Thursday, January 11, 2007

Baptists Making a Stand

We really should comment on this interesting development, which might affect our situation here in Montgomery County in the long run.

Lots of Christians shake their heads at the religious extremists who use the Bible as an excuse for bigotry. For many devout folks, the message of Jesus is one of forgiveness, kindness, love. But there's that noisy little gang of them, who just live to make everybody around them miserable.

Turns out, if you look into it, the Southern Baptists are, let's say, "overrepresented" in the nuthouse. And apparently this is finally starting to grate on the other Baptists' nerves.

In all the excitement recently, this story may have been overlooked:
(AP) With the help of former President Carter, Baptists who have distanced themselves from the conservative Southern Baptist Convention announced plans Tuesday for a major meeting that aims to improve the Baptist image and broaden its agenda.

Carter, who left the Southern Baptists in 2000 after the denomination came under conservative control, and former President Bill Clinton, also a Baptist, joined leaders of about 40 Baptist groups in making the announcement at The Carter Center.

"Our goal is to have a major demonstration of harmony and a common commitment to personifying and to accomplish the goals that Jesus Christ expressed," Carter said. Carter, Clinton Back Moderate Baptists

Well, that sounds like a good idea. I never understood how these gay-haters ran away with the whole Christian religion in the United States. There's so much beauty in life, and gospels teach such a beautiful message, but instead of appreciating God's handiwork they put all their effort into hurting people.

And then, when you try to advocate caring, kindness, and clear thinking, you get accused of religion-bashing.

Skipping down...
Organizers say the event could draw more than 20,000 Baptists. Among the groups supporting the effort are several historically black Baptist denominations. Carter stressed that Southern Baptists are invited to the gathering.

The announcement Tuesday is the latest chapter in fierce Baptist battles over how to interpret Scripture. Starting in 1979, Southern Baptists who believe the Bible is without error took leadership of the convention, which now claims 16.4 million members. The denomination became a leading voice opposing gay marriage and abortion, and took stands on many other public policy issues.

Southern Baptists with a more liberal outlook responded by forming their own groups, including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, an organizer of next year's assembly.

Let's keep an eye on this. I think the radicals are losing their lock on public discourse.

59 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jimmy Carter the worst president in the last 100 years and problem runner up for the worst president ever thought I would be hard pressed to find a worse president. And as for Bill “the rapist” Clinton. Yes I guess he would be TTF’s choice for a religious figure. As pious as he pretends to be. I guess we will have to now fight against rape being considered a life style choice. Am I surprised that you would be looking to these two people for religious? No

January 11, 2007 4:22 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Just for the record, sometimes I am embarrassed by the idiots who comment here.

JimK

January 11, 2007 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lots of Christians shake their heads at the religious extremists who use the Bible as an excuse for bigotry."

Could you give us an example of "religious extremists who use the Bible as an excuse for bigotry"?

January 11, 2007 11:42 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Just for the record, sometimes I am embarrassed by the idiots who comment here.

Me too...and even former Presidents, like Carter (I actually like Clinton as he is that love-able rogue) who continue to write books that further confirm the judgement of American voters in November 1980. After having had to endure four much too long years of national embarassment, I was able (in the first election I was able to vote in) turn out of office an individual that was clearly not up to the job.

But, hey, don't take my word for it...

Carter Center advisers resign over book

By ERNIE SUGGS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/12/07

Fourteen members of a Carter Center advisory board resigned Thursday, the latest fallout from former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel's role in the Middle East conflict.

In a letter to Carter, the disillusioned members of the more than 200-member board of councilors wrote that he had abandoned his "historic role of broker, in favor of becoming an advocate for one side" in his recently released book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

"I wish the Carter Center continued success, but they also have to traffic in truth and fact," said real estate developer Steve Berman, one of the 14 who quit.

Carter, who was unavailable for comment, has said in the past that the "ultimate purpose" of his book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion, and to help restart peace talks."

The board of councilors is made up of community and business leaders who are briefed quarterly on the center's work and serve as emissaries to Atlanta for the center, said Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman.

Hardman, who in a brief statement thanked the resigning members for their service, said the center's governing board is actually the 21-member board of trustees.

But the resignations made ripples nationally.

"President Carter has only himself to blame," Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said when he heard about the resignations. "He wrote a book that, from its title to its contents, is blatantly one-sided and unbecoming of a former president, especially one who brokered peace between Egypt and Israel."

Along with Berman, the other members who quit were Alan Abrams, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Liane Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, former Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg and Gail Solomon. Most, if not all, of those who resigned are Jewish.

In December, former aide Kenneth Stein resigned as the Carter Center's Middle East fellow in protest, saying the book is riddled with errors and omissions.

Berman said that, after Carter's book came out, several members of the board began talking about quitting. But they decided it would have more of an impact if they did it as a group.

"We reached out to 17 people, and 15 said yes," Berman said. Fourteen agreed to go public and one more person wanted to resign in private.

"These are very intelligent people, and this was done with a great deal of thought and concern and care because of the strong affection for what President Carter has done in the past," said Schwartz III, a wealth management adviser who currently is advising the Atlanta Jewish Federation.

His father, Schwartz Jr., was a U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas during the Carter Administration and was the finance co-chairman of his exploratory committee to run for president.

Barbara Babbit Kaufman, the founder of Chapter II Books, which has hosted many of Carter's previous book signings, said it was an easy decision to leave.

"I love Jimmy Carter, and I've always loved Jimmy Carter," said Kaufman. "But this is not the Jimmy Carter that I've always known and loved. And I thought we needed to let him know that."

The massive board includes some of the city's biggest movers and shakers, including Ted Turner, Hank Aaron and Arthur Blank.

Blank, who is Jewish, said that he is a lifetime member of the board but not active.

"Obviously, [Carter] knows a great deal more than I do about the political dynamics and complexities in Israel and the Palestinian territories. That said, the book and the tone of the interviews that I have seen since its publication distress me and many others whose views I respect," said Blank, who is also a member of the center's board of trustees.

"At this point, I'm not prepared to discuss what, if any, actions I might take related to President Carter's book or the public reactions to it. My hope, though, is that the nature of this debate can somehow turn toward what I think the president originally intended, which is the pursuit of peace."

In his book, Carter places most of the blame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Israel for fostering what he calls a form of apartheid by denying basic human rights to Palestinians in the West Bank. He also criticizes the Bush administration for failing to intervene and other American elected officials for not addressing Middle East issues for fear of being run out of office.

The book has angered Jewish and pro-Israeli groups.

On Thursday, "The Forward," a national Jewish Weekly, reported that leaders of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, a 1,500-member group, canceled a March tour of the Carter Center in protest of the book.

Berman said the group that resigned from the board of councilors has been troubled that Carter has, they say, dismissed criticisms of the book.

"In our great country where freedom of expression is basic bedrock, you have suddenly proclaimed that Americans cannot express their opinion on matters in the Middle East for fear of retribution from the 'Jewish Lobby,' " the letter said. "In condemning the Jews of America, you also condemn Christians and others for their support of Israel.''

The letter to Carter notes that several white supremacists have "enthusiastically embraced" his suggestion that the Israel lobby stifles debate in America.

"We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position," read the letter. "This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support."

Levetan, a former DeKalb County chief executive who is a Holocaust survivor, said she and others who signed the letter agonized over their decision to leave the Carter Center.

"The point is, whether you are Jewish or non-Jewish, you can't be silent," Levetan said. "You can't be afraid to speak out when something is not the way it is written. It pains me. But, in life, not everything is easy."

January 12, 2007 5:53 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

For many devout folks, the message of Jesus is one of forgiveness, kindness, love.

Yes, it certainly is...and while that is a necessary component, it is not sufficient. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a condemnation and rejection of a sexually licentious culture, that is, judgement. I embrace a book, the Bible, that condemns corporate greed (hence my praise for the efforts of Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA to curb excessive CEO compensation) every bit as much as the sexual license so dominant in contemporary American culture.

It would appear that Carter and Clinton are "cherry picking" the Bible every bit as much as those they claim have "hijacked" their faith.

This announcement by Carter and Clinton reminded me of this verse of scripture,

2 Timothy 4:3

3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

(KJV translation)

January 12, 2007 6:10 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin, my sense is that Jesus himself didn't have much to say about a sexually licentious culture. I seem to recall that he preached that one should leave one's family, break up one's stable marriage and family life, to become one of his followers. And while the Hebrew Bible contains several chapters regarding sexual relationships, 99+% heterosexual, mind you, the bulk of its commandments relate to the other kinds of socioeconomic issues you describe. It is religious extremists of all traditions who have made these religious books appear to be solely about sexual purity, which, of course, is an impossible condition for anyone.

January 12, 2007 7:22 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

...about sexual purity, which, of course, is an impossible condition for anyone.

Really? Oh, I must have missed that memo...difflicult condition? Yes, it is not easy, but it is possible.

Your comment Dana is one of the most profoundly saddest comments I have read in a long time.

Dana again,

Orin, my sense is that Jesus himself didn't have much to say about a sexually licentious culture.

Is that so? Huh, that is interesting...how exactly then would you square that with Jesus' admonition to the woman caught in adultery to "go, and sin no more." (John 8:11)? Or, how about this from Matthew 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Didn't have much to say? Think again.

I think everyone should have a motto that is a succinct summation of what they believe about how to live, and I think I know what I might make mine:

Smart is Good; Wise is Better

January 12, 2007 8:34 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Orin, I was actually thinking, in part, about people who drag religion down to the level of partisan politics.

JimK

January 12, 2007 9:21 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin, you're doing what Anon often does -- exhort by oversimplification. Yes, Jesus made those comments (apparently). Fine. As I pointed out, there are a good many similar statements in the Hebrew Bible. But these statements are a small proportion of the many other moral statements that are made.

How do you define purity? What can that possibly mean? People have been slaughtered for millenia over someone's definition of purity. I really do believe it's impossible, unless you trivialize the meaning of purity. And I think it's one of the critical fundamental problems with all fundamentalist religions.

January 12, 2007 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And then, when you try to advocate caring, kindness, and clear thinking, you get accused of religion-bashing."

Actually, the reason you get accused of that is because no matter what your gripe with anyone, if they are religious, you bring it up.

January 12, 2007 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People have been slaughtered for millenia over someone's definition of purity."

Talk about an over-simplification. People have been slaughtered over virtually every disagreement. It's because the sinful nature of man.

For the record, the worst slaughterers of all time were the Marxist-atheist regimes of the twentieth century, unrestrained by any concept of God.

January 12, 2007 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Orin, I was actually thinking, in part, about people who drag religion down to the level of partisan politics."

Could we get some facts here, Jim?

Names, dates, incidents?

January 12, 2007 11:06 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

People have been slaughtered for reasons of religious purity for thousands of years. Until recently women were considered impure because of menstruation. Is that what you consider sad? How about the 99% of men who masturbate? Or all those nocturnal seminal emissions?

January 12, 2007 11:11 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Thre is no such thing as "the sinful nature of man." Sorry, Anon. Humans are capable of great deeds, awful ones and usually morally neutral ones.

The greatest mass murderers were those of the 20th century because of technology. Hitler was Christian, Stalin and Mao were areligious communists.

January 12, 2007 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I never understood how these gay-haters ran away with the whole Christian religion in the United States. There's so much beauty in life, and gospels teach such a beautiful message, but instead of appreciating God's handiwork they put all their effort into hurting people."

Who is being hurt, Jim? How?

Also, could you explain the "beautiful" gospel message?

January 12, 2007 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hitler was Christian, Stalin and Mao were areligious communists."

Hitler was as anti-Christian as they come. Jim posted a quote from him recently showing how he wanted to "redefine" Jesus. He made up an ideology and used phrases to fool those of that heritage. Could you show us anything about Jesus or Christianity that Hitler believed in?

Stalin and Mao actively promoted atheism and brutally supressed members of any other religious view.

January 12, 2007 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Humans are capable of great deeds, awful ones and usually morally neutral ones."

Looking through history, I think you'll find man's greatest deeds were inspired by a desire to serve God.

January 12, 2007 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"my sense is that Jesus himself didn't have much to say about a sexually licentious culture."

Dana, another point is that sexual sins seem to be low on the scale for Jesus. By that, I mean, he always seemed quick to forgive them and defended the perpetrators. On the other hand, reading the gospels, he always reserved his strongest contempt for hypocrites.

Still, as Orin pointed out, he always made sure to not let his compassion be confused for tolerance. He always said, go and sin no more.

"I seem to recall that he preached that one should leave one's family, break up one's stable marriage and family life, to become one of his followers."

He did indeed make some remarks like this. Could you tell us which comments you refer to specifically and how you interpret them?

January 12, 2007 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"""""Anonymous said...
"Orin, I was actually thinking, in part, about people who drag religion down to the level of partisan politics."

Could we get some facts here, Jim?

Names, dates, incidents?""""

I think I can do that for you

Names: Jimmy Carter and Bill "The rapist" Clinton


Dates: some time in 2000 to the present

incidents: With the help of former President Carter, Baptists who have distanced themselves from the conservative Southern Baptist Convention announced plans Tuesday for a major meeting that aims to improve the Baptist image and broaden its agenda.

JimK is such a hypocrat!

January 12, 2007 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anon at January 12, 2007 11:06 AM requested "Names, dates, incidents?"

For one who remains nameless, that's an odd request.

Anon at January 12, 2007 11:28 AM asked "Who is being hurt, Jim? How?"

I'm not Jim but the way I see it, the children of same sex couples who are denied the right to marry are harmed in a variety of ways because only the biological parent is given parental rights. Unlike the non-biological parents of remarried opposite sex couples, the non-biological parents of same sex couples are prohibited from:

1. visiting the children in the hospital
2. making medical decisions for the children
3. making burial arrangements for the children
4. adopting the children or becoming a stepparent to them
5. being granted child custody in case of separation
6. visitation rights in case of separation
7. receiving family rates for various type of insurance
8. leaving their property to the surviving partner to help care for the children

More marriage rights that are denied to LGBT parents of children can be found at http://tinyurl.com/cud2h

Your lack of concern for children being raised by same sex couples is abominable.

January 12, 2007 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For one who remains nameless, that's an odd request."

You think it's odd to ask that the accusations here be verifiable?

"Anon at January 12, 2007 11:28 AM asked "Who is being hurt, Jim? How?"

"I'm not Jim but the way I see it, the children of same sex couples who are denied the right to marry are harmed in a variety of ways because only the biological parent is given parental rights. Unlike the non-biological parents of remarried opposite sex couples, the non-biological parents of same sex couples are prohibited from:

1. visiting the children in the hospital
2. making medical decisions for the children
3. making burial arrangements for the children
4. adopting the children or becoming a stepparent to them
5. being granted child custody in case of separation
6. visitation rights in case of separation
7. receiving family rates for various type of insurance
8. leaving their property to the surviving partner to help care for the children"

This is what you call harm? Not giving them special rights?

Most of the above can be arranged in other ways than marriage. People are free to leave their property to anyone they want, for example. I guess you're complaining because they don't get a tax break for it. (Tip: the tax code is currenty phasing out the estate tax and it will disappear completely soon for an entire year. Unless Congress makes this permanent, it will come back the following year. Write your congressman to help out same gender couples.)

In sum, lack of assistance is not identical to harm. Marriage, as currently defined, should be encouraged.

"Your lack of concern for children being raised by same sex couples is abominable."

What's abominable is when kids being raised by same gender couples don't know their biological parent. You underestimate the stress.

January 12, 2007 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea said...
Anon at January 12, 2007 11:06 AM requested "Names, dates, incidents?"
Aunt Bea always good for a laugh

"Visiting the children in the hospital"

Not true I have visited many people in the hospital and have never been turned away friends who were dying and the children of friends name one state the denies visitation rights based on sexual orientation. You all just lie lie lie….

"2. Making medical decisions for the children"

This can be arranged through the insurance company and since you are paying them they don’t care who makes the decisions straight or gay lies again.

"3. Making burial arrangements for the children"

You can make burial arrangements for a total stranger if you want what nonsense.

"4. Adopting the children or becoming a stepparent to them"

Most states bar homosexuals from adopting children and France not the most religious country in the world bar homosexuals from adopting children they did so based on scientific study. So that’s is just good.
"5. Being granted child custody in case of separation"

Biological parents always are preferred usually biological mother.

""6. Visitation rights in case of separation""

Put a bun in each oven or don’t have kids.
""7. Receiving family rates for various type of insurance""

A mother with children gets family rates another lie…
""8. Leaving their property to the surviving partner to help care for the children""

You can leave property to your dog if you want Christ you just make stuff up that has no bases in reality and any one who does not buy this crap is called gay bashing or a homophobe to words that don’t exist.

January 12, 2007 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There you go again. No, I'm not talking about "special" rights. I'm talking about "equal" rights which should be the same for all couples raising children. You think some couples raising children shouldn't receive the same rights as other couples raising children. It is the children who suffer. You simply don't care about them in order to justify your discrimination against same sex couples.

Enough of your spin. Here are some facts about same-sex marriage.

Pros and Cons of Same-Sex Marriage: Is it for You?
Fast facts to help you decide whether you'd want to pop the question if you could.

For same-sex couples living in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Vermont, same-sex marriage -- or a reasonable facsimile of marriage -- is now a reality. If you live in any of these four states, you and your partner have a decision to make that same-sex couples have never had to make before: whether marriage is right for you.

A few other states -- Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey -- have domestic partnership laws, but they offer limited rights that don't really approximate marriage. But for folks living in these and other states, it's never too early to think about what you might do if new relationship options became available where you live. Here are some things to consider as you think about how you want to structure your relationship.

Having children. In most cases, if you have children or hope to raise a family, marriage is probably the right option. Married couples by law have equal rights to raise their children, as well as equal obligations of support. In a divorce, both parents can seek visitation and custody, and, if one parent dies, the other one steps right in as the primary legal parent. It's pretty difficult to make these sorts of arrangements absent a legal marriage or a second parent or stepparent adoption.

Jointly owning property. Marriage isn't a prerequisite for owning property together, but if you get married, in most situations your property will be jointly owned regardless of who pays for it. This is the reverse of the presumption that applies to unmarried couples. Getting married may be the most efficient way of establishing a property merger -- though, if keeping things separate is more to your taste, you will have to sign a prenuptial agreement to avoid the joint ownership presumptions of a legal marriage.

Splitting up property. In most states, each married spouse's earnings are owned by the two of you, and, if the marriage breaks up -- regardless of who's at fault -- you each generally get half of everything you've accumulated. By contrast, if you are unmarried, your property is co-owned only if you have an agreement to that effect. Likewise for debts and obligations. Divorcing spouses are also entitled to demand alimony if the marriage doesn't last, without the need for any explicit contract providing for post-separation support.

Formalities. Every marriage requires a formal ceremony, and every marital separation requires some kind of formal court action -- and quite often the help of a lawyer. Unmarried couples can break up informally, on their own terms.

Inheritance and death taxes. Without a legal marriage, a couple needs to sign several agreements to create even a partial framework of protection in the event of death, and certain tax benefits are forever denied to unmarried couples. If you are married, however, the surviving spouse generally inherits all the property if the partner dies without a will. (However, laws exempting married couples from inheritance taxes and gift taxes don't yet apply to same-sex couples, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex relationships even if state law provides for marriage or marriage-like benefits.)

Transfer taxes. In theory, transfers of property upon dissolution of the relationship are tax-free for legally married couples, but not for unmarrieds. It's unclear yet how these rules will apply to same-sex couples, because of the federal government's refusal to recognize same-sex relationships.

Government benefits. Marriage can bestow a bevy of important benefits, including military or Social Security benefits, health care benefits, and nursing home coverage. Marriage may also qualify you for unpaid leave from your job under the Family Leave Act. But watch out -- a married person's income could disqualify a spouse from receiving Social Security, welfare, or medical benefits she'd receive if she were unmarried.

Immigration. A legal marriage is the only reliable method of providing a foreign partner with the privileges of immigration to this country when he doesn't qualify under work or other provisions of the Immigration Act. However, again because the federal government does not recognize same-sex relationships, this benefit is not yet available to married couples. In fact, couples in which one partner is a nonresident are advised against getting married or entering a civil union or domestic partnership, which could threaten their visa status in some situations.


http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/same-sex/legal-same-sex-marriage.html

January 12, 2007 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea said...
There you go again. No, I'm not talking about "special" rights. I'm talking about "equal" rights .....


The republicans got rid of the death tax so 90% of your argument is pointless and the rest is pointless because you can do everything a married couple can do only you have to have a legal agreement.
As for the other things like not being able to testify against a spouse well I don’t think I want a couple of men getting married so they will not be able to testify against each other. And as for immigration I don’t want a bunch of HIV infected gay men coming over here and burdening are health care system and if France does not think homosexuals should marry than that is good enough for me.

January 12, 2007 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

France does not think homosexuals should marry than that is good enough for me.

change the to If France does not think homosexuals should adopt kids )because that would be harmfull for the kids)that is good enough for me

January 12, 2007 3:06 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at
January 12, 2007 10:59 AM said "For the record, the worst slaughterers of all time were the Marxist-atheist regimes of the twentieth century, unrestrained by any concept of God.".

How conveniently you overlook the Christian Hitler.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.

January 12, 2007 7:17 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous asked "Who is being hurt, Jim? How?"

Well, obviously the gay-haters are hurting the gays, anonymous. Gays can't live openly without fear of verbal or physical assault, losing their jobs, or being evicted from their homes. The gay-haters prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most and living openly in freedom and equality.

January 12, 2007 7:33 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said " Could you show us anything about Jesus or Christianity that Hitler believed in?".

Easily enough done anonymous:


“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

January 12, 2007 7:49 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Aunt bea list several ways gays are harmed. She said "Visiting the children in the hospital"

Anonymous said "Not true I have visited many people in the hospital and have never been turned away friends who were dying and the children of friends name one state the denies visitation rights based on sexual orientation. You all just lie lie lie….".

While typically people aren't turned away as visiters in some cases hospitals will limit visitation to immediate family and in this case gays are harmed by exclusion.

Aunt bea said "2. Making medical decisions for the children"

Anonymous said "This can be arranged through the insurance company and since you are paying them they don’t care who makes the decisions straight or gay lies again.".

That's a lie. Hospitals require immediate family in a preordered hierarchy to make medical decisions for patients. As gay partners aren't considered family they have no right to make medical decisions.

Aunt Bea said "3. Making burial arrangements for the children"

Anonymous said "You can make burial arrangements for a total stranger if you want what nonsense."

That's ridicuolous. If I tried to make burial arragments for a stranger their family would have me legally thrown out of the place.

Aunt bea said "adopting the children or becoming a stepparent to them"

Most states bar homosexuals from adopting children and France not the most religious country in the world bar homosexuals from adopting children they did so based on scientific study. So that’s is just good.

I have my doubts about the "most states" comment and the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows children of gays do just as well as children of heterosexuals. In any event this is a harm to gays

Aunt bea said "5. being granted child custody in case of separation"

Anonymous said "Biological parents always are preferred usually biological mother.".

Not true. Biological parents may be unfit or not want the child. In many cases the biological parent was merely a sperm or egg doner and wants nothing to do with the child.

Aunt bea said "6. Visitation rights in case of separation"

Anonymous said "Put a bun in each oven or don’t have kids.".

That's just stupid. Many kids being raised by a gay couple were the result of a previous heterosexual marriage and the heterosexual parent didn't want them. When a child has been raised from by two gay parents its cruel and harmful to seperate it from the parents who've raised it.

Aunt bea said "7. Receiving family rates for various type of insurance"

"A mother with children gets family rates another lie".
Trouble is the gay partner wouldn't. This is an inequity that doesn't exist in opposite sex relationships.

Aunt bea said "8. Leaving their property to the surviving partner to help care for the children"

Anonymous said "You can leave property to your dog if you want Christ you just make stuff up that has no bases in reality and any one who does not buy this crap is called gay bashing or a homophobe to words that don’t exist."

There have been many cases where a gay person has willed their property to a partner and biological family comes forward and hullifies the will to claim the property for themselves. Gay men have been thrown out of houses they bought with their deceased partner over a lifetime by greedy relatives. It happens all the time.

January 12, 2007 8:21 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 12, 2007 11:34 AM

Anonymous a belief in Jesus makes a person a Christian. Hitler was clearly a Christian as his own words show. Your suggesting otherwise is an example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

January 12, 2007 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi

I hope you don't mind if I don't repaste the Hitler quotes. In these quotes and the one Jim posted last week, which is very similar to one of yours, I see terms like "Christian", "Christianity",
"Lord", et al. I don't see any ideas, doctrines, teachings or anything at all pertaining to those of Jesus Christ or any part of Christian tradition. Do you? If so, where?

What I do see is that almost every line contradicts the teachings of Christ and the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Need any examples?

January 12, 2007 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous a belief in Jesus makes a person a Christian."

I don't see where he "believed" in Jesus. He just utters his name and contradicts him.

I could just as easily say, "I believe and dedicate myself to Randi Schimnosky and I will not rest until I complete Randi's mission to eliminate homosexuality from Canda.

Would that make me a Schimnosky-ite?

You've been seduced by the words of one of the all-time demonic manipulators. Just glad you weren't around Berlin in th 30s.

January 12, 2007 8:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Aunt Bea said...
There you go again. No, I'm not talking about "special" rights. I'm talking about "equal" rights .....


Anonymous said "The republicans got rid of the death tax so 90% of your argument is pointless and the rest is pointless because you can do everything a married couple can do only you have to have a legal agreement."

Anonymous those legal agreements are freqently ignored or contested by greedy family members. They don't carry the same weight as marriage does and in any event why should gay couples have to go through piles of legal hoops and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for something straight couples get for the cost of a marriage license.

Anonymous said "As for the other things like not being able to testify against a spouse well I don’t think I want a couple of men getting married so they will not be able to testify against each other."

You've got no basis to oppose that when you don't oppose opposite sex couples having that right. You asked who was being harmed and that is clearly an inequity between same sex and opposite sex couples and an unjustifiable one at that.

Anonymous said "And as for immigration I don’t want a bunch of HIV infected gay men coming over here and burdening are health care system and if France does not think homosexuals should marry than that is good enough for me."

As long as all spouses of heterosexual citizens aren't banned from immigrating because some might have diseases there's no way you can justify bannng all spouses of gay citizens from immigrating because some might have diseases. No special rights for heterosexuals - until gays have the same rights that's what it is.

January 12, 2007 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read your atheist website "No Scotsman" piece.

It doesn't apply here. The problem is that you haven't understand your own definition. You correctly state that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus but you seem to think if someone says that they do, then they do, no matter what else they say they believe.

From the quotes provided, I don't see any hint that he believed in Jesus. He seemed to believe that he can get a reaction by speaking Jesus' name.

January 12, 2007 8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards."

I notice more people seem to want to come to America than these places. Wonder why?

January 12, 2007 9:01 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "I don't see where he "believed" in Jesus. He just utters his name and contradicts him."

Hitler said "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.".

Sounds pretty Christian to me, a sincere belief in Jesus. And as you'll see in this link that's what the bible confirms is all it takes to be a Christian and as far as I can tell his hatred of the Jews was consistent with the bible quotes below:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm


Hitler not only got brought up as a Roman Catholic Christian, but he expressed his Christian views into adulthood, including his period as Chancellor of the German Third Reich. One only need read Mein Kampf to see the extent of his Biblical beliefs. The German populace knew well about Hitler's book and it became a best-seller second only to the Bible. Furthermore, Hitler expressed his Christian feelings even more intensely in his speeches and proclamations throughout his power reign.

Although some might counter that Hitler's admission to Christianity, by itself, does not make one a Christian, how else can an individual convey to another his religion except from their own confession? One of the tenants of Christian belief, indeed the definition of a Christian, comes from the Pauline epistiles in regards to faith in Jesus:Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

-Galatians 2:16


To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

-Romans 3:26-28
Paul, by declaring faith in Jesus over law, effectively separated Christianity from Judaism. It came from these Pauline declarations that first defined Christianity. Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period.

January 12, 2007 9:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "I don't see where he "believed" in Jesus. He just utters his name and contradicts him."

Hitler said "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.".

Sounds pretty Christian to me, a sincere belief in Jesus. And as you'll see in this link that's what the bible confirms is all it takes to be a Christian and as far as I can tell his hatred of the Jews was consistent with the bible quotes below:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm


Hitler not only got brought up as a Roman Catholic Christian, but he expressed his Christian views into adulthood, including his period as Chancellor of the German Third Reich. One only need read Mein Kampf to see the extent of his Biblical beliefs. The German populace knew well about Hitler's book and it became a best-seller second only to the Bible. Furthermore, Hitler expressed his Christian feelings even more intensely in his speeches and proclamations throughout his power reign.

Although some might counter that Hitler's admission to Christianity, by itself, does not make one a Christian, how else can an individual convey to another his religion except from their own confession? One of the tenants of Christian belief, indeed the definition of a Christian, comes from the Pauline epistiles in regards to faith in Jesus:Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

-Galatians 2:16


To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

-Romans 3:26-28
Paul, by declaring faith in Jesus over law, effectively separated Christianity from Judaism. It came from these Pauline declarations that first defined Christianity. Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period.

January 12, 2007 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period."

I completely agree. You have yet to give us a statement showing he had faith in Jesus. Saying his name is not the equivalent of having faith. Faith is believing what Jesus said.

January 12, 2007 10:33 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana asks,

How about the 99% of men who masturbate?

Actually, I think you are just one percentage point off...and I think it might be a Woody Allen quote (though I can't be sure) that stated that 50% of men masturbate, while the other half lie about it!

Or all those nocturnal seminal emissions?

Maybe if those emissions cause "global warming" we could get Al Gore on that too...whatcha think?

Sorry, but I have been busy all day Friday trying to keep warm and run a few errands...the temp here now?
-2 degrees...brrr.

January 13, 2007 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think thinking "those emissions" have anything to do with global warming is dumb.

January 13, 2007 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think thinking "those emissions" have anything to do with global warming is dumb."

Not nearly as dumb as this comment.

January 13, 2007 1:25 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

As usual, even when we try hardest we end up misunderstanding each other. I think you know, Orin, that I believe that people should treat each other with respect, dignity, fidelity and the like. That's not what religious folks mean when they speak of sexual purity.

At least you have a real winter out there. Today here it's in the 60's again. Maybe hell will freeze over in Colorado once the Democratic National Convention comes to town.

January 13, 2007 5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's not what religious folks mean when they speak of sexual purity."

I go to an evangelical and actually don't think I can ever recall hearing the phrase. I know there are few people there who think they are pure in any way. Jesus said "Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God." I would think it's something worthy to strive for.

When have you heard it and what do you think they mean?

January 13, 2007 5:16 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period."

Anonymous said "I completely agree. You have yet to give us a statement showing he had faith in Jesus. Saying his name is not the equivalent of having faith. Faith is believing what Jesus said."

Faith is believing in Jesus.
Hitler said "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.". He clearly believed in Jesus and by your own admission belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. If you're so into Jesus why don't you follow his example and never speak against gays?

January 13, 2007 6:19 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi writes,

Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period."

Ever heard of the New Testament, you know the one with the Four Gospels? This passage from the Book of St. James sums up how closely linked faith is to works,

James 2:26,

For as the body without the aspirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

and with this comment, "or abstaining from evil deeds" you bear false witness. You lose any credibility you might have when you make statements like those...

Anonymous said "I completely agree. You have yet to give us a statement showing he had faith in Jesus. Saying his name is not the equivalent of having faith. Faith is believing what Jesus said."

Faith is believing what Christ said, and then conforming one's life to that affirmation of belief. Anyone that does not follow up an affirmation of faith with works is fooling only themselves.

Hitler said "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.". He clearly believed in Jesus and by your own admission belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community.

Ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? He paid for his faith with his life...

If you're so into Jesus why don't you follow his example and never speak against gays?

The Catholic Church is better than most Christian Churches in this regard, condemning the behavior but not the person (much like is done with similar moral shortcomings like adultery). The Church holds homosexuals to the same standard as everyone else...and I know Randi, this drives you nuts, hence your effort to delegitimize christianity. And once that has been accomplished, Christianity loses the moral authority to address such issues in a public manner.

Keep trying...

January 13, 2007 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

January 13, 2007 11:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Good one, Anon. Of course you can't define something in a way that can only be validated by mind-reading, e.g., "a Christian is someone who really believes." So here it is: someone who "professes belief."

Like, oh, Hitler, for instance.

JimK

January 13, 2007 11:22 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You know, Orin, you're right to some degree. There is that statment that you quote. But I was always struck by just how easy it is to be forgiven and get all the proper credits.

I was at the Mall twenty years ago thereabouts when JPII came to DC, and a number of people told me that if I were in earshot of the Pope then I would automatically be saved. Others have made it clear, and it is certainly an accepted fact in popular culture, that regardless of your actions all you have to do is accept Jesus on your deathbed and you're in the club, innocent as a babe. But the Mormons go one step further. They convert Jews posthumously and add us to their list of believers. It seems that there is some sort of competition going on for converts; maybe those with the most get the best seats in heaven. I wonder how many chits Mitt Romney has accumulated?

January 14, 2007 12:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Soory I have a life, and can not always be there to rebuttle, but this is the straight poupe.

Hitler was a homosexual gay light in the lofers a nancyn boy one of you perverts. As musillinie called him the little pervert.
Adolf Hitler, along with a large number of his closest friends and generals, was gay. Machtan's extensive research brought him to the conclusion that Hitler had a homosexual relationship with August Kubizek, whom he met in Linz, Austria in late 1905. Among the details, evidence showed that their close relationship lasted from 1905 to 1908, during which time the two lived together, sharing a single bed in a room they rented on the Stumpergaße in Vienna. Hitler would have been a TTFer. Not a christen he used christians like Bill the rapist Clinton used christians. Just for the votes.

Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
As usual, even when we try hardest we end up misunderstanding each other. I think you know, Orin, that I believe that people should treat each other with respect, dignity, and fidelity

Beyer are you extending that respect to Dr. Dobson? You Hypocrite!

Randi Schimnosky said...
Faith is believing in Jesus.
Hitler said "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.". He clearly believed in Jesus and by your own admission belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. If you're so into Jesus why don't you follow his example and never speak against gays?

Like Hitler never spoke against Gays though Hitler was gay some would call him a Nelly fagot.
(JimK Like, oh, Hitler, for instance.) But that is to vulgar a JimK might delete a post that used such language even if it was truthful.



Well, obviously the gay-haters are hurting the gays, anonymous. Gays can't live openly without fear of verbal or physical assault, losing their jobs,
Anyone who does not goose steep to the gay dogma lives in fear of verbal and physical assault and losing their jobs. But god hates a coward so up yours.
Randi Schimnosky said... January 12, 2007 8:21 PM


Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

() This makes no since and is contradicted by history most of the early christens were Jews so was Jesus and all of the original apostles, just another lie.

January 14, 2007 1:19 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin said "Ever heard of the New Testament, you know the one with the Four Gospels? This passage from the Book of St. James sums up how closely linked faith is to works,

James 2:26
"

Orin, you putz, the quotes I gave you are from the new testament.

Your passage from James 2:26 merely contradicts the ones I gave from Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:26-28. That's the problem with your's and anonymous's claim that Hitler wasn't a Christian because he didn't believe exactly as you do. There are hundreds if not thousands of different versions of Christianity all claiming to be the one true way. The bible gives them all plenty of reason to disagree about what Jesus said and meant and what being a Christian means because the bible itself is contradictory and ambiguous. Obviously to an objective observer the mere fact that one version of Christianity varies from another doesn't make them any less Christian. I'm sure Hitler would have made the argument that the two of you aren't Christians because you don't have it right. Frankly I don't give a damn about the minutia of your contradictory religion. Disagreements about it are obviously inevitable amnongst Christians and don't make anyone of those religions any less Christian.

Anonymous, I think you left out a few definitions of Christian. From my dictionary:

Christian - n 1 a believer in Christ OR his teachings

The definition is very general. No dictionary defines Christian as one who believes or doesn't believe any particular minutia of the many flavours of Christian theology. There is nothing to show that Hitler didn't believe in Jesus's teachings in general and by any objective definition of the term that made him a Christian.


Orin said "The [Catholic] Church holds homosexuals to the same standard as everyone else"

That's a lie, obviously it doesn't. The Catholic church lets heterosexuals marry the one person they love most and have a sex life, it does not let gays do the same. The Catholic church teachs that loving monogamous heterosexual couples can go to heaven but teaches that loving monogamous gay couples will be eternally tortured. The standards couldn't be further apart or more unjust.

I doubt you're unaware that most gays find the term "homosexual" demeaning and offensive. That you use it anyway is further evidence of the animus that motivates you when it comes to gays. Spare us your hypocritical claims to be friends with gays and to wish for the best for LGBTs.

January 14, 2007 3:00 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Like Hitler never spoke against Gays though Hitler was gay some would call him a Nelly fagot."

What happened to your insistence that people who attack gays are straights that just don't want anyone to think they're gay? According to you Hitler was a gay even though he spoke against and attacked gays - that lends credence to the idea that you bash and attack gays because you are gay yourself.

I said "Gays can't live openly without fear of verbal or physical assault, losing their jobs, or being evicted from their homes".

Anonymous said "Anyone who does not goose steep to the gay dogma lives in fear of verbal and physical assault and losing their jobs"

The statistics show otherwise. It is gays who are assaulted at far higher rates then straights. No straight person has ever been assaulted or killed for being straight. People who use religion as an excuse to call for the oppression and death of gays are protected from discrimination by law, but not the gays they seek to abuse.

January 14, 2007 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous said, "Like Hitler never spoke against Gays though Hitler was gay some would call him a Nelly fagot."

What happened to your insistence that people who attack gays are straights that just don't want anyone to think they're gay?

There is nothing in Mien komph about homosexuals. Hitler never said anything about gays he was gay. So not all you perverts are as self loathing as you are Randi but that does not mean that Hitler was mentally ill and a monster and a homosexual I don’t know who you are talking to but you need help.

The statistics show otherwise. It is gays who are assaulted at far higher rates then straights. No straight person has ever been assaulted or killed for being straight.
There are no statistics that state that gays do not assault straights quite the opposite and since you insist that you beat people up because your gay probably shows that most of the crime against gays are done by gays. You people are sicker than I thought.

January 14, 2007 7:58 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "There are no statistics that state that gays do not assault straights quite the opposite"

That doesn't even make sense, I'm arguing with a moron here. Why don't you go back to school and learn to speak English? There are no records of gays assaulting straights because of their heterosexual orientation although there are plenty of incidents of staights assaulting gays because of their gay sexual orientation.

Anonymous said "and since you insist that you beat people up because your gay probably shows that most of the crime against gays are done by gays.".

That's idiotic, for starters I have never beaten anyone up because I am bisexual or they were gay. Secondly just because some gay bashers may be same sex attracted doesn't mean all people who assault gays are gay. And those that are don't do it because they're gay, they do it because society teaches them to hate and look down on gays - a society of people like you, people like you are responsible for gay bashings.

January 15, 2007 12:22 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "There is nothing in Mien komph about homosexuals. Hitler never said anything about gays".

That's quite a statement. So you read Mein Kamph did you? Seems pretty doubtful. And you claim to know everything Hitler said such that you can exclude him ever having said anything about gays - I don't think so, that sounds just slightly impossible. Hitler had gays put to death, Hitler clearly opposed gays. By the way, Jesus actually was gay.

January 15, 2007 12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous said, "There are no statistics that state that gays do not assault straights quite the opposite"

Gays assault straights all the time statistics prove this FBI states this. what are you gay?
That's quite a statement. So you read Mein Kamph did you? Seems pretty doubtful. And you claim to know everything Hitler said such that you can exclude him ever having said anything about gays - I don't think so, that sounds just slightly impossible. Hitler had gays put to death
I have had quite an education and exactly were in Mein Kamph did Hitler attacked gays please give chapter and page. Randy
Hitler had gays put to death??
When and where who and how many.

January 15, 2007 2:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gays assault straights all the time statistics prove this FBI states this"

Provide the statistics that are the basis of this claim Anon.

"Hitler had gays put to death??
When and where who and how many."

"Estimates vary wildly as to the number of gay men killed in concentration camps during the Holocaust ranging from 15,000 to 600,000. The deaths of at least an estimated 15,000 gay men in concentration camps were officially documented. Larger numbers include those who were Jewish and gay, or even Jewish, gay and communist. In addition, records as to the specific reasons for internment are non-existent in many areas, making it hard to put an exact number on just how many gay men perished in death camps. See pink triangle.

Gay men suffered unusually cruel treatment in the concentration camps. They faced persecution not only from German soldiers but also from other prisoners, and many gay men were beaten to death. Additionally, gay men in forced labor camps routinely received more grueling and dangerous work assignments than other non-Jewish inmates, under the policy of "Extermination Through Work". German soldiers also were known to use gay men for target practice, aiming their weapons at the pink triangles their human targets were forced to wear.

The harsh treatment can be attributed to the view of the SS guards toward gay men, as well as to the homophobic attitudes present in German society at large. The marginalization of gay men in Germany was reflected in the camps. Many died from unsympathetic beatings, some of them caused by other prisoners. And Nazi doctors often used gay men for scientific experiments in an attempt to locate a "gay gene" to "cure" any future Aryan children who were gay.

An account of a gay Holocaust survivor, Pierre Seel, details life for gay men during Nazi control. In his account he states that he participated in his local gay community in the town of Mulhouse. When the Nazis gained power over the town his name was on a list of local gay men ordered to the police station. He obeyed the directive to protect his family from any retaliation. Upon arriving at the police station he notes that he and other gay men were beaten. Some gay men who resisted the SS had their fingernails pulled out. Others were raped with broken rulers and had their bowels punctured, causing them to bleed profusely. After his arrest he was sent to the concentration camp at Schirmeck. There, Seel stated that during a morning roll-call, the Nazi commander announced a public execution. A man was brought out, and Seel recognized his face. It was the face of his eighteen-year-old lover from Mulhouse. Seel then claims that the Nazi guards stripped the clothes of his lover and placed a metal bucket over his head. Then the guards released trained German Shepherd dogs on him, which mauled him to death.

Experiences such as these can account for the relatively high death rate of gay men in the camps..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

PTA

January 15, 2007 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PTA
January 15, 2007 8:02 AM

None of this is true. At best only 50 homosexuals died in concentration camps and non were sent there during Hitler’s final solution also there was a standing order if a gay man had sex with a woman usually raping a Jewish girl, he could be released and this was often done. Some homosexuals who were sent to the concentration camps were befriended by the guards who were mostly homosexuals as thy seemed to be less upset at the butchering of women and children they also took advantage of the young Jewish boys who were interned and used them as sex slaves. All the records still exist and the Germans were very good record keepers and there was no attempt to destroy the records they really did not care if the records were discovered. And all of them have been recovered though they are still going through them to get the names of every victim the detail is startling.

January 15, 2007 11:52 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Gays assault straights all the time statistics prove this FBI states this."

No, straights are the one's assaulting gays. According to the FBI 2005 hate crime statistics 17.1 percent were motivated by religion, and 14.2 percent by sexual orientation.

Given that up to 90% of the American population is religious and that only 5% or so is gay, gays are roughly 16 or 17 times more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a religious person. And the FBI statistics don't include hate crimes against transgendered people because of their gender expression.

Anonymous said "I have had quite an education and exactly were in Mein Kamph did Hitler attacked gays please give chapter and page"

Yeah, from all the broken grammer and bad spelling it must have been quite an education all right. Like yourself, I haven't read Mein Kamph and unlike you I wouldn't make claims about what something I haven't read says or does not say - I'm not a liar.

Anonymous at January 15, 2007 11:52 AM

Anonymous, PTA documented his claims, as usual, you make hysterical lies you can't back up.

January 15, 2007 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home