The Gaytheist Agenda

The Traditional Values Coalition proves itself incapable of telling the truth in its quest to harm LGBTs and rake in money for it’s anti-gay agenda. This time they’ve produced a pitiful video that concludes with an offer for $4 propaganda tracts which, of course, have no facts whatsoever. Much like the video.

 

 

The video attempts to equate homosexuality and pedophilia. This is one of the longstanding RRRW lies. The facts:

 

The Reality of Pedophilia

We get often caught in a semantic conflict when discussing the sexual abuse and molestation of children. Depending upon our exact definitions of terms, it can be shown:

1. that homosexual abuse of children is widespread, and
2. that abuse of boys by gays is rare, and
3. that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still.

If we define the phrase “homosexual abuse of children” in the first statement to mean adults molesting and abusing children of the same sex, then this statement is true: Child sexual abuse is widespread. It is perpetrated by males in the vast majority of cases. And a substantial minority of their victims are boys. Data relating to men abusing boys is hungrily pounced upon by opponents to equal rights for homosexuals, who often use it against both gays and lesbians in civil rights battles. But it is not homosexuals, as the term is generally understood, who are responsible for the abuse. It is rather pedophiles who are attracted to children, and have decided to abuse them.

However, if we define the phrase “abuse of boys by gays”, and “abuse of girls by lesbians” to mean adult persons with a homosexual orientation abusing children of the same sex, then these statements 2 and 3 above are also true. Gays and lesbians rarely abuse children.

The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.

 

The video also claims that LGBTs are putting out studies showing that adult/child sex is not harmful. We are? Where are these alleged studies and who published them? TVC fails to cite their sources, of course, because they assume that their word as a “Christian organization” is good enough.

 

The video claims we should not be given laws protecting us from hate crimes. Why not? People such as the members of the TVC are given protection from hate crimes based on their religion. So why should we be left unprotected? The hatred of the TVC is extensive.

 

TVC then states we should not be able to “promote” homosexuality in schools. Since when are we doing that? I have yet to see anybody going into schools and telling children to become gay. Telling children that gay people exist, and that being gay is not a bad thing is not “promoting” homosexuality, regardless of what bigots like the TVC believe.

 

The video then goes on to claim that we should not be able to marry or adopt children. More bigotry. There is no reason aside from religious bigotry that LGBT individuals should not be able to marry and/or adopt. No reasons at all.

 

I have some suggestions for the Traditional Values Coalition. Pick up your Bibles–I assume you have those, no? Turn to Exodus 20:16. Commit it to memory and try to live by it. Now turn to Matthew 7:12, commit that to memory and try to live by it. When you’re able to do those two things get back to me. Until then I don’t want to hear a thing out of you, you malevolent hypocrites.

Religion has long been a tool of control–over individuals, groups and society in general. But some churches are taking it to new lengths. They’re now engaging in “shunning” and other forms of direct discipline of church members. What’s more is that church members sometimes consent to these practices.

 

On a quiet Sunday morning in June, as worshippers settled into the pews at Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan, Pastor Jason Burrick grabbed his cellphone and dialed 911. When a dispatcher answered, the preacher said a former congregant was in the sanctuary. “And we need to, um, have her out A.S.A.P.”

Half an hour later, 71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a church member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and regularly donated 10% of her pension, was led out by a state trooper and a county sheriff’s officer. One held her purse and Bible. The other put her in handcuffs.

The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey’s real offense, in her pastor’s view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he’d charged her with spreading “a spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. “I’ve been shunned,” she says.

Her story reflects a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.

…..

Watermark Community Church, a nondenominational church in Dallas that draws 4,000 people to services, requires members to sign a form stating they will submit to the “care and correction” of church elders. Last week, the pastor of a 6,000-member megachurch in Nashville, Tenn., threatened to expel 74 members for gossiping and causing disharmony unless they repented. The congregants had sued the pastor for access to the church’s financial records.

…..

Scholars estimate that 10% to 15% of Protestant evangelical churches practice church discipline — about 14,000 to 21,000 U.S. congregations in total. Increasingly, clashes within churches are spilling into communities, splitting congregations and occasionally landing church leaders in court after congregants, who believed they were confessing in private, were publicly shamed.

…..

Courts have often refused to hear such cases on the grounds that churches are protected by the constitutional right to free religious exercise, but some have sided with alleged sinners. In 2003, a woman and her husband won a defamation suit against the Iowa Methodist conference and its superintendent after he publicly accused her of “spreading the spirit of Satan” because she gossiped about her pastor. A district court rejected the case, but the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the woman’s appeal on the grounds that the letter labeling her a sinner was circulated beyond the church.

…..

Among churches that practice discipline, there is little consensus on how sinners should be dealt with, says Gregory Wills, a theologian at Southern Baptist Theological seminary. Some pastors remove members on their own, while other churches require agreement among deacons or a majority vote from the congregation.

…..

Since Mrs. Caskey’s second arrest last July, the turmoil at Allen Baptist has fizzled into an awkward stalemate. Allen Baptist is an independent congregation, unaffiliated with a church hierarchy that might review the ouster. Supporters have urged Mrs. Caskey to sue to have her membership restored, but she says the matter should be settled in the church. Mr. Burrick no longer calls the police when Mrs. Caskey shows up for Sunday services.

Since November, Mrs. Caskey has been attending a Baptist church near her winter home in Tavares, Fla. She plans to go back to Allen Baptist when she returns to Michigan this spring.

“I don’t intend to abandon that church,” Mrs. Caskey says. “I feel like I have every right to be there.”

 

This is a frightening phenomenon and I can’t help but wonder what is behind it. Is it a reflex caused by the RRRW’s failing grip on American politics? Is their need to control and manipulate people so dire that they’ll resort to turning their own congregants into pawns in some macabre chess game if that’s their only option? Whatever the impetus, those who allow themselves to be the victims of these megalomaniacal churches are pitiful fools.

 

May those people grow spines, rise up and tell their churches to go to hell.

The hate-filled members of the Westboro Baptist Church plan to picket Heath Ledger’s funeral because of his role in Brokeback Mountain. They’ve produced this lovely news release to announce their intentions and their glee over their belief that Heath is burning in hell.

 

If WBC and the Phelps family were truly moral they’d be protesting things that are really abominations. May I suggest any, or all, of the following:

 

The Darfur Conflict.

 

Hungry and starving people, including 13 million children, right here in the USA.

 

47 million Americans without health insurance.

 

Two years later New Orleans is still in shambles from Hurricane Katrina. It’s just a bunch of poor black people, so who cares?

 

But what am I thinking? RRRW fundies never care about anything of substance. Doing so would take real time, effort, money and above all, a conscience.

Ledger was found dead in his Soho residence in New York City today.

Ledger’s family, including father Kim and mother Sally and sister Kate spoke to reporters in Perth this afternoon.

“We, Heath’s family can confirm the very tragic, untimely and accidental passing of our dearly loved son, brother and doting father of Matilda,” his father said.

“He was found peacefully asleep in his New York apartment by his housekeeper. He was down to earth, generous, kind-hearted, life-loving, unselfish, individual (and) extremely inspirational to many.”

…..

New York police said they could not confirm Ledger was suffering from pneumonia.

“This is the first I’m hearing that,” Lieutenant John Grimpal, from the New York Police Department, told Macquarie Radio.

“The medical examiner, once he or she conducts an autopsy, will determine exactly the cause of death.”

…..

TMZ reports the actor was in full cardiac arrest by the time emergency services arrived at the apartment. They attempted to perform CPR on him, but were unsuccessful. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

…..

In 2005, he was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain.

…..

Ledger’s other film credits included A Knight’s Tale, The Patriot, Casanova, Ned Kelly, Lords of Dogtown and Monster’s Ball. He recently appeared in I’m Not There, one of several actors playing a role representing Bob Dylan and was currently working on the movie The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, directed by Terry Gilliam and in which he was to star alongside Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits.

…..

 

 

Rest in peace, Heath.

Our friends at Focus on everbody’s Family but their own have published a propaganda brochure entitled Why Not Gay Marriage?. This will help their lemmings who (as usual) cannot think for themselves regurgitate pat non-answers to our very valid questions about why we cannot have equal marriage rights. Allegedly this brochure provides the 10 most persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage, but as I’ll soon prove, they’re anything but.

 

Question 1“How will my same-sex marriage hurt your marriage?

 

Same-sex proponents are asking everyone — all of society — to dramatically and permanently alter their definition of family, to say that male and female are not essential for marriage, family and society. They want us to believe male and female are merely optional for the family.

The definition of “family” has been altered over the decades and centuries innumerable times already. There are families with a single mother, a single father, step-parents, step-siblings, multiple faiths, multiple ethnicities, multiple generations in one household, married couples with no children and infinite other combinations. And there are families with same-sex couples, both with and without children. To claim that there is and should be only one definition of “family” is inherently incorrect and bigoted.

 

Question 2
“Is same-sex marriage like interracial marriage?”

 

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are nothing alike. Segregation was an evil social problem. Marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union is profound social good. Racism was about power and suppression . . . about keeping the races apart, and that is wrong.

 

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are very much alike in several ways. The most significant one is that the bigots attempting to thwart interracial marriage and the bigots attempting to prevent same-sex marriage quote the Bible to support their bigotry, and use nearly identical arguments:

Link to Original

 

The moral of the story: The bigots against interracial marriage were cut from the same cloth as the bigots against same-sex marriage.

 

Marriage has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with a husband and wife working together to create and care for the next generation.

 

Marriage has to do with more than procreation, or marriages would be forbidden between infertile couples, women past menopause and those who wish to remain childless. Furthermore same-sex couples are capable and willing to have children. Therefore the procreation argument is null and void.

 

There is no research showing interracial parenting is developmentally harmful to children, but literally thousands of studies indicate that children are hindered developmentally when they are denied their mothers or fathers.

There are no studies proving that children raised by same-sex couples are worse off than children raised by opposite sex couples. What the homophobes have done is taken studies that show children raised by single parents are hindered developmentally, and extrapolated that they are “harmed” by not having parents of both genders in their lives. In other words, they’re lying.

No legitimate, reputable studies have been done showing that children raised by same-sex couples are harmed by their experiences. In fact, just the opposite has been shown.

 

Question 3
“Where does it stop?”

 

Here’s the classic Slippery Slope Fallacy in action.

 

Here’s another question: If same-sex marriage is legalized, could the statement, “children need a mother and father” be deemed hate speech? It is becoming exactly that in Massachusetts.

 

You mean the way “I don’t think black people and white people should marry each other” gets you jail time now that interracial marriage has been legalized?

 

And what about classroom materials? Imagine that your children’s reading books will show Suzie going to feed the ducks hand-in-hand with her two dads. But the ducks — because we can’t get away from nature — will be in male/female pairs!

 

Well somebody doesn’t know too much about nature because same-sex mating behavior has been observed in hundreds of species of animals. And why would Suzie care if she saw a male and female duck together when she went to the park with her two daddies? It’s only the bigots who have the vapors when everybody isn’t just like them.

 

Don’t be surprised, either, when churches are forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

 

Right. Because Christian churches are forced to marry atheists, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, Pagans and the like all the time.

 

The fact is, once same-sex marriage is legalized, there is no logical stopping point. When you tear marriage away from its moorings, the ship can drift anywhere.

 

I know, I know. We’ll be marrying two people at a time, children, our siblings and our box-turtles. A black hole will open up and rend the very fabric of society and then the universe, much as has happened in Massachusetts. Oh, wait, never mind.

 

Question 4
“Can’t we all just get along by having religious marriage and civil marriage?”

 

Some ask, “Why can’t you just keep your religious idea of marriage, and just give us our own kind of civil marriage?”

 

I’ve certainly never asked that. As far as I’m concerned I’m sick and tired of the notion some have that religion owns marriage, both the concept and the word. They don’t.

 

Well, marriage is more than a religious institution. It shows up in all civilizations, not just Christian or religious ones.

 

What do you know? A truthful statement for once. It bears repeating.

 

Well, marriage is more than a religious institution. It shows up in all civilizations, not just Christian or religious ones.

 

Good, then, religious groups and people need to stop acting like they own it and everything associated with it. Likewise “family”. Marriage and family are not solely religious concepts, and therefore cannot be defined solely by the religious.

 

Question 5
“What public good does marriage provide?”

 

Marriage produces and raises the next generation of humanity, which every society needs.

 

Same-sex couples can produce and raise children. Next.

 

Spin a globe and pick any place on earth and visit that place at any time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way — between men and women. There may be other diversities, such as number of spouses and division of labor, but marriage is always heterosexual.

 

Wrong. Same sex marriage has been observed in history at least as far back as the time of Plato. It was observed in 17th century China and 19th century Africa. Marriage has not always been heterosexual.

 

Anthropologists tell us marriage, as a heterosexual institution, does four primary jobs. It is the only institution that provides these things, and every society needs marriage to do them.

1) Marriage socializes men
Anthropologists tell us that a society’s most serious problem is the unattached male. Marriage is the answer. Natural marriage socializes men by channeling male sexuality and aggression in socially productive ways. And it is women who do this through marriage.

 

What? It’s a wife’s job to socialize her wayward husband? Please! Not only is this an impossible task given the “submit unto your husband” RRRW Christian theology, but if he’s not “socialized” by the time he’s of marriageable age then why is it a wife’s job to do it? What ever happened to parental responsibility or that old RW meme, personal responsibility?

 

2) Marriage regulates sexuality
By socializing men, marriage regulates sexuality. Marriage establishes sexual guardrails, which are a requirement for successful societies. We cannot survive with everybody doing whatever they want, sexually. Every society must have rules, mores and standards about sexual behavior, and marriage is how societies manage human sexuality.

 

Gee, I thought gay people were so promiscuous. If marriage is about regulating sexuality I should think these guys would be rushing to legalize same-sex marriage.

 

3) Marriage protects women from
exploitive males.
When we do not have a social norm of monogamy, women become commodities — things to be collected, used and then discarded. Marriage helps protect women by regulating sex.

 

I’m beginning to wonder about these men. They sound like they have some real problems with self-control. Maybe someone should do something about that. And discriminating against LGBT people is not the answer.

 

A wealth of research shows that abuse of women by their partners or strangers is lowest in married homes and highest in cohabiting and dating situations

 

Hey, I’d bet that the same would hold true for LGBT couples. I suggest they be allowed to get married.

 

4) Marriage provides mothers and fathers
for children
Healthy children define a growing society. And marriage is the way we ensure the next generation grows up with the irreplaceable benefit of their mother and father. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally subjects children to motherless or fatherless families.

The notion that children require a mother and a father rather than two fathers or two mothers is untrue. Some of the RRRW’s favorite tactics include distorting legitimate studies, using seriously out of date studies (such as one from 1963 which is cited in their pamphlet), using phony experts and more. Paul Cameron, for example, is a favorite “expert” of FOF and other anti-gay hate groups, and he’s been thoroughly discredited by the APA, the ASA and every other legitimate group.

 

Question 6
“Is it healthy to subject children to experimental families?”

 

Not all married couples have children, but most do. And not all same-sex married couples will want children, but many of them will. So the argument for same-sex marriage is the argument for the same-sex family. No society at any time — primitive or developed, ancient or modern — has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex homes.

 

So what? Previously there was no generation with interracial children, or interfaith children, or inter-ethnic children. But now there are, and society stands. The naysayers of previous generations ranted and raved about the potential repercussions and they were proved wrong. Just as the people decrying the alleged horrors of same-sex marriage will be.

 

Question 7
“But haven’t medical and psychological groups said same-sex parenting is fine?”

 

We often hear it said that the American Academy of Pediatrics supports same-sex parenting. And so does the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association.
“Who are you to say they are wrong?” we’re asked.

I’m not even going to go into their protests. We know damn well that if the two APAs and the AMA were claiming that same-sex parenting was bad for children that FOF would be trumpeting it from every mountaintop. But since the APAs and the AMA are saying something they don’t like it’s the evil science people against the Moral Values people.

 

Question 8
“How do we know what kind of families children need?”

 

All of the family experimentation over the past 30 years — no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, cohabitation and widespread fatherlessness — have been documented failures, harming adults and children in far deeper ways, for longer periods of time, than even the most conservative among us ever imagined.

 

How about this, then, if heterosexual marriage and the heterosexual family are supposed to be such a sacrament.

 

1. Heterosexuals cannot have sex until they get married.
2. Heterosexuals cannot live together unless they are married.
3. Heterosexuals cannot marry unless they prove they can procreate and intend to do so. Failure to procreate within 3 years will result in immediate annulment of marriage.
4. Ban heterosexual divorce.
5. Make adultery a felony.

 

Every child-development theory tells us kids do best when they are raised by their own mothers and fathers. And it’s interesting that even more liberal organizations are starting to understand this.

…..

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), also fi nds: Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents.

 

Children do better with two parents than with one. So they’re better off with married parents (gay or straight) than non-married. But to say that same-sex couples shouldn’t be able to have children because some studies say that children are better off with their biological parents is disengenous and cruel. Should we stop heterosexual adoptions and step-families because the children won’t fare as well? It’s obvious that the agenda of FOF is not protecting children but homophobia.

 

Question 9
“Is the same-sex family about the needs of children or the wants of adults?”

Is any family about the needs of the children or the wants of adults? All families should be about the adults wanting to have children, then attending to their needs. That goes for families of all types. And for every “selfish” same-sex family FOF or others of their ilk can come up with, we can come up with just as many if not more.

 

Question 10
“Does gender really matter?”

 

Our maleness and femaleness go right to the very core of our being. Every person matters as a male or female. Each has what the other needs but lacks.

Love will not be enough to help two dads guide a scared, young girl through her first period or help her pick out her first bra. These men will have very little to say because they’ve never experienced these things. Likewise, what kind of message would two lesbian moms teach a little girl about loving a man or a little boy about growing into a man?

 

Love is plenty as long as people are willing to learn, talk and explore. Who says two dads can’t learn about menstruation and teach a girl about it? They can take her shopping for her first bra, or a female relative or close family friend can help out. Same with the son of two moms. Is FOF suggesting that a dad wouldn’t be able to talk to his daughter about being in love because he “doesn’t understand” being in love with men as he’s straight? Please! Gay or straight, love is love and everybody can understand.

And BTW, my mom was of no assistance in teaching me about menstruation and all of that feminine stuff. If it weren’t for the public school I would have had one of those “Carrie” experiences. So the notion that we need someone of the same sex to bond with and teach us about such things is pure bunk.

 

In conclusion, I am decidedly unconvinced by FOF’s Why Not Gay Marriage?. The only people I imagine would be persuaded by that would be those who were not much in favor of it to begin with.

 

Yeah, he’s definitely got that “Hey little girl–you want a piece of candy?” look about him.

Kevin Alfred Strom, founder of the White Nationalist (as well as homophobic) group National Vanguard pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in federal court recently.

 

Kevin Alfred Strom was originally scheduled for a trial this week on several child porn charges. Instead, the 51-year-old pleaded guilty to a single count and prosecutors dropped the remaining charges against him.

…..

Strom was once part of the leadership of the National Alliance, a West Virginia-based organization Potok said was a white supremacist group.

Strom edited some of the organization’s publications and produced and sometimes hosted its shortwave radio and Internet broadcast.

“Jews are so dominant and influential in debasing and deceiving white women and girls on such a massive scale that, to any decent white person, no forgiveness is possible,” Strom said at the beginning of one August 2003 radio show.

 

Jews debase and deceive women and girls? That’s the pot calling the kettle black, or perhaps good old-fashioned projection.

 

Elisha Strom, who is estranged but not divorced from her husband, said they moved to Greene County in 2000, when Kevin Strom was working for National Alliance.

…..

Things started to break down for the couple in 2006, after Elisha said she returned home one day and found her husband sitting naked in front of the computer looking at child pornography.

Afterward, in an apparent attempt to patch things up, the two signed a notarized contract in which Kevin Strom agreed to seek treatment for pedophilia. But the couple’s relationship continued to disintegrate.

…..

In August 2006, investigators seized Strom’s computer during a raid of his home. He was arrested in January 2007 after a federal grand jury indicted him on charges of witness intimidation and possession of child pornography.

…..

In April, Kevin Strom was indicted on an additional charge of attempting to sexually entice a minor. Authorities said he’d been fixated on a 10-year-old classmate of his stepdaughter’s.

…..

However, judge Norman K. Moon threw out the charges. Though he said there was “overwhelming evidence” that Strom was sexually attracted to the girl, Moon ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him with attempting to sexually coerce her.

…..

The trial for the remaining pornography charges was postponed until Monday. In a summary of what the case would have been had it gone to court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Gould wrote that Strom later acknowledged to authorities that he’d downloaded child pornography.

Strom will remain at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail until his sentencing. He could face up to a decade in prison at his April sentencing in U.S. District Court, though federal guidelines could call for a much lighter sentence.

 

It would be interesting to do a psychological study to determine if there is a correlation between openly espoused hatred of one or more groups and criminal sexual perversions. Given the number of such cases I’ve seen I imagine there would be.

 

In the meantime I’ll recommend Strom for Conservative Babylon. He’ll fit right in there.

 

The Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison is after another Nativity scene, this time in Arkansas.

Their Web page has this statement, “The founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted citizens to be free to support the church of their choice or no religion at all.” They claim to educate the public concerning the separation of the church and state.
To educate means to provide unbiased information. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nowhere does it state or insinuate, “or no religion at all.”

 

On the contrary. People who don’t practice any religion are just as protected under the First Amendment as are those who practice religion. (Those who practice minority and “unpopular” are also protected.) The intolerance of religious bigots doesn’t change that.

 

The reason that the Congress added “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was because of organizations and zealots who would eliminate our freedom to worship were there no laws to stop them.

It was also added because of zealots who would try to impose their religion on others who do not worship the dominant religion or do not worship at all. Sadly revisionists keep trying to misconstrue it as something it’s not. It doesn’t mean that RRRW Christians can run roughshod over America and rule it with an iron Bible.

 

The First Amendment is there to protect religion from the government, not to protect the government from religion. I quote from their Web page, “Our Constitution was very purposely written to be a godless document.” They never reference the Declaration of Independence, which says that we “are endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

And by the way, the “godless” Constitution refers to the “Godly” Declaration of Independence in Article VII.

David Haile,

Wausau

 

The “Creator” loosely referenced in the DoE is not the meddle-in-everything God of the Christian Bible, particularly the RRW Dominionist style Christianity. It was the Deist God, and many of the Founding Fathers were in fact Deists rather than Christians.

 

The deist outlook also gained a foothold in the American colonies, where it became popular among the rich and well-born about the time of the Revolution. Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, the theological leanings of some twenty have been identified. Three have been characterized as deists: Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island. Two others, John Adams of Massachusetts and George Wythe of Virginia, are described as liberal Christians strongly influenced by deism. Four, including Jefferson’s friend Benjamin Rush, were liberals not inclined toward deism. About eleven were definitely orthodox believers. Samuel Huntington, Philip Livingston, and John Witherspoon, president of Princeton University, were prominent in this last group.

…..

None of the Founding Fathers meditated more assiduously on religion than Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). He was brought up in the rituals and traditions of the Anglican Church, as it existed in Virginia at the time. In his college years at William and Mary he came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy. He made a careful study of the philosophical writings of Viscount Henry Bolingbroke, a strict deist whose God was remote and unconcerned with human affairs.

In his public pronouncements as a statesman and legislator, Jefferson expressed what he considered to belong to the common and public core of religion. He kept his more personal opinions to himself, refraining from putting them in any writing that might find its way into print, but he occasionally penned confidential memoranda for himself and a few friends.

Jefferson’s public religion appears in the Declaration of Independence, which refers to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” to “inalienable” rights conferred upon all human beings by their Creator, and to “the protection of divine Providence.” In his first inaugural address, in 1801, Jefferson spoke of how the American people were “enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence.” In his second inaugural, four years later, he emphasized the nation’s need for the favor and enlightenment of Providence and asked his hearers to unite with him in supplication to “that Being in whose hands we are.”

 

Indeed. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was a Deist. The “creator” he referred to in that document was the Deist God, a rational God. There were numerous differences between Deists and Christians, the most striking being that Deists rejected these particular core doctrine of Orthodox Christianity:

 

•The doctrine of the Trinity is false because there is no Scriptural evidence for it.
•Jesus was human, though an exceptional human, not God in any manner.
•Jesus’ death was not an atonement for our sins nor did God demand that someone suffer for our sins.
•The following doctrines are false: original sin, predestination of the elect, the inherent depravity of human beings, and eternal damnation.
•The “faith alone” doctrine of Protestants.

 

Again, the Founding Fathers were not all Christians as the revisionists would like us to believe they were. America is not and never has been “A Christian Nation”.

 

One of Jefferson’s firmest principles, as we know, was that of religious freedom. In 1777, as a legislator, he composed what later became the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which embodies his personal conviction that the government should exercise no coercion in religious matters. In his famous letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association he referred to the “wall of separation between Church and State”—a term that had previously been used by the Baptist Roger Williams.

 

The principles of religious freedom established through the efforts of Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were not for the sole benefit of Christians . They were for everybody.

 

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, noted above, established the Wall of Separation between Church and State that is so crucial in our nation. Many of Mr. Haile’s ilk are wont to point out that the Wall of Separation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and it is not. However that doesn’t mean that it is nonexistent or not important–for the state, for the religious and for the non-religious alike.

 

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

 

It is important to remember that Christianity was not the only religion practiced in the colonies. In fact a number of the founding fathers expressed some rather strong opinions about it.

 

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” James Madison

 

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson

 

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” John Adams

 

 

America was never a “Christian Nation”. We have never been what the RRRW fundamentalists claim. The notion that the Founding Fathers were Bible-thumping RW Fundamentalists a-la Pat Robertson is a revisionist fantasy of theirs.

 

And while we’re at it let’s refer to the Treaty of Tripoli, which states: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

 

The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

 

So anybody who tries to claim that the United States is a Christian Nation, and that its government is based on Christian principles or the Christian religion, is either mistaken or lying.

 

Mr. Haile claimed that “To educate means to provide unbiased information” but he failed to do that. The information he provided in his LTTE was not only very biased but bigoted. It’s possible he’s just ignorant of American history, particularly with regard to the Founding Fathers, which is very common. I’m always glad to provide the truth, however.

I’ll be away for the weekend. Posts will resume on or about Monday, January 21st. Enjoy yourself and don’t forget to go to church.

 

Just kidding about that last part. :-)

WASHINGTON, Jan 18, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE)

GWB’s words in blue.

 

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we recognize that each life has inherent dignity and matchless value, and we reaffirm our steadfast determination to defend the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

 

Do those weak and vulnerable members of society include homeless, hungry children or just fetuses?

 

(December 22, 2007) Releasing the results of a 23 city survey last week, the US Council of Mayors said that hunger and homelessness persisted in the nations cities, with high housing costs and the lack of affordable housing as a major cause of homelessness in households with children, as well as a major cause of hunger. The survey also noted the recent spike in foreclosures, the increased cost of living in general and the increased cost of food as major causes of hunger in America.

As a whole, cities reported that they are not able to meet the need for providing shelter for homelessness persons. In fact, twelve cities (52 percent) reported that they turn people away some or all of the time.

Additionally, cities reported a limited ability to meet the need for emergency food assistance. Across the survey cities, 17 percent of all people in need of food assistance and 15 percent of households with children are not receiving it. Nineteen cities expect demand for food assistance to increase in 2008.

 

I guess that just means fetuses. Once they’re born they’re on their own. Typical for the RW.

 

America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our country remains committed to upholding that founding principle.

 

You mean all White, Wealthy, Heterosexual Christian men. To hell with GLBTs, the middle class, the poor, non-whites, non-Christians and the rest of us.

 

Since taking office, I have signed legislation to help protect life at all stages, and my Administration will continue to encourage adoption, fund abstinence education and crisis pregnancy programs, and support faith-based groups.

 

Abstinence-only sex ed has proven to be not only dangerous but a colossal failure. That’s why so many states have decided to dump it. Faith-based funding is inherently biased and likely unconstitutional for a wide variety of reasons.

 

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day and throughout the year, we help strengthen the culture of life in America and work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

 

Does that include every non-Christian child? Every non-Caucasian child? Every child who is not born wealthy? Every GLBT child? Do you truly mean every child or just every child who fits into your narrow paradigm of what is acceptable and worthy?

 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2008, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.
GEORGE W. BUSH

Well, I guess I’ll just have to celebrate now. George told me to.

Just when I thought I couldn’t get any more disgusted with the RRRW I read this.

 

It looks like The Traditional Values Coalition’s front-group, the Christian Seniors Association, is again mailing out its bogus “U.S. Taxpayer Census” forms in an attempt to extort donations from confused senior citizens:

…..

On the front of the document, in large block letters, are the words “U.S. Taxpayer Census” and a seal similar in design to the U.S. official seal. (The official seal of the United States, which features an eagle holding arrows in one claw and olive leaves in the other, differs in detail from the design on the letter).

…..

nside, the form further identifies itself as a “U.S. Taxpayer Census on the Social Security Preservation Act (HR 219).

In smaller print at the bottom of the first page of the document, the mailing is identified as “a special citizen action project of Christian Seniors Association, a division of Traditional Values Coalition.”

…

The monetary appeal portion of the letter has check boxes next to suggested donation amounts of $15; $25; $50; $100; $250; $500 and “other.”

Alternatively, seniors are invited to donate $8 to cover the “cost of tabulating my census and delivering results to Congress,” if the recipient feels they are unable to make “a substantial contribution” in the amounts suggested above.

It is no surprise that TVC would stoop to this sort of fundraising tactic considering that, according to their most recent tax filing, their “total net assets” are -$4,288,151.

 

We atheists are so often asked how we can know right from wrong without a God, a holy book and an “objective morality” that stem from them. Well I certainly know that lying and pitting groups of people against one another for personal gain are wrong. It seems that the TVC, with their God, their Bible and their “objective morality” haven’t figured that out. Maybe somebody can teach them.