The Illinois Family Institute, IFI, had been labeled a Hate Group by the SPLC, because they defend Traditional Marriage and do not believe that same-sex sex is natural.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was founded in 1971 by Morris Dees and Joseph Levin to oppose racism in the United States, the worst of which was already behind us because of the tireless efforts of civil rights warriors. Unfortunately, for an organization with such a noble birth and one that has achieved so much good for so many, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a dark shadow of its former self -- one that promotes destructive lies and anti-Christian bigotry…Southern Poverty Law Center [spokewoman] Heidi Beirich [confirmed] that even a tenuous, distant connection to statements the SPLC doesn't like will land an organization on their hate groups list. [In the case of Illinois Family Institute] IFI is listed is that in 2005, IFI posted a very short article by Paul Cameron. Although there were no defamatory comments made in Cameron's piece… Ms. Beirich claimed that in other articles by Cameron, he had suggested that, in Ms. Beirich's words, ‘Gays are sickly, and people should stay away from them.’"
80 comments :
"Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." -SPLC
The difference is in the level of misrepresentation and vilification the group will go to in order to make people afraid of their opponents.
Brian Camenker misrepresents facts deliberately in order to create discord among neighbors. I think if we were to crack our Bibles open we would find that act against our Ten Commandments.
You still have a link to his website so I can assume you continue to support him regardless of the fact that he is part of a known hate group, right?
And what of the legions of homosexual activists who vandalized Christian and Mormon Churches throughout California and beyond and assaulted Christians? Has the SPLC listed these homosexual activists and the groups they belong to as hate groups?
Mass Resistance is not a hate group. But the radical homosexual movement is.
Paul Melanson's post at La Salette Journey says it all:
Monday, November 24, 2008
The homosexual hate movement shows its true colors
"It's very clear that the homosexual activists do not consider reason, discourse, and general citizenship to play any part in their game plan. It's all about anger, emotion, and doing whatever it takes to get their way." - From Mass Resistance, responding to the hatred and anger displayed by radical homosexual activists.
I've said it before, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality.
Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, http://indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell37.html).
In a previous post, I mentioned how Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process:"The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."
Because MassResistance (and other pro-family individuals and groups) have been so successful at exposing the real agenda of the homosexual hate movement, and because many voters haven't bought into homosexual agitprop, the movement has started to become openly violent. Click on the title to this Blog post to see just how violent these "tolerant" people can be.
One Christian, in a statement which may be found here, described how violent homosexual activists became in San Francisco's Castro district:
After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did...
Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.
Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.
Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing “Amazing Grace”, and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and “Oh the Blood of Jesus”.) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us.
Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”
Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them."
Mass Resistance has posted a video which is most revealing. I challenge the Southern Poverty Law Center (which has done much good in the past exposing various hate groups such as Stormfront and the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire) to examine this video and other documentary evidence and to ask themselves this question: which is the real hate group: Mass Resistance or the homosexual movement in Massachusetts? Christian and Mormon Churches across the United States or the homosexual movement?
I'm confident that, with a modicum of objectivity, the SPLC will arrive at the correct answer. Even if they don't publically acknowledge it.
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.
com/2008/11/homosexual-hate-
movement-shows-its-true.html
If I may say a few thoughts.
In regard to Christianity and human dignity, as we may all agree Christianity strives for the human dignity of all individuals. The question is how is that applied? The human individuals must be respected from its inception, or rather what we define as conception. To honor this we have to understand the act and obligations to the act that may open itself to new human life. The conjugal act becomes sacred, ritual in term of understanding the matrimonial ceremony and the vocation of marriage itself.
Now the gay arguments for proper recognition of their relationship isn't what bothers myself personally, many times they are making perfect sense, the problem is that equate their needs to the concept that was marriage. It would be easier to argue for marriage the refers back to the conjugal act if our society still linked sex with having children.
The problem with gay marriage isn't really the gay part. I understand that simply slapping on the 'civil union' label over current marriage public policy doesn't really do much for with either homosexuals or heterosexual relationships. "Civil unions" is a rather cold term, while marriage public policy does little to protect or stabilize relationships, rather many times the party at fault for not fulfilling a commitment gets a better deal after a divorce.
Unlike heterosexual women, homosexuals never worry about getting pregnant. I think what a gay couple might have is great, but we're not equal or the same.
When a pregnant mother is rejected by the father and by the rest of society, what happens is she is lectured about birth control or it's her fault for not 'keeping her legs shut'. Women pay the brunt of child bearing or a fatal option of termination of the pregnancy, rather then accepting life of this new unborn individuals and celebrate it, instead we berate the burden and a misogyny against woman's fertility..
While understanding the needs of a gay couple may be a true concern, how do we address the concern of the unborn child to be accepted and loved by both mother and father?
Let's see if I understand this correctly: when the Klan vandalizes a Baptist church where the congregants are African-American, that's a hate crime. But when homosexual activists vandalize Christian and Mormon churches, that's not a hate crime?
What logic that?
John [Ansley], John Hosty is clearly Christianophobic. As the website Europe for Christ explains: "Christianophobia consists of the terms "Christian" and "phobos" (φόβος) which means “(irrational) fear”. The term means therefore irrational animosity towards or hatred of Christians, or Christianity in general.
It consists of a negative categorical bias against Christians — both individually and collectively —, against Christianity as a whole, or positions intrinsically part of the Christian faith. Such prejudice is a form of religious intolerance; it may be simply a mental or emotional attitude, or it may lead to stereotyping, discrimination, or even – in extreme cases – to persecution of Christians.
The term Christianophobia was first used by Jewish legal scholar Joseph Weiler. It was introduced at the international institutions in December 2004, after the European Union rejected Rocco Buttiglione, a practizing Catholic, as EU commissioner. Several diplomates argued that discrimination against Christians must not spread any further. They called on the UN to draft laws on Christianophobia, as it has done on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. The UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva now speaks of "anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Christianophobia." The use of the word Christianophobia has been proposed for use in the UN General Assembly."
For Christianophobes such as John Hosty, Christians are "bigots" if they believe homosexuality is deviant. And any organization which is morally opposed to homosexuality will be labelled a "hate group." This is simply another form of intolerance.
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Clumsy Smear Masters
By Don Feder
GrassTopsUSA.com | 12/3/2007
I was slimed by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- a group that dresses its leftist agenda in tolerance clichés. Not that I mind. Over the years, I've been smeared by the best. The Poverty Law Center is a rank amateur, by comparison.
According to the SPLC, I am a hateful person who bears watching. I'm also "involved with several extremist groups" which are either "anti-immigrant" or "anti-gay."
These allegations are contained in the November 1st issue of the Center's online publication HATEWATCH ("Watchmen on the Walls Return To Latvia"), which discussed my participation in a November 14-18 pro-family conference in Riga.
According to HATEWATCH, after touring the U.S. with a "traveling anti-gay road show," Watchmen On The Walls -- which is associated with the New Generation Church in Latvia -- was returning to the citadel of Slavic homophobia.
I should feel right at home in such execrable company, SPLC suggested, noting that in a speech I gave last year at a Vision America conference (which it described as a "Christian Right outfit") I remarked that the goal of militant homosexuals was to "transform us so that Salt Lake City on a Sunday morning looks like today's San Francisco on a Saturday night."
A few observations: 1) At least it got the quote right -- for SPLC, a major achievement. 2) Most of the 2-day conference ("The War on Christians And The Values Voter in 2006") had nothing to do with homosexuality, but focused on attacks on Christians from the courts, Hollywood, the news media, etc. 3) I not only spoke at the event (along with then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and several U.S. Senators), but organized the conference -- which must make me an even more depraved and desperate character in the Center's eyes.
As for my dangerous liaisons ("Feder is involved with several extremist groups"), SPLC noted that I'm a member of the advisory board of the Federation for American Immigration Reform "an anti-immigrant group whose leader has compared immigrants to bacteria."
This is so typical of the left: A group that seeks border security and wants to do something about the crisis of illegal immigration is "anti-immigrant." Based on the same reasoning, those opposed to date rape must be anti-male.
The "bacteria" stuff refers to a 1997 Knight-Ridder article on FAIR founder John Tanton. "Bacteria" was the way the author of the article characterized Tanton's views on immigration. Tanton himself never used the word.
But the foregoing is mild compared to SPLC's modus operandi, which makes the Anti-Defamation League and the ACLU seem nuanced, objective and calm by comparison.
In a 2006 speech at Arkansas' Fayetteville State University, SPLC's founding president Julian Bond (currently a member of its board of directors) charged the Republican Party's "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika (sic.) flying side by side." Bond later denied saying this. Sadly, for him, the Fayetteville Observer had his comments on tape.
The rather staid American Enterprise Institute was tarred as racist -- part of "an array of right-wing foundations and think tanks (that) support efforts to make bigoted or discredited ideas respectable." Exactly how one makes a bigoted or discredited idea "respectable" the Poverty Law Center never explained.
Conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza, an immigrant from India who's exposed the race industry, was indicted by SPLC as an extremist "whose views are seen by many as bigoted or racist." When the Center doesn't have the guts to call someone a racist (or feels it might be skirting libel laws to do so), it attributes its views to unnamed observers. ("The Southern Poverty Law Center's tactics are seen by many as devious and/or reprehensible.")
Guilt by association is a favorite SPLC ploy. Thus, it seeks to connect Watchmen on the Walls and New Generation Church to the Sacramento murder of Satender Singh (a man thought to be gay) in July. In an Intelligence Report posting currently on the SPLC website, Casey Sanchez reports, "Gay rights activists blame Singh's death on what they call 'The West Coast connection' or the 'U.S.-Latvia Axis of Hate,' a reference to a virulent Latvian mega-church preacher who has become a central figure in the hard-line Slavic anti-gay movement in the West." The "virulent Latvian mega-church preacher" is Pastor Alexey Ledyaev. The man charged in connection with Singh's death (Andrey Vusik) has no ties with Ledyaev's church or Watchmen on the Walls. The argument -- breathtaking in its tortured reasoning -- may be summarized as follows: Watchmen on the Walls takes a biblical perspective on homosexual behavior. The alleged killer is believed to be a homophobe. Many members of "the mega-church" are Slavs. Vusik is a Slav. Hence -- "the West Coast connection" and the "U.S.-Latvia Axis of Hate." If I were to employ such "logic," SPLC would accuse me of inciting xenophobia.
A 2003 article by Chip Berlet posted on the SPLC site accused conservative activist David Horowitz of blaming slavery in the United States on African tribesmen and Arab traders. In a letter to SPLC honcho Morris Dees, Horowitz explained that his historically accurate observation was made in the context of demands for reparations. Why should whites pay reparations, when others (Africans and Arabs) played an integral part in the slave trade? Horowitz asked.
Instead of apologizing, Berlet sniveled that Horowitz's group (now the David Horowitz Freedom Center) "has produced a vast amount of text marked by nasty polemic and exceptional insensitivity around issues of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual identity." Way to go, Chip! If you can't plausibly accuse your opponent of racism, attack him for nebulous "nasty polemic" and racial "insensitivity."
What makes the Southern Poverty Law Center particularly odious is its habit of taking legitimate conservatives and jumbling them with genuine hate groups (the Klan, Aryan Nation, skinheads, etc.), to make it appear that there's a logical relationship between say opposing affirmative action and lynching, or demands for an end to government services for illegal aliens and attacks on dark-skinned immigrants. The late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called this "the broad-brush smear."
What the Southern Poverty Law Center calls fighting hatred is more than just an opportunity to defame political opponents. It's good business.
Thanks to the fundraising genius of co-founder Morris Dees, at the end of FY 2005, SPLC had a surplus of $189.4 million. As Chief Trial Counsel, Dees receives an annual salary (including pension contributions) of $297,559. Though he'd hate to admit it, hate has made Dees a rich man.
Together, SPLC's three top executives -- all white -- took home just shy of three-quarters of a million dollars in 2005.
SPLC has its critics on the left. Journalist Alexander Cockburn characterized Dees' fundraising technique as "frightening elderly liberals (into believing) that the heirs of Adolf Hitler are about to march down Main Street."
In a 2000 article in Harper's Magazine ("The Church of Morris Dees"), Ken Silverstein wrote that with Dees at the helm SPLC "spends most of its time-and-money on a relentless fundraising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate."
The article also explained how the Center has amassed a fortune exploiting the victims of bias crimes.
Silverstein wrote: "In 1987, Dees won a $7-million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was lynched by two Klansmen. The UKA's total assets amounted to a warehouse whose sale netted Mrs. Donald $51,875. According to a groundbreaking series of stories in the Montgomery Advertiser , the SPLC, meanwhile, made $9 million from fundraising solicitations featuring the case, including one containing a photo of Michael Donald's corpse."
A perusal of its website would convince the casual observer that the nation is awash in goose-stepping neo-Nazis and noose-swinging night-riders -- all armed to the teeth and lusting for the blood of innocents.
SPLC habitually overstates the danger of real hate groups. Thus, in one of his 1999 fundraising letters, Dees wrote "The danger presented by the Klan is greater now than at any time in the past 10 years."
In reality (that which exists outside the delusional universe of direct-mail fundraising), the Klan is weaker now than it was in 1999; and in need of Viagra then. In the 1920s, the hooded scum held massive marches in our nation's capital and controlled several state legislatures. Today, the Klan has an estimated 3,000 members nationwide, 10% of them FBI informers.
The Center devotes considerable resources to watching the Klan. (Its publication HATEWATCH was formerly called KLANWATCH.) It watches Klansmen grow senile, go into nursing homes and die. Today, most bias-related crimes (including the murders of James Byrd, Jr., Matthew Shepard and the Oklahoma City Bombing) are the work of a few nutcases.
Put that in a fundraising appeal and see what comes in from the yokels in Manhattan or San Francisco.
As telling as the hatred over which SPLC obsesses, is that which it ignores.
On the Center's website, check out the colorful Hate Map, a state by state directory of extremist organizations. Broken down by category, these include the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, Racist Skinheads, White Nationalists and Black Separatists.
Then there are other groups only Dees and Hillary Clinton would consider hateful, like the Traditional Values Coalition and Young Americans for Freedom of Michigan State University. What's missing is any mention of a Saudi-funded mosque, a rabid imam preaching jihad or a Muslim group with ties to terrorism.
Imams telling the faithful that Jews are "the descendants of apes and pigs," community leaders calling for holy war against the infidel, American Muslim groups shouting hooray for Hamas --all urban legends, as far as the Southern Poverty Law Center is concerned.
According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, in his 2002 book "American Jihad," the following groups are operating in the United States: Al Qaeda. Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Abu Sayyaf and the Algerian Armed Resistance -- not to mention their supporters with innocuous-sounding names like the Islamic Society of North America.
Which is a greater threat to America -- to the physical safety of you and your loved ones? 1. An octogenarian Klansman with tobacco juice dribbling down his chin, 2. A balding Hitler-wannabe who can barely fit his Sam Browne belt over his paunch or 3. A foreign-funded member of Martyrs' Mosque plotting the next 9/11?
But with its politically correct blinders firmly in place, the Southern Poverty Law Center sees no hatred in Jihad Nation, or on the left generally.
What's the Center's impact? Its website boasts that it "trains personnel for more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies and provides services for local, state and international agencies." A picture on this page shows a regional commander of the Illinois State Police shaking hands with an SPLC staffer.
Doubtless, the Center provides invaluable training in helping law enforcement personnel to monitor the dangerous activities of extremists like the American Enterprise Institute and the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- as well as to track the fiends who engage in "nasty polemic" and display racial "insensitivity."
Then there's its infiltration of public education through Teaching Tolerance, a curriculum "to help K-12 teachers foster respect and understanding in the classroom" for such victim-groups as illegal immigrants.
The Center says 600,000 educators subscribe to its Teaching Tolerance magazine. A recent issue urged teachers and students to oppose the use of Indian mascots by sports teams -- which presumably fosters an atmosphere of discrimination and even violence against Native Americans -- witness attacks on casinos. (When will the Center do something about the stereotypical mascot of Notre Dame's football team, which implies that Irish-Americans are small of stature, dress in green and are naturally pugnacious?)
The Southern Poverty Law Center is symptomatic of the left's penchant for calumny, which is another sign of its intellectual impotence. Those who can't frame arguments -- participate in open debate -- distort, stigmatize and engage in guilt by association. The left is guilty of the very tactics of which it accuses the late Joe McCarthy.
But, please, don't call the Southern Poverty Law Center smear artists. There's no artistry in its smears, which are crude, clumsy and transparent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.
I think if we were to crack our Bibles open we would find that homosexuality is a very serious sin.
"And what of the legions of homosexual activists who vandalized Christian and Mormon Churches throughout California and beyond and assaulted Christians?"
I've heard lots of misinformation on this issue, can you cite examples of actual assault we can verify? I've found so far that when I ask this question to people who are spreading this story they don't have any supporting facts.
I am not a Christianophobe, I am Christian. I was raised Catholic and have a deep respect for my neighbors and community. Anyone wondering which is true can check for themselves the front page of the Lawrence Eagle Tribune August 14, 1993 where it quotes me from Denver Colorado at World Youth Day with Pope John Paul II as part of St. Joeseph's Youth Group.
You can't expect me to remain silent when you make intentional misrepresentations about the GLBT community, that's just not right. Sorry, my call for truth from you and peace with you does not warrant your accusations.
Anonymous, I wouldn't try comparing the Ten Commandments against homosexuality, it didn't make God's top ten list. ;)
The word bigot means someone who is intolerant of other people's differences. You either fit that description through your actions or you do not. The link to Camenker's website on this one is proof enough for me.
I believe that although you are otherwise good people those that blog here are far off the Church's position. check out:
http://couragerc.net/
Christ's way is the path of peace and love, not hate and fear.
Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? Where in any of these posts have you shown love? Your personal actions are your own cross to bear, it has nothing to do with me. You alone answer to Him when He asks, "How have you treated the least of my people?"
I forgive you your trespasses against me as I ask my trespasses to be forgiven. We can learn to live in respectful peace and still disagree. I'm sure you have Muslim neighbors now, yet you have found a way. No one is unworthy of kindness and respect, the Christian outreach to death row proves that.
If my only sin is being what God made me I can live with that cross. You choose your own path and answer for your own actions. It is that hate I see you in need of being saved from and it is what Christ calls me here to do.
Pax Christi
John Hosty writes, "I've heard lots of misinformation on this issue, can you cite examples of actual assault we can verify? I've found so far that when I ask this question to people who are spreading this story they don't have any supporting facts."
Misinformation? The attacks aimed at Christian and Mormon Churches were documented by the liberal MSM. Is this guy for real? Did he even read the accounts at the link provided? Somehow I doubt it.
"I wouldn't try comparing the Ten Commandments against homosexuality, it didn't make God's top ten list"? Again, huh? St. Paul says clearly that those who engage in homosexuality have decided to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Check the Commandments again Mr. Hosty.
Your insistence that moral opposition to homosexuality is somehow wrong proves that you are Christianophobic.
Evidence of Christianophobia from homosexual activists:
http://www.massresistance.org
/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html
Sorry Mr. Hosty. But the homosexual movement is a hate movement. This is not to say that ALL homosexuals condone such hate. But by and large, the movement is based on Christianophobic hatred.
You wanted documentation Mr. Hosty:
Tuesday November 18, 2008
Christian Prayer Group Sexually and Physically Assaulted by Homosexual Mob
San Francisco Castro District residents seek vengeance for vote on Proposition 8
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
SAN FRANCISCO, November 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A mob of homosexuals sexually and physically assaulted a group of Christians praying together in the city's Castro District last week, in apparent retaliation for the recent defeat of homosexual marriage in California.
The Christians, a group of Evangelical Protestants who regularly go to the predominantly homosexual Castro District to sing songs and pray with passers-by, say they were holding hands and singing "Amazing Grace" when a angry mob began to shove and kick them, steal their belongings, pour hot coffee on their faces, and sexually assault them.
"We'd been there for a couple of nights just singing worship songs, people would come up and stand with us and join us, we got to pray for some people," said one participant in an account filmed at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxojbyAQGI), "but on Friday night it just was different."
"We started worshipping, it was kind of like you would walk into someone's living room, and people are just hanging out with a guitar, worshipping Jesus, just really peaceful," she continued. "And a man came up after we'd been there for a little while and just began yelling and swearing at us and commanding us to get out of the Castro District, and our leader went up and he said 'why are you here?' and she said 'we're here to worship God and we're here because we love you'."
The words enraged the man, who was soon followed by others. Although the group did no preaching, the mere presence of Christians praying in the Castro District was enough to provoke a frenzy of violence.
"A few men came and they brought a large piece of cloth and covered us with cloth and cornered us into a corner, and they started swearing at us and yelling at us and just filled with hatred, and the crowd grew larger and larger and larger until it ended up being a few hundred people and the bars had emptied out, and we're completely surrounded by people yelling at us," the participant recounted.
"And all of a sudden, me and another friend had hot coffee poured on our faces, and I thought they were pouring boiling water on us until I could smell the coffee, and the girl next to me, someone reached in and took her Bible and she went and said 'I'm sorry that's mine, can I have it back please?' and he hit on her head with the Bible, pushed her onto the ground and began kicking her."
According to the account, members of the crowd began to shove the group and blow whistles in their ears. They took photographs and said "we know who you are, we're going to kill you". The group made a circle with the women protected inside. That was when "it got bad, it got perverse," the participant said.
Although the videotaped participant did not elaborate, a YouTube member who posted a video of the violence included anonymous testimony from a participant claiming that "they were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them."
After police arrived in riot gear, the mob reportedly became even more agitated, and began to violently lunge at the prayer group, seeking to go between the officers, who had formed a protective line. That was when the videotaped participant said she thought she was going to die.
The police then reportedly insisted in escorting the group out of the Castro District, stating that it was necessary to preserve the lives of the prayer group members. A video on YouTube records the final minutes of the escort, showing angry homosexuals screaming curse words, threatening the Christians, and attempting to force their way through the protective line of police (see video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng - photos on this page taken from the video).
San Francisco's KTVU reports that one opponent of Proposition 8 claimed that "their rights were respected. They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood."
The television station explicitly attributed the anger of the homosexual mob to the recent victory of Proposition 8, the California referendum that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), told LifeSiteNews that America is beginning to see the real face of the homosexual movement in the aftermath of the Proposition 8 victory in California.
"Basically I think what we're seeing is that the homofascist element of the larger gay movement is coming out of the closet, and they're emboldened by what they perceive as injustice, but I'm hoping and I'm praying that their antidemocratic behavior educates America and helps Americans wake up to what this movement is all about," LaBarbera said.
"If you do a little logic test and flip it around and if you had a video of a bunch of Christians or let's just say conservatives, sexually molesting and chasing some gays out of a city, you'd better believe there would be a national outcry," he added.
LaBarbera said that his website continues to receive more page views as interest grows in his organization, which is exclusively committed to combating the homosexual political agenda in the United States.
If you continue to deny what even the liberal MSM have documented (attacks on Mormon and Christian Churches), you only prove your Christianophobia.
I noticed the post I put here with links to videos providing valuable information about hate crimes committed last year as well as a Christian music video have been erased.
How can I ptovide you proof of what I say if you are going to erase it? There was nothing vulgar about the videos, only the facts. Are the facts too much for you to handle? Do you not want to know how evil people have been against GLBT people?
Perhaps you prefer your ignorance instead of being called to action by the truth.
I don't think that believing homosexuality to be a sin is a hate crime but I wish that some Christians would admit that there has been a SERIOUS campaign of misinformation against the lgbt community by folks like Paul Cameron, Mas Resistance and the Illinois Family Institute:
The Illinois Family Institute (IFI), the alleged pro-family group that was once led by anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, is angry at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for labeling it a hate group.
In a letter written on the site Opposing Views, IFI member and phony gay expert Laurie Higgins (who herself has a history of demonizing the lgbt community) claims that the group has been unfairly targeted simply because of its moral belief that homosexuality is wrong:
"I assumed that IFI made (SPLC’s) their list because we are committed to exposing and opposing the use of public money via public education to affirm and advance a particular understanding of the nature and morality of homosexual conduct that is unproven, controversial, and, we believe, destructive to the lives of individuals and the fabric of society.
Since, in the distorted view of pro-homosexual organizations, our efforts constitute hatred, the only way we can be deemed not hateful is to change our views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct, or to accept the continued use of public money to affirm and advance liberal/radical views on the nature and morality of homosexual conduct through public education. That's a pretty tall and scary order."
But is this the actual reason? Probably not. As the letter continues, we get more details:
"For clarification I called the Southern Poverty Law Center and spoke with Heidi Beirich. Our conversation was troubling in that Ms Beirich revealed that even a tenuous, distant connection to statements the SPLC doesn't like will land an organization on their hate groups list. She told me that the only reason IFI is listed is that in 2005, IFI's former executive director Peter LaBarbera posted a very short article by Paul Cameron for which Mr. LaBarbera wrote an even shorter introduction.
Although there were no defamatory comments made in Cameron's piece or LaBarbera's introduction, Ms. Beirich claimed that in other articles by Cameron, he had suggested that, in Ms. Beirich's words, "Gays are sickly, and people should stay away from them." IFI has no idea if that claim is true, but if it is, IFI rejects it, finds it inconsistent with Scripture, and finds it repellent. The problem is we did not cite or endorse any such rhetoric, and yet the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled IFI as an active hate group."
The article in question was a rehashing of Cameron’s discredited gay life span study. It also makes the claim that the Centers for Disease Control’s own work proves Cameron’s study to be accurate. This is a lie (which would make the piece defamatory, wouldn’t it?) A member of the CDC went on record saying that the article’s claim was totally inaccurate:
“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.” - Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention
Higgins really steps into it when she says the following:
"Ms. Beirich also claimed that Cameron cited a purportedly erroneous statistic regarding shortened life-spans. I responded that I could see how a statistic could be erroneous and derived from flawed methodology, but I don't see erroneous statistics as defamatory or hateful. I don't think health statistics alone, even statistics that emerge from flawed methodologies, can be construed as hatred. In fact, if there are particular health risks associated with particular sexual practices, it would be callous and irresponsible not to share that information publicly."
So according to Higgins, even if Cameron’s statistics are inaccurate, they may not necessarily be hateful or wrong.
IFI would have a point here, except for Cameron’s words:
“What homosexuals do is so incredibly stupid, so patently absurd and antibiological, that only a foolish society would take their whimpering about ‘equal rights with heterosexuality’ seriously . . . Are we supposed to feel so sorry for them that we join them in the march to the cemetery?” - The Advocate, October 29, 1985
“At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, ‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.’ According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.” - Mark E. Pietrzyk, New Republic, October 3, 1994
His actions:
Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in the rest room with a homosexual act… It’s really awkward. I could see where Gateway would want to suppress this. I could see where the parents would want to suppress it. It could be just a rumor. But enough things have happened recently so that such a thing doesn’t have to be invented.” - Paul Cameron told this story to a group in 1982 in Lincoln, NB in an attempt to kill a human rights ordinance. The police discovered the story to be false but the ordinance was defeated.
And mostly by the condemnation rained down on him by the medical profession:
“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children . . . I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.” - Dr. A. Nicholas Groth in 1984 after discovering that Cameron distorted his work.
"Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - American Psychological Association, 1983
The science and profession of psychology in Nebraska as represented by the Nebraska Psychological Association, formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality. Further, the Nebraska Psychological Association would like it known that Dr. Cameron is not a member of the Association. Dr. Cameron was recently dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists - Nebraska Psychological Association, 1984
Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" - American Sociological Association, 1985
The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality. - Canadian Psychological Association, 1996
You see, erroneous statistics can be considered as hateful if the creator of such statistics has a history of intentional inaccuracies in order to demonize a group of people. And Cameron has this history.
Now some may say that IFI cited Cameron’s work without knowing his history.
I don’t believe this to be true. I find it hard to believe that IFI had absolutely no knowledge of Cameron or his work, especially when I read the introduction of the piece in question:
As one who has read homosexual obituaries for over a decade, as a researcher of the "gay" movement, there can be no doubt that homosexual behavior shortens the life of those who practice it, especially men who have sex with other men. Paul Cameron's work has been targeted for ridicule by homosexual activists, and he has been demonized by the Left, but this should not discount his findings. We find it sad that more scientists have not joined Paul Cameron in assessing the extreme health risks of homosexual behavior, just like the scientific establishment researches obesity, smoking and other serious health issues.
Illinois Family Institute would support a nonpartisan federal research campaign into the health risks of homosexual behavior to further investigate Cameron's work.
And to make matters worse, Higgins will not acknowledge that IFI was inaccurate. Instead, she claims that "new work" proves Cameron’s falsehoods to be accurate:
"But, more important, the same finding regarding reduced life expectancy for homosexual men has been reported by a world-reknowned medical journal, and has been cited as true by homosexual activists when it serves their purposes. That study, which appeared in Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."'
Higgins is referring to the 1997 Canadian study that was distorted by religious right groups. We know this because in 2001, the authors of the study complained about it:
“ . . . if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."
Certainly, an organization with a moral objection to homosexuality shouldn’t automatically be considered as a hate group.
But the problem with groups such as IFI is that they practice a sort of intellectual violence in which they are willing to distort credible research as well as rely on bad studies to give a negative view of the lgbt community - i.e. painting them as monsters who should be hindered and stopped at every turn.
That makes IFI no different than a racist group distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more violent than whites. Or Nazis using propaganda films against the Jewish community.
And that, as far as I’m concerned, makes them a hate group.
"The problem with gay marriage isn't really the gay part"?
And you consider yourself a Christian?
Seems like you are the one being converted here. To acceptance of homosexuality.
Black Tsunami,
The Canadian researchers Hoggs et al do not now make the claim that life expectancy of gay and bisexual men at 20 is equal to or near the life expectancy of heterosexual men, only that morbidity has decreased due to new antiretrovirals drug therapies. Considering that in the 80's AIDS was a much more rapid killer, this is understandable. However Life expectancy is still less for this group known as MSM, men who have sex with men, but for some reason Hoggs et al neglect to state what they think it would be now, since their 1997 study found half of all 20 year old MSMs would not reach age 65. I get the distinct impression they do not want anyone to infer the obvious.
Combine this with a fear in the insurance industry to actually get this hard data:
"Kim McKeown, spokesperson for the Society of Actuaries, notes that no life insurance company asks about a person's sexual orientation on policy applications. "There are discrimination issues about trying to use that kind of information for life insurance pricing," she says. Thus there is no insurance actuarial data on whether gay men as a group have a reduced average life expectancy due to HIV/AIDS.
However, a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS will bring a swift life insurance rejection, no matter how well the patient is living with the disease."
Then when someone updates Hoggs et al study of MSM morbidity, finding the same results as the original study, you attack them as homophobes. Next you'll be telling me gay men should not be asked about their behavior and should have a right to donate blood to the Red Cross, because it is homophobic to refuse to use their blood.
Same-sex "marriage" and sanity:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/06/same-sex-marriage-and-church-teaching.html
Ellen I followed the link for Paul's article, here's what I found:
"It is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man,but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united."
America is not a Theocracy, we seperate church from state. Freedom of religion is equally important as freedom FROM religion. It is enough that you have your freedoms, you don't need to control mine. Your rights end where mine begin.
Jay, are you going to give me an answer as to why you erased my post with the videos on it? It seems a fair question considering all I was doing was citing sources of information for readers to be more fully informed. Is that a bad thing?
No, America is not a Theocracy. What has that to do with anything? We possess only contingent rights as creatures, not intrinsic rights. We do not possess a right (strictly speaking) to oppose God or His Commandments. Even if the State confers a so-called right to do so. It's not liberty you desire. It's license.
"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty substance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God." - Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Humana
In an interview with Zenit, Archbishop Charles Chaput is quoted as having said: "..Catholics have always been a minority in the United States, and prejudice against Catholics in this country has always been real, even before the founding. Sometimes the bias has been indirect and genteel. Just as often it has taken more vulgar forms of economic and political discrimination, and media bigotry. Either way, prejudice always fuels the appetite of a minority to fit in, to achieve and to assimilate, and American Catholics have done that extraordinarily well -- in fact, too well.
In the name of being good citizens, a lot of Catholics have bought into a very mistaken idea of the “separation of Church and state.” American Catholics have always supported the principle of keeping religious and civil authority distinct. Nobody wants a theocracy, and much of the media hand-wringing about the specter of “Christian fundamentalism” is really just a particularly offensive scare tactic. The Church doesn’t presume to run the state. We also don’t want the state interfering with our religious beliefs and practices -- which, candidly, is a much bigger problem today.
Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic."
This is precisely what Hosty wants. He wants to force religion out of public policy debates by raising the specter of "Theocracy." But the Archbishop is right. We have much more to fear from Christianophobes than they do from us. They engage in rhetorical violence - and lately physical violence as well - in an attempt to silence moral opposition to their agenda.
JayG,
So now you are accusing Hogg et al of distorting their own work? Their credibility was okay when their work was being distorted? Why has it changed now. I trust their opinion regarding their work rather than a second or third party who is distorting it.
In their original study (1997), they made a prediction based on the lack of HIV prevention methods.
In 2001, they were clarifying their work simply because it was being distorted by religious right groups.
No one has updated their work as you have inferred. By that statement, I take it you were talking about Paul Cameron. If your religious beliefs lead to you call him a credible source even after he has been dismissed and censured by left wing and right wing groups then that is your choice.
But there are NO credible studies that say that gay men have a short life span.
Oh and just in case you try and pull CDC staistics:
“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS , AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.” - Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention - The Washington Blade - June 17th, 2005
"We possess only contingent rights as creatures, not intrinsic rights."
You are confusing you belief structure with the social contract you have with other citizens through the Constitution. It's authority is from the people, not God.
The seperation of church and state must be absolute when living in a diverse community or you risk giving one religion an upper hand over another. Our laws clearly state this is the wrong path.
John Ansley, your constant attacks against my character show you have much in common with the hate group MassResistance. Love the sinner and hate their sin...unless they're gay, in which case you can say any hateful thing you want (true or not) and it does not count against you.
Your lies are piling up John, when are you going to repent? Of all things, to lie on Holy Week. I will pray for you that the feelings of hate that compell you to do such things will be washed away, and you will be given love to replace it.
Pax Christi
Romans 12 "Do not return evil for evil."
Let's make sure our actions on this blog and elsewhere show us for who we really are, Catholics.
John Hosty writes, "John Ansley, your constant attacks against my character show you have much in common with the hate group MassResistance. Love the sinner and hate their sin...unless they're gay, in which case you can say any hateful thing you want (true or not) and it does not count against you.
Your lies are piling up John, when are you going to repent? Of all things, to lie on Holy Week. I will pray for you that the feelings of hate that compell you to do such things will be washed away, and you will be given love to replace it."
Lies Mr. Hosty? Attacks against your character? You're the one issuing the attacks Mr. Hosty. You are the one who wrote, "America is not a Theocracy, we seperate church from state. Freedom of religion is equally important as freedom FROM religion."
I interpreted your statement (rightly) as evidence of your Christianophobia. And I replied thusly:
"In an interview with Zenit, Archbishop Charles Chaput is quoted as having said: "..Catholics have always been a minority in the United States, and prejudice against Catholics in this country has always been real, even before the founding. Sometimes the bias has been indirect and genteel. Just as often it has taken more vulgar forms of economic and political discrimination, and media bigotry. Either way, prejudice always fuels the appetite of a minority to fit in, to achieve and to assimilate, and American Catholics have done that extraordinarily well -- in fact, too well.
In the name of being good citizens, a lot of Catholics have bought into a very mistaken idea of the “separation of Church and state.” American Catholics have always supported the principle of keeping religious and civil authority distinct. Nobody wants a theocracy, and much of the media hand-wringing about the specter of “Christian fundamentalism” is really just a particularly offensive scare tactic. The Church doesn’t presume to run the state. We also don’t want the state interfering with our religious beliefs and practices -- which, candidly, is a much bigger problem today.
Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic."
This is precisely what Hosty wants. He wants to force religion out of public policy debates by raising the specter of "Theocracy." But the Archbishop is right. We have much more to fear from Christianophobes than they do from us. They engage in rhetorical violence - and lately physical violence as well - in an attempt to silence moral opposition to their agenda."
Your attempts to silence moral opposition to homosexuality through the use of intimidation are a matter of public record. JayG as much as wrote a post which dealt with your attempts at intimidation.
No one forces you to visit this forum Mr. Hosty. But please don't think you can come here and accuse those of us who are morally opposed to homosexuality and then retreat back into "victimhood status."
Remember Proposition 8 in California. The violence didn't come from Christians and Mormons Mr. Hosty. It came from homosexual activists who are Christianophobic.
So much violence Mr. Hosty. And yet you attempt to gloss over it all. I wonder why?
"As I have posted before in opposition to John H., that the person is to be loved, but homosexual acts are immoral and need to be labeled as such, and John has engaged in what I call intimidation (not dialog)"
(http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2008/06/intimidation-factor.html).
J. Hosty (who actively engages in sodomy) asked J. Ansley "when are you going to repent?" and accused him (falsely) of "lying." This speaks for itself. So I won't add my commentary. I will say this: I read the comments at the "intimidation" post and it seems that many people have experienced J. Hosty's aggressive and profoundly unChrist-like behavior.
Black Tsunami,
I said no such thing about researchers Hogg et al, re-read my post, and my quote "I get the distinct impression they do not want anyone to infer the obvious."
Nice try, but I accused no one of distorting their own research, but I could accuse you of distorting my words.
"Lies Mr. Hosty?"
Yes John, you desperately want people reading to believe I am not Christian in spit of the fact you know that I am. That would make you a liar.
This blog's moderator, Jay, has erased my posts without explanation and refuses to address this issue. You are not willing to admit that people can be gay and Christian because of your personal feelings, not anything God calls you to do.
You know what He does call for? Love. That's why I come here in spite of all the lies; you need to be saved before you become lost in those sins.
I will pray especially for all you here who perpetuate the sins against GLBT people, and for those who have been confused by this double speak.
This is the Easter Vigil, may your blindness to this outrage be healed.
Your lying again Mr. Hosty. All I've said is that your Christianophobia is a matter of public record. As is your proclivity toward using intimidation to silence your opponents.
You have (incorrectly) equated separation of Church and State with separation of religious belief and State. I can live with the former. I will not accept the latter.
Archbishop Chaput put it well, "Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic."
Sadly, since you suffer from Christianophobia, you desire to force religion out of public policy debates and are, as a result, engaged in an enterprise which is anti-democratic.
It is noteworthy that so many people have commented on your falsehoods and attempts at silencing your opponents through intimidation. This speaks volumes. Even if you refuse to recognize what others see so clearly.
It is also noteworthy that you continue to gloss over the physical violence and domestic terrorism committed by radical homosexual activists against Christians and Mormons and their Churches.
If anyone belongs to a "hate group" Nr. Hosty, it is yourself. The acts of domestic terrorism which you refuse to acknowledge constitute real hate. The reason you cannot acknowledge this only serves to highlight the fact that you suffer from Christianophobia.
It is no sin to speak the truth Mr. Hosty. And the truth is that many homosexuals have engaged in domestic terrorism and much (not all but much) of the homosexual movement is a hate movement. Facts are facts.
John, you have it wrong. I cannot be afraid of or hate something that I am. I am a Christian that happens to be gay, not a gay man that happens to be Christian. You do not have the authority to tell me I am not Christian, you can only speak for yourself in this matter.
I had hoped for better from you but expected the same old same old you deliver. You claim I intimidate people, yet you fail your responsibility to prove what you accuse. You make the claim I am ignoring your claims of violence committed by GLBT citizens, yet when I deliver a video that shows your claims pale in comparrison to what's happening against GLBT people it is erased in order to hide the truth.
Start speaking the truth before your lies catch up to you. When you are judged by He that is worthy He will know what you have done. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
I am not saying whether or not you are a Christian. I am saying you are a Christianophobe. You assert, "I cannot be afraid of or hate something that I am."
Not true. There are Jews who have engaged in self-loathing and anti-Semitism. There are African-Americans who engage in self-loathing and refer to other African-Americans as "nig...." It is sad but nevertheless true.
It is noteworthy that you refuse to address my main point. As I wrote previously, "You have (incorrectly) equated separation of Church and State with separation of religious belief and State. I can live with the former. I will not accept the latter.
Archbishop Chaput put it well, "Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic."
Sadly, since you suffer from Christianophobia, you desire to force religion out of public policy debates and are, as a result, engaged in an enterprise which is anti-democratic.
It is noteworthy that so many people have commented on your falsehoods and attempts at silencing your opponents through intimidation. This speaks volumes. Even if you refuse to recognize what others see so clearly.
It is also noteworthy that you continue to gloss over the physical violence and domestic terrorism committed by radical homosexual activists against Christians and Mormons and their Churches.
If anyone belongs to a "hate group" Nr. Hosty, it is yourself. The acts of domestic terrorism which you refuse to acknowledge constitute real hate. The reason you cannot acknowledge this only serves to highlight the fact that you suffer from Christianophobia."
The fact that you fail to address my points only serves to show that you know I am right. Address the points Mr. Hosty. Address them or admit you are in error. You have wrongly equated separation of Church and State with separation of religious belief and State.
"I am not saying whether or not you are a Christian. I am saying you are a Christianophobe."
I am a proud and active Christian who has served his community as a assistant youth group minister, Eucharistic minister, and 3rd degree night of Columbus. You are a liar when you say I am a Christianophobe.
Bearing false witness against your neighbors is a serious sin John, I expect you to repent for this. You need not apologize, just ask God for forgiveness and speak no further lies to try and elicit hate against me from others that would believe your misrepresentations.
Your actions make a difference John, don't go down a path you know is dishonest because it leads away from His will.
I have been posting here for more than 2 years and all the while you and others have cast dispersions against my character. How well do you really know me?
John Hosty,
Serving your [Christian] community as an assistant youth group minister, Eucharistic minister, and 3rd degree Knight of Columbus does not necessarily negate John Ansley's assertion that you are a Christianophobe. As you yourself point out, he has had two years of your postings to make an assessment of your beliefs, two years in which to conclude you have Christianophobia. Since Bearing false witness is making untrue statements about your actions, and is not making an assessment of your opinions as expressed in all of your writings, I think you actually help make John Ansley's related point that you seek to silence disagreement through verbal intimidation.
John Hosty, you talk about doing His Will, and let's assume you are honest in this. How do you know what His Will is?
Thank you JayG. I was hoping that Mr. Hosty would respond to my comment where I said to him: "You have (incorrectly) equated separation of Church and State with separation of religious belief and State." But it would appear that's not going to happen.
I was also hoping Mr. Hosty would address the now well-documented attacks (even in the liberal mainstream media) against Mormon and Christian Churches by homosexual activists. I was hoping he would condemn acts of violence which homosexual activists committed against Mormon and Christians. But it would appear that's not going to happen either.
"As you yourself point out, he has had two years of your postings to make an assessment of your beliefs, two years in which to conclude you have Christianophobia."
Let's put this issue to the test. What have I said here that constitutes being labelled a Christianophobe? The worst I've ever said is that some people posting here are bigots. If their actions fit the description then I don't see it as defamatory.
I have tried to remain civil here, the evidence is on your blog for all to see. I can't say the same for all that have posted here, even right from when I started posting. If what I have to say constitutes Christianophobia then there can be no question that I have been the vicitm of Homophobia from this blog.
Jay, your refusal to address why you erased my post makes me wonder more as time grows. Why would you expect to gloss over this?
John, if you want an explanation as to why marriage equality is expected by GLBT people try reading the Iowa decision. In order for people to have a legitimate right to deny other citizens the same rights they enjoy there needs to be a compelling public need. Once you can prove that compelling need beyond heresay you have an argument far more powerful than the seperation of church and state.
Since I know that answer won't satisfy you here's what I have to say:
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
We have a social contract to live as equals empowered by those who agree to it. In that agreement we allow liberties that religion sometimes disagrees with. Your disagreement with how I live my life is not a legal argument to take away my rights. You have to have a more compelling argument than that.
John, if you want me to openly denounce violence I can do that. I have seen some of the videos used to portray GLBT people in a light different than the truth as well.
Do you know what crowd baiting is? I'm sure you do, I was accused of doing such with Sarah Loy when Larry Cirignano pushed her. The same has taken place out in California, the woman who shows on all the videos is a known activist who pushed her way to the front of the crowd right through the middle of all the GLBT protestors. She even pushed over a diabled man. This is all things that paint a different light on what you see on camera.
All violence is wrong no matter the instigation. We in the civilized world have learned to live by laws for the betterment of society. I'd like to show you how much worse the violence against GLBT people is in comparison to your complaints, but I'm afraid Jay who controls this blog won't allow that level of honesty here.
Hiding from the truth never makes it less true Jay, sorry to see you've taken to censoring my posts without explanation.
John Hosty,
If we use your logic concerning John Ansley's assertion that you are a Christianophob as a standard, i.e "What have I said here that constitutes being labeled a Christianophobe?" might we apply your logic equally to MassResistance and IFI, and ask you to back up your assertions that these groups are homophobic? And if you conclude that because they are homophobic then they are hate groups, would that not mean by your own definition you, SPLC and Know Thy Neighbor are also hate groups?
"As you yourself point out, he has had two years of your postings to make an assessment of your beliefs, two years in which to conclude you have Christianophobia."
If you don't mean to imply what I said on your blog is proof of me being Christianophobe then why did you say this? You seem to be engaging in both double speak and diversionary tactics. Can we stick to one subject or are you deliberately hopping all around in order to confuse people?
The logic that dictates whether a group is or isn't homophobic is clear from the SPLC website and cited in my forst post for this thread:
"Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." -SPLC
Now if you want to reverse that logic that would be fair. Do you have any evidence that KnowThyNeighbor engaged in personal vilification? Remember, speaking varifiable facts does not constitute vilification. The key word here is varifiable. Nothing was posted on KTN that could not be varified as truth.
In the end we are all equal in the eyes of God.
How you have treated others speaks of you, not them. You own your actions.
Speaking of which, would you like to explain why you erased my post with video evidence of GLBT hate crimes? I think you owe me and your readers an explanation Jay, seriously. It seems dishonest of you to sit back silenty and not address this issue.
Did you hear the news about Iowa? Now there's 3 states that recognize marriage equality and 3 more right here in New England on the verge. Then there is Californina's decision, New York is ready to speak up, New Jersey is nearly ready, and Hawaii too!
Do you think God is asleep at the wheel, or do you think that His will is done in mysterious ways sometimes? I dare not question His will, I just try my best to be a proper honest citizen who cares enough to address those who would villianize him.
I'll keep praying for all of you here, I hope you do the same for me. Perhaps one day you will look up from your unfounded fears and see a new friend.
Just one more thing before I turn in for the night, my name is John Hosty-Grinnell. If there is no malice intended I prefer you call me by my proper legal name. If you have to shorten my name I would respect being referred to as John H-G.
Thank you in advance for your courtesy.
Mr. Hosty, once again you are confusing separation of Church and State with separation of religious belief from the State. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge this distinction. I submit this is due to your Christianophobia and your desire to force religion out of public policy debates.
At any rate, you write, "The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution...
Many legal scholars would disagree with you. I copied the following interview from La Salette Journey:
Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State
An Interview with Author Daniel Dreisbach
By John W. Whitehead and Casey Mattox
10/28/02
In 1802 Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association in which he described the First Amendment as erecting a "wall of separation between church and state." That phrase, largely forgotten for nearly 150 years, was reintroduced to our lexicon in 1947 by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in his opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, a case holding that state funded transportation of all students to and from their schools, including parochial schools, was constitutional.
The wall metaphor has since been accepted by most Americans, and many jurists, as the authoritative description of the interaction between religion and civil government countenanced by the First Amendment. In his latest book, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State, Daniel Dreisbach exposes the history of the wall metaphor and argues that the wall is rooted in anti-Catholicism and the fear of religious influence on public life. Dreisbach argues that the modern "wall of separation" is not the wall that Jefferson wrote about in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
According to Dreisbach, the wall metaphor misconceptualizes the roles of religion and civil government by restricting religious influence on public life, a result not called for by the text of the First Amendment.
Daniel Dreisbach is a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University in Washington, D.C., and the editor of Religion and Political Culture in Jefferson’s Virginia (2000) and Religion and Politics in the Early Republic (1996). We recently talked to Dreisbach about his latest book and the role of religion in public life.
TRI: Justice Hugo Black is often described as a textualist. So why, in this instance, did he reach beyond the text of the First Amendment and use Thomas Jefferson’s metaphor to describe the relationship between religion and civil government.
Dreisbach: A number of Supreme Court Justices who depart from conventional interpretations often cloak their own predilections in the clothing of originalism or adherence to history, and I think to some extent that describes Black. I think he was aware that there were problems in his interpretation of the First Amendment.
Are you saying that Justice Black was dishonest?
I think that there are certainly questions about the integrity of his historical approach. A man who wrote a very sympathetic biography of Justice Black pointed out that when the Everson decision came out, Black was surprised that there was so much criticism of the history that he used in his opinion. He instructed his law clerk to go and look up the debates of the First Congress. Now, I think this in itself is very revealing; Justice Black is examining the historical record after he has already issued the opinion. I think that raises some very troubling questions about his historical methodology. But I think he, like many judges and scholars, was driven by his own predilections and thus was very selective in his use of history. While he may claim to have the support of history, I think he understood that this is in large measure a lawyer’s use of history to advance a particular position that he happens to adhere to.
So Black selectively used history to advance an agenda?
This is often the case with the way courts and judges use history. Let’s keep in mind that we are talking about a profession that is trained in adversarial techniques. They are taught how to use evidence and present evidence in a light most favorable to a particular position. So, what I say of Black is true of many judges, and it’s true of many lawyers, especially those lawyers who use history. Now, I think Black is an interesting character. He is a man who carried with him to the Supreme Court many biases and prejudices. In his youth he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Was that just a political affiliation or do you think Black was sympathetic to the Klan’s beliefs?
Well, I think that there probably was a time in his life when he was somewhat sympathetic to the racial views of the Klan. I am inclined to believe that he was able to shed some of those prejudices as he matured. Having said that, I think throughout his political career he was very happy to accept the support of his former friends in that element of Alabama society. But even his son acknowledged that while Black abandoned some of the racial views of the Klan, one of the things that he did not abandon was the anti-Catholicism or the fear and dread of the Catholic Church, which is very much part of the Klan’s ideology.
But how did his feelings about the Catholic Church influence his judicial opinions?
I think he was rather constant in that respect throughout his political career as well as his career on the Court. In Everson and McCollum v. Board of Education the following year, we see a streak of anti-Catholicism not only in Black but also other Justices of the Supreme Court. As one recent Supreme Court Justice has said, it’s virtually impossible to read those decisions of the Court in the late 1940's and into the 50's without understanding the depth and degree of anti-Catholicism in American intellectual circles including the Justices of the Supreme Court.
But the present Supreme Court isn’t anti-Catholic, is it? Wouldn’t you agree that those attitudes have changed?
Well, I think that’s a fair observation. There are, in fact, a good number of Catholics who happen to sit on the Supreme Court at the moment. But they are working on a foundation that is rooted in Everson and McCollum. These are the precedents upon which the last 50 years of Establishment Clause jurisprudence have been built, and while they have made some desirable adjustments, they have never fully repudiated the foundations laid in Everson and McCollum.
But in Everson, the case in which Black revived the "wall of separation" metaphor, the Court held that the Establishment Clause did not prevent the state from bussing Catholic schoolchildren to parochial schools.
The force and influence of Everson and McCollum is less in the holdings themselves than in the dictum and in the rhetoric that the Court used, and you find that influence pervasive in legal thought. So when I look back on the decisions of 50 years ago, I see their significance less in the actual holdings than in the rhetoric that the Court used and the tone that they set for church-state jurisprudence.
You don’t find that tone today?
I think the Court has adopted a much more sensitive tone today. I find that recent jurisprudence is much more in line with what I believe to be the historical understanding of the First Amendment, but having said that, they have not fully abandoned those foundations laid in 1947 and 1948.
In Santa Fe v. Doe, the case holding that a policy permitting student prayers at public high school games was unconstitutional, it seems that there was a return to the antagonism toward religious influence–or did you read it that way?
No, I think that’s true about the Sante Fe case. I think going back to Justice Souter’s opinion in Lee v. Weisman [where the Supreme Court held that invocations by clergy before public school graduations were unconstitutional] there was an attempt to aggressively revive the rhetoric and the tenor of Everson. For many years, Justice John Paul Stevens has been attempting at every opportunity to reassert the rhetoric and the tone of Everson, but he has been pretty much a lone Justice in that regard. But beginning with Lee v. Weisman, you see Justice Souter joining that cause, and I think to some extent you see a revival of the Everson rhetoric and tone in the majority opinion in the Santa Fe case. So while I think that there is a richer understanding of history on the Supreme Court today, I think Santa Fe is an example of where the Court harkens back to the foundations laid in Everson. So we’ve seen some back and forth in the last five or six years of Court decisions. I think that the recent voucher case [Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 122 S.Ct. 2460 (2002)] is a sign of hope, but there is not a clear direction being set here, and most importantly the Court appears unwilling to revisit or repudiate the hostile rhetorical tone set in the Everson case.
So the same fear of religion still remains to some degree on the Court and still exerts an influence?
There is certainly a powerful segment of the Court that reflects those fears. These are fears that were rooted in the role of the Catholic Church in American society at mid-century. There is still a group of Justices who reflect that fear. And this goes to the very heart of why this metaphor is so troubling: the metaphor misconceptualizes the First Amendment.
How does the "wall of separation" metaphor misconceptualize the First Amendment?
The metaphor emphasizes the concept of separation, unlike the First Amendment which speaks in terms of disestablishment, or nonestablishment to be more precise, and of the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, the wall of separation metaphor, unlike the First Amendment, imposes restrictions on religion and religious perspectives. The literal text of the First Amendment restricts government only; whereas a wall, given its bilateral nature, restricts the role of religion and faith communities as well. The wall metaphor implies that the First Amendment restricts people of faith, religious spokesmen, and religious leaders also, but that’s far beyond the requirement of the text of the First Amendment.
Do you think the average religious person is really restricted by the wall of separation metaphor?
Oh, absolutely. I think there is much evidence to support this both in rhetoric and in judicial opinions. Quite often the courts have embraced this wall metaphor as a substitute for the First Amendment. It has been used to silence people speaking from a religious perspective in the public marketplace of ideas. We see this in court cases limiting the rights of students to express their faith in public school settings. We see this in public forum cases where religious groups want to use public forums on the same terms and conditions as secular groups. The courts are restricting that ability.
For example, the reaction to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s morning Bible studies at the Justice Department?
Right. I think that is a clear example of a restriction on a person bringing their faith into the public arena. The Attorney General and others at the Justice Department wish to ground their daily activities in faith, but the media and critics in academia suggest that somehow this is a violation of the First Amendment. They think that this might be something offensive to a wall of separation, but again we must remind ourselves that the wall of separation is not a concept born of the First Amendment. It is a misrepresentation, I believe, of what the First Amendment stands for.
You argue that the "wall of separation" metaphor is grounded in the fear of religion, particularly Catholicism, but is it possible to remove the wall from these fears?
I think we must confront the uncomfortable fact that for much of American history, the phrase "separation of church and state" and its metaphoric formulation as a "wall of separation" have been the expressions of exclusion, intolerance and bigotry. These have been phrases that have been used to silence people in communities of faith and to exclude religious persons from full participation in public life. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, for example, Establishmentarians [those who favored official state religious establishments] attempted to frighten Americans by deliberately mischaracterizing the Baptist aspirations for liberty of conscience and disestablishment. They said that the Baptists advocated a separation of religion from public life that would lead inevitably to political atheism and rampant licentiousness. This illustrates that the language of separation didn’t come from the advocates of separation, but was used by the Establishmentarians to frighten people away from embracing the disestablishment agenda of the Baptists.
In the election of 1800, it was the Jeffersonians that used this separationist language to silence Jefferson’s most vociferous critics, the Federalist clergy of New England, who were trying to expose Jefferson as an infidel and as an atheist. In the 1830's and 1840's we experienced a first big wave of Catholic Irish immigrants, and this language of separation was being used by Protestant nativists to marginalize this new immigrant group from full participation in American life. This was repeated at the end of the 19th century when the next big wave of Catholic immigrants came to America. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century, around the time of Everson and McCollum, we again see the fear of the role of religion, and particularly Catholicism, in American society. This fear drives this language of separation of church and state and its metaphoric formulation of wall of separation. So throughout our history this language and this metaphor have been freighted with nativist and bigoted connotations, and I think it’s time that we reexamine the propriety of their continued use in our legal and political discourse.
What would you say to the Jewish, Muslim or atheist parents who fear that without the "wall" their children will be subjected to the Christian prayers of fellow students?
Well, we have to start with a basic understanding of the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses and then examine how the wall of separation reconceptualized them. My view of the First Amendment is that it is intended and designed to create an environment where various ideas and perspectives can compete in a marketplace of ideas on the same terms and conditions. I would argue that religious communities and religious perspectives, like those of other artistic or political groups, should be able to compete in that marketplace. An analysis that draws on the wall of separation metaphor singles out the religious perspective. It treats religious perspectives differently than other nongovernmental perspectives and actually puts them at a disadvantage. So other faith communities–whether they be Jewish or any other–have nothing to fear from the historic understanding of the First Amendment. Indeed, I think what they have to fear is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment through this lens of a wall metaphor.
According to one poll, 69 percent of Americans believe that the phrase "wall of separation" is in the First Amendment. Do you think the impact of the metaphor has been greater in judicial opinions or in public opinion?
There is no doubt that many Americans view this metaphor as supplanting the text of the First Amendment. That should concern us greatly. But this public attitude is reflected by a number of judges. One need not read deeply into case law to reach the conclusion that there are many judges who believe that the First Amendment has embraced this wall of separation metaphor. I think this is a good place to recall how this wall of separation was first introduced into the legal lexicon. Jefferson used this phrase in a letter that he wrote in January 1802 to a Baptist association.
What was the contemporary reaction to Jefferson’s letter?
In my book I lay out the argument and the supporting evidence to suggest that the Danbury Baptists themselves were discomforted by Jefferson’s use of this metaphor. Because the Baptists were a minority community in New England, they were the objects of persecution. They had been agitating for disestablishment and for liberty of conscience, and what worried them was that Jefferson was leading them down a different path, a path of separation, which is not what their agenda was about. Again, they were arguing for disestablishment and liberty of conscience, not separation, because they, like virtually all Americans at that time, believed that religion played a vital role in promoting social order and stability. The evidence is rather compelling that they were somewhat embarrassed by the use of this metaphor.
You write that Jefferson would have been surprised that his letter continues to have such an impact two centuries later. Do you think he would be displeased with the current interpretation of his wall?
Well, of course, that’s a very hard question to answer because it involves a high degree of speculation. What I would feel very comfortable in saying is that I think Jefferson was in agreement with the part of his generation that believed that religion played an essential role in a self-governing society for a democratic people. He, like virtually all of his generation, believed that a self-governing people must be a virtuous and self-controlled people, and that religion was an essential element in promoting those qualities. To the extent that a wall of separation has been used to exclude or to limit the ability of religion to inform public life or to inform the actions of public officials and private citizens, I think he would find that worrisome. As president as well as in his career as a public official in Virginia, Jefferson took a number of steps to try to encourage virtue and religiosity within the public at large. Now, this is not to say what Jefferson’s personal religious beliefs were. Even those of the founding generation who were not particularly religious, or perhaps were even privately skeptical about traditional Christianity, nonetheless believed that religion was an indispensable support to political prosperity and social order.
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law," etc. It wasn’t until the 1940’s that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment applied to the states as well as the federal government. Should the First Amendment have been incorporated to the states?
This is one way in which Jefferson’s understanding of the wall has been transformed. In my book I argue that Jefferson would have thought that his wall of separation was most appropriately placed between state governments and the national governments on matters pertaining to religion, such as Thanksgiving Day proclamations. Again, let’s examine the context in which Jefferson wrote this letter. In the early days of his administration, he was being criticized for not appointing days for prayer and Thanksgiving. His Federalist critics had said this was evidence that Jefferson was in fact a political atheist and an infidel. Jefferson had refused to issue such proclamations, and he wrote that one of the reasons he wanted to write the letter was to explain to a wider constituency why he had declined to issue a Thanksgiving Day proclamation. I think Jefferson believed that what was appropriate for a state or local official to do, such as issuing a Thanksgiving Day proclamation, which he did as Governor of Virginia, was, because of that language in the First Amendment, not appropriate for him to do as President of United States. What this tells us is that Jefferson’s wall was placed not between church and state in the most general sense. This was not a universal general principle. Rather his wall was erected between what was appropriate for a national chief executive to do and what was appropriate for a state chief executive to do.
But, of course, at that time there was no Fourteenth Amendment to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. You acknowledge that Jefferson, the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, opposed religious establishments by the states. Couldn’t the case be made that the incorporation of the Establishment Clause to the states is the completion of Jefferson’s ideal?
In the year 2002, we have to confront a First Amendment that not only restricts Congress, as its text states, but which has also been incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. In my book I say that it’s very plausible that Jefferson would have desired the various states to erect their own walls of separation, so to speak, at the state level. But I think he would have been very uncomfortable with the use of a First Amendment wall, by way of incorporation or any other mechanism, to impose that separation from the federal level. Now, why would he not see incorporation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment as the fulfillment of his desires as you asked in your question? I think that there are a couple of reasons. First, I think it removes the average citizen from the process of structuring their government. Moreover, incorporation itself has been imposed upon us by unelected courts, and I think Jefferson would have been uncomfortable with that. The second reason is that Jefferson, like virtually all of his contemporaries, viewed the concept of federalism, which separates the powers of the state governments from the power of the federal government, as in itself a very important part of the Bill of Rights. That is to say, I think he might have considered the separation of the powers of the national government from the state government as a more important right than those specifically enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. So when the Court overturned the Federalism inherent in the Bill of Rights, they destroyed that structural protection of our liberties in the original design of the Constitution, and I think that would have made Jefferson uncomfortable and unhappy.
If not a "wall of separation," how would you suggest that we describe the relationship between religion and civil government?
I would suggest we return to the text of the First Amendment. I think the Baptists were right to focus on concepts such as disestablishment or nonestablishment or to use the terminology of free exercise of religion or liberty of conscience. I see no compelling need to abandon the text of the First Amendment in favor of a metaphor. And let me just add this. I think metaphors are a beautiful part of our literary heritage. I love metaphors. But I think that there is grounds for some caution in their use in a legal context. In legal discourse we need precision of expression: specific, strict, orderly adherence to rules and past judicial decisions and statutes. Metaphors are by definition comparisons of two things which are not actually identical. That is the case with the wall of separation. The wall of separation might help give us some insight into understanding the First Amendment, but it carries with it things that are dissimilar to what the First Amendment is about. Those dissimilarities introduce misconceptualizations about the First Amendment. So I believe we should indulge the use of metaphors in legal rhetoric with great caution.
What do you hope to accomplish with this book?
I hope that I can bring some clarity to the debate by urging those participants in the debate to move away from a misleading metaphor and by refocusing our attention on the actual text of the First Amendment. I think that if we abandon this metaphor, the debate will be healthier and clearer. We will force those who are seeking to exclude religion from public life to articulate the premises of the position more clearly rather than simply relying on a slogan. So I think that it’s healthy to reexamine this metaphor because I think it will lead to a clearer and less ambiguous debate about the proper role of religion in our society and culture.
To read the text of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and a Library of Congress study on Jefferson’s original drafts of the letter, go to http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html.
John, if I need proof in the future of how people try to bury the opposition in word blizzards I'll cite this...holy cow! How many pages was this?
Thomas Jefferson also said this:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Besides, Jefferson wasn't the first person in this country to promote the idea of Seperation of Church and state, it was Roger Williams:
Roger Williams (December 21, 1603 – April 1, 1683) was an English theologian, a notable proponent of religious toleration and the separation of church and state and an advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans. In 1644, he received a charter creating the colony of Rhode Island, named for the principal island in Narragansett Bay. He is credited for originating either the first or second Baptist church established in America, which he is known to have left soon afterwards, exclaiming, "God is too large to be housed under one roof."
Check Wikipedia under his name.
Mr. Ansley, do you mean to deliberately disrespect me? I've asked you to refer to me as either John, Mr. Hosty-Grinnell, or John H-G, or similar combination.
If your disrespect is not intentional please adhere to my request as my last name is legall changed by my marriage.
Mr. Hosty, you are still refusing to address the points I have made. And you are still equating separation of Church and State with separation of religious belief and State. It is noteworthy that you also ignore the points made by Daniel Dreisbach, a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University in Washington, D.C., and an expert in Constitutional Law.
I will not address you as John Hosty-Grinnell or John H-G since I do not recognize same-sex "marriage." You may consider the name change to be part of a legal process. I do not.
If anyone is disrespecting others, it is yourself. Your attempts at intimidation and your Christophobia have not added anything positive to the discussion at hand but have only served to confirm for many your ugly bias against an authentic Catholicism which refuses to embrace homosexuality.
Mr. Ansley, civility is the first step to having constructive dialog. If you continue to refuse to address me properly out of disrespect I'm afraid we cannot continue the conversation.
You have attacked my religion, my arguments, but I draw the line at my name.
Let your words ring in the ears of others as the stinging and caustic mistruths they are.
For shame John, I know you are better than this. Why not challenge yourself to be as Christ commands?
Romans 14:13
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
Perhaps you think you know better than God?
Mr. Hosty, you write, "Mr. Ansley, civility is the first step to having constructive dialog. If you continue to refuse to address me properly out of disrespect I'm afraid we cannot continue the conversation.
You have attacked my religion, my arguments, but I draw the line at my name."
Mr. Ansley has shown you nothing but respect, even as you return continually to this forum in a Christophobic rage to insult our religion [for not accepting homosexuality] and to attempt to intimidate faithful Catholics into silence. Your conduct here is both shameful and sinful as it only serves to foster dissension.
Mr. Ansley attacks your arguments? As well he should. For they are based upon faulty premises.
If you wish to discontinue the exchange with Mr. Ansley then by all means do so. But at least have the honesty to admit the real reason for your desire to bail on the exchange: you cannot answer his arguments.
Your upset that he will not recognize your "married" name? He is equally put off (as am I) by your refusal to recognize Catholic teacing and Biblical truth regarding homosexuality.
You'll just have to live with it. Since you're the one who insists upon an absolute wall separating religious belief from the State and therefore from any and all discussion of public policy issues, by what right do you attempt to coerce Mr. Ansley into accepting your religious beliefs?
You will know who comes in His name by the love they bring.
Know Thy Neighbor has subjected David Parker and his family in Lexington to a campaign of personal vilification.
"You will know who comes in His name by the love they bring." And we know we love Him if we keep His Commandments (John 14:15). One of these is to listen to the Pastors of the Church ("He who hears you hears Me"), the same Pastors (Apostles) whom Jesus delegated all authority to (Mt 28: 18-20). These same Pastors who teach authoritatively that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law" and that "under no circumstances can they be approved" (CCC, 2357).
A love which refuses to submit to Jesus? Impossible. Remember Jesus' words, "He who hears you hears Me." This implies the opposite: He who refuses to hear you refuses to hear Me."
It's not love you're bringing to this discussion Mr. Hosty.
Make that Ansley...my keyboard stuck on me.
"Know Thy Neighbor has subjected David Parker and his family in Lexington to a campaign of personal vilification."
Please cite what was said on KTN that was untrue, cite proof of that accusation I can verify, and I will talk to the directors to have it removed as well as offer an apology.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
They called David Parker someone who engages in hate speech, threatened a boycott of a restaurant if they hosted a speech by the poor father of a child whom the Public School System refused to stop proselytizing on same-sex marriage in class
Black Tsunami,
Omega, the Journal of Death and Dying comes to the conclusions one should draw from Hoggs et al research even though Hoggs et al do not want you to draw those conclusions;
the median age of death for homosexual men is between 40 and 43. The median age of death for heterosexuals is between 74 and 80. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control noted that homosexuals accounted for nearly 65 percent of all new HIV cases (keeping in mind that they make up only 2-3 percent of the entire population), and that cases of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and B, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and virtually every other sexually transmitted disease disproportionately affected the homosexual community.
The original claim you made was this:
"Know Thy Neighbor has subjected David Parker and his family in Lexington to a campaign of personal vilification."
I then stated:
"Please cite what was said on KTN that was untrue, cite proof of that accusation I can verify, and I will talk to the directors to have it removed as well as offer an apology."
I think that was a fair offer. You in return said:
"They called David Parker someone who engages in hate speech, threatened a boycott of a restaurant if they hosted a speech by the poor father of a child whom the Public School System refused to stop proselytizing on same-sex marriage in class"
Jay, I went to the link you provided to find where KTN said Parker engaged in hate speech. Not only did I find your accusation to be untrue, look what I DID find there:
"I think what Tom Lang (Director of KTN) is doing is hate speech," Parker said.
Your side is guilty of the very thing you claim incorrectly that we did. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to supporting the claim KTN is vilifying Parker, so it needs no response; protest is a first amendment right.
Exodus 20:16
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
When will the lies end Jay? Even in Holy Week, tsk, tsk, tsk.
John,
your constant mantra about bearing false witness is wearing thin. The KTN site says this:
Parker is suing the state for the right to be notified when issues of sexuality, including gay marriage, are discussed in his young son's school.'
For Parker's trouble, KTN founder Tom Lang said of Parker "How I interpret (Parker's position) is that the mere existence of gay people, they find harmful to children," while the KTN web site calls it thus: "A speech by a "parental rights" activist in Gloucester has been canceled after a gay marriage advocacy group threatened to protest what it deemed 'hate speech'."
That's personal vilification, if we don't accept a homosexual agenda in the public schools, even at Kindergarden, then you will be personally vilified by Tom Lang and Know Thy Neighbor. And the rest of the story is critical to this point, you can't simply dismiss it. It's censorship, which apparently OK with you if you disagree with the message.
Don't take the Lord's name in vain J.H-G. Commandment II.
Jay, I'm sorry if you don't like being called out on misrepresentations, but if you create them you should expect to be held accountable for them. You have yet to show where Tom Lang said anything untrue about Parker, and you added his family into the fray where his family was never even mentioned by Lang. Honesty doesn't have shades Jay, it's either the truth or it's not. Bring your proof or expect to be called out; that's only fair.
John,
I claimed Know thy neighbor said David Parker engaged in hate speed. I proved it by quoting from the KTN web site:
KTN founder Tom Lang said of Parker "How I interpret (Parker's position) is that the mere existence of gay people, they find harmful to children," while the KTN web site calls it thus: "A speech by a "parental rights" activist in Gloucester has been canceled after a gay marriage advocacy group threatened to protest what it deemed 'hate speech'."
Yet you persist in denying by ignoring what is written and changing the subject.
"Jay, I went to the link you provided to find where KTN said Parker engaged in hate speech. Not only did I find your accusation to be untrue, look what I DID find there:"
Could you explain what David Parker actually did or said that constitute Hate Speech? Or is Hate Speech whatever you say it is?
This will be the third time posting the answer to your question of what constitutes hate speech on this very thread, but I'm more than glad to repeat it to you until it sinks in:
"Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." -SPLC
David Parker is part of the hate group known as MassResistance ran by Brian Camenker. Parker goes into great detail in his speeches about how teaching children about diversity and equality of GLBT people is an attempt to indoctrinate them into the GLBT community. What he has said is hate speech because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.
by the way, I had the opportunity to be on the radio with "Left Ahead!" April 14 and made sure to give your website a plug. It's interesting that Massachusetts Family Institute try to keep a public distance from Camenker, but if you follow the bread crumbs it leads right to Mineau's door. I doubt anyone with a cursory knowledge of local politics is fooled.
You teach Bible study at St. Paul's Cathedral in Worcesester; you are supportive of Camenker; Mineau allies with Catholics; you are a representative of the Church. It ties so well together, don't you think? ;)
In the future please refer to Allport's Scale for better understanding of the level of hate you condone.
So if one disagrees with teaching the normalcy of GLBT in Public Schools then by your definition that is Hate Speech. How convenient.
Should Parker be punished this this crime you claim he commits? Will you be on the "Jury"?
There are proper avenues for everything. If Parker had a problem he should have gone through the proper channels instead of defying a police officer.
He said, "If I'm not arrested, I'm not leaving." He wanted to be arrested. And for what? Have you actually read the book he is referencing?
The page with the same sex couple names the two adult women, the two kids and the dog named Daisy. Then says it takes all four to wash Daisy; that's it.
Not so scary when you know the facts huh?
Parker was up in Maine today testifying, but the Mainers didn't buy it because they check their facts for themselves and called him right out on it.
It's not innocuous, and despite appearances neither is it intended to be.
You've lost my understanding, what are you trying to communicate?
It is scary.
What do you find scary about Who's in a Family? The only reference to a same sex couple is about washing a dog, I don't see what your fear is founded on. Can you elaborate?
If I elaborate then you'll just label it hate speech and me a homophobe - which then allows you to avoid having to discuss the issue in a constructive way. You see John, I do not find anything scary about who's in a family, after all, we all of us are from families, families our how we organize our lives. What I disagree with is that notion of what constitutes the fundamental building block of the family, which is marriage, and what constitutes the fundamental building block of marriage as understood and practiced throughout the entire History of the world in all Cultures and in all ages, everywhere.
David Parker wanted to exercise his parental rights to teach his son according to his beliefs that marriage, the foundation of the family and culture, is and has been based on one man and one woman. You want to express your beliefs, and you do, but you labeled David Parker's exercise of parental rights hate speech.
This is the type of dialog we need Jay, thanks for allowing us to speak in earnest.
You have every right to believe what you wish about what constitutes a family, and so does Parker. Where the two of you diverge is where Parker uses information he knows to be false as talking points. I've seen no evidence that you are doing the same, my only complaint to you is that you support his group without questioning these methods.
Were I to use information that was verifiable false even after I knew it to be false I would be guilty of the same thing.
Educators are caught in the middle and many of them see the need to respect both sides of the issue. Whether Catholics, Parker, or anyone else for that matter agree with GLBT families our opinions do not dismiss the reality that they exist.
What do you think it says from a societal point of view when we ban a school from even talking about an entire group of people? Of course it says about those people that they are not worthy, setting the beliefs of some into a governmental stance against the minority group in question.
I believe it is enough to have the liberty to teach our children what we believe, it does not have to extend into the classroom. That holds true for all. We should however have the freedom of merely allowing us to be noticed and commented upon without beliefs being brought into the lesson.
What if the shoe was on the other foot Jay? What if there mere mention of Catholics was banned from the classroom even in spite of how historically important they've been?
John,
There is a legitimate debate about what content should be in public school classes, yet if anyone, including David Parker, question this, you paint him as guilty ("David Parker is part of the hate group known as MassResistance") by association, though the initial claim that Massresistance is a hate group is not proven, it rotates in a circle around "personal vilification" and "The SPLC says they are a Hate group" but it all really comes down to they disagree with you and the SPLC.
This is a tactic on your part to forestall any real debate. The Alliance Defense Fund is currently suing Georgia Tech because "through its ‘Safe Space’ program...[they] engage in religious counseling, instruct community members in what they believe is the correct interpretation of holy texts on issues of homosexuality, promote the beliefs of religions that favor homosexual behavior and denigrate religions that oppose this behavior."
Why should GA Tech be sued? Because they are endorsing specific Religions is violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which "means that a state university cannot endorse one brand of religion over another regarding personal morality."
This is the real indoctrination, and it is why David Parker is not misrepresenting any facts at all, and therefore cannot remotely be considered (even by your definition) to be engaged in Hate Speech!
"it all really comes down to they disagree with you and the SPLC."
Truth is not a subjective matter. Either you speak the truth or you don't. Parker called the content of "Who's in a Family" homosexual indoctrination. On close inspection all it says is that "it takes all four to wash Daisy." That's as close to homosexuality the book gets.
Do you believe people should be thought of as dishonest when they deliberately misrepresent information in order for people to believe something other than the truth?
The ‘Safe Space’ program is not hate because they do not use lies or misrepresentations of the truth while exercising their freedom of speech.
Honesty seems to be the key element in this you are missing when trying to understand what the difference is.
I could not agree more that "people should be thought of as dishonest when they deliberately misrepresent information in order for people to believe something other than the truth." And the only thing worse is after they are called out on their dishonesty they retaliate by labeling those who disagree with them as engaging in hate speech.
Close inspection of Who's in a family shows that pictures of families with two mothers, and families with two dads, are implicitly conveying the message that these family structures, a relatively new construct, are equal to the traditional and historical understanding of a family structure with one father and one mother, therefore Mr. Parker was right in insisting as a parent when and where his 5 year old was introduced to this concept. The school overstepped their bounds.
John,
I'll ask you your own question:
Do you believe people should be thought of as dishonest when they deliberately misrepresent information in order for people to believe something other than the truth?
You said of the book Who's in a Family, "On close inspection all it says is that 'it takes all four to wash Daisy.' That's as close to homosexuality the book gets."
But this book has the following passages;
"Robin's family is made up of her Dad, Clifford, [and] her Dad's partner Henry..."
"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily..."
So where is the homosexual indoctrination? Are we to simply not exist in public school's teachings? My money is good enough when you are collecting my equal taxes, but the mere mention of GLBT existence is too much for you to handle?
Feel free to watch the video on my blog of Mainers responding to Parker's presence. It says it all.
But John, Who's in a Family is intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Walk me through that logic if you would, I'm lost.
Post a Comment