Sunday funny

First, don't forget to pray for pastors across America who are participating in the Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Freedom Sunday today, which I wrote about previously here and here.

adf logo 2.jpgThis is a long-planned project by ADF for pastors in a coordinated effort on September 28, 2008, to defy the IRS's gag rule dating back to 1954 disallowing them and churches from taking political stands. At least 50 pastors across the nation are purposefully doing just that today from the pulpit, such as endorsing a political candidate. All pastors will submit transcripts and video/audiotapes of their sermons to the IRS. The hope is to invoke action by the IRS, get this into court, and overturn this 54 year old First Amendment violation. Go pastors! See ADF video on the constitutional foundation for this project here.

Moving on, the political cartoons this week continued to focus on the Wall Street bailout, so I found none on our issue. But here was one about the aforementioned by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com that made me laugh...

cartoon 9-21 nate beeler sarah field and dress.jpg


Comments:

the American People need to know this about Obama:


http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/8-obama-citizenship-lawsuit-info-sheet

Barack Obama Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as President of the United States

Please spread this Far and Wide!

Posted by: James at September 28, 2008 10:14 AM


Jill:

The freeing of pastors, who are citizens as well and have Constitutional rights, to speak God's Word, is the key to stemming the tide of immorality so rampant in our nation.

God's Word has power, but, only if it is spoken and proclaimed.

Like I have said numerous times in the past, it is not up to the world to turn this woundeded ship around and bring her beack into safe harbor, it is up to the church.

Let all us believers pray that pastors let go of the fear of the IRS, which is idolatry, step up to the plate, and speak forcefully against abortion, homosexaulity, gay marraige, prayer out of schools and against those candidates who have embraced these issues as their own.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are two that come to mind.

Posted by: HisMan at September 28, 2008 10:19 AM


I pray that all 50+ churches lose their tax exemption.

Posted by: reality at September 28, 2008 10:27 AM


Reality:

Your hatred and disdain for God are evident.

No one should listen to your hateful comments.

Posted by: HisMan at September 28, 2008 10:38 AM


Satan answers prayer?
(end sarcasim)

Someone needs to inform reality satan doesn't answer prayer....silly goof.

Posted by: sandi at September 28, 2008 10:51 AM


HisMan,

I'll pray for you.

Posted by: reality at September 28, 2008 10:56 AM


Someone needs to inform Anonymous that Satan -- I mean, Jill doesn't like anonymous comments.

Posted by: reality at September 28, 2008 11:01 AM


A conservative columnist is worried about Gov. Palin. So, big deal.
The left will make a big stink about someone's opinion and blow the whole thing out of proportion.
If there was such a thing as fairness they would make a big deal out of Biden being as dumb as a box of rocks.
I'm sure there are still people alive who remember FDR going on TV and explaining the stock market crash!
Now, that would be really funny if Biden didn't have a heart beat's chance of being president! (scary)

Posted by: sandi at September 28, 2008 11:01 AM


oops...that was me...so satan, I mean reality you can rest now.

Posted by: sandi at September 28, 2008 11:03 AM


Barack Obama attempted a “me too” moment in Friday’s debate when John McCain mentioned the bracelet he received from the family of a soldier killed in Iraq and called it a reminder to win the war. Obama fumbled through the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck while making the point that some families of those killed in action drew a different lesson from the loss.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family. …

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/28/did-jopek-family-ask-obama-to-stop-wearing-the-bracelet/


Will the MSM report this? ... NOT.

Posted by: Jasper at September 28, 2008 11:19 AM


But seriously, Jill, HisMan, etc.,

The hope is to invoke action by the IRS, get this into court, and overturn this 54 year old First Amendment violation.

There's nothing in the First Amendment that says churches don't have to pay taxes. Churches choose to take the tax break in exchange for not engaging in partisan politics.

If a church wants to function as an arm of the Republican or Democratic party, that's fine; they can give up their tax exemption and do that. Nobody's stopping them.

The ADF has no case.

Posted by: reality at September 28, 2008 11:19 AM


Jasper,

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/bracelet-wars.html

There you go, mainstream media.

Posted by: reality at September 28, 2008 11:28 AM


Reality 11:19am

Really? So where are the seperation of church and state police when Democrat candidates, including Bill Clinton and Mario Cuomo, campaign from the pulpits of black churches?
On national TV, I actually saw the plate passed around for Jesse Jackson.
Yoo-hoo, IRS! Where are you?
The ADF definitely has a case.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:38 AM



Palin Interviews Spark GOP Concerns


Associated Press


WASHINGTON (Sept. 27) - A conservative columnist who welcomed Sarah Palin's entry in national politics says she's proven to be a dud and should step aside as John McCain's running mate.

Kathleen Parker, writing in the National Review Online, says her "cringe reflex is exhausted" after watching the Alaska governor stumble through TV interviews and it's become clear to her that Palin is out of her league.

"No one hates saying that more than I do," Parker writes. "Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does."

Palin, new to national politics, boosted Republican presidential nominee John McCain in polls and excited the party's core conservatives when he chose the first-term governor for his ticket. Some of that shine has since worn off in polls.

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, told Politico.com that Palin’s recent CBS appearance with Katie Couric was alarming, though not disqualifying. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”

“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s—t,” Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist, told Politico.com. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”

Posted by: Falilli Ferzip at September 28, 2008 11:56 AM


Oh so sorry. Is my post above.

Posted by: Falilli Ferzip at September 28, 2008 11:58 AM


Sandi 11:01am

Did you hear Biden also told a state legislator to stand up and be recognized. Problem was the man is confined to a wheelchair. Perhaps Biden was suffering delusions of being Obama. However Obama can only cause the ocean levels to lower, I'm not certain if he can make the diabled walk.
I think this was before we were informed how "President" Roosevelt addressed the nation on TV. By the way, my very elderly mother has no memory of such an event, and she's an excellent historian.


If McCain said stuff like this we'd hear howling about his "senior moments". Sarah Palin would be a laughingstock.

A conservative columnist is worried about Palin?
Have you heard any concern over some of the neutron bombs recently being dropped on Obama by Bill Clinton?

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 12:01 PM


Speaking of Katie Couric, the poor woman tried every way she could to get a simple answer out of Obama concerning the success of the surge.
It was obvious the man would have rather swallowed his bile than admit to the success of the strategy and our troops. Likely because he opposed the surge.
Katie finally gave up.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 12:08 PM


Hi Mary,
Yes, I heard about Biden's other gaffs. The man is beyond stupid, yet he gets a pass because he's a staunch liberal.
I don't think the libs eat their own.
And I never heard a word about Obama and Katie in the media.

The McCain/Palin ticket doesn't just have to beat Obama/Biden, they have to beat the Obama/Biden/MSM ticket.

Posted by: sandi at September 28, 2008 12:22 PM


Mary,

You're mother doesn't remember it because there weren't any televisions to watch him or any other president on, including Hoover, the president at the time.

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 12:22 PM


This election will likely be decisive for the direction in which this country moves for the next 30 years. The only question is whether there will be enough left of "this country" by inaguration day to make winning this election seem like a good thing.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at September 28, 2008 12:38 PM


Hi MK, 12:22PM

The point of my comment exactly. My mother thought it was hilarious.
Just as she can't understand why FDR has been so lionized. She recalls it was WW2 that ended the Depression and FDR only gave the impression of doing something.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 1:15 PM


Hi Sandi,

I saw the actual video. I'm no fan of Katie's but I always give credit where its due. She really tried, asking the question repeatedly and in different ways, actually getting exasperated. No dice.

Also, the Democrats and Obama made a big mistake dissing the Clintons. You do not want to be on their bad side.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 1:21 PM


Sandi,

I remember a moment in the Gore/Bush debates when Gore claimed he travelled to Texas as VP to survey the damage of a natural catastrophe. Apparently Bush, then governor of Texas, had no memory of such a visit and the questioning look on his face made this very apparent.
Just to be safe, Bush said nothing and double checked. Sure enough, Gore made no such visit.
Too bad he didn't call him on it during the debate. That would have been a hoot.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 1:43 PM


Mary-

That Biden-wheelchair story was on CNN for a few days or so. They do report on things such as that, at least lately. They have Repubs and Dems going after them for bias. Funny to watch in the comment section of articles online actually.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 2:24 PM


This election will likely be decisive for the direction in which this country moves for the next 30 years. The only question is whether there will be enough left of "this country" by inaguration day to make winning this election seem like a good thing.

Doyle, I think that whoever wins may end up making his party quite unpopular for a while, a la Hoover, just by being if office during a really crummy time, economically.

Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2008 2:33 PM


Dan,

I'm pleasantly surprised CNN would report it. However I see a difference between reporting something and making an issue of it.
I'm convinced if McCain had made such a gaffe, as well as distorted history we'd never hear the end of his "senior moment" and questions concerning his mental fitness to govern.

An added newsbit. You may recall the discussion concerning Henry Kissinger and Obama alleging Kissinger, an advisor to McCain, would support meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions. McCain insisted that Kissinger, his friend of 35 years, would do no such thing. Dr.Kissinger issued a statement confirming that McCain was correct.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 2:36 PM


Doug,

But wasn't Roosevelt, and not Hoover, president at that time??:):)

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 2:39 PM


Mary-

yet there have been video clips played supporting Obama's statement that kissinger did indeed support negotiations. McCain tried to make it seem Obama said Kissinger supported presidential talks, to which Obama said consistently no one is saying anything about presidential talks John.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 2:42 PM


An added newsbit. You may recall the discussion concerning Henry Kissinger and Obama alleging Kissinger, an advisor to McCain, would support meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions. McCain insisted that Kissinger, his friend of 35 years, would do no such thing. Dr.Kissinger issued a statement confirming that McCain was correct.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 2:36 PM

this is interesting to know because this audio clip of the debate has been played ad nauseum on the news radio..... up here in Canada

Posted by: Patricia at September 28, 2008 2:49 PM


Dan,

Obama seemed to have confused preconditions with preparations. Two entirely different concepts.
Anyway Obama tried to say Kissinger would support him(Obama) on meeting rogue leaders without preconditions. McCain was adamant Kissinger, his friend of 35 years would not support such a dangerous position. Kissinger issued a statement supporting McCain.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 2:55 PM


Patricia 2:49PM

Why would this be played up in Canada?

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 2:56 PM


Mary-

regardless of the statement, he is taped as saying there should be meetings without precondition at the secretary of state level with correct preparations (talking to other countries and publicizing far and wide the content of the meeting, etc).

"Obama is right that Kissinger supports meetings without preconditions, but he neglects to mention that Kissinger specified they would be "at the secretary of state level.""

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/749/

they gave Obama a half truth on the meter because he didnt clarify the difference in levels.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 3:01 PM


But wasn't Roosevelt, and not Hoover, president at that time??:):)

Mary, Hoover was in until March 1933...

Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2008 3:03 PM


P.S. Wasn't that when you hit the big "30"?

Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2008 3:04 PM


Doug-

It's a play off a Biden gaffe confusing inventions available and the president in office during the depression, lol.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 3:04 PM


Doug,

I know. I was making fun of Biden's comment about "President" Roosevelt on TV in 1929.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 3:04 PM


Doug 3:04PM

Wise a--.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 3:06 PM


Dan,

Thank you for the link. It does point out though that Obama has stated a desire to negotiate with rogue leaders without preconditions. This was opposed not only by McCain but by Hillary Clinton as well.
Preparations certainly start at the lower level and that's where things started to get twisted.
I do have serious concern over Obama's naivete where meeting with rogue leaders is concerned.
I also fear he is no match for Putin. Leaders like these do not respect your desire to talk with them, only your ability to match wits with them.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 3:22 PM


oh, so they finally had to shape up, dan? it's about time.

the latest numbers I saw on cnn and fox were something like:

cnn - 51% dem, 18% rep
fox - 33% dem, 39% rep


Posted by: xalisae at September 28, 2008 3:24 PM


their audiences, that is.

Posted by: xalisae at September 28, 2008 3:30 PM


I think it's so funny that people think Obama won the debate. How many times did I hear Obama say "I agree with John McCain" or "John McCain is correct."

And they said Obama had McCain on the defensive. Well, with all the lies that Obama was saying he had to set the record straight. For instance the one about Kissinger, which one of the networks refuted immediately after the debate. (I think it was ABC but I was flipping channels. It definately wasn't Fox News b/c I don't have cable.)

Posted by: Kristen at September 28, 2008 4:06 PM


Kristen-

As I posted above, the Kissinger statement was in fact correct, though misleading.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 4:07 PM


Sandy, can you send me an email? My computer had a few trojan horses on it, and I had to do a full system recovery...so I lost your email address!

Posted by: Bethany at September 28, 2008 4:07 PM


Bethany-

Ick, that stinks. Hope you're able to get everything back that you need to.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 4:10 PM


Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 2:42 PM

Dan, before the debate Obama said HE would meet without preconditions. Then AT the debate he tried to cover his tracks. Whatever he was trying to pull at the debates the truth of the matter is that he said HE would. Unless he's running for Sec. of State he was incorrect in Kissinger's support.

Posted by: Kristen at September 28, 2008 4:16 PM


Thanks, Dan! Hope you're having a good day.

Posted by: Bethany at September 28, 2008 4:17 PM


Kristen-

He adapted his stement during the primaries saying certain preparations need to be made, such as lower level talks preceding his own, which he also said at the debate. McCain kept trying to pin immediate presidential meetings on Obama to which Obama replied no one said anything about presidential meetings John.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 4:41 PM


Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 4:41 PM

That should be statement not stement.


Bethany-

You're welcome, lol. I'm doing Okay, working on a paper on the like. Back at my apartment in Boston which is nice. Love being in the city :)

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 4:42 PM


Doug,

Word has it you were imbibing at an Oktoberfest????

Got this and thought of you...

Comparing Retirement Plans.
*
If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now
be
worth $49.00.
*
With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1000.
*
With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left.
*
If you had purchased $1000.00 of Delta Airlines stock you would have
$49.00
left.
*
If you had purchased United Airlines, you would have nothing left.
*
But, if you had purchased $1000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all
the
beer, then turned in the cans for recycling, you would have $214.
*
Based on the above, the best current investment advise is to drink
heavily and recycle.
*
This is called the 401-Keg Plan.

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 4:46 PM


Dan: It's a play off a Biden gaffe confusing inventions available and the president in office during the depression, lol.

Mary: Doug, I know. I was making fun of Biden's comment about "President" Roosevelt on TV in 1929.

Oh.

Duh.

Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2008 5:06 PM


This is called the 401-Keg Plan.

Ha! Love it, MK.

I saw a sign outside a bar that said "It's finally happened! Beer is now cheaper than gasoline. So don't drink and drive. Just drink!"

Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2008 5:13 PM


The surge did not succeed. If It had we would be home right now and the Iraqis would have taken control over their own destiny. That was the goal of the surge. It was supposed to be one time - breakthrough moment that would lead to a troop reduction. The troop level has not been reduced, ergo it did not work.

Posted by: Yo La Tango at September 28, 2008 5:35 PM



a VIDEO You Must See Before You Vote.

Please email this to everyone on your email list.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 28, 2008 6:12 PM


Mike-

Illuminati pictures? Really? They maintain there is a huge government conspiracy that every election is decided beforehand and the president has always been a member from the Foreign Relations Committee. They also believe the government sanctioned 9/11, etc.

I saw Jill is in the video, or an interview with her is anyway, and so I understand, but at least try and find someone who uses it that isnt maintaining that essentially everything in this country is predetermined knowingly by the government.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 6:17 PM


I think it's funny that there's only like, maybe three real pro-lifers on this site. John McDonell told me the world would be a much nicer place without me. I guess you guys just believe life is important to those who agree 100% with you.

Like Hitler thought everyones life was important, everyone in the Nazi party that is. Keep on showing your true colors guys!

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 7:07 PM


Like Carla. Carla is a true pro-lifer. She values everyone's lives reguardless of whether or not they agree with her. If every "pro-lifer" was like Carla I think even the word abortion would be nonexistent.

Even Patricia does a decent job respecting the lives of all others. Love you girls : )

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 7:14 PM


Now Jess,

why do you persist in interpreting things backwards? Please look at the venom and vindictiveness you spew. Are WE not good enough (in your view) to be without this?

I am likely older than your grandfather ... would you speak to him like you've spoken to me? I do not mind a reasoned debate .... but you fight dirty, like assuming PL'ers are the same ... all junk, to be 'rightly' dismissed by Jess. Should we bow to your condescension?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 28, 2008 7:38 PM


Jess,

What's the matter? Where did all that come from? Did I miss something??? Who said we'd be better off without you here??? Let me at 'em! Why I oughta...

Seriously, what's goin' on???

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 7:42 PM


John,

Where is all this coming from??? What happened with you and Jess?

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 7:43 PM


"The surge did not succeed. If It had we would be home right now and the Iraqis would have taken control over their own destiny. That was the goal of the surge. It was supposed to be one time - breakthrough moment that would lead to a troop reduction. The troop level has not been reduced, ergo it did not work."
Posted by: Yo La Tango at September 28, 2008 5:35 PM

Actually, Yo La, it did, troops are not going to be replaced at the rate that they had been. My husband is over there -- rebuilding. Once he has finished his tour (he is an engineer), his position will not be filled by another officer/engineer.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 28, 2008 7:52 PM


John said I would become crippled and diseased and die young because I don't eat meat. He posted a few outdated links, I posted current ones that proved him wrong. He then said the world would be a better place without me.

Look at the Google thread. I just want to help people, he just wants to push people to suicide.

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 7:56 PM


"but you fight dirty, like assuming PL'ers are the same ... all junk, to be 'rightly' dismissed by Jess."

Yes that's why I was just praising Carla and Patricia and I am always agreeing with mk. Just admit you're wrong about vegetarians dying horrible deaths and move on. I'm obviously not at all sick in any way, I've been a vegetarian for 13 years with no ill health effects what so ever. I'm walking talking proof!

And my Grandfathers never wished I were dead and they weren't liars so no, I always respected them.

I am old enough to know that age and wisdom don't always go hand and hand.

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 7:59 PM


Carla, Patricia, mk. Lol, that does make three. No, I know there are more true pro-lifers on here. It just gets grateing to hear someone call themselves pro-life and then hope people die in the same sentence.

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 8:02 PM


Jill-

May want to do a post on the Family Guy episode tonight, there was a bit on abortion/liberal agenda

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 8:04 PM


Jess my love,

You have to understand where John is coming from. He is extremely knowledgeable about health issues because he himself has been "sick" all of his life. I'm sure his first remarks came from concern about your own health. I don't know what the other remarks were all about, but honestly, John is very concerned about everyones eating habits and vitamin/mineral intakes. He reads about this stuff all the time.

Whatever he said, I'm sure you misunderstood. John is one of the sweetest men I've ever known...he wouldn't wish a cockroach dead!

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 8:07 PM


Hi MK,

Jess knows so little about me but has repeatedly called my judgment into question by assuming that meat-eating is a barbaric (to put it mildly) practice. For instance: I live in Northern Canada where we would literally freeze on a vegetarian diet ... sub-tropical areas like Southern California might be OK with this fare, but 'up-here', its a no-no. And Inuit eat almost 95% flesh foods on their traditional diet.

My post of 7:38 says much .... and I will not be sucked-in by a pouting Jess, bent of spreading foolishness.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 28, 2008 8:09 PM


This is a long-planned project by ADF for pastors in a coordinated effort on September 28, 2008, to defy the IRS's gag rule dating back to 1954 disallowing them and churches from taking political stands.

Only the ones who take 501(c)(3) tax exemptions, just like secular organizations who take those same exemptions. ADF likes to misrepresent this as some kind of religious discrimination, but it's perfectly neutral on religion.

Oh, and they're not disallowed from "taking political stands" but from endorsing candidates for office. They can address political issues from the pulpit all they want, they just can't tell people how to vote. Again, just like secular 501(c)(3) groups.

Posted by: Jen R at September 28, 2008 8:24 PM


Kristen,

Whatever Obama said at the debate he did speak of meeting rogue leaders without preconditions. This sort of naivete is dangerous. These are not people who respect you for wanting to talk to them.
These are people who know a "green" when they see one and I am not convinced Obama is the man to face down the likes of Putin and Ahmadineajad.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 8:24 PM


John,

I hear ya...I guess to Jess, hearing about animals being eaten, for ANY reason sounds as unreasonable as killing babies for ANY reason sounds to us.

Of course you make sense and I know you were just trying to help and teach her. She's young, but sweet. Idealistic and quirky. I love her.

Tho I could see how comparing humans to animals can seem naive. At least she feels compassion for something. In time, I think she'll feel it for babies too.

And if she ever moves to Alaska, she'll probably eat a little whale blubber! brrrrrr....

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 8:37 PM


pssst...John, I myself ADORE a good steak...but don't tell her okay?

Posted by: mk at September 28, 2008 8:38 PM


Jess,

A present for you: LOL:

Posted by: Jasper at September 28, 2008 8:43 PM


Jasper-

That's really rather distasteful and mean-spirited.

Posted by: Erin at September 28, 2008 8:49 PM


You should have posted a picture of the McFish sandwich instead, Jasper.

And I'm boycotting McDonalds because of their support of homosexuality.


I like the chicken strips that my locally started restaurant chain called RUNZA makes. They are really good.

I have started to occasionally eat veggie subs when I get food at Subway, but I have to hold the jalapeno peppers and other spicy peppers.

I also tried the Tomato & Mozzerella Panini @ Panera Bread. Its SOOOO good!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 28, 2008 8:55 PM


Liz-

that mean you're boycotting Google too?

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 8:57 PM


Jasper-

I agree with Erin. That's just plain mean.


Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 8:58 PM


"That's really rather distasteful and mean-spirited."

I think it kinda yummy myself, Erin. Although not all of time.


"And I'm boycotting McDonalds because of their support of homosexuality."

Oh, I didn't know that. I'm going to Wendys for now on...

Posted by: Jasper at September 28, 2008 8:58 PM


You guys have to laugh a little.


...That Nancy Pelosi makes me sick, she and Barney Frank are ponited their fingers at everybody else and they're the ones who got us into this mess. Boy, they have alot nerve.

Posted by: Jasper at September 28, 2008 9:02 PM


Google Opposes Proposition 8 in California-

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/09/google.html

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 9:05 PM


Like Carla. Carla is a true pro-lifer. She values everyone's lives reguardless of whether or not they agree with her. If every "pro-lifer" was like Carla I think even the word abortion would be nonexistent.

Even Patricia does a decent job respecting the lives of all others. Love you girls : )

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 7:14 PM

Hey, Jess, what's up?!! My son doesn't eat very much meat (if any). I don't think you will die any younger than the rest of us! Besides we all have to go sometime....
As for the Big Mac - ugh! I have had only 2 in my life and both made me SICK! I never ever eat at MacDonalds. The food is gross IMO.
John is right though about how diets differ depending upon where you live. And of course there is the "slow food" movement which encourages people to eat local. I am really big into that at this time. sorry very little American stuff for me - I try to buy Canadian only!
I'm in favour of protecting the rights of human babies before I would go out and protest animal rights. I have read though that Christ ate only fruits, vegetables and fish. Hmmmmmmmmm......

Posted by: Patricia at September 28, 2008 9:08 PM


Wendy's - yeah! I love Wendy's food! And Tim Horton's sandwiches and doughnuts!
I am getting hungry..............

Posted by: Patricia at September 28, 2008 9:11 PM


"Oh, I didn't know that. I'm going to Wendys for now on..."


I think I'll stop eating at Chili's, I heard the manager of the store there had an unrequited homosexual love affair.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2008 9:14 PM


Oops, I pushed post before editing. Take out the 'unrequited' bit. He had a homosexual love affair. Therefore, no more eating at Chili's.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2008 9:15 PM


That's ok Jasper. I had two people this weekend compliment my body this weekend. Seriously! A friend of a friend and my roommate. I know it's shallow but it made me smile : )

And mk John definitely said the world would be better off without me. Maybe you should check the Google thread? It's right at the end. And all of my doctors tell me I'm perfectly healthy, my blood work is always perfectly healthy, I've never broken a bone, I've never had a cavity. I was running again less then a month after being diagnosed with mono when it takes most people months to get back to walking regularly. Do you really think John knows my own body better then I do? Fine. Ok John, what time will my period start? You must know that too.

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 9:40 PM


"And I'm boycotting McDonalds because of their support of homosexuality."

Why do you care if McDonalds supports homosexuality?

Seems like a nice thing to do.

Posted by: Hal at September 28, 2008 9:42 PM


John just hates me and wants me to die solely for the fact that I don't eat meat. I am living proof that not everyone needs to eat meat to be healthy, 13 years I haven't eaten meat and my bones are as strong as ever. My skin is healthy, my eyes sharp, my hair thick and silky, my muscles are strong and getting even stronger. My life is proof that he isn't always right, and he wants to get rid of that.

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 9:52 PM


Jess @ 9:40, you had me until the word "mono".

Posted by: Janet at September 28, 2008 9:58 PM


Yeah, exchange the tax breaks for the ability to speak about politics and I'm cool with that. Of course, last time the church was involved in politics there was a little thing called "The Dark Ages." Just sayin'.

Regardless of the political stance, religious organizations should butt out unless they're willing to put in their taxes.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 10:00 PM


Mononucleosis. Everyone gets it once, it's like the chicken pox. A lot of people get it as kids though and then it's not so noticeable.

Sometimes it's known as glandular fever.

Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 10:00 PM


Everybody named "John" around here is so grouchy...

Posted by: Heather at September 28, 2008 10:08 PM


Human Abstract,

So you would argue that Quakers should never have organized and spoken out against slavery and clergy of all faiths should have never spoken against slavery from the pulpit. Martin Luther King, an ordained minister, should never have led a civil rights movement from the pulpit, no churches, black or white should have been involved in the civil rights movement and clergy should never have spoken against our involvement in any war.
And you would certainly agree that Democrat candidates, including Bill Clinton and Mario Cuomo, should not be allowed to campaign from the pulpits of black churches.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:08 PM


Heather,

You're back! Great to see you. Tacklehug.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:10 PM


Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 8:24 PM

Yes, the hubby and I were watching and we both thought that Obama kept saying Kissinger supported Pres. to Pres. talks without preconditions UNTIL McCain finally said at the Sec. level. THEN Obama started saying "No one's talking about Presidential level." Hubby and I looked at each other and said "Huh? Hasn't Obama been saying that the last two rebuttals?"


Posted by: Kristen at September 28, 2008 10:15 PM


Obama and McCain were intentionally or unintentionally missing the point of each other's arguments about talking to Iran. Probably they don't disagree. Maybe they want it to appear like they do. I'm just glad our next President doesn't sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran."

Posted by: Hal at September 28, 2008 10:18 PM


No, Mary, I'm saying that churches with tax exempt status shouldn't keep it if they're going to speak at the political level. They have every right to do so, but I do not believe that religion and politics should be in bed together. Martin Luther King and the Quakers and churches should be allowed to do whatever they want: but they shouldn't get governmental breaks and still be able to to receive tax exempt status. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 10:20 PM


Great site!

Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day?

http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

Posted by: STEVE at September 28, 2008 10:21 PM


I think churches should be able to talk politics insofar as how certain political issues relate to faith, endorsing a candidate or political party, however, is over the line.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 10:22 PM


That's perhaps a better way to put it, Dan. I disagree with politics and any religious organization mingling to the point where the latter endorses the former, or when a political figure actually makes appearances at a church. Even saying: "hey, I think xyz issue fits best with zyx party, hinthint" is a bit over the line.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 10:26 PM



Sounds like the Quakers and the King family owe lots of back taxes. I also hope the IRS is planning a visit to the black churches I mentioned sometime soon.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:26 PM


HA,

So unless Dr.King was willing to pay taxes on his church, you feel Dr.King should have kept quiet about civil rights and certainly never led a movement from the pulpit of his church, as should not have other black clergy.
You would also agree that clergy should have either paid taxes, or kept silent on the issues of slavery and war.
Oh and there's the clergy who have openly supported abortion. Should they put up or shut up when it comes to taxes?

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:30 PM


Mary-

That is not endorsing a party or candidate. Granted it shouldnt be hard for anyone to make the jump to the "correct" candidate/party/whatever.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 10:33 PM


Dan,

No its not supporting a candidate, but its certainly supporting and promoting a political cause and attempting to change laws. That sure sounds to me like the mingling of politics and religion.

I'll let you in on a little secret Dan. This "concern" about politics and religion only began during the struggle to legalize abortion, when clergy spoke out against it. No one howled about seperation of church and state when clergy supported abortion or protested the Vietnam War.
This "concern" over church and state is highly selective.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:38 PM


Mary-

And churches do that now with the gay marriage and abortion issue. Nothing has changed and is perfectly acceptable as I see it, simply no endorsing a party or candidate.

As for concern-

the concern existed since the founding of our country, see Jefferson's letter.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 10:40 PM


Liberals are now seeking counseling for Palin-hate...

http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/09/29/sarah_palin/index.html

Posted by: Jasper at September 28, 2008 10:44 PM


Openly lobbying the government for change is, I think, enough of a mingling to require taxes being paid, yes, regardless of the opinion being offered. It frustrates me, frankly, that religious organizations are allowed to lobby for changes on government matters, but aren't required to pay taxes.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 10:54 PM


Dan,

Check the Constitution. Its says the state will make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It says nothing about the church keeping silent on political matters or candidates. Also, the message of Jefferson's letter was that it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive Branch to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. The phrase he used was "wall of seperation between church and state".


Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:57 PM


Dan,

Check the Constitution. Its says the state will make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It says nothing about the church keeping silent on political matters or candidates. Also, the message of Jefferson's letter was that it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive Branch to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. The phrase he used was "wall of seperation between church and state".


Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 10:58 PM


Jasper,

I'm aghast. Liberals, those bastions of tolerance and open-mindedness, who preach to the rest of us on the evils of hate, actually themselves hate?

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:01 PM


HA,

Please answer my question. Should the Quakers and Dr.King have kept silent? Do they owe back taxes since they had the audacity to speak out without first paying taxes?

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:03 PM


Update on the viral email campaign concerning palin and PP donations. It's raised over 760 thousand thus far.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/26/2008-09-26_using_sarah_palin_for_fund_raising_plann.html

Mary-

Ah, a wall of separation between church and state. My thoughts exactly, this includes the church entering anything that would then mess with the functioning of the state by using its power to get a politician beneficial to the religion into office, which then could lead to further benefits for that particular religion/church helped put into place by that candidate, and thus favoring a certain religion/religious sect. Try and tell me that politicians don't try to payback those who help them get into power, whether through passage of certain laws or cold hard cash. Either way it certainly broaches that law as a religious institution has a likely puppet in the government that could easily lead to a favoring of that sect, espescially if they deliver a large number of voters for various candidates.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:04 PM


Mary, check the various Supreme Court cases. With regards to religion and government, some basic rules apply:


No funding for one specific religious institution; it must be all or none.

Students must not be singled out due to their religious beliefs in public schools.

Prayer in school is not allowed: prayer initiated by students is acceptable, but as the school is given taxpayer money, no official religion (thus, no prayer) may be adopted.

Religious institution must not endorse a candidate or give money (I believe) to a candidate; to do so violates the deal that the churches themselves made where they would be tax exempt and not unduly involved in politics.

I can give specific court cases if you'd like; I believe I still have all my old Constitutional Law textbooks.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 11:04 PM


Dan,

I find it ironic that it was Democrat candidates who were seeking the support of the religious of this country and the endorsement of their leaders. I heard no one holler about the seperation of church and state.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:05 PM


HA,

Thank you but I am aware of these rulings.

Now please answer my question of 11:03PM.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:08 PM


Mary-

I applaud seeking the like of religious voters, endorsement by active pastors from the pulpit is absurd and should not be allowed. Its one thing if the church chooses not to lose the status by say firing the pastor and apologizing for the statement(s). Active religious leaders should endorse no one, period.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:08 PM


As I think all churches should pay taxes, regardless of whether or not they speak out for specific political issues, I wouldn't really be the best one to ask, would I?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 11:12 PM


I'll reiterate that the tax regulations prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations endorsing and/or campaigning for candidates for public office, not speaking out on political issues in general.

The regulations also don't prohibit pastors (or other leaders of exempt organizations) from making endorsements as individuals; they just can't do it as representatives of their organizations.

I think these are important distinctions that people are overlooking.

As far as I'm aware, most instances of political speech in churches, whether on the left or on the right, don't fall afoul of the law.

Posted by: Jen R at September 28, 2008 11:20 PM


Dan,

The Danbury Baptist Association, a religious minority in Connecticut, wrote Jefferson complaining that the religious liberties they enjoyed in their state were not seen as immutable rights but as favors granted by the legislature. Jefferson's reply did not address their concern about state established religion, only that the Congress and Executive branches would do nothing that might be construed as national establishment of religion.
It says nothing about forbidding religious people or clergy to become involved in the political process or to endorse candidates. Throughout our nation's history clergy did involve themselves in the political process, including Dr.King and clergy who preached against slavery.
Jefferson felt strongly the gov't had no place in the religious lives of citizens, not that religious people and clergy had no place in the political process.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:24 PM


HA,

A simple yes or no to each of my questions of 11:03PM, please.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:28 PM


Jen R 11:20PM

An interesting and informative post. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:29 PM


Jen-

Just read through your blog, I like it.

Mind if I link to it on my own?

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:29 PM


Mary-

I'm not saying the church has no place in speaking politics in terms of faith, endorsing a candidate, however, sets a dangerous precedent which very well could lead to a favoring of a particular religious sect over others.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:31 PM


Jen-

P.S. How goes the fund raising? I saw you got over 300 dollars more than expected. Congrats :)

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:32 PM


I gave you an answer. I feel that they should have been paying taxes anyway.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 11:32 PM


Dan,11:31PM

Don't worry about it, it hasn't happened yet after a few centuries and likely won't anytime soon.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:37 PM


Mary-

true, but I feel this is in part due to the separation of church and state safe guards.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:39 PM


Dan,

Feel free to link! :) I will check yours out as well, though not until morning as I'm about to go to bed now.

I'm a bit confused about your question about fundraising, though.

Posted by: Jen R at September 28, 2008 11:39 PM


Jen-

perhaps it was another Jen R, the one I'm refferring to admined for a pro choice group and I thought came here. Perhaps I confused the two of you :). She's raising funds for a bike ride for multiple sclerosis.

Thanks, I'll be adding the link :)

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:43 PM


HA,

OK let me get this straight now. Unless Dr.King revoked his church's tax exempt status he should have kept silent on the issue of civil rights and stayed out of the political process that gave black Americans their long overdue rights and ended the injustice of segregation.
Also, clergy who condemned slavery from the pulpit, unless they revoked their tax-exempt status, should have also kept quiet.

Thank you for answering my question.

Posted by: Mary at September 28, 2008 11:43 PM


That's absolutely not what I said. I said that churches should pay taxes: regardless of their political situation. Dr. King's church and the Quakers should have been paying taxes anyway. Frankly, your ability to twist words and make emotionally loaded questions over fairly obvious statements barely passes snuff.

You're ridiculous.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 11:45 PM


Mary-

I do have to say it was a bit loaded, and was a bit of a twist. The two would have already been paying taxes under HA's ideal situation/belief, and therefore it wouldnt have mattered financially whether they spoke out or not (just as it didnt then as long as no candidate is endorsed) so survey says the speaking out would have happened anyway.

Posted by: Dan at September 28, 2008 11:55 PM


Exactly, Dan. I understand the law as it is, and though I believe it to be flawed, the circumstances which Mary is describing are not technically those which would require tax exempt status to be revoked.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 28, 2008 11:59 PM


Jen-

i was indeed confusing two different Jens, my apologies :)

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:08 AM


Posted by: Jasper at September 28, 2008 10:44 PM

Jasper, that article is hilarious! I especially love the part that reads "To speak with clarity means being understood and therefore risking disagreement." Can anyone say "Obama?"

Posted by: Kristen at September 29, 2008 8:01 AM


HA, 10:00PM

"Regardless of the political stance, religious organizations should butt out unless they're willing to put in their taxes".

HA, 10:20PM

"Martin Luther King and the Quakers and churches should be allowed to do whatever they want: but they shouldn't get government breaks and still be able to receive tax exempt status. Can't have your cake and eat it too."

HA 10:54PM

"Open lobbying of the government for change is, I think, enough of a mingling to require taxes being paid, yes, regardless of the opinion being offered. It frustrates me frankly, that religious organizations are allowed to lobby for changes on government matters, but aren't required to pay taxes".

Your words HA, not mine. Now tell me, do you agree that so long as Dr.King had a tax exempt status, he had no right to speak out on civil rights from his pulpit, much less lead a civil righs movement. This movement was very religiously oriented so I would ask if other black clergymen and churches should have "butted" out as well unless they were paying taxes.
I can't make this question any more simple or straightforward.

You see HA, contrary to your claim that the last time the church was involved in politics we had a little thing called the Dark Ages, in fact religous and church involvement has brought important social change and justice to this country. From the Quakers who were the first to organize against slavery, to anti-slavery clergy, to Dr. King who led a major social justice movement from his pulpit.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 8:07 AM


Dan 22:55PM

That's not the point. Dr.King had tax exempt status. The black and white churches involved in this very religiously oriented movement had tax exempt status. They did speak out. Clergy and churches were up to their necks in political activity. Should they have been required to keep silent until that status was revoked?

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 8:12 AM


HA 11:59PM

LOL. Oh of course, THAT'S an exception. Like I said HA, the "concern" about seperation of church and state has been highly selective and remains so.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 8:17 AM


Kristen 10:15PM

I must also say it was the first time I've seen a presidential debater pointedly ask the moderator for the next question!
Did McCain ever do so during the debate?

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 8:50 AM


PP should lose ITS tax exempt status as its NOT a NON PROFIT (it makes $$$$$$ a year!).

Churches should be able to speak out against injustices like abortion without FEAR of losing tax exempt status.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 29, 2008 9:00 AM


Liz

Why not? Clergy and churches have spoken out FOR abortion without losing their tax exempt status. Face it Liz it boils down to "who's ox is being gored?"
Churches can speak out so long as liberals like what they hear.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 9:14 AM


LizFromNebraska wrote:
PP should lose ITS tax exempt status as its NOT a NON PROFIT (it makes $$$$$$ a year!).

That's a misunderstanding of not-for-profit status. Not-for-profit organizations are actually allowed to make a profit. Some high-profile not-for-profit organizations make a considerable profit, such as Planned Parenthood.

What qualifies an organization as not-for-profit is that it is supposed to have a primary purpose other than profit. In PP's case, I'm sure that they claim their primary interest is education and providing healthcare to the poor. As a pro-lifer, I also believe that PP is vile, and that our country would be far better without their services ... but that's not really germane to their tax-exempt status.

(Yes, I acknowledge that PP actually provides healthcare other than abortions. I also believe that those abortions -- and their abortion advocacy -- vastly outweigh any benefits that PP's other actions could bring.)

I think we'd be better-served by turning off the flow of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. I'm less tweaked about whether or not they pay taxes than I am by the fact that my taxes pay them.

Anyway, to the original point: Simply making a profit does not disqualify an organization from tax-exempt status. Sorry, but you'll have to try another angle of attack.

Posted by: Naaman at September 29, 2008 9:21 AM


I totally agree with this by LizFromNebraska:

"(Yes, I acknowledge that PP actually provides healthcare other than abortions. I also believe that those abortions -- and their abortion advocacy -- vastly outweigh any benefits that PP's other actions could bring.)

I think we'd be better-served by turning off the flow of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. I'm less tweaked about whether or not they pay taxes than I am by the fact that my taxes pay them."

It is sickening to know that my tax dollars go toward this vile and wicked organization in any way, form, or fashion.

Posted by: Becky at September 29, 2008 9:34 AM


On the original topic of the ADF's stunt:
I have very mixed feelings about this idea. As an American citizen, I support free speech for all people, especially on political matters. A free and fair political discourse is vital to the health of our society, and I'm very reluctant to allow the government to do anything that might "chill" free speech. My basic sense of fairness is also outraged by what other commenters have noted as the selective blindness on this issue. Conservative churches are targeted, but liberal churches are allowed to slide. That's not right. For those reasons, I'm inclined to support this effort.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I really don't want the Church to be picking candidates. The Gospel of Jesus is much bigger than any political issue. When churches get too far involved in politics, those politics could become a stumbling block to the Gospel.

I speak from my own experience. When the Holy Spirit first called me to faith in Christ, I was socially-liberal and fanatically pro-abortion. I would never have attended a church that would have challenged those views. A church with heavy political involvement would have put a barrier between me and my salvation. Fortunately, a friend directed me to an ELCA Lutheran church. Like most of the rest of the mainline Protestant denominations, the ELCA is not particularly conservative. In fact, although most ELCA Lutherans are probably center-Right, the denominational leadership is quite a bit to the Left. But that's what I needed as I began to walk with the Lord.

Now, my views are very different from what they were. I'm an Evangelical Christian (pro-life, of course), and my family & I attend a Southern Baptist church. Ironically, I have rejected the ELCA as an option because of its denominational confusion over the authority of Scripture and other matters. But I cannot forget how I started, and how others may be starting their own walks with the Lord.

Let us be very clear: The salvation of one precious child of God is much more important than anything that either John McCain or Barack Obama will ever do in the White House. Churches should be wary of involving themselves with politics, but not because of the IRS. The Gospel is simply too important for our churches to compromise their message.

Posted by: Naaman at September 29, 2008 9:43 AM


"John just hates me and wants me to die solely for the fact that I don't eat meat. I am living proof that not everyone needs to eat meat to be healthy, 13 years I haven't eaten meat and my bones are as strong as ever. My skin is healthy, my eyes sharp, my hair thick and silky, my muscles are strong and getting even stronger. My life is proof that he isn't always right, and he wants to get rid of that.
Posted by: Jess at September 28, 2008 9:52 PM
............

Hi Jess,

sorry to bust your balloon again, but I neither have the time nor energy 'to hate you' ... frankly, you're not worth it. And what I wrote to you about zinc is a very, very tiny part of our biochemistry. If we are without any food we might continue to live for perhaps a month; without air - maybe a few minutes' without sufficient zinc-taurine intake perhaps many years but your kids and their kids will enjoy such aberrations as cystic fibrosis and all because you refuse to listen ... a real peach are you!

Posted by: John McDonell at September 29, 2008 9:47 AM


Mary-

Incorrect. Churches can speak so long as they make no political endorsements. HUGE difference.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 9:54 AM


The economy is in such bad shape now, what caused this?

Check out the video:
youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Posted by: ohiocitizen at September 29, 2008 10:00 AM


Dan,

Tell that to HA. That's what I've been arguing all along. By the way Jen R has pointed out that religious leaders and clergy can personally endorse a candidate but not as representatives of a religious organization. I certainly have no issue with this.

Dan 11:39PM

There haven't been any "safeguards". Jefferson supported keeping the gov't out of the religious lives of the citizens, not keeping religious people out of political life. The Constitution also says nothing about seperation of church and state, only that the federal gov't can not establish a religion and that citizens are free to exercise their religious beliefs.

By the way Dan, this seperation of church and state took a bizarre twist during the the early days of legalizing abortion. I remember arguments that the state should pay for abortion since it was intrinsicly a "religious" decision and not doing so, infringed on a woman's religious "duty". Given this rationale, is the gov't supposed to build and maintain houses of worship for those who's religious duties involve worship instead of getting abortions?
I'm not kidding Dan when I say this whole concept has been twisted to suit political agendas and to silence unpopular voices.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 10:18 AM


Naaman,

Individual pastors have as much right as you or I to endorse a candidate. Even if your pastor does so, he/she cannot do so as the representative of your church. Majority members of a church may personally support and endorse a candidate, but do so as individuals.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 10:22 AM


And within free exercise of religion there is an inclusion of not being subject to laws based solely on the basis of a religion, there must be a proven societal benefit behind a law.

Mary, the concept is often twisted by each side of the debate. People argue that teacher-led/classroom-led prayer in schools is fine, when clearly it is in fact a violation when applied to this principal. Then there are those who think there should be no prayer whatsoever in school, including students praying privately. There are extremes on each side that think they fit, and its simply not the case.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 10:26 AM


Dan,

I agree. This has been abused and used for polically expedient purposes.

I can remember when a fanatical atheist had a fit because our mayor attended an open air ecumenical service given by the city's religious leaders. He's the mayor, she argued, and seperation of church and state dictates he can't attend such a service!

Moron, the mayor has as much right to attend a religious service as you have not to attend one.
Elected officials also enjoy freedom of religion, genius.

Just another example how ridiculous this can get.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 10:37 AM


Mary-

Indeed.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 10:40 AM


Stop eating at McDonald's because they "support" homosexuality? In what WAY do they support homosexuality exactly? Do they put little mind-control additives in the food so they can turn us all gay? Or by support, do you mean, they encourage people to not hate gay people, and that gay people should have the same rights as evvverybody else?

Either way, I'm still eating there....Wendy's makes me ill (literally)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 11:02 AM


Becky,
Do you know about http://www.defundplannedparenthood.org

Please share this with others you know who don't want to see their tax dollars for this evil entity.

Posted by: Kay at September 29, 2008 11:06 AM


I hear they hire gay people at McDonald's..I'm not eating there until McDonald's converts all its gay employees because I wouldn't want their employees to indoctrinate me while I pay for my food.

*eyeroll*

Sorry that was rude, but the whole I'm boycotting because they support gay people thing is realllly lame to me. I understand the whole I boycott because they support abortion idea because abortion at least KILLS people.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 11:06 AM


Kay @ 11:06,

Becky, Do you know about
http://www.defundplannedparenthood.org

Please share this with others you know who don't want to see their tax dollars for this evil entity.


I propose severe reductions in tax-payer funding for abortion, specifically Planned Parenthood, at this critical time in our country's history.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 11:13 AM


This ADF issue seems quite complicated. Sorry if this was already mentioned. Is there a good source of information about these tax issues that someone can recommend?

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 11:17 AM


Never mind.

I clicked on the ADF video link and found a link to "Church and State". There's plenty of information there for starters.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 11:21 AM


Severe=Zero

Planned Parenthood's days ARE numbered! It will be 100% defunded after Jesus comes back!

Posted by: Kay at September 29, 2008 11:22 AM


Kay, Let's pray for that right now! Let's stop the stream of money going to PP right now. We need to build up our country, not destroy it.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 11:24 AM


Hear Hear, Janet!

There's also the site that ALL (American Life League) started that's for defunding Planned Parenthood:

http://www.stopplannedparenthoodtaxfunding.com/


I'll be eating Culvers and my local chain Runza instead of McDonalds.

Plus, Mickey D's stopped having CHOCOLATE ice cream for cones!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 29, 2008 11:24 AM


I am ALL for wanting it defunded right now and believe it could be....I just know that it WILL BE for certain when He returns!

Am praying for it already! :D

Posted by: Kay at September 29, 2008 11:28 AM


comment6, http://xgtkoouvu.justfree.com/157-how-to-reset-media-player-codecs.html ">restoring video codecs in xp, %(((,

Posted by: mpeg-4 codec wmp at September 29, 2008 11:35 AM


Janet, here's a link from the IRS explaining the restrictions on election-related activities for organizations that are tax exempt under section 501(c)(3):

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html

Posted by: Jen R at September 29, 2008 11:36 AM


Mary, are you not reading what I said? I believe all churches should pay taxes. Obviously, that includes churches who speak out against abortions and churches who don't. Read the words. If a church endorses candidates or lobbies Washington, they need to be paying taxes. It's not that hard to understand.

As 100% of PP's gathers funds go to operating costs, I'm frankly glad that my tax dollars (and my real dollars, as I get many of my female services there) go to fund such a worthy.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 11:42 AM


So you're stranded out in the middle of nowhere, about to starve to death. The only food around is a McDonald's, a gay couple operating a fruit and vegetable stand, and a patch of wild mushrooms. What do you eat?

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 11:56 AM


HA,

Yes I read what you said. Have you?

And please, should Dr.King have been silent since he was pastor of a tax exempt church and was attempting to influence government policy?

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 11:57 AM


The boycott of McDonalds has nothing to do with McDonald's (Chilis, fill in the blank) having gay employees, it has to do with McDonalds donating large amounts of money to homosexual activist organizations. If somebody does not want their money going to these organizations, it makes perfect sense for them to spend their money elsewhere. It has nothing to do with "hating" gays, it has to do with politically attempting to undermine marriage and families, which by they way, are the building blocks of all human societies.

With regard to churches staying out of the political process, is the left's argument that only those without any moral compass/code should be involved in determining the direction of our country? Oh wait, never-mind. I already know the answer to that one.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 12:14 PM


Going to church is neither necessary nor sufficient for having a moral compass.

Posted by: Jen R at September 29, 2008 12:16 PM


Perhaps, but it helps.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 12:18 PM


Hope none of you McDonald's boycotters plan on Googling anything anytime soon.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:19 PM


If going to church makes you moral, does standing in the garage make you a car?

There's a difference, Mary, between attempting to influence policy and lobbying the government. Lobbying is donating money, etc. Influencing is giving speeches, marches, etc. Note the difference. Churches shouldn't be donating money to the government any more than the government should be donating money to churches.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 12:20 PM


Not always, but usually.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 12:20 PM


DeeL, I don't disagree that customers are free to spend their money or not spend their money for any reason they want. I didn't eat Dominos for about 10 years because I heard they gave money to pro-life causes. I just don't understand why anyone who oppose McDonalds giving money to "homosexual activist organizatoins." Don't understand that at all.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 12:22 PM


Mary wrote:
Individual pastors have as much right as you or I to endorse a candidate. Even if your pastor does so, he/she cannot do so as the representative of your church. Majority members of a church may personally support and endorse a candidate, but do so as individuals.

Yes, this is an accurate summary of the current laws. However, it misses my point.

My point was that politics could be a stumbling block for the Gospel. For that reason, I would rather not see pastors endorsing candidates or otherwise getting too heavily involved in politics. I'm not talking about legal rights. I'm talking about a Christian obligation to put the Good News of Jesus Christ first.

Now, that principle can be taken too far. Some churches avoid speaking on anything controversial for fear of giving offense. That's wrong. People want truth. People need truth. Pastors must continue to preach Biblical truth from their pulpits. And if someone is offended by the truth, then that's too bad.

However, real-life politics is a messy business, and it doesn't always translate well into the clear language of Biblical truth. Jesus was neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Pastors should be able to speak about the issues of the day, but they should not be loaning out their pulpits to politicians, and they should not be endorsing a particular party or candidate.

In other words, I think I support the status quo. However, I do not support the status quo as a matter of legal rights -- because I believe that pastors should be able to say whatever they want to say -- but as a matter of Gospel-first Christian mission.

In the current situation, I think that Christian pastors should absolutely remind their congregations about the evil of abortion. They could even go so far as to urge their congregations to vote pro-life. However, if a pastor tells the faithful to "Vote McCain/Palin in 2008!" I think he's going a bit too far. And a pastor who invites a candidate to speak from his pulpit is going way too far....

Christians should be involved in our society. We must speak with a prophetic voice for the protection of the vulnerable and powerless. However, we simply cannot allow the Church to become a shill for either political party. Our message is too important for that.

Posted by: Naaman at September 29, 2008 12:25 PM


Donating money to homosexual groups that undermine traditional marriage is A LOT worse than donating to organizations that help women in crisis pregnancies (pro life groups). A LOT worse.


And DeeL explains the boycott of McDonalds correctly.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 29, 2008 12:29 PM


Why is it that everyone is discussing McDonald's, but when I throw in Google is doing the same thing nobody listens? lol. Perhaps its because google doesn't directly get your funds like a business such as McDonalds.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:31 PM


Jen R.,
Thanks!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Human,

As 100% of PP's gathers funds go to operating costs, I'm frankly glad that my tax dollars (and my real dollars, as I get many of my female services there) go to fund such a worthy.

Did you mean "gathered funds"? I don't want any of my tax money going to an organization that kills babies. You're welcome to send as much of your own as you want.

Is this the type of organization you want to support?

PARTY FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD
With drag queens, condoms and cocktails
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/stlouis/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I didn't eat Dominos for about 10 years because I heard they gave money to pro-life causes.

Wow, do we live in different worlds. I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 12:33 PM


Anyone who thinks homosexual groups "undermine traditional marriage" doesn't understand "homsexual groups" or "traditional marriage."

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 12:34 PM


In what way does a gay couple getting married "undermine" your own heterosexual marriage?

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 12:35 PM


How on earth does a gay couple having rights "undermine" your marriage?

Posted by: LL at September 29, 2008 12:37 PM


I eat wherever I feel like eating. I don't care what organizations do with my tiny contributions, once I give it to them it's their money.

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 12:37 PM


Janet, I mean that whatever money they get from their services (because I pay full price due to my income bracket, for example, that's about $200) goes back to fund their operating services. Does that make sense?

I don't want any of my tax money going to fund abstinence-only education, or faith-based initiatives. Yet it does. More's the pity, eh?

Hal, I refuse to eat at Dominos as well!

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 12:37 PM


I haven't eaten Dominos since 1998 when I found out about what causes they support.

Posted by: LL at September 29, 2008 12:38 PM


seems my view's already been aired on the gay marriage topic. It makes no true societal difference/impact.

I can understand the word marriage having religious conotations, and I would say the best thing to do is have federally/state recognized unions and have marriage remain in the church/synagogue/whatever.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:40 PM


Hope none of you McDonald's boycotters plan on Googling anything anytime soon.

Dan, my opinion - boycotting Mac the Knife is pretty easy - heck, Mickey D's is last on my list, usually, anyway. (Do like me an egg McMuffin, though..)

But Google, now....

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 12:41 PM


Keller-

Agreed. I dont go anywhere often enough to really have any sort of recurring impact. Though I won't go to wal-mart unless it's absolutely necessary (which it has yet to be) because of their unfair/discriminatory policies.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:42 PM


Doug-

One statement on Google I always find myself whole-heartedly agreeing with.

Google- Saving students' @$$es since 1990.

Oh how true that simple statement is.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:44 PM


Hope none of you McDonald's boycotters plan on Googling anything anytime soon.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:19 PM

Why is it that everyone is discussing McDonald's, but when I throw in Google is doing the same thing nobody listens? lol. Perhaps its because google doesn't directly get your funds like a business such as McDonalds.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:31 PM

Google is a California company, right? - conservative values are probably not the norm .... Google's business is geared towards adults, not kids..... maybe it's not big news, yet....... there are more alternatives to McDonalds than Google.....

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 12:46 PM


Janet-

It was in the LA times, and I believe the BBC as well. The press release refferred to it being unusual for Google to support such a cuase by they saw it as an equality issue and thus came out opposing proposition 8, amending the CA constitution to ban gay marriage.

Google is indeed a CA company, and was also founded by a few braniac college kids ;)

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:49 PM


I went to Wal-Mart for the first time in a while yesterday solely because my friend was registered there. I do disagree with how they treat their employees (among other things) but I've never openly boycotted them, it's mostly because I live closer to Meijer.

And I used to hate Dominos because our middle school cafeteria had a contract with them, but the school had a certain meat requirement so we would end up with a slice of pizza with pepperoni stacked probably an inch thick with a thin layer of cheese. It was disgusting.

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 12:49 PM


As for Domino's

officially they support neither side of the life issue. The founder, however, is an incredibly vocal Catholic who does in fact donate large sums to Operation Rescue, Right to Life, and Word of God.

Thank you Snopes :)

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:50 PM


Domino's - an evil Catholic company! Ha ha !

I'm still shocked. Who knew that pro-life businesses are being boycotted by "the other side"? I thought that happened to movies and politicians.

Doug, How many pro-life businesses do you boycott?

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 12:52 PM


Hal,
Because traditional families are the foundation for all of human existence. When we start chipping away at that, all of society crumbles. Homosexual activism is taking a direct aim at traditional families. It is not the only force at work, it is one of many, including contraception, abortion, and divorce. Western civilization is in decline, and it is linked directly to these attacks. Almost every western nation is below replacement levels for births. Rampant and militant homosexuality contributes to that.

We can debate all day long about whether or not it is biological, but the fact is that science is inconclusive. I personally believe that some are likely born with a tendency toward homosexuality, but I seriously doubt that it is in the numbers we are experiencing. I do believe there is much sexual woundedness in our culture, and many are entering homosexuality as a lifestyle choice in their confusion.

In any case, the homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous one, both for the individual (spiritual damage aside, AIDS and other STIs are significantly higher among practicing homosexuals) and for society at large. Therefore, just as I stopped giving money to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation because of its financial support to Planned Parenthood, I no longer purchase happy meals from McDonald's because of their support for homosexual activism.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 12:53 PM


Deel-

The "traditional" family has already ceased to exist, fighting for it now isnt exactly going to do much. There is too much variation in the way people are raised and they way life turns out for the "traditional" family to exist in large numbers in this country. It simply doesn't work with the clash of cultures, values, religions, et al this country is famous for. There are families with 2 parents, one parent, adopted children, in vitro children, parents who discovered they were homosexual late in life, homosexual guardians, etc.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 12:58 PM


Doug, How many pro-life businesses do you boycott?
Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 12:52 PM

I try to stay away from any business that put's a "fish" in their ad.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 1:00 PM


Deel,

What is a "militant" homosexual? And how is a peron's homosexual lifestyle damaging to society at large?

Posted by: LL at September 29, 2008 1:06 PM


Here's the AFA Link:

http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 1:08 PM


Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.

I take issue with homosexual activism that targets young children in elementary school and tries to gain acceptance of their lifestyle choice by saying homosexual behavior is perfectly normal.

Posted by: Carla at September 29, 2008 1:09 PM


Carla- it is perfectly normal.

And I didn't ever like Domino's pizza anyway :-P

Pizza Hut or GTFO.

Posted by: Erin at September 29, 2008 1:10 PM


I try to stay away from any business that put's a "fish" in their ad.
Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 1:00 PM

A "fish" as in a Christ symbol? I don't see much of that where I live. Do you live in the South?

You told me once that you didn't know anyone who was pro-life. Just curious, do you know any Catholics personally?

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 1:11 PM


"In any case, the homosexual lifestyle is a dangerous one, both for the individual (spiritual damage aside, AIDS and other STIs are significantly higher among practicing homosexuals) and for society at large."

Seems like gay marriage would help this more than hurt it.


Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 1:12 PM


Carla-

It is normal.

Anywho, I think I'm gunna head outside for some fresh air.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 1:12 PM


Jess - and anyone who read John's ridiculous statement about cystic fibrosis....

Its a genetic condition. The only way you'd ever have a child with cystic fibrosis is if you and the man you had a child with carry the recessive trait for it. No amount of zinc deficiency can cause cystic fibrosis. EVER. That was a flat out lie.

Of course that's completely ignoring the fact that healthy vegetarian diets are not zinc-deficient even IF it could cause a genetic disorder, which it of course, cannot.

Posted by: Amanda at September 29, 2008 1:15 PM


Why don't we all just stamp our feet and put our fists on our hips and say IS!! ISN'T!! IS!! ISN'T!!

Any debate here on homosexuality goes nowhere fast.

Posted by: Carla at September 29, 2008 1:16 PM


Dan,
It hasn't ceased to exist. My parents just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary, my in laws will do the same in February. My husband I recently celebrated 22 years. I have one sister married 24 years and another married 16. There are still approximately 50 percent of us married to our spouses and raising our families in loving, unbroken homes. It is because of the stability we provide that our broken society continues to function at all, for as the family goes, so goes the community, as the community goes, so goes society, and as society goes, so goes the world. It is in our common interest to build up and support traditional marriages and their resulting families. We may be rarer than in generations past, but we are a national treasure. A treasure that I, for one, believe is worth preserving.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 1:17 PM


Dan,

"normal"?

HIV is a gay disease...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021402.html

and Gay sex kills...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042101.html

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 1:24 PM


Janet, I have given the matter some additional thought. I have a good friend who is Morman. He's probably pro-life, although we have never discussed it.

I grew up (long ago) best friends with a kid from a Catholic family. I don't know his views on abortion.

I have another good friend (although I haven't seen him in years) who is an Episcopal Priest. I was honored to be present at the ceremony where he was sworn in (whatever that's called). I do not think he's pro-life.

I have known my share Catholics over the years. I can't think of anyone I currently associate with who identify as Catholic. My girlfriend in college was Catholic, went to Mass and everything. She is (or at least was)"personally pro life." Very liberal otherwise. I think she supported abortion rights, but would never have an abortion herself.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 1:26 PM


Dan,
When you're in college, the whole world looks turned up-side down. When you are older you may think that trying to work for a "traditional" family is worth the struggle. Don't give up on it yet.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 1:26 PM


RSD, both of those claims are so absurdly ignorant that I don't know what to say.

Posted by: Erin at September 29, 2008 1:27 PM


Erin: Carla- it is perfectly normal.

Erin, it doesn't even make sense biologically or anatomically. Every other system in the human body functions independently of another human being. It is only in reproduction that we require another, and that other, of necessity, must be of the opposite sex.

Same sex couples, cannot in reality, even engage in sexual (genital to genital) relations, therefore, homosexuality is, in reality, a misnomer. What same sex couples actually participate in is a perversion of the sex act. It is sensual self (or mutual) gratification, masturbation if you will, with another person's body. It may be "normal" for some people, but it is not natural.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 1:29 PM


Erin,

Ignorant claims? The statements were made by the outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force...

He didn't just arrive at that position, he didn't campaign to get voted to that position...he lived in that lifestyle and was the think-tank behind driving the homosexual agenda...now, tell me, who's ignorant here?

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 1:30 PM


Every time I hear the phrase "militant homosexual" I picture Carson Kressley in pink camo.

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 1:34 PM


Hal,
OK. So Catholics aren't like scary aliens to you. Cool! Thanks for the bit of personal information. I feel like I know you a little better.
By the way, the Episcopal ceremony was probably called an ordination. I've never been to one. What an honor!

I have to run and do some errands. Thanks all for the conversation today!

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Carla,

Why don't we all just stamp our feet and put our fists on our hips and say IS!! ISN'T!! IS!! ISN'T!!

We could do that on just about any topic, and if we did it in person, I think it would be hilarious! A good ice-breaker? :) Have a good day!

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 1:35 PM


Well, then you all BETTER stop giving your money to organization that support single moms! That DEFINITELY undermines the traditional family.

*eyeroll*

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 1:36 PM


DeeL-

Nature would disagree with it being "unnatural," which, by definition, means it is in fact a natural occurence.

Also, better toss all those straight couples who perform the exact same sex acts, its all a perversion and none of it should be practiced.



Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 1:37 PM


My sister and brother in law celebrated 15 years this year. My parents will celebrate 40 years next year. An Aunt and Uncle of mine celebrated 35 years this year. Traditional Marriages CAN succeed. My dad's parents, God Rest their Souls, were married 53 years before my grandfather passed away.

DeeL -- congratulations to your parents. 50 years, wow. And congrats for 22 years to yourself and your husband.

I agree with Carla - I don't think its appropriate to promote homosexuality to elementary aged children. There are books being promoted like "Prince and Prince" and "Daddy's roommate".


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 29, 2008 1:37 PM


Deel,

What is a "militant" homosexual? And how is a peron's homosexual lifestyle damaging to society at large?

A "militant" homosexual is one who is actively attacking traditional marriage and family, usually by fiat, through the courts or executive order. It would be the ones who march on Disney World every summer in their lewd, revealing costumes for the sheer pleasure of shocking and upsetting children and their parents. It would be NAMBLA, which targets and exploits young boys.

As for the rest for your question, I already explained.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 1:44 PM


I never said what is known as a traditional family can't succeed, however now there really is no thing that will be considered from this point and time a traditional family because the landscape is so varried.

RSD-

Be that as it may, it is not solely a "gay disease," and as for that website, it is perhaps some of the most ridiculous BS I've ever read. "End the day of silence, it's reckless" how about someone comes in and says "End the prayer group, it leads to reckless self delusion"? Oh please. First off it is all free speech protected under the first amendment, second off its garnering support for education and tolerance(something Christians should be able to appreciate)

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 1:44 PM


Dan,

Are you gay or a homosexual, by any chance?

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 1:46 PM


Elizabeth,
You will be married one day. :) His name starts with an E too!!

Posted by: Carla at September 29, 2008 1:49 PM


Janet, yes, "ordination." I blanked on the word. I was one of only two guests from outside the church who attended. You have inspired me to look up my old friend and see how he's doing.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 1:50 PM


RSD-

No, I am not gay.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 1:52 PM


Dan,

I'm glad we can agree on something!

RSD,

Why would you ask that of Dan? WHO CARES?! I'm not gay, and I believe in gay rights. I also don't think letting someone else get married IN ANY WAY undermines my marriage.(or in my case, potential marriage) People who think this I find are just afraid of what they have no idea about.

Carla,

I can't wait! Tell him to hurry up!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 1:55 PM


Then, Dan, how can you state that the statements made by these people, who lived the homosexual lifestyle, can be BS?

Just because you disagree to what they said does not mean they are untrue.

And who would know more about the inner workings of that particular lifestyle than their leaders?

As I asked Erin...now, who's ignorant here?

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 1:55 PM


Dan,

Are you gay or a homosexual, by any chance?
Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 1:46 PM

RSD, I don't know Dan, but I'm guessing if he were gay he wouldn't be replying so politely to your madness.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 1:55 PM


And what does it matter if Dan is gay or straight? You can stand up for gay rights if you aren't gay. It's the same way as you all standing up for the rights of the unborn doesn't mean you have to be a fetus.

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 1:57 PM


HA 12:20PM

Civil and voting rights legislation were passed as the result of Dr.King and his followers in a very religiously oriented movement. Segregation was dismantled. Churches and clergy were up to their ears in politics.
Obviously, Dr.King did influence public and gov't policy.

"Martin Luther King and the Quakers and churches should be allowed to do whatever they want: but they shouldn't get gov't breaks and still be able to get tax exempt status. Can't have your cake and eat it too." HA 10:20PM

King didn't lobby? He was in regular contact with President Kennedy urging action from Kennedy on civil rights issues, even urging Kennedy's selection of Thurgood Marshall for the US Supreme Court and the issuing of a second Emancipation Proclamation. Sure sounds like Dr.King was trying very hard to influence gov't policy.

Now again I ask, should Dr.King have been silenced until his tax exempt status was revoked?
Where would black Americans be today if he had been?


Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 1:58 PM


DeeL,

You're comparing gay, consenting ADULTS to NAMBLA? People who MOLEST CHILDREN?!!

The 2 don't EVEN compare.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 2:00 PM


Mary, King, like any other leader, should speak his mind and not worry about the tax consequences. I think HisMan and I agree on this one point.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 2:01 PM


JKeller...pls see re-read my response...my question/ comment was based on one's 'experience' in the gay lifestyle...NOT their rights to defend such lifestyle.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:01 PM


A "militant" homosexual is one who is actively attacking traditional marriage and family, usually by fiat, through the courts or executive order. It would be the ones who march on Disney World every summer in their lewd, revealing costumes for the sheer pleasure of shocking and upsetting children and their parents. It would be NAMBLA, which targets and exploits young boys.

Deel,

What percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals do you believe are "militant," members of NAMBLA, or enjoy shocking children?

Posted by: LL at September 29, 2008 2:02 PM


Elizabeth,
I see nothing at all wrong with supporting a single mom and I see no correlation between that support and support of homosexual activism. With the first, you are helping to take care of a child born through a lapse in judgement. With the latter, you are promoting the continuation of bad judgement. I pray you find a wonderful husband to help you raise your little bundle of joy.

Thanks, Liz.

Dan, twist it however you want. It is not a relationship that flows naturally from our anatomy or biological makeup.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 2:03 PM


Hal,

Madness?? I didn't make thoses statements...The statements were made by leaders of the homosexual community on what the effects are of their chosen lifestyle.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:04 PM


DeeL,

Supporting the single mom undermines the traditional family.

But that's different than homosexuals undermining the traditional family?

What about the single mom who goes on to have more and more children out of wedlock? That's not just ONE lapse in judgement, you are enabling her to continue making bad judgements, just like you claim is happening with homosexuals.

No difference there.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 2:06 PM


Amanda 1:15PM

An excellent point. From what I have read, the vast majority of us carry the CF gene, as well as other defective genes we are completely clueless about.
I remember a prominent geneticist, I believe his name was Hymie Gordon, who said that attempts to breed out genetic disease were "a lot of nonsense" for the above stated reason that we are all carriers.
Also diets have varied so considerably over the generations and across cultures that pinpointing certain dietary habits, assuming they even caused the problem, would seem impossible.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 2:11 PM


The gay couples I know are very supportive of my traditional family. The least I can do is support their less traditional family. It's just good manners.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 2:11 PM


Doug, How many pro-life businesses do you boycott?

Janet - have to laugh.... zero, a big, fat, ever-lovin' zero. With honey and chicken on top. If I found out a place was pro-life, I don't think it'd make much difference to me. It's not like I check into it.

The only place I can recall boycotting for a while was "Longhorn Steakhouse" as opposed to Outback, Texas Roadhouse, etc.

My co-worker and I were in one, Portage, Indiana, literally 30 feet from our motel, and we got in there late, having worked a long day, about an hour before they quit serving food.

We tied into some drinks, planning to order food 15 minutes before the cut-off. We got to within 5 minutes of that time, and the bartender told us she was going to have to cut us off.

:: picture two dumbfounded guys at this point ::

We said we were going to order one more drink, then order food, that we were staying right next door, no driving involved, etc. We'd been nothing but polite and quiet, hadn't made a lick of trouble.

She said sorry but we'd had so many drinks in "X" amount of time..... We asked to see the manager and he agreed with her.

I argued (big surprise there) that it wasn't like we had no tolerance for alcohol or that we weighed 90 lbs., etc. That we were just going to get one drink, put in the food order, eat it when it came out, and leave for the motel next door. He heard us but didn't change his mind.

Shaking our heads, we paid our bill thus far to the penny and out we went. Down the street to a "Quaker Steak and Lube" where we had a few more drinks and got some food. The Longhorn bartender came in, having missed out on a $30 tip, probably, though we did eventually buy her a drink there.

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:12 PM


Hal, 2:01PM

Thank you for your support. We certainly agree on that point.

Posted by: Mary at September 29, 2008 2:13 PM


"The least I can do is support their less traditional family. It's just good manners.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 2:11 PM"
------------------------------------------

Even if it kills/ hurts them? This isn't about having good manners, Hal.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:14 PM


Why don't we all just stamp our feet and put our fists on our hips and say IS!! ISN'T!! IS!! ISN'T!!

So... is it a "child" or isn't it heh heh heh.

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:15 PM


JKeller,

The unborn don't have voices to be able to speak for themselves. They have NO choice, their lives are snuffed out before they can even have a chance to learn to talk.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 29, 2008 2:20 PM


Even if it kills/ hurts them? This isn't about having good manners, Hal.
Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:14 PM

It certainly does't appear to do that RSD. All the gay couples I know are very normal and at no more risk for being killed or hurt by their love then the rest of us.

And, I guess, as a freedom loving American, I would have to say yes, even it it kills or hurts them. They're adults, and can make their own decisions. But, as I said, their love is no more dangerous then anyone elses.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 2:23 PM


Sorry, Hal...but your definition of "normal" is different than mine.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:26 PM


Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:27 PM


RSD, you have clearly established that. I actuallyl pity you and your narrow view of humanity.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 2:29 PM


Save your pity Hal..for your "progressive" view of life...progressive to where, I have no idea...

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:32 PM


Hal,

I agree with your last few posts entirely.


RSD,

I didn't know there was a definition of "normal" that anybody could fit under. We all have our things that are considered to be not normal or weird by other people.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 2:33 PM


Elizabeth,

There is a big difference.

The support of the single mom is about support of the child(ren). It is true that some will go on to abuse the support, but many will go on, marry and hopefully build traditional families of their own. In any case its about providing care for the child, not affirming the mother's bad choices. With the homosexual issue it is about supporting a cause that is built around bad choices.

No, I do not equate all homosexuals with NAMBLA. Somebody asked me what a militant homosexual is and I used them as an example. NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS ARE MILITANT, but some are.
Those who are actively launching an assault on the family are militant.

Believe it or not I am not a gay hater. I have genuine compassion for those who have struggled with same sex attraction, for those who experience confusion with gender identification and for those whose emotional woundedness has led them into entering same sex relationships. Just because I don't affirm their chosen lifestyle does not mean I don't care for them. In fact, it is because I do care, that I cannot affirm what I see as a dangerous lifestyle. Genuine love is not always about giving people what they want, sometimes it is about pointing out what needs to change.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 2:34 PM


Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:36 PM


DeeL,

How many gay people do you know that were able to change by this genuine love you shared with them?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 2:36 PM


We all have our things that are considered to be not normal or weird by other people.

Elizabeth, the voice of reason once again.

(Hey Cutie!)

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:37 PM


Sure, Elizabeth...I understand that "normal" could be interpreted a lot of ways...hence, the need for a rule, a standard, a norm...

I follow, or at the very least, I try to follow and live by the norms of the Catholic Church.

Hal's view of "normal", as I stated, is very different from mine.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:41 PM


Well, RSD, Hal's not a Catholic, so Hal's normal is normal to Hal. Get it?

Now unless you propose we convert everybody to Catholicism, there isn't much you can do about that.

I'm Catholic, but I don't believe in forcing everybody else to believe what the Catholic Church believes, even if I think they're right.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 2:49 PM


"I'm Catholic, but I don't believe in forcing everybody else to believe what the Catholic Church believes, even if I think they're right.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 2:49 PM"
--------------------------------------

Sure Elizabeth...but I'm not forcing Hal to be Catholic (I like him the way he is)...I'm standing up to what I believe in.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:51 PM


That should've been:

I'm standing up FOR what I believe in.

Posted by: RSD at September 29, 2008 2:52 PM


Elizabeth,

do you believe schools should teach that homosexual marriage is ok?

Posted by: Jasper at September 29, 2008 2:57 PM


Elizabeth,
Now, I suspect you are just being snide as well as questioning my sincerity, but on the off chance that you're not, I will answer.

Personally, none, but hearts are moved by love all the time. There are many stories out there of people rejecting their homosexual lifestyles and embracing their sexuality as it is intended. Your mistake is that you are equating love and compassion with indulgence. They are not the same things. Sometimes genuine love really is tough.

Anyway, I'm off.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 3:02 PM


Elizabeth,

do you believe schools should teach that homosexual marriage is ok?
Posted by: Jasper at September 29, 2008 2:57 PM

Schools teach facts. Homosexual marriage is "ok." That's a fact. I don't think schools teach much about marriage in general, but to the extent they do, they should absolutely teach that homosexual marriage is okay. Anything else would be wrong.

You guys sometimes sound like a bunch of grumpy old people complaining about "kids today..."

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 3:12 PM


Hey! I know! Let's teach readin', writin' and rithmetic in public school and leave the indoctrination to the liberal college profs!!

Posted by: Carla at September 29, 2008 3:29 PM


Hal, Response to your comment @ 1:50:
I'm glad! :)

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 3:31 PM


Jasper,

Like Carla, I believe schools should teach kids how to read, write, add, you know, the basics. As far as homosexuality is concerned, I think schools should explain to kids that it is not okay in any way to mock or hurt another kid based on their sexual preferences or for any other reason. But that's just basic respect IMO. So yes, kids should be taught to respect one another. As far as teaching about homosexual marriage in school? Do we talk about heterosexual marriage in school? Nobody taught me about either, and yet I grew up , and here they are! I don't think schools should teach anything about marriage cause it's none of their business. They have a hard enough time teaching kids how to spell correctly, so to throw one more thing in there they have to teach is just silly. Especially when it isn't relevant to anything SCHOOL-RELATED.(This is for public schools only of course) Private schools can teach whatever they want to about traditional marriage values.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 3:49 PM


DeeL,

I didn't ask for the many stories "out there" about people rejecting their lifestyle. I asked how many people you knew. Now, 2 of my brothers are dancers, and I was heavily involved in musical theatre before I had my daughter, so let's just say, there is no shortage of gay people in my social circles. I'm sure you believe being a homosexual is something of a choice, I do not, and that is why I find it rather ignorant of you to say "Oh, if we just told them the truth, and gave them tough love, they would all just not be gay." (*I know that isn't word for word what you said, I'm just trying to sum it up.) People can't just change who they are, and they shouldn't, just because it makes others uncomfortable. Sometimes, the real love is just accepting people for who they are.

I'm sure this may bother you since you view homosexuality as a choice. Like I said, I do not, I believe someone is that way, or they aren't. I couldn't anymore make myself gay than any of my friends could make themselves straight. No amount of "tough love" can change that, so I'll leave the "tough love" to you guys.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 4:03 PM


" Your mistake is that you are equating love and compassion with indulgence. They are not the same things. Sometimes genuine love really is tough."

DeeL, you make a good point. Same sex attraction is a psychological disorder. To confirm someone in a homosexual lifestyle is not helping them -- it is hurting them. The Catholic Church teaches that same sex attraction is not a sin in itself. It becomes sinful when a person engages in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex. I know that this doesn't mean much to non-Catholics but there are Catholics who mistakenly think that being gay (living a homosexual lifestyle) is okay. Catholics (and non-Catholics) should read Theology of the Body by John Paul II or books based on it by Christopher West, in particular. I have heard bits and pieces of it and plan to read it when I am finished with another book that I am reading. I have heard enough about the topic of homosexuality within the context of psychology that there is a strong correlation between it and parental dynamics: emotionally distant fathers, lack of proper mother-infant bonding (through no fault at times by the mother) molestation as a child, etc. There may be something to be said for a "tendency" but in that case, there are psychologists who say that if there is a emotionally involved father in the picture who can affirm his son's masculinity, or in the case of a daughter, affirm her in her femininity,that it can be steered in the right direction. The mother has a definite role in the development of her child's sexuality also. It can't be explained in a nutshell but a lot of what I have heard makes sense.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 4:03 PM


"Same sex attraction is a psychological disorder."

No. It. Isn't.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 4:09 PM


Elizabeth,

so you're against teaching sex-ed in schools...thats good.

Posted by: Jasper at September 29, 2008 4:10 PM


Elizabeth,

I don't think schools should teach anything about marriage cause it's none of their business. They have a hard enough time teaching kids how to spell correctly, so to throw one more thing in there they have to teach is just silly. Especially when it isn't relevant to anything SCHOOL-RELATED.(This is for public schools only of course) Private schools can teach whatever they want to about traditional marriage values.

I agree with you that schools need to focus on the three "R"s and leave the marriage discussions to the parents.


Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 4:12 PM


Jasper,

Yepper. I sure am. I wouldn't have a problem with a joint program that parents get to participate in with the teen on a voluntary basis of course. That way, parents know what their kids are being taught, and they can also share their insights on the issue with their teen. It is also an easier way to open the line of communication between parents and teens I think.

Eileen,

Same-sex attraction is not a psychological disorder. The APA took it off their list of psychological disorders in 1973.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 4:17 PM


"sex ed" is basically biology. Human Reproduction. How are babies made, and what efforts can be taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease. Seems like an important subject to teach. I can't imagine anyone being considered educated who doesn't know those things.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 4:17 PM


Yes, Hal, it is. There are plenty of those in Psychology and Psychiatry who say so but many do not want to be labeled "homophobic" so they are not speaking out. It was taken of the list of disorders because of pressure by gay activists within and outside of the profession.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 4:20 PM


Yes, Hal, it is. There are plenty of those in Psychology and Psychiatry who say so but many do not want to be labeled "homophobic" so they are not speaking out. It was taken off the list of disorders because of pressure by gay activists within and outside of the profession.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 4:20 PM


Sorry, thought I stopped it before posting twice -- had to correct my typo.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 4:21 PM


Eileen,

Could you cite that please? The many psychologists/psychiatrists who think homosexualtiy is a mental disorder that is. Please and thank you.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 4:23 PM


Elizabeth, I'd be glad too, ASAP.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 4:24 PM


I can't believe people are still debating this. what is this, 1908?

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 4:26 PM


haha, Hal, I don't think people even said these words in 1908, let alone debated this. Unless they were one of the words that got whispered reallllly quietly so nobody else heard you.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 4:31 PM


Or swept under the rug with terms like "confirmed bachelor" and "old maid"

Posted by: JKeller at September 29, 2008 4:36 PM


Hal @ 4:17,

"sex ed" is basically biology. Human Reproduction. How are babies made, and what efforts can be taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease. Seems like an important subject to teach. I can't imagine anyone being considered educated who doesn't know those things.

Hal, There is a moral component to human reproduction that most sex-ed programs ignore.
But even non-religious people don't agree on the "basic biology". How can we teach human reproduction and sexuality as you propose when there is no consensus? I say leave it to the parents.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 4:56 PM


I suppose it's true that not everyone agrees on the morality of sexualtiy,but I was unaware that there was a dispute over basic biology. Are you saying there are disagreements about how babies are made, how to prevent it, and about STI's?

As for the "moral component," I agree that part should be ignored by the schools and taught at home.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 5:04 PM


Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines the influence of gay organizations on the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, which has lead them to abandon scientific accuracy and authentic research in order to support the political goals of the homosexual community.

His paper, The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research And Jurisprudence To Be Subverted In Lockstep With The Political Aims Of Their Gay Sub-Components, was published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). (See complete text of Dr. Satinover’s paper here: http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf)

Dr. Satinover details the homosexual activist campaign to force the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders. The campaign used disruption and misrepresentation to accomplish their goal, achieved in 1973. Activists within the APA combined forces with gay organizations to present to the APA incomplete and biased research supporting the “normalcy” of homosexuality which neglected to analyze the data or offer any challenge.

“The APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was presented to the public as based upon a solid scientific foundation, though this foundation was in fact lacking...The APA and others have so often repeated the same falsehoods that the public and even the Supreme Court now take for granted that science has demonstrated that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variant of human sexuality if it is fixed early in life and does not change…” writes Dr. Satinover.

He goes on to detail how advocates of homosexuality within the scientific community appear to willfully bypass excellent research (some of it their own) that clearly links homosexuality and psychopathology.

Dr. Satinover extensively outlines research that suggests the impulse to homosexuality (which most frequently manifests itself during adolescence) will spontaneously decrease over time, and will eventually disappear, unless it is given support and encouragement.

“…the reality is that since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiological evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors,” he states (his emphasis.)

He concludes by noting that the factors influencing the sexual development of young people are largely contained in the social and family context. Therefore, a society that promotes homosexuality will result in increasing numbers of people who identify themselves as homosexuals.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 5:55 PM


good references Eileen #2

Posted by: Patricia at September 29, 2008 6:15 PM


About sex ed, males have male parts, women have women parts, that's a fact. Why not teach kids the differences between males and females? Why not teach them the facts?

About teaching it to young children, most kids wonder why their little brother or sister doesn't look like them. We should teach them that boys and girls are different. Later on we can tell them why we are different. And we can also tell them that some places are private places. That's yours and only yours, no one else has any right to touch it. Then we tell them actually your doctor might can see it. Then later on you tell them why your doctor can see it. Then you tell them oh yeah you can get sick from having sex. First you tell them what sex is. But only if they express curiosity. You don't want to tramatize them.

Or at least that's how I would do it.

Posted by: Jess at September 29, 2008 6:22 PM


That's one doctor, Eileen 2. One whose organization is associated with Focus on the Family.


Posted by: LL at September 29, 2008 7:18 PM


Elizabeth,
As I stated earlier, I do believe that there are people with same sex attractions, but there has been no definitive scientific findings supporting that it is indeed biological rather than psychological. No one has yet to find a "gay gene". The APA is a politically motivated organization without credibility, their removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders is meaningless.

That being said, I also believe there are larger number of people participating in the homosexual lifestyle for a variety of other reasons, including sexual experimentation, previous sexual abuse and a breakdown in their own family dynamics. They have been wounded and confused by our anything goes culture and have been exposed to decades of feminists attempting to erase the differences between the sexes rather than celebrate them. The American male has been emasculated at the hands of our culture. Watch any television sitcom and see how dad is treated. Is it any wonder that relationships between the sexes are a mess?

My daughter has also been involved in theatre for the past seven years and I have spent much of my time back stage supporting the various organizations she works with. I have watched confused young men attempt to buy in to the stereotypical theatre male only vacillate between relationships with young women and with other young men. I have seen young girls victimized by sexual experimentation withdraw in pain and anger only to turn around and prey on someone else sexually. I went on vacation with a female relative who had been very hurt by her mother as a teenager and has been living in a lesbian relationship for more than a decade. She spent a good part of the time very attracted to and flirting with the guys. Another relative determined he was gay in the middle of his parents' bitter divorce. Are these people homosexual or are they so desperate for love that they will sell themselves out for whatever semblance of love comes their way?


Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 7:37 PM


DeeL-

Various studies have begun linking previous births, womb conditions, et al to gay children. I've read various articles on said study on BBC.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 7:40 PM


Dan,
There is still no definitive scientific evidence that biology is involved. At best there are inconclusive studies on both sides of the argument.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 7:45 PM


"That's one doctor, Eileen 2. One whose organization is associated with Focus on the Family."


Posted by: LL at September 29, 2008 7:18 PM

His association with FOF hardly invalidates his assertions or findings. His article states that other researchers have solid evidence that is being ignored.

Dr. Paul Vitz and Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons are reliable sources although I suppose you will have an objection because they are Catholics.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 8:02 PM


For the record, I certainly don't advocate for rounding up all the homosexuals and punishing them for their lifestyle. We all have been given the gift of free will and if God is not willing to take that away, who am I to do so? We will all answer for our bad decisons and believe me, I have plenty of my own to keep me busy.

I do object, however, to certain segments of the gay population attempting to redefine marriage, which is a sacred institution. That I will continue to fight and part of that fight involves withholding my money from those companies and organizations who financially support that goal. To that end, not that it's much of a sacrifice, but, no more Mickey D's.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 8:05 PM


DeeL in some places people were killed for being homosexual. Do you think they choose to be homosexual even though they would be put to death?

Posted by: Jess at September 29, 2008 8:08 PM


DeeL-

Unfortunately, marriage is not a religious institution. However, I would be for coming up with a new word for the state/federal governments to refer to it as so that gay couples may receive the same rights as heterosexual couples under the state, while leaving the "sacred institution" so many refer to in tact, letting everyone be.

Posted by: Dan at September 29, 2008 8:09 PM


Great sources Eileen. I'm battle worn and giving it up for the night. Keep up the good fight and may Truth one day prevail.

Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 8:11 PM


No! You didn't answer my question!

Posted by: Jess at September 29, 2008 8:16 PM


Ugh,

Jess, people give into all sorts of misguided temptations, even under the threat of death. The human need for love is extremely powerful.

Dan,
Marriage is a sacrament that has been civilly institutionalized for the sake of the family and for the sake society at large. Without marriage and families, society ceases to exist. It is indeed sacred and deserving of respect and protection.

Gotta go, good night y'all.


Posted by: DeeL at September 29, 2008 8:34 PM


Jess, I'm not a big meat-eater. A little goes a long way for me but I get migraine headaches sometimes and the only thing that I want to eat is a cheeseburger and a coke! Outside of that particular time, I really don't have a craving for beef. Although I do love a regular Coke on ice just about anytime!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 8:35 PM


"Jess, people give into all sorts of misguided temptations, even under the threat of death. The human need for love is extremely powerful."

DeeL, I watched a tv program where a young man was interviewed about his former gay lifestyle. He said that his was looking for the emotional intimacy that he never got from his father and mistakenly equated what he really needed with homosexual sex. He said that many men go from partner to partner thinking that the next guy will provide what they need only to find it lacking.


Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 8:46 PM


whoops! "HE (not his) was looking.."

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 8:49 PM


Goodnight, DeeL. Goodnight, Jess. God Bless!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 9:02 PM


I suppose it's true that not everyone agrees on the morality of sexualtiy,but I was unaware that there was a dispute over basic biology. Are you saying there are disagreements about how babies are made, how to prevent it, and about STI's?

As for the "moral component," I agree that part should be ignored by the schools and taught at home.

Posted by: Hal at September 29, 2008 5:04 PM

By "basic biology" I don't mean how babies are made. After "fertilization" takes place, some people claim a life does not begin until implantation, when in fact life begins at fertilization. We used to have special "health classes" as part of the phys ed program which taught the basics of anatomy, STD's, etc.

Posted by: Janet at September 29, 2008 9:10 PM


Eileen 2,

That guy BASICALLY said that if we shame them into not being homosexual, they will not be homosexual. Not exactly evidence to me. And who promotes homosexuality? I don't anymore promote it than I promote my heterosexuality. Orrrr do you mean, a society that accepts homosexuality? Because I'm pretty sure the only reason there seem to be more gay people in our society now, is because people aren't afraid of being beaten to death cause they're gay. (Even though that still happens) Or being sent away somewhere to be "converted."

DeeL,

My brothers are ballet dancers, and they never "vacillated." I wonder why that is. Maybe because they weren't gay to begin with and had no inclinations of such. I imagine that men who are already have those inclinations.

Also, I'm sure that people who are sexually abused as young children do grow up very confused about their sexuality and end up gravitating towards whatever gender that molested them. THOSE are not the people I am speaking of. Most of the gay people I know have not been molested and are rather well-adjusted. What about people who are in same-sex relationships for YEARS or forever? Are they just not well-adjusted or "settling" for what they can get?

I'm sorry, but the notion that gay people are gay because they are screwed up and pathetic is really insulting. And I'm not even gay.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 29, 2008 9:37 PM


"That guy BASICALLY said that if we shame them into not being homosexual"

Elizabeth,

Dr. Satinover said no such thing. What he is saying is that there is scientific evidence that is being ignored because of an agenda to promote the homosexual lifestyle. There are active homosexuals who want to force people to accept it as a normal lifestyle so they are going to suppress anything that states to the contrary. BTW, the number of people in long-term relationships are a minority. The average lifespan of an active homosexual man is 50 yrs because of the health risks. There is more but I am too tired to look it up right now. I think you said that you are a Catholic. I have mentioned in an earlier post what the Church teaches in regard to this. A lot of what I have learned I have gotten from programming on EWTN. There is also a wonderful Catholic ministry for people with same sex attraction called Courage. By all means continue to be a friend to those that you know that have same sex attraction. Again, try reading something by Christopher West before you dismiss anything that DeeL or I have said.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 29, 2008 10:08 PM


I'd like to be clear about the churches endorsing political candidates issue. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion or government interference with religion, but it has everything to do with preventing tax deductible donations from being used to promote a political candidate.

If the ADF pastors are successful in their bid for political power, they will open a massive loophole in the tax code and election finance laws, enabling literally anybody to start a church, collect tax deductible contributions, and use them to promote political candidates. Jill could found the Church of BAIPA, and collect money for McCain. I could found the Church of Sanity and collect money for Obama. Billy Bob Thornton could found the Church of the Yellow Rose and collect money for Ron Paul. Ozzy Osborne could found the Church of Satan and collect money for Ralph Nader. There would be no stopping any of it, and it can't be allowed to happen.

A church or anyone else is free to promote a political candidate, but not while retaining 501(c)3 status. End of story.

Posted by: Ray at September 29, 2008 11:47 PM


Ray, as always, you do a masterful job of explaining. It seems like it never sinks in to people, though....

Oh well, I guess you're gonna have that.

Posted by: Doug at September 30, 2008 8:27 AM


I'm less easily-impressed than Doug. :)

Ray wrote:
If the ADF pastors are successful in their bid for political power, they will open a massive loophole in the tax code and election finance laws, enabling literally anybody to start a church, collect tax deductible contributions, and use them to promote political candidates.

This argument is silly. It's exactly like the McCain-Feingold law which gave us all of those frickin' 527 groups.

You don't need to endorse a specific candidate or political party in order to influence an election. And that's where your argument falls apart. To use your example, Jill could still found the Church of Born-Alive. She could take tax-deductible donations and use them to preach to people about the moral necessity of protecting infants who are born alive during abortions. As long as she didn't mention any candidates by name, she'd be 100% compliant with the IRS rules. Her "church" would still be involved in politics, and the IRS couldn't touch her.

For a real-world example, consider Sojourners:
http://www.sojo.net/
Sojourners is probably the flagship organization of the Religious Left. They routinely tell people about the Christian imperative toward social justice (which is true) in ways that cast the worst possible light on conservatives. While they haven't explicitly endorsed Obama, it's not hard to figure out where their loyalties lie. Sojourners is a 501(c)3 organization.

Allowing tax-exempt organizations -- including churches -- to endorse candidates and political parties would not threaten America. Tax-exempt organizations are already involved in politics. They just have to use certain stupid loopholes to "cover" themselves.

Let me ask another question: Why is it so important that we keep tax-exempt organizations out of politics? Isn't politics important? Free and fair political discourse is part of the foundation of our society. Wasn't that the point behind the Founders giving us the First Amendment? Why should we have any limits on political speech?

Let me put it in ways that a liberal can understand:
If you give $1000 to a local homeless shelter, you will help to care for homeless people in your area. However, if you give $1000 to the Obama campaign, then you will help Obama get elected. If he is elected, then he will use his amazing powers to end poverty, bring peace to the world, and heal our planet. Isn't that better?

So why should the $1000 to the shelter be tax-deductible, yet the $1000 to Obama is still taxable income? If you can do more good with the campaign contribution, then our tax code should encourage you to do so.

Posted by: Naaman at September 30, 2008 9:21 AM


Naaman-

Because with campaign donations nothing is guaranteed.

As for the danger of a certain candidate-

It then is a small jump from an endorsement of a candidate by said organization to donations to said candidate from the organization.

Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 10:09 AM


Naaman,

As I have pointed out this "concern" of state/church seperation is highly selective.

Where were all these liberals when Cuomo and Clinton were campaigning from the church pulpits?
Where were they when a plate was passed around a church to collect for the presidential candidacy of Jesse Jackson?
Where are they when Rev.Jesse Jackson is involving himself in politics and political campaigns?

I recall seperation of church and state being used as a weapon against the Catholic Church and any clergy who spoke against abortion.
However clergy and churches that supported abortion were never seen as violating this sacred tenet.

BTW, I have yet to get anyone to acknowledge that Dr.King should have had his tax-exempt status revoked or shut up. Dr.King was in direct contact with President Kennedy, encouraging such things as the selection of a Supreme Court justice and issuing a second Emancipation Proclamation.

Let the "right wing" churches make themselves heard and the seperation of church and state police go beserk. The "left wing" churches have been mingling politics and religion for years, and all I've heard from the liberals is a deafening silence. I'm sure these churches' support of liberal causes was not a factor here.(sarcasm).

Posted by: Mary at September 30, 2008 10:20 AM


JKeller I would head on over to the gay couple operating a fruit and vegetable stand. Wait, do we have money?

Amanda, John doesn't care about the facts he just hates anyone who doesn't eat meat for any reason. I guess his next step is to start poisoning vegetables : /

Posted by: Jess at September 30, 2008 10:54 AM


And John, I am a peach. You are what you eat. That means you're basically a piece of meat. I'd stay away from Jasper if I were you, lol.

Posted by: Jess at September 30, 2008 11:02 AM


I'm just like Gianna Jessen. There are people who didn't expect me to live, let alone live such a healthy life. But here I am and I'm here to stay!

Posted by: Jess at September 30, 2008 11:07 AM


:: laughing ::

Jess - have no fear. You're one in a million.

Posted by: Doug at September 30, 2008 11:49 AM


I just want to add that our liberal commentators have a point about Google. If you're boycotting McD's because of their support for the gay agenda, then you should definitely boycott Google too.

Here is the statement directly from Google's corporate blog:
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

So there ya go. Google has rescinded their corporate motto of "Do No Evil," and they've jumped into the Culture Wars.

Personally, I have uninstalled the Google Toolbar from both of my web browsers. I have also switched my default search engine for both browsers over to Windows Live Search. (Microsoft really wants to kill Google, so I'll throw a little more business their way.) I'm stuck with my GMail accounts because I really don't want to go through the hassle of changing my email address. However, I'm going to start de-Googling my life in all other areas.

Google makes lovely products. They really do. I've known that they were a liberal company for some time, but they never "got in my face" about it before now. Now they've forced the issue, so I'm headed off in search of new products....

The Internet is big. There are other choices.

Posted by: Naaman at September 30, 2008 12:26 PM


"I'm just like Gianna Jessen.
Posted by: Jess at September 30, 2008 11:07 AM"
---------------------------------------

you got the gift of cerebral palsy, too?

Posted by: RSD at September 30, 2008 12:36 PM


Dan wrote:
Because with campaign donations nothing is guaranteed.

Huh? So charitable donations come with a guarantee now? Which charities are these?

Seriously, remember the whole Red Cross / 9-11 controversy? The Red Cross raised a bunch of money for 9-11, and then they used that money to buy new computers. Those computer might have been a valid expense, but that's not the point. The point is that the money was given to aid 9-11 victims and their families....

Tax-exempt organizations are required to maintain a certain accounting standard, but that's not the same thing as a guarantee that your donations will do what you want them to do.

Posted by: Naaman at September 30, 2008 12:39 PM


Google makes lovely products. They really do. I've known that they were a liberal company for some time, but they never "got in my face" about it before now. Now they've forced the issue, so I'm headed off in search of new products....

The Internet is big. There are other choices.
Posted by: Naaman at September 30, 2008 12:26 PM

Google "got in your face" for a very good reason:

"We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love."

I certainly admire that.

Posted by: Hal at September 30, 2008 1:54 PM


Naaaman-

It has the guarantee the money will go to that orginization which in turn will help others targeted by that orginization in someway in the end.

Far more of a gurantee than the word of a politician trying to get into or keep power.

Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 2:05 PM


DeeL, RSD,Eileen #2 et al, I have discovered some nice rebuttals to your arguments, if I remember when I get home (I'm still on campus) I would be more then willing to go into rebuttals. :)

Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 2:06 PM


Yes, Dan, rebuttals are good. You always put things more eloquently and less sarcasticly (is that even a word? Oh well) than I do. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 30, 2008 2:29 PM


Dan and Elizabeth, maybe you should argue with the psychiatrists and psychologists who are seeing the fallout of the homosexual lifestyle,professional men and women who want to help and heal people -- make them whole again.

As Catholics, I don't know why you are so resistant to at least studying/reading why the Church teaches what She does. The Pope doesn't make arbitrary pronouncements -- prayer and study (employing bishops and learned men and women from appropriate fields) are done before any teaching is promulgated. Either we believe that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus said it would be) or we don't. Please research a little more before you come back with an emotional response.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 30, 2008 3:04 PM


I'm stuck with my GMail accounts because I really don't want to go through the hassle of changing my email address.

So that's how committed you are to your principles, Naaman? Not worth the hassle of changing your email address? Consider me unimpressed, and I am sure the Google folks are quaking in their boots that you have uninstalled the Google toolbar.

Regarding do no evil, it seems to me that supporting a proposition that upholds civil rights is doing just that. They have invested a lot of money in areas like green tech startups, too. Aside from dominating its market, Google is about as unevil as a corporation can be.

Posted by: Ray at September 30, 2008 5:37 PM


Eileen #2-

Because it is based on the ever changing translation and interpretation of biblical passages.

As for the bit about psychological disease or a gene or what have you- there truly is no evidence for either side. Each side is claiming partial evidence to make their claim, that's just how it is right now.

As for the argument "gay sex kills"- under that statement ALL sex kills. All sex can lead to fatal STDs (including HIV/AIDS). Gays may have a higher occurrence, either way it doesn't matter, it leads to the same principal that anyone having sex should adhere to- be cautious. Get tested, know how to use a condom, be aware, stay with one partner, etc. Add in lesbians have the lowest contraction rate, and well, there you are. Yes there are risky behaviors and there should be an awareness of said risks, and other behaviors can be undergone, there isnt solely one way to celebrate love, even if you're gay or lesbian.

As for "unnatural"- it is found consistently through the animal kingdom, so it certainly is a natural occurrence. As for unnatural use of body parts- people use body parts for a host of different things, who is to say what is a natural or unnatural use? Add in that there is in fact an area in the anus that arouses men, and well, there you go.

Let me know if you have more arguments I didnt address yet :)


Ray-

For now, I do shudder a bit to think about what the wrong executive could do with/to Google as a company and advocate.

Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 5:53 PM


"As Catholics, I don't know why you are so resistant to at least studying/reading why the Church teaches what She does."

She? Are we speaking inverted now? I also don't know why everything is a "she." There has got to be some masculine objects and institutions.

RSD, no but I have the gift of vegetarianism. And guess what? You can have it too!

Posted by: Jess at September 30, 2008 7:17 PM


Jess-

the reason is the Church is seen as Christ's "bride" (though given it was built upon Peter makes that a bit odd to me as to why its seen as such).

Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 7:46 PM


Eileen,

I'm well aware of what the Church thinks about homosexuality. I don't believe I ever heard the Church say it was a psychological disorder, and they don't really treat it as such, sooo how is it my beliefs are any different? I don't think it's a psychological disorder.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 30, 2008 7:55 PM


Dan,

"(though given it was built upon Peter makes that a bit odd to me as to why its seen as such). "

Although our Protestant brothers and sisters will disagree with us on this, Peter was the first Pope so he was in particular a priest. The priest acts in the person of Christ; he is Jesus' "representative" in light of the position he has been given. So it's more like all priests have the Church as their bride (it's just an analogy on this level; no polygamy implications). So someone like Peter is more closely associated to "being" Jesus than "being" the Church. Hope that makes some sense...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 30, 2008 8:02 PM


Elizabeth, refer to the Catechism #2357 to #2359. It states that it is intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law. It states that under no circumstances can homosexual acts be approved. It also acknowledges that for many of them it is a trial. It states that people with homosexual tendencies should be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. It also states that they are called to live chaste lives.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 30, 2008 8:10 PM


Bobby-

It does, thanks for the explanation :)

Posted by: Dan at September 30, 2008 8:28 PM


"Because it is based on the ever changing translation and interpretation of biblical passages."

Dan, I'm not sure to what you are referring -- the Church's teaching has never shifted or changed according to any new biblical interpretation or translation.

"As for "unnatural"- it is found consistently through the animal kingdom, so it certainly is a natural occurrence."

We are more than animals, Dan, we have an intellect and a will. I am curious, though, I have never heard of any animals that try to copulate with a member of the same gender.

"As for the argument "gay sex kills"- under that statement ALL sex kills. All sex can lead to fatal STDs (including HIV/AIDS). Gays may have a higher occurrence, either way it doesn't matter, it leads to the same principal that anyone having sex should adhere to- be cautious. Get tested, know how to use a condom, be aware, stay with one partner, etc. Add in lesbians have the lowest contraction rate, and well, there you are. Yes there are risky behaviors and there should be an awareness of said risks, and other behaviors can be undergone, there isnt solely one way to celebrate love, even if you're gay or lesbian."

You have made a good argument against promiscuous behavior by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.


"As for the bit about psychological disease or a gene or what have you- there truly is no evidence for either side. Each side is claiming partial evidence to make their claim, that's just how it is right now."

Dan, the point is that there are great efforts to suppress any evidence that supports the argument that it is a psychological disorder. If there is nothing to the evidence or research findings then what are they afraid of? Let ALL the research done be presented and evaluated.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 30, 2008 8:42 PM


Bobby, thanks!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 30, 2008 8:44 PM


Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons -----

"There is substantial evidence based on years of clinical experience that homosexuality is a developmental disorder. Every child has a healthy need to identify positively with the parent of the same sex, have same-sex friendships, a positive body image and a confident sexual identity. Homosexual feelings can occur when these needs are not appropriately met. The adolescent's unmet needs become entangled with emerging sexual feelings and produce same-sex attraction. Therapy consists in helping male clients to understand the emotional causes of their attraction and to strengthen their masculine identity. It has been our clinical experience that as these men become more comfortable and confident with their manhood, same-sex attractions resolve or decrease significantly in many patients."

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 30, 2008 9:06 PM


Eileen,

The Catholic Church says its intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law. That doesn't mean they say it's a psychological disorder. It may be disordered in the sense that the parts don't fit together, etc. but that doesn't mean they're saying it's a psychological disorder.

And with other psychological disorders, why are there no medications to assist in this conversion if being gay is in fact a psychological disorder? I believe all psych disorders that I've ever heard of have corresponding medication that is prescribed depending on the severity of the disorder. If being gay were considered a psych problem, then they would be able to prescribe meds, no? Not that therapy isn't a good option, but with most psych disorders, they recommend therapy along with prescribing meds. That's part of the reason I don't really think that being gay falls into a psych disorder category.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 30, 2008 9:18 PM


Elizabeth,

I think that intrinsically disordered is meant within the context of the interior nature or psyche of man (and woman).

I don't think that every psychological disorder requires a med. I assume that those that stem from some kind of organic imbalance would require meds, however.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 30, 2008 9:35 PM


"RSD, no but I have the gift of vegetarianism. And guess what? You can have it too!

Posted by: Jess at September 30, 2008 7:17 PM"
---------------------------------------------

Sorry Jess...that's a CHOICE you made not a "gift" similar to what Gianna received...

..and thanks but no thanks, I just LOVE eating
burgers...also Angus Beef,too!!

Posted by: RSD at October 1, 2008 9:57 AM


Pizza is good with spicy sausage.

Posted by: Rhovan Archetravian at October 1, 2008 10:22 AM


Elizabeth,

you could not be more wrong about prescription meds addressing psychological disorders, especially one as entrenched as homosexuality.

Obviously I do not have the answers but I SUSPECT that male sexuality, because of it's reliance on zinc, is just one manifestation of a zinc deficiency state.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 1, 2008 10:34 AM


http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/cc/zinc.html#food

"Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Breakfast cereal, fortified with 100% of the DV for zinc per serving, 3/4 c serving 15.0mg 100%DV"

So you can get 100% of your zinc needs just by eating a breakfast cereal. JOHN STOP LYING! This is a GOVERNMENT FACT SHEET!

Posted by: Jess at October 1, 2008 1:12 PM


"Vegetarians may need as much as 50% more zinc than non-vegetarians because of the lower absorption of zinc from plant foods, so it is very important for vegetarians to include good sources of zinc in their diet (2, 21)."

So have a cup and a half of a fortified breakfast cereal and you'll be fine. And if I have had a zinc deficiency for thirteen years then why have I not shown ANY symptoms of a zinc deficiency? Don't you think after thirteen years I would at least show a tiny bit of one sign? No one can take anything you say seriously, you obviously have a problem with facts.

Posted by: Jess at October 1, 2008 1:16 PM


Hi Jess,

Please list the clinical symptoms of zinc deficiency. (If you do not know your zinc status - in numbers - how do you know its ok?) How does your doctor test for zinc levels? How does he/she test for taurine levels? Have you ever had these specific tests?

Is there a wide-spread zinc deficit - according to the government? If so, why has this Occurred?

Posted by: John McDonell at October 1, 2008 2:38 PM


Hi Jess,

you keep calling me a liar ... or that I have lied. Obviously because you are so emphatic about these words, I surmise you know what they mean. Please, do post what they mean to you (whether or not such understanding conforms to a dictionary).

Posted by: John McDonell at October 1, 2008 4:16 PM


John the truth is you can get zinc from sources other then meat. You say you can't. That is a lie. You are a liar.

Posted by: Jess at October 1, 2008 7:05 PM


Ah now I know,

nowhere ...NOWHERE did I say zinc does come only from meat. What I did say was that taurine (zinc's partner) comes only from meat. Without taurine to fix zinc onto membrane walls (similar to the way binds bricks to house walls) you only have a loose attachment that is easily washed away.

Now reread my posts and find out if I am lying.

You talk about cereals and zinc. What about the excessive amounts of phytates that prevent mineral absorption? Are these cereals genetically modified(GM) crops? Is that OK on your vegetarian diet? What if the gene-splicing was with animal DNA?

Posted by: John McDonell at October 1, 2008 8:31 PM


Wow John I just got done saying that the study concludes that a daily intake of 150% of zinc from non meat sources is enough after phyates are taken into account. Can you please read the article?

If you don't read the whole article before responding I will eat meat. You.

Posted by: Jess at October 1, 2008 9:46 PM


Hi Jess,

Just read your very good link to the government facts. The breakfast cereals mentioned are specifically fortified with zinc - either 100% or 25%. (the amt in regular cereal is far less.)

There is no mention of phytates in this article. And there is no mention of the effects of GM foods - the vast majority of cereal (like wheat) crops in the US are GM crops & especially soy beans (a vegetarian staple).

The US and allied countries like Canada says they
are the same. Are they?

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 8:03 AM


lol. Zinc deficiency causes Cystic Fibrosis, and now it causes homosexuality??

Ahhahaha.. oh man. Did you come up with this nonsense in your secret basement lab, with a tin foil hat on?

Do you have any even REMOTELY credible sources to back up this baseless, fact-free, crap?

Posted by: Amanda at October 2, 2008 9:30 AM


If you don't read the whole article before responding I will eat meat. You.

LOL

and

LOL

Posted by: Doug at October 2, 2008 9:49 AM


Supporing Barack Obama: Caused by Zinc deficiency.

Posted by: Amanda at October 2, 2008 10:25 AM


Hi amanda,

I keep wondering about ANY scientific truth that would mean that you would change your mindset ... is there one?

Last year I got into this with SoMG. I sited two sources (the same ones as above) and I said this is what they say. This IMO is very important and could stand replication today. This material may be ancient (according to Jess) because it is pre-internet, but this does not make it false.

I am trying to find a way for us humans to live full lives. Diminishing via sniping does not lead me nor does this assist you.

The role of zinc in the human metabolism is complex to put it mildly. It is so involved that I like to say that: zinc is to 'function' as calcium is to 'structure'.

The reason why CF is there is because these researchers say so over and over. The book is called: 'Zinc and Copper in Medicine' eds Sarper & Karcioglu .... this is a collection of papers written by primary researchers. If you have some sort of hang-up with their findings ... take it up with them

As I told Jess: the zinc-homosexual link is mine only. Two or three things seem important here:1) the vast majority of homosexuals are males - males require substantial more zinc than do females. 2) The seeking to find a genetic base, has researchers seeking a 'gene-as-culprit' when there has to be many things present (besides genes) for DNA to express itself; 3) the deep seatedness of homosexuality makes it akin to a gene alteration being necessary, but zinc`deficit interference can be very deep but not deep enough to alter DNA as in cystic fibrosis. And Amanda, CF is but one example of thousands of genetic conditions with a zinc-deficit connection.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 11:41 AM


Amanda John is stuck in 1973 where his information comes from.

You know what John? Maybe I am zinc deficient! The symptoms just won't show up for another 80 years! Wait in 80 years I'll be 100... If zinc deficiency is my biggest problem I'll consider myself lucky!

I love it how 13 years later and John still thinks I'm not getting any zinc. How much zinc does your body store? I never really even ate meat, at least deffinitly not enough that I could last 13 years without it without showing any symptoms.

Posted by: Jess at October 2, 2008 11:42 AM


Find me a source that I can actually read online (there are several thousand medical journals accessible online, god, even cite WIKI!) that links a

GENETIC DISORDER to a mineral deficiency.

This is funny FUNNY stuff.

Jess, I hope you're getting a good laugh out of it and not letting it get to you - as the two Nutrition PhD's in my practice would gladly reassure you this is beyond the most insane nonsense anyone could have created in the most wild reaches of their imaginations.

But of course I'm sure John knows better than both of them, and uhh... well, the entire medical/nutrition/genetic sciences community. LOL.

Posted by: Amanda at October 2, 2008 12:00 PM


Hey Amanda,

glad you find it so very funny. I have a genetic disease called Friedeich's Ataxia. And this text was on loan to me fom L. Gilka MD of Ottawa, Canada.

So I very carefully read the text. Having this disease means living on a disability pension so when a medical site becomes available for free, then let me know please.

So I'm stuck with information on zinc-deficit from 1981. The 1973 stuff on taurine is from original research ... find some university medical stacks and find some primary research on taurine from The Neurological Institute of Montreal ... the main investigator was Ryan Huxtable.

I'm above all pleased that you exude so much confidence to Jess. Since zinc-deficits often do not influence the starting person but her kids and grand-kids may have all sorts of problems. (That's right - silly me! just fix any of these 'problems' via abortion ... (Eugenics II) )

Oh, your PhD's would have abundant cause to laugh at me, and their finding that say my theories laughable, just confirms the idea that this work needs repeating and placed online.

Please ask them to characterize a zinc-pool: After ingestion (you can ask about the method of zinc digestion (bet they don't know), where does zinc reside before it is utilized in a final product - how does it enter a cell?

Very happy you have two PhD-nutritionists ... you'll need them .... bet crow is tastey!

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 1:53 PM


Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Maybe there's a better, more civil choice of words for a blog discussion? Such as, "I believe you're mistaken", or "I disagree"?
Just a thought.

Posted by: Janet at October 2, 2008 1:58 PM


You REALLY think anyone is going to take some obscure text from some nobody over 30 years ago seriously?

Because ONE guy said it in the 70s, it must be true? Gosh, you sound like those "pro aborts" you accuse of buying in to the studies saying abortion does not cause breast cancer or PTSD so easily.

The fact is, those "studies" were published DECADES before we'd mapped DNA and discovered the ACTUAL causes of genetic disorders and how they pass from parent to child. In the 1980s, cystic fibrosis was still a mystery, because without the map of human DNA, it was UNKNOWN at that time that it is carried as a recessive gene and only occurs when BOTH mother and father carry the recessive gene (though they do not carry the disease itself).

Your sources are outdated BUNK, and you further prove the inanity of it by making some ABSURD connection to homosexuality that has about as much logic as me claiming abortion causes flowers to grow in the artic circle.

There are dozens of FREE online medical journals, including JAMA, which is one of the best and most inclusive medical journals in existence.

Yes, working at a hospital I have free access to a few hundred more, but if there was any OUNCE of truth to what you're saying, you don't think ONE other person would have published on this since the early 80s? LOL.

But just for giggles, I searched under "zinc deficiency" and "cause" and "genetic disorders" and came up with....

"ZERO articles matched your search criteria"

Posted by: Amanda at October 2, 2008 3:21 PM


Hi Amanda,

you sure are one weird lady,

I too did a 'google' search for Ryan Huxtable - 120,000 hits; for 'Zinc and Copper in Medicine - there's only 1,500,000 hits. Even the original text is online in pdf. format.

Your getting nothing only underlines the paucity of modern research. Oh yeah, you work at a hosital. 'zinc' and 'taurine' are NOT drugs.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 4:11 PM


Yes - lots of hits for zinc and copper in medicine - ZERO relating to either of those causing a genetic disorder. Hence the qualifiers of "cause" and "genetic disorder".

"Your getting nothing only underlines the paucity of modern research. Oh yeah, you work at a hosital. 'zinc' and 'taurine' are NOT drugs."

Hahaha... you're kidding right? Damn that MODERN medicine!! That ONE guy back in the 70/80s knew so much better (before we'd even figured out the foundation of DNA)!!

Heh... yes, zinc and taurine are not drugs.. I'm impressed, you said something that is actually true! Thats progress...

Posted by: Amanda at October 2, 2008 4:56 PM


Hi Amanda'

like most studies in genetics has DNA >>>> all products so DNA aberations >>>>> gnetic disorders. The problem with this schema is that there is no 'cause' of abberations, so there is no 'cause' for genetic disorders, besides inheritance.

In this frame of reference then DNA is supposedly 'fixed' and cannot be altered. Anyone knowngb about X-radiation, knows that it can dice... Dna, similarly Robert O. Becker (Cross Currents) said certain ELF frequency radio waves can chop the DNA strand into small fragments and these can (at other setting) heal too. ((I mention this because he cued the cancerous leg ulcer, but I've never heard of any such approach fo cuing cancer. Have you???))

At any rate DNA is not quite as 'fixed' as would like to believe. It is 'open' to being affected by certain energies as well as being 'open' to alteration when a human/animal is in utero, then nutrient impacts can be felt not only on an organ level (eg. zinc is highly involved in optic health & pancreatic output - like the formation of insulin) but on a DNA level "zinc and vitamin B6 deficits cause over 90% of genetic aberrations, mostly in terminal deletions" .... I quote the text, but have no idea what 'terminal deletions' are.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 6:26 PM


Must apologize for all my typos, so I corrected them here.

Hi Amanda,

like most studies in genetics has DNA >>>> all products so DNA aberrations >>>>> genetic disorders. The problem with this schema is that there is no 'cause' of aberrations, so there is no 'cause' for genetic disorders, besides inheritance.

In this frame of reference then DNA is supposedly 'fixed'/impervious and cannot itself be altered. Anyone knowing about X-radiation, knows that it can dice... DNA, similarly Robert O. Becker (Cross Currents) said certain ELF frequency radio waves can chop the DNA strand into small fragments. He also did experiments on the effects of electric currents in the micro-range and found these can heal too. ((I mention this because he cured a cancerous leg ulcer (Surprised him too), but I've never heard of any such approach for curing cancer. Have you???))

At any rate, DNA is not quite as 'fixed' as we would like to believe. It is 'open' to being affected by certain energies as well as being 'open' to alteration when a human/animal is in utero, then nutrient impacts can be felt not only on an organ level (eg. zinc is highly involved in optic health & pancreatic output - like the formation of insulin) but on a DNA level "zinc and vitamin B6 deficits cause over 90% of genetic aberrations, mostly in ... ... and terminal deletions" .... I quote the text, but have no idea what 'terminal deletions' are.

I have few credentials, definitely not near any PhD, but I am pretty confident with this stuff. So did you actually run this by them and only imagined they would find this as ludicrous as you obviously do. Ask them to please answer my questions that I posed above. I'll know from the answers their take, as it is I would assume that you are only mouthing off.
Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 6:26 PM

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 8:08 PM


still wilder - googled 'zinc deficiency causes human DNA aberrations' and got 12,000 hits .... zero, eh?

Posted by: John McDonell at October 2, 2008 9:10 PM


since when is google a medical journal??

LOLOLOL


Speaking of the internet, you should sell those tin foil hats online. You'd make a killing.

Posted by: Amanda at October 2, 2008 9:29 PM


John you must really hate your Mom for depriving you of zinc in the womb huh?

First you said zinc deficiency would hurt me, then you changed it to my kids and grandkids. What's next? Cousins?

Posted by: Jess at October 2, 2008 10:35 PM


ummm really..guys...GROW UP.

The only time you've commented is to yell at John about something that.DOESN'T.EVEN.MATTER.

It's really annoying.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 2, 2008 11:43 PM


Elizabeth.
thanks!

Jess,
find your rebuttal intriguing 'cause you obviously did not read my posts especially those having to do with taurine. Up until the age when brain-growth stops (14) our body does auto-produce taurine .... I'd assume a great amount of that time is a substantial part of the 13 yrs of vegetarianism.
And you still haven't said zip about the cereal in your link being specially fortified with adequate zinc. I doubt very much if this was YOUR breakfast or how YOU make sure YOU have adequate zinc.

Amanda,
it is one thing to being closed to information and quite another to be snobbishly stupid. I was wondering last night as to why the set of experiments of a Chicago researcher had not gone any farther. He apparently injected bone marrow cells from an adult into the bones of fetuses with genetic defects. One of his candidates had a genetic disease that normally killed the babe before birth (world-wide, the babe who survived the longest was 6 months when she died). On her 5th birthday, he pronounced her cured. This too was some time ago - well before internet days and modern genetic inheritance theories.

It is interesting because here was a way to repair the unfixable. It also implies that there is a certain time to change DNA structure. I heard this on a Saturday-morning national (CBC-radio) and it was a most pleasant surprise. Years later, when I attempted to find this program - to get this researcher's identity - I found that only recent archives were kept.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 3, 2008 7:40 AM


"ummm really..guys...GROW UP."

John she said "guys" as in plural. And Elizabeth we're talking about lives here. I thought life was important to you? And why is it so annoying? The truth should be heard, someone should inform the public that John is lying so people don't hurt themselves by being given false information.

Would you say something if I told everyone here that it is scientifically proven that baby doesn't feel pain or think before it is born?

Posted by: Jess at October 3, 2008 12:44 PM


Abortion is ok because unborn babies don't even grow brains until the fifth month.

Posted by: Jess at October 3, 2008 12:46 PM


"Phytates, which are found in whole grain breads, cereals, legumes and other products, have been known to decrease zinc absorption."

DECREASE. Not prevent.

Posted by: Jess at October 3, 2008 1:04 PM


Jess,

I said to grow up because the only time I've seen you post here recently is to get into with John. That's immature, so GROW UP.

John has no national platform..he's not lying to the public, plenty of people can look up information that counters whatever he says if they want to. You just come here to start stupid arguments because you're bored.

P.S. I don't care if a baby feels pain or thinks before it's born, that's not necessarily what defines LIFE. I didn't not have an abortion because I thought she would feel pain or be mad at me, I did it because I believe taking lives is WRONG. End.of.story.

Now, if you have something relevant to say without being snotty, feel free. Other then that, why don't you talk to people you can be civil too? Because you obviously can't do that here.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 3, 2008 4:01 PM


Who cares why he said what he said what he said was wrong. He is wrong, and I am just telling people the truth. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Abortion is fine because a baby doesn't have human DNA until it is 5 years old.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 3:47 PM


"I did it because I believe taking lives is WRONG. End.of.story."

So you're a vegetarian?

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 3:50 PM


"Abortion is fine because a baby doesn't have human DNA until it is 5 years old."

Huh?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 4, 2008 3:58 PM


Human lives Jess, human lives.

I'm fine with you telling the truth, but maybe you could just stop picking a fight with John every time you come here. It's unproductive.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 4, 2008 4:11 PM


No Bobby John and Elizabeth got mad at me because John said you cannot get enough zinc from non-meat sources. I pulled up a recent government study that said you can get enough zinc from a vegetarian diet you only need to add 50% more to your daily recommendation. John kept telling me I was wrong, then Elizabeth called me immature. So I assumed we could just make up stuff from now on and call it fact.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 4:13 PM


Let's try this one more time Jess. I didn't get mad at you for anything. I do get tired of reading comments from people who just want to pick a fight for the sake of picking a fight. You're just mad at John cause he said the world would be better off if you killed yourself. Fine. You're pissed about THAT, but don't try to pretend that it's about something else when it isn't. That's the only reason you want to fight with John.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 4, 2008 4:18 PM


Well Elizabeth I want people to know the truth. And that's why I have been telling it. The fact is, you can get enough zinc from non-animal sources. As soon as people stop lying about it I'll leave it be.

I understand John doesn't want to admit a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy, but it is. Once he stops telling people otherwise I'll stop bringing this up.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 4:19 PM


The only reason you and him want to fight with me is because I'm a vegetarian.

If you don't like reading my comments don't read them.

And don't you think it's odd that a "pro-lifer" would advocate suicide? Hm, I guess us pro-choicers aren't humans? Or is it just vegetarians?

"I don't have to eat meat to live! I must be an alien!"
Damn you blew my cover.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2008 4:25 PM


Hi Elizabeth and Jess,

I tend to be very precise in what I write ... and choose words and phrases carefully ... it does seem like I am not read that way.

I did indeed say that the world would be a better place without Jess. I made no mention of suicide, nor of killing her. It was strictly an observation about WHAT WAS HER CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY ... BESIDES TEARING EVERYTHING TO SHREDS.

And Jess, nowhere did I say that zinc could not come from vegetarian sources. Over and over, I said that the molecule (taurine) that binds zinc to membrane walls, only comes from animal sources. Besides meat that means milk, cheese, eggs, & perhaps insects (do not know).

I am much more concerned with taurine adequacy than I am with zinc. Two things are important to know: 1) taurine can be reduced 85% before clinical signs appear; 2) children auto-produce sufficient taurine until age @14 yrs, when brain development ends. After this taurine MUST BE INGESTED ....not a lot, only a small amount is needed.

I guess that much of Jess' 13 years on a vegetarian diet is within that 14 years where taurine is auto-produced. A vegetarian diet is much more involved than a 'stop eating meat' especially if you live in a cold climate.

So, to me, this manner of eating will soon catch up to Jess.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 4, 2008 5:33 PM


Jess,

Newsflash: The world doesn't revolve around you. I couldn't possibly care less that you're a vegetarian. What you put in your body is none of my business. I.don't.care.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at October 4, 2008 9:39 PM


Yee Haw!

Posted by: Doug at October 4, 2008 10:26 PM


Elizabeth you obviously do care or else you wouldn't be responding to my posts.

John I never really ate meat at all. I still eat cheese, eggs and dairy (duh vegetarian not vegan) but there are still many healthy vegans out there who have healthy children. Why? Read the governments study.

Posted by: Jess at October 5, 2008 10:00 PM


children auto-produce sufficient taurine until age @14 yrs, when brain development ends. After this taurine MUST BE INGESTED

John, a question - I Googled "sources of taurine" and the first thing I looked at included:

In the body, taurine is synthesized from the essential amino acid methionine and its related non-essential amino acid cysteine. Taurine is an end product of l-cysteine metabolism and the principal free intracellular amino acid in many tissues of humans and other animal species.

Whaddaya t'ink?

Posted by: Doug at October 7, 2008 10:09 AM


Humans are mammels just like animals, if animals all produce taurine then why don't humans? Or do they...

Posted by: Jess at October 8, 2008 10:29 AM


Jess, humans do produce it - it's a sulfonic acid synthesized internally from cysteine and methionine.

It's obvious that if one has a genetic tendency toward taurine deficiency, then there's trouble afoot, but for most of us I think the question is do we produce and consume enough of it?

Posted by: Doug at October 9, 2008 8:57 AM


pzgs
http://themall.freemysqlphphosting.com/locs-og3a/ w.h. auden funeral blues

Posted by: learn to love again kaci at October 19, 2008 4:02 PM