guy was a church leader of a liberal gay church that promoted the gay lifestyle. The double standard is damning and the African American community is being betrayed by benevolent white liberals who don’t see any problem having little black kids being raised to be homosexual. I’m praying for those little boys. They are yet another set of victims in the long list that can be attributed to liberalism.
The perv told cops there was no limit to what they could do to the 5 year old child. And he had child rape porn - said it was easier to molest the kid when he was younger.
Isn't it odd that the "civil rights" people have nothing to say about a white man offering to SELL a black child for rape parties?
Had Frank Lombard been a straight administrator at Jerry Fawell's Liberty University and he had adopted two african american kids and was found to have molested them and he was the Deacon of a tradition Baptist church you and living in an conservative commune you can be certain that the AP and the whole media in spite of their fetish with the freak Michael Jackson would find a way to squeeze it in.
had Frank Lombard been a straight administrator at Jerry Fawell's Liberty University and he had adopted two African American kids and was found to have molested them and he was the Deacon of a tradition Baptist church you and living in an conservative commune you can be certain that the AP and the whole media in spite of their fetish with the freak Michael Jackson would find a way to squeeze it in.
Ding, ding, ding - we have a winnah!!!! You ARE right, "I hate".
Check out this link I believe it is the same as the one in the article:Frank Lombard Was Looking For Some “Perv Fam Fun”
Really? Please show me, who here has said that they want pedophiles to have the same rights as heterosexual couples? I'd like to know so that I can avoid them.
K, when you want homosexuals to have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals you open up a can of worms that no one will be able to fix. By allowing the largest segment of society that statistics show has the largest percentage of pedophiles the right to adopt children will make incidents like what this Professor at Duke did more and more common. Now the percentage homosexuals who have been involved with having sex with children under age is very very large.
On the site called Fathers For Life, there are statistics from studies that prove my point.
1.) The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.
2.) Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters. Further, as noted by the Encino, Calif.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), "since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males."
3.) A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestations by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.)
4.) A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.
And you want this segment of our society to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Why would you do that to children who are now being adopted by them, with the expressive purpose of continuing their perverted behavior?
This professor at Duke University admits to looking for a child that he could molest, and also that he knew that it would be easier to adopt a black child, because the social services that think homosexuals are just as normal as heterosexuals allow them to adopt, thus he got what he wanted.
By the way, I never said all homosexuals are pedophiles, but it takes the act of homosexuality, or at least society telling them it is ok to experiment with it, to put in question ones understanding of normalcy in children as they go through the most difficult stage in their lives, the pubescent years. I will also say that any adult who tells a child that any sex outside of normal heterosexual sex, and than nit until marriage is guilty of perpetuating pedophilia and promiscuity. Read the Bible, oh I forgot, your god is small and he follows men's beliefs not the other way around.
I have yet to ever meet a homosexual that was not molested when they were young. Same goes for girls, who unfortunately either become lesbians, prostitutes, or at least sleep around with whomever will show them love. I do not grab these statistics out of thin air. As I said you can agree or not, but the facts remain what they are.
Now as for my article, I wrote it to show how the MSM is hiding the very facts that make my points about homosexual behavior. Why does the MSM still refuse to tell the public about the facts in this case? The reason this is getting so much play on blogs is because the MSM will not do their jobs.
When the media fails to put all the facts in the stories they cover, they allow situations like this one in Durham to continue because their is no national outcry against like there are when the media goes wacko on what they decide to cover, and usually they decide along political reasons. So it is not me bringing politics into this, the MSM did by not supplying all the facts because they have an agenda.
That agenda is to promote the homosexual lifestyle as being normal and equate their struggle with that of African Americans. So lets not tell anyone this guy was gay, and that the boy he molested was his own adopted black boy that he knew he could adopt more easily than white boys, because that was his stated purpose from the very beginning.
Yes it is odd. It is very odd. The whole commune he lived in is a bit odd. The church he went to is odd. Just this morning I was even reading a story that the MSM is questioning the way the blogs are attacking the fact this man is gay. Odd, very odd.
I find it totally disgusting that you barely hear a peep about this anywhere.
A hooker “supposedly” gets raped by some jocks, and you hear about it endlessly. A little boy's life is destroyed by some pervert disguising himself as an AIDS researcher, and you hear crickets!
My sister and I were victimized as a children, and believe me, you are NEVER the same. I feel for that little boy. I will pray that God is there for him through the many, many tribulations that he will face during the REST of his life. I still struggle with my demons daily! I was hurt by somebody very close to me as well. Somebody I should have been able to trust too. When you are violated by someone like that, it is even harder to heal.
Just for the record, my sister is now an avowed lesbian and I was a prostitute for years until I found Christ, all because an adult my parents trusted liked little girls. I was 8, and my sister was 11. The pervert got 20 years and was released after 5 with good behavior. 8 months after he was released he was arrested for molesting a little boy. Never did hear what happened to him, but the little boy is now a homosexual living with AIDs in SF.
God help us.
Sadly there are far too many stories like yours and each one is a painful reminder how far we have to go to become a safe society for children.
Every molestation is a great personal setback for humankind and an individual human tragedy for which their is no undoing or justice.
I wish I could offer you more, but I can only pray that you somehow, some way, find healing in your life to deal with this.
You have every right to be angry, hateful and frustrated at the injustice leveled upon you and if venting here helps, then please be our guest, vent away!
There are things in our lives we all wish we could change, but we can't. We can only try to cope in our own way. Thank you for the courage and honesty to express something so unbelievably painful here with us. God bless you and give you peace.
I feel for you Julie, I have an old friend who has battled his demons over an incident with a man when he was only 8 himself. Through the years he has battled his twisted sexual desires for other men while going from living among other homosexuals in the gay communities to living with women as normal as he put it, not me. Only a few close friends know of his struggle, but because he has been honest with us he has always had our ear and hearts to listen and help. He told me last night that this whole cover up will only strengthen the resolve of the radical homosexual activists. The gay community is already circling the wagon he has told me. They are distancing themselves from this whole incident and attacking anyone who dares to speak about the facts.
This is also the way it is in the media. This kind of thing involving open homosexuals is not uncommon but the MSM can’t even use the word gay in conjunction with the gay man and a leftist gay friendly eco friendly commune who was so close knit that they didn’t even notice or think anything strange was going on. Now they are even refusing any access to what media there is that wants the truth. What is the deal? What are they afraid of? Could you imagine a Mormon commune getting a pass like this? Well they didn’t.
I think we all know the answer to that. Well I’m not giving up on this. Last night I emailed the media in 4 states and Washington D.C. and today I will send it out to even more. There is a real invasion of the body snatchers feel to this. There is a reason that the media doesn’t want us debating or asking the big questions related to this story and that is because much like global warming, the facade of the sexual revolution and politically correct adoption by homosexuals is at stake.
Just last month a ring of Pedophiles, including dozens of open homosexuals, run by a Gay Youth Executive from Scotland with connections extending to the USA and linked to Operation Shattered Innocence was broken up. The press are shielding the public from the horrid truth so that the sexual activist agenda can be implemented. There is great denial and even tactic approval of the idolization of relationships with under aged males in the homosexual community and the media doesn’t do a thing about it. Also there is the core issue of whether homosexuals should be able to foster parent or adopt at all due to sexual identity issues related to the child involved. Should unfortunate children be placed in a situation where they are specifically without a mother or father and are raised whether intentional or not to be gay?
I did some more checking into this community Lombard lived in and this is what I found.
This guy and his 'partner' lived in a gay community with 22 gay households and 22 adopted kids. They shared common meals together and events and strange rituals.
When you take into account the study OV gave us, and run the numbers. It is my guess that a minimum of 32 adults in this community could be pedophiles with 22 adopted children I do not even want to guess how many have been molested.
Why don't the Feds go through this gay community kicking in doors and burning down the houses the way they do when it's a Christian group?
Frankly, I find it very strange that this "Eno Commons Community" where these gay freaks all live have been having adult-child "secret pal week" events every year that ran through Valentines day?
The social services have taken children from homes with less evidence of abuse than we have here.
"No what is un-American is people like you who want to proliferate disgusting behavior like homosexuality and claim it is normal. Ever try to plug two electrical appliance cords into eachother, it don't work. Neither does two men trying to plug into eachother. It ain't natural so quit trying to convince others it is."
What I believe to be "normal" or "natural" is beside the point. The point is that you cannot just round up certain people you don't like when they have committed no crime. That is unconstitutional, and un-American, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise.
"Yes I do, statistics show that the majority of sexual transmitted diseases come from the homosexual community and gets transferred via bisexual relationships to women. If we had registered homosexuals we would know who transmitted AID's to the American gay community, which ultimately killed Rock Hudson even."
African Americans have a much higher criminal population than whites. Maybe we should round up all the Blacks too?
"You mean the kind of innocent until proven guilty this perverts faculty at Duke offered the Lacrosse team members that were accused of raping the black stripper?"
Yes, the kind in which men who have not been found guilty of a crime by a jury do not get arrested and never get chemically castrated for any reason. That's pretty much exactly what I mean.
You're conflating the court of public opinion with a court of law. That's completely idiotic. But you've already proved that human civilization is too complex for you, so let me explain: In America, people have the right to disapprove of anyone for any reason. What they don't have the right to do is round up minorities simply for existing. That's how Holocausts happen.
But of course, OV, Tina, and the rest of the team here at Post Scripts won't criticize your horrendous, Nazi-like, hate-crime-inspiring suggestions. Like the best right-wing radio talk hosts, they'd never say anything like you have, and I don't think they'd agree with it, but they'd also never come out strongly against it, lest they lose the all-important Bigot demographic from the GOP. They'll cry tyranny at any liberal who suggests we should take steps to preserve the environment or raise taxes, but when someone actually advocates rounding up a minority group and violating their bodies, they're quiet as a mouse. And then when someone actually acts on your kind of statement, and shoots up some gay kids or a liberal church or a doctor or a tolerance museum because they truly think that's what's best for society, they'll say "How could we have known? Surely we couldn't have done anything to stop him. We don't condone that type of behavior." They don't condone it, but they don't condemn a suggestion that is one step away from such a crime.
One more thing. It is ridiculous to blame liberal ideology for this crime. Progressives, especially feminist progressives, are ALL ABOUT consent. See shakesville.com, amptoons.com, or hugoschwyzer.net. Sexual assault is a huge issue for all of these liberal blogs.
"Frankly, I find it very strange that this "Eno Commons Community" where these gay freaks all live have been having adult-child "secret pal week" events every year that ran through Valentines day?"
The Valentines Day thing is definitely weird. Also--and this is coming from a vocal supporter of gay rights--the fact that every person in the community was gay, if this is true, is also very strange. I definitely think this specific community should be investigated to prevent any more of this kind of tragedy. Not because I think gay people are more likely to abuse than heterosexuals--I do not, and LIN and many others have refuted evidence to the contrary--but because of the specific circumstances of this case.
I also feel like the outrage at the media here is a little ridiculous. It's not a "cover-up." The man's orientation is, frankly, irrelevant to me and probably most readers.
Frankly, I'm astonished that you all are still making some distinction between hetero and homo child abuse. Creepy, is what it is. Reading, well, skimming, these comments has been the intellectual equivalent of turning over a rock.
As to the media coverage, seems to me that the great impetus to the coverage of the LaCrosse team was the political aspirations of the prosecutor in the case. His rush to the media before he had properly investigated put an end to his political aspirations, yes it did.
Get over yerselves.
"you all are still making some distinction between hetero and homo child abuse." I understand your point and any form of child abuse is horrible and shouldn't be tolerated, but I think you missed our point.
Libby, the focus here was on gay molestation because medical studies say gay males are far more likely to be child molestors. The many commenters here were angry because the media and even the suspects own neighborhood seem to be avoiding dealing with this reality. They don't want it known or talked about because it is inconsistent with political correctness. We're saying this is wrong and it all should addressed, not hidden away. We should be able to discuss this area openly. It should be done in the same proportion as to who is doing the molesting in this world! If we don't want to focus where the problem is the worst, then how are we to ever fix it?
*Like the best right-wing radio talk hosts, they'd never say anything like you have, and I don't think they'd agree with it, but they'd also never come out strongly against it, lest they lose the all-important Bigot demographic from the GOP.*
I think if you read through this entire blog you would find this statement is false regarding Post Scripts. You also couldn't possibly know all of what "the best right-wing radio hosts" say every day (or have said over the years) either, so that is absurd.
This is a right-wing blog but we have always welcomed comments from anyone as long as they don't use bad language or become personally abusive. We can't always respond to every comment...we do have lives...and not responding does not indicate agreement or tolerance. All posters are responsible for their own comments.
The GOP isn't interested in a "bigot" demographic. Both sides of the aisle have supporters that express themselves in anger or say outrageous things...Michael Moore has been incredibly abusive and outrageous. Here's a sampling of others, one from a Democrat politician:
Bill Maher – “I’m just saying if he (VP Cheny) did die,
other people, more people would live”
Betty Williams - Nobel Peace Prize winner proudly preached to school children, "I would love to kill George Bush."
Alec Baldwin - called Dick Cheney a terrorist
Dick Durbin - said US soldiers are worse
than the Soviet Gulag, Nazis and Pol Pot
Alec Baldwin also went on a late night talk show and suggested that we needed to go down to Rep. Henry Hyde house and stone him and his wife and children to death.
Julianne Malveaux said she hopes Clarence Thomas' wife feeds him high fat foods so he'll die of a heart attack.
These people are well known. They are: entertainers, a politician, a Nobel Prize winner, and a journalist. Betty Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for her work as a cofounder of "Community of Peace People"!
The original focus in this article, a contrast in how the Duke LaCross players were treated by the school, the media, and I would add, the DA, is an important point. It has gotten lost in this discussion. I do think this illustrates that there is a definite tendency to play down stories about gay crime and stories that involve democrats. The Jefferson crime and the crimes of his family have gotten very little press and they include all the sensational elements that the media loves. Chicago is a virtual snakepit of Democrat corruption and we get a few headlines but none of the overly sensational play.If conservatives are a bit biased in our own reporting I think it's with good reason. Often blogs like this are the only places that offer information that is otherwise kept from the main stream discussion either by omission or by trivialization.
"Libby, the focus here was on gay molestation because medical studies that said gay males are far more likely to be child molestors. "
I would suggest you take a link at LIN's link before you repeat this refuted claim.
*I would suggest you take a look at LIN's link before you repeat this refuted claim.*
Refuted by whom?
There are plenty of studies that suggest this is true. This link is a well documented study:
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CALIF%20HEARING5.pdf
I would suggest you take a link at LIN's link before you repeat this refuted claim.
As I said above K, the Fathers for Life have plenty of documented evidence to back up everything I said., Do not try to discount the evidence that proves what I have said.
http://fathersforlife.org/index.html
That being said, please give me any documented evidence and any links that say otherwise and I will have my staff investigate it. I promise I will disprove that which you claim. If they are right I will admit it. So far all you claim about homosexuals being as normal as heterosexuals has been disproved time and time again. Do you really want to go down this road, because I will.
Tina,
I understand that you cannot reply to every comment. But you always seem to find time to respond to every little point in my comments that you disagree with. Sometimes, you even border on nitpicking my comments (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Yet I have seen, several times, someone post something as horrifically anti-American and Hitleresque* as "fed up" did, and each time, you and the other moderators remain silent. This is your blog, and I expect that when someone says something as offensive, hateful and just plain evil as "fed up" has, you have a responsibility to speak out against it. You still haven't said you disagree with his statement, even after I called you out on it. Instead you chose, once again, to argue with me rather than "fed up"--you basically proved my point for me.
So I'll ask you straight up: What do you think about "fed up's" suggestion that we should round up all the homosexuals, register them as sex offenders, institutionalize them against their will, and chemically castrate them?
Also, what on earth do you mean that I "couldn't possibly know" what right-wing radio hosts say? I don't live in a cave. In fact, last semester I listened to Sean Hannity every day on my way home from school.
It is ridiculous to blame liberal ideology for this crime. Progressives, especially feminist progressives, are ALL ABOUT consent.
Excuse me? A cursory look at liberal ideology and any decent human can see the flaw in the thinking. In a nutshell it boils down to a liberals desire to remove God, so you can eventually remove the values based upon God's teachings. Once you have convinced society to remove God and any values based upon Him you can then enjoy any deviant type of behavior you chose while feeling as though you are normal. I mean after all, liberals have been trying since the founding of this country to define morality upon man's terms.
As for you defending lifestyles which have been proved in study after study to be detrimental to the individuals involved and to society as a whole is unconscionable. Especially when the studies you proclaim support your beliefs have been proved to be bogus studies that were done with preconceived notions of where they wanted to end. And even the studies that were touted for years in schools and the media have been proved to be based upon bad information.
OneVike; whoever you are said this...
I promise I will disprove that which you claim. If they are right I will admit it. So far all you claim about homosexuals being as normal as heterosexuals has been disproved time and time again. Do you really want to go down this road, because I will.
Well Sir or Mam, I agree with you and promise to support your stand with any and all information I find. I have personally been on a campaign to dispel the notion that Homosexuals only want to be accepted as they are. If that were true they would not spend so much money and exert so much energy destroying the morals of this country by trying to indoctrinate our children.
So like OneVike I too am ready to go down any road you and your friends wish to travel down.
"A cursory look at liberal ideology and any decent human can see the flaw in the thinking. In a nutshell it boils down to a liberals desire to remove God, ..."
Dude, you can complain about liberalism or you can complain about existentialism ... but they are not the same thing. Lots of liberals believe in God, and lots of conservatives think God is dead.
People driven by fear, homophobes, tend to be fuzzy thinkers, and very difficult to carry on any sort of sensible discussion with.
So I generally just pick at something and point it out.
Oops, the asterisk after "Hitleresque" was supposed to lead to this:
I have lectured about "Godwin's Law" on this blog before, which says that the first person to compare someone to Hitler immediately loses the argument. But I have to say that this is the rare case in which it is actually deserved. I can't imagine anyone seeing "Fed up's" suggestion that we round up all the gays and chemically castrate them without thinking of the Holocaust.
And I'm still appalled that I am the only one who has expressed any outrage at this sick man's idea. Where are the moderators? Why are people jumping to critique my comments while his much more vicious one go unchallenged?
OK K.
I've been very busy this week and frankly have not kept up with this thread as it progressed. Something gets lost when you aren't present during the heat of an argument. But let me say this in response to your upset. You have a point. "Fed up's" suggestion is appalling but I also have a perspective I think you should consider.
This story is one instance of terrible depravity and abuse but at the heart of it is the story of children being treated with absolute disregard. We are talking about innocent children who, for one reason or another, have NO ONE to protect and watch out for them. These children are used and abused and violated in the most obscene ways possible...physically and emotionally abused repeatedly. It happens every day to hundreds of children and yet, many liberals in our society insist that we accept and tolerate those with low morals and "different lifestyles". That has become bigger than the safety of children. And it isn't enough that we teach respect for others. It isn't enough that we teach children that bullying and violence against anyone will not be tolerated. We, as a society, are not allowed even to disapprove of something. It has gotten so rediculous that people have gone numb, turning away for fear of being verbally "stoned to death" by the tolerance cops. It translates into more outrage being waged at someone for making a suggestion like "Fed Up" made than at a man who would treat a BABY like garbage.
If Fed Up is a man he is more likely to express his frustration and anger in this way. Men feel humanly responsible to DO something to other men that act like this...yet they know their hands are tied by civility. They know the child welfare authorities, the police, and the courts are also compromised by crazy PC thinking and laws that let these dirt bags slip through the cracks and get away with murder. Men, as natural protectors, want to crush the thing that harms the innocent. The frustration often comes out in outrageous expression...and we deny them that expression.
I don't know "Fed Up" nor do you. We have no idea if he is a piece of trash that would actually break the law or not. His words certainly didn't inspire agreement and cheers from anyone here. I guess I was willing to cut him some slack because, placed in this context of man as frustrated protector, his words are in no way comparable to the behaviors and acts this man is accused of performing on a child.
If it turns out that Fed Up is a piece of trash I am satisfied that his rant got NO agreement here at Post Scripts.
K
I will admit his suggestion is way off and should be ignored which is what I usually do to those who are so far off the path they will eventually fall into something they wish they never stepped in.
I do enough blogging here and elsewhere that I find it better to just ignore this type of idiocy usually. You must admit that too often someone will say something that they hope will get a lot of responses, and if you take the bait and bite you will eventually find yourself wasting time and energy that could be better used with someone who actually has a legitimate stance that is worth debating. My opinion is that Jack, or Tina realized it would be a wast to answer them also.
Sometimes it is best to get out of the way and allow and idiot to show the whole world how stupid they really are. You know the saying, It is better to be silent and thought of as a fool, than to open ones mouth and thus removing all doubt.
I am still wondering where all these comments came from. I myself did not link it to FR like I do usually, and when I did a search it was not linked to their site by anyone else. I also did a search at Diggs.com and other high volume blogs that can drive traffic here I could not find anywhere else that had a link to this article I wrote. I know the story is out there on the blogs, but written by those who own those blogs, so why this blog was inundated I am still a bit surprised. I really find it hard to believe all these comments came from lurkers who all of a sudden decided to join in on the fray.
Do yourself a big favor, do not try to answer every stupid quote or comment from those who just drive-by and lob grenades to the the locals fired up. You would be better off sticking to those who frequent this blog or at least those who have a semblance of sanity in their comments.
Sorry K, I forgot this part:
*Also, what on earth do you mean that I "couldn't possibly know" what right-wing radio hosts say? I don't live in a cave. In fact, last semester I listened to Sean Hannity every day on my way home from school.*
Here's your original statement in context:
* But of course, OV, Tina, and the rest of the team here at Post Scripts won't criticize your horrendous, Nazi-like, hate-crime-inspiring suggestions. Like the best right-wing radio talk hosts, they'd never say anything like you have, and I don't think they'd agree with it, but they'd also never come out strongly against it, lest they lose the all-important Bigot demographic from the GOP.*
Listening to one show for a bit after school does not give you credentials to speak about all hosts or even this host in all instances. I suggest you have no idea whether R-W Radio hosts would (or have) condemned "horrendous, Nazi-like, hate-crime-inspiring suggestions" (or whether we would) because regardless the few hours you have spent listening to Hannity, many of your comments here demonstrate that you do not know these men (and women) on the radio. If you did you would know that the morals and values they hold would never allow them to condone such things. You would know that they would probably take a bullet themselves to protect the rights of someone like this. You would know that they do what they do on the radio to preserve and keep the system of government that gave birth to the idea of innocent until proven guilty and that protects all of our freedoms and rights. You would know they are decent good men who love people and our country.
You have demonstrated with your own words an attitude about R-W radio hosts with very little to justify or back it up. You have demostrated you "know" these people mainly by the rhetoric and left-wing spin about them.
I need to say something about listening with the intent to actually hear what another person is saying. It's a difficult task. It requires that we set aside (not give up) everything we believe to be true, everything we have learned and think we know. People say a lot of things. Some say outrageous things for good reason. Finding the heart of a person within his words requires listening for context and underpinnings. If we listen only to prove what we already believe to be true, we miss these important things and we never really get to know the other person.
I challenge you again to listen to Rush, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved or others with the intention of discovering the heart and bones of these men...do it for six weeks straight. It will change your life for the better even if you still find disagreement with them. it will also wash clean the twisted reputation they have unjustly earned through the gossip of others.
I need to say one more thing. We on the right are extremely critical of left wing media. The difference is that we were witnesses to their left wing rhetoric; it was all there was for many decades. Right-wing radio is criticized, most often with personal smears, by people who never bother to listen or hear the message. Issues are not debated and context rarely respected.
OV and Tina, thank you for replying to my concerns. You are right OV, the guy probably is a troll and perhaps ignoring him is the best course of action. But to me it seemed like in a thread with so much anti-gay sentiment being expressed, that a suggestion like this seemed downright dangerous. However, it is definitely a good thing that no one voiced agreement with him.
Tina, I am sorry, but I will not excuse this person's behavior due to his gender. I am a man too, and I have a strong protective instinct, but I do not let myself take it out on the most vulnerable and discriminated against minority groups. That is how Holocausts happen.
As for the talk radio thing, here are a few quotes that have been said in the past few weeks:
"The white Christian heterosexual married male is the epitome of everything right with America."--Michael Savage
"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary."--Michael Scheurer on the Glenn Beck show. Glenn Beck did not voice any disapproval about these comments.
"You can legalize rape and call it the Civil Rights Act of 2009, it would probably pass"--Rush Limbaugh
"In Venezuela, we had a soul shake, or whatever -- that black handshake he has that he had with Chavez."--Rush Limbaugh
"[Michael Jackson] flourished under Reagan, he languished under Clinton and Bush, and he died under Obama."--Rush Limbaugh
"I think I'm going to send Sotomayor, and her club, a bunch of vacuum cleaners to help them clean up after their meetings. "--Rush Limbaugh
Do you honestly think that these are the words of men who I should take seriously? You honestly believe that the GOP is not interested in a bigot demographic when the de facto leaders of the GOP are using such racist, sexist, paranoid and violent language?
I am sorry, but I don't need to know any more about these people.
About those studies...Tina, did you even click on LIN's link? It specifically refutes Dr. Judith Reisman's "study." I was not able to read the work of Reisman herself, as my computer shuts down PDF files after about ten seconds, but a mere glance at the table of contents leads me to believe the woman is seriously biased and unreliable.
And OneVike, if you think I am going to waste one second of my time clicking on a link to a site called "Fathers For Life," let alone believe any of their claims about homosexuality, you don't know me very well.
"Excuse me? A cursory look at liberal ideology and any decent human can see the flaw in the thinking. In a nutshell it boils down to a liberals desire to remove God, so you can eventually remove the values based upon God's teachings. Once you have convinced society to remove God and any values based upon Him you can then enjoy any deviant type of behavior you chose while feeling as though you are normal. I mean after all, liberals have been trying since the founding of this country to define morality upon man's terms."--Tom Hawk
I just love when certain conservatives project their own flaws onto liberals. You can't imagine any reason to be a good and moral person unless you were terrified of being punished by God, so you assume everyone must be like that.
Well, guess what. Morality exists, with or without God. In fact, if God does exist, I imagine he would love the actions of those who do good for it's own sake more than the actions of those who do it merely out of fear or obligation.
Your misguided idea that liberals have no sense of morality flies in the face of everything that truly progressive sites like the ones I listed (one of which is authored by a feminist Christian) advocate for. Don't speak of that which you know nothing about.
And liberals are only interested in removing religion (not God--how can one remove God?) from the government. Which is, you know, pretty much one of the founding principles of our country, and any country that is not a theocracy, for that matter. Your belief that this is a bad thing puts you pretty close to Al Qaeda on the ideological spectrum.
K
In fact, if God does exist,
I am deeply disappointed with you K. Since I began debating you here, you have claimed to be a Christian. The first time you said you were was when I wrote an article I called "Dilusians of Evolution". In a comment you wrote;
"I can't speak about other religions, and I'm not a Biblical scholar, but as a Christian I can tell you that your statement,.......
Now you say if God exists. Well no Christian would doubt the existence of God, especially when we Christians follow Christ who is God incarnate.
Which is it? Are you or are you not a Christian? Personally I have doubted you for a long time because you claim to follow a God who follows men's ideas of what is moralistic. A true God does not change with the whims of men, He is the Creator and the One who sets the standard for morality.
Now as for your statement to Tom Hawks that not wanting God removed from our government makes us " pretty close to Al Qaeda on the ideological spectrum." So I guess you believe that the founding fathers were all terrorists also. You are beginning to lose all credibility here by making wild accusations like this.
However, you never were a Christian because you have never been sure if God even exists. So it only makes sense that you would want all references of God removed and any laws based upon His moral judgments removed from our books. That is the only way you can be justified in your belief that Homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality, and that same sex marriage should be allowed.
You have just changed the way I will debate you in the future, because I will never again debate you as a confused Christian, but rather an unbelieving secularist.
**I am sorry, but I will not excuse this person's behavior due to his gender. I am a man too, and I have a strong protective instinct, but I do not let myself take it out on the most vulnerable and discriminated against minority groups. That is how Holocausts happen.**
I did not suggest we should excuse Fed Up, I said his diatribe might be an indication of frustration and gave what I think are very compelling reasons why a person might have that level of frustrain. And it is "speech" we are discussing here, not behavior, there is a very big difference.
Holocausts do not "happen" because someone expresses frustration, even against a minority group, on a blog. To suggest so is to be overly dramatic. The lack of agreement his remarks received should give you much reason to celebrate. Your remarks make it appear that you have a much greater vested interest in the continuing drama of the oppresssed minority.
**Do you honestly think that these are the words of men who I should take seriously? You honestly believe that the GOP is not interested in a bigot demographic when the de facto leaders of the GOP are using such racist, sexist, paranoid and violent language? *** I am sorry, but I don't need to know any more about these people.**
Once again the comments you offer are without context. The Michael Scheurer (don't know him myself) comment is the easiest to guess at but even there without the full text of the discussion the quotes are just talk...you can make of them whatever you wish...and obviously you wish to make them out to be "racist, sexist, paranoid and violent".
Let's take a look at your words:
* I was not able to read the work of Reisman herself, as my computer shuts down PDF files after about ten seconds, but a mere glance at the table of contents leads me to believe the woman is seriously biased and unreliable.*
You are willing to dismiss one "study" (as you put it) solely on the basis of a "glance at the table of contents". You said this glance lead you to "believe the woman is seriously biased and unreliable." Taken out of context your words make you sound insane or incredibly stupid. Since I am willing to take into consideration the words that refer to another paper that you believe refutes Reisman, you don’t seem so crazy.
I don’t find it surprising that a well-written paper has been written to refute claims made by conservatives. I don’t find it at all surprising that the religious right becomes the villain in the paper, especially Focus on the Family. What I do find surprising is that you can look at statistics, at physical evidence, at instances like the one we are discussing today and disregard completely the claims made by Reisman. Some of the evidence comes from a gay activists and researchers who’s words suggest that the statistics of all studies might be grossly skewed because of underreporting about incidences of abuse. Some of the evidence comes from direct solicitations made in gay publications and on posters and websites. But instead of seeing these people as concerned individuals, the gay community and gay supporters and advocates choose to characterize them negatively to defend the culture. It’s a very tough stance when you consider the harm being done to both children and some gays through all of this group protection.
The outrage you express at those who fail to openly and loudly condemn Fed Ups speech could well be turned on you of the liberal "group" who, through your own seeming indifference, continually fail to recognize the very real horror being perpetrated on children and the gay holocaust being perpetrasted by gays on gays for the same reasons.
I didn't read the entire long paper (LIN's link). I quit when I came to this:
*One major problem with this “slippery slope” argument is that certain assumptions about our moral traditions are just plain wrong. An honest examination of the historical record indicates that Biblical law and the Judeo-Christian tradition, far from condemning pedophilia, often condoned sexual relations between adults and children. The contemporary social and legal taboo against sex with children developed only gradually over the centuries, and did not become firmly established until the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.*
If anything "toally refutes" LIN's paper it is this absolute bald faced lie. I suspect that if this person actually believes this lie, he is probably wrong about a lot of other things too...or at least has not bothered to look very deeply into his subject.
christianity, conservatism and right talk radio are all being grossly mischaracterized and maligned. It would behoove you to try to find out why. You seem a very reasonable and smart guy, I wish you well.
This story is and should be about the CRIMES that a man has admitted he committed against a BABY/CHILD. That he is gay and adopted this child is indeed significant because it involves a child and the laws regarding adoption. That we are discussing it, including our outrage, is significant because maintaining indifference will result in a blind eye being turned on the suffering and possibly the death of other children. We haven’t even broached the issue of aids and STD’s that are also of consideration here.
Let's not forget, CHILDREN are the VICTIMS in this.
As an aside this intrigued me:
*Morality exists, with or without God.*
On whose authority? My morality without God is no better or worse than your morality/ it's arbitrary; we can change our morality any time we wish. That isn't morality...it's making it up as you go along...the very thing this sad, souless man did.
I pray this man finds his way to God, the very source of love, forgiveness and true compassion he so desperately needs.
One more thing...it isn't fear of God, as you describe it, that defines a Christian/Jews morality...it is personal humility and realization of a deep and abiding respect for God that brings a Christian or Jew to trust the Word of God. It takes years of study and practice, reflection and personal evaluation...the work is never really done.
"I am deeply disappointed with you K. Since I began debating you here, you have claimed to be a Christian. The first time you said you were was when I wrote an article I called "Dilusians of Evolution". In a comment you wrote;
"I can't speak about other religions, and I'm not a Biblical scholar, but as a Christian I can tell you that your statement,......."
" --OV
OneVike, forgive me for taking your Lord's name in vain, but OH MY GOD. THIS again? We had this argument MONTHS ago. Which, if you'll remember, ended with you apologizing for your error. I never made the statement you said I did. Tina said it, and I was very clearly quoting her in my post. I have never claimed to be a Christian on this site, and I have made my beliefs very clear on numerous occasions.
"Now you say if God exists. Well no Christian would doubt the existence of God,"
Really? Tell that to Mother Theresa. Everyone has doubts at some point in their life.
"Personally I have doubted you for a long time because you claim to follow a God who follows men's ideas of what is moralistic. "
This is a common accusation made against anyone who doesn't share the exact same beliefs about God as the accuser. It is, of course, ridiculous. No one believes that God just changes his mind to gain a better approval rating or something. I believe that God, if he exists, is the same now as he always was. Morality is the same as it always was. I just don't believe that the Bible is the unaltered word of God. There are too many parts of it that I believe to be immoral.
"Now as for your statement to Tom Hawks that not wanting God removed from our government makes us " pretty close to Al Qaeda on the ideological spectrum." So I guess you believe that the founding fathers were all terrorists also."
This statement doesn't even make any sense. I never called anyone a terrorist. What I said was that the belief that our country should be a theocracy is one shared by many terrorists. And please, show me where the founding fathers said that they wished to create a "more perfect theocracy?" They didn't, they believed in religious freedom and the separation of church and state. If you don't believe in those things, then you don't believe in America.
"However, you never were a Christian"
I was for 18 years, actually.
"because you have never been sure if God even exists."
Show me a person who is.
"So it only makes sense that you would want all references of God removed"
Removed from where? The government? Well, maybe not all. I don't have a problem with "In God We Trust" or the reference to God in the national anthem. Those are harmless. I do have a problem with using scripture to legislate.
"and any laws based upon His moral judgments removed from our books. That is the only way you can be justified in your belief that Homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality, and that same sex marriage should be allowed."
No, that's not the "only way" I could think that was possible. I could believe in God without believing in the Bible. Or I could believe in parts of the Bible, and not others, like most actual Christians do. Or I could simply realize that our government allows a lot of things that are prohibited by the Bible, like eating shrimp, working on the Sabbath, gambling, drinking, premarital sex...I could go on.
"You have just changed the way I will debate you in the future, because I will never again debate you as a confused Christian, but rather an unbelieving secularist."
I am sorry you haven't been paying attention enough to realize this before. Although I don't think I would call myself "unbelieving." More like skeptical, but hopeful. To quote the X-Files, I want to believe.
I went back and again I do apologize, that was Tina's statement, twice I made that error, it will never be made again.
They didn't, they believed in religious freedom and the separation of church and state. If you don't believe in those things, then you don't believe in America.
As for the belief that the founding fathers believed such nonsense All I can say is you need to study up on history.
Mathew D. Staver wrote this in 2000 and he did such a stand up job i will just present it to you as is so you will see that Jefferson Never meant what the Supreme court ruled nor what you wish he said. I will let hem say what he said best about this lie you still believe.
The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"
by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000
In 1947 the Supreme Court popularized Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." (3) Taking the Jefferson metaphor out of context, strict separationists have often used the phrase to silence Christians and to limit any Christian influence from affecting the political system. To understand Jefferson's "wall of separation," we should return to the original context in which it was written. Jefferson himself once wrote:
On every question of construction, [we must] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the test, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was a part. (4)
Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President on March 4, 1801. On October 7, 1801, a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a congratulatory letter to Jefferson on his election as President. Organized in 1790, the Danbury Baptist Association was an alliance of churches in Western Connecticut. The Baptists were a religious minority in the state of Connecticut where Congregationalism was the established church. (5)
The concern of the Danbury Baptist Association is understandable once we understand the background of church-state relations in Great Britain. The Association eschewed the kind of state sponsored enforcement of religion that had been the norm in Great Britain.
The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, "Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals -- that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions." (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a "national Legislator" and they also understood that the "national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State." (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson's limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states.
Jefferson did not necessarily like receiving mail as President, but he generally endeavored to turn his responses into an opportunity to sow what he called "useful truths" and principles among the people so that the ideas might take political root. He therefore took this opportunity to explain why he as President, contrary to his predecessors, did not proclaim national days of fasting and prayer.
Jefferson's letter went through at least two drafts. Part of the first draft reads as follows:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion... (8)
Jefferson asked Levi Lincoln, the Attorney General, and Gideon Granger, the Postmaster General, to comment on his draft. In a letter to Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson stated he wanted to take the occasion to explain why he did not "proclaim national fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did." (9) He knew that the response would "give great offense to the New England clergy" and he advised Lincoln that he should suggest necessary changes. (10)
Mr. Lincoln responded that the five New England states have always been in the habit of "observing fasts and thanksgivings in performance of proclamations from the respective Executives" and that this "custom is venerable being handed down from our ancestors." (11) Lincoln therefore struck through the last sentence of the above quoted letter about Jefferson refraining from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion. Jefferson penned a note in the margin that this paragraph was omitted because "it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings" by their state executives is respected. (12)
To understand Jefferson's use of the wall metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, we must compare his other writings. On March 4, 1805, in Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address, he stated as follows:
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [i.e., federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. (13)
Then on January 23, 1808, Jefferson wrote in response to a letter received by Reverend Samuel Miller, who requested him to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer:
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion [First Amendment], but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States [Tenth Amendment]. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [i.e., federal] Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. (14)
I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have every belief, that the example of State executives led to the assumption of that authority by the General Government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.... [C]ivil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. (15)
Comparing these two responses to his actions in the state government of Virginia show the true intent of Jefferson's wall metaphor. As a member of the House of Burgesses, on May 24, 1774, Jefferson participated in drafting and enacting a resolution designating a "Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer." (16) This resolution occurred only a few days before he wrote "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom." In 1779, while Jefferson was governor of Virginia, he issued a proclamation decreeing a day "of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God." In the late 1770's, as chair of the Virginia committee of Revisers, Jefferson was the chief architect of a measure entitled, "A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving." Interestingly, this bill authorized the governor, or Chief Magistrate with the advice of Counsel, to designate days of thanksgiving and fasting and, required that the public be notified by proclamation. The bill also provided that "[e]very minister of the gospel shall on each day so to be appointed, attend and perform divine service and preach a sermon, or discourse, suited to the occasion, in his church, on pain of forfeiting fifty pounds for every failure, not having a reasonable excuse." (17) Though the bill was never enacted, Jefferson was its chief architect and the sponsor was none other than James Madison.
So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. (18) The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.
In summary, the First Amendment says more about federalism than religious freedom. In other words, the purpose of the First Amendment was to declare that the federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion. It could neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation." In context, the word "state" really referred to the federal government. The First Amendment did not apply to the states. It was only applicable as a restraint against the federal government. The problem arose in 1940 (19) and then again in 1947 (20) when the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states. This turned the First Amendment on its head, and completely inverted its meaning. (21) The First Amendment was never meant to be a restraint on state government. It was only applicable to the federal government. When the Supreme Court turned the First Amendment around 180 degrees and used Jefferson's comment in the process, it not only perverted the First Amendment, but misconstrued the intent of Jefferson's letter.
There is nothing wrong with the way Jefferson used the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor. The problem has arisen when the Supreme Court in 1947 erroneously picked up the metaphor and attempted to construct a constitutional principal. While the metaphor understood in its proper context is useful, we might do well to heed the words of the United States Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist:
The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. (22)
Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.
Accordingly, Jefferson saw no contradiction in authoring a religious proclamation to be used by state officials and refusing to issue similar religious proclamations as president of the United States. His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments. (23)
The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion. He would never countenance such shabby and distorted use of history.
INDEX
3. See Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947). See also McCollum v. Bd. of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948).
4. Thomas Jefferson to Messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins and Stephen S. Nelson, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802, Presidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 25, November. 15, 1801 - March 31, 1802; Jefferson to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, Presidential Papers Microfilm, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Ser. I, reel 70. The letters referenced below can be found at this citation.
5. Daniel Dreisbach, "Sowing Useful Truths and Principles": The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the "Wall of Separation," 39 Journal of Church and State 455, 459 (1997).
6. Id. at 460.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 462.
9. Id. at 463 n. 16.
10. Id. at 465.
11. Id. at 466.
12. Id. at 462 n. 13.
13. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, in Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428; Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, n Andrew A. Lipscomb et al., eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 3:378.
14. Thomas Jefferson to the Reverend Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 11:428..
15. Id. at 11:430.
16. J. Body, ed., The Papers of Jefferson 1:105.
17. Report of the Committee of Revisors Appointed by the General Assembly of Virginia in MDCCLXXVI (Richmond, Va., 1984) 59-60; Julian P. Boyd, et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 2:556.
18. In the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson wrote that the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States and that "no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States, or to the people. . . [and are] withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals." The Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions and Mr. Madison's Report of 1799 2-3.
19. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
20. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 1.
21. One of the early Supreme Court Justices, Joseph Story, wrote that "the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions. . ." J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1879 (1833).
22. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
23. Daniel Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Revisited, 56:4 William and Mary Quarterly 805, 812 (1999).
K
Do yourself a favor and quit listening to the leftist groups who have been proved time and time again to be wrong.
They didn't, they believed in religious freedom and the separation of church and state. If you don't believe in those things, then you don't believe in America.
While I do not agree with the religious right when it comes to their religion, I do have to agree with their assumption that the founding fathers did not bleieve in seperation of church and state as we believe in it today.
Allow me to clarify something:
Instead of citing the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided instead to use a letter written by a man who was neither at the drafting nor ratification of the document. Not only that, the letter had been written a full decade after the fact.
It is also worth noting that in doing so, they created law from whole cloth, something the SCOTUS does not have the authority to do. As the Constitution they chose to ignore spelled out, creating law is something exclusive to the Legislative Branch of government, otherwise known as Congress.
This makes the ruling that created this church/state separation wholly unconstitutional.
As I said in the beginning of my comment, I do not wholly agree with OneVike and his Creationism ideas of how we arrived to the point in history we are now, however I am a man of facts when it comes to the constitution. Try as we may, we cannot disagree that the Supreme court reached beyond it's authority to make the ruling they did in the landmark case in 1947.
We can disagree on Theological reasons as to why certain Christians are wrong on various topics of the Bible, but we can in no way agree that the founding fathers wanted religious thought removed from consideration when laws and social values are mentioned or regulated by the government. To do so is to go against the very beliefs of the founding fathers.
That being said, we did have a court do such a thing and now we must live with it or attempt to get a new court to reverse the "47" ruling. After all we are a nation of laws. Now, whether we agree or not we must live with the rulings of SCOTUS. If we do not, we will inevitably become a dictatorship that follows the rulings of the leader in charge with no checks and balances.
"because you have never been sure if God even exists."
Show me a person who is.
I never ever questioned the existence of God, I may question my very salvation at times, but that is because of my weakness of faith and my inability to control my thoughts and deeds as I should. Paul spoke of our schizophrenia in Romans 7:15-24, and that is to which I admit my weakness. However I know God exists and that His Son, Christ, died and rose from the dead for my salvation and to prove their is eternal life after death. That beings said, I have never ever met a Christian who questions the very existence of God Himself.
As for faith though, Jesus said if we had the faith of a mustard seed we could move mountains, as you can see every Christian struggles to gain the kind of faith that Jesus spoke of, and that is why the apostles asked Him to increase their faith.
I invite you someday to attend my church, and I promise you will met many who feel the same as I do.
It is when you lose that part of you that questions his existence that you will start to really understand His teachings and see the light that you so desperately search for. When that light comes into you, then you will truly find Christ and the transformation will be so astounding that even your friends will see it. Be careful though, because you will eventually lose many of your old friends because they will not be able to stand before the light that you will be reflecting from the true Son, Christ.
Remember James wrote that even the demons believe, but they shudder in fear because they know that they are doomed eternally.
The universe speaks of the existence of God, you just need to quit giving men so much power and realize that all you see, touch, taste, smell, hear, and even the things you know of but cannot use your senses to realize was made by God within the time frame that He said He did it.
"I did not suggest we should excuse Fed Up, I said his diatribe might be an indication of frustration and gave what I think are very compelling reasons why a person might have that level of frustrain."
I think a big reason for how he manifests his frustration is the continued intolerance, homophobia and inaccurate "research" about homosexuality that are spread at sites like these.
"Holocausts do not "happen" because someone expresses frustration, even against a minority group, on a blog. To suggest so is to be overly dramatic."
Prejudice doesn't emerge from a vacuum, Tina. It has to start somewhere.
"Once again the comments you offer are without context."
Ridiculous. I have read and/or listened to the context around all of these quotes. I suggest you do the same.
"The Michael Scheurer (don't know him myself) comment is the easiest to guess at but even there without the full text of the discussion the quotes are just talk...you can make of them whatever you wish...and obviously you wish to make them out to be "racist, sexist, paranoid and violent".
I did not "make them" racist, sexist, paranoid and violent. They said what they said. There is no excuse for wishing Osama Bin Laden would attack our country so that you can make a political point. That is what Michael Scheurer did. I just don't see how you can see any other interpretation than that. There is also no excuse for using Michael Jackson's death in order to criticize Obama. I know it was a joke, but it was tacky, tasteless, and hateful, like most of Rush's jokes. Like the one in which he offers Sotomayer a set of vacuum cleaners--there is no way any sensible person could doubt that this joke was about her race and gender. And tell me, under what context is it possibly OK to say that white men are the epitome of everything right with America? IT'S NOT OK, under ANY circumstances.
"You are willing to dismiss one "study" (as you put it) solely on the basis of a "glance at the table of contents". You said this glance lead you to "believe the woman is seriously biased and unreliable." Taken out of context your words make you sound insane or incredibly stupid. Since I am willing to take into consideration the words that refer to another paper that you believe refutes Reisman, you don’t seem so crazy."
Tina, the title alone, "Homosexuality is Heterophobia," is just ludicrous. I'm sorry, but I can't take this woman seriously.
"I didn't read the entire long paper (LIN's link). I quit when I came to this:
*One major problem with this “slippery slope” argument is that certain assumptions about our moral traditions are just plain wrong. An honest examination of the historical record indicates that Biblical law and the Judeo-Christian tradition, far from condemning pedophilia, often condoned sexual relations between adults and children. The contemporary social and legal taboo against sex with children developed only gradually over the centuries, and did not become firmly established until the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries.*
If anything "toally refutes" LIN's paper it is this absolute bald faced lie. I suspect that if this person actually believes this lie, he is probably wrong about a lot of other things too...or at least has not bothered to look very deeply into his subject."
Tina, are you honestly denying the well-known historical fact that Christian and Jewish men often married girls as young as 12 years of age?
This is not meant to condemn them--they lived in a different time. What it is meant to show is that the values we have today about childhood come more from enlightenment and progressive ideas than Christian ones.
"christianity, conservatism and right talk radio are all being grossly mischaracterized and maligned. It would behoove you to try to find out why. "
I know why. Because they say racist and bigoted things all the time. I have just given you plenty of evidence for that, and you ignored it.
"On whose authority? My morality without God is no better or worse than your morality/ it's arbitrary; we can change our morality any time we wish. That isn't morality...it's making it up as you go along...the very thing this sad, souless man did."
Morality is treating others well. This man clearly did not do that. It's really that simple.
We have hearts and minds for a reason. We have the ability to reason and empathize. Yes, some people will use those abilities incorrectly or even not use them at all. But human society has always come up with codes of morality. The Bible is not the only source of this.
"One more thing...it isn't fear of God, as you describe it, that defines a Christian/Jews morality...it is personal humility and realization of a deep and abiding respect for God that brings a Christian or Jew to trust the Word of God. It takes years of study and practice, reflection and personal evaluation...the work is never really done. "
True for some, but again, that does not mean that is the only way to live a moral life.
OneVike, thank you for that information.
However, I said that the founding fathers believed in freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. You replied that this was "nonsense." But it is true; only, "state" apparently means "federal power" rather than "state power." Why did you say that this was nonsense that the founding fathers did not believe in? And do you really think these ideas are "nonsense?" Do you really want us to live in a theocracy?
As for states being allowed to enforce one religion over another, do you really believe this was fair? I suppose that the SC maybe should have created an amendment to take away this power, rather than misinterpreting the Constitution if they did indeed do so, but regardless, it's not a reasonable power for a state to have, IMO. If California suddenly decided to become an Islamic state, I think you would have a problem with that and claim it was unconstitutional.
My point remains that the liberals' desire to take religion out of politics is intended to protect religious freedom and prevent us from becoming a theocracy. This is not a bad thing.
I also have to say, I doubt that you have never once questioned the existence of God. Even Mother Theresa confessed in her letters that she sometimes doubted His existence. This is not a shameful thing. We are all human and we all have doubts. To be certain about that which no one can be is to be closed-minded. The existence of God cannot be proven. The most we can have is faith. Faith is not certainty.
I am touched by your concern for my soul, but I will not go back to organized religion. I remain a spiritual person, and I pray every day. I don't know if anyone is listening, but I hope so, and I know that prayer has, at the least, psychosomatic benefits. But I will not let religion cloud my judgement anymore. I must keep a logical and open mind, and in my opinion, that is impossible to do when one is convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everything written in a 2000 year old book is the unaltered Word of God. I am not saying it is bad to believe; again, faith is something I admire. Irrational certainty, however, is something I do not.
Tom Hawks, thank you for the respectful and rational reply. Again, perhaps the SC did overreach on this issue. Or perhaps they simply misinterpreted what "church and state" meant. But I do think that their decision was a just one, even if it does contradict the founders' intent. They were great men, but they were also flawed, and our country must continue to evolve, while still remaining respectful to the spirit of the ideas that formed our great country.
"Prejudice doesn't emerge from a vacuum, Tina. It has to start somewhere."
Try the Garden of Eden...then get over it. As I said you should have been encouraged by the lack of agreement that Fed Up received. And while we're at it the bigotry and hate speech against conservatives and Christians has also gone on for quite some time with lots of piling on by journalists, comics, movie and TV scriptwriters, educators and politicians. Self expression is NOT ALLOWED the right unless what they say constitutes total agreement with the left position.
*"Once again the comments you offer are without context." *** Ridiculous. I have read and/or listened to the context around all of these quotes. I suggest you do the same.*
If that's true why not cite them in context. I have up to twenty years experience listening to most of those you mention. I know them by their many many words and I can tell you for a fact they are not, as human beings, in the least bit racist or homophobic. They do often say absurd things to highlight the hypocracy and prejudiced thinking of the left or to make a point...a practice that requires more than a soundbite here and there to get or understand. You admit yourself you are unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt and will not listen. It's probably just as well unless you couldn't overcome your preconceived notions and aversions it would be a waste of time. i originally thought you might be able to do it. Rush has many friends and listeners who are POC or homosexual...they like and support him. There's your evidence.
*Tina, are you honestly denying the well-known historical fact that Christian and Jewish men often married girls as young as 12 years of age? *** This is not meant to condemn them--they lived in a different time. What it is meant to show is that the values we have today about childhood come more from enlightenment and progressive ideas than Christian ones.*
Enlightenment and progressive ideas my Aunt Fannie! I agree that times are different. People had a much shorter lifespan then and disease and death during childbirth claimed more lives. People naturally grew to maturity faster...they had to survive or help their families survive...they worked!
The difference between a 12 year old girl marrying at age twelve with the consent (often the arrangement) of father then and a pedophile (predator) in any age couldn't be more stark...give me a break! This is exactly how biblical teaching becomes distorted...to make progressive ideas seem enlightened.
*"christianity, conservatism and right talk radio are all being grossly mischaracterized and maligned. It would behoove you to try to find out why. " *** I know why.*
No you don't. What you know is a few sentences that seem to prove your own beliefs and biases. It is what you believe to be true not what you know to be true.
*Morality is treating others well. This man clearly did not do that. It's really that simple. *** We have hearts and minds for a reason. We have the ability to reason and empathize. Yes, some people will use those abilities incorrectly or even not use them at all. But human society has always come up with codes of morality. The Bible is not the only source of this.*
Definition morality: a doctrine or system of ideas concerned with conduct
This mans doctrine says it's OK to adopt and then diddle with babies. The only "authority" is his own reasoning and code of "personal" empathy...I'll bet he considers what he did an act of love. That's the point "he considers". At the bottom of that kind of thinking is the decision that no one will ever tell me what I can and cannot do...I decide that.
As for the sources for our codes of morality it might be instructive to discuss some of those. Care to list your favorites?
"One more thing...it isn't fear of God, as you describe it, that defines a Christian/Jews morality...it is personal humility and realization of a deep and abiding respect for God that brings a Christian or Jew to trust the Word of God. *** True for some, but again, that does not mean that is the only way to live a moral life.*
That may be so but it does mean that your assumption that fear drives the average Christian is unfounded.
"Try the Garden of Eden...then get over it."
I'll get over it when it's over.
"As I said you should have been encouraged by the lack of agreement that Fed Up received."
I was. I said so earlier.
"And while we're at it the bigotry and hate speech against conservatives and Christians has also gone on for quite some time"
Criticizing someone for their beliefs is much different from criticizing someone for how they were born.
"with lots of piling on by journalists, comics, movie and TV scriptwriters, educators and politicians. Self expression is NOT ALLOWED the right unless what they say constitutes total agreement with the left position."
When someone advocates rounding up all conservatives and Christians and chemically castrating them, I'll be pissed off about that, too.
"If that's true why not cite them in context."
How much context do you want, Tina? How much of their words should I bother to post? The entire show?
"I have up to twenty years experience listening to most of those you mention. I know them by their many many words and I can tell you for a fact they are not, as human beings, in the least bit racist or homophobic. They do often say absurd things to highlight the hypocracy and prejudiced thinking of the left or to make a point...a practice that requires more than a soundbite here and there to get or understand. You admit yourself you are unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt and will not listen. It's probably just as well unless you couldn't overcome your preconceived notions and aversions it would be a waste of time. i originally thought you might be able to do it. Rush has many friends and listeners who are POC or homosexual...they like and support him. There's your evidence."
LOL, why would any gay person want to listen to a man who clearly hates them?
Also, you have failed to answer my questions. In what context is it acceptable to say that white men are the epitome of everything right with America? In what context is it appropriate to jokingly blame Obama for Michael Jackson's death?
"The difference between a 12 year old girl marrying at age twelve with the consent (often the arrangement) of father then and a pedophile (predator) in any age couldn't be more stark...give me a break!"
Oh, I see. So child molestation is OK as long as the child's father consents to it. Got it.
"This is exactly how biblical teaching becomes distorted...to make progressive ideas seem enlightened."
How has biblical teaching been distorted in this claim? And how is the idea that children shouldn't be forced to have sex with adults not enlightened?
"Definition morality: a doctrine or system of ideas concerned with conduct
This mans doctrine says it's OK to adopt and then diddle with babies. The only "authority" is his own reasoning and code of "personal" empathy..."
Um, no, that's not the "only authority." The law is.
"As for the sources for our codes of morality it might be instructive to discuss some of those. Care to list your favorites?"
Human beings. We may fail occasionally, but on the whole we are pretty good at coming up with rules that need to be followed in order for society to exist. After all, it was us that wrote the Bible--there is some bad stuff in there, but a lot of good too.
"That may be so but it does mean that your assumption that fear drives the average Christian is unfounded. "
I didn't say that fear drives the average Christian. I was saying that Tom Hawks' assertion that no one can be moral without God indicates that he, and those who believe as he does, are primarily motivated not by doing good for good's sake, but by fear of God.
* I'll get over it when it's over. *
It will never be over…not without divine intervention. There will always be people who won’t accept you, don’t agree with you, hate you, or disagree with you. Me too. So what? There is nothing special about being the target of hate. Hate is a human emotion and it isn’t going away. Disagreement is inevitable whenever you have at least one person in a room (ever had a disagreement/debate with yourself?)…multiply that number by any other and you have the state of the world. That’s what I meant by get over it. You cannot change how people feel or what they believe beyond the level of legality and civility we have achieved here in America. Angst will buy you nothing but a lot of wasted time.
* Criticizing someone for their beliefs is much different from criticizing someone for how they were born. *
Setting aside the debate on that assertion regarding gays for the moment, the question arises…why is it different? We all live under the same laws, including civil rights laws passed in the sixties, and until the left began it’s in your face activism for special rights we handled differences of opinion and lifestyle with manners, civility...and, when needed, the law.
*When someone advocates rounding up all conservatives and Christians and chemically castrating them, I'll be pissed off about that, too. *
If you think they haven’t you need to get out more. A good reason for you to tune into Rush is that he might make you feel better about the a-holes that say that kind of crap and mean it. There aren’t that many of them. Most Americans are disgusted by that garbage.
*How much context do you want, Tina? How much of their words should I bother to post? The entire show? *
If you are going to make the very serious charge of racism (and if you care about accurately portraying the person you quote) yes. The problem isn’t the quote, anyway. Nothing wrong with, “did you hear what Rush said today?” …but calling him a racist when you admit that you refuse to listen to the show is not very responsible or honest. I’d think hard before continuing down that path.
*LOL, why would any gay person want to listen to a man who clearly hates them?*
There you go again. I guess we’d have to ask them to get the real answer. All I can tell you is they call the show and say they like him. They contribute to the conversation.
If you really want to push the racism question you could always try calling Bo Snerdly, the black man who started out with Rush as his call screener and continues as his transcriber. I’ll bet he could give you an earful about Rush’s love of people, his generosity, and compassion.
But why not use reason and logic. Someone who spews nothing but hate on the radio for three hours, five days a week will not attract a big audience for very long…or maintain the loyalty of his listeners...and Rush's audience just keeps growing. They also wouldn’t have inspired so many countless other people the way Rush has.
*Also, you have failed to answer my questions. In what context is it acceptable to say that white men are the epitome of everything right with America? In what context is it appropriate to jokingly blame Obama for Michael Jackson's death?*
In the case of white men:
In the context of defending against false accusations, activist legislation, badly written history books, erroneous material being taught in schools, and reverse discrimination cases that have been foisted on our nation over the past 40-60 years. After the sixties civil rights movement we made an effort to include the very laudable contributions made to our society by POC. The correction was needed and we were all happy that it was done. Over the years that effort shifted dramatically to the point that George Washington barely gets a paragraph in some history books. Our children are not being taught accurate history they are being taught PC history. The white man has been made an evil villain. His contribution, in particular the founding and principles of this nation and the uplifting of people from poverty through opportunity and industry, is perceived to be evil and oppressive. It is a lie. It is garbage and deserves to be countered. The other context is the feminist description and depiction of men, which has been equally slanderous and ugly.
In the case of Michael Jackson, Rush was speaking of Jackson’s success. Here’s the transcript. Follow the link to see a picture of Reagan with Michael when he was presented with the Presidential Public Safety Commendation Award in 1984:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070109/content/01125107.guest.html
RUSH: Michael Jackson. I have an observation. I have an observation about this Michael Jackson thing, not about the details of his death or anything. Jackson's success, if you stop and think of it -- and this is going to really irritate some people, which I will enjoy doing -- Jackson's success paralleled the rebound of the United States under Ronaldus Magnus. Michael Jackson's biggest successes, and as it turns out his final successes, real successes took place in the eighties. That was Billie Jean, Thriller and all this. I mean he was as weird as he could be but he was profoundly, because of his weirdness, an individual. He wasn't a group member. He reached a level of success that may never be equaled. He flourished under Reagan; he languished under Clinton-Bush; and died under Obama. Let's hope the parallel does not continue.
I did just say it. You want me to go back and say it again? Okay, Michael Jackson's a weirdo. As such he was a supreme individual. I mean, he defined individuality. Not a group member. He reached a level of success that may never be equaled. He flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, and died under Obama. I mean facts are facts, the timeline is the timeline, let's hope the parallel doesn't continue.
Now, I meant to get into this yesterday, ladies and gentlemen. This is from State-Run Associated Press. By the way, you know something I've noticed? You should look for this, folks. You might have trouble finding it. You have to trust me. More and more -- (interruption) what do you mean you can't believe I said it? I said it twice. What about it is not true? What about what I said is not true? He flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, that's bipartisan, got a Republican and Democrat in there, and died under Obama. Michael Jackson died during the era of the first black president. You want me to say it that way? Now, don't interrupt me anymore. I'm doing a program here. This is the problem when the host and the boss, I, give access to the staff members to me via IFB intercom that you can't hear.
End transcript (bold emphasis mine)
Rush was speaking of Michael's success.
*This mans doctrine says it's OK to adopt and then diddle with babies. The only "authority" is his own reasoning and code of "personal" empathy..." *** Um, no, that's not the "only authority." The law is. ***
"As for the sources for our codes of morality it might be instructive to discuss some of those. Care to list your favorites?" *** Human beings. We may fail occasionally, but on the whole we are pretty good at coming up with rules that need to be followed in order for society to exist. After all, it was us that wrote the Bible--there is some bad stuff in there, but a lot of good too.*
Our laws will punish him if he’s found guilty of a crime but only because he was caught. His own sense of morality did nothing to save this child from his desires and proclivities which likely were not guided by a higher power or source of authority but instead by dismissal, resistence or rebellion. (that's how we arrive at our own morality) Hitler had his own code too, you recall.
Laws are not morality. The laws of modern civilization were written by men raised and educated in religious tradition. I submit one can be a moral person without being particularly religious because we are living in a society based on moral religious tradition. We are not born moral. If anything we are born selfishly demanding and needy…LOL.
I’ll leave the origin and particulars of Biblical morality to those better schooled than I.
Criticizing someone for their beliefs is much different from criticizing someone for how they were born.
You keep saying this, and unless you are talking about African Americans, you make no sense. I worry you are trying again to say homosexuals are born gay, and they are not. There never has been and I guarantee you there never will be any evidence that say so.
As for Christians, look around the world. They is no group in the world who is persecuted more than the Christian is. Not blacks, Jews, nor homosexuals are persecuted like the Christians are. Don't believe me? Check out the "Voices of the Martyrs".
When someone advocates rounding up all conservatives and Christians and chemically castrating them, I'll be pissed off about that, too.
When will you start protesting against Christians being persecuted like you said? By the way, as for gays being persecuted, I never hear you attacking Cuba and Castro for locking up homosexuals who are infected with AID's in concentration camps. Why not?
This mans doctrine says it's OK to adopt and then diddle with babies. The only "authority" is his own reasoning and code of "personal" empathy..."
Again, you need to look at the statistics that proves the majority of child molesters are homosexuals? They comprise the smallest group of people yet they are responsible for the majority of child sexual abuse cases. Also when will you demand stricter background checks on homosexuals who want to adopt children? Oh that's right you won't. Because the very act of homosexuality is perverse and thus it should disqualify anyone who practices it from adopting.
Um, no, that's not the "only authority." The law is.
Look at the history of the laws against sexual abuse. They came about by Christians who pushed to have the laws agree with their morality. Until then there were no laws against child molestation. Fact is, until Christianity became the recognized religion of Rome, homosexuality among men with boys was considered normal behavior.
I was saying that Tom Hawks' assertion that no one can be moral without God indicates that he, and those who believe as he does, are primarily motivated not by doing good for good's sake, but by fear of God.
I do not need to make you fear God to convince you of the immorality of homosexuality. I could care less if you agree with me or not. I am not a preacher like OV, I am just a man who wants to take perverted minded idiots like you to task for suggesting that homosexuality is normal. If I and others like me do not stand up to you, than you will win the argument with the vast undecideds. I will not allow that to happen as long as I have a place to go after people like you.
Facts are on my side, love or not, but you are going to have to deal with it.
As for ungodly people being moral, I never said they cannot be. The difference is what you consider moral and what I consider moral. Again, Homosexuality is not moral, it is perverse and immoral.
Now show me proof that the morals of Rome and the rest of the gentile world were as equal or better to that of the Christians and Jews. You cannot, because a vast majority of the religions of the world at the time included sexual perversion as part of their religious worshiping practices. Look it up, it is true.
You may not like it, but without Christianity even slavery would still be prevalent. It was Christians that pushed for the abolition of slavery. Try as you may to say Christians supported slavery, but even most churches in the south were anti-slavery, look at the Methodist churches of the 1800's. Unfortunately they have lost their moral compass since. Also, it took a Christian name Wilberforce, his whole life to get England to abolish the slave trade, while non Christians stood in his way.
Tom the following words were originally mine, not K's:
This mans doctrine says it's OK to adopt and then diddle with babies. The only "authority" is his own reasoning and code of "personal" empathy..."
"I worry you are trying again to say homosexuals are born gay, and they are not. "
They are not born gay? I don't think this is in evidence Tom. I think it is an opinion, albeit one that is widely shared in religious circles and even among some in the medical field, but it is still far from a conclusive fact.
If it is an opinion then in fairness, it should not be stated as fact.
The religious community has boxed themselves in on this issue of indoctrinated gayness, because if people are being born gay, then the implications are this is just another one of God's creations and that adds merit to the gay argument for equal treatment.
(Jack Lee)
Tina:
"It will never be over…not without divine intervention. There will always be people who won’t accept you, don’t agree with you, hate you, or disagree with you. Me too. So what? There is nothing special about being the target of hate. Hate is a human emotion and it isn’t going away. Disagreement is inevitable whenever you have at least one person in a room (ever had a disagreement/debate with yourself?)…multiply that number by any other and you have the state of the world. That’s what I meant by get over it."
Tina, I am not naive enough to believe that racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are going to ever go away without divine intervention. But I am still going to do all I can to fight them, just as you do all you can to fight the evils of the world that concern you. We all know that we can't ever fully put an end to evil. But we do what we can. That's what makes us good people.
"If you think they haven’t you need to get out more."
I'm sorry, what I meant was that if anyone ever says that here, at this site, I will gladly give them just as much of an earful. I have seen people say bigoted things about Christians and religion in general, and I have set them straight in those instances. But in general, I see far more bigoted statements like "fed up's" directed at gays then I do at Christians. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in general I would say that homophobia is a much more widespread prejudice than anti-Christian bigotry.
"If you are going to make the very serious charge of racism (and if you care about accurately portraying the person you quote) yes."
Tina, I am not going to quote the whole show for you. But from now on I will provide you with a link to Rush's transcripts whenever I post an offensive quote from him.
"But why not use reason and logic. Someone who spews nothing but hate on the radio for three hours, five days a week will not attract a big audience for very long…or maintain the loyalty of his listeners...and Rush's audience just keeps growing. They also wouldn’t have inspired so many countless other people the way Rush has."
I disagree. There will always be a wide demographic that enjoys hate speech.
"In the context of defending against false accusations, activist legislation, badly written history books, erroneous material being taught in schools, and reverse discrimination cases that have been foisted on our nation over the past 40-60 years. After the sixties civil rights movement we made an effort to include the very laudable contributions made to our society by POC. The correction was needed and we were all happy that it was done. Over the years that effort shifted dramatically to the point that George Washington barely gets a paragraph in some history books."
Which history books would those be? I know all of mine spent a great deal of time on George Washington and other white heroes. The idea that public school is not still extremely Eurocentric is just ridiculous to me.
"Our children are not being taught accurate history they are being taught PC history. The white man has been made an evil villain. His contribution, in particular the founding and principles of this nation and the uplifting of people from poverty through opportunity and industry, is perceived to be evil and oppressive. It is a lie. It is garbage and deserves to be countered."
Can you please give me some examples of this being taught in history books?
"The other context is the feminist description and depiction of men, which has been equally slanderous and ugly."
No.
"In the case of Michael Jackson, Rush was speaking of Jackson’s success. Here’s the transcript. Follow the link to see a picture of Reagan with Michael when he was presented with the Presidential Public Safety Commendation Award in 1984:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070109/content/01125107.guest.html
RUSH: Michael Jackson. I have an observation. I have an observation about this Michael Jackson thing, not about the details of his death or anything. Jackson's success, if you stop and think of it -- and this is going to really irritate some people, which I will enjoy doing -- Jackson's success paralleled the rebound of the United States under Ronaldus Magnus. Michael Jackson's biggest successes, and as it turns out his final successes, real successes took place in the eighties. That was Billie Jean, Thriller and all this. I mean he was as weird as he could be but he was profoundly, because of his weirdness, an individual. He wasn't a group member. He reached a level of success that may never be equaled. He flourished under Reagan; he languished under Clinton-Bush; and died under Obama. Let's hope the parallel does not continue.
I did just say it. You want me to go back and say it again? Okay, Michael Jackson's a weirdo. As such he was a supreme individual. I mean, he defined individuality. Not a group member. He reached a level of success that may never be equaled. He flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, and died under Obama. I mean facts are facts, the timeline is the timeline, let's hope the parallel doesn't continue.
Now, I meant to get into this yesterday, ladies and gentlemen. This is from State-Run Associated Press. By the way, you know something I've noticed? You should look for this, folks. You might have trouble finding it. You have to trust me. More and more -- (interruption) what do you mean you can't believe I said it? I said it twice. What about it is not true? What about what I said is not true? He flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, that's bipartisan, got a Republican and Democrat in there, and died under Obama. Michael Jackson died during the era of the first black president. You want me to say it that way? Now, don't interrupt me anymore. I'm doing a program here. This is the problem when the host and the boss, I, give access to the staff members to me via IFB intercom that you can't hear.
End transcript (bold emphasis mine)
Rush was speaking of Michael's success."
I don't see how any of this context renders the joke anything other than tasteless.
"Our laws will punish him if he’s found guilty of a crime but only because he was caught. His own sense of morality did nothing to save this child from his desires and proclivities which likely were not guided by a higher power or source of authority but instead by dismissal, resistence or rebellion. (that's how we arrive at our own morality) Hitler had his own code too, you recall."
Tina, once again. I am not saying every individual person is going to reach moral conclusions. What I am saying is that humankind as a whole has always been able to create moral systems with great success. It is an innate part of our humanity. Yes, some will do better than others, but that doesn't mean everyone is incapable of being a moral person on their own, without any belief in a higher being. But this is definitely a complex philosophical issue and I can see your point as well.
"As for Christians, look around the world. They is no group in the world who is persecuted more than the Christian is. Not blacks, Jews, nor homosexuals are persecuted like the Christians are."
I'm not sure how things are "around the world," but here in America this is certainly not true. No Christian in America has ever been enslaved. It has never been illegal in America to be a Christian.
"When will you start protesting against Christians being persecuted like you said? By the way, as for gays being persecuted, I never hear you attacking Cuba and Castro for locking up homosexuals who are infected with AID's in concentration camps. Why not?"
Um...because the subject hasn't come up?
Also, again, I mostly stick to how things are playing out in America.
"Again, you need to look at the statistics that proves the majority of child molesters are homosexuals? They comprise the smallest group of people yet they are responsible for the majority of child sexual abuse cases."
These studies have been disproven.
"Look at the history of the laws against sexual abuse. They came about by Christians who pushed to have the laws agree with their morality...You may not like it, but without Christianity even slavery would still be prevalent. It was Christians that pushed for the abolition of slavery. Try as you may to say Christians supported slavery, but even most churches in the south were anti-slavery, look at the Methodist churches of the 1800's. Unfortunately they have lost their moral compass since. Also, it took a Christian name Wilberforce, his whole life to get England to abolish the slave trade, while non Christians stood in his way. "
It's quite obvious that Christians led the charge both for and against slavery in America, given that up until quite recently, there were very few non-Christians in America. Most of the people at the inception of the progressive movement--which gave us child labor laws--were also Christians. This is because up until recently, if you were not a Christian in America, you were bound to be a complete social outcast. So yes, Christians both supported and were against slavery and child molestation, and both sides used scripture to prove their position. Your original counterpoint to my argument that humans can find morality without a belief in God was that if you take God out of the equation, you can justify anything. Well, clearly, anything can be justified in the name of God as well.
And the fact remains that Christian men, for centuries, married underage girls, and that it was Enlightenment ideology that changed this practice.
*I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in general I would say that homophobia is a much more widespread prejudice than anti-Christian bigotry*
If perception is reality then there's a fairly good chance that the level of homophobia you believe exists is actually greater than what actually does exist. The label gets applied quite freely. Disagreement is not phobia. It does not automatically mean hatred either.
*I disagree. There will always be a wide demographic that enjoys hate speech.*
This one sentence seems to define you...pompous or pretentious come to mind. You sound like someone who thinks he's different somehow...more dignified perhaps and certainly kinder or gentler with more understanding and compassion...above the fray.
The several million people who enjoy Rushes show, including myself, have been characterized by you repeatedly as being witless, a shallow perception from my perspective, that may also reveal incredibly thin skin, unrecognized bigotry, a sad inability to laugh at oneself, and, I expect, your own disguised hatred or anger.
*Which history books would those be? I know all of mine spent a great deal of time on George Washington and other white heroes. The idea that public school is not still extremely Eurocentric is just ridiculous to me.*
If I can find the information on history books again I will post it. Interesting word "Eurocentric". From Wikipedia:
Eurocentrism is a term coined during the period of decolonization in the later 20th century to refer to the practice of viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of European (and, more generally, of Western) culture. The term Eurocentrism implies criticism of the concerns and values at the expense of non-Europeans and is not used by those who consider it factually justified.
The key word is "implied".
Is there African history or South American history or any other history or achievement that has been prominent or outstanding in world affairs or development? What are the values that have worldwide implications and have gained attention and prominence that came out of Africa or South America or China. How did those countries help to develope or improve world conditions? What inventions or explorations that we don't already study should be affed due to their unrecognized impact? How were the other countries the leaders?
European or white cultures are more prominent because they did more. They are studied more in America because they contributed more to our original culture and background. Individual people from other races and continents that have achieved or gained in prominence (Ghandi, Plato, Rembrandt, Scientists, doctors, artist thinkers) have been recognized by the world...what more is expected? As the world has grown smaller through modes of travel, media, and trade we are beginning to learn more about other cultures and they are beginning to become more educated, inventive and industrious. To suggest that the focus on white or european prominence is due to racism or ego is nonesense and a great example of reverse bigotry and hatred that eminates from the PC left.
*I don't see how any of this context renders the joke anything other than tasteless.*
I don't think he was "joking". He was stating facts and being absurd. It's a technique he uses, but you would have to be willing to listen to understand why, which you won't, so there's no point in discussing it further.
*humankind as a whole has always been able to create moral systems with great success*
Are you sure you want to back this claim...especially with the words "always" and "great success"? What humanly created moral systems are you talking about and what great successes? Also what is the source of this claim: It is an innate part of our humanity?
You're an intriguing guy K...I'm glad you play here. As I've said you make an important contribution and speak for many others who think as you do.
Sorry Jack, but until they prove that people are born with homosexual tendencies then that means they are not born gay. PS even ran an article that stated the APA reverses itself on Claim of "Gay Gene" So yes I am correct and it is not a religious thing as you like to put it, it is a scientific thing.
Jack, I realize you are either a libertarian leaning Republican or a Libertarian, because like most Libertarians you seem to come down on the side of removing God and His morals from society quite often. My problem with Libertarians besides their constant desire to remove moral barriers in our society, is that they often times cause a rhino to win the Republican primary by splitting the conservative vote, then if that Rhino wins the general election against the Democrat, they accuse Republicans for not standing up for conservative ideals. Does Arlene Specter ring any bells?
Now as for K stating
These studies have been disproven.
Wrong! You seem to suffer from short term memory loss. Have you already forgotten your exchange with Tina? Allow me to remind you;
This is what you said about a study you disagreed with that she posted;
**** I was not able to read the work of Reisman herself, as my computer shuts down PDF files after about ten seconds, but a mere glance at the table of contents leads me to believe the woman is seriously biased and unreliable.****
This is Tina's response to you,
You are willing to dismiss one "study" (as you put it) solely on the basis of a "glance at the table of contents". You said this glance lead you to "believe the woman is seriously biased and unreliable." Taken out of context your words make you sound insane or incredibly stupid. Since I am willing to take into consideration the words that refer to another paper that you believe refutes Reisman, you don’t seem so crazy.
I don’t find it surprising that a well-written paper has been written to refute claims made by conservatives. I don’t find it at all surprising that the religious right becomes the villain in the paper, especially Focus on the Family. What I do find surprising is that you can look at statistics, at physical evidence, at instances like the one we are discussing today and disregard completely the claims made by Reisman. Some of the evidence comes from a gay activists and researchers who’s words suggest that the statistics of all studies might be grossly skewed because of underreporting about incidences of abuse. Some of the evidence comes from direct solicitations made in gay publications and on posters and websites. But instead of seeing these people as concerned individuals, the gay community and gay supporters and advocates choose to characterize them negatively to defend the culture. It’s a very tough stance when you consider the harm being done to both children and some gays through all of this group protection.
Then you say this to me
And the fact remains that Christian men, for centuries, married underage girls, and that it was Enlightenment ideology that changed this practice.
First off, when you bring up the subject of underage, try clarifying what it is you mean. Do you mean under the age of child bearing? If so than they are wrong and even in ancient Israel they would have been stoned to death for such a thing. But if you mean that Christian men married girls old enough to bear children, than do not make the mistake of forcing modern day age limits upon societies who's limits were child bearing age. When you do that you lose all credibility, well what credibility you actually have which is 0 credibility.
You love to throw out accusations and claims with no proof to back yourself up. Yet when others give you well documented evidence as Tina did you claim to have a pdf problem so you really could not check it out, but you know the study was wrong because you had a whole ten seconds to look at the evidence. You are truly a moron!
Now when you throw out statements that you know of studies that refute someone elses evidence, Then present the EVIDENCE PLEASE, WHEN YOU TRY TO REFUTE ANOTHER PERSONS DOCUMENTED CLAIM!
Now as for those Christian men who would marry a child under the child bearing age, I just have this to say.
Last week I heard a pastor on the radio say, "Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar does not make it a mouse". Many men claimed to be Christian because as you pointed out, it was the only religion around.
Sorry Tom, but you're wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Sorry Jack, but if I am forced to play by the rules of the left in our society, than it does.
Kind of like the way the left attacks the right all over this country. Until they prove otherwise I am correct in my stance. Show me evidence that proves otherwise.
"If perception is reality then there's a fairly good chance that the level of homophobia you believe exists is actually greater than what actually does exist. The label gets applied quite freely. Disagreement is not phobia. It does not automatically mean hatred either."
No, disagreement with homosexuality does not necessarily equal homophobia. But trying to scare people with false statistics that claim homosexuals are more likely to molest children IS homophobia.
"This one sentence seems to define you...pompous or pretentious come to mind. You sound like someone who thinks he's different somehow...more dignified perhaps and certainly kinder or gentler with more understanding and compassion...above the fray.
The several million people who enjoy Rushes show, including myself, have been characterized by you repeatedly as being witless, a shallow perception from my perspective, that may also reveal incredibly thin skin, unrecognized bigotry, a sad inability to laugh at oneself, and, I expect, your own disguised hatred or anger."
I am sorry if I come off pompous or pretentious. I don't think I am any better than you. But I stand by my statement. I do think that Rush's words and style speaks to a baser and more irrational part of human nature.
I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that our history classes are Eurocentric. You are right in that Europe is where we get most of our culture and values in America. But I also favor greater diversity and a wider amount of perspectives. And I want the full depth of our nation's history taught, the good and the bad. Christopher Columbus was both a brave explorer AND a brutal colonizer. Thomas Jefferson was a great philosopher AND a slave owner. Only teaching the good, patriotic messages to our kids only makes them feel betrayed and angry when they find out the bad stuff. I think giving them a more full and human account of our history will only make them more proud to live in a country where the truth is not suppressed.
"I don't think he was "joking". He was stating facts and being absurd."
But to what purpose, Tina? To take a dig at Obama that doesn't even make sense? To sensationalize a man's death? To get ratings? Any way you slice it, it's tacky and tasteless.
"Are you sure you want to back this claim...especially with the words "always" and "great success"? What humanly created moral systems are you talking about and what great successes? Also what is the source of this claim: It is an innate part of our humanity?"
Tina, again, if you operate under the assumption that the Bible is the direct Word of God, then I can see why you have trouble with this concept. I don't operate under that assumption, and thus I see the moral system(s) of the Bible as being man-made.
"You're an intriguing guy K...I'm glad you play here. As I've said you make an important contribution and speak for many others who think as you do."
Thanks, Tina. It is always a pleasure debating with you.
Tom,
The evidence to counter the claims of Dr. Judith Reisman can be found here:
http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
A history of this woman's disrepute can be found here:
http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/sex/kinsey/judith_reisman.html
This is a woman who disputes the FACT that gays were persecuted by Hitler, and believes that homosexuals were actually responsible for the Holocaust.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/06/041206ta_talk_radosh
She is a loon who uses the same kind of "logic" you used when you said "until they prove that people are born with homosexual tendencies then that means they are not born gay." Jack is right, this is not science. Neither is saying “there is absolutely no reason to believe that Kinsey himself was not involved in the sexual abuse of these children," as Reisman has accused.
Don't bother trying to convince me that homosexuality is wrong. You'd first have to convince me that gender is not mostly socially constructed, and that's never gonna happen.
And as for the underage thing, I'm only going to make this clear one more time: I am not trying to condemn these men for the time they lived in or impose our current social mores onto them. I am merely stating the fact that it is progressive ideology, not Christian ideology, that has led to our current perception and protection of children. I know that's offensive if you believe that the only source of goodness in the world can be Christianity, but it's just the truth.
Tom, please do not mistake your right to believe what you want with presenting said opinion as a fact. Opinion and fact are quite different. With all due respect these are two totally different positions. My only contention is, there is absolutely no irrefutable evidence that proves homosexuality is a 100% "created by inviroment" and not by DNA sexual condition.
I think there is a combination going on here and probably the most likely one to be found in our society is the case of being born that way.
Back to our discussion on being born one way or the other and being able to prove ones point.
Human beings are not born anything except either a man or a woman (and it’s easy enough to know which you were born as by simply standing in front of a mirror and having look). With that, they must choose how to behave. We are all born with different desires, some are safe and good to indulge, others are dangerous and destructive to society and our selves, like desires that lead someone to be a serial killer, a rapist or drug addict.
It doesn’t really matter what desires someone is born with, they must use their mind to decide which to indulge and which to resist or even attempt to change, like someone who is constitutionally lazy, but overcomes it to become successful.
Being Gay really means indulging in homosexual behavior—which has to be chosen. It doesn’t just happen. Obviously if someone engages in that behavior they have a desire to do it. Were they born with that desire? Probably not, since we human beings have to learn what sex is and how it works and our sexual desires are mostly developed.
Let us say that you believe in evolution, you may or may not, but for the purpose of my point lets say you do. What that means is that males and females evolved to perform two separate and distinct sexual roles. OK, Now let's put the shoe on the other foot and say instead of evolution, you believe in creationism. If you believe in creationism, then man and woman were formed to perform two separate and distinct sexual roles.
In either case, being sexually active with someone of the same sex is not normal (as in abnormal) and/or a violation of God's law. There is no logical argument that supports homosexuality as normal. You can argue all you want that there is no evidence to prove one side or the other, but I just gave you conclusive evidence that both world views prove I am right. As I said, people choose all kinds of self-destructive behavior., but it is not normal nor are we genetically predesposed to act in such ways.
I have one question to ask anyone who thinks they were born gay, thus they can never achieve a fulfilled life the way society says is normal.
My question is, if there is a gay gene, what would you do if a cure was found to correct that gene and therefore remove your homosexuality.
Would you accept the cure, or chose to stay gay?
"Human beings are not born anything except either a man or a woman"
Holy cow Tom! I hate to break it to you but sometimes people are born with both sex organs. How do you account for that? Did God make a mistake or was it just a quirk of DNA and God had nothing to do with it? If it was God's creation who are you to judge? If it was none of God's doing you have to admit then, those odd things can just happen by accident. So, why oh why can't you understand that it is entirely POSSIBLE... that some people somewhere just might be born with a predisposition to being gay?
As for your closing question, it seems to me that most gays would choose to be straight if they could be. Life would be a lot easier. I hope that answer is of some comfort? But, since I am straight I can't speak for what they might feel or think about that one, thats just my guess. What do you think?
First of, as for this site, it used articles and documents that have been discredited since it came out. I will destroy each and everyone of your lame rebuttal sites that post lies and innuendos just to destroy men's careers for daring to speak out against the Homosexual lobby.
This site defames a Dr. Paul Cameron and his work, What follows is his statement with corrections from various places that have erroneously made statements and their retractions. So Mark E. Pietrzyk's article at this link is officially discredited.
http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
You force me to paste the whole article because I know you will never read it, as I wasted my time reading yours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paul Cameron
As you may be aware, the homosexual movement has made me one of its prime targets. It has sold academia on the notion that “Your sexuality is so important that it is the ‘core’ of who you are. Therefore, everyone should be supported — as a Constitutional right — in his choice of sexual activities.” The U.S. Supreme Court has bought into this notion. Consequently, not only do I have great difficulty publishing in scientific journals, but I am often criticized in scientific journals as well as on the Internet.
Some of these criticisms have consequences. I have lost expert witnessing placements and speaking engagements because of these lies. Indeed, those supposedly on ‘our side’ often attack me with the same lies and exaggerations, even though they were perpetrated by homosexuals in the first place.
Today I am pleased to share with you a significant victory!
Backdrop
Last year, while reviewing the literature on homosexual parents, I came across a Ph.D. dissertation called Gay And Heterosexual Fathers: A Comparative Analysis Of Child Behavior And Well-Being. It was issued by Capella University, one of the largest degree-granting institutions on the web. All doctoral dissertations are supposed to meet the high standards of having a critical committee of learned scholars examine, correct, and eventually endorse the degree candidate’s research effort. So I was aghast to read the following in the August 2005 dissertation:
“Paul Cameron, an opponent of gay fatherhood, was not only denounced by the American Sociological Association, but he was also expelled from the American Psychological Association for willfully misrepresenting research on the punitive effects of gay male parenting on children. Despite the psychological community’s condemnation of Cameron’s unethical practices, numerous publications and court proceedings have continued to rely upon his research (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001).” (page 42)
“Personal and political motivations have influenced the research on gay and lesbian parents as well. Some of the research in gay and lesbian studies does not use careful, respectable research practices. One example is research by Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron was expelled from both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association for willfully misrepresenting research on gay and lesbian parents. However, it is unlikely that the vast majority of misrepresentations in research on gay and lesbian parenting are intentional.” (page 96)
The Correction
Now, in 2009, an amended version of this dissertation has been issued. After each of the preceding paragraphs is the statement:
“[For a correction of errors in this paragraph, please see page 119]”
On page 119, the following correction has been added:
“Dr. Paul Cameron was not expelled from the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological, nor is there any evidence that he ‘willfully misrepresented research.’ Toby Canning and his dissertation committee (Malcolm Gray, Bob Jacobs, Cyd Strickland, and Thomas Vail) sincerely regret these inaccuracies. We acknowledge that Dr. Cameron’s extensive research on homosexuality and homosexual parents (e.g., 38 articles listed on PubMed) appears in peer-reviewed journals.” (Page 119)
When I found the original statements, I knew that if they were not retracted, they would be used by the homosexual movement against me. I also knew that if they were retracted, I would be able to point to a difficult but vindicating decision by the dissertation committee, the administrators and scholars associated with Capella University, along with the administrators and scholars from the University of Michigan-associated institution that hosts (and profits from) all Ph.D. dissertations in the United States.
The August 2005 dissertation came to my attention in January of 2008. It brought excessive propaganda into a scholarly publication, but by being approved without correction, had a stamp of ‘academic truth.’ I decided to appeal to the author and his committee as representatives of fairness and truth. I wrote to him after we spoke by phone:
“Thank you for your phone call and your promise to retract and correct the false statements about me and my work in your dissertation. I believe you have chosen unreliable sources on which to base your statements. In addition, I conclude that you have been poorly served by your dissertation committee, which should have given you better guidance in the choice and use of scholarship.
“Unfortunately, each of the statements about me which you published and continue to publish on the world-wide web, contains demonstrable untruths (copied above):
1) “It is true that in the interests of children I oppose gay fatherhood. It is also true that ‘numerous publications and court proceedings have continued to rely upon his research’ — why shouldn’t they? After all, they are all published in peer-reviewed journals.
“The following statements are untrue. Specifically:
2) I was not ‘expelled from the American Psychological Association.’ As you can see from our website (). Having no APA charges against me, 26 years ago, on November 7, 1982, I resigned and got a letter of acknowledgement from the President of the APA November 29, 1982. My letter explaining my reasons for my resignation, as requested by the APA President, was published in the Monitor in March 1983. My letter said that I believed the APA had abandoned its scientific stance and become an advocate for abortion and gay rights. Following the publication of this letter, the APA informed me I had been dropped from membership while under charges. I have since been asked at least three times to rejoin.
3) “I was not ‘expelled’ from the APA for ‘willfully misrepresenting research on the punitive effects of gay male parenting on children.’ Indeed, the first professional journal article I published on homosexual parenting was in Adolescence in 1996. Indeed, I have published a number of articles on this topic, all in peer-reviewed journals.
4) “The phrase ‘willfully misrepresenting’ [emphasis added] assumes an insight into my motives without offering evidence to support such a conclusion. I have yet to read anywhere a detailed analysis of my studies or evidence of their inaccuracy; much less one that proves I knowingly misrepresented or distorted the data or its meaning.
“Disagreements over the interpretation of raw data are inevitable in the social sciences. The only proper response to scholars whose conclusions disagree with your own is to question either their methodology or their conclusions. In fact, people with different perspectives often draw opposite conclusions from the same data. Those who disagree with the findings of a contrary study should respond by attacking the data or its use. Ad hominem attacks — allegations of base motives — have no place in scholarly discourse. I am the frequent victim of such attacks, particularly on the Internet. However, I don’t expect to find them in university dissertations.
5) “I am not a sociologist and have never been a member of the American Sociological Association. Here you can see how unreliable your sources are. Again, your dissertation committee (Malcolm Gray, Bob Jacobs, Cyd Strickland, and Thomas Vail) seems to have served you poorly. The writing of a dissertation is the final step in a candidate’s preparation to join the larger community of scholars. That preparation should include instruction in the severe scrutiny of sources.
6) “The ASA actions against me did not and could not have occurred for ‘willfully misrepresenting research on gay and lesbian parents.’ The criticisms of me by the ASA and its committees commenced in 1985 and ended in 1987. The attacks were ad hominem (you can find them on the Internet), and never mentioned my research on ‘gay and lesbian parents.’
“You must understand that my livelihood depends on my reputation as an authority on these matters. I have published over 80 articles in peer-reviewed journals and three books. When my competence and integrity are attacked in gay blogs, the source impugns their veracity and I try to ignore the distortions and untruths. However, when some of the same misinformation appears in a scholarly publication, I can’t let the matter pass.
“The question remains: ‘How do we fix this problem?’ Since in our telephone conversations you have indicated your willingness to correct these errors, I am reluctant to cause you excessive embarrassment. However, I believe a retraction of these false statements in order. Let me suggest the following: that both offending passages be followed by a bracketed statement directing the reader to a special note at the end of the volume.
“I believe some such statement, placed as I suggest, would retract what I consider to be a series of statements in a scholarly work significantly damaging to my professional career.”
Dr. Canning’s Reply
“I sincerely appreciate how thoughtfully you have addressed this issue with me. I am agreeable to your recommended solution and will attempt to implement it verbatim. Furthermore, I have contacted the publisher and have been informed that they are willing to publish the retraction, but that Capella needs to take some steps in order to do so. I am in the process of preparing the changes and once I have received approval from Capella I will forward the amended document to you as well.
“In defense of my dissertation committee, I think this was a case of oversight, rather than an endorsement of my writings regarding you. In fact, I expect that each one of my committee members will endorse the retraction you have suggested. I can only ask that if you need to discuss this situation with others, that you place the blame on me.
“Back in 2004 and 2005 when I was writing my dissertation, I had attempted to read everything I could get my hands on regarding gay and lesbian parenting. I am sorry that I bought into those few allegations against you without calling you and allowing you to present your side of the story. I should have remembered that this is a very controversial topic and that biases run deep in controversial topics. My error further illustrates the need for impartiality in conducting research in areas like these.
“I would like to end this letter with my apology to you. I am sorry for any hurt I have caused you or your family, and I sincerely apologize for how I interpreted those unsubstantiated statements against you without first contacting you to get your side of the story. I did not get into this profession to hurt people, but rather to help them. It is always disappointing to me when my own imperfection gets in the way of helping others.
“Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE”
Conclusion
I must give these academics and their institutions credit. They did what was right and just, and got the correction added almost a year to the day I discovered their defamation.
I will continue as I said when I find what I am looking for on the others sites. I do look at the evidence you present. It is the only way I can prove them wrong. See, my battle is not against you K, it is against the whole homosexual movement which is the people people you use for evidence. So keep sending them my way, my whole crew is busy working to end the push to normalize homosexuality and indoctrinate our children.
As for your other two sites, they are basically blog articles that just attack Judith Reisman. They have no evidence she is wrong, they only attack.
This one is by an old which, Miss Poppy,
[http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/sex/kinsey/judith_reisman.html]
who comes off as a tramp that is admittedly loose with her personal morals, why wouldn't she attack anything that has to do with descent morals? She has been doing it for 40 years. Here is a sampling of Miss Poppy's MY Space page, just a cursory look will give you an idea of what kind of a nut she is. But hey, I read deep into her archives and she likes Franken from Minnesota and so she will fit right in with the New Democrats in power that K loves today.
As for the New Yorker web site, need I say more? You discredit Rush for less reasons then these leftist [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/06/041206ta_talk_radosh] could be discredited for.
I ask for evidence and you offer up crap.
"Human beings are not born anything except either a man or a woman (and it’s easy enough to know which you were born as by simply standing in front of a mirror and having look)."
What about people who are born intersex? These people are an anomaly, but their existence proves that not everybody fits into binary gender categories. I believe that sexuality is much more complex than that. It's a continuum. Some men have more or less testosterone than others, some women have more or less estrogen than others. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
"With that, they must choose how to behave. We are all born with different desires, some are safe and good to indulge, others are dangerous and destructive to society and our selves, like desires that lead someone to be a serial killer, a rapist or drug addict.
It doesn’t really matter what desires someone is born with, they must use their mind to decide which to indulge and which to resist or even attempt to change, like someone who is constitutionally lazy, but overcomes it to become successful."
Some are born with a stronger disposition towards aggression or addiction or laziness, true. But I don't see how those are comparable to homosexuality. There is nothing inherently self-destructive or immoral about being gay, in my opinion.
"Being Gay really means indulging in homosexual behavior—which has to be chosen. It doesn’t just happen. Obviously if someone engages in that behavior they have a desire to do it. Were they born with that desire? Probably not, since we human beings have to learn what sex is and how it works and our sexual desires are mostly developed."
Well, it's really a combination. Most members of a species that procreates sexually naturally desire sex at a certain age. But you are right in that we do learn specific things that we are attracted to over time. Homosexuality may be a mixture of both, or it may be one or another. To be honest, it really doesn't matter to me whether it is inborn or learned, though I see more evidence pointing towards the former. I still don't think it is morally wrong, either way.
"Let us say that you believe in evolution, you may or may not, but for the purpose of my point lets say you do. What that means is that males and females evolved to perform two separate and distinct sexual roles. OK, Now let's put the shoe on the other foot and say instead of evolution, you believe in creationism. If you believe in creationism, then man and woman were formed to perform two separate and distinct sexual roles.
In either case, being sexually active with someone of the same sex is not normal (as in abnormal) and/or a violation of God's law. There is no logical argument that supports homosexuality as normal. You can argue all you want that there is no evidence to prove one side or the other, but I just gave you conclusive evidence that both world views prove I am right."
It isn't "normal," that's obvious. Most people are not gay, thus homosexuality is not normal. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.
As a species we need to procreate. But not everyone is going to, and not everyone should.
There is going to be variation among a species. Not everyone is going to behave in a manner which is compatible with reproduction. Again, this isn't a bad thing, unless you subscribe to the insanity of the Quiverfull movement.
The earth is overpopulated right now anyway. I say thanks to those who choose not to procreate!
"I have one question to ask anyone who thinks they were born gay, thus they can never achieve a fulfilled life the way society says is normal.
My question is, if there is a gay gene, what would you do if a cure was found to correct that gene and therefore remove your homosexuality.
Would you accept the cure, or chose to stay gay?"
I am not gay myself, but I would hope most gay people wouldn't choose to eliminate such a crucial part of themselves just to please a narrow-minded society. Especially not the ones who have been lucky enough to fall in love with their soulmate. Can you imagine how much you are asking these people to give up, all so you can be a little more comfortable? It's none of your business what gender a person is sexually attracted to. You don't have to give up anything in order to allow gays to marry, adopt, etc. when compared to how much you are asking them to sacrifice.
K...you should have read my comments first..I said the same thing, but didn't go into quite as much detail. Jack Lee
Jack, or at least I think I am responding to you. You said,
“Holy cow Tom! I hate to break it to you but sometimes people are born with both sex organs. How do you account for that? Did God make a mistake or was it just a quirk of DNA and God had nothing to do with it? If it was God's creation who are you to judge? If it was none of God's doing you have to admit then, those odd things can just happen by accident. So, why oh why can't you understand that it is entirely POSSIBLE... that some people somewhere just might be born with a predisposition to being gay? “
Good question Jack, and it is one I have been asked in the past, my answer is not a simple one but i will do my best. A hermaphrodite is a person who possesses the sexual organs of both male and female. The Bible does not address hermaphroditism. Therefore, it is difficult to doctrinally ascertain the Lord's position about them. Nevertheless, what are we to make of hermaphrodites?
God's intention of the sexes is that those born males act like males and those born females act like females. But, in rare instances there are babies born with the sexual organs of both sexes. Why is this? First of all, sin is in the world and it sometimes takes its tolls on our bodies resulting in various deformities. Nevertheless, in the case of hermaphroditism, the identity of the individual is still intended by God to be one or the other. After all, God would not make someone in contradiction to His created order and purpose. This means the hermaphrodite, thought physically ambiguous, does possess an identity of one or the other. It would seem best, then, to let the hermaphrodite grow and decide which gender to side with since he/she would know his/her own identity internally. If surgery is elected to make the decision permanent by altering the body to represent one or the other sexes, then that seems like a reasonable choice to make.
Second, it appears that most, if not all, hermaphrodites have a definite side they take as they develop since there is an internal genetic (XX, XY) dominance even though there is an external ambiguity. It is the internal genetic dominance that determines male and female -- even though sometimes mutations occur that leave both sexual organs. In some cases, there are hermaphrodites who are distinctly male in appearance yet have female sexual organs. There are also those who appear decidedly feminine in physical appearance yet possess male sexual organs. Either way, the genetic dominance is the sex and the person will manifest that dominance as he or she matures.
However, all this does not make one gay, it makes one living with the circumstances they were born with. It by no means give normally developed humans a reason to go against whet it is their body obviously prescribes for them. It is a fact that there are deformities in every species on thei planet due to sin entering the world. However, 99.9999999% of all humans are decidedly either male or female. Even of those who chose to be with a person of the same gender, 99.9999999% of them also are born with every normal capability of one sex or the other. There is a great study out there of twins I will attempt to bring into a discussion in the future that proves my point that men and women are not born to be gay. It is a choice, even for those born with sexual deformities such a s hermaphrodites.
Ultimately we put our faith in God, for he never gives us more than we can handle, and in the case of hermaphrodites I can ultimately only give it to Him. There is an article I would like to share with you from a hermaphrodite, I will see if I can find it and get it to you. It would be a good post for all who question God in allowing us to be what we were born with the deformities we are.