Wednesday, February 21, 2007

House of Representatives Set to Vote on “Hate Crimes” Giving Homosexuals Special Rights

The U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on HR 254, which establishes “hate crime” legislation. HR 254 will create new special rights for homosexuals under the guise of enhancing law enforcement. It would make “sexual orientation” a protected class alongside race, religion and gender.

The only way this bill can be defeated is with a real grassroots uprising by those who care about the future of their children, families and marriages!
The intent of this law is to force the acceptance and approval of homosexuality on every American, regardless of their religious views. Here is a short summary of HR 254.
For a more in-depth review of where we are headed, click here.
Here is a partial list of what homosexual activists are trying to force on every American. While HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish these goals, it will open the door to such regulations.
  • Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with “hate speech.”
  • Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.
  • Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.
  • Polygamy will be legalized.
  • Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.
  • Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered “hate speech.” City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as “hate speech.” The billboard read: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13)
  • Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.
  • Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.
  • Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.

To read HR 254, click here.

Let me say again: HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish everything the homosexual activist’s desire. But it is the first step in positioning their cause where they can achieve all their goals.

Take Action

Send an e-mail to your representative urging him or her to vote AGAINST HR 254.

Click Here to Email Your Representative Now!

This has been a message provided by the American Family Association

34 Comments:

Anonymous Katiekat said...

You really have issues, man. I still haven't figured out why you would include me in a mass email that is clearly anti-ssm. Anyway, your claims that speaking out against homosexuality from the pulpit will get churches charged with "hate speech" is a load of BS. We have freedom of religion in this country, you moron! You can say whatever you want in a church and not get into any trouble for it, at all. Hell, you could preach that the supreme being is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and no one could care less. Including homosexuality in hate crimes legislation simply amplifies the punishment for beating, maiming, or killing someone because they are gay. No more, no less. Now, if the legislation passes, and you go out on a public sidewalk somewhere and start spouting hateful rhetoric about gays and lesbians, then you bet your ass you'll be charged with hate speech, because you're in a PUBLIC space. However, it is different in a church, mosque or synagogue, where you can say whatever the hell you want without fear of retribution, because you have FREEDOM OF RELIGION, which also translates to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Which means that you can't legislate ME from YOUR bible, period.
Get real.

11:26 AM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katiekat,

You may be right about the churches, MAYBE, but what is even scarier is that many individuals in a place of employment are being fired for "hate speach" just because they either are speaking verses from the Bible that condone homosexuality or are driving to work with signs that advocate a vote on marriage. (See my October 20th post "Pro-Marriage Message at Root of Employee's Dismissal".)

It does not stop there:

In Northbrook, Illinois, J. Matt Barber, a manager in Allstate's Corporate Security Division, wrote an article on December 17, 2004, for a conservative Web site that expressed his Christian views on homosexuality. Following a "customer" complaint by the homosexual pressure group Human Rights Campaign, Barber was called to meet with two human resources officials, who, as he describes it, "slapped down" a printed copy of the column and asked if he had written it. Barber confirmed that he had written the piece on his own time and in his own home. "Here at Allstate we have a very diverse community," he said he was told. The human resources assistant vice president told Barber that his column "did not reflect Allstate's view." Clearly Allstate's "diversity" does not tolerate the historic Christian faith perspective and Barber was suspended without pay and immediately escorted off company grounds.

Three days later, Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years, was fired "for writing the article."

At Hewlett-Packard's Boise, Idaho, location, Richard Peterson had been an employee for almost 21 years when the company began a workplace-diversity campaign with "diversity posters." In response to the homosexual posters placed near his cubicle, Peterson posted Bible verses at his desk dealing with homosexuality. His supervisor removed the verses and ordered him to stop the postings. When Peterson continued to post Scriptures, he was fired for "insubordination." The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his case and wrote: "An employer need not accommodate an employee's religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against his co-workers or deprive them of contractual or other statutory rights." In other words, the court affirmed the ability of employers to implement "diversity programs" that promote sexual immorality while prohibiting employees from objecting.

I could go on and on with stories like these, I have TONS of them to share.

No, I do not think gays should be beaten/maimed,ect because of their sexual orientation, but I also do not think they should get special privliges based on their sexual orientation. These special rights open doors to destroy other peoples right to religious freedom and others right to free speech.

You are advocating "FREEDOM OF RELIGION", are you not Katie?

3:33 PM, February 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I could go on and on with stories like these, I have TONS of them to share.”

As I’m sure you are aware, there are many stories of homosexuals being given the same kind of treatment for the past couple of millennia. Your stories have got nothing on the GLBT community’s endurance of crimes similar and much worse than the ones you mentioned.

“No, I do not think gays should be beaten/maimed,ect because of their sexual orientation, but I also do not think they should get special privliges based on their sexual orientation.”

I don’t think religion and its followers should get special protections either but they do. I’ve gotten over it; can’t you get over a small percentage of the population getting some extra benefits, especially since their degradation has been mostly at the hands of religion?

8:24 PM, February 22, 2007  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

" In other words, the court affirmed the ability of employers to implement "diversity programs" that promote sexual immorality while prohibiting employees from objecting."
No, what the court did was affirm that every human has worth and dignity, and that no one should be subjected to religious rhetoric in their place of business. You're cunfusing the two issues. People should be free to practice their religion, however people should also be free to NOT be subjected to another's religious views. Acceptance/tolerance of homosexuality (an innate trait that can NOT be changed without extreme mental/emotional trauma), is different than acceptance of public proselytizing. Religion is a choice, a VERY personal one, that should not be shoved in the face of everyone around you. Homosexuality is part of the human condition. Some people are, some people aren't, and it is just a fact of life that the general public needs to accept and deal with.
We're not asking for "special" rights. Just the same rights that everyone else has. You have the right to walk down the street and not be taunted, beat up, etc. for your religion, skin color, or the gender of your spouse. Why can't I have that right, too?

11:04 AM, February 23, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You said:

"No, what the court did was affirm that every human has worth and dignity, and that no one should be subjected to religious rhetoric in their place of business. You're cunfusing the two issues. People should be free to practice their religion, however people should also be free to NOT be subjected to another's religious views."

So, let me get this straight. You are advocating for no one to be 'subjected to religious rhetoric in their place of business', but people should be subjected to a belief structure, homosexuality, that they don't agree with??? How is that balanced??

"...however, people should also be free to NOT be subjected to another's religious views."

What about people's freedom to NOT be subjected to another's sexual immorality views?

We have to make it fair and square, Katie, if we are to live with eachother...right??? Isen't that what is being fought for by the homosexual community???

You said:

"Acceptance/tolerance of homosexuality (an innate trait that can NOT be changed without extreme mental/emotional trauma..."

"Homosexuality is part of the human condition."

Show me the conclusive evidence behind your opinion that you are passing off as fact? I document my facts, can you?

You said:

"You have the right to walk down the street and not be taunted, beat up, etc. for your religion, skin color,..."

Not beat up for having a certain religion and SKIN COLOR, are you sure about that???

1:38 PM, February 23, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"...can’t you get over a small percentage of the population getting some extra benefits, especially since their degradation has been mostly at the hands of religion?"

The Christian value system is entrenched in our governmental laws and regulations to protect us all, even you Anonymous.

How have you been affected by the 'hands of religion'. I am proposing a serious question here and not trying to be smart.

1:43 PM, February 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“What about people's freedom to NOT be subjected to another's sexual immorality views?”

If the person working next to you is gay, how does that “subject” you to “sexual immorality?” What’s immoral for you is not necessarily immoral for all. As far as your “gay” co-worker is concerned, as long as he is not trying to involve you in his sexual activity you have nothing to complain about. As long as you keep your religious beliefs to yourself he has nothing to complain about.

“Show me the conclusive evidence behind your opinion that you are passing off as fact? I document my facts, can you?”

Can you prove that it isn’t? Katiekat is gay, she should know.

“Not beat up for having a certain religion and SKIN COLOR, are you sure about that???”

You have the right, but some idiots take it upon themselves to hurt others just for being different.

“The Christian value system is entrenched in our governmental laws and regulations to protect us all, even you Anonymous.”

If the Christian value system is as you say “entrenched” in our government, we need to weed it out. Christianity belongs in our government as much as the government belongs in Christianity.

“How have you been affected by the 'hands of religion'.”

I live in AZ. The Religious Right has been attempting to knock out sex based businesses; swingers clubs, strip clubs, adult book stores, etc. etc. I should be allowed to frequent those places if I so please. The Religious Right says that I shouldn’t be able to.

Should have mentioned it before, Ken Weaver.

4:33 PM, February 23, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"As far as your “gay” co-worker is concerned, as long as he is not trying to involve you in his sexual activity you have nothing to complain about."

The "gay" co-worker is not involving the "straight" co-worker in his or her sexual activity in any way,shape,or form. That is not my point. My point is that I, nor anyone else, should have to be subjected to diversity/tolerance training when it specifically goes against their religious beliefs. I should not have to be subjected to seminars in toleration concerning VIEWS that are sexually immoral. Your comparing apples and oranges AGAIN and not reading my comments carefully enough.

If I am to be forced to ACCEPT your sexually immoral VIEWS at work then you should be forced to ACCEPT my VIEWS of my religion. Fair is fair, right Ken???

You said:

"Can you prove that it isn’t? Katiekat is gay, she should know."

That is my point. There is NO conclusive evidence to CONCLUDE that being a homosexual is via nature or nurture. You need to read my February 10th post titled: "Is Being Gay a Choice or Innate?"

By the way, what makes Katie "conclusive evidence" that being a homosexual is innate???

Yes, you should have a right to visit whatever porn shops you want, and I disagree with the "Religious Right" on a First Amendment basis on this issue. On the other hand, my Christian upbringing tells me that your, and definatly my own, sin is hated by Christ and we must all try and walk in his foot-steps as best as we can.

Good argument Ken.

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried." - G.K. Chesterton

8:54 PM, February 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If I am to be forced to ACCEPT your sexually immoral VIEWS at work then you should be forced to ACCEPT my VIEWS of my religion. Fair is fair, right Ken???”

In my occupation I go to downtown Phoenix quite often. When I’m near the intersection of Central and Monroe there is always this one particular man who wears all black. He has a booming voice that seems as though it could travel a half mile in all directions (it couldn’t really but when you within a couple of blocks it seems very imposing even over the construction of the light rail going on.) He is constantly reminding everyone of the impending doom of the Earth, and how fire and brimstone will fall from the sky like rain. There are others like him around downtown Phoenix but he is the most memorable. So as I travel on foot to and fro I have no choice but to hear him, I can try to ignore him but I am still “subjected” to his religious views. Now I don’t have to “accept” his views, but I am forced to hear him due to his freedom of speech.

When most people work they are around others with differing views of religion, politics and morality. Most businesses have a policy regarding employees proselytizing their faith while at work. It is generally a “no tolerance” policy because of the differing opinions and how people can get agitated when their particular religious views are challenged. A person being forced to hear out a “tolerance” policy on homosexuals in the workplace is generally for a much different reason. Up until fairly recently if it became known publicly that someone was homosexual they were treated as “sub-human”. Sometimes homosexuals were even abused both physically and verbally. The tolerance policy many companies now adhere to is not an attempt to prevent you from believing homosexuality is a sin, but to impose upon you that the workplace is not the arena to espouse those beliefs. I would not be surprised if I was told that those same kinds of tolerance policy meetings have been around for some time now. I’m sure they had those meetings when it became known in the workplace that an individual was Mormon or Jewish or all the differences we have as humans became apparent in our attempts to make a living.

“By the way, what makes Katie "conclusive evidence" that being a homosexual is innate???”

She would know better than you or I or even Warren Throckmorton. She has lived that experience, we haven’t.

“On the other hand, my Christian upbringing tells me that your, and definatly my own, sin is hated by Christ and we must all try and walk in his foot-steps as best as we can.”

You could be right, but at the same time you may not be. My Christian upbringing did not lead me to faith, it lead me to a distrust of all religions, especially Christianity. So I am happy to let you save your soul, but I will take care of my own thank you.

Ken Weaver

10:32 AM, February 24, 2007  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

*deep breath*
Okay, I'm going to respond to all the things you asked me.
You said:
"You are advocating for no one to be 'subjected to religious rhetoric in their place of business', but people should be subjected to a belief structure, homosexuality, that they don't agree with???"
You are assuming that homosexuality is a "belief structure". While it is certainly your prerogative to assume that, the American Psychiatric Association begs to differ. As do I. while it may not be "conclusive evidence", as a queer woman I can assure you that I did NOT wake up one morning and say, "Y'know, I think I'm going to be queer from now on". I'm not sure how you think that homosexuality is a "choice" or a "belief system", however since you are NOT gay, I don't really think you can ever know. I do, however, have one question: With all the stigma and hatred associated with being gay, what makes you think that anyone would consciously CHOOSE to be?
You said:
"Not beat up for having a certain religion and SKIN COLOR, are you sure about that???"
Yup. It's in the Constitution. You have the RIGHT to walk down the street and not be beaten up/taunted/maimed for your religion, skin color, or country of national origin, or sex. There will always be hateful people who do these kinds of things, but at least you have the right to prosecute them in a court of law for hate crimes. So, my question to you is, why shouldn't gay people have that same right?
You said:
"My point is that I, nor anyone else, should have to be subjected to diversity/tolerance training when it specifically goes against their religious beliefs."
You are actually very wrong here. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that our laws are not made based on any one religion, because we have freedom of religion in this country. You have the right to not be treated differently in your workplace regardless of your religion. However, you cannot proselytize religion in a workplace because that violates one's rights to freedom FROM religion. There are some religions out there (even Christian ones, believe it or not) that do NOT believe that homosexuality is immoral, because they understand that it IS an innate quality. Just because your particular brand or christianity preaches that the gay community is immoral, doesn't mean that anyone else has to subscribe to that. And teaching tolerance in the workplace so that gay people are not treated as "sub-human" or "less than" is not immoral, in fact, from what I know of Jesus Christ, he would wholeheartedly approve.

Ken said:
"Can you prove that it isn’t? Katiekat is gay, she should know."
"She would know better than you or I or even Warren Throckmorton. She has lived that experience, we haven’t."
Thanks for saying this, Ken.
Nice to "see" you around. :)

Scia, I wish that somehow I could get you to understand that my sexual orientation is not a choice, but it doesn't look like I can, even though all the evidence from NON-PARTIAL sources is contrary to that belief. All I can tell you is, I AM gay, I have BEEN gay since I was aware of any sexual stirrings, I can't change it, and with 10% of the population of the world reported to be gay, I don't see how on earth it could be anything BUT innate.

11:32 AM, February 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Katiekat, nice to see you around as well.

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but I feel I must dispute one thing from your last post. Katiekat said: “However, you cannot proselytize religion in a workplace because that violates one's rights to freedom FROM religion.”

I think you are misunderstanding the constitutions 1st Amendment. While we have the right to choose a religion and the right to a government which does not promote any one religion or the beliefs thereof, that government cannot grant us freedom “from” religion due to another 1st Amendment clause: “…or abridging the freedom of speech…” Many religions have a belief that to attain their view of heaven they must “convert” others to their faith. Most companies don’t allow proselytizing due to them attempting to hold together a “team” mentality which would not be able to happen if some employees were continually arguing their faith. As far as I know it is not “unlawful” to preach while at work, it’s just bad manners and can get you dismissed from the job if the company has a policy regarding it.

Ken Weaver

2:14 PM, February 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is quite the discussion but it fails to notice that most of the alarms sounded as being included in this bill are made-up, sensationalist propaganda.

4:27 AM, February 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the actual bill summary:

A crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

4:30 AM, February 28, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"In my occupation I go to downtown Phoenix quite often. When I’m near the intersection of Central and Monroe..."

You are once again comparing apples and oranges when you compare tolerance/diversity training in a place of EMPLOYMENT and WALKING down a street to your place of employment. I am not sure what you are getting at.

You said:

"Most businesses have a policy regarding employees proselytizing their faith while at work."

Oh, so that is NOT O.K., but your idea of proselytizing your homosexual views on others is O.K.??? What's fair is fair, right...Ken????

You said:

"A person being forced to hear out a “tolerance” policy on homosexuals in the workplace is generally for a much different reason. Up until fairly recently if it became known publicly that someone was homosexual they were treated as “sub-human”. Sometimes homosexuals were even abused both physically and verbally."

Tell that to David Parker's kid (5 years old)who was beaten up because his father did not want him to be subjected to homosexuality in his KINDERGARTEN class. The Parker's Christian faith is prosecuted on a daily basis.

You said:

"The tolerance policy many companies now adhere to is not an attempt to prevent you from believing homosexuality is a sin, but to impose upon you that the workplace is not the arena to espouse those beliefs."

Again, your views can be protected in the workplace and be talked about with no problem, but Christian/other religious views....forget it?????

Tolerance/diversity training needs to include an umbrella of different beliefs, religions, cultures, body types,SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS ect and not just focusing on the homosexual lifestyle because they are screeming for more rights. When was the last time you heard of people at work attend tolerance/diversity training for overweight people or those that decide to smoke? I don't buy it Ken.

You said:

"I would not be surprised if I was told that those same kinds of tolerance policy meetings have been around for some time now."

Ken, this "tolerance" agenda for homosexuals has only come to fruition in a major way since same-sex "marriages" were first outlawed in Hawaii. The unanimous ruling in December, 1999 against the efforts to recognize "gay" marriages in Hawaii by the Hawaii Supreme Court was the first step in trying to spread the same-sex "marriage" idea. As a result of this, "tolerance/diversity" training for sexual orientations exploded.

You said in closing:

"My Christian upbringing did not lead me to faith, it lead me to a distrust of all religions, especially Christianity."

Why?

1:57 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie,

You asked:

"With all the stigma and hatred associated with being gay, what makes you think that anyone would consciously CHOOSE to be?"

Lust.

Full page advertisements The U.S.A Today and New York Times ran in 2004 featuring 850 former homosexuals who claim that Jesus Christ had changed their lives and that they were no longer walking down the homosexual path.

You asked in regards to having a right to walk down the street and not being beat up for being gay.

"So, my question to you is, why shouldn't gay people have that same right?

You do.

You said:

"And teaching tolerance in the workplace so that gay people are not treated as "sub-human" or "less than" is not immoral, in fact, from what I know of Jesus Christ, he would wholeheartedly approve."

Yes, He would Katie because Jesus loves you, but He hates your sin and my sin.

There is not one single place in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned in anything other than negative terms or where homosexual relationships were given any approval. From a biblical perspective, homosexuality is a consequence of the sinful nature that all people share. At the fall in Genesis Chapter 3, God’s perfect creation was spoiled and the resulting sin affected all man from that point forward physically, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and sexually. Homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality that is God’s plan for all His creation.

2:21 PM, March 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia, I think it is you now who is comparing apples and oranges.

Apples: Religious proselytizing

Oranges: Homosexual tolerance programs

First off, I doubt Christians would need a tolerance program because 86% of Americans claim they are Christian.

When people bring up religion at work; what is it for? I’ve never had to deal with it much because by the time I had reached the workplace, it was already seen as rude. But my Grandfather had told me that when it was brought up at his place of employment it wasn’t for the purpose of being tolerant of other religions; it was for indoctrination! Trying to get others to believe in the same religion.

When a person goes through a sexual orientation tolerance program, it’s not to “indoctrinate” you to be homosexual; it’s to make sure the freaks that like to hurt or harass others for being different know their job could be in jeopardy.

I hope you can see the difference now.

My story of being downtown and hearing how that man speaks of his religious beliefs was to prove a point. The only way I would not have to hear his beliefs is to quit my job. It’s likely quite similar for others; if you don’t want to hear that tolerance training; QUIT!

What’s your point in the David Parker story? Is it that there are jerks on both sides of the aisle? I agree. I couldn’t tell David Parker’s child anything he likely hasn’t already heard, that he was beaten because he is different, and some people fear those differences so much they feel their last resort is violence. I am curious if you read the same story I did though. Did you get it from the MassResistance website? Now I could be mistaken but I have to assume that the other children that were the instigators are likely near the same age as David Parker’s child; 5 or 6 years of age. Here’s a quote from the story I read; “…for what appeared to be a well planned and coordinated assault.” That’s where the story gets over the top for me. When kids are 5 and 6 years old they don’t plan and coordinate; they just do what they feel like.

“As a result of this, "tolerance/diversity" training for sexual orientations exploded.”

Okay, so what? You don’t think there was ever a tolerance/diversity seminar on other issues before this?

"My Christian upbringing did not lead me to faith, it lead me to a distrust of all religions, especially Christianity."

You want to know why? Why what? I’ll tell you how and then the why. I grew up in a Mormon Church. My Mother thought so much of these people she wanted to be a part of their religion. Well one of the stereotypes for Mormons is that they are financially well off. It’s true for the most part; not everyone but generally they seem to do well for themselves financially. Unfortunately, my family was not in the financially secure group. When I went to church functions I was not dressed as well as the other kids, my clothes were my brother’s “hand-me-downs.” It didn’t take long for the other kids to notice this fact. It started slow but their smirks and laughs turned into harassment and threats and then into violence. I was probably 10 when in the Sunday school class; one of the other boys walked by me and then suddenly turned, grabbed me by the hair on the top of my head and slammed my head into the wall. The teacher just told him to sit down and leave me alone. Well, the next week I was in the bathroom. Three other boys my age came in roughed me up and once again slammed my head into the wall, only this time I started bleeding. Well, when I talked to my Mother about it, she looked at me real sad like and asked why I was trying to mess this up for her. So I called my Father who lived in Tucson, he told me I need to take the bad with the good. So I went to the bishop who wouldn’t believe a word I was telling him because one of his sons was part of the group in the bathroom who told him I had started the whole thing. So I went to the only other person I could think might be able to help me; God. I prayed three times a day for 6 months. I asked for help in fighting back, I asked for a way to escape them, I begged that I would be saved somehow, someway. Nothing ever changed until my Grandfather (an Agnostic) had seen some marks on me. I told him what had been happening and I had never seen this gentle loving man so angry. He told my Mother that if she ever took me to that church again he would make sure she lost all of her children. He then went to the bishop grabbed him by the throat and told him if any church kid ever touched me again that he would hold him responsible. I never had to go to church again, and no kids from the church would come near me at school. So, from my point of view it was not God who had helped me, neither was it a Christian, it was an Agnostic.

I think it was Gandhi who said something akin to I have no problem with Christ but I do have problems with Christians; they are so unlike Christ. That kind of sums up my feelings on Christianity.

Ken Weaver

7:53 PM, March 02, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You claim lust to be a reason for a person to be homosexual? I’ve felt lust, even Jimmy Carter felt lust but we’re not gay. Have you felt lust for the same sex? Why does this belief that homosexuality is chosen so much a part of your opinion? Is there some reason it has to be chosen and not inborn?

“Full page advertisements The U.S.A Today and New York Times ran in 2004 featuring 850 former homosexuals who claim that Jesus Christ had changed their lives and that they were no longer walking down the homosexual path.”

I hear there are more ex-ex gays than there are ex gays.

“There is not one single place in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned in anything other than negative terms”

So? Divorce is given a lot more space in the Bible and seen just as negatively. Jesus Christ himself addresses divorce but never mentions homosexuality. As a Christian wouldn’t divorce be seen more of a sin than homosexuality just because Christ said so?

Ken Weaver

8:04 PM, March 02, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Your story about your childhood is interesting. I felt bad for your situation, truely.

The Mormons have a different way of looking at things.

When you searched for God and asked for his help were you seeking and searching for the answer? Who knows Ken, maybe your Agnostic grandfather was the answer to alleviate your problem.

What I am trying to get at is God works in many ways that are very powerful. Did God send you your Agnostic grandfather to act out acts of violence on those who were being unfair to you? No. Maybe, he sent you your Agnostic grandfather so you can both try and seek the Lord together.

You seem to be an intelligent person Ken, but it takes wisdom to seek the Lord.

3:36 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Jesus Christ himself addresses divorce but never mentions homosexuality."

We know for sure however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms with regards to God’s created intent for human hetero-sexuality:

“From the beginning of the creation God make them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh…What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Jesus also never overtly condemned domestic abuse or child pornography. But to confine God’s word to the red lettering (Jesus’ words) of the Gospels contradicts 2nd Timothy 3:16 that: “All scripture is God breathed.”

The scriptures also include the old-testament as well as the epistles from the new covenant which are every bit as God ordained as the gospels.

Leviticus 18:20 states: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Romans 1:27 states: “In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Good job.

3:42 AM, March 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“When you searched for God and asked for his help were you seeking and searching for the answer? Who knows Ken, maybe your Agnostic grandfather was the answer to alleviate your problem.

What I am trying to get at is God works in many ways that are very powerful. Did God send you your Agnostic grandfather to act out acts of violence on those who were being unfair to you? No. Maybe, he sent you your Agnostic grandfather so you can both try and seek the Lord together.”

When I was asking for god’s help I wasn’t looking for an answer; I was looking for a solution, a way to get through those days without fear.

If god was so eager to help me and to have some semblance of faith I’m sure he would have picked someone other than my Grandfather. Since no Christian around was willing or able to help me, I realized then that faith is a ruse.

“You seem to be an intelligent person Ken, but it takes wisdom to seek the Lord.”

Not to me it doesn’t. I am strong enough to stand on my own 2 feet. I don’t need the fear that when I die I’ll pay for my sins to abstain from stealing, lying or killing. I also don’t need a “heavenly bribe” to do nice things for others.

Which version of the bible are you quoting from? I have a King James version and the words in my bible don’t match up with your quotes very well.

When I wrote that Jesus never mentions homosexuality it was to prove a point, not so much which issue deserves more attention but that most people want their bible “ala carte.” In Leviticus it states that eating sea creatures without scales is an abomination, but no one is trying to make that illegal. It’s written in the bible that women should be quiet in church, but they're not and no one is seeking a resolution for that issue. Boys that drink too much were stoned, adulterers were stoned (rapists weren’t though; go figure). If you want biblical literalism you have to take it all, not just the things you want to keep. And if Christians are going to pick and choose laws in the bible to enforce and ignore; who gets to make the decision for which way each verse in the bible goes?

Ken Weaver

8:29 PM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I want to stress that there is a fundamental inference regarding the laws of the Torah, and that is that those laws were given as part of a specific covenant between God and the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not to mankind as a whole. That is not to say that some of the laws codified in the Torah do not have universal application, because it is quite obvious that they do. One such law, regarding murder, is a sin whether someone is under the particular covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or the general covenant between the life giving Creator and all those living.

Thus, a larger question must be asked: concerning the covenant between the Creator, God, and the particular descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – is that covenant still in effect?

If that covenant is no longer in effect, if follows that those people who were formerly under that covenant have been excluded by the covenant maker (i.e. God) UNLESS they are now bound under the newer covenant. Also, then the laws that were specific to that first covenant cannot be binding, UNLESS they continue in the newer covenant.

I declare that a newer covenant has come!

It is that same covenant spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, in chapter 31 of his book. It was brought about by the death of the anointed one (the Messiah, as prophesied by the prophet Daniel) - who was to come 490 years after the declaration of the rebuilding of Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity of the first covenant people. Interestingly, Daniel 9 says that Messiah would be “cut off”.

Where the old covenant was binding on a particular people and lineage, and that it was broken by those people formerly under it themselves, the newer covenant is binding upon a particular people also. However, it is NOT passed on by family genealogy as was the first covenant; rather, the newer covenant is binding in a mystical way. Where it was spoken that the Messiah would die, the key point is that He would also be raised from the dead! The newer covenant is binding upon those people who believe that this same anointed one, who was to come at the particular point in time (per Daniel 9), that they also believe that He rose from the dead and lives forever, that He is now reigning as KING Messiah – and that He LITERALLY has taken His seat at the Right Hand of the Power on high (i.e. God).

I hope this clears things up.

Scia

9:40 AM, March 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now I doubt that what I am reading is what you’re trying to explain. So I got lost in it completely.

Now you seem to be saying that the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were under a covenant with god that is no longer in effect, but you’re also saying that there is a new covenant that is “…the newer covenant is binding upon a particular people also. However, it is NOT passed on by family genealogy as was the first covenant; rather, the newer covenant is binding in a mystical way.” Then you go on to say that this new covenant is binding upon those that “…believe that this same anointed one, who was to come at the particular point in time (per Daniel 9), that they also believe that He rose from the dead and lives forever, that He is now reigning as KING Messiah – and that He LITERALLY has taken His seat at the Right Hand of the Power on high (i.e. God).” Well, I apparently am not included in that covenant as many others are also excluded from that covenant due to our lack of belief that Jesus Christ was resurrected. So it would only seem logical that since we are not beholden to that covenant with god; you have no right to demand a morality that’s basis is within that covenant.

Did I misunderstand?

Ken Weaver

7:49 PM, March 22, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You seem to know a lot about the bible!!

Can you explain to me where you get your facts regarding that Jesus was not resurected?

3:04 PM, March 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Can you explain to me where you get your facts regarding that Jesus was not resurected?”

Common sense. If a person dies what is left is a corpse. A shell of what once was. It is no more full of life than my chair. I have no facts to show that Jesus was not resurrected; I just believe that the bible has either embellished the facts, has been completely misinterpreted or it was a human explanation to what the people perceived rather than a factual account of history. I was watching the History Channel and during this particular show (don’t remember what it was called, sorry) a man was attempting to prove the biblical account of Exodus. He came to show that many of Moses’ miracles were possible through nature. But when it came to finding evidence in the Red Sea there was none. But if you look at what was called the Reeds Sea they found what could possibly have been the remnants of the Egyptians chasing the Jews when the water came in on them, like chariots and armor of the time.

When I read the bible (and I do) I rarely find an explanation plausible with what I know of science. I find it unlikely that Mary gave birth to a son without having sex in a manner that creates offspring. Maybe she lied. Maybe her and Joseph were messing around a little prior to marriage and couldn’t come up with a better story to tell their parents. I don’t really know one way or the other. Neither do you. You have faith that what the bible is telling you is true; I don’t. You apparently only need that faith; I need something more. The biblical account of creation looks like what someone might come up with no knowledge of what really happened. So they invented a story to tell their children as to the creation of life. That seems a lot more likely than a mythical being that the mere sight of would destroy us took a rib from Adam and made a woman. And if that account is true along with all the other stories in the bible I find that being no more deserving of worship than the devil. He looks a bit bloodthirsty in many stories from that text.

So, there you have it. I have no proof that god exists. Do you have some that proves god does exist?

Ken Weaver

10:02 PM, March 23, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Let me answer your last question first.

You asked:

"Well, I apparently am not included in that covenant (New Covenant) as many others are also excluded from that covenant due to our lack of belief that Jesus Christ was resurrected. So it would only seem logical that since we are not beholden to that covenant with god; you have no right to demand a morality that’s basis is within that covenant."

Ken, you claim that "you (me, Scia) have no right to demand a morality thats basis is within that covenant." Ken, what "morality" am I demanding specifically?

Ken, you are correct in saying that you are outside of the covenant of King Messiah (Yeshua ha Mashiach, Jesus the Messiah)per your own admission that you are not part of the covenant, i.e., you do not believe that Yeshua (Jesus) rose from the dead (if that is so you must believe that Yeshua was a mere mortal who died and is still dead).

However, that does not mean you have a right to not adhere to a morality, even one that is deemed so by the prevailing society. As a member of society, and merely on that ground, should one comply with the mores of the society.

12:38 PM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Ken, what "morality" am I demanding specifically?”

Sexual morality for the right of marriage. Specifically being non-homosexual.

“However, that does not mean you have a right to not adhere to a morality, even one that is deemed so by the prevailing society. As a member of society, and merely on that ground, should one comply with the mores of the society.”

Not in this country. If you wish to live in a society that all are required to live per your religious faith I wish you good luck. We are a society of rebels; from our Founding Fathers to today. That rebellion starts in our childhood, but for some it seems to die once adulthood is reached. I always feared that my son would rebel against me, but for him to do so would be to conform to society; apparently he liked that prospect even less. I will not conform to other’s views of morality so they can sleep better at night. Part of my rebelliousness demands that I not hide it to help others feel more comfortable. Maybe that’s what’s going on in America today. We have become so comfortable that we can’t stand for someone to challenge our beliefs. Please challenge my beliefs! I hate being an Agnostic. I wish I could be Christian, but regrettably I must follow what I see as right and just.

Ken Weaver

8:00 PM, March 29, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I asked:

"Ken, what "morality" am I demanding specifically?"

And you answered:

"Sexual morality for the right of marriage. Specifically being non-homosexual."

It is true that our laws which govern institutions such as marriage are based on our collective sense of "morality." All laws are derived from the collective public morality and ethics to a great degree. Marriage laws are also more generally decided by our people via our elected representatives-not by unelected judges like our own who unconstitutionally usurped the legislative authority of the "people" to decide the issue.

This is how it works in a Constitutional Republic (representative democracy) such as ours. When laws are decided via the legislative process, the citizenry must abide by them or suffer the penalties for breaking those laws. Marriage laws- although they have a distinctly Judeo Christian foundation- are decided upon by our elected representatives irregardless of religious beliefs.

Ken, for you to deny the vast majority of our laws that are derived from a Judeo-Christian basis is to deny empirical reality. What you are saying is rediculous. You are claiming that since you are not a Christian you don't have to comply with laws that are founded upon or somehow related to Judeo-Christianity morality. Well, our murder laws are based specifically on the 10 Commandments-"Thou Shalt not Murder". Do you believe that you can go ahead and murder people because I have "no right to demand a morality based on Judeo-Christianity"? Of course not. But that is exactly what you are implying.

The reason that you have to abide by our marriage laws, which prohibit you from marrying another man or two other men or your dog for that matter, is that as a citizen of the United States- a nation of laws- you must abide by our laws period. It's that simple.

The fact that you are not a Christian, Ken, does not exempt you from abiding by the laws of our nation and the laws of the state in which you reside.

If morality were specific to a religioius system, then if someone is outside that system you could legitimately say it does not apply to them and it would be wrong to enforce it, and certainly there have been times in history that the Christian Church as well as other religious systems have enforced "particulars" of their faiths as if they were general to all people, when really they were just specific to their system of faith.

The question comes - is morality only specific to a religious system? I would like to define morality as those things which are staked in the reality of human existence rather than a particular system. It is because they exist in human experience, they then find themselves also as particulars in religious systems. What the heck I am talking about??? example: Murder is wrong. Universal to all people. Murder is wrong, not because the Bible says, "do not murder" but rather the Bible says do not murder because murder is wrong. All religious systems say murder is wrong because it is.

Example 2: That Marriage is between a man and women is the human condition , that all people everywhere in all ages have acknowledged, and that even the youngest child can instinctively recognize and our own biologies make unavoidable. Therefore it finds itself as well in religious systems.

Basic morality is critical to the functioning of any society because it is rooted in basic human experience and reality. To deny morality is to threaten the health of a society. For example, it is human experience also to eat, drink and seek connection with other humans. To deny any of these things is to harm society and so it is with basic morality.

8:46 PM, March 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Well, our murder laws are based specifically on the 10 Commandments-"Thou Shalt not Murder".”

So, are you actually saying that without religion’s direction we’d all just do whatever? That without religious doctrines murder would or could be acceptable? Before there was religion there was man. Throughout history murder was just as unacceptable as it is today (if not more so.) Even in the realm of animals species generally conduct themselves with some level of civility. There was murder before religion, yet we had knowledge that murder was wrong, as even the animals do. It seems reasonable to assume that without Christianity we would still have a law against murder.

Ken Weaver

6:39 PM, March 31, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Murder is wrong, not because the Bible says, "do not murder" but rather the Bible says do not murder because murder is wrong. All religious systems say murder is wrong because it is.

You said:

"It seems reasonable to assume that without Christianity we would still have a law against murder."

This I agree with.

But to get back to my point in which you have not touched base on:

My comment earlier: "To deny morality is to threaten the health of a society."

10:19 AM, April 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To deny morality is to threaten the health of a society."

Only to a certain extent. Morality above and beyond common courtesy can be different depending on the individuals. Some people have a moral objection to gambling, does that grant them the right to attempt to outlaw gambling? Or, as a civil society, are we able to look past those differing morals and live life as we each see fit? A more “live and let live” ideal should be seen as a morality that falls under the line of common courtesy; not above it.

Ken Weaver

11:11 PM, April 19, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Tossed-salad versions of rule/law does not work. This has been proven time and time again in the history of mankind. Come on!!

8:53 PM, April 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tossed salad versions???

What on Earth are you trying to say??

We already have a kind of tossed salad law system. Each state generally writes its own laws with a central government overseeing the whole thing. If I travel to Nevada I can gamble, but in Arizona I can’t unless I go to a tribal casino which is on an Indian reservation which are to an extent a sovereign nation.

Ken Weaver

7:03 PM, May 03, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Let me clarify.

What I meant by my statement of a "tossed salad version of rule/law to your question/statement of:

"...are we able to look past those differing morals and live life as we each see fit? A more “live and let live” ideal should be seen as a morality that falls under the line of common courtesy; not above it."

...was that a "live and let live" way of life leads to anarchy. Do you advocate for anarchy Ken or do you think a rule or two will keep society on the right tracks?

8:48 PM, May 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“a "live and let live" way of life leads to anarchy”

How so? I’ve lived that way for as long as I can remember and I don’t think my life is so out of order nor do I see anyone I know suddenly finding themselves in chaos due to that ideal. Or am I completely misunderstanding you? Live and let live as I see it leads to a better understanding of life in general. I believe everyone should do as they please as long as what they are doing has no negative impacts on others. It seems so simple, and simple is orderly.

“Do you advocate for anarchy Ken …”

No I don’t advocate for anarchy. I don’t really advocate for anything except freedom. If freedom is anarchy in sheep’s clothing I’ll take it over ancient ideals enforced upon everyone any day of the week.

“… do you think a rule or two will keep society on the right tracks?”

Overall yes. Have you ever been in a lawyer’s office and seen the amount of books he has just on the law. It’s astounding. I spent nearly $10,000 on tools just to get started in auto repair. I’ll bet a lawyer has to spend 10 times that to get law books just for the state in which he resides. There are way too many laws. And then those laws can get in the way of other laws or prevent previous laws from being enforced. It’s a quagmire of legality beyond comprehension. Try to imagine living in a world where you could do whatever you want as long as it causes no one else harm. Isn’t that simple? It wouldn’t be perfect and it would need some fine tuning with some amendments to get it just right but it would make things simpler. No more unneeded laws like carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket and the like.

Ken Weaver

10:11 PM, May 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com