Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>:|> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:41:57 -0700, Peter Franks
>:|> <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> Who/what is an example of the "Religious Right"?
>:|>
>:|> James Dobson
>:|>
>:|> Pat Robertson
>:|>
>:|> Falwell enterprises and his media and Liberty Baptist
>:|> universities churning out lawyers.
>:|>
>:|> ORU university spreading hatred
>:|>
>:|> The Hierarchy of Southern Baptist churches
>:|>
>:|> ALL of which have devoted millions of dollars to
>:|> promotion and practice of putting religious dogma into
>:|> public policy
>:|
>:|What is unreal regarding their understanding of homo***uality?
[another example of the pattern (game) Franks employs]
Did you even bother to read this or was that too complicated for you?
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/05/religious-rights-unreal-understanding.html
Thursday, May 08, 2008
The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:
You can always count on WorldNetDaily to express such an unreal
understanding on homo***uality. WND produces two articles about an antigay
administrator at the University of Toledo who was suspended for writing an
antigay column. Time permits me to discuss only a few points.
First, whatever the legal or constitutional issues involved (whether this
is a private school not bound by the First Amendment or a state school
that
is), it was lame to punish this woman for writing the column. There is
plenty wrong with what this woman wrote; and the best way to counter that
is to criticize her with more speech, exactly what I'm doing.
Here is one of the offending paragraphs, illustrating her poor
argumentation:
"As a black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of
Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great
umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homo***ual lifestyle are
'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a
black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very
pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homo***uals
make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing
population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus
International just to name a few."
Homo***uals are civil rights victims. Homo***uals historically have been
subject to sodomy laws which led to imprisonment or worse, being banned
from government jobs, institutionalization with a whole slew of sadistic
treatments like electroshock therapy, reputation ruining, all which have
led to at worst suicides like that of World War II hero Alan Turing. In
short, if mistreatment is a criterion for being a civil rights victim,
homo***uals easily pass that test.
Regarding the test of civil rights categories, her argument would be valid
only if 1) blacks alone had a monopoly on civil rights status; or 2)
immutability were some absolute test for civil rights status, neither of
which is true. Because of unique historical cir***stances, I'd be willing
to live in a world where race were the only civil rights category, but
that's not the world in which we live. We'd have to say goodbye to gender,
pregnancy, color, ethnic origin, religion, age, disability -- all
protected
at the federal level. And many others protected at the state.
Many of those categories are not immutable or inborn like race. Diseases
can be cured and some disabilities like paralysis result entirely from
chosen risky behavior, but are covered disabilities nonetheless. Further
religion is entirely a matter of choice, much more so than ***ual
orientation.
Does Bill Donahue's mission to fight anti-Catholic bigotry exist on a
mistaken premise, that there can be no such thing as "bigotry" where the
trait is mutable as Roman Catholicism certainly is? Have evangelicals ever
spoken of "anti-Christian bigotry"? If this woman's premises are taken for
granted, religion could not qualify as a "civil rights" category.
It is also false that daily thousands of homo***uals decide to "leave the
homo***ual lifestyle." Groups like Exodus have a proven record of failure
with regards to most folks who attempt to change their ***ual orientation.
Finally, I want to explore the issue of gays and wealth that repeatedly
comes up. The argument goes something as follows: We don't need ***ual
orientation discrimination codes because gays & lesbians are better
educated and make a lot more money. As she was re****ted as saying:
"Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a
homo***ual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median
household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living
together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of
$46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is
$80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together
$96,000); 36% of lesbians re****ted household incomes in excess of
$100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated
Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself," she said.
Jews and Asians are also better educated and make higher incomes. Could
you
imagine someone trying to argue they should be forbidden from
anti-discrimination protection because of this. Further, because of the
proven track record religious conservatives have on spreading false
information in the guise of "statistics" about homo***uals, I'm extremely
wary of her numbers. My own anecdotal observations suggest gays probably
are better educated and have higher incomes (thus, like Jews and Asians,
aren't economically impoverished). However her figures seem exaggerated to
say the least. Gays would be outperforming both Jews and Asians! Gays
would
be civilizational superstars, the most model of the model minorities.
Society arguably would have a duty to cultivate homo***uality given its
incredible results at economic and civilizational achievement.
Further such high performing homo***uals suggest a biological not a
developmental cause for homo***uality. There are cultural/developmental
reasons as to why Jews and Asians outperform. For developmental
explanations to work, they must be present in a child's environment at a
young age. And indeed many Jewish and Asian homes cultivate educational
and
economic success from such a young age.
But gays are all raised in hetero***ual households, and do not join the
gay
"subculture" until such development is already set in stone. Such higher
rates of IQ and creativity necessary to be so better educated and make so
much more $$ would have to be explained biologically, suggesting gays are
biologically different. Whatever biological factors that are likely to
make
folks smarter and more creative are more likely to make them homo***ual.
If
homo***uality has such a strong biological cause, it makes this woman's
assertion about "choosing the homo***ual lifestyle" ring all the more
hollow.
Further the notion that gays can be so better educated and have higher
incomes also gravely conflicts with the religious rights' notion of
homo***uality as a social dysfunction. To hear them tell the story gays
are
hopelessly promiscuous, disease ridden, depressed, drug addicted,
alcoholics.
I'm sorry but common sense dictates that a social group cannot at once
both
be that dysfunctional and so successful that their household incomes are
almost 80% above the median. That would take hyper functionality. Gays
would have to be arguably the most socially functional social group to be
that successful.
This is why the narrative told by the religious right ("The Gay Agenda")
is
so unreal that it defies credulity.
Posted by Jonathan at 11:06 AM
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
