Have the liberals gone too far?!? Yes or No?

ISDAMan

ISDAMan

Thank You Jesus!
Registered Senior Member
Have the liberals gone too far?!?

Columnist, Jeff Jacoby, for the Boston Globe tells the horrific tale of how 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising was killed on Sept. 26 in Rogers, Ark. He tells, also, the tale of how the story was suppressed from the public because his death was not politically correct. <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/343/oped/Why_this_death_didn_t_count+.shtml" target="_blank">Read The Story</a> and make your comments below. I say that this is truly a society that calls evil good and good evil. We need to surrender to God!!!!!!!!

Love & Prayers
ISDAMan

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited December 14, 1999).]
 
Although I certainly believe that the public should have been made aware of this child's death, I don't know if it does any good to "sensationalize" either type of case. Both crimes were hate-filled (as most murders are). Anyone who would commit such a crime does so without love.

If the media is going to continue to use "sensationalism" I would rather it be about the good that people do so that, as a society, our children can become accustom to hearing more about "ways to love their neighbor", rather than ways to hurt their neighbor.
 
truestory,

Oh, I agree whole hardily that there's no need to sensationalize this horrible act. In fact, I can see this as being a marker of the general media's sensationalistic tactics in that they have invested a great deal of energy promoting the homosexual cause as the cause of the innocent and those that would stand against acts of homosexuality as evil aggressors. It's always important to remember, as I was earlier reminded by a radio program, that homosexual are not the enemy. They are victims of the enemy. They need our love and most of all a right relationship with Christ too. It's a sad tale that this boy had to die and in such a disgusting manner. Yet, it's a worse tale that a cross section of our society, which owes everything to God, could so categorically favor the filth of proliferating a lie that homosexuals are the innocent oppressed over the truth that they are sinners just like the rest of mankind. I'm compelled to serious concern when thinking of the future that my brother and sister will have to live without me when I'm gone.

Love & Prayers,
ISDAMan
 
Let me first address the editorial piece. One of the first problems I have is its combative tone from the outset. The immediate comparison to the death of Matthew Shepard is, I think, inappropriate.

The editorial either makes an assumption or overlooks critical facets of the events--even those presented, much less those we have not seen or heard. That assumption is simply that Gay + murder = relevant.

Now, had perpetrators grabbed, say, a single woman walking alone on the sidewalk, and tortured her to death for the crime of being repugnant through her heterosexuality ... that would be comparable. But the crime we're dealing with here seems to compare more directly to the more than one heterosexual rape per minute that takes place in this country.

So, whether motivated by active bigotry or passive ignorance, I think the editorial piece presents issues which would only distract us from more important aspects of the crime--namely the serving of justice and the prevention of future acts of violence against anybody.

______________
ISDAMan:

* "Victims of the enemy?" Yes, those who prefer the company of their own gender are the victims of the enemy--narrow-minded bigots who would waste our time ostracizing people for who they're screwing

* "Yet, it's a worse tale that a cross section of our society, which owes everything to God, could so categorically favor the filth of proliferating a lie that homosexuals are the innocent oppressed over the truth that they are sinners just like the rest of mankind." Okay ... I would have to make several assumptions about what you consider filth ... but the problem isn't that homosexuals don't see themselves as sinners, just like the rest of us. I think the problem is that their Christian persecutors have a pathological need to set the homosexuals apart from the common sinner, in order to feel good about whatever life failures haunt them.

Ask yourself how many fights the good Christians are in for the sake of promoting or defending their morals. Now ask yourself how many of those fights would exist at all if the good Christians hadn't started them. If y'all don't like the media "promoting" homosexuality ... hey, don't create the circumstances where the producers would be compelled to do so.

_______________

The editorial and its salient concerns remind me of the fake statistics submitted for an Oregon Voters' Pamphlet in 1992, which claimed that homosexuals were responsible for 95% of all child rapes. Claims of the media "promoting" homosexuality invoke the 1980's, when self-righteous politicians called too much attention to "filthy song lyrics" and quintupled the sales of the albums in question.

After all, to take your logic regarding homosexuals ... what are we to think of the thousands of heterosexual sex crimes in the nation? Or are heterosexuals exempt from such consideration?

It depends mostly, I think, on how you choose to regard homosexuality in the first place. Whereas certain people (yes, myself included), don't care who screws who, others seem to be obssessed with it. To wit: Was "Ellen" an act of overt promotion of homosexuality, or just another ego star overabsorbed in the subject matter of a poorly-written show? To hold the show up as an overt act of promotion would be to discount the majority of poorly-written, self-absorbed television shows which rely on their ego-stars to maintain the ratings.

I might also remind people that these things being said in the editorial mirror sentiments expressed during the "Burning Bed" case, the "Bobbit" incident, and other expressions of womens' fury. Apply the logic expressed in the editorial, and where does that leave womens' rights?

Wait a minute ... isn't there a figure in Christianity who's notorious for his obfuscation of fact, manipulation of sentiment, and pretense of honesty?

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
 
Have the liberals gone too far?!”

Another question might be ‘has the far right gone too far using this horrible crime as a banner for their public outcry against homosexuals ?’. I believe this is the purpose of Mr. Jacobys article and don’t think he would have written the article under different circumstances.
Also this is not "homosexual crime". Very few of these kinds of crimes are committed by homosexuals. They are generally committed by "heterosexual individuals".
I for one think this is just another peace of garbage written by a homophobic ndividual trying to make a public statement.
ISDAMan might be wise to worry about more serious issues than who someone sleeps with. There are some really big problems out there to worry about than this kind of crap.
I don’t want to give the impression that this was an acceptable crime, because it was not and I hope to hell the people involved spend the rest of their lives in jail as someone’s sexual play toy. I can think of no better faith for them both.
 
Tiassa,

Thanks for the rebuttal. I'm not certain that we have ever debated an issue together previously. I've been gone from here quite a while. Anyway, let's get right to it.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me first address the editorial piece. One of the first problems I have is its combative tone from the outset. The immediate comparison to the death of Matthew Shepard is, I think, inappropriate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must be referring to the fact that the piece is clearly not pro-homosexual. Now, the comparison of the two deaths was more than appropriate and accurate. It's clear that what is considered news worthy is based on high bias. That being said, this piece, as does any editorial piece, has, on the outset, because of human interaction, at least some bias. It would be foolish not to admit that. However, the media at large is very heavily polarized opposingly. This is one piece that dares to stand against the many.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The editorial either makes an assumption or overlooks critical facets of the events--even those presented, much less those we have not seen or heard. That assumption is simply that Gay + murder = relevant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see where you're coming from. Still, I would say that's a bit of a stretch and an assumption on your part. Being that I am a person that watches the news, I can agree with the standpoint that attacks on homosexuals garner more attention from the media today. It's true of our whole society at large. Heck, it's probably safe to say that since the last legislation was forwarded, up on the hill, as an attempt to protect children from sexual abuse, there have been at least ten measures forwarded in an attempt to forward the homosexual agenda.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, had perpetrators grabbed, say, a single woman walking alone on the sidewalk, and tortured her to death for the crime of being repugnant through her heterosexuality ... that would be comparable. But the crime we're dealing with here seems to compare more directly to the more than one heterosexual rape per minute that takes place in this country.
(I previously had the wrong quote here. This is the right one.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crime to crime,.. Yes, you're correct. His comparison was towards the motivation of other editorialist, because of the events and make-up of the crime, in regards to their choice of treatment.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Victims of the enemy?" Yes, those who prefer the company of their own gender are the victims of the enemy--narrow-minded bigots who would waste our time ostracizing people for who they're screwing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In referring to another person as a narrow minded bigot, you had best have a strong basis to stand on. Never at any time would you be able to find me attempting to ostracize anyone. God's Word calls me to submit to His will and be Christ-like. Christ drew crowds of criminals, whores, tax collectors, idol worshipers, homosexuals, liars, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and on and on,... Always, He spoke the truth and engaged them with truth, decency, and understanding. He ate with them and was clearly friendly and outgoing toward them. Always, He called them away from their sins and to God's will. He didn't tar and feather people or place them on a blacklist. In fact, He taught the disciples that if people didn't accept the truth then simply move on and kick the dust off of your feet as a testimony against them. It seems to me that you entered into your post with an already spring loaded attack of name calling. Just to make sure that you got where I was coming from, the "enemy" that I spoke of the homosexuals being victims of was Satan. I'm sure you got that though.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask yourself how many fights the good Christians are in for the sake of promoting or defending their morals. Now ask yourself how many of those fights would exist at all if the good Christians hadn't started them. If y'all don't like the media "promoting" homosexuality ... hey, don't create the circumstances where the producers would be compelled to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that I'm getting your question correct. There is no Biblical basis by which any follower of Christ should go looking to start a conflict. Rather, we are instructed by the Word of God to preach the Gospel boldly. The jist of the Gospel is that God is right, man is wrong, and God has made a single way to reconcile man to Himself. That's it. Man being proud and rebellious, as always, tends to attack the messengers of God's Word. The Bible also tells us to be ready to give a defense of our faith at all times. Are some Christians overly pious and/or aggressive? Yes. As long as they remain creatures in fleshly bodies, they will remain imperfect. I too think that we, the Christian society, spend too much time and effort fighting sinners in order to fight the sin. The sin of homosexuality is to be hated. Yet, the sinners of homosexuality are to be LOVED! Now, as far as the media not creating goes, I think you're way off base with that one. They try their darndest to paint a picture of the homosexual life as being the life ideal. They sell it as being full of adventure, cool, individualistic in that it sets you apart from the pack and makes you unique or special, and best of all, it will make your parents mad at you worse than when you ran off and got that tattoo. Keep in mind that I'm not just talking about the news media. All media, in general, is involved. Homosexuality is the "IN THING" for the rebellious today. This sin is no worse than any other sin according to the Bible. Homosexuals can and do change their lives by living for Christ all the time. In a few years, there'll be some other sin that's going to be all the rage. This kind of thing seems to role with the decades. The Biblical standpoint is not to attack the homosexual. Instead, Christ teaches us to show them the very same Love from God that He gave to us. Before I surrendered my Life to Jesus, I was living under the same exact cloud of damnation as any homosexual. All sin is deadly stuff to play with. The reason that this sin, but not the sinners, remember, they must be loved, should be so heavily fought against is because it's being so heavily marketed to our society and especially our children. Now, for any of you out there that say that you should never steer a child in any direction. You should just let the child grow up and make his own choice.(I'm not saying that's you Tiassa.) You're dead wrong!!!!! What do you think that parents are here for? If it was that easy we could just turn our kids over to the state at birth and never have any relationship with them. Too many people think that all they've done was to bring a new friend into this world. Friendship is great. However the responsibility is much higher than that. Children come into this world a near blank slate. If you don't teach them the ways that they should go, trust me, the rest of the world will. You wouldn't let the rest of the world just come into your house and tell you how to raise your child, yet, you'll send you child right out into the world with no instructions and hungry for an identity somehow expecting it all just to work out for the best. No matter how many slabs of granite you cast down the side of a mountain, not one will ever come to rest at the bottom as a carved masterpiece. They will all be broken and worthless wrecks. Yet, if tended to by a careful master, even a broken and worthless wreck can be made a masterpiece. How much more of a masterpiece could that wreck have been made into before being cast down the mountain and broken? That is the disgraceful way in which we treat our children in this day and age. We foolishly think that we're far too enlightened a society to need a Savior. We trust in our own abilities while, in reality, we do everything contrary to our own good. Well, let me get down off of my soap box here. I'm threading too many points together and getting off of the main issue.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The editorial and its salient concerns remind me of the fake statistics submitted for an Oregon Voters' Pamphlet in 1992, which claimed that homosexuals were responsible for 95% of all child rapes. Claims of the media "promoting" homosexuality invoke the 1980's, when self-righteous politicians called too much attention to "filthy song lyrics" and quintupled the sales of the albums in question.


After all, to take your logic regarding homosexuals ... what are we to think of the thousands of heterosexual sex crimes in the nation? Or are heterosexuals exempt from such consideration?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa there buddy. That's a mighty big assumption you've made. When did I ever say that was my logic? I don't even know if the document you alluded to ever existed or in such an exaggerated fashion. Moreover, I have no idea whom it is that could have even been behind it or why. Let's be reasonable and not place false blame. That's just the kind of tactic that ministers of the truth must face daily in public, in private, and in the media most of all. Usually, we are never even given the chance to set the record straight as now.

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute ... isn't there a figure in Christianity who's notorious for his obfuscation of fact, manipulation of sentiment, and pretense of honesty?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you come clean on fact and reveal to us all the name of this person?


Jesus Is Lord,
ISDAMan

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited December 16, 1999).]
 
I find both crimes equally heinous. In both cases a human being was murdered. I don't believe that either story should recieve billing over the other. I believe the author was more outraged at the media's treatment of the Shepard case as something horrific and shocking that the world should know about while regarding the death of the child as little more than a by-line.

What made Shepard's death so much more newsworthy? Because it happened to a homosexual, and we know what a hot story that brings along with it? Or was it because it was the Armed Forces and we all love to kick Uncle Sam around? Or maybe the kid's death wasn't publicized because it might damage the image of the gay community and give a bunch of drunken rednecks just the excuse they're looking for.

But now for my famous backflip: Maybe the kid's parents didn't want the horrendous way in which their child died to become a circus. Has anybody asked the people who printed the story, or all we all simply marching to the editor's office with torches, pitchforks, and nooses? Maybe for once the press showed some degree of sensitivity to the victim's family.

If I may paraphrase the signature of one of the members of this board: "Let us not launch the boat until we've determined if the minimum wage flunky we hired patched all the leaks yet."
 
Oxygen,

My friend, you have made some very good points. Yet, I'm at a loss to find any case in the near past when the media showed any regard for the feelings of an individual. When JFK Jr. died, and he was a media darling, in fact, that whole family holds that claim, the media was quick like rick to start splashing around all the old family dirt. Perhaps you have more faith in the media than I. Anyway, those were well thought out points. Thanks! :)

Jesus Is Lord,
ISDAMan
 
ISDAMan,

Back to your original question:

Have liberals gone too far? I wouldn't blame what is happening on liberals.

Think about how the "prohibition" of God has affected the lives of children in the public school system throughout this country. Children can learn the evolution theory, however, it is a crime for them to hear about creation from a public school teacher. They can learn about the atrocities which Hitler perpetrated, they can learn about "alternative" lifestyles, they can learn about birth control and where to go to get an abortion, etc... and that's just what they learn from the teachers. I won't even get started on what they learn from each other!!!

In public school, they can learn about how others have lived sinful lives and get instructions on "how to live a sinful life" (sometimes even in the form of manuals), but they may not learn about the loving God who created them, how to love their neighbor, that certain ways that humans live are actually offensive to God, or, that they have a Savior in Jesus.

Just like "good" and "loving" parents are portrayed by the rebellious, God is portrayed as "bad" because God has "rules" which exclude indulging in some temporal activities which make us "feel good" temporarily but that can hurt us in the long-run. God is portrayed as "bad" because (like "good" and "loving" parents) God makes us take responsibility for our actions and holds us accountable.

Let's face it, troubled teens don't seem to have an adequate avenue to turn to these days. Their parents are out (they are uninvolved and have been told that it's O.K. 'cause kids have to experience life and learn from their own mistakes). Other authority figures are, well, just that... "uncool" authority figures and, most of their friends are as screwed-up as they are...

It used to be that kids could turn to God... Yes!!! the one they mentioned, ever so briefly, the first thing in the morning when they said the Pledge of Allegiance. At least, then, they knew the "concept" of God. It wasn't necessarily "the Christian" God. But kids used to have a "higher power" of some sort or other to appeal to, even if it was just a private appeal in their own mind... None of their friends even had to know about it, so they could avoid the fear of ridicule from their peers which is so frightening at that age...

It seems that many teens have NOWHERE to turn these days, except to temporary "feel-good" substances, so-called "play" things, so-called "cool" things, so-called "wild" things, things to get their "parent's" attention, "different" things (like noone's ever tried that before!), "alternative" lifestyles, "shocking" things, things that will get the "world's" attention, such as: twisted movies, twisted video games, twisted friends, homosexuality, pornography, promiscuity, teen-aged pregnancy, abortion, satanism, drugs, guns, crime, violence, suicide, the murder of each other (some see their own lives as having no value, so why should they value the lives of others? Besides, as you know, massacres IN school is the BIG attention-grabber now!)...

I can't really say that I blame anyone or any group in particular. What we are probably seeing is the reign of Satan (evil) in its early stages on this earth, as it was foretold to us... and things are going to get worse here on earth before they get better.

There is a movement today by what I'll call "the soldiers of Satan (evil)"... Not everyone who participates realizes what it is that they are actually helping to promote... Some of them have just jumped on the bandwagon... Or, they have been brain-washed into thinking that if it feels good, then it's O.K. However, those who knowingly participate in this movement portray Jesus Christ/God as "evil"... their intention is to turn this world upside down... To bring the world under Satan's rule.

Therefore, I can't say that I disagree with your statement:

I say that this is truly a society that calls evil good and good evil.
Click to expand...

This world will be experiencing the most horrific state of existence soon. On a good note, however, we know that the reign of evil will be very temporary, and once it is over, we are on our way to eternal salvation! Praise Jesus!!! Thank God!!!

In the meantime, I'm not real concerned about "what" the particular sin is or which sin is being glorified by what faction at present. In general, evil is way out of control, particularly among the youth, the next generation. What I am really concerned about is spreading God's Word to as many people as possible because it is not too late... (Aside) Despite what some people say about this internet, like any other tool, if used wisely, I think it's great! :)

I am concerned about getting some of the positive messages to parents which you alluded to above, such as: YES, it is important to speak to your children honestly about God and Jesus Christ. YES, it is O.K. to be a parental "presence" in your children's lives, even when they are teens... (As a matter of fact, although they are likely to tell you differently, that is when they need you the most!)... YES, it is O.K. to place reasonable behavioral limits on your children... YES, it is O.K. to say "no" when necessary... and, YES, it is O.K. to hold them accountable for their own actions!

Not only are all of these things "O.K." for parents to do... They will most likely help our children to grow into much more responsible, loving, healthy, caring, respectful and giving people... With positive parent involvement, in the long run, the children can probably be saved... from many things...


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 16, 1999).]
 
truestory,

Your post has to be the most power packed post full of wisdom that I have ever read here! I thank you very much. It is obvious that you do love God and that He has granted you wisdom. Your words bring to light a flaw in my own post. I, having always been the aggressive sort, male, and a Marine, am at times too eager to identify the combatant forces of an opposing aggressor. In my asking if those that are liberally minded have gone too far, I neglected the fact that they too are victims of, Satan, their commander. They, themselves, do bare some culpability via their own choices. Still, I think that your words were more well placed than my own. I would especially commend you of the detail with which you went into matters regarding children.

Jesus Can Handle It,
ISDAMan
 
ISDAMan:

Somehow I recall we might have shared concepts, but we've never come to this point.

* "You must be referring to the fact that the piece is clearly not pro-homosexual. Now, the comparison of the two deaths was more than appropriate and accurate." I still don't read you on this. We're talking about an editorial that compares, essentially, a rape and murder, to a hate crime legally (and, in my regard, morally) equivalent to the Klan lynching blacks Americans based on the lynch-mob's prejudices. We can start with murder. Yes, that's equivalent to how many crimes in this country? We can start with a rape-murder. Again ... how many of those take place in a year? Or we could look at the gruesome nature of the murder, and then invoke the semi-mythical "Green River Killer", whose frightful acts blazed the newspapers throughout my childhood. Or a heterosexual man up near Seattle who tortured a woman held prisoner on his boat for years. But I'm not about to equate these acts to tying up and beating a man to death merely because he's gay. I'm not about to equate these acts to tying a man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him to death because his skin is too dark for someone else's tastes. I see the death = death idea ... but if that's the case, then no, the story isn't really that big of news. Unfortunately, it becomes one of thousands of rape-murders that we never hear about.

* Gay+murder=relevant .... All I'm getting after here is that if this crime is any different than any other horrible crime where a person's sexuality is not in question ... then that's the only reason. Because someone is choosing to make "Gay" a factor.

* In that same paragraph, you wrote: "Heck, it's probably safe to say that since the last legislation was forwarded, up on the hill, as an attempt to protect children from sexual abuse, there have been at least ten measures forwarded in an attempt to forward the homosexual agenda." I might remind you that it's not homosexuals burning crosses and firebombing Christians' houses. However limited that we regard these hate crimes, it started happening much more in my life after an alleged Christian group pushed a ludicrous, bigoted measure onto the Oregon ballot, in 1992. Those "ten measures" pushing the "homosexual agenda" wouldn't have been necessary were it not for various conservative groups' attempts to persecute specific people. Would some sick punk, thinking he was doing Jesus' work, really have thrown a firebomb through their window if the whole state hadn't been wired senseless on such an evil ballot measure? To summarize: Oregon would be prohibited from condoning or promoting homosexuality; this has been interpreted to mean the following: No "homosexual" books in public libraries; no homosexual public employees (schools, typing pool, cops); no homosexuals should be admitted to the public colleges; the state would not be able to prevent random evictions based on a landlord's perception of "sinful" homosexuality. The "homosexual agenda" has largely been defensive. It only comes about at all when the alleged "Christian agenda" oversteps itself and comes down on the gays' toes.

* Of course I know "Satan" was your "enemy". But that doesn't work for me because Satan is part of your myth. "Never at any time" ... well, I think that's a big boast. It's one of those things that comes if you believe in the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. I know people who voted for dumb ballot measures in Oregon and Colorado who say, "Never at any time have I been bigoted against gays." No, but y'all wanted to fire them, kick them out of their apartments, ban their artistic works, and so forth, in at least two states. So I'm wondering, when the next one comes up, will you vote to "protect your children" with such a legal measure? I think that if a person commits an armed robbery, it is irrelevant, say, to the news story, what color that person's skin was. Regardless of race, that person really needed money quickly, and chose a reckless path. As soon as black or white comes into it, we're loaded with assumptions. Why does it matter if they're gay? Thus far, it matters to you. That, I'm afraid, equals a prejudice, the means by which one ostracizes. The fact that anyone posted this link and finds it important actually bugs me just a little. I mean, if I posted the stories about the masturbating pastor whose church conducted a vocal media campaign accusing his accusers of slander ... well, he was actually helping himself to an orgasm in a Florida park mens' room. Hey-hey ... we now have ONE news item. It tells me nothing about the rest of you Christians, except maybe the ones that rushed blindly to his defense. Hey-hey ... better keep our kids out of church ... we need to protect them from the perverted Christians. So we've found an instance in which a rape-murder was performed in a homosexual manner. I'm sure it's happened before. I'm sure it will happen again. Strangely, if I have my media prejudices right, the only person not warranting advance judgement is a white Christian male. Black, Asian, Hispanic ... Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Witch ... and now Gay. All of these, apparently, are cues that we can fly off the handle and assume a bunch of crap about a bunch of people. The editorial was written by an embittered bigot, and has little journalistic value because it's comparing apples and pineapples on the grounds that they're both fruit.

* "Homosexuals can and do change their lives by living for Christ all the time." I heard that line once from a group called Exodus International. The next line was: "Homosexual lives are not worth living; homosexual relationships can only end in tragedy." I have to say, it's a fascinating line. After all, what's keeping you from rejecting prohibitions against homosexuality? You don't have to perform the act. You just have to stop looking for places to fight over it.

* "Whoa there buddy. That's a mighty big assumption you've made." Perhaps it is, but it's no bigger than the assumption that this editorial is a worthwhile news story in its present context. It's not. And what am I supposed to think ... that you post a bigoted editorial in promotion of some obscure idea about gays .... So if I've made assumptions about your logic, I would ask that you clarify just why this editorial is important.

I find it interesting that this somehow connects to the removal of prayer from schools. I still wonder why the Christians haven't gotten over that one. Also, I like how we can make assumptions because of an editorial about one gay rape-murder, but we need to be "reasonable and not place false blame" when the tables are turned on the heterosexuals? Or, I should ask, what's the "false blame"?

Then again, I might ask who is the "we" in "we never get to set the record straight ..."? After all, Christianity has at least three cable networks beaming worldwide, has at least one outstanding international newspaper, a network of universities at which professors can research and publish, and a host of radio stations to plague us with the AM-dial "Countdown to the Coming of the Lord". There are magazines which only accept "Christian" writers. There are schools to teach Christian children.

And I think we're all familiar with the answer to the notorious figure in Christianity. Have ya read the Hitchcock quote yet? That was a great face-slapper back when I was still sensitive to godly-inspired terror. Now it seems to me that the editorial and its supporters are taking part in the obfuscation of fact, manipulation of sentiment, and pretense of honesty.

As to the media ... don't buy the ticket, they won't play the show. There's only a "homosexual controversy" here because certain conservative institutions choose to have the fight. Unlike a Tyson event, this won't be over in one round. Unlike a Super Bowl, nobody wins. Why institutions that choose peace and justice and all of the wonderful stuff the churches claim to be would start this fight is well beyond me. There's plenty of stuff going on that requires more immediate attention.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
 
ISDMan,

Thanks again for your kind words...

In my opinion, your post was not flawed, rather, it was very thought provoking! Thanks!

Let's pray that, with God's help, we can have a more positive impact in this world!
 
tiassa,

quote:
<HR>Of course I know "Satan" was your "enemy". But that doesn't work for me because Satan is part of your myth.
<HR>
On the contrary. No Satan is part of your myth. You don't have to believe in gravity to be effected by it. Nor can anyone categorically prove that it exists though there are clear attributes that we associate with it. We can infer, speculate, and eliminate, but, no one can say, "Ah Ha! I have bottled the formula to the production of gravity." Yet, it would be the fool to say that there is no gravity. There clearly is. I dare you to catch it though. Satan is there too,... only he's smart,... smarter than any man.

quote:
<HR>"Never at any time" ... well, I think that's a big boast. It's one of those things that comes if you believe in the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. I know people who voted for dumb ballot measures in Oregon and Colorado who say, "Never at any time have I been bigoted against gays." No, but y'all wanted to fire them, kick them out of their apartments, ban their artistic works, and so forth, in at least two states. So I'm wondering, when the next one comes up, will you vote to "protect your children" with such a legal measure?
<HR>
When I say it I mean it. I'm not speaking for the rest of the world. I'm speaking for me. I don't know about your integrity. I do know about mine. There are hard lines that I do not cross and don't even bother coming close to. Don't lump me in with any y'all. If you would like to be able to attack my position, I'll give you plenty of free ammunition. All you have to do is ask me. I have no problem placing my life and the truth I stand for on the line. Neither do I advocate deception, spiteful actions, or treachery. The Bible tells me never to entreat evil for evil or to do evil so as to effect good. Neither am I to treat evil with kid gloves. Sin is the very thing that caused my beloved Savior to shed His blood for me! I would rather dishonor a fallen Marine and leave his mangled corpse out on the battlefield to never receive a decent burial than dishonor my Savior and treat the sin that He came to save me from as though it were nothing! Privacy is for the private domain. If the area is public, then it is mine. I and my family have rights to it. All American families do. If it is mine then, I am charged with keeping its purity. I will fight tooth and nail against any sin therein. I do not require perfection but,... RESPECT. I WILL NOT capitulate and be subjugated to silence where indecency is involved. If some piece of artwork is so outstanding, to prove it, display it through the private networks. If you're a small fry; use the public. If you work is not suitable for families, then keep out of my family's public area! I do not care what your lifestyle is. That's the rule! If I have an employee that is a homosexual and he keeps his business his, I have no cause against him. Everyone, be they Christian or not will be made aware that there are Christian standards of the house. I will go out of my way for any in my charge! There is no exception. There are many that will call themselves followers of Christ. Their overwhelming actions will either stand behind them or against them. I can only speak for me. To Love is to serve. Real Love is quick to forget transgressions. Real Love seeks the best good of the recipient. Jesus came as a servant to the lowest of the low. He, both, told them the truth about God and themselves and cared for them. Only once is it recorded that He took a stance of aggression. That was to chaise the filth out of the house of God and at no other time. Did He continue to chase them when they were out and no longer treating God's house with disrespect? No! Did He ban them from coming back in to worship? No! Did he send others to make sure that they did not set up shop in other areas? No! How can the sin of homosexuality be any worse? If any homosexual on the face of this Earth can say that I oppressed him in any way, it can only be accused of me that I spoke to him the Word of God! If that makes me an oppressor,.. ya betta look out 'cause I'm on the warpath. Furthermore I can't substantiate your claims about these other people. I know nothing of the campaign. I can't answer to it.

quote:
<HR>I think that if a person commits an armed robbery, it is irrelevant, say, to the news story, what color that person's skin was. Regardless of race, that person really needed money quickly, and chose a reckless path. As soon as black or white comes into it, we're loaded with assumptions. Why does it matter if they're gay? Thus far, it matters to you. That, I'm afraid, equals a prejudice, the means by which one ostracizes.
<HR>
You know what? Some people just like to instigate a fight. Some are always looking to start trouble amongst the many easily ignited fools in our society that don't take the time to think before they speak and act. That's why race and sex acts are important to so many. They make an easy point of division. You must misunderstand me. Someone's homosexuality makes no difference. I'll say it again. The sin of homosexuality is no different than any other in God's eyes. You commit any sin and you commit the sin of not loving God with all of your heart. There is no difference. What is important is the treatment and value that is placed upon the human life. That boy's life is less important socially than another's because he wasn't a homosexual. My stand is that that boy's life was valuable an Someone should grieve his loss the same as the other! Neither is less of a tragedy or more of a showing of a lack of real love. Is it supposed to be a comfort to the boy's family that at least it wasn't a hate crime? That's foolishness! If there was love in either case, the boys would be alive today, God willing. The relevancy of the comparison is the value of human life. Our society is actively promoting some as being more valuable, precious, and in need of preservation than others. I'm against the death penalty being instituted only when you kill a law enforcement worker, a public official, or if the body count stacks up really high, or if your method was just plain weird. I'm against all laws that meet out extra punishment because of what you had or were presumed to have felt during the commission of the crime. All human life is sacred! Only God can judge the heart. That's why, though I may not approve of the homosexuals actions, I am called to Love him and share with him, as I would with anyone, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus can make any mend. Weather I find any sin personally extra icky or frightening, I am given no instruction to bare that credence. I am to value the work of the Lord which is man. It seems to me that you have made many presumptions in a very defensive manner. As I understand it, you seem to think that I have some gripe about homosexuals that I'm attempting to make known. If so, I'd like you to point it out for me. BTW. I am a Black man.

quote:
<HR>Then again, I might ask who is the "we" in "we never get to set the record straight ..."? After all, Christianity has at least three cable networks beaming worldwide, has at least one outstanding international newspaper, a network of universities at which professors can research and publish, and a host of radio stations to plague us with the AM-dial "Countdown to the Coming of the Lord". There are magazines which only accept "Christian" writers. There are schools to teach Christian children.
<HR>
I doubt that, all lumped together, these even amount to a tenth of what is available as non-Christian. Mud slingers don't go to Christian environments and start slinging mud. They're punks. Instead, they do it when There's little to no chance for direct confrontation taking full advantage of the spread and power of their medium. We all know from politics and court battles that, once something is stated in front of the jury, even if you don't try to prove it, the seed has been planted and will grow. With bad news travelling faster than good news any day, mud slingers feel as thought they have the advantage.

quote:
<HR>As to the media ... don't buy the ticket, they won't play the show. There's only a "homosexual controversy" here because certain conservative institutions choose to have the fight. Unlike a Tyson event, this won't be over in one round. Unlike a Super Bowl, nobody wins. Why institutions that choose peace and justice and all of the wonderful stuff the churches claim to be would start this fight is well beyond me. There's plenty of stuff going on that requires more immediate attention.
<HR>
My friend, I mean you no insult. You, though, have a true obfuscation of fact in your mind set. I started no fight but was born into one. Every one of God's people can say the same. You know, the U.N. tried to pass a resolution that would establish an international police force to operate on all members soil. That would clearly stomp on the sovereignty of every nation. The good people of the U.S. of A stood up against what was advertised as being in the interest of freedom and public welfare. There was great controversy over this matter. Was that controversy because the sovereign stood up for what was right,... or because the wrong came thinking that they were good? I've never known a one sided battle such as you present. You can't go to the corner market and just buy ten pounds of everlasting peace. It come with a high price,... Blood! Jesus was the only one that could pay for it. Having dispersed His gift among His children, they are free and instructed to display that everlasting peace as though it were the finest jeweled necklace known to man. You can't just walk down the street with that kind of thing around your neck without making enemies. Some will hate you because you have it. Some will want to relieve you of it. Some will strive to prove it a fake. Few will revere it. Even fewer will seek of you the way to have that peace as well. Just having it is going to get you into a fight.

Jesus Can Change Any Life,
ISDAMan

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited December 17, 1999).]
 
ISDAMan--

Gravity does not require faith. For Satan to be the Adversary of God, I must first believe in your God. Unfortunately for that part of it, I do not believe that the Judeo-Christian deity is the end-all Supreme Being of the Universe. You know, there is an mathematical formula for gravity. Is there an equation for God?

* "If the area is public, then it is mine. I and my family have rights to it. All American families do. If it is mine then, I am charged with keeping its purity. I will fight tooth and nail against any sin therein." So it depends, then, on your interpretation of sin. Consider a public park ... what "sin" do you object to? Now, I can meet that statement if we're talking about the most part of what we call "crime". (Sorry about the "most", but we have laws in Seattle that let the cops--not the courts--expel you from parks for a year, at risk of jail time, if they don't like the clothes you're wearing.)

* "I WILL NOT capitulate and be subjugated to silence where indecency is involved." Okay ... that's fine. However, we're speaking of laws and principles by which you have to go out of your way to find your alleged indecency. Obviously, something rude and profane taking place on a sidewalk ... but part of what we're arguing about are the same ideas that let you own what books you want in your home. And the other part of that is best exemplified by a case brought before the Salem-Keizer (Oregon) school board in 1995 or '96 in which a member of the Kingdom Hall petitioned the school board to remove a novel from the high school library on the grounds that it violated her First Amendment rights to free religion. Her objection? There was a character in the book named "Demon." As far as the writer, Robert McCammon, is concerned, I can say from my knowledge of his work that there are frequently characters named "Demon" in his books. They are usually children, and embody the free-spirited fun that children have which lead their parents to call them "little demons", or such. She, obviously, felt she was being subjugated to silence. I think your declaration is fine, but I would ask where you're looking to find the indecency.

* "If I have an employee that is a homosexual and he keeps his business his, I have no cause against him." The biggest problem I have with the idea of "don't-ask-don't-tell" is that it still discriminates against a person's right to free speech. If we take the military example, how is it equitable that it's "macho" to discuss your heterosexual escapades, and a dischargeable crime to discuss your homosexual escapades? And then there's the consideration of "keeps his business his". What does that mean? Does it mean that his partner can't call him at work like anyone else's partner and ask him to pick up milk on the way home? Does it mean he has to lie if another of your employees ASKS him if he's gay? The standard doesn't work.

* "Some people just like to instigate a fight. Some are always looking to start trouble amongst the many easily ignited fools in our society that don't take the time to think before they speak and act." You know what? You're right. That's exactly why I dislike the conservative, allegedly Christian, approach. Because they need to seek out what they consider wrong, and then accuse. (Satan = "accuser"?)

* "As I understand it, you seem to think that I have some gripe about homosexuals that I'm attempting to make known. If so, I'd like you to point it out for me. BTW. I am a Black man." Two issues here at least. First, yes ... I think you are voicing a gripe about homosexuality. I think sexuality is irrelevant to the murder and to the alleged "coverup". Are the heterosexuals engaging in a conspiracy to hide the millions of heterosexual rapes and thousands of heterosexual rape-murders that occur each year? After all, you don't see those lining the front page as often as their occurrence would warrant. It's a tragedy. It's a crime. It's horrible. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference. To write an article like that, you have to be looking for a fight. Especially when the editorial writer is making the link between a rape-murder and a bigoted hate-crime. And if this is a serious question to you, then I might ask you why. It's actually a distraction from the real issue here, which is the number of violent crimes in this country committed by anyone. Period. As the second issue ... it only matters to me what color your skin is if it matters to you. People are people. Hell, if we're going to segregate on skin color, why not eye and hair color? I choose to try not to let those considerations become an issue that can change the basic context of an argument in which race or color is not the central issue. (And, frankly, I think most of those are bogus, too.)

* "I doubt that, all lumped together, these even amount to a tenth of what is available as non-Christian. Mud slingers don't go to Christian environments and start slinging mud." Perhaps that ratio is correct, but unfortunately we live in a capitalist nation (is it safe to assume you're U.S., too?), and there's nobody to blame but the Christians themselves for that ratio. After all, they could just pool finances and start buying up the airwaves, starting more magazines, and so on. As to the bit about mudslingers in Christian environments .... What qualifies as a mudslinger, and what qualifies as a Christian environment? On the one hand, I'm unsure of how to respond because my first instinct is to say, "Have you ever listened to that freak musician Carman? Or comedian Mike Warnke?" Talk about mudslingers. On the other hand, if we're looking at "taking full advantage of their medium", it's worth noting that, when I was a kid, Christians chose not to take full advantage of their medium. I still remember the bands intended to tap the youth. Stryper was horrible and uncreative. DC Talk was assumptive and shallow. Michael W. Smith just plain sucked. In that case, the media's failure to reach me is not the media's fault. It's the bands that made the media. Or I could be getting too specific, here.

* "I started no fight but was born into one." We all say that, my friend. But it's your side that started the fight, unless you stand separate from the Christian voting public and the financial power that supports its institutions. My whole life I've heard these people saying, "It's not decent, it has to go." I used to equate it to using one's First Amendment right to try to force someone else to shut up. From that same paragraph ... well, I don't know how to answer you about obfuscation. If it's obfuscating to consider perspectives that don't include the phrase "Jesus is Lord!" then I am guilty. I recently went rounds with someone who boasted that she founded an organization that, among others, helped keep kids away from drugs. Since the crux of the argument at the time was the difference between good intentions and real effects, I thought it fair to ask if that effort consisted of the truth, or the Drug-Free America party line of lies. I'm still waiting for that answer. The sidestepping and obfuscation was not mine. Keep throwing your principles out there at this ... maybe you'll see that you're drawing an artificial line of tolerance that is motivated by limiting ideas. In other words, maybe you'll see that you're looking for a fault among homosexuality to exploit in your cause. I still say that if the Christians let it go, so will the people they've put on the defensive.

I like your "jeweled necklace" bit. Unfortunately, the necklace is tarnished and the jewels are cracked and dirty. And it's because the Christian idea of decency apparently must to be given to everybody. Whatever. But if your idea of "peace" gets you into fights ... there's something wrong with your idea of peace. I'd rather fight for liberty, justice, and all that "American way" jazz. I'd rather people not worry about whether next week will bring another burning cross, a pistol-whipping, or accusations that "Ellen" was part of the Gay-Zionist conspiracy to destroy the UN and take over the world.

You know, when the indigenous tribes enslaved by European missionaries didn't like their working conditions, the priests told them it was best not to start such fights. Well ... who came in, read the Requerimiento in Latin, and then started shooting when nobody complied? Gee, let me see here ... I believe the logic went that the indigenous slaves (via encomienda and other ideas) were uncooperative brutes, less than human, and slavery was the only way to teach them to be proper humans. Now I understand that Junipero Serra worked four-hundred years ago, or so, but the logic was that the indigenous slaves were going out of their way to start an unnecessary fight against God. It seems to me that you're suggesting the same thing. The only reason anything resembling a "homosexual agenda" exists is because various institutions, allegedly Christian, have laid an assault against their ability to express themselves, or even function in society. Now maybe you're just fine with the sinners, but not only would some of these laws legislate gays back into their houses 24-7, but they would take the houses as well. Yeah, I guess they're all just whining unnecessarily.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
 
tiassa,

Peace be with you.

I send this message by showing you your words and your words only.

From your most recent post:

I choose to try not to let those considerations become an issue that can change the basic context of an argument in which race or color is not the central issue. (And, frankly, I think most of those are bogus, too.)
Click to expand...

Yet, from your previous post:

I'm not about to equate these acts to tying a man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him to death because his skin is too dark for someone else's tastes.
Click to expand...

I think that if a person commits an armed robbery, it is irrelevant, say, to the news story, what color that person's skin was.
Click to expand...

Strangely, if I have my media prejudices right, the only person not warranting advance judgement is a white Christian male.
Click to expand...

Peace be with you, tiassa.
 
tiassa,

Peace be with you.

Since you seem to be still obsessed with the following, I suggest you go back to our discussion and read my response. Yes, the truth is that I did respond, and I did respond honestly. However, the answer was not to your satisfaction (or your understanding). Additionally, I will address this one last time for you and try to put the entire issue into perspective for you. I truly hope that your head is clear of drugs when you read this so that you can follow.

I recently went rounds with someone who boasted that she founded an organization that, among others, helped keep kids away from drugs. Since the crux of the argument at the time was the difference between good intentions and real effects, I thought it fair to ask if that effort consisted of the truth, or the Drug-Free America party line of lies. I'm still waiting for that answer.
Click to expand...

First of all, some of the actions which I have taken in my lifetime along with others were offered to you as examples in response to your question in which you asked why, when people agree that a certain problem or evil exists, don't they take action. It is a sad state of affairs on this board if we cannot share our life experiences and learn from each other without being accused of boasting.

Second, the "evil" (problem) which was being addresssed by this volunteer organization was "idleness" among children. There were no organized activities for them to participate in other than high school varsity sports. The parents wanted to change that, and did. There are some inherent benefits to keeping children active and off the streets in that they are not being exposed to the things of the streets such as crime, violence and drugs.

Third, the tangent about the difference between good intentions and real effects came AFTER I offered a number of positive examples to illustrate that some people do, in fact, take action when they see that a certain evil (problem) exists. However, in response to the positive actions which I cited, you expressed contempt for "do-gooders" and proceeded in an attempt to turn the world upside down (to borrow a phrase from ISDMan). That is, to turn good into evil, based largely from your perspective of your personal use of drugs and your stated desire to have them more readily available at a reduced cost.

Fourth, you chose to turn that one small part of my response into a war to serve your personal campaign for the legalization of drugs and/or perhaps in a displaced attempt to fight back against your parents or some other authority figure. From what you have told me, it is my understanding that you believe that your parents and/or other authority figures lied to you about the dangers of drugs. Because you did not heed their warnings and have used drugs on a regular basis for quite some time now without dying, you can't forgive what I believe you chant, "the lie, the lie, the lie..." Once I mentioned drugs, ever so briefly in that discussion, excuse me for being blunt but, you went off the deep-end and have been obsessed with this ever since.

Fifth, your question about what the organization said about drugs to the children was based on an assumption about the organization which, in fact, did not exist. As I have stated before, the organization did not discuss the issue of street drugs (or street crime or street violence) with the children. That was not its purpose. The volunteers were very busy engaging in and focusing on organizing, promoting, supporting and supervising wholesome recreational activities for their children... the children were busy enjoying themselves, building their self-esteem and learning valuable skills while participating, such as: good sportsmanship, teamwork, respect and playing by the rules.

Lastly, I had never heard of the phrase "Drug-Free America party line of lies" prior to meeting you here. I only have an inkling of what you mean by virtue of your having mentioned that someone supposedly lied to you when you were a child about what drugs can kill you and what drugs can't kill you and that you supposedly learned "your truth" through first-hand experiences with drugs. That is one of YOUR primary issues and the focus of your obsession, tiassa, not mine.

I truly hope that this puts the matter into better perspective for you. If you are under the influence again when you read it, it probably will not help. If that is the case, then I suggest that you get help. Getting down on your knees and asking Jesus to help you would be a good move. He has had much experience and success in these matters, believe me. Once you are drug-free for at least a year, I am sure if you come back and re-read this, you will understand it. In the meantime...

May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you, tiassa.


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 18, 1999).]
 
tiassa,

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>Gravity does not require faith. For Satan to be the Adversary of God, I must first believe in your God. Unfortunately for that part of it, I do not believe that the Judeo-Christian deity is the end-all Supreme Being of the Universe. You know, there is an mathematical formula for gravity. Is there an equation for God?<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

I'm sure that was meant simply to be insulant. You do seem intelligent enough to comprehend the fact that God cannot be discerned by man, His creation.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>So it depends, then, on your interpretation of sin. Consider a public park ... what "sin" do you object to? Now, I can meet that statement if we're talking about the most part of what we call "crime". (Sorry about the "most", but we have laws in Seattle that let the cops--not the courts--expel you from parks for a year, at risk of jail time, if they don't like the clothes you're wearing.)<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

That has nothing to do with me or any of this. Stay on target. I answer for my own actions and have made them clear. You seem to avoid such a tempting target as myself. I'm man enough to answer for only one man alone. I've given you my stance on our subject matter, yet, all throughout this post, you now seem to be more willing to "expand the war" so to speak. Your attempting to draw in completely unrelated issues/conflicts, people, and circumstances.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>However, we're speaking of laws and principles by which you have to go out of your way to find your alleged indecency. Obviously, something rude and profane taking place on a sidewalk ... but part of what we're arguing about are the same ideas that let you own what books you want in your home.<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

You are not listening and are assuming again. Let me state this again in a quote from myself,... "To Love is to serve. Real Love is quick to forget transgressions. Real Love seeks the best good of the recipient. Jesus came as a servant to the lowest of the low. He, both, told them the truth about God and themselves and cared for them. Only once is it recorded that He took a stance of aggression. That was to chase the filth out of the house of God and at no other time. Did He continue to chase them when they were out and no longer treating God's house with disrespect? No! Did He ban them from coming back in to worship? No! Did he send others to make sure that they did not set up shop in other areas? No! How can the sin of homosexuality be any worse?" He dealt in what was relevant and I follow Him. His example has never been to hunt down sin or sinners to destroy sin. Rather, He drew sinners to Himself and forgave their sins as their hearts were repentant to turn away from sin. You make many accusations and back them up with so much hot air. Again, I am placing my methods out in public. Accuse me for me.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>"If I have an employee that is a homosexual and he keeps his business his, I have no cause against him." The biggest problem I have with the idea of "don't-ask-don't-tell" is that it still discriminates against a person's right to free speech. If we take the military example, how is it equitable that it's "macho" to discuss your heterosexual escapades, and a dischargeable crime to discuss your homosexual escapades? And then there's the consideration of "keeps his business his". What does that mean? Does it mean that his partner can't call him at work like anyone else's partner and ask him to pick up milk on the way home? Does it mean he has to lie if another of your employees ASKS him if he's gay? The standard doesn't work.<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

I don't know what military you served in. The one I served this country in has a policy of all people keeping their business their own. You obviously are also unaware that the Uniform Code Of Military Justice also finds it a crime to commit the contract breaking act of adultery and the action of unlawful co-habitation. The standards are quite high. That being said, your eyes may have accidentally skipped over a few lines. Let me complete the quote you have taken to,... "If I have an employee that is a homosexual and he keeps his business his, I have no cause against him. Everyone, be they Christian or not will be made aware that there are Christian standards of the house. I will go out of my way for any in my charge! There is no exception." I said go out of my way "for". I did not say "against". As far as what it means goes, you're jumping to defensive conclusions of exclusion again. Personal calls aren't going to be traced or listened in on. I have never stated that I expect perfection or sinlessness. If somehow it becomes known by the others that He is a homosexual, so what?!? Yet, my place of employment is not a debating ground or an advertising hot spot. He, as well as everyone else, will be exposed to and held up to a Godly standard. A Godly standard understands imperfection of all types.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>I think sexuality is irrelevant to the murder and to the alleged "coverup".<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

Oh, come on! Sexuality was the key reason why one death received mass attention and the other did not. I think you're just trying to be stubborn. You know it was.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>Are the heterosexuals engaging in a conspiracy to hide the millions of heterosexual rapes and thousands of heterosexual rape-murders that occur each year? After all, you don't see those lining the front page as often as their occurrence would warrant.<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

And you can back up this conspiracy claim with,........????? The media at large is liberal. They print what they feel is hot. No one is pulling their strings.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>To write an article like that, you have to be looking for a fight. Especially when the editorial writer is making the link between a rape-murder and a bigoted hate-crime. And if this is a serious question to you, then I might ask you why. It's actually a distraction from the real issue here, which is the number of violent crimes in this country committed by anyone. Period.<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

How many ways can I say what I have said already? "You commit any sin and you commit the sin of not loving God with all of your heart. There is no difference. What is important is the treatment and value that is placed upon the human life. That boy's life is less important socially than another's because he wasn't a homosexual. My stand is that that boy's life was valuable and someone should grieve his loss the same as the other! Neither is less of a tragedy or more of a showing of a lack of real love. Is it supposed to be a comfort to the boy's family that at least it wasn't a hate crime? That's foolishness! If there was love in either case, the boys would be alive today, God willing. The relevancy of the comparison is the value of human life. Our society is actively promoting some as being more valuable, precious, and in need of preservation than others." The real issue here is weather or not we will look upon each and every violent crime individually with the same regret and sense of loss and feel the same duty to stand and even fight against it. The media at large called the public to arms on behalf of one and shunned the other. Sadly, the reason was sexuality. They do not want to cast any other light upon that which they have promoted as the victim. They do not want the homosexual to be seen as just another human being. I've seen story upon story splashed all over the news, all generally alike, regarding the killing of a homosexual. First of all, the public would never have know the man in there stories to be a homosexual had not the media made an angle of it. Somehow, though, the story only finds longevity if the killer is not a homosexual. With speculation amassing, the hate crime angle is cast in the forefront and spoken as though it were a chant. Remember the planting of a seed? Now, when the killer is another homosexual,... whoa buddy,... that's altogether different. Those stories drop off of the face of the Earth. The fact is that, in the same way that family members and acquaintances murder each other more than non-family members and acquaintances, homosexuals murder each other more than they are murdered by straights. People get on each others nerves. No one can get on your nerves as much as someone you spend a good amount of time around. Weather it's the family you are born into the the family you choose to make for yourself, the same old interpersonal dynamics apply. The media IS picking a choosing. The media IS NOT promoting Love. They are creating a schism for the sake of their own riches and welfare. Who has compiled the most sin? Not the homosexual,... the media has!!!

Also, truestory has made it clear why I made it known to you that I am a Black man. It seemed to me that you were inferring me to be, what you consider, the average Christian White male.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>Perhaps that ratio is correct, but unfortunately we live in a capitalist nation (is it safe to assume you're U.S., too?), and there's nobody to blame but the Christians themselves for that ratio. After all, they could just pool finances and start buying up the airwaves, starting more magazines, and so on.<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

Yes, I too am a red blooded capitalist pig ;) and proud to be! Now, I seem to have missed the spot in the Bible where Jesus instructs his disciples to make sure that they maintained a 50 or above ratings share. Perhaps you could point it out for me. All I remember is being told to go and preach the Gospel boldly. Weather we go on the airwaves or through the streets, the rejoicing in Heaven is over Every One that was lost and is found. That's true even if it's only one. Jesus mingled in with people personally most of the time. To follow His example, preaching from the mount (the airwaves) has its place. While, preaching in the midst of the people has the greater place and the display of the Gospel in the giving of oneself has the greatest.

<CENTER><TABLE WIDTH="500"><TD><TR><HR>My whole life I've heard these people saying, "It's not decent, it has to go." I used to equate it to using one's First Amendment right to try to force someone else to shut up.<HR></TR></TD></TABLE></CENTER>

Imagine that?!? I wonder, with Christmas vacation be changed into holiday and yuletide, children being expelled for the use of God's name and for prayer, people being fired for the same, could you call it the same thing? I don't know what you've heard or have had done to you. I'm telling you now. There is a God. He does Love you. He does want a relationship with you. There are consequence for your choice. You're only here for a short time. One day, He will either take you home with Him or let you go to the only place in all eternity where He is not. It's up to you to choose where you want to go. He will not force your hand. he Loves you personally and wishes that you would reach out to Him and turn you back on your sin. He promises to make it worth your while. You're not going to miss out on anything. You don't have to clean up your act your ways. The relationship with Him will change you after. His Son, Jesus Christ, has paid the debt for your sin. All you have to do is accept that payment and turn away from your sin. He knows that you are not perfect. He loves you anyway. He knows what's best for you. The fact that drugs have not killed you is by His grace alone. Real love is long suffering. He has not given you the punishment you deserve because He Loves you. He wants you to come to Him through His Son. Trust in His Son and He can give your life a worth you never knew existed. You wont have to look for the fake affection and highs that come without Love. Those that build quickly die just the same. You're looking for feelings and they never last. God will give you the good feeling of true peace in spades if you would only come to a relationship with Him through trust in His way of salvation which is Jesus Christ. Trust in your own ways and, when you stand before Him, you'll not be able to say that you never heard the real Gospel. I just told you. Now, for sure, you have now excuse before God. Sure, you could choose to trust Christ way down the line in the future if God even chooses to give you the time. Why would you wait? Why would you not at all? You can accuse God's children of everything under the sun and claim this is why. You can swear that you never had enough time. You can say that it's because so many people lied to you. You will still have to answer for your choice. Choose Life!!! I pray that you will give up on your struggle against authority. The strongest of all men must even recognize his weakness in order to be truly strong. There is no way you can truly control your own life or the situations around you. God promises to use even your deepest pain and most tragic hurt for your benefit if you trust in His Son. I will be praying for you and my e-mail is available.

BTW. A man stores up water enough for only himself and his children in a huge water tank. Having ignored the coming drought, everyone in his town is forced to pay for extremely high priced bottled water and live under serious water restrictions. He, on the other hand, has plenty to drink, a wading pool for his children & green grass. The people of his town hate him for it. Tell me. Is that water not worth having?

Jesus Loves You And So Do I,
ISDAMan

P.S.- truestory has given you some real wisdom in this and other post areas. I hope you will listen.

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited December 19, 1999).]
 
Truestory:

One of the most confusing logical sequences I ever shook off was the idea of accidental, well-intentioned racism. I witnessed several incidents, while working retail in college, in which everyday customer service failures were blown out of proportion because a tired customer thought we were shrifting him based on the color of his skin. After a while, the staff tiptoed around when minorities were in the store, choking up discounts and deals, apparently, to avoid a racial "incident".

This behavior was, and is, inappropriate. I truly think that, so long as the issues of black and white persist, such odd considerations will continue to pop up in life. This is unfortunate.

Is Alice Walker a premiere black author? Or is she just a damn fine author? In this example I think limiting Ms Walker's talents with the word "black" exhausts a certain part of her artistic credibility. Ergo, trying to recognize her "Blackness", as such, limits the public's ability to perceive her work.

Now, I understand this is a fine hair to split, and it matters not if we disagree here. However, I don't see how you can make the connection to the idea of someone killing someone else because they're black, or gay, or tall or short or whatnot.

Someone chained a man to the back of a pickup truck and killed him on the grounds that he was black. That he was black makes no difference in assessing the toll of the murder. But color was the motivation of the killers, so it is a consideration in this crime. It does not matter to me if a dead man is gay. But if someone killed him because he's gay ... there, again, I am asked by my participation in society to consider the fact that someone just tied him to a fence and beat him to death based on who he sleeps with. I would rather not feel compelled to address these issues. But as long as people go out of their way to create them, such issues demand attention.

When I'm sitting in a bar, drinking with friends, it matters not what color their skin is. The only comparison I see, as outlined in your post, is if we decide that plotting to kill someone based on narrow-minded, culturally-fostered bigotries is, morally, no worse than accidentally running someone over in the road because they were wearing dark clothes and you can't see them.

Oh, and I'll quote myself here: " ... in which race or color is not the central issue." Guess what? A man is dead because someone else decided to kill him because of his skin color. Guess what? It seems skin color was the central issue here.

Wrong answer, thank you for playing. Please do try again.

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
 
Truestory:

Once upon a time I made a projection regarding Y2K. You took severe issue with the critical assumption requiring accountants. Which spun us off, as I recall, onto the subject of motive vs. result.

So you hold up an organization, as an example, which you said, among other things, helped keep kids off drugs.

Now ... that's a noble motive. What was your result? Well, you didn't address the issue, apparently, because that's what you said. But does that mean that simply distracting kids with activities and never mentioning a given subject is "keeping them away from" the subject? After all, you can play broom hockey stoned. And I've known some fine bowlers who were crack addicts.

As to Drug-Free America: it's a tossup whether DARE, DEA, or PDFA (Partnership for a Drug-Free America) did more damage to their own shared goals in the 1980's and the first half of the '90's. All of the information they released as parental and school resources contained lies, old lies. Equating the symptoms of one drug with use of another, creating paranoid conditions under which any normal teenager could be suspected of using drugs.

Now maybe you can't see the difference between educating kids and that kind of behavior ... oh, wait, that's right. You never even talked about it at all.

blessed be,
Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)
 
tiassa,

Again you jump to defensive conclusions. Who here ever condoned any violent act,... much less any racism? I don't think that you understand what people are saying to you at times.

Jesus Is The Answer,
ISDAMan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top