|
Antaeres
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Birthday: 5/7/1985
Gender: Male
Interests: Given the purpose of this xanga, I think the main interest here is a last-chance continuation of communication (a sort of anti-comment deleting, anti-blocking thing). I will never do this on this journal, or my primary one. However, I strongly suggest that anyone who has a problem with me talk to me about it. My AIM and MSN usernames are provided, so I strongly encourage contacting me there, if not here.
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  Karanis90
MSN: ShadeSephiroth@hotmail.com
Member Since:
10/30/2004
|
|
| On Homophobia and Messiah's Facebook groupsBackground. On Messiah's Facebook, there are a few groups that are currently exchanging thoughts and criticisms. Before this happened, I had seen a group called "Pro Gay? No Way!". When I noticed it for the first time, it had roughly 10 members, all of which who were freshmen. The profile image for the group featured a church sign that reads, "God began marriage with Adam and Eve - Not Adam and Steve!" Rather distraught by seeing this, I created my own group called, "GSA" for Gay-Straight Alliance. I couldn't figure out a more appropriate title to make, and I figured it'd be best to make the title a bit ambiguous for members that might be uncomfortable with seeing something like that under groups they're a member of. I invited everyone I knew that might be receptive to joining, but that did not include very many individuals. I only got roughly 12 or so people. This was roughly eight months ago - in October.
Just recently, a friend of mine, James Campbell, created another group called, "Homophobia is a social disease." (go here to see the description for the group if you cannot get into facebook). James, being far more well known on campus than I am, and also being a current student at Messiah, unlike me, was much more successful in garnering larger membership. Currently, there are at least 164 members in this group. This group had a plan that took place on Thursday of this week (April 27, 2006) to sell (cheaply) and distribute T-shirts that read "Homophobia is a social disease" (let's call it HISD for short) on them, and students could wear these in an effort to combat a general mood of intolerance.
There was a response to this. A new group was created on Messiah called, "Homophobia isn't even a freakin true fear!
," (let's call it HITF for short) which is merely in defense of those who wish to condemn homosexuality. The group's profile reads:
"A phobia is a "persistent, excessive fear of something. I have never met anyone who is scared of a homosexual or homosexuality. Homosexuality is an action, not a characteristic. A person is called a homosexual if they practice homosexuality, just like a murderer is called a murderer because they practice murder. Futhermore, it is a sin and can be chosen to be practiced or not, just like polygamy. Homosexuals are NOT their own ethnic group or anything even close. So stop trying to act like homophobia is a social disease and face the facts. Anyone who agrees with me join this group and speak out against the ACT of homosexuality."
Between my group and James', a few members of HITF decided to exchange some criticisms for us. And now, I have decided to step up and respond.
I have witnessed a number of comments and sophistries I wish to respond to. One member of HITF comments on his group's wall that he looks forward to our responses. I am going to grant his wish, and address most everything that has been brought up by the individuals in his group, along with sources they've tried to cite.
First, I want to respond to the profile for HITF.
"A phobia is a "persistent, excessive fear of something."
It criticizes the word "homophobia," which is fair enough. If you want to examine the etymology of the word, you have "homo," Greek for "same," and "phobia," Greek for "fear." "Homophobia" would literally mean "fear of sameness." Obviously, that is not how the word is employed. Despite etymological background, it is important to realize that words don't always mean what they lexically convey. Necrophilia, at its basest meaning, simply means, "death loving," not "sexual attraction for dead people." Words also have multiple definitions, such as "hypothesis," where one might easily replace it with the word, "theory." Scientifically, these two terms are completely different, but in common usage, it is acceptable to use them interchangeably. With that said, it is important that we understand "homophobia" to be the best term to describe behavior that exemplifies an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality, not "fear of sameness."
"I have never met anyone who is scared of a homosexual or homosexuality."
Now that we've distinguished the difference between homophobia -fear, and homophobia -hate (read: common usage, the usage we're accepting here), I would still attest that there are actually people who are afraid of homosexuals. I'm sure you have never met them, but I have indeed encountered those who behave in a very frightened manner at the notion that someone of the same gender would get too close to them. In my opinion, this is very depressing, as they are prone to criticizing others who may not even be gay, because they do something that is perceived as homosexual.
This, of course, is absurd for a number of reasons. If you allow me to play off of stereotypes here (and note - these are simply unreliable generalizations here, they certainly don't account for all individuals in a group) - imagine a gay high school kid. Probably rather skinny, likes wearing tight clothes, maybe a little girly. Typical straight guy, homophobe: probably a jock, big muscles, intimidating. Now, the big homophobe is afraid of homosexuality. What do you suppose the likelihood is that some small twink is going to approach this giant athlete, pin him to the wall, and rape him in the rear orifice? Yeah, that's a real legitimate fear, there. Keep in mind that most gays (and there are just as many exceptions for the gays as there are straights) would much rather have consensual sex, and would never resort to rape (nonconsensual sex).
"Homosexuality is an action, not a characteristic. A person is called a homosexual if they practice homosexuality, just like a murderer is called a murderer because they practice murder."
Homosexuality is, by definition, an orientation - it is a sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Sexual activity with a member of the same sex is simply called, "homosexual activity." The former is a characteristic, the latter is an action. You are wrong. There are plenty of homosexuals who have never acted on it. Is heterosexuality an action? Hardly - it is not like you aren't straight until you have sex with someone who is the opposite gender of you. No, this is equally a characteristic of sexuality.
"Futhermore, it is a sin and can be chosen to be practiced or not, just like polygamy."
There are two assumptions being made here: it is a choice, and it is an immoral choice. I disagree with both. I will address these assumptions shortly.
"Homosexuals are NOT their own ethnic group or anything even close."
If there was ever any claim made that they are their own ethnic group, I have yet to discover it. However, what homosexuals objectively are is a minority that has, like minority ethnic groups, suffered at the hands of bigotry, violence, unjust laws, hatred, and religious, political, social, and legal discrimination. Of course, those who are not homosexuals, but have been perceived as such have also suffered by the hands of the homophobic. This is why it is fair to say that there needs to be adjustments to law and society to protect this group from harm that the majority is unafraid to inflict. This is why women, ethnic minorities, the disabled, and those of different ages are also protected by laws to ensure that they do not encounter discrimination that they would otherwise be very likely to face. It is not meant to give them an advantage, it is meant for their protection, as they demonstrably need it. This should answer any qualms about gays being given "special rights," which they are not.
"So stop trying to act like homophobia is a social disease and face the facts."
Perhaps "social disease" was not meant to be taken literally, much like homo-phobia. No, you are not socially ill, just socially reprehensible. So, more accurately, homophobia is a social disgrace. And what facts? You're going to have to create some plausible claims before you start backing them up, and you're going to have to cite reliable, credible sources if/when you do try to back them up.
Below the profile, the Messiah Facebook user quotes a few Bible verses. These same verses were plastered on HISD and GSA for members of that group to see.
"Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.""
I'll address these, one by one. I should point out that I am not a Christian, and I have a plethora of reasons for rejecting the credibility of the Bible. For more, please see my latest post on Karanis, my primary xanga. To me, Biblical morality is downright deplorable, and anyone who would force others to adhere to them is a tyrant. That, however, is not the issue here. If you wish to discuss biblical morality with me, please direct it to the post I have linked to.
Leviticus
This is among the most commonly cited verses to argue against the morality of homosexuality. There are two problems here: one inherent to the verse, and another with the use of the verse.
First: There is a reason that Levitical law proscribes same-sex activity here. Keep in mind that this is toward the beginning of the Bible, shortly after the birth of humanity. The tribes of Israel were young, and developing. Because these tribes were in competition with one another, it was very important for them to have as large of a population as possible in order to maintain as much power as possible. Since semen was considered the seed of life to the early Israelites (though they knew nothing of sperm or ova), to spill semen in masturbation, same-sex activity, in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), or any other non-procreative purpose, was to waste this very seed of life. This was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. The reason Leviticus makes this law is to protect the power of its own tribe. This cannot be used for us today: we are not Levites (nor Jews, for that matter), and we are hardly in danger of extinction or death by dying out. In fact, we are far more threatened by our own overpopulation than by insufficient birth rates.
Secondly: Using this verse ignores much of the context it is placed in. The same Levitical law states that one must never plant two seeds in the same field, never eat shellfish, never use two different types of thread in one fabric (if you wear a cotton-polyester blend, you are committing an abomination). If you wish to abide by the law on same-sex activity, you must also abide by agricultural, tailoring, and laws of cuisine. Of course, there are a plethora of many more irrational laws, but there is an additional problem with adherence to them. Leviticus 20:13 claims, along with many other Levitical laws, that perpetrators of these deeds be killed. It is very unlikely that today, we would condemn to death homosexuals. Another thing that you said what you quoted that verse... "bloodguiltness"?
The following quote will go much in lieu with what I stated about my disagreement with Biblical morality. If we are to do as the Bible says, and kill anyone who commits a same-sex act, we must do as the remainder of the Bible says:
"If a book like the bible were the only reliable blueprint for human decency that we have, it would be impossible (both practically and logically) to criticize it in moral terms. But it is extraordinarily easy to criticize the morality one finds in bible, as most of it is simply odious and incompatible with a civil society.
The notion that the bible is a perfect guide to morality is really quite amazing, given the contents of the book. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God's counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13: 24, 20:30, and 23:13-14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark.7:9-13 and Matthew 15:4-7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and for a wide variety of other imaginary crimes. Most Christians imagine that Jesus did away with all this barbarism and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration. He didn't (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20-21, John 7:19). Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one's neighbor should go back and read the New Testament. And pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if he ever returns to Earth trailing clouds of glory (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28-29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation). It is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured. (Ask yourself, what are the chances that these good doctors of the Church hadn't read the New Testament closely enough to discover the error of their ways?) As a source of objective morality, the bible is one of the worst books we have. It might have been the very worst, in fact, if we didn't also happen to have the Koran.
It is important to point out that we decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden and Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses; we read that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, and we (if we are civilized) decide that this is the most vile lunacy imaginable. Our own ethical intuitions are, therefore, primary. So the choice before us is simple: we can either have a 21st century conversation about ethics - availing ourselves of all the arguments and scientific insights that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse - or we can confine ourselves to a first century conversation as it is preserved in the bible."
The above was taken from here, where Sam Harris responds to commentary on one of his writings. Below is a similar, but relevant excerpt from his book, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (a very good read, if you ever find the time):
"What, after all, is the punishment for taking the Lord's name in vain? It happens to be death (Leviticus 24:16). What is the punishment for working on the Sabbath? Also death (Exodus 31:15). What is the punishment for cursing one's father or mother? Death again (Exodus 21:17). What is the punishment for adultery? You're catching on (Leviticus 20:10). While the commandments themselves are difficult to remember (especially since chapters 20 and 34 of Exodus provide us with incompatible lists), the penalty for breaking them is simplicity itself)."
For more on the Leviticus account, go here, here, and for more on the Mosaic accounts, here and here.
1 Corinthians
In this verse, you have included the word "homosexuals" among the list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is actually a falsity that the Bible had ever truly said such a thing. The letters to the Corinthians were written in Greek, and in Paul's day, there was no Greek word for "homosexual." This is much the same reason that there was no word for, nor biblical mention of, computers, communism, or Comanches. They were simply unknown ideas. The notion of sexual orientations was not even understood until the 19th century, and the word "homosexual" did not begin appearing in the Bible until 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. If you're wondering how that word made it into the Bible, it was errantly translated from the Greek, "arsenokoitai," as well as the Greek, "malakoi." There is much dispute on the meanings of these words, but there is no reason to believe that they explicitly means "homosexual." For more on the Greek etymology of these words, go here.
There are a few other verses commonly cited from the Bible as evidence for God's aversion to homosexuality. However, more thorough exegetical and/or hermeneutical analysis of these excerpts reveals that nowhere does the Bible condemn homosexuality in its intrinsic state. It does, however, condemn rape, Pagan ritualistic sex, pedophilia, and infidelity. It has no more word against loving, committed, homosexual relationships anymore than it does heterosexual ones. For more in-depth research against the Bible's relationship to homosexuality, go here. Unlike other sites that I'm sure you'll fling at me in response, this one actually provides scholarly citation and resources. Unless you can do the same with lexicography and etymology, please refrain from providing arguments that stand already refuted.
This sufficiently deals with the Biblical stance on homosexuality. Back to the debates between members of the Facebook groups:
"Excuse me but our group is not about hating homosexuals even if some of the members hold that position. Our group is condeming the act of homosexuality not homosexuals. We hold these views based on our faith in God and his word. Some may want verses so her you go: [verses already supplied above]"
I'm withholding the name, unless this individual does not want his name revealed (albeit, it already is if you look at the Facebook groups). It seems rather odd that he makes this statement, providing that he cited verses that supposedly call for the condemnation of homosexuals. There also appears to be a conflict between his statement about "act" versus "characteristic", as one cannot be a homosexual if their orientation is not that of homosexuality, which apparently is an act. This does not flow very logically, and could at least use a bit of clarification. Even a virgin can be a homosexual, and, as it logically flows, that person would have an orientation of homosexuality. Still, HISD does a better job at pinpointing what is condemned: they are defending the people, not their deeds. What people like those in HITF appear to do is try to "hate the sin, love the sinner," but in reality, preaching and condemnation are not ways of showing love to someone in need. Unfortunately, homophobia is the embodiment of where "love the sinner" fails to be practiced.
I should also point out: homosexuality is not a choice. Every professional, respectable health organization acknowledges this, including, but not limited to:
The American Psychological Association
The American Medical Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
I can also attest to this, as a homosexual, that it is an unchosen trait. At this point, it should be fair enough to say that I'm at least a moderately intelligent individual. Also, I was raised Christian. Everything in life, logically, religiously, and socially, seemed to tell me that homosexuality was among the least desirable things to be. And yet there was no escaping that not only was I sexually attracted to those of the same gender, but (and religious folk never attempt to account for this) there was a complete lack of any sexual attraction for women.
We also know that homosexuality cannot be changed. There have been some organizations that have tried to accomplish this, but as research has pointed out, there is not only no success in this, but homosexuals were just as healthy and happy as their heterosexual counterparts - there was no reason to change it, thus the aforementioned associations renounced homosexuality as a type of disorder or sickness. Today, the only groups that continue attempts to avert it are religious ones. This is known as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy, and has not only demonstrably failed in its goals to turn gays into straights, but it has done incredible damage to its clients. Research has shown that these groups do not keep record of their success rates, nor do they check up on individuals who are released from their therapies. However, those who have been found that have been dismissed have never shown any change from their previous state. Additionally, it has been found that many people who attend these "therapies" are dealt a great deal of harm. Since these people go in with their entire hope hinging on becoming straight, their failure shows them that they are without hope, cannot be helped, and, assuming they're religious, cannot enter God's kingdom. This has demonstrably resulted in severe depression, and in some cases, suicide.
For citation, study, and examples of this, go here. I don't pull this stuff out of my ass, this stuff has indeed been observed.
"Also I believe that when you are accepting of peoples sinful action is it not loving but rather lazyness and fear on your part for not honestly pointing out thier sin. That goes for all sins not just homosexuality. How can you help someone improve and grow if your telling them that they arent doing anything wrong? please help me understand that.
P.s. I dont hate homosexuals so please dont try to use that tired and mindless argument. have a nice day :)"
The same person subsequently provided the above quote. I have a few problems with this. First, it is important to realize that not everyone agrees with you that homosexuality is wrong. And I should also point out that virtually every single gay Christian is already aware that most other Christians think homosexuality is wrong by biblical standards. Because of this, it is very safe to assume that when you are "informing" them of their "sin," they are hearing absolutely nothing new. You are telling them something they've already heard, and have probably already heard ad nauseam. You only pose to further that nausea.
To me, personally, if something is truly "wrong" (because of my beliefs on morality being subjective, I must use the word "wrong" ambiguously), there must be a clear, identifiable harm to another person's well-being, liberties, or happiness. Thus, if you are murdering someone, engage in a drunken rage, or steal one's possessions, you are committing an unethical act, or a "sinful" deed, by your standards. However, in homosexuality, there is no victim. There is no harm done to anyone, and is no more inherently dreadful than heterosexuality. Indeed, in practice, sexual activity can be used to serve unethical means (such as infidelity - betraying the trust of a commitment), but that is not exclusive to any orientation. Thus, I have no problem is someone else smokes, as they are doing no one else any harm if they smoke responsibly, nor do I care if someone drinks in moderation. However, if someone expresses plans to harm someone else's property, I would express my concern over it, and rationally explain why it is a problem. In homosexuality, there is no rational reason to condemn it. That the Bible says so is the only thing you have to go back on, but it has been made clear that because the "bible says so" is insufficient. The Bible says many things that we currently ignore as irrelevant to us, as Walter Wink points out in the latter half of an article he writes, "Homosexuality and the Bible".
We've also shown that it is not possible to "help someone improve," as you've said, from their sexual orientation. It turns out that the only thing you do, as far as usefulness is concerned, is identifying a problem. That is, assuming there was one in the first place (which there wasn't). No, no one is telling people that they aren't doing anything wrong. What we anti-homophobic folk do is simply accept people for who they are, despite any shortcomings they may have. It is not our place to be rubbing in their face whatever those shortcomings may be, especially since they are already nauseatingly aware of what you think it is.
Lastly, someone else cites source as usefulness in argument against homosexuality: "Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!." Well, I have already shown that this is not the case, but I'll address points that this simple site tries to make. I will paste the text from this site in plaintext, with my responses being in bold.
The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry [the reason, of course, as to why homosexuality does not fit here is that it is the only victimless crime]. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher" [what is distressing is that there is scarce evidence of churches and religious communities rising up against murderers, and funds being donated en masse to organizations that specifically target these crimes that have clear, identifiable repercussions. However, I concede that I have seen some people condemn same-sexual activity in a respectable manner, while there have been a plethora of literal "gay-bashings" occurring in this country. This is what the tolerance of groups like GSA and HISD seeks to combat.]. If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible [done].
The homosexual community has has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum [we aren't a community anymore than left-handed people are, but we do tend to congregate to seek support and safety, since it is, unfortunately, necessary.]. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality [at best, claims have been made that God would condone monogamous, committed, loving homosexual relationships. He has set up rules for sexual behavior that condemn rape, infidelity, and other things. Strangely enough, it seems that his plethora of rules and restrictions apply to heterosexuals, yet homosexuality is hardly mentioned in the Bible at all.]. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature [this is rather vague. If you talk about school use, it is banned because of separation between church and state. You learn of the bible in church, not school. As far as hate literature is concerned, you're going to have that depend on the individual using it. This statement, unfortunately, is somewhat unsupported, but if it were clarified, I could more easily address it.].
For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches [meaning, fundamentalist fanatics evidently know more than scholars of ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and people who have spent their lives studying the context and history of the Bible, its events, and what it entails. Hogwash.]. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.
Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means [Sodomite literally means an inhabitant of Sodom, much as a Moabite was an inhabitant of Moab. Even if one engaged in sodomy, they are not a Sodomite.]. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." [A few things about the Sodom story. God destroyed this city because some men wanted to rape some other men. This has nothing to do with loving, consensual relationships. To use this story as an argument against homosexuality is a lost cause. We also know that God destroyed this city for it deeds that entailed an inhospitality towards outsides: something that was very greatly frowned upon: Ezekiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned. In Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus states that their sin was of pride and inhospitality, whereas nothing of sexuality was mentioned. There are a few additional verses that repeat this sentiment. As for Jude, who disagreed with Ezekiel and Jesus, it is likely that he actually criticized bestiality: the original Greek "sarkos heteras," meaning "other flesh," is likely referring to how humans and angels were considered different species (although it is ironical that greek "heteras" is where the word "heterosexual" comes from). For more on Sodom and Gomorrah's sins, go here]. Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" [The citation of Timothy is as much of a misinterpretation as Corinthians. Go here for more on Timothy.] Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." [here's another rebuttal for this Romans citation.]
If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex.
Seven Things I Wish
Pro-Gay People Would Admit
by Bob Davies
1. I wish they would admit that many people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism, and that this conflict is internal, based on legitimate, intelligent religious and moral convictions--not just the result of a so-called "homophobic" society which is forcing guilt upon people who don't conform to a heterosexual ethic.
[No, my friend, people are unhappy with this entirely because of the social stigma surrounding homosexuality that they understand. Were it not for the misbegotten religious aversion to it, along with societal bigotry, there is scarce evidence that people would have reason to be unhappy with their orientation.]
Stop throwing out the cheap, inaccurate labels like "internalized homophobia" to explain our motivations.
["internalized homophobia"? I've never heard that one.]
2. I wish they would acknowledge that homosexuals and lesbians can experience significant change in their sexual feelings and desires, even though they may never be totally heterosexual in their sexual thoughts and feelings.
[If you're suggesting that people simply make themselves not want sex, you're insane. Of course, you counterintuitively suggest that they'll never be heterosexual in mind (or characteristic, as HITF suggests). If you imply that the only option at this point is to remain celibate, you are making an incredibly cruel argument, attempting to take away someone's own worth; their sexuality, whereas you can have as much sex as you please.]
Be honest enough to admit that such change is significant and genuine, even if it isn't complete.
[I've already pointed cited information that points out that change for sexual orientation simply isn't a possibility. It is no more changeable than your race.]
3. I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have found a greater measure of peace and satisfaction after leaving a gay or lesbian lifestyle than they ever experienced while embracing homosexuality.
[You're going to have to exemplify this, as there are no ex-gays. There are, however, surely people who claim to
be ex-gay, though they would only constitute a very slim fraction of a
percent of anyone who have ever entered reparative therapy. It's also rather obvious that all of these "ex-gays" are nothing more than political mouthpieces for the Christian Right. They'll say anything for the right amount of money.]
Not all "ex-gays" are miserable, plotting how to secretly fulfill their homosexual lusts without being caught.
[But just about all homosexuals who make as drastic attempts to change their sexuality as ex-gays do actually end up miserable, and often commit suicide.]
4. I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have genuine joy in their marriages.
[I don't doubt it's possible to find emotional pleasure with someone you aren't sexually attracted to. Just not sexual pleasure. Note: Ex-gay ministries do not at all account for bisexual people.]
Most former gays and lesbians don't get married in a futile attempt to "escape" homosexuality; they marry as a natural consequence of resolving that issue in their lives.
[Evidence would be nice. I should also point out that almost all homosexuals seeking to rid themselves of their sexuality marry for the hope of "escaping" homosexuality, ultimately failing, and ending not only with themselves miserable, but with their families caught in a big problem and/or lie as well.]
5. I wish they would acknowledge that all people have as much right to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle as they do to pursue homosexuality.
[Well no shit, as well they should. And it is not your place to say what they should practice in privacy. Our forefathers granted us this constitutional right.]
Former homosexuals and lesbians should not be harassed and castigated by the gay community. But I have never heard any gay or lesbian leaders speak out against the violence (such as bomb threats and physical/verbal abuse) which some people perpetuate against Exodus ministries.
[Well, if there actually existed true "former homosexuals" to harass, then it would at least be possible to harass them, but this is not the case. What has happened, however, is that many people have called these people on their crap. Also, please provide evidence that there have been made bomb threats by gay and lesbian groups against groups like Exodus ministries.]
6. I wish they would stop equating our decision to leave homosexuality with "hatred" and "bigotry" against gays and lesbians.
[Well, as far as I know, we don't. We do equate it with "deceit," though, which we wouldn't do unless that's what it actually was. We can know this, because there is empirical evidence of this.]
We don't hate gays; we simply desire to live free of homosexuality. Don't put nasty labels upon our motives. That's being judgmental and unfair.
[If that was all you desired for yourselves, that's your decision, that's fair enough. Unfortunately, that is not all you are: you are a political tool that is used against gays and lesbians to condemn them as though they were making a choice. If you could manage to prove that homosexuality was changeable, you'd be fine, but it turns out that this notion is patently false.]
7. I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade.
[Are you saying that these leaders are lying about what they're saying? Or that same-sex couples shouldn't be monogamous? What are you saying? Also, don't use the term "pro-gay". It's rather inaccurate, and I'm no more pro-gay than I am pro-black, even if they are discriminated against. What we are, however, is tolerant and accepting, and are pro-dignity of people who have historically been denied their own self-worth.]
Many--probably most--men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don't discipline members for committing "adultery" outside their "gay marriage." Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a "holy union" with their partner.
[First, it's none of your business whether or not people are promiscuous or not. One's sexual history should not matter if both members agree to marry, as that history is obviously not a problem for each individual. Personally, I've been very committed and loyal to my boyfriend who I hope to marry someday, and it is very likely that there are just as many other gay couples who have been just as loyal, wanting to marry. The truth is, you know nothing about how promiscuous people are. Don't make assumptions like that; they're none of your business, and you are casting a huge insult upon us.]
Bob Davies is past President of Exodus International and an ex-gay himself. He has been married for nine years.
[Exodus International is an infamous far-right Evangelical Christian group that attempts reparative therapy. To quote Wikipedia:
"Exodus International's first scandal occurred in 1979 when Michael Bussee (one of the co-founding members who had helped organize the 1976 conference that led to Exodus' inception) left the group to be with Gary Cooper, a volunteer at the local Exodus ministry where they both worked, who was also volunteering for the first Exodus conference. Later they held a life commitment ceremony. Their story is one of the focuses of the documentary One Nation Under God (1993), directed by Teodoro Maniaci and Francine Rzeznik.
Exodus claims to helped "hundreds of thousands" of ex-gay men and lesbians, however the claim hasn't been certified by an independent audit. To date, Exodus has also declined to release any information on what the estimate is based upon, or how the program success rate is measured."
Things like this, of course, are not unusual. Many leaders of so-called "ex-gay" ministries have later been discovered at gay bars, or entering same-sex relationships (more on Wiki). I don't doubt at all that it is merely a matter of time before Bob Davies, much like many other leaders of ex-gay organizations, end up leaving through either disgrace, or repudiating the organization.] | | |
| This one goes out to NO_CREDIBILITY,
a hypocrite, and a coward. He is one of many people who shirk
from truth by completely avoiding it, and hiding it whenever it's
smothered in his face. He is one of many xians who delete posts
and comments that point him out to be a clear farce. And just
recently, he blocked me from his site without any explanation (unlike
others he blocked, which he gave reasons for why he blocked them,
albeit poor ones).
So here's what he did. He's a stout pro-life, anti-choice
conservative (not to mention a severe pseudo-intellectual). In
one post, he attempts to show images of aborted fetuses in order to
shock his audience into agreeing with him. He also shows the head
of a Jew that was killed in the holocaust, then asks which holds
greater immorality. My response.
George Carlin, from "Back in Town". Profanity edited out. Purely for comedy, but very valid arguments.
"These
conservatives are really something, aren't they? They are all in favor
of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once you're
born, you're on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the
fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't want to
know about you, they don't want to hear from you . . . no neo-natal
care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no
welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're
pre-school, you're f---ed. Conservatives don't give a s--t about you
until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine, just
what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they
can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... these people aren't
pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that?
They'll do anything they can to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be
a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life."
"But
you know, the longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you
hear this phrase 'sanctity of life.'" You've heard that, 'sanctity of
life.'" You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of s--t.
Well I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey if you read history,
you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death, has been
for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, all taking
turns killing each other because God told them it was a good idea. The
sword of God, the blood of the lamb, vengeance is mine, millions of
dead motherf---ers, all because they gave the wrong answer to the God
question.
'You believe in God?'
'No.'
*BANG* Dead.
'You believe in God?'
'Yes.'
'You believe in my God?'
'No.'
*Bang* Dead.
'My
God has a bigger dick than your God!' That's how it is, isn't it?
Thousands of years, and all the best wars too, the bloodiest, most
brutal wars fought all based on religious hatred, which is fine with
me. Anytime a bunch of holy people want to kill each other I'm a happy
guy. But don't be giving me all this s--t about the sanctity of life. I
mean, even if there were such a thing, I don't think it's something you
can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We
made it up! You know why? Cause we're alive! Self-interest. Living
people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life
is sacred. You don't see Abbott and Costello running around, talking
about this shit, do you? We're not hearing a whole lot from Mussolini
on the subject. What's the latest from JFK? Not a god d---ed thing,
cause JFK, Mussolini, and Abbott and Costello are f---ing dead. They're
f---ing dead, and dead people give less than a s--t about the sanctity
of life. Only living people care about it, so the whole thing grows out
of a completely biased point of view. It's a self-serving, man-made
bulls--t story. It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll
feel noble. Life is sacred, makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you
this, if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is
going to die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble
with that. Because even with the stuff we preach about the sanctity of
life, we don't practice it. Look at what we kill. Mosquitos and flies,
because they're pests! Lions and tigers, because it's fun! Chickens and
pigs, because we're hungry. Pheasants and quail, because it's fun, and
we're hungry. And people! We kill people, because they're pests... and
it's fun! And you might have noticed something else, the sanctity of
life doesn't seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You never see a
bumper sticker that says 'save the tumors' or 'I brake for advanced
melanoma.' No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e. coli
bacteria, the crabs, nothing sacred about those things. So at best, the
sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which
forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty
neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole f---ing thing
up! Made it up, the same way we made up the death penalty. We made them
both up, the sanctity of life and the death penalty. Aren't we
versatile?!"
So you want to know which is worse. Well, as Carlin pointed out, it's
rather absurd to selectively choose which life is sacred. Obviously,
you don't regard terrorist lives as sacred, otherwise you wouldn't
declare war on them. Obviously, you don't regard mosquitos and gnats
and house flies as sacred, otherwise you wouldn't swat them without a
second though. Obviously, you don't regard virii and pathogens as
sacred, otherwise you wouldn't get vaccines and shots.
And yet,
you have the gall to say that it is immoral to kill something that has
no mind, no emotion, no feeling, that it should instead grow into a
life of suffering, strife, and neglect.
If you have no idea what
I'm talking about, perhaps you should research the very topic you're so
passionate about. Have you ever observed just which group gets
abortions the most? You'll notice that it's women who are single, and
financially incapable of providing needs for would-be children. Those
children could either be spared any form of pain, or they could grow up
in such poverty, fall into the typical drug use expected of that
demograph, and probably end up dead or in jail. Such sanctity.
Well,
if the blood of a few cells is on the hands of the liberal, then the
blood of actual living, breathing, feeling, hurting children is on
yours. But you don't feel any sense of compassion for them.
Your supposed "sanctity of life" is nothing more than a farce, and it makes you out to be nothing more than a hypocrite.
Because he had no response for this, he decided it would be best to block me. Way to go, asshat.
Update: So, I haven't been
unblocked yet. I'm not sure if that's going to happen, but I
won't raise my hopes. Instead, I must resort to inconvenient
methods by conveying my thoughts here. What I wish to respond to
is a comment that N_C left on his thread:
"There are three means of persuasion, you either apeal to a persons
ethos (ethics) their pathos (emotion) or logos (which is logic) I have
tried to apeal more to the ethos in this picture, because I felt that
the majority of persuasion on this issue was mostly a logos argument. I
thought it might be a nice change to argue from a different
perspective, being different perspectives reach different types of
people. Whereas you may be immune to graphic pictures, some young lady
on the verge of aborting her 8 week year old baby might come across
these pictures, break down in tears, and begin looking into adoption,
or buying baby clothes. Just because it does not apeal to you, does not
mean that it does not apeal to others."
Actually, you have appealed to pathos. Your goal was to incite
feelings of disgust. And emotion is just that: feelings.
That has nothing to do with ethos. Ethics are just the result of
a process of rationalism (logic), in order to determine efficacy.
You have not demonstrated the effect of what is at loss simply by
displaying grisly images. I could go and show a photo from
rotton.com of some child mutilated by machinery, but that doesn't say
anything about ethics. I would, however, succeed at inciting
certain feelings in those who would view such an image.
Pathos-ethos is the primary tool of the mainstream pro-life
movement. The pro-choice movement typically goes by way of
Logos-ethos. They can put up a reasonable, rational argument
supporting choice over abortion, while conservatives typically argue on
the basis that it doesn't feel right. Interestingly, that is some
political role reversal, as the liberals are typically the ones that
are full of emotional nonsense. Then again, the conservatives are
just full of emotional ignorance. Anyway, my point is that logic
and rationality always takes precedence over emotion. To say that
something feels wrong is not as effectively as logically demonstrating
why a notion in question is wrong.
And how do liberals demonstrate logic in their pro-choice stance?
Well, personally, I think that the root of the logos is this: it's
simply choosing the lesser of two evils. Sure, if we could avoid
a need for abortions in the first place, that'd be marvelous.
But the fact that we have plenty of unwanted pregnancies shows that
this is not the case. Now, we consider two options: letting the
child grow into a life of poverty, suffering, hopelessness, and
ultimate death, or give the child death while sparing all of the
aforementioned experiences. I choose the latter. It's
simply more humane.
I could liken this to chemotherapy. Would you give a person who
does not have cancer chemotherapy? No. Why? Because
it poses very real risks. It could have very adverse effects on
the person. But considering a person who does
have cancer, you have to choose which is worse. A treatment that
poses risks, or sparing the treatment, but consequently prolonging
suffering. If it reduces suffering, so be it.
Yes, I realize that there is always the option of putting up a child
for adoption. However, have you considered how many children are
currently awaiting either adoptive or foster parents? Last time I
heard, there are tens of thousands of kids awaiting actual care like
this. That a child will
be subsequently taken under the care of a foster or adoptive parent is
dubious. I think that if I can spare a child living his or her
entire life awaiting adoption, only to be removed from whatever care
they're currently in upon turning 18 (and then becoming homeless), I'd
do so. There is no need to subject a child to that risk if it's
widely uncertain that the child will find the care that he or she needs.
This makes an interesting argument supporting gay marriage,
though. Many conservatives argue that same sex couples shouldn't
marry because they're not as good as straight couples. Aside from
the fact that studies have shown that they're equally as competent,
think about this: how can you argue against gay marriage for the
sake of children when there's tens of thousands of children awaiting
adoption? To disallow same-sex marriage would also disallow joint
adoption from these couples. You literally favor zero parents
over two parents (of the same gender). Combine the fact that
marital rights not only include joint adoption, but financial and
insurance benefits for children, you can't argue against gay marriage
on behalf of children. Not logically, and I'd take a stretch and
say that you couldn't do so ethically, either. But ultimately,
the conservative platform on both abortion and gay marriage conflict
with each other. One could loosely call this hypocrisy.
It is this hypocrisy that makes it much better to employ logos, as
pathos is far more suspect to sophistry. You have shown how you
have succumbed to it.
| | |
| This one is just for fun. I'm placing this below the first
entry because I think the one above is more important. I'm just
posting this to highlight as additional evidence of NO_CREDIBILITY's
idiocy. Again, he removed this post from his site in an attempt
to cover his ass.
| | The
full post on my views of the Public school system, I gave a 30 min
speech on this in class, the essay is about 5 pages long, and about
1,000 some hundred words. enjoy reading it. I worked hard. I know most
of you wont read it all, but I think you could learn much, and maybe
understand something new from this essay.
American Public Schools
The United States ranked 24th among the world in math skills in 2003. They were below the OECD. They ranked below Finland, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, and many others. The United States also spends more money on education than any other nation in the world. Is there something wrong with the schools in America?
Yes,
there is something terribly wrong with the American public school
system. The problem would be just that, it is a public school. It is
run and controlled through the government and through tax dollars. Also
the whole system by which the public school was based on is flawed, and
has failed over and over. Not only this but the founder of modern
education had horrible ideas and was part of systems that any parent
who cared about their children would never want their child exposed to,
let alone taught to them by the schools.
Public School in America
can be summed up in one word Socialism. Merriam Webster defines
socialism as- a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state. In other words the
state has control of our education system.
Socialism
not only means control of production but also the redistribution of
wealth. Our taxes go to the state which then takes these taxes and
redistributes them as they feel fit. The education in the United States
is “free” in a primarily Capitalist nation we have free education! Does
that not go against what this country was founded on? The people have a
right to keep there own money and spend it on the education that they
want. With the money that my parents pay in taxes for the public school
they could send me and my brothers through private school and I could
get a much better education.
The
problem here arrives when you have low income families who pay little
to no taxes and actually do get a “free” education. When people do not
work and pay for the goods or services they receive they are typically
not appreciative of these things. In fact they usually don’t care. So
the students whose parents are not paying for the education generally
do not care if they learn anything or not. They become disruptive
disobedient and generally do not care about their education, they
become a nuisance to the rest of the class and the students who
actually want to learn.
Also
with the system that the public school is based on now the faculty and
administration of the school has no authority to place decent
punishments on the students for fear of a lawsuit. So basically the bad
students run the school and pretty much do whatever they want with
little to no repercussions. How do you learn in an environment like
this? I’ve been doing it for 10 and half years now and it is very
difficult.
Socialism which ultimately leads to communism like the government system that Russia
had. Will ultimately fail, and that is why the public school system is
in the trouble that it is in today. The students have no drive or
motivation like there is in a Capitalist structure, which promotes
competition, and provides control over your own choices and also gives
the leadership the ability to perform its duties.
The
past has taught us that whenever the government takes too much control
the country generally fails, the people are unhappy, and the economy
fails. So why then did we allow the state to take control of our
children’s minds? A child’s mind is the future. Did we just hand over
the future to the government?
The
National Education Association which is funded by your tax dollars, and
the U.S. Department of Education, implement the standards by which our
children are taught, the NEA along with the states decide the
curriculum that is taught in our public schools. That doesn’t sound
like too big of a problem, however, like I said, the USDE helps set the
standards and what is taught. If for some reason a state were to refuse
to follow certain standards the USDE and the US government would simply
remove the schools grants and that would greatly decrease the money
that the schools get essentially destroying the public school system in
that state. The state taxes also go toward the school system, so the
state has some say in what is taught in the public schools.
So
again I ask you. Why does the government have so much control over the
minds of American children? It is not the government’s responsibility
to teach our children and this exceeds the power that the Constitution
allows to the government. With this great power over children the state
can then brain wash our children however they wish. This would be the
reason we teach Darwinism and Humanism in the public school systems
even though these are religions! But yet we cannot dare teach creation,
even as a theory, because it violates the law of separation of church
and state!
John
Dewey is said to have had the largest impact on the American public
education system of today. Through his many seminars on philosophy at
numerous Colleges he spread his beliefs and influenced forever the
education in America. In his Pedagogic Creed Dewey states:
“I
believe that the only true education comes through the stimulation of
the child's powers by the demands of the social situations in which he
finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a
member of a unity, to emerge from his original narrowness of action and
feeling, and to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare
of the group to which he belongs. Through the responses which others
make to his own activities he comes to know what these mean in social
terms.”
In other words when
he says “social situations” he means that education and that learning
is not all the same. That education changes and facts change depending
on the situation you are in, or how this will help you best. Also when
he talks about “a member of unity” he regards the educational process
as socialism. Unity, as stated, means that we are all one in a common
goal. This implies socialism, and that we should all work together for
the common good.
The
beliefs that he states throughout his Pedagogic Creed can be directly
tied to the ideas in the public school system of “Critical thinking”,
“group activities”, and “open mindedness.” Critical thinking is
something that is not necessary this has to do with word problems and
examining deeply into the complex meanings of things. Critical thinking
is not necessary and should not be done. This is just another way for
the public school to warp the minds of children. There needs to be less
emphasis on group activities and more emphasis on individual learning.
Group activities only makes strong students do more work for the lazy
students and places one person’s grade and learning in the hands of
another student. When a teacher says that you need to have an open mind
they are simply telling you that you are wrong and they are right about
what they are about to tell you. I have been called closed minded by my
history teacher. But I’m not close minded I just know the truth. An
open mind is not necessary for learning you only need to know the facts
and the truths that have been fully proven. Evolution is not one of
those truths.
John Dewey was also and active Humanist and believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution (Darwinism). John Dewey helped write and signed the Humanist Manifesto, Which says things like-
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
He says that the “Universe
as self-existing and not created.” This is an affirmation of Evolution
which is taught in the public school system because of John Dewey and
his contributions to the Education system. Evolution was not widely
accepted until its introduction into the public schools. Along with
this is the belief that man is his own God. This flies in the face of
what this country was founded on. Before the public school system began
to become structured nearly all reading and writing was done directly
from the bible, until John Dewey changed all that. By teaching children
that we evolved you are stating that there is no God and this does away
with all moral beliefs which this country was founded on, this creates
disobedient students who follow nothing but their own morals made from
their own mind.
The
Health Education class in public schools is also contributed to John
Dewey and his paper “Health and Sex in Higher education” published in
1886.
How
did we ever allow a man with such radical beliefs to have such a
profound effect on our education system? John Dewey is the reason for
the Socialist structure that the public school system has today. The
Socialist structure of the school system is why the government has so
much control over our education system. The whole problem with the
education system is because of John Dewey
There
is no way to solve these problems other than to destroy the current
system and re-institute a new system that coincides with our
governmental system and what our country was founded on.
With
the first problem of the public school being founded on socialist
beliefs, the best way to solve this is to privatize all schools, and
turn our education system into a Capitalist system where people have
free choices. Which is what this country is based on, freedom. With
Capitalism comes a desire to grow and better yourself. Competition
among schools will give all students a drive to better themselves and
will give them a renewed pride in there education system. Students will
have more choices of what school they want to go to and what they want
to learn.
Capitalism
will ensure that every student gets the education that they pay for. If
they are smart enough they can get scholarships or companies can fund
schools. Such as “The PepsiCo School of Marketing” which builds
students up into the sales and marketing field along with teaching them
the core classes of Math, English, Science, and History, or a “GM
School for Mechanics” where students can learn how to work on cars as
well as the 4 core classes. this will give students the opportunity to
take their future in the direction they want it to go.
With
private schools the faculty has more control over the disciplinary
actions that are to be taken. If a student does not keep his grades up
the school can remove him/her. This will give students reason to work
hard. If there are fights or problems the school has the ability to
take necessary disciplinary actions which were not available under the
public school system because the students are at that school by their
choice and if they do not like it they can find another school.
Capitalism
will also ensure that the government takes little to no control over
the students. Instead this will be done by the school administrators
themselves and the parents will know what the students are learning.
The parents will have more control over what their children learn
because there is completely free choice of schools. So parents are able
to find a school that best fits their beliefs.
Under
Capitalist ideas Teachers get higher wages. There is competition for
good teachers, every school will want the best teachers to teach for
them and will pay good money for these teachers. This is the simple
concept of supply and demand which increases the economy. With the pay
raise teachers will work harder and do a better job in educating the
students.
We
need to abolish the National Education Association and the U.S.
Department of Education. They are pointless and do no good. Schools
need to be run on a more individual basis and not nation wide scale.
With a nation wide scale one person has the potential of taking control
and controlling aspects of the entire countries education. When it is
on a school by school basis the worst that can happen is one school
will be messed up and then the parents will identify the problem and
remove their student from the school.
Taxes
need to stay as far away from the Education system as possible. When
you are giving the school money you can also decide certain aspects of
what they teach. For example- I give you $30,000 providing you teach
evolution in science classes.
Nowhere in any of the United States
legal documents does it state that the United States Government needs
to establish an education system for the people. This is a Capitalist
nation and needs to remain that way.
We
need to learn from John Dewey’s mistakes, his ideas of socialism may
have been good in theory but it is now proven that Socialism does not
work and the USSR
is proof of that. His ideas of critical thinking group activities and
open mindedness were only in place to control the people and make them
believe what the schools wanted them to believe. They did not present
the facts and allow people to make their own beliefs based on the facts.
Critical
thinking skills do not need to be taught. It only complicates things
and warps the minds of children. Schools are meant to teach the facts
and nothing but the facts. If it is not a fact then it is not
necessarily true and therefore cannot be considered knowledge.
Group
activities are not always necessary and more emphasis needs to be
placed on the individual’s ability to learn. Group activities lead to
distractions in a student’s ability to learn. One student knows no more
than the other student therefore they cannot learn from each other and
must learn from the teacher. Group activities are a waste of time.
Students learn best from repetition of the facts, which is how I
learned things in private school. It worked very well.
Open
mindedness is only a way for teachers to tell you your moral beliefs
are wrong and that you need to accept consider or even believe the
warped socialist ideals they are about to tell you.
All
humanist and Evolution beliefs need to be withdrawn from the schools.
They are in themselves a religion which is a contradiction of what the
public school system has always said, that schools cannot teach
religion. Compared to the number of people who believe in a God and
believe in creation the Evolutionist and Humanist are greatly
outnumbered. Therefore evolution and humanism should not be taught in
schools.
Finally,
leave sex education to the parents. Each family has their own beliefs
on this subject and it is not the schools responsibility to teach this.
Sex education is a moral and religious belief and therefore cannot be
taught in schools.
The
only way to solve these pressing issues with the public school system
is to completely destroy the entire public school system and institute
a new system based on the beliefs of Capitalism which this country was
founded on. | | | Posted 8/23/2005 at 11:16 PM - email it
Give eProps or Post a Comment |
|
|
