I was pleased to read that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is standing up for the U.S. Episcopal church, saying it has been unfairly singled out for criticism because it is honest about consecrating gay bishops:
Jefferts Schori told BBC Radio 4's PM program that the church, which is the Anglican body in the U.S., is far from the only Anglican province that has a bishop with a same-sex partner. In 2003, Episcopalians elected the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, causing an uproar that has pushed the Anglican family toward a split.
"He is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop; he's certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop," Jefferts Schori said in an interview broadcast Tuesday. "He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."
The Anglican Communion's leadership has all but capitulated to its African churches of hate in the name of "unity" as an overriding and unquestionable value. The best thing Schori could do is support full independence for the U.S. church and break definitively with Britain once and for all. How about launching such as campaign around, say, July 4?
101 Comments for “Speaking Truth”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What Jefferts-Schori is demonstrating is that her only excuse for her behavior is “they do it too” — of course, in which she never identifies the “they”.
Sort of like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.
Let her name names. Let her demonstrate her hate and hypocrisy.
posted by Avee on
You are way off base, NDT. Jefferts-Schori was correctly noting the hypocricy of those who find it acceptable to confirm gay priests/bishops as long as they “lie and hide.” If the archbishop of Cantebury wants to placate the homophobic Africans (and Virginians), then he shouldn’t be allowed to preach one thing and practice another.
Criticizing hypocrisy is a far cry from proclaiming you can do something because others are doing it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jefferts-Schori was correctly noting the hypocricy of those who find it acceptable to confirm gay priests/bishops as long as they “lie and hide.”
Um, no; she was claiming that such was happening, but seemed utterly and completely incapable of providing names, locations, or proof.
Therefore, what she is doing is exactly the same as the spoiled teenage girl who stomps her foot and screams how “everyone else is doing it” as an excuse for why she should be allowed to break whatever rules she wants.
Again, let her name names. Let her demonstrate her hate and hypocrisy.
posted by Joel on
NDT, some people believe that forcibly outing others is wrong. It appears that Jefferts-Schori is one of those. By not naming names, she’s showing respect for those who, for obvious reasons, can’t come out yet.
And she’s not saying, “It’s OK because other people are doing it.” Rather, per position is, “We don’t think there’s a problem with consecrating gay, partnered bishops, independent of what other people are doing. But we think that others are hypocrites for knowingly doing it, and yet condemning it.”
However, I disagree with Stephen Miller about wanting a full split; while we shouldn’t compromise our belief in gay equality for the purpose of maintaining unity, we should still see if some solution is possible that allows us to maintain some sort of communion. And, yes, I speak as a gay Episcopalian. I’ve also met Bishop Robinson, and my sense is that he is of a similar opinion.
posted by Karen on
Oh boy, another unhinged, hysterical tirade from ND30 about how anyone who makes a comment about anything, ever, is a screaming, whining, little baby complainer.
Just how I wanted to start my day.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
By not naming names, she’s showing respect for those who, for obvious reasons, can’t come out yet.
Were she showing respect for them, she never would have brought them up in the first place, and she certainly wouldn’t be using them to try to smear others in an attempt to legitimize her own behavior.
Notice how she doesn’t argue for her position, which is that diversity quotas, rather than any religious concern, should be how Episcopals choose bishops, and that her African colleagues are nothing but primitive savages who should be ignored. Instead, she whines that other people are “hypocrites” — but again, without proof or fact to back up her position.
And finally:
NDT, some people believe that forcibly outing others is wrong.
Which is why the overwhelming majority of gays support doing it.
Jefferts-Schori fully supports outing. She merely has no proof in this case, which is why she won’t provide names.
And finally:
Oh boy, another unhinged, hysterical tirade from ND30 about how anyone who makes a comment about anything, ever, is a screaming, whining, little baby complainer.
Should we assume, Karen, that you have no rational argument for Jefferts-Schori’s behavior, since you immediately attacked me personally?
posted by Karen on
No, ND30, Jeffert’s behavior stands on its own – and has already been more than adequately defended in prior comments. It’s one of those “obvious” things.
And I’m not attacking you personally, just your unhinged and hysterical tirades. Attacking you personally would be saying you’ve got a big nose and smell like gerbil, or something.
posted by Karen on
“try to smear others in an attempt to legitimize her own behavior”
That’s an interesting way to phrase it. Oh, did I say interesting? I meant totally bizarre and illogical.
What bad behavior of hers is she attempting to justify by pointing out the hypocrisy of church officials who knowingly elect closeted gay bishops, but decry the election of openly gay bishops?
“They do it too!” Oh really? What does Jeffert want so badly to do that “they” do? Does our spoiled brat want badly to be allowed to decry openly gay bishops while knowing or strongly suspecting the (highly probable) existence of closeted ones, like “they” do? No?
Ok, does she want to be able to [make vague allegations/speak about her experience without outing anyone]? Well, sure, but she’s not asking anyone’s permission or approval for that action. She’s just doing it.
According to Jeffert’s un-backed-up assertion, the Episcopal bishopry is chock full o’ closet cases and everyone knows it, even the ones who won’t support openly gay bishops. She says this, not in some kind of bizarre circular bid to make her saying of it acceptable (hellooo, pointless!) but to point out the hypocrisy of such a position. This is blindingly obvious to everyone except, apparently, you.
If you want to say that Jeffert shouldn’t make allegations she isn’t prepared/willing to back up by naming names, fine. That’s at least a defensible position. It’s your hysterical and completely ridiculous tirade about how she’s “like a spoiled teenager” and your own unsupported allegations (She fully supports outing? She wants diversity quotas for bishops? She thinks Africans are primitive??) that tick me off.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“They do it too!” Oh really? What does Jeffert want so badly to do that “they” do?
She wants to name and keep bishops who are against church policy.
Therefore, she argues that, since “everyone else has”, she should be able to do it too.
The reason she wants to do it is simple; diversity quotas mean more to her than following church rules.
The reason she’s so upset and making unfounded accusations is because the Africans, who she looks down upon and considers primitive, have blocked her from doing whatever she wants without penalty or consequence. She quite obviously thinks they have no right to tell her, a white American woman, what to do and that she’s better than they are, inasmuch as she demands special treatment.
Finally, the fact that she’s making allegations about peoples’ sexual orientation demonstrates quite convincingly that she supports outing, especially when she can exploit it to avoid responsibility for her own actions.
posted by Benjamin on
Sometimes I wonder if certain people do nothing more than sit at their computers all day and post comments on forums like these. While these people’s remarks are clearly insane, sometimes the responses can be just as bad.
Anyway, I don’t think that Archbishop Schori had specific people in mind when she commented that other dioceses ordain closeted gay bishops, but that is simply happens. The same way that gay men and women serve in the military. “Technically”, they aren’t supposed to. But they do. It happens. There are gay priests, pastors, deacons, and other church officers. The point she is making is not that these priests should reveal themselves, but that Bishop Robinson clearly is not alone or unique.
Can we keep the debate civil and academic? Otherwise it will surely end up like this debacle.
posted by Craig2 on
Er, correction please. That may be the case in Britain, but it is certainly not the case in New Zealand, where there’s only a single fundamentalist Anglican diocese, Nelson. Don’t forget, Anglican churches are rather decentralised compared to their more hierarchical counterparts. New Zealand Anglican Bishops have ordained lesbian and gay ministers.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sometimes I wonder if certain people do nothing more than sit at their computers all day and post comments on forums like these. While these people’s remarks are clearly insane, sometimes the responses can be just as bad.
Now, Benjamin, let’s have no beating around the bush; why not just say directly that you think I’m “insane” and that I “do nothing more than”, when you so obviously mean it.
Probably because it makes the hypocrisy in your ostensible plea for “keep(ing) the debate civil and academic” all that more obvious?
The point she is making is not that these priests should reveal themselves, but that Bishop Robinson clearly is not alone or unique.
Oh no; she was quite specific that she knew and that these people should be outed.
She said other Anglican churches also have gay bishops in committed partnerships and should be open about it.
“There’s certainly a double standard,” she told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme .
So if she thinks these people should be outed, let her out them. Again, let her name names. Let her demonstrate her hate and hypocrisy.
posted by Joel on
NDT,
Jefferts-Schori doesn’t want to allow African bishops to tell her what to do because they simply have no authority. The church in each country (each “province”) is recognized as fully autonomous within the Anglican Communion. The control other churches wish to exhibit over the ECUSA is unprecedented in the history of the Anglican Communion. The world would be better off without race-baiters like you who want to read racism into any conflict that you possibly can.
Also, you’re committing a logical fallacy. Just because you don’t see her making a theological argument in that extremely short article doesn’t mean that she doesn’t actually have real, theological reasons for believing the way she does. I have also never heard of her advocating for “diversity quotas” for LGBT bishops.
Oh, and in the ECUSA, the presiding bishop is largely a figurehead. Individual bishops are elected by each diocese, not selected by the presiding bishop (which means that Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori has no direct influence on who gets elected bishop). She isn’t so much carrying out “her” agenda as she is the church’s agenda — the ECUSA is a pretty democratic institution.
As far as forcible outings — I’ve only met one person who supports it (and he says that it’s better for the people being outed). Most of the time, those forcibly outing others are doing so to cause harm. Forcibly outing someone shows an extreme disrespect for that person’s privacy (I note that most forcible outers are liberals who otherwise claim an absolute right to privacy) and that person’s right to make choices regarding his or her lifestyle. And while telling my parents I was gay was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, I can’t imagine them finding out any other way.
posted by Joel on
NDT:
When you say, “Oh no; she was quite specific that she knew and that these people should be outed,” can you provide an exact quotation from Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori to back up that claim?
Because I’d be willing to bet that her point is not that people should be forcibly outed, but rather that they shouldn’t be forced to remain in the closet — they should be free to be open about who they are, and not fear any sort of reprisal from the church.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jefferts-Schori doesn’t want to allow African bishops to tell her what to do because they simply have no authority. The church in each country (each “province”) is recognized as fully autonomous within the Anglican Communion.
Which is why she is throwing a screaming hissy fit over and threatening other provinces who are exercising THEIR autonomy and accepting parishoners in the United States who don’t want to deal with her diversity-quota mentality that tosses theology in favor of minority status.
What you have done is inadvertently pointed out Jefferts-Schori’s behavior; in short, she says no one should be able to tell her what to do, but demands that everyone else do what she says.
The world would be better off without race-baiters like you who want to read racism into any conflict that you possibly can.
Which would be why the white bishop is screaming that she should be able to order those icky and uppity black bishops around, but that they have no right to talk back or hold her accountable.
Along the same lines:
She isn’t so much carrying out “her” agenda as she is the church’s agenda — the ECUSA is a pretty democratic institution.
Except when it comes to punishing congregations and dioceses that object to “her” agenda and who dare vote to separate and put themselves under someone who actually ministers to them, instead of pandering to gays and lesbians who think the Bible is nothing but myths and legends and who sneer at Christians for worshiping a “psychotic sadistic baby killer”.
When you say, “Oh no; she was quite specific that she knew and that these people should be outed,” can you provide an exact quotation from Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori to back up that claim?
The irony is your quoting the very statement in which was contained the hyperlink for that.
Again, if Jefferts Schori were truly respecting these peoples’ privacy, she wouldn’t even be referring to them. Were she showing respect for them, she never would have brought them up in the first place, and she certainly wouldn’t be using them to try to smear others in an attempt to legitimize her own behavior.
posted by Karen on
I understand that you’re impervious to logic, ND30, but I can’t let you get away with this:
“Oh no; she was quite specific that she knew and that these people should be outed.
[quote]She said other Anglican churches also have gay bishops in committed partnerships and should be open about it.[/quote]”
“These people should be outed” and “These people should be open about it” are two very different statements. The difference hinges on CHOICE. I can say that I think you should paint your house pink, but that’s very different from my coming over and painting it without your permission.
Your attempt to conflate the two positions and pretend that the quote backs up your case that Jefferts is a hysterical teenager. She wants to openly change a rule (or at least the enforcement of the rule) that is, in her mind, unjust and theologically indefensible. She points out that the spirit of the rule (no gay bishops) is being widely disregarded in practice anyway, leaving only a hypocritical nod towards appearances. She wants to break with a church administration that insists upon enforcing the rule.
That is not the same thing as a teenage girl who wants to get her tongue pierced because “everyone else does”, and no matter how mad you are about it, nothing Jefferts has done that I know of has been anything but civil and proper – certainly nothing worthy of the title “hissy fit”.
You have yet to back up your assertion that she thinks Africans are primitive.
You have yet to back up your assertion that she wants diversity quotas.
You attempted to back up your assertion that she’s “fully for outing” closeted gay bishops, but only managed to prove that she thinks THEY should choose to be open about their OWN committed relationships.
FAIL.
posted by grendel on
“I understand that you’re impervious to logic, ND30”
ND30 = Ferrous Cranus?
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Though I tend to classify him as Troglodyte
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
posted by ETJB on
Non-members of a particular religious or sectarian institution, probably are not the proper ones to be deciding the internal creed and or doctrine of that particular institution.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Karen, read the quote again.
She said other Anglican churches also have gay bishops in committed partnerships and should be open about it.
She is saying that the churches should be open about it — meaning that they should out and promote the sexual orientation of others regardless of how those others feel about it.
Furthermore, here’s your problem:
She points out that the spirit of the rule (no gay bishops) is being widely disregarded in practice anyway, leaving only a hypocritical nod towards appearances.
No, she didn’t. She made accusations that it was, but she provided no proof.
Again, if Jefferts Schori were truly respecting these peoples’ privacy, she wouldn’t even be referring to them. Were she showing respect for them, she never would have brought them up in the first place, and she certainly wouldn’t be using them to try to smear others in an attempt to legitimize her own behavior.
She wants to break with a church administration that insists upon enforcing the rule.
No she doesn’t.
She, like a spoiled teenage girl, wants to be excepted from the rules, because she thinks filling her diversity quotas for bishops are more important than anything else — and in order to get that exception, she starts throwing a screaming hissy fit that “everyone else is doing it”.
Furthermore, the hate and vitriol she displays towards the African churches is obvious in her attempts to sabotage their ministering to congregations and dioceses that have, as is their right, voted to leave the American church and associate with these other ones. You can see that she doesn’t much like those uppity black primitive savage bishops caring for those churches who dared tell her to get lost.
posted by Karen on
Point taken, I was reading that quote wrong.
But it still does not support your assertion that she’s for outing closeted gay bishops…
If a church has a gay bishop, and that bishop is/becomes “secretly” partnered, and the congregation knows full well but does not ever acknowledge that fact in order to avoid losing the bishop, I think it’s totally reasonable to expect that they either poop or get off the pot, so to speak.
This isn’t someone’s orientation we’re talking about, it’s like a priest who “secretly” marries a woman and never bothers to quit being a priest. These churches should either drop the celibacy requirement for gay bishops or drop the bishops – turning a blind eye is baldly hypocritical. And if a church’s congregation is in a position to know about (yet ignore) a gay partnership, then that bishop could not be considered particularly closeted.
And.
You still haven’t backed up your increasingly florid accusations of racism, or anything about diversity quotas.
As for whether she’s in any place to criticize the churches who left her organization and the stridently anti-gay organizations they’ve joined, well – everyone is in a position to criticize them. That African church has a leader who believes we should not be allowed to gather in public as gay people – and those of us who dare to have sex with our partners should be in jail. It’s their views, not their Africanness, that make them backwards.
posted by Bobby on
“The Anglican Communion’s leadership has all but capitulated to its African churches of hate i”
—I love this line, Miller. I hope people don’t accuse you of being a racist, that always happens when you use the word “African” with anything negative, even if it’s true.
I myself laugh at those backwards African churches. What do they know about anything? Their countries are riddled with disease, aids, poverty, rape, murder, war, slavery, human trafficking, and they get to lecture us on morality? We should be lecturing them, we should be teaching them to be like us.
But to be fair, not all Africans are homophobes. People seem to be very tolerant about sexuality in Ghana, according to ILGA.
posted by Brian Miller on
Third world homophobia in government and religion is a predictable effort by the ruling kleptocrats to focus the attentions of a restless population away from the statist thugs who are robbing them and towards blame on “colonialism” — which has been dead for over 40 years.
Most of the “bishops” in question in the 3rd world churches live in incredible opulence compared to the average Nigerian or Kenyan, have incredible political power (Akinola has the ability to get laws introduced into the Nigerian legislature), and they command significant amounts of economic resources within the country.
They’re basically dictators who use religion to gain a patina of legitimacy. Anyone desiring “unity” and “communion” with such corrupt charlatans deserves the daily drama that constantly occurs.
The reality is that the Anglicans, like most other religious corporations, is driven by market share — number of contributing and voting “believers” — and not by “religious faith and doctrine.” If the world suddenly became 95% gay, they (along with all the other major religions) would do an immediate about-face and would not only be marrying gay people to persons of the same gender — but also declaring it to be a “superior union in the eyes of God.”
A little independent thought goes a long way.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
These churches should either drop the celibacy requirement for gay bishops or drop the bishops – turning a blind eye is baldly hypocritical.
What churches?
Again, Jefferts Schori provided no proof or evidence whatsoever.
Like a spoiled teenage girl, she whines that “everyone else is doing it”, but seemingly can never come up with who, if anyone, “everyone else” is.
You still haven’t backed up your increasingly florid accusations of racism, or anything about diversity quotas.
Uh huh; she considers the African churches to be backward and primitive savages, and she thinks it’s more important that a bishop be gay than the church rules be followed.
Spin that however you wish; however, most people will realize that she’s being a racist and putting her diversity quotas ahead of everything else.
That African church has a leader who believes we should not be allowed to gather in public as gay people – and those of us who dare to have sex with our partners should be in jail.
All things that gays seemingly have no problem with when said by a reliable Democrat voting bloc.
posted by Brian Miller on
That African church has a leader who believes we should not be allowed to gather in public as gay people – and those of us who dare to have sex with our partners should be in jail.
All things that gays seemingly have no problem with when said by a reliable Democrat voting bloc.
Really? When did the Democrats introduce a statute to ban the formation of gay groups and assembly of gay people in private spaces?
Are you arguing that an offhand comment by Louis Farrakhan is equivalent to a Nigerian statute punishing gay nuptuals, sex or assembly of any sort with years of third-world prison time?
Surely not even you are that stupid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Offhand comment”, indeed, given Farrakhan’s multiple-decade record of such statements and worse.
But thanks for demonstrating how Democrat gays can spin and support statements on the order of those they condemn from others — as long as said statements come from a reliable Democrat voting bloc.
posted by Joel on
NDT,
First, your statement to back up the claim that Jefferts-Schori says gay bishops should be forcibly outed is this: “She said other Anglican churches also have gay bishops in committed partnerships and should be open about it.” That is not a direct quotation, but rather a summary of what she said — so the summary could be misleading. In any event, your attempt to use the specific phrasing of that statement is fallacious because it is a summary. Further, I argue that it just supports my initial statement: “Because I’d be willing to bet that her point is not that people should be forcibly outed, but rather that they shouldn’t be forced to remain in the closet — they should be free to be open about who they are, and not fear any sort of reprisal from the church.”
Further, you say, “Again, if Jefferts Schori were truly respecting these peoples’ privacy, she wouldn’t even be referring to them.” That is completely fallacious. How is she infringing on any specific person’s privacy? Making generic statements like that is a compromise between trying to back up an assertion and respecting other’s privacy, and a compromise that I think is reasonable.
You state, “What you have done is inadvertently pointed out Jefferts-Schori’s behavior; in short, she says no one should be able to tell her what to do, but demands that everyone else do what she says.”
There’s a difference here. The ECUSA isn’t establishing missionary churches in Africa for Anglicans there who support full gay equality the same way that African churches are adopting ECUSA parishes who don’t support full gay equality. That level of encroachment is completely unprecedented in the history of the Anglican communion. Previously, provinces had always respected other provinces’ geographical bounds. The Nigerian church is stepping on our territory, and Minns (an American priest consecrated Bishop by the Africans) is not being invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2008.
Oh, and by the way, full inclusion of LGBT persons within a Christian church is a theologically sound position. Here’s a brief paper I wrote on it for a class I took a couple years ago: http://www.princeton.edu/~jathomps/homosexuality.html In fact, a theological argument can be made on not just why gay marriage is permissible, but why we should allow it (which I make in that paper). However, I’m not claiming that this is the only possible interpretation, but I think it is a valid one.
The thing about the African Bishops that pisses me off is their complete closed-mindness. At the end of the Lambeth Conference in 1998, a statement was issued which said that, while homosexual behavior was inconsistent with Scripture, we should still take the time to listen to gays and understand their stories. Similar resolutions have been passed subsequently. Each time, the Africans trumpet the parts which say that homosexual behavior is proscribed by the Bible, but they completely ignore the calls to listen to gays. In fact, on one particular occasion, one African bishop felt it necessary to state explicitly that there was _no_ way he was listening to gays, that part of the resolution be damned.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Making generic statements like that is a compromise between trying to back up an assertion and respecting other’s privacy, and a compromise that I think is reasonable.
Trying to back up an assertion?
Jefferts Schori is accusing other people of sin and hypocrisy, yet she cannot back it up with solid proof?
That demonstrates better than anything else how she is trying to make excuses for HER behavior by claiming “everyone else does it” without providing a shred of evidence or proof.
The ECUSA isn’t establishing missionary churches in Africa for Anglicans there who support full gay equality the same way that African churches are adopting ECUSA parishes who don’t support full gay equality.
In my opinion, the ECUSA is more than welcome to do it. The only reason they aren’t is a combination of racism and outright laziness.
Furthermore, Joel, you claimed that the ECUSA is “democratic”. These congregations and dioceses have chosen by vote with whom they want to be affiliated and by whom they wish to be led. The fact that Jefferts Schori is punishing these churches for disobeying her demonstrates convincingly that she is a) more than a figurehead and b) believes she and she alone, NOT congregations and dioceses, should be allowed to choose bishops and leaders.
Each time, the Africans trumpet the parts which say that homosexual behavior is proscribed by the Bible, but they completely ignore the calls to listen to gays.
Oh, I’m sure they listen to gays.
Like this:
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store…….
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with, he said.
Or this:
The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don?t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow?s experiences in Atlanta. ?A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,? said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. ?I think I?m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don?t ? they just want to jump in the bed.?
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
Or an example from right here, claiming that the Bible is “myths and legends”, and that gays should “attack religion” in the fashion of people like Richard Dawkins, who claims that those with religious beliefs are “mentally ill” and that teaching children anything about religion is evil and should be banned.
Don’t expect the African bishops, who deal daily with the consequences of rampant sexual promiscuity, of children being sexualized and sold into slavery, and with people who still execute Christians for being Christians, to look kindly upon gay people with that evidence out there of what gays are saying.
posted by Jim on
“Which is why she is throwing a screaming hissy fit over and threatening other provinces who are exercising THEIR autonomy and accepting parishoners in the United States who don’t want to deal with her diversity-quota mentality that tosses theology in favor of minority status.
“Accepting” parishes in another province is NOT an exercise of their autonomy. Neither these bishops nor the parishes can re-arrange the affiliation of those parishes on their own under canon law, and this principle dates from the earliest days of the united Church. You clearly have no clue as to how the Anglican Communion is organized or of its canon law. The Church is not some kind of marketplace where people can take their trade wherever they prefer.
“….tosses theology….”
You also clearly have no notion of what constitutes theology in the Anglican Communion. Niether the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church nor any of the Orthodox Churches, and that right there constitutes the huge majority of Christians in the world, would substitute this or that verse for the totality of theology. Both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches do oppose homosexuality almost categorically, but as Christians they cannot very well and in fact do not base that opposition on prohibitions in the Torah – what real Christian grants the Torah any moral authority? – and in fact their opposition is pagan in origin and theologically incoherent.
Your comments sound like they are coming from a Baptist or some kind of scriptural-inerrancy literalist. But this is a discussion among Christians about an issue in a Christian church; perhaps you should back away and leave it to us Christians.
posted by Pat on
Or an example from right here, claiming that the Bible is “myths and legends”, and that gays should “attack religion” in the fashion of people like Richard Dawkins, who claims that those with religious beliefs are “mentally ill” and that teaching children anything about religion is evil and should be banned.
Don’t expect the African bishops, who deal daily with the consequences of rampant sexual promiscuity, of children being sexualized and sold into slavery, and with people who still execute Christians for being Christians, to look kindly upon gay people with that evidence out there of what gays are saying.
With the problems you mention, yes, I would expect the African bishops to focus on the real serious problems, and not beat up on homosexuals. In any case, their opposition to homosexuals have nothing to do with the criticisms you cited.
Interestingly, Richard Dawkins himself, and all the straight people who have not openly criticized Dawkins would be welcome in the African Episcopal churches, but not openly gay persons, even if they openly disavow Dawkins and all the negative gay behaviors you mention. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, not being able to be a member of the Episcopal Church is the least of gay persons’ problems in Nigeria, partly in thanks to the bishops there. These bishops make the sick, reprehensible 35 year old in your above quote look like a saint in comparison. What a disgrace!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
what real Christian grants the Torah any moral authority?
One in particular did.
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Matthew 19:16 – 19
Or you can also look in Matthew 4 or Luke 4, when Jesus quotes portions of the Torah against Satan, or in the innumerable other portions of the Gospel in which He cites it, or in the Epistles in which it is cited by the apostles who wrote them.
That leads us to this:
You also clearly have no notion of what constitutes theology in the Anglican Communion.
Of course I do. It involves throwing out the entire Old Testament, ignoring Jesus’s citations of it and reference to it as having moral authority, as well as any passage of the Bible that contradicts what a bishop wants to preach.
At least that’s the American church. The African churches, which the American church considers to be nothing but backwards savages, still use the Bible.
Neither these bishops nor the parishes can re-arrange the affiliation of those parishes on their own under canon law, and this principle dates from the earliest days of the united Church.
Nor can a gay bishop be put into office, or the Old Testament be thrown out and denounced as having “no moral authority”.
Since the American church demands the right to break canon law at will, I see no reason why other churches should be restrained by it, especially when it involves ministering to others who are protesting that breaking of canon law by the American church.
Next:
Interestingly, Richard Dawkins himself, and all the straight people who have not openly criticized Dawkins would be welcome in the African Episcopal churches
I wouldn’t bet on that, given Dawkins’s open blasphemy and denial of God.
And Pat, you’re missing the point. Varnell’s article made it clear that gays must oppose religion and consider the Bible as nothing more than “myths and legends”. He clearly linked antireligious behavior and denunciation of the Bible to sexual orientation.
And this is classic:
These bishops make the sick, reprehensible 35 year old in your above quote look like a saint in comparison.
Or, in other words, having unprotected sex with a fifteen-year-old child and giving them HIV is OK because African bishops hold gays accountable for promiscuous sexual behaviors.
What you don’t get, Pat, is that what this gay person did is WRONG, period, end of report. You can admit that it was wrong, kinda, sorta, but then you try to equivocate for it by saying the African bishops are somehow worse.
Save yourself the effort and state a) that gay men are having unprotected sex with underage children and giving them HIV and b) that it’s wrong. Don’t try to smear other people to make gays look better.
posted by Karen on
Oh, ND30.
Show me, please, just one instance where the American church calls the Africans “primitive savages”.
Having a problem with their policies about gay people is the RIGHT thing to do – surely even you, who believes we should all suffer mightily the wrath every time any gay person does anything wrong, can’t think it’s right to arrest two gay men for dining together? Surely even YOU can understand that it is a gross violation of human rights?
When someone calls an African who holds such positions backwards, benighted, barbaric, or whatever… it’s BECAUSE OF THOSE POSITIONS, genius, not their African origin or the color of their skin. It is because we do NOT believe them to be primitive savages that we expect them to meet certain standards of civil rights, and their failure to do so is not an indication of their inferiority. It is only an indication of their wrongness in this matter.
So what do you want us to do? You are lying about Jefferts and the American church, trying to turn their condemnation of hideously unjust policies into some kind of racism or snobbishness about the African nations. We are not going to condemn them for standing up for human rights. It’s just not going to happen.
If you could just produce a single shred of evidence of actual racism/snobbery, instead of trying to paint a totally defensible position against human rights violations as such…. but you can’t.
“Varnell’s article made it clear that gays must oppose religion and consider the Bible as nothing more than “myths and legends”. He clearly linked antireligious behavior and denunciation of the Bible to sexual orientation.”
Varnell has a right to his opinion that religion is “myths and legends”. He also has a right to his opinion that fundamentalists are the primary obstacle to gay freedom. He is not advocating persectution of any kind, merely rhetorical and political attacks – and last time I checked, those were perfectly ok, and gay people were the target of quite a few ourselves. You can say almost anything, dude. It’s up to the other side to defend themselves if need be and if possible. The best ideas win. That’s how it WORKS.
So Varnell is anti-religious and thinks other gays should be, too. So friggin’ what? What does that justify in your head? If you don’t agree with him, ARGUE, don’t claim that the very fact that he said it and sort of claims to speak for gays brings righteous wrath down upon all our heads unless we tear him to pieces.
“Or, in other words, having unprotected sex with a fifteen-year-old child and giving them HIV is OK because African bishops hold gays accountable for promiscuous sexual behaviors.”
“In other words” means “I’m rephrasing”, not “I’m completely making things up now”. Holding gays accountable for behavior? Dude! They’re locking them up for having dinner. And in what universe does “sick and reprehensible” mean “ok”? If he says it’s sick and reprehensible, THAT MEANS HE DOESN’T THINK IT’S OK.
You have to be doing this on purpose. There are too many lies in your mouth. I don’t know what your game is, but I am not going to play it any more tonight, at least, because I have a football game to watch.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Having a problem with their policies about gay people is the RIGHT thing to do – surely even you, who believes we should all suffer mightily the wrath every time any gay person does anything wrong, can’t think it’s right to arrest two gay men for dining together?
Again, Karen, these are apparently not problems to gays when stated by a reliable Democrat voting bloc.
Not unlike how national gay leaders and organizations fully endorse and support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” candidates who support antigay legislation that gays previously claimed was a “civil rights” and “human rights” violation.
In short, it is obvious that it’s not what’s being said or being done that is causing the problem; it’s who’s doing it. Hence the charge of racism and national-origin discrimination.
He is not advocating persectution of any kind, merely rhetorical and political attacks – and last time I checked, those were perfectly ok, and gay people were the target of quite a few ourselves.
Mhm — which is why gays and lesbians blame Christians for attacks by atheists and claim that it’s persecution for Christians to say anything negative about gays.
In short, gays demand the right to say whatever they want about Christians, but throw screaming hissy fits about being persecuted when Christians say anything negative about gays.
You have to be doing this on purpose. There are too many lies in your mouth.
Yes, because, as we all know, Karen, gays never do anything wrong; therefore, any criticism of them is a lie.
When one holds that attitude and blithely ignores examples of dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to show off, or having sex with underage children and giving them HIV, it probably IS incomprehensible to them why Akinola, in a country that is hit hard by child sex, child prostitution, and HIV transmission through promiscuous sex, isn’t too keen on gay people. They simply don’t have the blase attitude towards HIV that American gays have; they know how it spreads, and they are willing to take drastic measures to stop it.
Is Akinola overdoing it? Yes. But the more I look at the articles about one in four US gays being HIV-positive and cases where underage children are getting HIV from having sex with people over twice their age, it gets harder and harder for me to blame him for his reaction — and becomes more incentive to turn around and put the onus on the gay community to change first.
posted by Brian Miller on
But thanks for demonstrating how Democrat gays can spin and support statements on the order of those they condemn from others
I’m a Libertarian, McFly.
And to answer my prior rhetorical statement of disbelief, I was indeed wrong. You really are stupid enough to equate nutty statements by Louis Farrakhan (which somehow all Democrats are now responsible for, and for which Libertarians are also responsible for because they’re basically Democrats because they disagree with you) to a law punishing gay people with a decade in a third world prison for assembling in a public or private space.
What more can be said? You’ve descended to the level of the absurd. I actually feel dumber after reading your comments these days.
posted by Pat on
I wouldn’t bet on that, given Dawkins’s open blasphemy and denial of God.
And Pat, you’re missing the point. Varnell’s article made it clear that gays must oppose religion and consider the Bible as nothing more than “myths and legends”. He clearly linked antireligious behavior and denunciation of the Bible to sexual orientation.
NDT, I’ll give you Dawkins, but what about straight people who don’t outright condemn him, i.e., disagree, but believe he is entitled to his opinion? They are surely allowed to be members of African Episcopalian churches. Or do you disagree with that?
Why should gay religious people be responsible for the opinions of other gay people. Varnell has his opinion of religion. Fine. So be it. He’s entitled to it, just as Dawkins is. And we both agree that there are gay people with bad behaviors. Why should that prevent gay people who believe in God become part of a church community, and how is it their fault?
And this is classic:
These bishops make the sick, reprehensible 35 year old in your above quote look like a saint in comparison.
Or, in other words, having unprotected sex with a fifteen-year-old child and giving them HIV is OK because African bishops hold gays accountable for promiscuous sexual behaviors.
What you don’t get, Pat, is that what this gay person did is WRONG, period, end of report. You can admit that it was wrong, kinda, sorta, but then you try to equivocate for it by saying the African bishops are somehow worse.
Um, no, NDT. I’ve got the point. You totally missed it.
First of all I don’t believe the 35-year-old is kinda sorta wrong. I believe he IS wrong. I think using the adjectives sick and reprehensible makes that point clear. I was trying to make the point that AS WRONG AS it is, the actions of the African bishops are even WORSE. This in no way justifies the 35-year-old’s behavior.
You want me to say he’s wrong and leave it at that. Why should I? You didn’t when addressing the African bishops. Did you mean to justify THEIR sick, reprehensible behavior by bringing up examples of bad gay behavior. Are you trying to justify the behavior of the African bishops? Or do you really think it’s okay for them to advocate that gay men who congregate should be imprisoned?
We’ve been through this before and we disagree. I know you think that I should state one wrong and not make any comparisons with another group. Since you believe I shouldn’t do that, could you at least practice that yourself? You were the one who first brought up the gay behaviors and compared it to the African bishops. Why is it okay for you to do it, and not other posters?
Save yourself the effort and state a) that gay men are having unprotected sex with underage children and giving them HIV and b) that it’s wrong. Don’t try to smear other people to make gays look better.
Who am I smearing? And what on earth do you mean by “to make gays look better.”?
I’ll continue to post as I see fit. But I’ll give you the opportunity to respond by your own standards that you want to impose on me.
1) Say that the behavior of the African bishops is wrong. 2) Don’t try to smear others by implying they are racists when they disagree with the African bishops.
posted by karen on
“In short, it is obvious that it’s not what’s being said or being done that is causing the problem; it’s who’s doing it. Hence the charge of racism and national-origin discrimination.”
Every time Farrakhan says something anti-gay, anti-white, or anti-Semitic, he earns my wrath and the wrath of many, many others – Democrat and Republican alike. He votes Democratic? Fine – as long as his bad ideas are nothing but fringe lunacy and not reflected in party platforms, I bear no responsibility for his insane views just because he is a fellow registered Democrat. Like I said in an earlier comment on a different thread, it would be literally impossible in this country, that is about 50% anti-gay, to create a relevant political party that tolerates absolutely no homophobia in its ranks. There is, after all, more to governing than deciding what to do about gay people.
The human rights violation is not in CALLING for gays to be imprisoned for assembling – that’s free speech – even if Farrakhan had – which he hasn’t. The human rights violation is when it actually HAPPENS.
Believe you me, I criticize Farrakhan and think he’s a world-class asshat. But Akinola is in a different situation, one where evil ideas are actually getting IMPLEMENTED. This is why his anti-gay speech is worse than Farrakhan’s anti-gay speech – not in abstract terms, but in pragmatic terms.
So no, the fact that fact that Jefferts criticizes Akinola yet presumably continues to vote Democratically does not indicate national origin discrimination against Akinola. Here is your line of reasoning put forth all together, with unsupported conjecture in parentheses and logical fallacies or incorrect statements starred:
Jefferts criticizes Akinola.
(Jefferts is a registered Democrat and votes for any and all Democrats.)
Some members of the Democratic party have stood behind a political nomination of someone who is a Nation of Islam member, but has never made any of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic, anti-white, and anti-gay statements herself. Also, the party does pay some attention to the NOI.
*No registered Democrat who hopes for party victory therefore has a real problem with Farrakhan’s stated views on gay people.
(*Therefore Jefferts has never criticized Farrakhan for being anti-gay.)
*The only relevant difference between Akinola and Farrakhan is national origin.
Conclusion:
(*When Jefferts criticizes Akinola’s views on gays, she is only doing so because she thinks people of African origin are primitive savages.)
Moving on from this excruciatingly absurd discussion…
“In short, gays demand the right to say whatever they want about Christians, but throw screaming hissy fits about being persecuted when Christians say anything negative about gays.”
You could just as easily generalize and summarize the complex discourse between religion (particularly conservative, fundamentalist, politically active religion) and gay people the other way around – that there’s a self-professed Team Christ that claims to speak for all Christians and screams about being persecuted whenever anything negative is said about their religion’s moral judgement, but feels they have the right to say whatever they want about gay people – including, as you do, cobbling misused statistics together with sensational anecdotes to try to make risky or sordid behavior out to be some kind of innate gay characteristic.
Yes, there are gay people who do bad things with their sexuality! And yes, in any victimized minority group there are going to be people who feel their status is a blank check and say as much. This doesn’t change the reality of MY life, and I’m not going to wait until I can make everyone behave before I demand equal treatment by my government. I have every right to challenge those who say that I, myself, specifically, am an immoral and sordid person even if I do NOTHING wrong, simply because I have sex with my wife. If I waited until every gay person had an unimpeachable record of behavior, I’d be waiting forever.
You are pulling the same bait-and-switch they do. “Are child endangerment, sexualizing children, and promiscuity immoral? Yes? Then we must stop people from being gay!” Not to mention
Only instead of stopping us from being gay, you just want to stop us from demanding equality and rational moral judgement until no gay people can be found to have done anything ACTUALLY immoral.
Good luck with that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why should gay religious people be responsible for the opinions of other gay people.
Because other gay people are using their sexual orientation as grounds for those antireligious opinions.
In contrast, Dawkins is not saying that all straight people should be antireligious like he is because they are straight.
Did you mean to justify THEIR sick, reprehensible behavior by bringing up examples of bad gay behavior.
Yup.
When gays have sex with fifteen-year-old children and give them HIV, that’s bad behavior.
When gays dress two-year-old children in sex slave wear and take them to sex fairs, that’s bad behavior.
When gays openly endorse antireligious bigotry, that’s bad behavior.
When half-naked gays strut down the street having simulated public sex at Pride parades, that’s bad behavior.
When gays molest children and the authorities turn a blind eye because they don’t want to be called homophobic, that’s bad behavior.
And when gays justify all of these on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is absolutely no reason that the bishops should not take them at their word that these are the natural outgrowth of homosexuality.
Tell me, Pat; if there was another condition that people claimed should put them under less scrutiny for child molestation, should allow them to dress up their children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs, should make them automatically antireligious, should allow them to parade in public half-naked having simulated (or real) sex, and having unprotected sex with numerous people, including underage children, and giving them a lethal disease…..what would you EXPECT peoples’ views of that condition to be?
The bishops are not the problem. The gay community’s complete inability to police itself or to criticize itself is. I do not expect gays to be perfect, but I damn sure expect that gays can do something other than spin and make excuses when confronted with people who misuse their sexual orientation as an excuse for reprehensible behavior.
And right now, they can’t.
As I said above, I think the bishops are going overboard. But I also think it’s the completely-natural outgrowth of the gay community’s willingness to tolerate horrific and unacceptable behavior in the name of being gay.
posted by Pat on
Because other gay people are using their sexual orientation as grounds for those antireligious opinions.
In contrast, Dawkins is not saying that all straight people should be antireligious like he is because they are straight.
I’m not sure exactly what difference that makes. Anyway, when a gay person is anti-religious
because they are told by religious that he is going to hell because of his sexual orientation, I can understand, even if I don’t agree, with his reason for being antireligious.
Regardless, if Dawkins condemned religion and used his sexual orientation as the reason, I wouldn’t expect churches to condemn heterosexuality.
I don’t consider myself anti-religious, but I have stated before my objections to religion’s anti-gay bigotry. Is it because of my sexual orientation? I don’t know. But I’d like to think that if I was straight, that I would still find the anti-gay bigotry objectionable.
Did you mean to justify THEIR sick, reprehensible behavior by bringing up examples of bad gay behavior.
Yup.
So you made the comparison. Fine. But when I did the same thing, somehow my comparison was justifying gay people’s behavior, which I was in no way doing.
You didn’t say the bishops are wrong and stop there. You then brought up bad behavior by gays. I don’t mind disagreeing on our approaches, but at least practice what you preach.
When gays have sex with fifteen-year-old children and give them HIV, that’s bad behavior.
When gays dress two-year-old children in sex slave wear and take them to sex fairs, that’s bad behavior.
When gays openly endorse antireligious bigotry, that’s bad behavior.
When half-naked gays strut down the street having simulated public sex at Pride parades, that’s bad behavior.
When gays molest children and the authorities turn a blind eye because they don’t want to be called homophobic, that’s bad behavior.
Yes, I agree with you that these are bad behaviors.
And when gays justify all of these on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is absolutely no reason that the bishops should not take them at their word that these are the natural outgrowth of homosexuality.
I don’t agree that gays justify all of these on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Regardless, there are reasons that bishops should not assume these are natural outgrowths of homosexuality.
1) I hard for me to believe the bishops are that stupid.
2) They should be above any hate and not perpetuate it. I guess I have higher expectations for religious clergy. But it seems more and more that I shouldn’t, and you are clearly trying to make that case as well.
Tell me, Pat; if there was another condition that people claimed should put them under less scrutiny for child molestation, should allow them to dress up their children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs, should make them automatically antireligious, should allow them to parade in public half-naked having simulated (or real) sex, and having unprotected sex with numerous people, including underage children, and giving them a lethal disease…..what would you EXPECT peoples’ views of that condition to be?
I would expect rational thought. I would expect that people would see these behaviors as wrong, and as such, pay little or no credence to their justifications. There as valid as “the Devil made me do it.” And since these behaviors are also exhibited by straight people, but other straight people aren’t sanctioned for it, I would expect that persons should not have to pay for others’ bad behaviors. I suppose some straight people say they do it because they’re human. So should we only let non-human animals belong to churches now?
The bishops are not the problem.
Since they advocate imprisonment for gay people to socialize, we’ll have to agree to disagree on whose the problem here.
The gay community’s complete inability to police itself or to criticize itself is. I do not expect gays to be perfect, but I damn sure expect that gays can do something other than spin and make excuses when confronted with people who misuse their sexual orientation as an excuse for reprehensible behavior.
I agree with most of what you say here. Except bad behavior is bad behavior. I’m much more concerned with that than whether they use their sexual orientation as an excuse or not.
But I also think it’s the completely-natural outgrowth of the gay community’s willingness to tolerate horrific and unacceptable behavior in the name of being gay.
I don’t agree that the gay community tolerates bad behavior any more than straight people do. I also don’t agree that the bishops’ anti-gay bigotry is because of the reasons you say. But if you are correct on that point, then what it means is that gay people have to pay for other gay people’s bad behavior, while straight people don’t have to pay for other straight people’s behavior. You’ve made that clear in an above post where you listed the problems that the African bishops have to deal with, problems with heterosexual behavior. In Africa, it appears that homosexual behavior pales in comparison.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And since these behaviors are also exhibited by straight people, but other straight people aren’t sanctioned for it, I would expect that persons should not have to pay for others’ bad behaviors.
Straight people, Pat, do a much better job of catching, condemning, prosecuting, and punishing their own.
Gay people, on the other hand, sue drug companies because their advertising allegedly makes gays have unprotected and promiscuous sex, and demands that drug companies be forced to pay for all the healthcare costs of gays who choose to use drugs and have promiscuous sex and get HIV.
In short, straights punish their own; gays demand that other people pay for their bad behavior and choices.
I would expect rational thought. I would expect that people would see these behaviors as wrong, and as such, pay little or no credence to their justifications.
Nope, sorry; it’s “homophobic” and “hateful” to criticize bad gay behavior.
Bonnie Bleskachek’s excuse when confronted about her sexual harassment and using her position to punish coworkers who wouldn’t have sex with her and men?
“The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.?
Or why gays were freely allowed to molest multiple children over the course of years?
The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ‘slack arrangements’ over placement.
“Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.
“The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.
“It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
“The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”
“Rational thought” would have led these peoples’ records to be questioned. However, as is made clear, these people were given preferential treatment and allowed to do whatever they wish because they were gay.
How rational is that?
I don’t agree that the gay community tolerates bad behavior any more than straight people do.
My favorite example.
But I guess, hey, better to sit in infected cum than risk being called “neurotic” or a “prude”, right?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass complained “What Jefferts-Schori is demonstrating is that her only excuse for her behavior is “they do it too””
and then hypocritically used the exact same justification himself by saying
“Since the American church demands the right to break canon law at will, I see no reason why other churches should be restrained by it”
As Northdallass then said:
“In short, it is obvious that it’s not what’s being said or being done that is causing the problem; it’s who’s doing it.”.
In otherwords its okay for him to use the excuse that “everybody else is doing it”, but its wrong when someone he doesn’t like does it. Clearly Northdallass is, as he said, “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”
As the hypocrite he is he then resorts to his age old tactic of claiming isolated wrongs by gays are typical of gays while ignoring the wrongs of straights and insisting such are not typical of straights. Given half a chance Northdallass would execute gays as his bible commands.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perfect timing, Randi.
Now go ahead and pull out one of your usual screaming fits about how every Christian supports polygamy and how those who don’t are lying, or perhaps how Christians worship a psychotic sadistic baby-killer. Don’t forget to mention how you’re LGBT.
It makes the argument that LGBTs aren’t antireligious so much stronger.
posted by Hank on
>But I guess, hey, better to sit in infected cum than risk being called “neurotic” or a “prude”, right?< Are there any standards at all on this site???
posted by Pat on
NDT, you may or may not be right about who polices themselves better. But provided selected links doesn’t prove it, as I’m sure you know.
Many straight people don’t condemn vicious and evil people like Dobson, Robertson, and LaBarbera. This doesn’t mean that I think gay people are better than straight people in policing themselves. And when an Episcopalian does criticize one of her own vicious colleagues, you criticize her for doing it.
I understand that there are people who can’t figure out that Viagra wouldn’t prevent AIDS or other STDs. There are people who actually believe that ex-gay reparative therapy works when there’s not one shred of evidence. What can I say? There are stupid people, gay and straight, out there.
Bonnie Bleskachek’s excuse when confronted about her sexual harassment and using her position to punish coworkers who wouldn’t have sex with her and men?
Um. I think I made the point that I pay little or no credence to the excuses given by pieces of trash like Bleskavich.
How rational is that?
Oops. Little bait and switch there. I am not making the point that the people in your examples are rational. Reread my post above.
My favorite example.
Again, one example a proof not make. Or something like that.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “It makes the argument that LGBTs aren’t antireligious so much stronger.”.
I only represent myself, not all LGBTS – that’s a bit of fundamental logic you’re chronically challenged at grasping. Just like Bleskachek and the isolated incidents you mentioned don’t represent all LGBTS.
And the bible promotes polygamy and Christians promote the bible as the unquestioned source of morality – you do the math. As for your worship of the psychotic baby killer I give you but one of many, many such passages, Deuteronomy 7
“When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it…And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.”.
“Utterly destroy them” for your inadequate mind that means kill all the innocent babies
No wonder you wage war on innocent gays – look at the example you’re following.
posted by Karen on
ND30,
The reason that people call you a liar is not, as you suggest frequently, that they don’t like to hear any criticism of gay people and the knee-jerk reaction is then to call you a liar.
No, no, we understand that you THINK that. But the actual reason people call you a liar is stuff like this:
“Bonnie Bleskachek’s excuse when confronted about her sexual harassment and using her position to punish coworkers who wouldn’t have sex with her and men? ‘The only thing I can come up with is that this is a whole lot of homophobia and sexism.'”
See, this is a lie. Not a simple lie, where you just make something up out of whole cloth – but a lie nevertheless.
Bonnie isn’t justifying bad behavior (sexual harrassment) by saying that she’s a lesbian and thus entitled to sexually harrass – she’s asserting that such bad behavior never happened at all! What she’s blaming on homophobia and sexism is what she alleges is a FALSE SUIT brought against her, not her action of harrassment or a people daring to call her out for something she actually did. There’s a massive difference. Your lie almost (almost!) supports this “Gays bring it on themselves” argument. The truth doesn’t.
And all of your “supporting examples” have some of this sneaky lying or exaggerating in them. For instance, you make it sound like a preponderance of 35 year old gay men have HIV and give it to 15 year old boys, and no one is saying anything against them because they would rip their heads off for bigotry if they did. But that’s not the case at all. Nor is toddler FSF attendance a normal occurrence that is defended by “the gay community” – not to mention that to hear you speak, you’d think those men sexually abused the girls, when in reality they probably just saw some naked or mostly naked people in fetish gear – not good parenting, but not abuse. Nor does Varnell do anything but assume that most gay people recognize the fallacy and danger of fundamentalism. The amount and scope of your exaggerations are breathtaking, really. It seems like your strategy is to keep them coming fast and furious so nobody has time to respond in-depth to each one.
Bottom line, though: “The gay community” is not responsible for “catching, [publicly] condemning, prosecuting, and punishing” except inasmuch as any particular gay person happens to be an investigator, member of the media, prosecutor, judge, jury member, etc. When straight people do bad things, it’s not “the straight community” that responds – it’s everyone. Same with gay people.
The outcome of Bonnie’s lawsuits will eventually determine her guilt or innocence, as well as such cases CAN be determined. What else do you want people – and gay people especially – to do? Get a gay lynch mob together? Ignore her side of the story altogether, where she claims she never did those things and that the suits are specious and motivated by bias, and rush to judgement without the facts?
Heck, even if she HAD said that she did harrass, and was entitled to harrass because she’s gay, what would you have us do? We can’t keep Hypothetical Bonnie from saying such nonsense, but it’s not like Hypothetical Bonnie speaks for gays and it’s not like anyone with a quarter of a brain would believe her to be correct.
You manufacture outrage, ND30, out of very thin material. Straight people might sometimes overcompensate for fear of being perceived as bigotted, and gay people/allies might sometimes go overboard in their search for anti-gay bias, but there’s no vast gay conspiracy to make gay people unquestionable about anything ever. And gay people don’t deserve all the bias they still get because of it. It’s just the way the world works – imperfectly lurching towards something resembling justice.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Genesis
7. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two “virgin daughters” instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to “do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.” This is the same man that is called “just” and “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
13. Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10
Exodus
23. God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4
31. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts “a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.” 11:7
33.After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29
45 A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15, 17
Leviticus
91 God gives instructions for “wave offerings” and “heave offerings.” He says these offerings are to be made perpetually “by a statute for ever.” Have you made your heave offering today? What part of “forever” don’t Christians understand? 7:30-36
114 A priest’s daughter who “plays the whore” is to be burned to death. 21:9
Numbers
131 God punishes the children for the failings of their great-great grandfathers. 14:18
140 God describes once again the procedure for ritualistic animal sacrifices. such rituals must be extremely important to God, since he makes their performance a “statute” and “covenant” forever. 18:17-19
149 For impaling the interracial couple, God rewards Phinehas and his sons with the everlasting priesthood. 25:10-13
162 God hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon and so that he could have him and all of his people killed. 2:30
163 At God’s instructions, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones” leaving “none to remain.” 2:33-36
164 The Israelites, with God’s help, kill all the men, women, and children of every city. 3:3-6
170 God instructs the Israelites to kill, without mercy, all the inhabitants (strangers) of the land that they conquer. 7:2
178 Kill those of other faiths. 12:30
180 If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, “thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death.” 13:6-10
182 Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own. 17:2-7
193 If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn’t a virgin when they were married. If her father can’t produce the “tokens of her virginity” (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father’s doorstep. 22:13-21
195 If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, then “the men of the city shall stone her to death.” 22:23-24
Joshua
243 “For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly.” Notice that God hardens their hearts so that he can have an excuse to kill them. 11:20
246 God is jealous and will never forgive you for your sins. “He will turn and do you hurt, and consume you.” 24:19-20
Judges
267 42,000 men are killed because someone mispronounces “shibboleth.” 12:6
1 Samuel
294 Under God’s influence, the Philistines killed each other. 14:20
296 God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 15:2-3
2 Samuel
319 Whoever kills the lame and the blind will be David’s “chief and captain.” 5:8
“David … grew great, and the LORD God of hosts was with him.” 5:10
335 To appease God and end the famine that was caused by his predecessor (Saul), David agrees to have seven of Saul’s sons killed and hung up “unto the Lord.” 21:6-9
2 Kings
367 God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. 2:23-24
1 Chronicles
403 God kills his faithful servant Uzza for trying to keep God’s sacred ark from falling. 13:9-10
410 God kills 70,000 men because David had a census. 21:7
Psalms
475 God is praised for slaughtering kings, nations, and little babies. 135:8, 10
Proverbs
485 God made bad people for the pleasure of punishing them. 16:4
Fools are meant to be beaten. 18:6
Beat your children and don’t stop just because they cry. 19:18
Isaiah
508 God will slaughter children “for the iniquity of their fathers.” 14:21
Jeremiah
527 God tries to “correct” people by killing their children. 2:30
551 God delivered his people “into the hand of her enemies.” He “hates” his “dearly beloved” people and plans to feed them to the birds. 12:7-9
563 God will kill children if their parents worship other gods. 16:10-11
579 God will destroy “the peaceable habitations” and make the land desolate “because of his fierce anger.” 25:37-38
Ezekiel
628 God deceives some of his prophets and then kills them for believing his lies. 14:9
630 God will burn the inhabitants of Jerusalem to show everyone that he is the Lord. 15:6-7
635 God will kill everyone — good and bad, just and unjust. 21:3-4
656 If a “righteous” person does something wrong, God will forget every good thing that that person has ever done. Then God will kill him for the single mistake. 33:13
Matthew
747 Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
755 Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few “prophecies” in the Bible that has actually come true). “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21
764 Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It’ll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
Mark
769 Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
772 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10
Luke
782 Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves “with many stripes.” 12:46-47
787 In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn’t sow. The parable ends with the words: “bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me.” 19:22-27
John
788 As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
791 Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” 5:14
Acts
794 Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Romans
802 Homosexuals (those “without natural affection”) and their supporters (those “that have pleasure in them”) are “worthy of death.” 1:31-32
The guilty are “justified” and “saved from wrath” by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
God punishes everyone for someone else’s sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12
Ephesians
809 We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. 1:4-5, 11
God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn’t do. 1:7
The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
Colossians
813 God bought us with someone else’s blood. 1:14
God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20
2 Thessalonians
816 Jesus will take “vengeance on them that know not God” by burning them forever “in flaming fire.” 1:7-9
818 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12
Hebrews
819 God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature. 9:13-14, 22
Revelation
833 Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
837 “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” God created predators, pathogens, and predators for his very own pleasure. One of his favorite species is guinea worms. 4:11
844 144,000 Jews will be going to heaven; everyone else is going to hell. 7:4
853 After God’s witnesses “have finished their testimony,” they are killed in a war with a beast from a bottomless pit. 11:7
861 God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6
871 All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” 21:8
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
posted by Bobby on
How easy it is to quote controversial bible passages when the reality is that each one of them can be explained by bible scholars. Sure, killing kids that insult their parents may seem cruel, but have you noticed how there are kids today that attack their own parents? That beat them, terrorize them, even murder them?
There’s a lot one can learn from the bible.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What she’s blaming on homophobia and sexism is what she alleges is a FALSE SUIT brought against her, not her action of harrassment or a people daring to call her out for something she actually did. There’s a massive difference.
“False suit”, indeed.
Next time, Karen, instead of knee-jerk defending the lesbian, do some research and understand what this person did.
But that’s typical of the lgbt mindset; instead of researching, you immediately sided with the lesbian. You didn’t look up what she did, you didn’t look up anything else, you just automatically assumed the lesbian was right — and you said that the person who was criticizing her was a liar.
And then I loved this little attempted hedge:
Heck, even if she HAD said that she did harrass, and was entitled to harrass because she’s gay, what would you have us do? We can’t keep Hypothetical Bonnie from saying such nonsense, but it’s not like Hypothetical Bonnie speaks for gays and it’s not like anyone with a quarter of a brain would believe her to be correct.
Sure you can.
Gays and lesbians throw regular screaming and namecalling fits over people who you don’t like in public condemnation of their behavior and as an attempt to get them to change it. Indeed, they throw nearly-constant fits over people who sexually harass and discriminate against GAYS in the workplace.
Oddly enough, though, when it’s another gay doing it….lgbts spin and make excuses for why they can’t blast Bleskachek the same as they do those people.
What that makes obvious is that the lgbt definition of “equality” is that they can sexually harass whomever THEY want and gays will make excuses and stay silent, but no one can sexually harass or retaliate against THEM, lest said person be buried under shrieks of “homophobic” from the gay community.
And I loved how you claimed that taking children to sex fairs wasn’t abuse. Would you feel the same way about a straight man dressing up his three-year-old daughters in sex fetish gear and showing them porno films, or taking them to sex fairs, and then trying to argue that it was an “educational experience”?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Many straight people don’t condemn vicious and evil people like Dobson, Robertson, and LaBarbera.
Yes, people who speak out against gays who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who have come out vociferously against pedophilia and child molestation, and who speak glowingly of the importance of religion in everyday life are just such awful, vicious, evil people.
That mindset is why gays are perpetually losing the PR war, and why the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t particularly think we share anything of their values.
posted by Pat on
Yes, people who speak out against gays who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who have come out vociferously against pedophilia and child molestation, and who speak glowingly of the importance of religion in everyday life are just such awful, vicious, evil people.
You’ve got to be kidding. If that’s all what they are about, I’d like them too. But you know darn well that’s not the case, NDT, or at least you know that’s not what I meant. Especially since I’ve made it clear that I oppose ALL people who take children to sex fairs. I oppose ALL adults who have sex with underage children. I oppose pedophilia and child molestation. And as far as religion, I am respectful of everyone’s religious (or non-religious) beliefs, except when it’s used to harm people.
This is why I consider Dobson, Robertson, and LaBarbera evil. They are anti-gay bigots and use their positions of leadership to spread their hate and lies. They endorse ex-gay reparative therapy on gay persons which they know doesn’t work (or at the very least, incredibly stupid to think it actually does when they are in a position to know better). Use their positions to intentionally deny rights to individuals because of their hate and lies. That, IMO, is vicious and evil. You’ve given examples of bad gay behavior, and some of them are REALLY bad. But, IMO, the behavior of the above three is worse. They aren’t intentionally harming just one or several persons, which is bad enough, but are going out of their way to harm ALL gay persons.
If you are right, and people irrationally hate gay persons because of examples of bad behavior that are overemphasized when it’s by gay people and underemphasized when it’s by straight people, them’s the breaks. But despite that, more and more people are becoming accepting of gay persons, and believe we should have equality, or at least, more rights.
One more thing. I’m sure Karen can defend herself, but I wanted to address one point on the Bleskavich thing. One of the points Karen contended was that Bleskavich was not using her sexual orientation as an excuse for harassing people, but rather contending that she was innocent and blaming homophobia for the accusations. Big difference there. And instead of defending your statement that Karen believed was erroneous, you just repeated how bad Bleskavich is.
posted by Karen on
Do you know what the word “allege” means, ND30?
It means “make an unproven claim”.
“Bonnie alleges that she did not harrass anyone” and “Bonnie did not harrass anyone” are two vastly different sentences, and you know it. One is reporting the facts. The other is stating an opinion.
BONNIE – not I – said that she didn’t harrass, and that the suits were false and motivated by bias.
That is in contradiction to what you CLAIM she said, which is that she was actually entitled to harrass and get away with it because she is a lesbian.
When I correct you, I am not claiming that Bonnie is telling the truth about the harrassment – merely that you are lying about what her words mean.
Oh, what a tangled web you weave.
Most of us are smart enough to find our ways through it, though.
And no, we’re not going to “pitch screaming hissy name-calling fits” – your favorite words for “call someone out” – every time someone claims they’re the victims of bias.
Imagine a scenario where I hear about someone who is accused of something immoral, and then they counter that the accusation is motivated by anti-gay bias and specious – either that events did not happen as described, or that the action is not actually immoral.
What you want me to do is immediately react by ripping the head off of the accused, because they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth, and when truth does come out it will make gay people look bad.
What you think that I do is immediately jump to the defence of the accused, because the accusers couldn’t possibly be telling the truth, and even if they are, they shouldn’t, because gay people are immune from scrutiny on account of being gay.
But the truth is, I reserve judgement until I can be pretty confident I know what’s what. For instance, if it’s the morality of the action that’s in question, I’ll make my own judgement. If it’s the truth of the accusation that’s in question, I’ll wait until more facts come out or until one party seems much more trustworthy than the other.
If it turns out the accused is lying about the speciousness of the accusation or the motivation behind it, I don’t feel the need to state that I disapprove for your benefit and for the benefit of anyone else who judges all gay people by my actions.
Am I sometimes wrong? Sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m to blame, or that the accused liar is to blame, for any scorn that is heaped on gay people as a group.
As a apt metaphor, sometimes women lie about being sexually harrassed. But that doesn’t mean that any woman who accuses it should be assumed to be lying, nor does it mean that the entire anti-harrassment movement needs to sit down and shut up until they can “police” everyone and cut down on false accusations. Nor does it mean that women in general deserve any mistrust or hatred as a group.
posted by Karen on
And let’s not forget that you still haven’t addressed my point that American Episcopals do not, in fact, believe Africans to be primitive savages. And that criticizing certain African bishops for their egregious treatment of gay people while at the same time “allowing” NOI members to register as Democrats – but not including their anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-gay views in the party platforms – in no way proves that they do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Karen and Pat, read the list of things which Bleskachek was found to have done.
Again, Bleskachek publicly stated that not a single one of these things was wrong and that the only reason she was being charged was “homophobia and sexism”.
This brings up two possibilities:
1) Bleskachek was genuinely and completely ignorant of departmental policy, procedure, and conduct rules, as well as legal definitions of sexual harassment and improper behavior.
2) Bleskachek knew that what she was doing was against departmental policy, procedure, and conduct rules, as well as legal definitions of sexual harassment and improper behavior.
If it was the former, the Democrat Party openly supported the promotion of an incompetent and promiscuous lesbian, who sexually harassed others, simply because she was a lesbian.
If it was the latter, a lesbian openly broke the rules and lied about it, using her lesbian status to divert blame and make excuses for her behavior.
What you think that I do is immediately jump to the defence of the accused, because the accusers couldn’t possibly be telling the truth, and even if they are, they shouldn’t, because gay people are immune from scrutiny on account of being gay.
Yup.
What you want me to do is immediately react by ripping the head off of the accused, because they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth, and when truth does come out it will make gay people look bad.
Nope.
You can wait until the facts come out, as they already had in this case.
But, as you demonstrated, you didn’t care about the facts; instead, you continued to spin for the lesbian and defend her behavior.
As a apt metaphor, sometimes women lie about being sexually harrassed. But that doesn’t mean that any woman who accuses it should be assumed to be lying, nor does it mean that the entire anti-harrassment movement needs to sit down and shut up until they can “police” everyone and cut down on false accusations.
You missed something, Karen; there is immediate (and loud) condemnation of women who lie about sexual harassment, by other women. That’s because they know the lesson of the fable of the boy who cried wolf; namely, that the more false alarms there are, the less people pay attention to the real ones.
But what do gays and lesbians do? Make up excuses for why they can’t (or more precisely, won’t) do the same.
Why is pretty simple; think of what would happen to a manager who was regularly having sex with subordinates and blatantly retaliating against those who refused. If said manager was male and heterosexual, or even female and heterosexual, he or she wouldn’t survive very long. Businesses have cracked down on both men and women who abuse their positions in such fashion, and society has ostracized them extensively.
But if you’re gay or lesbian, not only can you do it, you’ll be promoted to lead the entire company, and the gay community will support and endorse you — and refuse to criticize you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is why I consider Dobson, Robertson, and LaBarbera evil. They are anti-gay bigots and use their positions of leadership to spread their hate and lies.
Such as pointing out the gays who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who regularly have unprotected sex with multiple partners and spread HIV, and who molest children.
Or the fact that gays and lesbians like Karen refuse to criticize said gays, claiming that they “don’t feel the need to disapprove”.
What I find amusing, Pat, is that gays spend about fifty times the energy on criticizing Dobson, Robertson, and LaBarbera that they do on the gays who are doing the activities that these gays allegedly oppose.
What that makes quite obvious is that it’s considered worse to criticize gays than it is for gays to do any of the things mentioned.
And frankly, people who are more upset about being criticized than they are about people who molest children, giving them HIV, and take them to sex fairs, are not going to evoke any degree of public sympathy or empathy.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Bobby said “How easy it is to quote controversial bible passages when the reality is that each one of them can be explained by bible scholars.”.
LOL, Bobby, how about you have a go at a couple then. Explain how its good and right to punish children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. Explain how its good and right to punish the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty. Explain how its good and right to “harden Pharoah’s heart” so that he won’t let the Jews go and then use that as an excuse to murder all the innocent Egyptian first born. Explain how its good and right to eternally torture innocent babies because they, get this, inherited the sin of their ancient ancestor.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass complained “What Jefferts-Schori is demonstrating is that her only excuse for her behavior is “they do it too””
and then hypocritically used the exact same justification himself by saying
“Since the American church demands the right to break canon law at will, I see no reason why other churches should be restrained by it”
As Northdallass then said:
“In short, it is obvious that it’s not what’s being said or being done that is causing the problem; it’s who’s doing it.”.
In otherwords its okay for him to use the excuse that “everybody else is doing it”, but its wrong when someone he doesn’t like does it. Clearly Northdallass is, as he said, “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”
posted by karen on
“Again, Bleskachek publicly stated that not a single one of these things was wrong and that the only reason she was being charged was “homophobia and sexism”.”
No, she did not. She publicly stated that she ****DID NOT DO**** those things and the only reason she was being SUED (not charged) was homophobia and sexism.
I don’t know how I can emphasize any further the difference between someone saying “I did not do it” and “it wasn’t wrong that I did it”.
You continually miss that point – on purpose, because you are a liar.
Was she lying? Did she do those things? Probably, although city investigations aren’t guarantees of the truth. Does it suck that she was able to lie like that, because bias DOES motivate false suits sometimes? Yes. And NOBODY is defending THAT action.
But you are saying she actually SAID SHE WASN’T WRONG to use discriminatory hiring tactics and sexually harrass subordinates. She didn’t.
Again, I am not defending anything she actually did, no matter how many times you accuse me of it. I am simply correcting your lies.
“You missed something, Karen; there is immediate (and loud) condemnation of women who lie about sexual harassment, by other women.”
By whom? “Women”? WTF? Who is the national spokesperson for “Women”? Who is the national spokesperson for “Gays”?
If you ask a woman “Should women lie about being sexual harrassed?” The answer will most likely be “No!” If you overheard women talking about a woman who definitely did that, they’d probably be condemning her.
If you ask a gay person “Should gay people lie about being falsely accused out of anti-gay bias?” The answer will also most likely be “No!” And if you overheard some gays talking about someone who definitely did that, they’d probably also be condemning that person.
I’m not sure what else you want. Editorials specifying that it’s wrong? There probably have been some – but feel free to write more and see if any editor cares about something so obvious and non-controversial as “lying is wrong, especially when it’s crying wolf”.
The national gay rights organizations to comment, expressly condemning Bonnie? I don’t think NOW does that every time a woman is in the news for lying about sexual harrassment or even rape. Gay organizations have better things to do with their time than be Captain Obvious.
“But if you’re gay or lesbian, not only can you do it, you’ll be promoted to lead the entire company, and the gay community will support and endorse you — and refuse to criticize you.”
No. You won’t. Even your precious example, Bleskachek, does not enjoy such a position. In fact, she was busted back to desk jockey and had her pay slashed and is banned from ever again managing anything. And… people (including gay people) are like, “Yeah, ok.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Serial killer of possibly 50 women was motivated by religion to kill
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3b742afe-c303-4fb7-9042-e20479bb05cb&k=17315
METRO VANCOUVER – Convicted serial killer Robert (Willie) Pickton said he was put on Earth to rid people of their “evil ways” in a letter to a prison pen pal in 2006.
Pickton, 58, was convicted yesterday of six counts of second-degree murder, but no motive for his crimes ever emerged at his year-long trial.
Two letters The Sun obtained from a pen pal Pickton wrote to while in the North Fraser Pre-Trial Centre, may provide the public with the first real insight into what motivated the mass murderer. The spelling errors are Pickton’s.
“I know I was brought into this world to be hear today to change this world of there evil ways. They even want to dis-re-guard the ten command-ments from the time that Moses in his day brought in power which still is in existence today,” wrote Pickton, who is facing another 20 counts of murder which are to be dealt with at a second trial.
The letter was written Feb. 26, 2006, at the beginning of Pickton’s voir dire, to California resident Thomas Loudamy who has a hobby of corresponding with prisoners and collecting their return letters.
The second letter, written Aug. 22, 2006, is also replete with biblical references and Pickton provided his own interpretation of Ephesians 5:5.
“You can be sure that no immoral, impure or greedy person will in-herit the kingdom of God …. Don’t be fooled by whose who try to excuse these sins, for the terrible anger of God comes upon all those who disobey him,” Pickton wrote.
The Sun looked up Ephesians 5:5 in The Jerusalem Bible and found a chilling interpretation, given the fact Pickton has been convicted of killing sex-trade workers: “For you can be quite certain that nobody who actually indulges in fornication or impurity or promiscuity – which is worshiping a false god – can inherit anything of the kingdom of God.”
Some sex-trade workers testified at the trial that Pickton brought them to the farm, let them sleep in his bed without demanding sex and still paid them money.
However, the jury also heard Pickton did engage in sex acts with at least two women he brought to his trailer: Wendy Eistetter and Maria Isidoro.
Crown witness Lynn Ellingsen testified she saw Pickton butchering a sex-trade worker in his slaughterhouse, although her credibility was challenged at the trial. However, the Crown argued Pickton picked up prostitutes in the Downtown Eastside, lured them to his farm with money and drugs and then killed and dismembered them.
The defence portrayed Pickton as someone who merely helped out needy people by giving them money, sometimes a place to stay or a job. Loudamy, who estimated in 2006 that he had at least 300 letters from about 150 inmates, said Pickton’s notes are similar to others he’s received from convicted killers – they appear to suggest using religion to justify their actions.
“They kind of justify horrific things because these groups of people [victims] have evil ways, or have bad ways,” Loudamy said.
The Sun published portions of the two pen pal letters in 2006 but withheld any incriminating portions until after a verdict was delivered, to avoid influencing jurors. The letters have some spelling and grammatical errors, but are mainly coherent and comprehensible.
The defence argued at the trial that Pickton had poor verbal skills and was too stupid to communicate properly with police when he was interviewed following his arrest in February 2002. However, there are some odd passages that are difficult to understand, such as the one Pickton used to end his August 2006 letter: “I am not a phony or a bluff or a smooth-talker. I am only one person, born into this world of ours of which I am not from this world, I am from the past life of which will all be in my book.”
In the religious portions, Pickton refers to himself as a “condemned man of no wrong doing” just like his “father.” Pickton also referred to Acts 14:22, which he interpreted as: “In each city they helped Christians to be strong and true to the faith. They told them that we must suffer many hard things to get into the holy nation of God.”
Pickton insists in the letter that he is just the “fall guy” and that police arrested the wrong man.
“They are only interested in to charge any-one to get the heat off of their back and not for the truth at all,” he wrote. “The police got so much money invested in this case, there will be many, many lies through-out as many things all come to surface. The police have paid many for them what to say when they are on the stand.”
That sentence appeared to foreshadow part of the defence’s case: that police spent thousands on “benefits” – rent, drug rehab, clothes, etc. – for three key Crown witnesses whose credibility was severely attacked by Pickton’s lawyers.
“But I am not worried for everything on Earth will be judged including angles (sic). I myself is not from this world, but I am born into this world through my earthly mother and if I had to change anything I would not, for I have done no wrong,” he wrote.
Pickton also praised Justice James Williams’ decision to sever the charges he is facing, which meant this trial only dealt with six murder counts and a second trial would focus on the other 20.
“They had to, they have no choice but to, if not there will be a whole lot of coart time waisted all for nothing in which there will be in need a whole lot of answers to many questions by the police and the R.C.M.P. when this coart case is over by the way of the public of when they find out that I am not in-volved at all,” he wrote. “If the coart did not drop all these charges I could be in coart for at least two or more years and it really will be hard to keep a jury to-gether for so long… It could end in a mis-trial half way through coart.”
The judge’s decision to split Pickton’s charges in two has upset families of the 20 women who have to wait until a second trial – assuming it is held – to seek justice for their loved ones. Pickton estimated in August 2006 that his trial would be done by August 2007 – but his estimation was off by four months.
Pickton also bragged in the letters about how important he had become, talking about the millions spent on his case, the number of police and lawyers involved, the hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence disclosed to his defence team, and the large number of sheriffs who escort him to court and provide security when he is there.
“When I go to coart, there are three vehicles ‘my own convoy of protective excort (sic),’ one vehicle is in front and one vehicle behind me of which I am in the middle vehicle. There are two sheriffs in each vehicle,” he wrote. “And when I reach the coart house, there are a-nother four more sheriffs at the gates of the coart house also for my protection.”
Pickton’s escorts will cease now that his trial is over – until the next one begins. In an interview with The Sun in 2006, Loudamy explained that he wrote three times to Pickton using the pen name “Mya Barnett,” a woman down on her luck but determined to survive.
Loudamy said he received three replies from Pickton, one in late 2005, and two in 2006. He provided The Sun with the originals of the last two letters; he was not able to locate the first note he says he received from Pickton. He said in the first letter, in late 2005, Pickton indicated he was reading a novel by Dan Brown, author of the bestselling book The Da Vinci Code, about Jesus being married.
“I know in the first one, there was kind of other sort of biblical references, sort of like along the lines of he’s convinced that that relationship that he has [with God] is what is going to help him with the trial,” Loudamy said. Pickton wrote that he spent his free time in 2005 talking with his legal counsel and his “family,” but didn’t elaborate, Loudamy said.
The letters are written as if the author is an old friend of Mya’s, and tenderly wishes her well. Loudamy, who maintains he has no sympathy for Pickton, said he hopes that by releasing these letters publicly they’ll provide a window for the public to learn more about this multiple killer.
lculbert@png.canwest.com
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Good job Karen, thanks for your patience and efforts in making plain the repetitious lies of Northdallass. You’re a good person.
posted by Pat on
Karen and Pat, read the list of things which Bleskachek was found to have done.
NDT, you still have not defended your statement that Bleskavich used her sexual orientation as an excuse for harassment. Look, I am not disagreeing that she did these things. In fact, I’m fairly convinced that she did. Karen brought up the point that Bleskavich is maintaining her innocence and says she is blaming the “false” accusations on homophobia, as opposed to using her sexual orientation as an excuse to harass people. You still failed to defend this statement.
Such as pointing out the gays who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who regularly have unprotected sex with multiple partners and spread HIV, and who molest children.
NDT, what’s going on here? Did you simply not read what I wrote in my post, or did you deliberately disregard it? I did NOT say the individuals were vicious and evil for the reasons you stated, and thought I clearly made that point otherwise. And I did not even come close to saying that EVERYTHING these individuals have said or done are hateful. But these individuals have clear records of hate and bigotry towards gays (and again, I’m not talking about the things you mentioned).
posted by karen on
Randi,
Oh please. Biblical scholars and theologists have had centuries of practice at explaining these things – we’re not the first generation to notice the barbarism of some of “Jehovah’s” actions. Don’t bother making them bust out the apologetics and interpretations. If you (like me) are not willing to suspend your disbelief and interpret it vaguely enough to make the Bible suit the ethics you follow, fine. But you’re never going to convince those who are willing. For them, it’s a virtue to do just that. They call it “faith”.
posted by Karen on
Thanks, Randi. And while I do sympathize, could you stop the flooding with copy/pastes? It’s not very good forum etiquette.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you ask a gay person “Should gay people lie about being falsely accused out of anti-gay bias?” The answer will also most likely be “No!” And if you overheard some gays talking about someone who definitely did that, they’d probably also be condemning that person.
No, it wouldn’t.
Because as we’ve seen here, you won’t even publicly condemn her actions or her; instead you insinuate that the city lied and their investigation wasn’t truthful.
Even Pat hedges with “fairly convinced”. The city has been sued over this lesbian’s behavior multiple times; the city itself in multiple separate investigations has found bias and sexual harassment.
It makes one wonder if gays can ever BE “convinced” when it comes to another gay’s behavior.
I’m not sure what else you want. Editorials specifying that it’s wrong? There probably have been some – but feel free to write more and see if any editor cares about something so obvious and non-controversial as “lying is wrong, especially when it’s crying wolf”.
The national gay rights organizations to comment, expressly condemning Bonnie? I don’t think NOW does that every time a woman is in the news for lying about sexual harrassment or even rape. Gay organizations have better things to do with their time than be Captain Obvious.
No they don’t, inasmuch as they have no problem publicly condemning, commenting about, and writing vitriolic editorials against people who discriminate against gays.
If gays and national gay organizations actually supported workplace equality, they would treat sexual harassment and discrimination BY gays the same way they treat sexual harassment and discrimination AGAINST gays. But as we see, they say nothing when it’s BY gays, and put out manifestos when it’s AGAINST gays, nicely demonstrating that it’s not workplace discrimination and harassment that bothers them; it’s who practices it.
No. You won’t. Even your precious example, Bleskachek, does not enjoy such a position. In fact, she was busted back to desk jockey and had her pay slashed and is banned from ever again managing anything.
Puhleez.
To a lgbt who’s covering up for another lgbt, that might constitute a punishment.
But things are different in the real world.
Compare and contrast:
— A heterosexual male has a consensual affair with an employee he didn’t supervise and that had no effect on the business, is ordered to resign from his position and from the Board, and to forfeit pay.
— A lesbian female who has multiple affairs with numerous employees, openly retaliates against subordinates who refuse her NONconsensual sexual advances, and discriminates against people based on sexual orientation and gender, all of which were shown to have a substantial negative impact on a public-safety organization, just gets demoted to an “administrative” job, only has her pay cut by 35% (while still receiving full benefits), and is fully eligible to earn it back.
The first is a punishment. The second is sending your kid to their room without supper and then paying for and running up the pizza they order.
Karen brought up the point that Bleskavich is maintaining her innocence and says she is blaming the “false” accusations on homophobia, as opposed to using her sexual orientation as an excuse to harass people. You still failed to defend this statement.
Karen is trying to defend and spin for a fellow lesbian.
Karen refuses to answer why on earth Bleskachek is claiming innocence and that the accusations are false when the evidence is obvious.
Mainly because Karen would then have to admit that Bleskachek either is a complete and utter incompetent who was promoted thanks to Minnesota’s ENDA and affirmative action laws, or a liar who thinks she can make excuses for what she did by screaming “homophobia” and “sexism”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I did NOT say the individuals were vicious and evil for the reasons you stated, and thought I clearly made that point otherwise. And I did not even come close to saying that EVERYTHING these individuals have said or done are hateful.
I don’t see any of those qualifiers here, Pat.
This is why I consider Dobson, Robertson, and LaBarbera evil. They are anti-gay bigots and use their positions of leadership to spread their hate and lies.
What you don’t get, Pat, is that you’re not going to win this way. People watch Pride parades. They read HIV statistics. They see LGBTs rant against religion. They don’t have the level of denialism that the gay community has developed towards its own behaviors.
The key to fixing the problem is strong and consistent demonstration that right and wrong come before sexual orientation. But as we see here, gays would rather insinuate that the city of Minneapolis ran a biased investigation than to admit that a lesbian sexually harassed and discriminated against others.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Karen said “Thanks, Randi. And while I do sympathize, could you stop the flooding with copy/pastes?”.
Karen, I’m just providing a little balance to Northdallass’s endless lies about how the one example of Bleskachek represents all LGBTS. I guess it never occurred to him that if Bleskachek represents all LGBTs then he represents all Christians and he’s a much poorer representative than her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass is no one to be preaching morality to anyone. He believes its discrimination to prevent adults from having sex with children. It wouldn’t be surprising if he had an eight year old chained up in his basement to molest.
posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on
NDT:
Because other gay people are using their sexual orientation as grounds for those antireligious opinions.
Fine, however using your logic we should also make every single Christian accountable for antigay bigotry, since most antigay bigots are using religion as grounds for those antigay opinions.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to hold you personally accountable for every murder of gay peeps caused by fanatics, denial of civil rights, and spiritual abuse by fellow Christians?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You can, Rob, if you’ll publicly admit that Jefferts Schori and Gene Robinson are not Christians.
Furthermore, as I cited in my post of January 7th at 4:45 PM, gays and lesbians ALREADY blame Christians for all attacks on gays, even when the person doing the attacks had openly repudiated religion. You’re making an empty threat, inasmuch as you’re threatening to do something you’re already doing towards a group of people who, as Randi’s posts are demonstrating, you never miss a chance to disparage and accuse of all manner of things.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Not accusing you of anything Northdallass, when I said adults shouldn’t be having sex with children you stated loud and clear that that was discrimination. You’re not in a position to be preaching to anyone about morality.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And typical of Northdallass, when Christians committ horrible crimes and behave immorally he can’t just condemn their actions he has to criticize the person bringing Christian crimes to light. That which he falsely accuses LGBTS of he’s guilty of himself in spades.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Any number of gays have condemned Bleskacheck contrary to Northdallass’s lies, but when a Christian kills 50 women in the name of Christianity Northdallass whines that Christians are being “disparaged” by bringing that to light. Apparently he believes any evil thing a heterosexual Christian does is justified by their sexuality and Christianity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hardly. I gladly repudiate and condemn Pickton’s actions, and he should be punished to the full extent of the law for what he did. His invoking of Christ’s name is no excuse whatsoever, and all Christians should make it absolutely clear that his doing so perverts the very idea of what Christianity is about.
posted by Hank on
Schori and Robinson are not Christians? Fortunately, it’s not up to you to decide. Luke 6:37.
Welcome back Randi.
posted by Pat on
I don’t see any of those qualifiers here, Pat.
NDT, when I said Dobson, etal were vicious and evil, why on earth would you assume I meant that EVERYTHING they say or do is evil? Do I really need a quantifier for that? Especially when I mentioned I previously agreed with you on the examples of bad gay behavior.
What you don’t get, Pat, is that you’re not going to win this way. People watch Pride parades. They read HIV statistics. They see LGBTs rant against religion. They don’t have the level of denialism that the gay community has developed towards its own behaviors.
I’m not necessarily trying to win gay rights by every statement I make. But I think it helps to at least find some common ground here. And that’s what I’m trying to do.
If you think that Dobson etal are awful persons like I believe they are, but you don’t think they are the problem re: gay rights, then please say so. At least I know where we agree and don’t agree.
Now specifically to your statement above, I don’t quite by it. Yes, people watch the pride parades on TV, and I know what they see on the tube. I’ve never been to a pride parade, but I’m guessing what one sees on the tube are only the more extreme elements, and are not going to show the gay accountants contingent and the like. On the other hand, I see more commercials for Girls Gone Wild than pieces of Gay Pride Parades on TV. That doesn’t prevent straight religious people from joining a church. We also see Hitchens, Dawkins, and others rant against religion. And I don’t agree that the level of denialism is different. What I see instead is Dobson etal emphasizing any bad gay behavior and then concluding that all gays are bad. I don’t see the same blanket condemnation when you hear all the unwanted pregnancies, child abuse and neglect, spousal abuse, divorces, etc. And when they do acknowledge it, one of their solutions is to strengthen marriage (but, of course, only for straight people).
How are we going to win? It looks like it’s simply going to be time. More and more people are realizing what charlatans people like Dobson etal are. More rational people are not judging all gay people based on what some do, just like they do for straight people, and any other group for that matter.
Personally, I’m winning. I am succeeding in spite of the evils of Dobson etal. However, there are people who are not succeeding because of these people. My view is Dobson etal and their followers are the ones are more responsible for the hardship of many gay people today. Growing up being told by these people that you are essentially a piece of garbage, going to hell, etc., has done MUCH MORE harm than the bad gay behaviors you cite, NDT.
Even Pat hedges with “fairly convinced”. The city has been sued over this lesbian’s behavior multiple times; the city itself in multiple separate investigations has found bias and sexual harassment.
NDT, I haven’t followed the Bleskavich case as much as you have. Under the circumstances, I don’t believe that’s much of a hedge. And it’s nowhere near the hedging you have done on Dobson etal.
Karen is trying to defend and spin for a fellow lesbian.
I don’t believe that’s the case. Even so, you still haven’t defended your statement. NDT, I agree with most of what you said regarding Bleskavich. But you stated that Bleskavich felt entitled to harass people because of her sexual orientation. I don’t believe that was the case, and you still haven’t defended that statement.
Karen refuses to answer why on earth Bleskachek is claiming innocence and that the accusations are false when the evidence is obvious.
Why should Karen? Many obviously guilty people maintain their innocence. It happens all the time.
Mainly because Karen would then have to admit that Bleskachek either is a complete and utter incompetent who was promoted thanks to Minnesota’s ENDA and affirmative action laws, or a liar who thinks she can make excuses for what she did by screaming “homophobia” and “sexism”.
Those are the only two possibilities?
posted by Karen on
ND30,
“– A heterosexual male has a consensual affair with an employee he didn’t supervise and that had no effect on the business, is ordered to resign from his position and from the Board, and to forfeit pay.
— A lesbian female who has multiple affairs with numerous employees, openly retaliates against subordinates who refuse her NONconsensual sexual advances, and discriminates against people based on sexual orientation and gender, all of which were shown to have a substantial negative impact on a public-safety organization, just gets demoted to an “administrative” job, only has her pay cut by 35% (while still receiving full benefits), and is fully eligible to earn it back.”
This is the difference, my friend, between a private industry job and a government job. Believe me, my partner has a federal job – and the paperwork it would take to fire her would take, literally, years to process. And her position is arguably MORE involved with public safety. The government doesn’t fire, they quarantine – even young, straight, white males.
You want to prove that lesbians get lighter punishments than straight men, but all you’ve proved – insofar as single instances prove anything – is that government workers get lighter punishments than private workers. Which I freely admit.
Look, the only reason that straight people rarely claim innocence and blame the accusations of their various misdeeds on anti-straight bias is that it is usually a straight person doing the accusing, so it wouldn’t make SENSE. But when it is a gay person doing the accusing, you bet your sweet behind it does sometimes happen.
When gay people do it, it is bad and wrong (HEY LOOK I JUST CONDEMNED BLESKACHEK’S ACTIONS, **AGAIN**), and when straight people do it, it is bad and wrong. It’s just less common. The reason why people do it is so absolutely clear: people will say ANYTHING to get out of trouble.
The gay community, being composed of people, is generally going to respond to accusations of anti-gay bias as follows:
1) If the accusation is well supported and probably true, there will be outrage
2) If the accusation is not well supported but there is a possibility that it might be true, many gay people will assume the best of the gay person and the worst of the straight person. Optimists would call that “sticking together”. Bitter and cynical pessimists call it “the reason everyone hates gay people.”
3) If the accusation is or turns out to be almost certainly false, most people will roll their eyes, be irritated, and mostly ignore the person. Optimists call this “Understanding that at this point, everyone knows the person is an ass”. Bitter and cynical pessimists still call it “the reason everyone hates gay people.”
Why? Well, these are the same responses that you would get from the black community to a accusation of racism, the female community to an accusation of sexism, the old community to an accusation of agism, the fat community to an accusation of sizism, etc etc etc. It’s also the response you’d get from the white, male, young, or skinny communities to an allegations of “reverse ___ism”, except that since it’s “reverse”, people are less likely to believe the person might be telling the truth.
You can keep SAYING that this is the reason that everyone hates gay people, but like Pat, I don’t buy it.
“gays would rather insinuate that the city of Minneapolis ran a biased investigation”
No. Normal, intelligent people simply realize that the outcome of any kind of investigation into this kind of he-said, she-said stuff (or she-said, she-said in this case) isn’t actually PROOF of what happened. That’s why I’m unwilling to say that Bleskachek DEFINITELY CERTAINLY WITHOUT A DOUBT did that stuff, and instead use words like “probably” and “most likely”.
It must be really depressing, assuming the worst of everyone all the time. I feel sorry for you.
As for the Christian thing:
If one person who claims to be Christian does a bad thing (like the kind of bigotry that Dobson et al display) and claims that Christianity justifies it, and the response of the majority or even a large part of the Christian community is to buy lots of his books and watch his TV shows and loudly agree with him…
Then by the “logic” that you use against gay people, any amount of anti-Christian bias in the gay community is now justified… except locking them up for assembling peacefully, which you grant might be going “a little overboard”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Hardly. I gladly repudiate and condemn Pickton’s actions, and he should be punished to the full extent of the law for what he did. His invoking of Christ’s name is no excuse whatsoever, and all Christians should make it absolutely clear that his doing so perverts the very idea of what Christianity is about.”.
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
Contrary to your lies about LGBTS you are the one in a state of denial about the evil being promoted by Christians, namely your bible. Once again Christian heterosexuals like Northdallas take no responsibitlity for policing their own, he absolves Christians of guilt when they knowingly produce and distribute the biblical filth that motivated Picton to kill, he never brings up the numerous examples of horrors committed by Christians despite his bullshit lie that he polices his own.
Northdallass insanely keeps stating that the example of Bleskacheck means her actions are typical of all LGBTS. If he wants to insist that’s the case then its obvious that Pictons actions are typical of all Christians as well.
Admit it Northdallass, show some integrity for once in your life, admit that Picton represents Christians just as much as Bleskacheck represents LGBTs.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Karen said “Randi, Oh please. Biblical scholars and theologists have had centuries of practice at explaining these things – we’re not the first generation to notice the barbarism of some of “Jehovah’s” actions. Don’t bother making them bust out the apologetics and interpretations.”.
Karen, there has never been and will never be enough centuries for apoligists to explain the examples of the Christian god’s barbarism that I’ve pointed out. An unsupported assertion that they have is incredibly lame, if you don’t have specific examples you have nothing. I’ve seen some pathetic, twisted and laughable excuses for the Christian god’s evil actions but there most certainly are no justifications for it. If there were apoligists like Northdallass would be quick to trot them out. They can’t because no reasonable explanations exist despite centuries of desperate attempts to find them. Christians like Northdallass and Bobby don’t bring out these laughable excuses precisely because they know they explain nothing and only serve to further discredit the bible and its would be apoligists.
And Northdallass, given that you assert my condemnations of the bible mean that all LGBTs are anti-religious you must by the same logic accept that Karen and Bobby’s defense of religion means that all LGBTs are religious. See how stupid you are? Its a fact as Dalea pointed out over 2/3 of gays are religious contrary to your lies.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Karen said “[Northdallass] want[s] to prove that lesbians get lighter punishments than straight men, but all [he’s] proved – insofar as single instances prove anything – is that government workers get lighter punishments than private workers. Which I freely admit.”.
Actually Karen he hasn’t proven that either. What he’s proven is that in this once instance a government worker got a lighter punishment, that in no way proves this is typically the case. To prove that one would need to do a survey of a statistically significant number of instances of employees being punished (the generally accepted number is 1000). Two examples is an anecdote, not evidence.
And this is typical of Northdallass’s lies. He brings up isolated examples and claims this proves the example is typical of an entire community. Even the lowliest scientist/statistician would tell you that’s absurd, that you can’t draw conclusions about a population for single anecdotes, yet that is the entire basis of Northdallass’s lies about the gay community. The example of bleskachek says no more about what is typical of the LGBT community than the example of Picton says what is typical of Christians. A pride parade doesn’t epitomize the gay community anymore than the sleazy antics at Mardi Gras or Carnival epitomize the straight community. But you’ll never hear Northdallass critizice straight excess at Mardi Gras or Carnival – he’s willfully blind to the wrongs of the straight community and obsessed with demonizing gays. Northdallass cares not about right and wrong, he’s fundamentally dishonest, he’s declared war on the gay community and it doesn’t matter how good and decent gays are he is their enemy and determined to lie about them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The government doesn’t fire, they quarantine – even young, straight, white males.
Uh huh.
Right.
Sure.
Even straight women.
The reason why is outlined in the second example; if you respond promptly to instances of sexual harassment, you are not liable, but if you ignore it and fail to respond, you are. Furthermore, the reason why people who sexually harass others are fired, versus demoted, is also outlined therein; you need not be supervising people to sexually harass them. As a result, it is better to remove them from the environment, period, than to attempt to “quarantine” them — which is why sexual harassment is grounds for termination in virtually all private companies AND, as it seems, governments.
In short, what we see is that governments DO fire those who sexually harass others, retaliate against others for refusing sexual advances or for reporting sexual harassment, and who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.
Unless they are gays and lesbians, in which case governments not only refuse to fire them because it would “take too long”, but openly accept the liability of keeping them on staff, with taxpayers being forced to pick up the legal costs and penalties — something which they refuse to do for other employees.
It must be really depressing, assuming the worst of everyone all the time. I feel sorry for you.
You confuse refusing to believe that gays and lesbians are always right with assuming the worst of everyone.
If the accusation is or turns out to be almost certainly false, most people will roll their eyes, be irritated, and mostly ignore the person.
Again, Karen, that is something peculiar to victimization-bound minority groups like gays and blacks, who need their minority status to be a get-out-of-responsibility-free card and thus can tolerate no criticism or critical discussion of their behavior.
As I demonstrated above, I have no problem publicly calling out someone else who claims to be a Christian on their bad behavior. That’s because ignoring them is not good enough; I want no confusion on the matter, and it doesn’t harm me in the least to demonstrate what that person did was wrong.
Then by the “logic” that you use against gay people, any amount of anti-Christian bias in the gay community is now justified
As I have been saying to Pat, Karen, go right ahead and keep screaming about Christians for condemning gays who who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who sexually harass and discriminate at work, who regularly have unprotected sex with multiple partners and spread HIV, and who molest children.
All that demonstrates is that you are more concerned with being criticized than you are for the behaviors themselves. And furthermore, like I pointed out above, gays already blame Christians for everything that happens to them anyway, even when the person carrying out what happened had repudiated Christianity, so it’s hardly a threat that you’re going to be “biased”. Christians already know that gays are “biased” against them and blame them for everything bad that ever happens to gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Stop hyperlink.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, when I said Dobson, etal were vicious and evil, why on earth would you assume I meant that EVERYTHING they say or do is evil? Do I really need a quantifier for that? Especially when I mentioned I previously agreed with you on the examples of bad gay behavior.
Because, Pat, you said that those gays, including the ones who have sex with underage children and give them HIV, were saints in comparison.
And that brings us to this:
Growing up being told by these people that you are essentially a piece of garbage, going to hell, etc., has done MUCH MORE harm than the bad gay behaviors you cite, NDT.
Therefore, in your opinion, it is worse that gays be criticized by people, who gays consider to be superstitious moronic idiots and in whose opinions they put no weight whatsoever, than it is for gays to molest children, have sex with underage children and give them HIV, spread HIV through promiscuous sex with multiple partners to the point that one in four gay men is now HIV positive, sexually harass and discriminate at work, and so forth.
Or in other words, Pat, you think “Dobson made me do it” is a valid excuse for all of those behaviors.
Dobson is a convenient excuse for you to use to avoid having to criticize other gays. Just as above, you made as if you were criticizing gays’ behavior, but you immediately deflected onto other people to demonstrate that gays weren’t as bad by comparison.
For example:
On the other hand, I see more commercials for Girls Gone Wild than pieces of Gay Pride Parades on TV.
Where have you EVER heard a straight person say that Girls Gone Wild represents all straight people? But Pride parades are SUPPOSED to represent the gay community. They STATE that they represent the “pride” that ALL gays have in themselves.
There is significant opposition in the straight community to “Girls Gone Wild” and the promiscuous sex and behaviors it displays. Where have you seen significant opposition to what goes on at Pride parades in the gay community, other than from people like me who gays don’t believe are gay?
I don’t see the same blanket condemnation when you hear all the unwanted pregnancies, child abuse and neglect, spousal abuse, divorces, etc.
That is because there are significant majorities of straight people who OPPOSE these things and make their opposition known.
Contrast that to the gay community, where their response to a lesbian caught sexually harassing her coworkers and demanding sex from her subordinates is to clam up and say nothing.
What this all boils down to, Pat, is that you’ve got to get over the idea that gay solidarity is somehow a good thing. As the response to people like me who question it should show you, solidarity in the gay community is more important than what’s right and wrong.
Furthermore, you’ve also got to overcome your fear of ostracism by other gays. As my example shows, the constant abuse by people like Randi, Karen, etc. doesn’t do anything to silence one, nor does it force you to respond or change your opinions. It’s all based on realizing that the only way in which gays like them will accept you is if you conform to their beliefs and opinions in every respect.
posted by Pat on
As I have been saying to Pat, Karen, go right ahead and keep screaming about Christians for condemning gays who who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who sexually harass and discriminate at work, who regularly have unprotected sex with multiple partners and spread HIV, and who molest children.
NDT, This is at least the fourth time I said that your statement attributed to me is false. I respectfully request that you do not attribute that to me any more.
Jan. 10 8:05 am
NDT:Yes, people who speak out against gays who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who have come out vociferously against pedophilia and child molestation, and who speak glowingly of the importance of religion in everyday life are just such awful, vicious, evil people.
Pat:You’ve got to be kidding. If that’s all what they are about, I’d like them too. But you know darn well that’s not the case, NDT, or at least you know that’s not what I meant. Especially since I’ve made it clear that I oppose ALL people who take children to sex fairs. I oppose ALL adults who have sex with underage children. I oppose pedophilia and child molestation. And as far as religion, I am respectful of everyone’s religious (or non-religious) beliefs, except when it’s used to harm people.
Jan. 10 1:18 pm
NDT:Such as pointing out the gays who take their children to sex fairs, who have sex with fifteen-year-old boys and give them HIV, who regularly have unprotected sex with multiple partners and spread HIV, and who molest children.
Pat:NDT, what’s going on here? Did you simply not read what I wrote in my post, or did you deliberately disregard it? I did NOT say the individuals were vicious and evil for the reasons you stated, and thought I clearly made that point otherwise. And I did not even come close to saying that EVERYTHING these individuals have said or done are hateful. But these individuals have clear records of hate and bigotry towards gays (and again, I’m not talking about the things you mentioned).
Jan. 11 6:48 am
NDT:I don’t see any of those qualifiers here, Pat.
Pat:NDT, when I said Dobson, etal were vicious and evil, why on earth would you assume I meant that EVERYTHING they say or do is evil? Do I really need a quantifier[sic] for that? Especially when I mentioned I previously agreed with you on the examples of bad gay behavior.
(Note: typo in original post, should be qualifier, not quantifier.)
posted by Pat on
Because, Pat, you said that those gays, including the ones who have sex with underage children and give them HIV, were saints in comparison.
And I stand by it. I was comparing two wrong acts, and I said one was worse than the other. You obviously disagree with that, and that’s fine.
But I simply fail to see how you could possibly conclude what you are trying to attribute to me, when three times prior to your post I said it was false.
Therefore, in your opinion, it is worse that gays be criticized by people, who gays consider to be superstitious moronic idiots and in whose opinions they put no weight whatsoever, than it is for gays to molest children, have sex with underage children and give them HIV, spread HIV through promiscuous sex with multiple partners to the point that one in four gay men is now HIV positive, sexually harass and discriminate at work, and so forth.
Or in other words, Pat, you think “Dobson made me do it” is a valid excuse for all of those behaviors.
I have NEVER made that claim, and what you are inferring has no basis of fact or logic.
Dobson is a convenient excuse for you to use to avoid having to criticize other gays. Just as above, you made as if you were criticizing gays’ behavior, but you immediately deflected onto other people to demonstrate that gays weren’t as bad by comparison.
Your first sentence is absolutely false. As for the latter, you started with the comparisons. So it’s right when you do it, but wrong when I do it. And further, it must mean something other than I’m saying. Come on, NDT, what gives?
What this all boils down to, Pat, is that you’ve got to get over the idea that gay solidarity is somehow a good thing. As the response to people like me who question it should show you, solidarity in the gay community is more important than what’s right and wrong.
Sorry, you’ve got me pegged wrong again. I have plenty of criticisms of the gay community. We simply disagree with what they are, and what the approach should be.
Furthermore, you’ve also got to overcome your fear of ostracism by other gays.
That was done a long time ago. I could almost see you could conclude that based on our disagreement, but it’s not true. Frankly, I hesitate playing Internet psychologist, but I’ll do so to make a point. Based on your responses, it appears that you are afraid of ostracism by the Christian community and family members who oppose homosexuality, and feel the need to overemphasize the wrong behavior of gay people and underemphasize the wrong behavior of religious people so you can be accepted by them. Whether that’s true or not, that’s an unfair conclusion to make. So let’s make a deal. Let’s not make inferences like this again.
As my example shows, the constant abuse by people like Randi, Karen, etc. doesn’t do anything to silence one, nor does it force you to respond or change your opinions. It’s all based on realizing that the only way in which gays like them will accept you is if you conform to their beliefs and opinions in every respect.
Huh? I should purposely be contrarian then?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “As I demonstrated above, I have no problem publicly calling out someone else who claims to be a Christian on their bad behavior. “.
False. You demonstrated that you won’t publically call out evil when confronted with it. Your bible commanded that Picton kill prostitutes and you failed to condemn the book for giving him the motivation and failed to condemn the Christians who blindly produce, distribute and promote a killing and torture manifesto. You demonstrate that you won’t criticize the wrongdoings of the christian community, you try to blame it one person who was explicitely carrying out the commands of the bible that people like you promoted to him as the example of righteous and good behavior.
Northdallass said ” the constant abuse by people like Randi”.
How typical, I point out the evil that you worship, your worship of a character that murders and tortures the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty, a sadistic psychotic baby killer and you laughably call that abuse. You defend pedophilia and when I call you on your evil ways you consider that abuse – Puhleeze.
The fact is that as I’ve demonstrated your bible describes a god character carrying out one immoral perverted act after another and rather than doing what’s right and condemning that evil you defend and promote it. You’re in no position to be preaching morality to gays or anyone. Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in your own.
Your god brags about punishing children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. Your god sanctions the killing of 42,000 men because someone mispronounces “shibboleth”. Your religion insanely says babies who’ve done nothing should be eternally tortured because they’ve inherited the sin of an ancient ancestor. Condemn that evil now or stop lying about you are being abused and stop lying about how you publicly call out someone who claims to be Christian on their bad behavior.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
That should be “take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in others”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You obviously disagree with that, and that’s fine.
You’re right, I do.
Mainly because I am not of the mind that saying that a gay person is going to hell is worse than having sex with an underage child and giving them HIV.
Especially when most gays don’t even believe that there is a hell, a God, or punishment for sins in the first place.
I have NEVER made that claim, and what you are inferring has no basis of fact or logic.
You are claiming that attacks by Dobson etal are the cause of gay peoples’ problems, are you not?
My view is Dobson etal and their followers are the ones are more responsible for the hardship of many gay people today.
You are blaming Dobson for gays’ hardships; therefore you are stating that Dobson is responsible for gays who molest children, have sex with underage children and give them HIV, spread HIV through promiscuous sex with multiple partners to the point that one in four gay men is now HIV positive, sexually harass and discriminate at work, and whatnot. You are also agreeing with gays who claim that Dobson and so forth are responsible for attacks on gays, even if they are by atheists who want nothing to do with Christianity (as in that case).
In comparison, I put the onus on the gays actually DOING the behavior — and hold the gay community accountable for not doing the same. Probably because I’ve noticed how slowly HIV spreads in communities that frown on promiscuous sex and drug use, how much sexual harassment falls in workplaces in which the consequence for it is termination, and so forth.
Based on your responses, it appears that you are afraid of ostracism by the Christian community and family members who oppose homosexuality, and feel the need to overemphasize the wrong behavior of gay people and underemphasize the wrong behavior of religious people so you can be accepted by them.
That, Pat, is based on two assumptions:
a) Religious people are as intolerant of different opinions as is the gay community.
b) I am less willing to stick up for what I believe when it comes to Christianity and with fellow Christians and family than I am when it comes to gays.
You would be incorrect on both counts. Indeed, my entire religious tradition and theological training exists because one man was willing to challenge authority and stick up for what he believed, even on pain of personal and professional ostracism.
Huh? I should purposely be contrarian then?
There’s a good example of a linguistic difference between gay perspective and real-world perspective.
In the real world, a contrarian is someone who disagrees with everything. In the gay world, a contrarian is someone who disagrees with ANYTHING.
posted by Karen on
“As my example shows, the constant abuse by people like Randi, Karen, etc. doesn’t do anything to silence one, nor does it force you to respond or change your opinions. It’s all based on realizing that the only way in which gays like them will accept you is if you conform to their beliefs and opinions in every respect.”
ND30, there are plenty of gay people who hold beliefs and opinions other than my own. I’m not sure what you mean by “accept”, but I certainly LIKE many of them. And I respect everyone’s right to have their own opinions – but not their own FACTS or their own system of logic.
I don’t particularly like you, but that’s because you constantly lie, change the subject, and come across as a generally bitter and awful person. I do respect your right to have an opinion. I also respect my own right to counter your arguments with my own and not be accused of “abusing” you.
I have a happy hour to get to. Good to you sir.
I said Good Day!
posted by Karen on
Oops, skipping words again. Ah well.
It works a lot better if you actually DO say “good day to you sir” before you say “I said Good Day!” 🙂 🙂
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You are blaming Dobson for gays’ hardships; therefore you are stating that Dobson is responsible for gays who molest children, have sex with underage children”.
Nonsense. She never claimed that the reason children are molested is hardships caused by Dobson. You’re a lying idiot.
Child molestation is nothing compared to your Jesus eternally torturing innoncent babies because they inherited the sin of Adam.
Not only have you failed to condemn this abomination, you’ve praised it and identified this as your perfect role model. No gay has every done anything to remotely compare with the evil you worship. And you yourself have defended pedophilia in the past, so don’t give us this feigned outrage over it now.
What you consider “moral” shifts 180 degrees dependent on whatever you feel is most expedient to your goal of waging war on innocent LGBTs.
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of Christianity.
posted by Pat on
NDT, I did my best to get some common ground on our disagreements, but now this is getting well beyond counterproductive.
You set standards for my arguments that you don’t follow yourself. You attributed false statements to me, despite my pointing it out to you several times. I’ve done my best to answer your questions directly, while you have disregarded mine by again attributing false claims about what I say. You’ve made inferences about me that are simply not true. In your last post, it was more of the same. I’ve made an inference about you that you say is false. I’ll take you at your word. I hope you return the courtesy.
I respect your opinion, even when it’s very opposed to mine. I also respect that you hold these opinions despite whatever hardship it causes you. I’m glad you are willing to stick up for what you believe. Don’t assume I don’t as well, because my approach is not the same as yours.
Have a good weekend.
posted by Karen on
“Or the fact that gays and lesbians like Karen refuse to criticize said gays, claiming that they ‘don’t feel the need to disapprove’.”
Excuse me, Mr. Liar? I believe that your pants are on fire.
I have criticized “said gays” many, many times, even in this very thread.
I said that I don’t feel the need to CONSTANTLY REREGISTER my disapproval in every case with you and everyone like you. I don’t feel the need to constantly make it clear, to people who don’t believe me anyways on account of I’m gay, that I ALWAYS think lying, pedophilia, etc are wrong, even when gay people do them. I don’t feel the need to dignify your insane accusations that I am ‘defending’ these people when I am merely correcting your errors of fact and logic.
Quit lying. It’s not sexy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I said that I don’t feel the need to CONSTANTLY REREGISTER my disapproval in every case with you and everyone like you.
Or, more precisely, you said:
I don’t feel the need to state that I disapprove for your benefit and for the benefit of anyone else who judges all gay people by my actions.
If we look at those statements, they don’t match.
And furthermore, Karen, remember what you argued when trying to explain Bleskachek’s preferential treatment?
The government doesn’t fire, they quarantine – even young, straight, white males.
I provided four examples that demonstrate quite clearly that the government DOES fire such individuals — unless they are gays and lesbians, in which case governments not only refuse to fire them because it would “take too long”, but openly accept the liability of keeping them on staff, with taxpayers being forced to pick up the legal costs and penalties for their behavior.
posted by Karen on
“If we look at those statements, they don’t match.”
The word that you’re forgetting to pay attention to is “state”. As in: the difference between “state for your benefit that I disapprove” and “disapprove”.
Stating for your benefit that I disapprove of something that EVERYBODY disapproves of – simply because you have this little superiority complex you feed by lying to yourself about how terrible all the OTHER gay people are – that would be the same thing as constantly reregistering my disappproval with people who don’t believe me anyway. I can probably come up with a few other ways to phrase the same thing, too. But you, in “rephrasing”, leave out key concepts. Because you are a liar.
“I provided four examples”
And as Randi correctly stated, selected examples do not make proof. The simple fact is, any time a gay person gets ANY discipline for harassment, it’s news because of the “gay people harass too” angle. It’s not likely to draw coverage for straight people unless they’re fired. So unless you have some kind of comprehensive study of sexual harassment complaints – reported in the news or not – in public and private employment, you’re nowhere. You haven’t even begun to approach coming close to attempting to prove that Bleskachek’s treatment was ‘light’ because she’s gay.
And to drag this back to the topic at hand, you haven’t even begun to approach coming close to attempting to prove:
1) that Jefferts thinks Africans are “primitive” – I’ll say it yet again, condemning an African’s views and actions w/r/t gay people does not mean you believe “Africans are primitive savages”.
2) that Jefferts “fully supports outing” – she merely stated that churches should be honest about having (allegedly) bishops that are open enough about their private lives that they are well known by the church leadership to be partnered with someone of the same sex. They should be honest instead of having these bishops and then turning around and hypocritically supporting the ban on partnered gay bishops. They could avoid naming names, if that’s really necessary, simply by refusing to support the ban. And if they don’t have any such bishops, then the statement doesn’t apply to them.
3) anything at all w/r/t the “diversity quota” thing you kept bringing up. I’m not even sure WHAT you are trying to say, but I have seen no evidence that any such quota exists or that Jefferts supports having any such quota.
Not only that, but you are way off base in your insistence that wanting to CHANGE the rules, and wanting HONESTY about how well the rules are actually being followed, is automatically childish and is the same thing as wanting to BREAK the rules because others are also breaking them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Karen not only does Northdallass falsely blame others for wanting to break the rules because others are breaking them, he does the very thing he condenms. He said himself earlier in this thread “Since the American church demands the right to break canon law at will, I see no reason why other churches should be restrained by it”.
Whenever he blames gays for bad behavior its typical of him to be guilty of it himself or worse.
Northdallass said “I provided four examples that demonstrate quite clearly that the government DOES fire such individuals — unless they are gays and lesbians.”.
Selecting isolated examples that fit your pre-chosen hypothesis while ignoring those that contradict it don’t demonstrate a pattern or anything other than your fundamental dishonesty. As Karen and I have both pointed out if you want to demonstrate a pattern you’ll need a systematic survey of around 1000 randomly select examples of people being fired to see if there is any systematic bias. As it stands your “four examples” just make you a bullshitter.
Your Jesus character eternally tortures innoncent babies because they supposedly inherited the sin of Adam.
Not only have you failed to condemn this abomination, you’ve praised it and identified this as your perfect role model. No gay has every done anything to remotely compare with the evil you worship. You yourself have defended pedophilia so don’t give us this feigned outrage over supposed wrongdoings by gays.
Picton murdered 50 women because he followed the commandments of your bible. Condemn this evil book now or fail to and make it clear you support the evils of the Christians portrayed in it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Karen, Northdallass isn’t gay, he lies about that because he thinks it emphasizes the lies he tells about gays. Gays that are as anti-gay as Northdallass call themselves “ex-gay” and falsely claim they have “found freedom from homosexality” and try to get all gays to reject their sexuality.
Northdallass similarly makes the laughable claim that he volunteers to help aids victims. A lot of those people are gays and there’s no way Northdallass would ever do anything to benefit a gay – he lies about that as well.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Stating for your benefit that I disapprove of something that EVERYBODY disapproves of – simply because you have this little superiority complex you feed by lying to yourself about how terrible all the OTHER gay people are – that would be the same thing as constantly reregistering my disappproval with people who don’t believe me anyway.
And you DO constantly register your disapproval with people who don’t believe you anyway.
Isn’t it amazing how you can register your disapproval about people you don’t like all day, but seemingly find yourself completely unable to do the same for gays and lesbians who do bad behaviors?
And as Randi correctly stated, selected examples do not make proof.
But oddly enough, to gays and lesbians, Jefferts Schori providing no examples, no names, and no linkable references at all — only accusations — constitutes “proof”.
Isn’t it amazing how gays and lesbians are never satisfied with evidence provided of bad gay and lesbian behavior, but accept unquestioningly and completely accusations with no evidence whatsoever as “proof” when made against people they don’t like?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Once again Northdallass says the wrongs he falsely accuses LGBTS of are justification for him committing the same wrong.
“Look at me, I’m Northdallass, I can lie and blame gays for calling isolated cherry picked examples proof and then do the same thing myself and pretend I’m right and good. I pretend they did something wrong so that justifies me doing that same wrong. I’m exactly like the “teenage girl who stomps her foot and screams how “everyone else is doing it” as an excuse for why she should be allowed to break whatever rules she wants.”.”.
Your god brags about punishing children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. Your god sanctions the killing of 42,000 men because someone mispronounces “shibboleth”. Your religion insanely says babies who’ve done nothing should be eternally tortured because they’ve inherited the sin of an ancient ancestor. Robert Picton obeys your bible and Christian teachings by killing 50 women and you fail to hold your heterosexual Christian community accountable for promoting and encouraging people to follow hate literature. You’re in no position to criticize gays you pedophile defender you.
posted by Karen on
“Isn’t it amazing how you can register your disapproval about people you don’t like all day, but seemingly find yourself completely unable to do the same for gays and lesbians who do bad behaviors?”
Isn’t it amazing how you can both fail to make sense AND ignore the fact that you lied about what I said AND continue to lie, all at the same time?
“But oddly enough, to gays and lesbians, Jefferts Schori providing no examples, no names, and no linkable references at all — only accusations — constitutes “proof”.”
In no way do her allegations of hypocrisy constitute proof. Is that clear enough for you? NOT PROOF. I never said it was proof. NEVER SAID. NOT PROOF. In fact, multiple times I have referred to the unsubstantiated nature of her vague allegations. This does not make her a spoiled teenager, nor does it make any of your additional accusations true, nor does it magically disappear the fact that your 4 examples of fired straight people do not a pattern make.
Isn’t it amazing, how you lie and dodge and lie and dodge and lie and…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Isn’t it amazing how you can both fail to make sense AND ignore the fact that you lied about what I said AND continue to lie, all at the same time?
What I did, Karen, was point out that you do “constantly reregister your disapproval” with the actions of people you don’t like.
Therefore, you should have no problem “reregistering your disapproval” with the actions of gays and lesbians who commit bad behaviors.
In no way do her allegations of hypocrisy constitute proof. Is that clear enough for you?
And yet, Karen, you had no trouble using them to make bald and absolute statements like this:
She points out that the spirit of the rule (no gay bishops) is being widely disregarded in practice anyway, leaving only a hypocritical nod towards appearances.
Furthermore, you supported these allegations as “civil and proper”.
nothing Jefferts has done that I know of has been anything but civil and proper
In short, you get upset about people pointing out anything negative about gays WITH evidence, but you fully support as “civil and proper” making claims which even YOU admit are unsubstantiated when they’re against people you don’t like.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “In short, you get upset about people pointing out anything negative about gays WITH evidence.”
Once again Northdallass falsely accuses an LGBT of a wrong he himself freely commits. His morality is subjective, what’s right or wrong isn’t determined by the action, its determined by who does it.
Northdallass, you have NO evidence that the government systematically fires wrongdoers unless they are gay. Selecting isolated examples that fit your pre-chosen hypothesis while ignoring those that contradict it don’t demonstrate a pattern or anything other than your fundamental dishonesty. As Karen and I have both pointed out if you want to demonstrate a pattern you’ll need a systematic survey of around 1000 randomly selected examples of people being fired to see if there is any systematic bias. As it stands your “four examples” just make you a bullshitter.
Northdallass falsely accused Jefferts-Schori by saying “What Jefferts-Schori is demonstrating is that her only excuse for her behavior is “they do it too””
and then hypocritically used the exact same excuse himself by saying
“Since the American church demands the right to break canon law at will, I see no reason why other churches should be restrained by it”
As Northdallass then said:
“In short, it is obvious that [for Northdallass] it’s not what’s being said or being done that is causing the problem; it’s who’s doing it.”.
In otherwords its okay for him to use the excuse that “everybody else is doing it”, but nobody else should. Clearly Northdallass is, as he said, “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”
Unlike the LGBTs on this board you have repeatedly failed to hold wrong-doing Christians accountable. Christians gave Picton the bible and encouraged him to follow it without question and when he did so he killed 50 women. You tried to blame the wrong-doing on Picton without acknowledging the role your heterosexual christian community played in motivating his crimes. Once again, when an isolated LGBT does something wrong you falsely blame all innocent LGBTs for it, but when Christians encourage others to follow the murderous bible you look the other way.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass lies and claims that heterosexual christians like him hold their communities accountable for member wrongdoings. NEVER. Never has Northdallass voluntarily brought up wrongdoings by heterosexual Christians like these and the examples abound:
Let’s go to Cleveland, Ohio, where a pastor, the Reverend Donald Ray Robinson, is in trouble for enriching his own bank account. He stole $300K from the church, stole the identities of church members to obtain illegal credit cards and pocketed a $5,000 grant from the Cleveland Foundation for a computer training program.
Now we go to Georgia, where an elderly megachurch pastor has been accused of perjury in a case involving his diddling around and making babies with someone other than his wife.
Paulk manipulated Mona Brewer into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation. In a 2006 deposition stemming from the lawsuit, the archbishop said under oath that the only woman he had ever had sex with outside of his marriage was Brewer.
But the results of a court-ordered paternity test revealed in October that Paulk is the biological father of his brother’s son, D.E. Paulk, who is now head pastor at the church. As part of Brewer’s lawsuit, eight women have given sworn depositions that they were coerced into sexual relationships with Earl Paulk.
Mo. Mayor Charged in Child Sex Sting. And don’t you know it, the perv pastor was planning on violating the sanctity of his marriage with what he believed to be a 13-year-old he was chatting up on the Internet.
Allen Kauffman, 63, was arrested Friday on four counts of felony enticement of a child in the latest sting orchestrated by a police detective in another southwest Missouri town, Diamond.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4154
There are millions of examples of heterosexual/Christian wrongdoings and despite his insistence that he does Northdallass has NEVER voluntarily mentioned one of them. Instead he brings up the tired example of Bleskacheck over and over, pretending that repetition of one Lesbian’s wrongdoing outweighs the overwhelming preponderance of wrongdoings committed by heterosexuals and Christians.
posted by karen on
I can’t argue with someone who constantly changes definitions.
Are we talking about “criticizing gays” or “criticizing gays who do something wrong”?
Are we talking about specific (but unsubstantiated) allegations of hypocrisy on the part of some unidentified, but individual, people? Or are we talking about blanket allegations against an entire group of people, every single one of them?
What is “to disapprove”? What is “to defend”? What is “a screaming hissy fit”? You very carefully use imprecise language in such a way as to try to make your bitter diatribes against “gays” and anyone who supports them seem rational. You interpret words differently when speaking about Christians and anti-gays than when speaking about gays and gay allies.
You are either a very clever jerk, or a very fuzzy thinker. Either way, I’m done here.