PrideFest
I am not a perfect person, and I have sinned just like all others, “for all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory"(Romans 3:23). I am relying on Christ’s atonement for my sin, however, and the grace extended to all people through the shedding of his blood on the cross. What I do object to is the fools who march to justify their sin and the fostering of a deviate lifestyle as a legitimate alternative by the media. Perhaps the front cover of the paper should have more appropriately read, “Portraits of Perversion”
This letter has not been edited.
How many of these did the RMN get? And how many do they intend to continue to publish?
What's interesting is that there was a recent letter complaining about the "thuggish" responses some of these letters receive. It seems if people are going to judge and insult an entire group of people on a so-called "moral" basis--while hypocritically professing to be "not a perfect person" themselves--it's going to elicit some pretty strong feelings and therefore replies.
I guess Jeff Anderson skipped the part of the Bible about "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 7, 2007 02:57 PMMr. Brando - It is called practicing "Free Speech". While I don't agree with many of the opinions posted at this site I do find it helpful to me in understanding others thoughts on the issues before us. What you are advocating in your posting is "Censorship" of opinion that you find distastefull. I would rather it be printed and then debated than kept from view.
Posted by f on July 7, 2007 03:04 PMThe Bible makes a great doorstop.
Many of us do not care what it, the Torah or the Koran have to say!
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 04:28 PMJeff Anderson, a man with an ignorance as vast as the ocean of "sinful" thoughts in which he is drowning like a panicked adolescent said:
"As our country’s founding fathers did, I believe the Bible to be God’s true word. "
I'd love to see the evidence...
(grass grows)
(tuneless church bells ring tiredly in the distance)
...
Posted by Charles B on July 7, 2007 05:37 PMI think we should start "Staright-fest." Sounds kind of stupid huh...kinda like Pride-fest. I could care less what anyones sexual orientation is...keep it in the bedroom, and off the public streets.
Posted by on July 7, 2007 07:28 PMYes, f, I'm well aware of free speech, although it gets tedious to drag out the old saw about yelling fire in a crowded theatre to point out that free speech is not absolute. The other thing is the issue of subjectivity: one person's "free speech" is another person's "agenda pushing." Often when an expressed opinion is defended as "free speech," the defender is essentially agreeing with the opinion. (I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, although you do say you disagree with "many of the opinions posted at this site," which may or may not include Mr. Anderson's.) Conservative viewpoints, in particular, tend to be protected under the umbrella of "free speech," whereas liberals are told to "shut up and sing."
Check out the letter I referred to in my earlier post, "Rocky's letters Blogs Full of Nasty Thugs," and the many spirited responses to it, and you'll see what I mean. You don't hear a lot of "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" around here--or much anywhere else anymore, for that matter.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 7, 2007 07:30 PMAnd another thing, does Jeff Anderson's objection to PrideFest itself--as he puts it, "fools who march to justify their sin and the fostering of a deviate lifestyle as a legitimate alternative by the media"--smack of censorship? Although the several anti-PrideFest letters that RMN has seen to publish (so far: could more be on the way?) isn't exactly what I would call "media fostering."
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 7, 2007 07:36 PMThe good old form letter, written by the one at least somewhat literate member of the group; with copies then handed round to the whole congregation with instructions to sign and mail, to show how important the opinions of the group must be. All full of piosity and religiosity, little - if any - of which has any relationship to the matter of freedom of the press, contents of the material criticized, free speech, or any other part of the rights of others.
Then, of course, when the fool nonsense is contested, rebutted, or otherwise meets with disagreement, those who dare to actually express ideas are called "nasty thugs" - and other such like expressions of condemnation - by the very Right wingnuts who are loudest in demanding that the blog be censored, because their poooor widdle feewings got hurt by those "lefties", who just want to keep everyone else down, and won't let the "conservatives" have their say.
Anyone know how to spell hypocrites?
Gimme that ol Je$u$ Bu$ine$$! (You know the tune.)
Posted by Old Grouch on July 7, 2007 08:33 PM7:28 unknown. When you go on the streets with your wife, and you both are wearing wedding rings, that shows your sexual orientation.
You can even hold her hand or slip your arm around her, all because you were born "straight'.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 08:38 PMMr. Brando - I respectfully disagree with statement of "yelling fire in a crowded theater". The Supreme Court decision, as I read it, did not ban the speech - it stated that sanctions could be placed on individuals that incited a crowd for the pure purpose of scaring people with the possibility of phyiscal harm. Liable Laws and Hate Speech Laws exist for the same purpose. To provide a legal remedy for hurtful speech.
I take a pragmatic approach to speech. As my parents taught me "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me". Through 60 years of life I have had all kinds of words and epitahs hurled at me. I take them in stride and get on with my life. The opinion of others does not rule my life. I take the time to study issues that I am not familiar with to determine as much fact as I can and then based upon my life experience - form opinion.
To answer your question as to my opinion of Mr. Anderson's comments - I find them to be extreme and inflamatory. But I think that is what he intended when he posted them.
Posted by f on July 7, 2007 08:46 PMFLOG THE DEAD HORSE!!! FREE!! Mebbe it'd help to view Pridefest and its like as...."Oscars gone Wilde"
Posted by Jimminy on July 7, 2007 08:50 PMThe front page of the RMN merely covered an event that occurred in the area. Some may have been interested, some may have just skimmed over it and turned the page. To ask the media to limit coverage of an event because it may conflict with a certain group of beliefs is preposterous.
I always find it humorous that the people who object to publicity for these kind of events actually prolong the coverage by writing in to complain about it.
Posted by Michael R. on July 7, 2007 09:43 PMJeff:
No one gives a sh-- what you find offensive. Give the "I hate Homo's" lecture a rest. We know, and I'll bet everyone of your neighbors, kids, co-workers, store clerks, mailman, dentist, doctor, and on and on......know how you feel about this issue. See the point Jeff, we don't care. Get a life.
Why is it called "Pride Fest"? Since when is sexual orientation, be it natural or from choice a source of pride? Why is NAMBLA not included? After all, they are gay as well(but you will not get any offical gay rights movment person to admit that)? Why not just call it "Gay Fest" or whatever variation of it.
Simply put a person's sexuality is private(at least in my opinion) and serves many purposes...at its heart...Heterosexuality is for pro creation and Gay is pure hedoism...nothing more.
Jeff your right. It is, and was offensive. Leave that garbag( pridefest) in California.
Posted by 1st Amendment on July 8, 2007 06:41 AMyes, why does the rmn publish so many of these...we understand some people were offended by this cover, but damn, that was almost 2 weeks ago now...
Posted by Roy on July 8, 2007 06:50 AMRoy has a good point. Is the RMN recylcing letters or just needs filler for that lack of anything else?
Posted by Yaakov on July 8, 2007 07:14 AMYaakov asked of PrideFest:
"Why is NAMBLA not included?"
Yaakov are you demanding equity?
Suggestion: Be more economical with your editing pen.
Posted by Charles B on July 8, 2007 07:43 AMCharles B, no I was asking a question of pure curosity. Equity? By law, and ideal there is...in reality there is none by it is very nature. I mentioned NAMBLA just because it is never really discussed. The gay community(rightly or wrongly) treat them like the demented grandmother in the attic or half witted brother or sister who sits in the corner.
Editing? why...is my discourse, my questions so inflamatory?
Sharon B, AMEN!!!
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 8, 2007 08:50 AMDear Jeff:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your post, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging
Well, f, all I can say is you're obviously not gay. Perhaps you're not a person of color or Jewish, either. It's easy to be cavalier about "extreme and inflammatory speech" when you're not the target of it.
Quite a lot of anti-gay rhetoric falls under the category off "the pure purpose of scaring people with the possibility of phyiscal harm." Listen to all the hysterical "Panic! Panic!! Gays are out to recruit your children!" "Single-sex marriage will bring about the end of civilized society!" "Matthew Shephard had it coming to him!" etc.
And the trouble with "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never harm me" is that eventually people start reaching for sticks and stones.
Taakov,
The lumping together of homosexuality and paedophilia as one and the same thing is a favorite tactic of those for whom anything and everything that can be used in an anti-gay fashion is more important than recognition of the reality that one is actually dealing with two different areas psychologically.
This is more or less the usual kind of smear tactics that are at the root of any of the religious anti-gay arguments. Along with the nonsense that being gay is "un-natural" because it does not conform to some part of a particular code in a mythology book; "is chosen", because the person making the argument has been told by somone else that this is so, and has neither bothered to learn the facts, or just plain refuses to face the nature of his, and other people's unfounded prejudices; and the rest of such like fallacy and foolishness; add in "child molestation"; and that really makes an argument for keeping sexual discrimination alive and well in our society.
It may be difficult for you to understand; but for those with experience in the field it is very obvious that the tactic of "tarring with the same brush" - as the anti-gay bigots do - is not at all appreciated by the great majority of gay people. And, in turn, being expected to deal with NAMBLA as if it were just another facet of gay life is both insulting and an obnoxious presumption.
One might compare the matter to Jews being asked (or demanded) to deal with the activities and behavior of, say, Bugsy Siegal and the old Murder Incorporated, or Loeb and Leopold and their escapades, as if these were just another facet, or included part, of being Jewish.
Bigotry and prejudice always works both ways.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 10:48 AMWe in the Democrat Party do not believe in a God like letter writer Anderson does.We believe everything came from a big gaseous explosion.We call it the flatulant theory[similiar to eating too many tacos or burritos but on a much larger scale] Out of this magnificant flatulant all life was created.I feel sorry for people like Anderson that still believe in God.Come out of the dark ages.Also if we did believe in God we would have to go by rules.The only rules we want to live by are the ones we feel are right day by day.
Posted by True on July 8, 2007 11:18 AMPRIDE FEST? PRIDE?
Looked more a PEVERT FEST looking for a dark closet.
Posted by hank on July 8, 2007 01:25 PMYou are aware, Jeff Anderson, of that crevice in your body when entering prison must be explored for weapons, weed, files, and weapons of mass destruction: If you bend and spread, the guards are going to find your god.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of FreeThought Today) on July 8, 2007 01:28 PMOld Grouch...you read alot into what I wrote. My whole point was not anti gay, etc...I first heard of NAMBLA via a interview on an old talk show in Denver. What surprised me about them was one they were in the open(more or less) and two many gays said they (NAMBLA) were not gay?! Which was absurd. I did some digging and found that NAMBLA and (for a lack of better term) the mainstream gay movement worked together in the early years...it was only when NAMBLA was giving the rest of the movement a bad name(guilt by association) they broke with NAMBLA. That was my whole point. Yes, of course there a difference between Homosexuality and Gay Paedophilia...age of consent. It is still a Homosexual act. It is not a smear tactic, but it is something the gay community likes to not talk about and hem and haws over their old relationship with NAMBLA.
All groups have their bad boys or whatever. It case of Seigal etal...they are still Jews and they have not disowned them. The Gay community on the other hand...disowns NAMBA and says they are not gay. The height of absurdity.
And, in turn, being expected to deal with NAMBLA as if it were just another facet of gay life is both insulting and an obnoxious presumption. Then old grouch...pray tell if it is not a fact of gay life...then what in the world is it?
They are running after pre teen or teen girls. Perhaps they are misguided men looking to reclaim their lost youth.
Yaakov,
By the same line of reasoning, sir: A number of religious groups from many of the Protestant denominations around the world, accompanied by secular and governmentally sponsored groups as well, participated in relief and rehabilitation work in Soviet Russia after World War 1. The Bolsheviks had declared themselves to be the newly democratic government of Russia; and the relief groups came from those countries whose governments were, predominantly, democratic/parliamentarian/republics.
Subsequently,the Bolsheviks went on to establish "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which the Bolsheviks also claimed to be the same thing for Russia as the democractic/parliamentarian/republican governments elsewhere in the world; These other democracies of the world - as well as a great many of the world's religious groups - disowned the Bolsheviks; and clearly indicated that Bolshevism was not the same entity as they.
This is "the height of absurdity", as you say; since democracy/republican/parliamentarian/religion and Bolshevism must all be one and the same thing, because at one time they worked together, and were closely associated with each other.
Isn't it wonderful how watermelon and horse puckey can be made to equate, from the common denominator of having been at one time on the ground in the same field?
There is a far greater difference than merely "age of consent" involved here.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 02:37 PMYes, such groups sent help and were regarded by Lenin and his ilk as "useful idiots" Not all groups supported the Bolsheviks and others did. People like Ayn Rand got out of Russia and spoke out and infuriated the intellectual heart of the US. Up to WW2, there was a strong pro communist faction in the US (it was chic to be Red).
But this besides the point...I say there is a connection between Gays and Nambla aside from the obvious same sex attraction. It is simple as that. In Victoiran England, when clubs like the Hellfire and others catered to all sexual tastes...discreetly. Buggering young boys was considered Homosexual. Why do you insist that now and then...it isn't?
Joe,
In your last sentence, you come closer to the difference than any other expression I've seen posted so far. Dealing with paedophelia is dealing with an un-differentiated area of orgasmic partner preference - some say, "undeveloped".
To express it simplistically, the individual has "stopped growing up" at a point where psycho-social relationships begin to develop the aspects of parity, and mutuality; while also beginning to develop a freedom from dependence upon expressions of submission to authority to validate both self esteem and the feelings of being loved.
The individual ages, and matures physically; but a major part of psychological development doesn't accompany the chronological and physical.
The important point to remember here is, simply, that while this form of arrested development can be found with male children as the playmate of choice, as is true of the human population as a whole, female children are also involved. The gender preference is undifferentiated as such.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 03:16 PMOld Grouch...I wrote that with tongue planted firmy in cheek. I did not expect a condensed pyscho babble essay. While interesting...it is still a same sex attraction and that makes it Homosexual...otherwise some men would be humping everything in sight including animals.
Stuff and Nonsense! No matter how much you try to paint a duck a dffferent color and call something else. it is still a duck.
Yaakov,
I was merely pointing out that your chop logic, and your comment about "height of absurdity" had parallels; and that by using that form of chop logic you could "prove" whatever it be you wanted to "prove".
You equate Victorian England - the Hellfire Club, for instance - and NAMBLA.; and you then go on to equate NAMBLA and homosexuality as such, BECAUSE the Hellfire Club and others "catered to all sexual tastes".
You are fixated on the idea that homosexuality and paedophilia have to be one and the same, because, according to you, Victorian England used the terminology that way. (Actually, it did not, as the term, "homosexual", is early 20th Century, following the German, "Urning", and others.)
Psychology differentiates between them today, based on well over a century of learning, and experience gained in practice. After some 50 years in the field, I prefer the psychological over the Victorian approach, and view of the matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 03:50 PMIn sex offender therapy...an offender whose victims are pre teen and or teen boys. The prep's are generally not married, have homo erotic fantasies, the questions of various tests written, visual, audio are geared towards homo-erotiism. Polygraph question are also geared in this way. Therapy is adjusted to the Homosexual mind set. So, it must be a homosexual act. What else could it be?
Posted by Tracy on July 8, 2007 03:52 PMYes, of course, Joe,
Those who don't want to learn, won't.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 03:54 PMTo the anonymous author of the biblical satire: thank you for a brilliant and hilarious spoof. It was worth wading through the moral sludge of the right wing bigots to read your letter.
Posted by Ajhil on July 8, 2007 03:58 PMWhat school of Pyschology do you adhere to?
Actually I was not try to prove anything, except to ask a question which has bothered off and on for many years.
I figured you had be connected with pyschlogy...because reading things into a person's writing and or putting words into anothers mouth is a typical trick of the field.
Tracy,
Perhaps one might consider that many forms of specified therapies for "offenders" were begun in the period when homosexuality as such was a criminal offense.
Indeed, even today there are those who hark back to various forms of "aversion therapy", to "cure" being gay. Vide: The saga of Ted Haggard and his 3 week "conversion" to "100% heterosexuality", as touted by Dobson and others.
Or, one might mention the continuing use of electro shock in some of the States cuckoo's nests, even today, as a "therapy" to keep the wards quiet.
Selective structure of a therapy is not, in and of itself, proof of the premise upon which the selection was made.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 04:08 PM
Yaakov,
I have education and experience somewhat eclectically. But, my major work - for about 45 years - was Jungian.
I'm not suprised that you feel that analysing what one actually says and writes is a "trick". It's not. It's actually the result of use of good old logic 101. I attempted to answer your question, as clearly and comprehensively as I could. You came back at me with continuing insistence that the only answer you wanted was one that agreed with your already fixed statement on the subject.
Sorry. I won't agree with you. Nor will I accept your insistence on making the equation on the terms you presented.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 8, 2007 04:21 PMAs our founding fathers did, I belioeve Jeff Anderson to be a mindless flatulent maggot. I believe he should take his book of myths and shove it sideways up his fundament.
Posted by UYRMN on July 8, 2007 05:01 PMTrue, so does that make you a little fart? A disciple of the Fart God?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 8, 2007 06:58 PMWell Old Grouch is just chock full of BIGOTED trash talk
Posted by tj1961 on July 8, 2007 09:29 PMI happen to be gay so maybe I can make some things clear:
I don't like kids; never have, never will. Pedophelia has nothing to do with me.
I don't wear woman's clothes. Cross dressing is a fetish and I'm not a drag queen.
I'm not a transexual, that is a medical condition and some transexuals are candidates for sex change surgery. None of this has anything to do with me.
What about the pride parade? Why ask me? I didn't go to it nor was I in it. Attendance and/or participation are a matter of personal choice. My sexual preference is not.
Posted by cs on July 8, 2007 10:52 PMOld Grouch is not that good of a pyschololgist...many times in other places I have written posts, using different monikers. I did not try to change the style of my writing. Yet over several post on my many subjects, he never caught on. So much for his analysis and more.
Posted by The Shadow on July 9, 2007 01:20 AMShadow, so you think you can get free analysis?
Oh shame on you for the different names, if the hall monitor catches on you will get publicly named and outed.
Posted by on July 9, 2007 04:48 AM"I think we should start "Staright-fest." Sounds kind of stupid huh...kinda like Pride-fest. I could care less what anyones sexual orientation is...keep it in the bedroom, and off the public streets."
Posted by on July 7, 2007 07:28 PM
Stop using sexuality as a reason to keep people from having the same rights as you do and you have a deal.
That's the way it works.
When you keep somebody down with stupid laws that are only meant to protect your status quo and fence out a group of people from enjoying the same opportunities you have simply because you don't agree with them...they will be in your face until you see the error of your ways.
Stop practicing prejudice against gay people in the laws and you won't have to hear so much from us anymore. Until then, we're not going to shut up or go away.
Shadow,
An editor deals with style. Analysis deals with content and substance. Since you say that I did not "catch on", there must not have been any content or substance for me to "catch onto" in what you posted.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 9, 2007 09:00 AMSharon you are right.We Democrats believe that all human life is nothing more than a big fart.I hope our beliefs do not disturb you.Also we do not believe in a fart or anyother God.Sharon join our Democrat Party.
Posted by True on July 9, 2007 10:29 AMSharon B claims, "The Bible makes a great doorstop."
Good to see that hatred and bigotry against Christians is alive and well. What's next, name calling?
Posted by Phil on July 9, 2007 11:39 AMPhil,
What you think is "hate and bigotry" is really just someone calling your religion out for the silly superstitious nonsense that it is.
Is your "faith" so shallow that you and the 90% of Americans who believe the Bible is more than just a book can't take it when someone makes a joke?
I think deep down you know how silly your religion is...
Can you can offer us non-believers proof for your implied claims that the Bible is the word of God (or that there is a God)?
...I won't stay up waiting.
Posted by Charles B on July 9, 2007 12:41 PMOld Grouch...I have known enough shrinks that could have seen through what I was doing. You are a big phony.
BTW, I have read your blog. Interesting how you call others bigots and the like...yet, you have this real anti Catholic streak in you amongst other things.
Lastly, for having no content or substance in my various posts...you sure spent alot of time responding to essentially nothing.
Shadow, now that was clever writing. The last line.
I have a hugh anti-Roman Catholic streak, Ogs is pitiful compared to mine.
Humans aren`t special, they have to make the best of llife, just like all other creatures.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 10, 2007 03:40 AMI have had it with all the gay bashing.I am joining the powerful gay lobbying group FUDGE PAC [Fags Under Duress Get Even].All us Democrats should join.
Posted by True on July 11, 2007 11:18 AM