October 17, 2010

Here's where I defend Christian fundamentalists from the charge that they are homophobic bullies.

In case you didn't watch the whole diavlog, you might want to see this 3-minute segment near the end:

135 comments:

Big Mike said...

Only one of you reached past her biases to do the research. Very well done, Professor.

mesquito said...

What does Bazelon mean by fundamentalism? Does she confuse it with evangelism? Does she know the difference? Is she even aware that there is difference? And that it is a vast difference? Does she realize how insular she sounds?

mesquito said...

Does Althouse know the difference?

ricpic said...

I couldn't stand to listen to Baz past the first 30 seconds. That said does it ever occur to the PCers that the last 40 or so years of rah rah for the homosexual lifestyle hasn't taken with homosexuals themselves not because of the dreaded homophobia but because homosexuals aren't all that gay about being homosexuals? Reality. It's so benighted.

edutcher said...

I don't know that being homosexual is all that accepted. The Lefties tolerate no dissent (surprise) on the matter and will charge you with hate speech if you disagree, but that only silences debate (which, of course, is what they want).

That said, there's a big difference between taking a moral stand based on one's core beliefs and bullying. I know a couple of commenters here try to pull that canard, but it's another of the old Lefty dodges that anyone who disagrees is a bully or engaging in hate speech, etc.

Because a couple of mean kids, whatever their religion may or may not have been, played a nasty prank that ended in suicide does not automatically translate to most of the country qualifying as bullies.

PS I can believe Bazelon is the editor of Slate or Salon or whatever.

William said...

There was a very funny show on 30Rock where Tina Fey went back to her old high school for a reunion. Her memory of high school was that it was a place where she was picked on by the cool kids. As it turns out, it was a place where her wicked tongue had left many of her classmates in tatters, and they actively feared meeting her.....I'm not sure, but I have the sense that bullying is something that the welterweights do to the lightweights. The people who worry about being marginal try to marginalize those who are down a rung or two on the status chain. In any event, I'm absolutely certain that being a good Christian has nothing to do with being a homophobic bully.

mesquito said...

Oh, and the "bullies" at Rutgers looked more like noxious hipsters who might aspire to someday write for Slate than churchgoers.

ndspinelli said...

Looks like the Parkinsons meds are starting to work.

D. B. Light said...

Thanks Ann for bringing some sanity to the subject. Emily certainly doesn't understand it and would strenuously deny it, and you are far too polite to point it out, but she is a bigot.

bagoh20 said...

Ann, you're clearly right about that, but you can see that Bazelon's bigotry wall was up. She was not interested in separating the bullying from the love, or even the misunderstanding. That would dissolve the whole narrative that is a primary weapon.

In 3 minutes you showed who the bullies actually are and the methodology, and did so without a single accusation or charge. Great job.

M. Simon said...

If you stop the video at 43 seconds (more or less).....

M. Simon said...

Well I have lots of socon friends. And some of them don't get what the "atmospherics" they exude does to the culture.

My favorite conservative re: gay issues? Dick Cheney. He says little and just loves his daughter.

Which is the way it ought to be. Now compare and contrast with Alan Keyes.

I'm not sure it is so much a left right issue as a "how much love is in your heart" issue. After all the Democrats have Fred Phelps.

hombre said...

Nice job, Professor, of describing the Christian perspective on homosexuality as it usually is and always ought to be. Thank you.

By "Christian fundamentalists" it sounds like Bazelon thinks she means all denominational and non-denominational Christians who have not embraced active homosexuality as heriditary or congenital and a preferred quality for clergyhood. Is there any thinking going on among the journalistic left?

Did she really say or imply that supporting people who wish to give up the gay lifestyle is "homophobic bullying?"

YoungHegelian said...

Thank you, Prof Althouse, for standing up for the fine art of making moral distinctions!

I always wonder, however, where liberal Jews like Bazelon come down on their own Jewish traditions on homosexuality. The rabbis were learned and literate men, and they left no moral stone unturned. Their stance on homosexuality was unequivocal: it was a sin, not only for the Jews but also for gentiles (What?, We can't eat even eat shrimp but you think it's okay to smoke pole?!).

Does she think the Orthodox are bigots? She probably does, but it would be nice to hear her say it, and not just bash those goyim rednecks.

I certainly find her moral certainty on this matter mystifying.

Jessica said...

Thank you so much. I am a Christian, and in a very blue area even admitting you go to church is seen by some as an "I'm a hateful homophobe" sign. Thank you for articulating what many Christians cannot, Ann!

Menley said...

Agree with mesquito. I wish that EB had named some of the terrible fundamentalist Christian individuals, churches, or ministries. I think that she's painting with a broad brush to include evangelicals as well.

Michael said...

Very well done and thank you for it, professor. Her expression of barely contained frustration with your failure to grasp the party line was priceless. Christian Fundamentalist, by the way, appears to be one word in her mind and she basically pronounces the two words that way. Your use of these archaic religious terms was a punch to her gut because she clearly knows you are smarter so she cannot guffaw the way she would like. Excellent.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Not all Christians are anti-gay, but most people who are anti-gay are Christian.

YoungHegelian said...

ZPS,

You mean in the USA?

Because there's an awful lot of Muslims, Hindus, Animists, Jews, and atheists (e.g. the Chinese and Soviet Communists) who aren't (or weren't in the commie cases)especially fond of homosexuals.

traditionalguy said...

The concept of a fundamentalist comes from men who read the bible and try to teach what it says. That effort to get doctrine right can be a liberating thing , but it can also be a terrible thing when it results in doctrines that reject men and forget that faithfulness means working at loving hard to love people as the Lord commanded us.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Yep. Right here in this country. Where I live.

Michael said...

ZPS: As a predominately Christian country it goes without saying that most anti-gay people will be self identified "Christians." So are most murderers, rapists, adulterers, check kiters, charitable contributors, Aids workers, and piano teachers.

somefeller said...

It also goes without saying that one should look at how people vote with their feet when it comes to many issues. And one finds that gay people don't tend to move to places that are considered to be dominated by evangelical or fundamentalist (yes, I know there is a theological difference between the two, but in political / cultural parlance, they are generally grouped together under the term "fundamentalist") Christians. In fact, they tend to move away from such places to cities (or at the very least, parts of cities) that are generally described as leaning liberal or secular. That's probably not a coincidence.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Cool Michael, then you agree with me. Most anti-gay people in the United States are Christians.

chr1 said...

Ricpic said:

"That said does it ever occur to the PCers that the last 40 or so years of rah rah for the homosexual lifestyle hasn't taken with homosexuals themselves..."

Well, exactly. They are seeking to frame the debate in terms of their ideals: justice, fairness, equality. They are seeking to gather enough political support to get their people elected, and make laws enacting these laws which will enshrine their ideals (from campus harrassment to hate crimes to no religious grounds for anti-sodomy laws in Texas).

What's more, they assume these ideals to be universal. In so doing, they are overlooking the individuals they are claiming to represent. They are the ones they've been waiting for.

...and sadly, they will play politics, and distort and misrepresent Christianity, evade the deep and moral reasoning found therein, and not maintain a reasonable skepticism regarding what politics can do.

It's possible Althouse is doing a lot of the something she can do about it. It's appreciated, but ultimately, she too may have to back away from the true believers, lest she squander the freedom they would not even grant her in their reasoning.

Chase said...

Thank you Professor,

I will say what no one else here wants to: Emily Bazelon is an anti-Christian bigot. She is closed minded, inaccurate and generalizing about a group that she plainly knows just about next to nothing. And that's a definiton of bigotry.

And hatred. It's a common liberal cultural phenomenon: ignorance followed by hatred, followed by self-righteousness.

mesquito said...

somefeller, there is much more than a theological difference between fundamentalists and eveangelicals. The political and cultural differences are cast and bitter. To conflate the two is the same degree of error that conflating Shiites and Wahabbis would be. Also, fundamentalists are so few in number and so withdrawn from the wider society that including them in a discussion of this issue shows appalling ignorance on the part of Bazelon. In short, she had a bigoted point she wished to make about Christians, so she pulled the word "fundamentalist" out of her ass.

mesquito said...

oops. meant to say "vast and bitter"

LoafingOaf said...

"Is there a cure for homosexuality? Chrstine O'Donnell thinks there is" YouTube Link

See also: "My Ex-Gay Life With the Tea Party Queen [Christine O'Donnell]"

Christine O'Donnell is as nasty and as she is stupid.

I'm glad Christine O'Donnell's former aide, Wade Richards, got away from O'Donnell and O'Donnell's circle of terrible people before they could harm him any more.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Christians want to help gays overcome their sin.

Muslims want to stone homosexuals to death.

Bazelon reserves her indignation for the Christians because she's a coward.

She's too much of a fucking pussy to criticize Muslim murderers.

Palladian said...

"Christine O'Donnell is as nasty and as she is stupid."

Ooh, looks like yet another woman's pussy has gotten hold of PinchingLoaf's leg! Seriously, dude, your weird problem with women is hilariously embarrassing! And they have the nerve to accuse us homos of being woman-haters!

Palladian said...

"Not all Christians are anti-gay, but most people who are anti-gay are Christian."

Hey, it's the gay porn blogger, expiating on theology!

Trooper York said...

Cut it out Palladian. You're not supposed to notice that.

Palladian said...

Most of the confrontationally anti-gay people I've ever encountered were simply assholes. I've never felt the need to inquire about their religious affiliations.

Palladian said...

"Cut it out Palladian. You're not supposed to notice that."

The leg-gnawing pussies or the gay porn blogger?

Trooper York said...

Today's Gospel was very interesting. It was about a crooked judge who refused to give a widow a fair hearing on her petition.

But she kept bugging him and bugging him until finally he agreed to give her justice so she would just leave him alone.

Moral of the story.

Even Jesus hates lawyers and judges.

The only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer.

Trooper York said...

I am glad to see that Zach is posting here. I missed his contributions. I guess he has been very busy.

Trooper York said...

The Oaf I can do without. No hard feelings. Just sayn'

Not that it matters what I think.

Jason (the commenter) said...

somefeller: In fact, they tend to move away from such places to cities (or at the very least, parts of cities) that are generally described as leaning liberal or secular.

Of course, every year there's a fresh crop of gays, even in the most intolerant areas. Politics aside, moving to cities makes it easier to find a date.

Trooper York said...

I am just killing time until Desperate Housewives comes on.

Trooper York said...

In the meantime I just keep replaying the end of the Packer game.

And laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian: Hey, it's the gay porn blogger...

What an interesting job! I'm so jealous, I can tell Palladian is, too.

hombre said...

LoafingOaf wrote: Is there a cure for homosexuality? Chrstine O'Donnell thinks there is. YouTube Link ...

How odd. I watched the You Tube vid and Christine O'Donnell never said anything about "curing" gays.

Rachel Maddow and one of her polemicists certainly attributed that position to O'Donnell (and to a lot of other people), but footage to support it was missing.

Evidently, the Loaf has the same problem Bazelon has coupled with a willingness to accept Maddow as authoritative.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Trooper York: I am glad to see that Zach is posting here.

I rarely agreed with him, but I've missed him, too.

(I see he's updating his blog again.)

(By the way, congrats on all the good things that have come your way ZPS!)

Trooper York said...

Well Zach always said everything would come out allright in the end.

So to speak.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Palladian said...

"Hey, it's the gay porn blogger...

What an interesting job! I'm so jealous, I can tell Palladian is, too."

Not really. Porn isn't really very interesting beyond its intended use. I can't imagine many things more boring than writing about porn all day, especially writing uncritical ad-copy about porn all day.

Plus, I've known some people who were in the industry and judging by them I can't recommend to anyone who values their mental or physical health. Two of those people I knew are now dead, both of drug overdoses.

Palladian said...

Of course if I was offered a lot of money to write about porn all day, I could find it extremely interesting.

Just saying.

PatCA said...

Well said, Ann. Tammy Bruce has said that same thing about Christians and defends them against the charge that they are behind all the discrimination against gays.

And yes the Rutgers bullies were hip and cool. They were definitely not Christianists.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian: I can't imagine many things more boring than writing about porn all day, especially writing uncritical ad-copy about porn all day.

LOL! You'd go absolutely bonkers if you saw what I do all day.

Bob Ellison said...

People who don't believe in natural law tend not to understand the reasoning of those who do.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Bob Ellison: People who don't believe in natural law tend not to understand the reasoning of those who do.

There are people on all sides who like telling themselves their opponents are wicked/stupid/what have you, and use that as an excuse to not contemplate other viewpoints.

It's laziness and vanity, and it's pretty common.

Palladian said...

"LOL! You'd go absolutely bonkers if you saw what I do all day."

If it pays well, I'd find it more thrilling than porn!

Fen said...

ZPS: Cool Michael, then you agree with me. Most anti-gay people in the United States are Christians.

Most anti-gay people in the United States also have brown eyes.

Fen said...

Also, most anti-gay people in the United States know someone named "Bob"...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Everybody criticizing ZPS thinks they are so clever, but how's this?:

Probably most gays in America are Christians.

Big Mike said...

They know how to cure gays in Iran.

They hang them.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

I'm a little shocked at you guys accepting the phrase "anti-gay." As limbaugh says, first you cannot accept the Left's premises.

Opposing Gay Marriage is NOT "anti-gay." STONING GAYS is anti-gay.

You have the right to speak, assemble, purchase property, just like anyone else. Opposing some of the agenda is not "anti-gay." Is opposing palimony anti-womon? No, UNLESS you're a member of NOW/NAG...

So No ZPS most people who are anti-gay AREN'T Christian, most anti-gay peole are MUSLIM.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Joe: So No ZPS most people who are anti-gay AREN'T Christian, most anti-gay peole are MUSLIM.

You know perfectly well that the people who beat gays up in school, or those would fire them if they came out of the closet, or make them illegal in this country are not mainly Muslim.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
You know perfectly well that the people who beat gays up in school, or those would fire them if they came out of the closet, or make them illegal in this country are not mainly Muslim.


Well I DON'T KNOW THAT Jason....I'd suggest that most anti-gay violence isn't from Christians. As to firing htem, name one person fired because they came out of the closet...Illegal, it's not even an option is it?

All I can say is that IF you're sleeping with a man as a man, or another womon if you're a womon AND yuo live in Iran or Saudi Arabia you're at risk of death. That seems a whole lot worse as anti-gay...but hey I'm a Jew...what would I know aobut anti-anything bigotry?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Joe: name one person fired because they came out of the closet

428 of them were fired by the government alone last year.

carlbridges said...

Althouse 1, Bazelon 0. Well done, Professor.

Beth said...

Jason, the position seems to be that so long as some countries actually execute gays, American gays have nothing to complain about.

somefeller said...

As to firing htem, name one person fired because they came out of the closet...Illegal, it's not even an option is it?

It is an option, because it's not illegal in many places. At the federal level, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act hasn't been passed and signed into law (nice backbone, Democrats, and thanks for nothing, Republicans!) and many states have no anti-discrimination statutes relating to sexual orientation. Info here.

Fen said...

Jason: Everybody criticizing ZPS thinks they are so clever, but how's this?:

Probably most gays in America are Christians.


Back at ya with "Probably most gays in America have brown eyes."

Fen said...

You know perfectly well that the people who beat gays up in school, or those would fire them if they came out of the closet, or make them illegal in this country are not mainly Muslim

and not mainly blue-eyed either...

/damn Jason, up your game

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Also:

Most of the people who comment on this blog are anti-gay.

Fen said...

Joe: All I can say is that IF you're sleeping with a man as a man, or another womon if you're a womon AND yuo live in Iran or Saudi Arabia you're at risk of death. That seems a whole lot worse as anti-gay

Yes, and thats the result of handing over their oppressed status to grievance whores.

In an Internet Age where nations and companies coordinate to skim oil and rescue miners, the reach of American feminists and gays only extends to their own backyard.

For all their clamour for Rights, I don't see them doing much outside their self-interest. So I doubt they would ever extend Equality to the "other".

Chase said...

Beth, I'm sorry - perhaps you can enlighten us on how bad it is to be gay here in America.

I'm not certain I understand exactly what freedoms and privileges Zachary is missing out on here in the United States. For example, he is freely exercising his rights to proclaim his anti-Christian bigotry as much as wants to without suffering any consequences whatsoever.

Beth said...

Chase, thanks for illustrating my point.

Methadras said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Also:

Most of the people who comment on this blog are anti-gay.


Oh lookie who has crawled out of the woodwork to heap more lies than ever before. I am not anti-gay. Do you believe me? If you don't, then how could I prove to you that I am not anti-gay? Defend legislation that I don't agree with? Acquire even more gay/lesbian friends? Ask my relatives to have more gay/lesbian children than the ones they already have? What? What possibly can one do to not be anti-gay in your enfeebled, little mind?

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

428 of them were fired by the government alone last year.


Then those are lawsuits in the making for clear discrimination as set by federal policy against gender/sexual orientation. Adjudication is in order don't you think?

wv = faircult = interesting captcha of a new word that best describes the fairness (tolerance/inclusiveness) movement. I'm going to use it.

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

Most of the confrontationally anti-gay people I've ever encountered were simply assholes. I've never felt the need to inquire about their religious affiliations.


And you're not an asshole?

Methadras said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Everybody criticizing ZPS thinks they are so clever, but how's this?:

Probably most gays in America are Christians.


When are you going to stop with this psycho-babble tripe? It just makes you sound even more unusually childish than you already are. Is this a wishful fantasy? This constant need to questions someones sexual orientation when you disagree with them? When is that canard going to play itself out within the homosexual community, hmmm? It's the stupid equivalent of asking when you stopped beating your wife. Just stop it already.

Methadras said...

Ann, I could see in your face when Bazelon brought up the alleged hatred Christian fundamentalists have for homosexuals that it clicked a switch like, "Where the hell did you come up with that connection." and when she brought up this lingering myth in homosexual circles for this notion, you rightly stomped your foot on it and she provided zero evidence to support such a claim. I certainly appreciated the succinct way you picked apart the argument as a series of separate but important distinction that should be explored instead of the 'mushing' together of ideas on the left in regards to allegations against Christian fundamentalists. Very well done.

Palladian said...

Methadras, thanks for illustrating my point. I may be an asshole, but I (generally) don't beat people up.

Of course, Zachary proves that not only anti-gay people can be assholes.

I would actually contend that the majority of actual anti-gay violence in America today and in the recent past is not committed in the name or under the direction of Christianity at all, but instead by uneducated, underclass black and white males acting on primate-like instincts to violence. Christianity becomes the scapegoat because it generally doesn't fight back anymore.

If you've never been to a Muslim country, and witnessed the double-standards, hypocrisy and routine violence directed at homosexuals (often by the same people who fucked them the night before) you have no idea how ridiculous it is to posit Christianity as a greater world-wide threat to gay people than theocratic Islam. But of course the same force gives animus to anti-gay (and other) violence everywhere, no matter how it's justified: not religion but the innate vestiges of our violent, primal ancestry.

There is no logic, creed, or theology to most violence. There is only, in the end, violence.

yashu said...

(I have a fag hag crush on Palladian.)

Zachary Paul Sire said...

How does having gay and lesbian family members make one not anti-gay?

Freeman Hunt said...

I would actually contend that the majority of actual anti-gay violence in America today and in the recent past is not committed in the name or under the direction of Christianity at all, but instead by uneducated, underclass black and white males acting on primate-like instincts to violence. Christianity becomes the scapegoat because it generally doesn't fight back anymore

Well put.

Alex said...

Except many Christians do act like homophobic bullies, especially in school settings. They get away with it because their parents are homophobes and approve of it. After all, fags are all going straight to hell, might as well give 'em a taste of on earth right?

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Bazelon is a revolutionary, a Jewish-homosexual behavior endorsing-Christian condemning in moral outrage, person. It's hard to know exactly where her dog is in this fight. When such people provoke a response however it can be against any item in the list; the fact that the provocateur had enmeshed them all however encourages antisemitism by making it merely equally simple minded. Ann does us all a service by breaking up the enmeshment.

Jason said...

The only thing unfortunate in this exchange is that Ms. Bazelon was so hopelessly outclassed, and her assumptions so deftly skewered, that she didn't even feel it. She still has no idea how destroyed she was.

Like someone in a duel who's been run through with a rapier, and doesn't even feel it.

Chris said...

When I was in High School, the jerks who picked on the "faggots" were the same ones who hassled me about being a "Jesus Freak".....

Ralph L said...

Most of the people who comment on this blog are anti-gay.
I'm no swisher, I must be an uncl-gay.

Jason, most of the 428 knew what would happen if they were outed when they signed up. (The others were late bloomers). Some probably outed themselves to get out of the service early.

LoafingOaf said...

hombre: Evidently, the Loaf has the same problem Bazelon has coupled with a willingness to accept Maddow as authoritative.

Haven't watched the Blogginghead clips, so I don't know what Bazelon and Althouse say on there. I generally find Bloggingheads boring.

I noticed you only commented on one of my two links. Nothing to say about the article "My Ex-Gay Life With the Tea Party Queen"? Pretty heartless the way the Good Christian, Christine O'Donnell, kicked that guy to the curb without a care about him. I guess she only loved him when she thought she could use him to promote her anti-gay nuttery.

I haven't been following Christine O'Donnell much, though I haven't been able to entirely ignore her because I still sometimes read this blog and Althouse posts a lot about her.

I dismissed her as an ignoramous over her comments on evolution, and I bookmarked the above article because it shows she's an ugly person on top of being a nutter. I first saw it at Andrew Sullivan's site, where he commented:

"Here's a moving - and instructive - tale of a young gay man, Wade Richards, who once worked with Christine O'Donnell in the Christianist trenches until he came to terms with his identity. O'Donnell emerges as a viciously anti-gay bigot, blaming people with HIV and AIDS for their illnesses and conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. Her gay-baiting was also central to her smear campaign against Castle, something even expert gay-baiter Karl Rove found too much."

The YouTube clip provides a glimpse into the nutty circles O'Donnell emerged from. I can understand you wanna brush all that under the rug, but for some reason O'Donnell and a lot of Tea Partiers think O'Donnell would be the finest Senator we've ever seen, so...the voters probably have a right to know what she's about. (Althouse, however, would rather just call Wolf Blitzer a "sexist" for expecting her to answer some questions before changing the subject. Althouse's "sexism" card gets pretty old....)

LoafingOaf said...

Oh, there's Palladian trolling me again. So, if I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell, it means I hate women? Or, could it be I just don't like Sarah Palin and her protege?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian: I would actually contend that the majority of actual anti-gay violence in America today and in the recent past is not committed in the name or under the direction of Christianity at all, but instead by uneducated, underclass black and white males acting on primate-like instincts to violence. Christianity becomes the scapegoat because it generally doesn't fight back anymore.

I agree, but we aren't just talking about violence. When a state political party puts on its plank the wish to make homosexuality illegal, or when a state votes to ban gay adoption to protect families, these are acts spearheaded by prominent adults acting, so they say, out of their religious beliefs, often with the backing of Christian churches.

Perhaps more enlightened Christians wont directly sin against their brothers, but they often have no problem setting the government up to do it for them.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Ralph L,

I was challenged to name ONE person who had been fired for being gay, because the commenter claimed it was illegal to do so.

M. Simon said...

Does she think the Orthodox are bigots? She probably does, but it would be nice to hear her say it, and not just bash those goyim rednecks.

Certain events preceding and during WW2 changed the Jewish mind (mostly) about these things. If they got a triangle attitudes changed.

The Crack Emcee said...

The true title of this post should be:

"Here's where I defend Christian fundamentalists from the charge that they are homophobic bullies - with an imbecile."

Gives the whole discussion some perspective.

BTW - why the insistence on talking to idiots? It's so rare to watch one of these things and think, "wow, these people are smart". Instead, I just get depressed.

I mean, here you are, bragging because you're actually doing the right thing - big whoop. Especially since you're doing it against an obvious liberal dipshit (with the world's most annoying voice) who's too stupid to be worthy of a platform in American public life to begin with. Again: big whoop.

Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?

M. Simon said...

They are seeking to frame the debate in terms of their ideals: justice, fairness, equality.

Those seem to be pretty good ideals to me.

Government MUST be about Justice to retain the Mandate Of Heaven.

Government MUST be fair. All citizens should be treated fairly. And just to avoid some repetition. Equally.

But I'm a libertarian Republican. I kinda believe that Government should leave people alone. And when it has business with the people the above principles should apply.How odd.

Bill Dalasio said...

Professor Althouse,

I have to ask, what were those dark lines going down Bazelon?

Oh, yeah, the tire tracks of the Mack truck of logic you ran her over with.

Great points.

Charlie said...

Data point:

When I moved to Texas from California seven years ago, I got somehow folded into an internet discussion group headed by a Baptist deacon, all the sixty some-odd members being in their 60s and up. Reading the posts, I saw it was built on two pillars--anti-immigrant, anti-gay marriage.

I decided what the hell and gave them a blast of my conservative argument for gay marriage (if you will not allow a way to sanctify long-term relationships, are you not thereby endorsing promiscuity?)

What I got back was half a dozen perfectly pleasant replies admitting that such had not occurred to them and it was certainly something to keep in mind.

The Crack Emcee said...

Bill Dalasio,

Really? Is Ann's saying she prefers to separate psychotherapy from spirituality really a "Mack truck of logic"?

What if I said doing that's wrong - that her preference means diddly squat - and shows a profound lack of religious understanding on Ann's part? What do you say then?

jr565 said...

Methadras wrote:
Oh lookie who has crawled out of the woodwork to heap more lies than ever before. I am not anti-gay. Do you believe me? If you don't, then how could I prove to you that I am not anti-gay? Defend legislation that I don't agree with? Acquire even more gay/lesbian friends? Ask my relatives to have more gay/lesbian children than the ones they already have? What? What possibly can one do to not be anti-gay in your enfeebled, little mind?


For the gay establishment and liberals in general, any veering from their orthodox belief means that you are a hater. Not every gay person believes in gay marriage, but that doesn't matter. If you are not gay, and think that marriage means what it has always meant, it doesn't mean that you don't hate gays but think that marriage is strictly defined and important as it is defined as the best means society has to raise children. No, nothing that subtle. You simply are a knuckle dragging hater of all things gay and (most likely)a christian. Muslim hatred of homosexuality is not to be commented on because Islam is a religion of peace and any comment other than support for Islam means that you are a HATER and bigot, because of your christianity (most likely) or your Amerikkkan bias.
Notice how for example, people like Bill O'Reilly can say muslims were responsible for 9/11 and it causes liberals to literally walk out of the room (ie, how dare you question the orthodoxy that Islam is anything other than a religion of peace) yet liberals routinely peg christians as anti gay bigots with nary a word.THAT hatred is of course protected, as Christianity is a legitimate target, and not protected.

DWPittelli said...

Christine O'Donnell doesn't seem particularly suited to positions of serious power. However, we're talking about a legislative position, where one's agreeing with a candidate ideologically, on the big issues of the day, is arguably far more important than the candidate's character and maturity. (Certainly anyone who voted for or considered Ted Kennedy the "liberal lion" of the Senate must agree with this.)

Now gay issues aren't actually a significant part of voting in the Senate like, say, voting for the budget, or the "stimulus" or cap-and-trade, or health-care "reform." I may be wrong, but I believe that on those grounds, the majority of Americans would vote for O'Donnell.

One place where gay issues have and can come up is with Senate confirmation of judges and ambassadors and such. The case of James Hormel, in which Christine O'Donnell, among others, opposed his confirmation as ambassador to Luxembourg, would seem to be a case of anti-gay overreach and bigotry; it certainly has been presented as such by major media. O'Donnell "'was concerned about Hormel’s ties to the pedophile-rights movement,' her website said, though there was not a shred of evidence behind the slur" according to the Daily Beast. What his opponents did and did not know in 2009 is certainly open to question. That said, Hormel's "life partner" (as of May 2009) graduated from college in 2008, while Hormel graduated in 1953. So the guy's creepy in a way that's independent of his sexual orientation -- indeed, a man over 75 with a 21-year-old trophy wife would arouse contempt rather broadly.

setnaffa said...

"Christian Fundamentalists" are often accused of taking the Bible literally.

In fact, those that do may tolerate gays outside their church but not welcome them or support them in leadership roles within their church.

Homosexuality is described as a symptom of the wrath of God in Romans 1:16-32.

And leaving people to continue in their sins is prescribed in Revelation 22:11 "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."

Some folks just think they're called to be everyone else's parents or something. That's how the Pharisees acted, not how Christians act...

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: ricpic, et al.
RE: Heh

....homosexuals aren't all that gay about being homosexuals? -- ricpic

Gay is a one-word oxymoron.

I have never known a homosexual who was actually 'gay', i.e., joyously happy with life. And I suspect there's good reason, other than their claims of being 'bullied' or discriminated against.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

DWPittelli said...

All that said, Christine O'Donnell is not a fundamentalist; she is a Roman Catholic. And most of her vocal opponents are opposing her for holding Roman Catholic positions. Now, I do not believe it is bigotry to oppose her on those grounds; the reason it would have been so to oppose JFK for being Catholic, is that he showed no sign of taking specifically Catholic teachings seriously as far as lawmaking is concerned, and indeed, he went a step further and showed no sign of taking Catholic teachings seriously enough as to lecture the world on such teachings.

O'Donnell has shown no desire to legislate against masturbation, etc., but she is a scold. And most people do not want a scold in office.

jr565 said...

DWPitelli wrote:
O'Donnell has shown no desire to legislate against masturbation, etc., but she is a scold. And most people do not want a scold in office.


you don't think those preaching that anyone who is against gay marriage is a hateful bigot isn't a scold?
Or that those who demand a change of traditional marriage to something that THEY define is not legislating morality or legislating against something?
Do you think that liberals are incapable of being scolds?

Cosmo said...

I think if you polled 100 gays, you'd find that all 100 would prefer no hate crimes or bullying to some hate crimes or bullying. No-brainer.

However, I think if you polled those same 100 gays, you'd find that all 100 would prefer bullying by so-called "Christian fundamentalists" to bullying by "Islamic fundamentalists."

The left's continued infatuation with appeasement of radical ideology would only hasten the day where this second polling scenario would come to fruition.

As I have said many times, I would more easily be able to "Coexist" like the bumper sticker invites me to do if the "C" would stop trying to eat the "oexist."

Bill Dalasio said...

"Is Ann's saying she prefers to separate psychotherapy from spirituality really a "Mack truck of logic"?"

Well, if someone is trying to equate two distinct concepts (spirituality and psychotherapy), yes it is. It ought to be merely an obvious point. But, sadly, the state of thinking has fallen into disrepair.

"What if I said doing that's wrong - that her preference means diddly squat - and shows a profound lack of religious understanding on Ann's part? What do you say then?"

Well, I'd say you'd be best laying off the crack, emcee. Distinct concepts (psychotherapy and spirituality) are distinct, no matter how much you try to equate them. There may be relationships between the concepts but related concepts are not identical concepts. Moreover, the burden in on the person claiming a relationship between concepts to establish such a relationship. I'd also say that both you and Bazelon have failed to make a positive case for your argument and rely on assertion. But, then, I'm not as inclined toward euphamism as Prof. Althouse.

MadisonMan said...

I have never known a homosexual who was actually 'gay', i.e., joyously happy with life.

I don't know many (any?) heterosexuals who are joyously happy with life.

At some point in life, everyone, gay and straight, has to develop some kind of armor for the hate that will be directed their way -- nobody gets through life being universally loved. You can either develop armor, become a comic, or beat everyone up. To a parent of a kid being bullied, I would say it is your responsibility to help your kid develop the appropriate skill set that is effective. Trusting someone else to take care of you, or your kid, in other words going to the School Administration and demanding that something be done, well that might work. But oftentimes it doesn't, and where does that leave you?

Eventually, you may learn not to care what other people think of you. But unless you're running your own business, you still have to interact with people who might bully you. It's a great skill to know how to recognize the bully and minimize them. Teach your children well.

TMink said...

Most of the people who post on this blog are anti-gay?

Really?

Define anti-gay? Go ahead, definition please.

Opposing gay marriage is not anti-gay. It is anti-gay marriage. There is a HUGE difference. Most of the atheists that comment here are wonderfully polite to rabid Christians such as myself. While they do not believe as I do, they treat me with respect and dignity, and I return the favor. They are not anti-Christian, they just believe differently.

Gay folks spend a lot of time trying to make complete agreement with everthing the politicized gay folks throw out there the litmus test for not being homophobic. Rubbish!

Trey

geoffrobinson said...

As a Christian, I agree with Ann. But let me also give some insight from a Christian perspective and as a kid who was picked on.

Far be it from me to say, Christians are good people. We are sinners like everyone else. And I could see some bullying happen from people who were brought up in an evangelical/fundamentalist background. I was picked on when I was a kid. Kids will pick on you for any reason they can find if they want to pick on you. Being gay young makes you a target because you are different and kids pick on people who are different. Not because they are gay per se.

But I think what is going on here is that subconsciously everyone, including gay people, know that there is something deeply disordered about homosexual activity. As Romans says we "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." When a group of people comes around to say "hey, what you are doing here is wrong" they are going to be deeply unpopular. Especially when they're correct.

You have to keep squashing your conscience and you will see anger rise to fore.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

The majority of those of the Christian faith view homosexuality as adverse. That is the problem she of the incredibly annoying high pitched voice has. And her answer to this, is a world in which such thoughts should be controlled and altered for the good of all. When the gay rights movement started, it marched under the banner of tolerance. Now, it demands far more, it demands, that its morality be completely embraced. This too, is a mainstream leftist view.
Compare this to the mainstream Christian view. Homosexuality is adverse. Though, while those who practice it may be pitied and naturally reviled, it is against the very nature of an individual relationship with God, and our own imperfection within this that we demand/enforce those who disagree with us to adopt our faith. What we may do however, is fearlessly give of what we hold to be true, and as such preach of redemption and forgiveness.
Of the two camps, which by their actions gives those with whom they totally disagree, the freedom to actually do so?

FormerTucsonan said...

@DWPittelli

O'Donnell has shown no desire to legislate against masturbation, etc., but she is a scold. And most people do not want a scold in office.

If that's the case, how did we end up with the Obamas?

Jim said...

One thing that people forget is that the group in the US population that has the highest percentage of fundamentalist Christians is African American females.

Though there are more whites who are fundamentalist than African-Americans overall, black women are more likely to be fundamentalist Christian than any other demographic group.

Do most black women really fit Bazelon's stereotype?

People who want to generalize about fundamentalist Christians should realize that they are describing a group that is disproportionately African American.

Jim Lindgren
Northwestern University

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: MadisonMan
RE: You....

I have never known a homosexual who was actually 'gay', i.e., joyously happy with life.

I don't know many (any?) heterosexuals who are joyously happy with life.
-- MadisonMan

....obviously don't know Jesus very well. Or the people you 'know' don't know Him.

What's my point? It relates to my earlier comments latter part. It's like 'sex'. You don't know what it's like until you actually experience it. But you won't experience this kind of 'peace' until you're willing to 'give up'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[No Jesus. No Peace.
Know Jesus. Know Peace. -- Bumper Sticker]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Ann
RE: Bazelon

Good 'shooting', there.

However, one point I'd like to make regarding Bazelon's approach....

....it seems that her idea of 'bullying' is telling people that what they are doing is 'wrong'.

If that IS the case, then I guess it's wrong for our court system to tell alcoholics that they cannot operate a motor vehicle. Let alone throwing them into jail for various activities like public drunkeness or DUI, etc., etc., etc.

So where is it that Bazelon draws the proverbial line?

Are she and her ilk going to stop 'bullying' Tea Partiers for their political views? Telling them they are "wrong"?

I seriously doubt it.

So, they think it's wrong for other groups to 'bully' people. But they think it perfectly fine for themselves to do it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

DWPittelli said...

jr565 "Do you think that liberals are incapable of being scolds?"

Forsooth. Many liberals are scolds, on gay marriage, on climate, on growth in spending, on mortgages, you name it. And scolds are annoying, perhaps more so when you disagree with them altogether, but annoying even when you do agree with their underlying position.

That is one reason Al Gore and his wife (both public scolds, remember, the wife concerning lyrics in recorded music) lost in 2000.

And it's a major reason the Democrats are in trouble this cycle. But that does not change (it may even increase) the fact that it is a negative for O'Donnell and other non-Democrats also, to be scolds. (Not generally a deciding factor for me, for a legislative position, but quite possibly so for an executive position.)

Rusty said...

"Zachary Paul Sire said...
Cool Michael, then you agree with me. Most anti-gay people in the United States are Christians. "

Most people in the United States who eat bread, breathe, drive to work, watch movies, vote, walk, fly, run, use a computer and metabolize are also Christians.

Do you have an actual point Zach or are you just merely failing at being clever?

TMink said...

What does it mean to be anti-gay?

Do you have to support re-education camps, prison for gay behavior, death?

Or is it believing scripture that says homosexual behavior is a sin?

Trey

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: TMink
RE: What Is It?

It's the latter.

All you have to do is tell someone that you think homosexuality is 'wrong' and you are, in the eyes of Bazelon and her sort, a 'bully'.

Never mind that her own complaints that saying something is 'wrong' IS 'wrong'. She's saying it's 'wrong' and therefore she is 'right'.

It's typical 'progressive' hypocrisy, e.g., "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]

Zoltan Mostanyi said...

Christians of any point of view do not need defending, nor do they value it. It can be done, of course, free country and all, but it means nothing beyond the defender. Defense of Christians has no standing, so to speak, not anywhere.

On the subject of homosexuality and reputed religion, it is notable that whereas Mohammedans condemn homosexuality they practice it, and specifically pederasty, all but universally. Afghans, for example, are world-champion pederasts. And male Arab Mohammedans working on Coalition bases in Iraq, Kuwait and elsewhere have to be kept from tying up the Soldiers' porta-potties. In Afghanistan some US Soldiers carry "rape whistles" for use when sexually assaulted by Afghan Army personnel.

At least Episcopalian and Congregationalist clerics promote what they do in semi-private rather than condemn it. They have that virtue of consistency in that regard, at least modernly. Christian, though, they are not. No clergyman, no lay believer, no religion and no theology in the history of the universe has ever or will ever condone homosexuality or practice it.

R.C. said...

Very well done, Professor Althouse.

Let's not over-analyze the nomenclature. I'd have proudly called myself a fundamentalist Christian back when the word meant (even to casual listeners) merely theological conservatism with a concern for orthodoxy, and a desire to focus more on fundamental things than on peripheral things. By that standard, C.S.Lewis was a "fundamentalist."

But the term has been radically re-defined since. So I don't self-describe that way!

We could use the term "evangelical," but most folk see that as historically Protestant...which unnecessarily leaves out Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and para-Christian groups (Mormons et alia).

So let's just say: Conservative Christian and para-Christian groups.

How do these folks deal with gay folk?

Answer: Althouse is right. The act of having sex with a same-gender person, or with an opposite-gender person to whom you are not already married, is considered sinful. Like gossiping, or tax-cheating, or murder, or laziness.

Therefore, if you ask a conservative Christian person what to do if you have such inclinations, they'll tell you: Resist that temptation. If they think "reparative therapy" actually "works," they'll suggest it as an assistance to resisting the temptation...but they don't all have any confidence that it works, and whether it works or not, doesn't let a person off from the moral responsibility of resisting temptation.

As for abusing or harassing gays? Nah. Very rarely does anyone who takes his Christianity seriously do this. (Sometimes it's the other way around, in fact.)

The people who abuse or harass gays are typically the "yahoos"; that is to say, drunk and disorderly young morons looking for someone different to abuse. These folks aren't Christians. They're punks -- punks whose parents may or may not be Christians, but who aren't acting Christian themselves.

For of course counseling a gay person to not engage in homosexual activity is, from a conservative Christian perspective, a lot like counseling a "cutter" not to harm themselves. The motive is the same; the delivery is the same. ABUSE would be not only evil (sinful), but counterproductive.

Tom Grey said...

Suicide is terrible (not painless!).

I think the Dem Party gov't school system, as well as the Dem PC crap, supports bullying far more than Christians since WW II.

I think more women who have had abortions commit suicide than gays who have been bullied.

MadisonMan said...

I think more women who have had abortions commit suicide than gays who have been bullied.

Well, if you think that's the case, then I'm sure it's true.

If a Lesbian commits suicide after an abortion, into which category does she fall?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: MadisonMan
RE: How About....

If a Lesbian commits suicide after an abortion, into which category does she fall? -- MadisonMan

...'dead', by self-inflicted wound.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If your parents didn't have any children, odds are you won't either.]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Looking At This....

....more closely, I come to realize that Bazelon and her ilk are not REALLY interested in open discussion. The only think she is interested in is suppressing opinions that do not agree with her own. In this case Christianity. And it's perfectly okay with her to 'bully' christians because of their beliefs. And she'll likely 'bully' anyone else who disagrees with her.

Her ideals are her own and if you don't agree with them, you deserve to be 'bullied'. Even so far as Obama's polisci mentor, Bill Ayers, idea that people who do not accept their 'new order', need to be shipped off to re-education camps in the American Southwest.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Whereas Good can tolerate the existence of Evil. Evil cannot tolerate the existence of Good, as Good will continually be pointing out Evil's faults. Therefore Evil must always try to destroy Good.]

sgi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sgi said...

Progressives like Bazelon just can't help themselves. Bashing Christians is at the top of their agenda. And I agree with a previous poster, that it would be nice to hear progressive Jews like Bazelon and so many others just like her say something, anything about orthodox Jews, who feel pretty much the same way as some Christians about homosexuality. And while I am at it, if she thinks for a second that some Christian so-called bullies can hold a candle to how some Muslims and Islamic states deal with homosexuality then she is just a intolerant bigot towards Christianity in particular.

This bigotry from the left towards Christianity is impossible to ignore any longer. So far, Christians have been on the defensive, but I think it's past time to confront the haters like Bazelon. And by the way, I am a agnostic, although raised in a very benign and loving Protestant church.

LissaKay said...

I wrote a rather lengthy piece on this topic a while back at my site (and not much since then ...), and even so, my thoughts have expanded even further in the interim. I am at work at the moment, and cannot view the video, but I leave this so I can find my way back when I get home, so I can comment further.

But ... as many commenters have noticed, Christians are indeed under attack. In many places, all I have to do is write or say, "I am a Christian and ... " then the attacks begin, and the original topic of discussion is lost as I am held to defend everything from Levitical laws to the complexities of Revelation, all at the same time as I am supposed to justify belief in "an invisible sky man" and a "magic book".

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: LissaKay
RE: "Welcome....

all I have to do is write or say, "I am a Christian and ... " then the attacks begin, and the original topic of discussion is lost as I am held to defend everything from Levitical laws to the complexities of Revelation, all at the same time as I am supposed to justify belief in "an invisible sky man" and a "magic book". -- LissaKay

....to the 'party', Pal!" -- Bruce Willis, in Die Hard

Don't worry. Thinks are going to get MUCH WORSE.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Gird up your loins. -- Old Book]

Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. It's easy to defend the "Invisible Sky Man" and the "Magic Book", if you (1) have experienced the former and (2) because of '1', understand the latter.

Chuck Pelto said...

P.P.S. As one fellow I know put it....

Believing IS 'seeing'.

Lyle said...

Ann... Bob Wright is starting to have people banned from the bh.tv forums. If you ever speak him can you talk to him and get him to stop this nonsense. I got banned for incorrigibility... basically for having middle of the road, moderate views. Brenda is she wolf is got to be some 22 year old progressive incompetent. It needs to stop.

I'm wanting to do something crazy and actually file a lawsuit against Bob Wright and bloggingheads.tv Grossly unfair happenings in moderation going on there. Bob and company can learn from you... Be his guru. Save us... you're our only hope. :)

Lyle said...

Ann... Bob Wright is starting to have people banned from the bh.tv forums. If you ever speak to him can you talk to him and get him to stop this nonsense. I got banned for incorrigibility... basically for having middle of the road, moderate views. Brenda, his she wolf has got to be some 22 year old progressive incompetent. It needs to be stopped.

I'm wanting to do something crazy and actually file a lawsuit against Bob Wright and bloggingheads.tv Grossly unfair happenings in moderation going on there. Bob and company can learn from you... Be his guru. Save us... you're our only hope. :)

The Crack Emcee said...

"Is Ann's saying she prefers to separate psychotherapy from spirituality really a "Mack truck of logic"?"

Well, if someone is trying to equate two distinct concepts (spirituality and psychotherapy), yes it is. It ought to be merely an obvious point. But, sadly, the state of thinking has fallen into disrepair.

Boy, you sound haughty - "the state of thinking has fallen into disrepair" - man, this oughtta be fun! Especially because I don't see how "an obvious point" becomes a ""Mack truck of logic" yet, but I'm sure you'll eventually loosen your van dyke and fill me in.

So tell me, what if the only person trying to "equate" the two is you? Doesn't Ann's suggestion sound silly then? Like a lawyer's not-too-clever dodge, revealing a profound lack of understanding for what it means to be spiritual?

The burden in on the person claiming a relationship between concepts to establish such a relationship. I'd also say that both you and Bazelon have failed to make a positive case for your argument and rely on assertion. But, then, I'm not as inclined toward euphamism as Prof. Althouse.

Whoa - slow down big fella! I haven't even tried to make a case yet, and already you're dissing me for that, while lumping me in with a woman I've already declared an idiot. (You may not be "inclined toward euphamism" but you're also not a stickler for accuracy either.) Try an ascot: I hear they don't inhibit blood flow to the brain.

O.K. - let's try and repair "the state of thinking" around here:

This "psychotherapy" is taking place in a church, right? Christian gays go to Christian elders who bring Christian doctors doing Christian-like sciencey things that supposedly make gays more Christian. So where, exactly, is this "obvious" separation with spirituality supposed to start again?

I guess what I'm asking is, is what we're discussing psychotherapy or pseudoscience? As far as I know it doesn't work. Mainstream medicine doesn't endorse it either, correct? Yet it's embraced by various spiritual beliefs. Hmmm.

Or consider Homeopathy: It's a NewAge "science", that has several integral spiritual components, that's attractive to Christians and NewAgers alike. (For instance, it's founder said you have to strike the potion against a bible 10 times to make the mixture work. BTW - available near the scented candles at any Whole Foods near you!) Tell me: How do I "separate" the spirituality from the "science" of homeopathy?

The Crack Emcee said...

Cont'd:

It seems to me, as with most spiritual behaviors, there's more here than meets the eye. Nuance, I think they call it. Ann's comment doesn't acknowledge a lick of nuance - she's shoved this crap into the "science" column where it may not even belong. Also, saying you're going to "separate" the belief system from this particular endeavor would leave a dishonest representation of both halves you're left with. These people - all of them - are compelled to do these things specifically because they're believers.

If Ann really wanted to "defend Christian fundamentalists from the charge that they are homophobic bullies" she'd at least try to accurately reflect the depth and nature of their beliefs in the first place, and not try to run away from them simply because they're amorphous and (seemingly) illogical, which I'm sure lawyers hate.


I think, like most coverage of spiritual matters I see, you and Ann simply don't know enough about what you're discussing, because you haven't ever taken it seriously to begin with. "Here's where I defend Christian fundamentalists from the charge that they are homophobic bullies" is a pose. (Whose next?) I'm sure those Christian fundamentalists will be overjoyed Ann (finally?) defended them - by insisting on separating their "psychotherapy" from their spirituality - though they'll probably find it as weak a defense as I do.

Really, that's hardly a "Mack truck of logic", Sir Dalasio, reminding this artist more of a falling feather's awkward decent to uselessness.

Zoe Brain said...

Some of those fired for being Gay - or Transsexual.

Seth Stambaugh, Teacher. (last month)

Vandy Beth Glenn, Legislative editor.
Rich Mitchell, School Superintendent
Joseph Hooks, Starbucks Employee
Dorothy Baker, Starbucks Employee
Ashland Johnson... shall I go on?

It happens all the time, and is perfectly legal in 30 states - though government employees may have some protection in those.

It's legal to fire transsexuals and intersexed people for being what they are in 38 states too.

Here's the American Catholic Bishop's Conference statement on the subject of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
In addition to ENDA’s protection of same-sex conduct, its threat to religious liberty, and its contribution to the cause of same-sex “marriage,” there are other obstacles to its passage. The bill’s treatment of “gender identity,” which was not in the 2007 bill, would have an adverse effect on privacy and associational rights of others.

They are against legal rights for trans and intersexed people on the grounds of "privacy" and "freedom of association". That's all. Exactly the same grounds that were used to justify segregation, separate facilities for "Whites" and "Coloreds", or in Suid Afrika, "Blanks" and "Nie Blanks".

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Ann
RE: [OT] What's the Matter?

Can't stand to have someone explain to someone like The Crack Emcee that his example of homeopathy doesn't 'fly'? Because homeopathy actually, you know....'works'?

Or....

....why is my post to The Crack Emcee 'missing'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God made the Earth and everything therein for Man. Our problem is trying to figure out how to use it....properly.]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: The Crack Emcee
RE: [OT] Homeopathy

Or consider Homeopathy: It's a NewAge "science", that has several integral spiritual components, that's attractive to Christians and NewAgers alike. (For instance, it's founder said you have to strike the potion against a bible 10 times to make the mixture work. BTW - available near the scented candles at any Whole Foods near you!) -- The Crack Emcee

Funny you should mention that.

Homeopathy actually works.

Don't believe me?

Here's a little experiment on the efficacy of homeopathy you can do in your own home.

[1] Buy a bottle of cantharis, 6X to 30C 'miracle dilution' should work.
[2] Bring your oven to 400°F.
[3] Put a stainless steel skillet or pan in the over.
[4] Bake the skillet at 400°F for one hour.
[5] Remove the skillet from the oven and put it on the top of the stove.....USING YOUR BARE HANDS.
[6] After you've stopped dancing around the room and screaming obscenities, take four tablets of cantharis of the 'miracle dilution' you've purchased. The process is to put them UNDER your tongue and let them dissolve on their own. Do NOT swallow them.

If your experience is the same as MINE—and this has happened to me on four occasions, but strictly by accident—the pain will go away in 15 minutes and there will be no scar tissue.

First instance while cooking for an Alpha Course dinner. Someone put a stainless steel pan in front of me to dish up food from without telling me where the pan had been; straight out of the hot oven. Instant 2d degree burns. Since I had no cantharis with me at the church, I had to wait until I finished the supper and drove home. All the while in very interesting pain in both hands. Fifteen minutes after the cantharis, no pain. Blisters went away without any scar tissue.

Another instance, a small fire in my candle making shop. Hot wax got on the electric burners were had been red hot. I tried to put the small fire out by smothering it with a towel. Unfortunately, I had not covered my hand completely and a pinkie finger came into contact with the burner element. Instant crispy skin, but a nice mahogony brown.

Took cantharis. Pain gone in 15 minutes. Pain tried to return two hours later. More cantharis, no more pain. No scar tissue.

Try it yourself....

However, I DO recommend you try it in treating an accident instead of on purpose.

A bottle of cantharis can be had at any good vitamin store, e.g., Vitamin Cottage, for about $7. Is that too much to invest in first aid? Or an experiment?

Enjoy....

Chuck(le)

P.S. If anyone can tell me how scar tissue not forming after a severe burn is a psychosomatic response or a placebo effect, I'd REALLY like to hear it.

P.P.S. I've been able to treat gout, colitis and various forms of flu with it as well.

So....go ahead and enjoy your pain. I've got better things to do than suffer, needlessly. Had enough of that in the infantry for 27 years.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Ann
RE: Heh

Good think I keep this material 'handy' against your predilections. Eh?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The palest ink outlasts the longest memory.]

Dissertation Writing service said...

Despite the bulk of information online we often fail to get the specific information which is needed this post is good & contains relevant information that I was in quest of .I appreciate your efforts in preparing this post.

Dissertation Samples