Saturday, January 13, 2007

School Requires Balance to Science

It's getting late, and I wasn't planning on blogging, but ... I was just checking the blogs, and ... I have to put this one up here.

This is from the town of Federal Way, Washington. Turns out I've spent a little time in Federal Way. There's not much to say about it, just a little place in the woods outside Tacoma.

I knew an opera singer there who could imitate Jimi Hendrix's guitar with his voice. He'd sing Purple Haze dew-dew-DAH-dew and you'd think it was an upside-down Strat through a Marshall stack with a Fuzz Face ... ahem ... but ...

(This was a while ago, you might say.)

So they showed "An Inconvenient Truth" in some schools there. This is mind-boggling.
This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert "An Inconvenient Truth."

After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists' findings.

Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." Federal Way schools restrict Gore film: 'Inconvenient Truth' called too controversial

Hmm, Hardison, Hardiman, Hardiberg, Harrison ... that name sounds familiar ...

Yeah, if it doesn't quote the book of Revelations directly, it doesn't belong in the schools. Of course.
Hardison's e-mail to the School Board prompted board member David Larson to propose the moratorium Tuesday night.

"Somebody could say you're killing free speech, and my retort to them would be we're encouraging free speech," said Larson, a lawyer. "The beauty of our society is we allow debate."

Except we're talking about schools. You could debate all day about what if two plus two was five, but you don't. Schools in some places are for learning.

Can you imagine, first of all, the insanity of making science like this political? How did this happen? Who decided that global warming isn't happening? You've got, on one side, scientists, PhD experts in geology and meteorology. And on the other side, some capitalists and some nuts.

And you're supposed to "balance" them.

These are some wacky times we live in.

Of course, you know what I think. America is in danger of totally losing respect for learning, for critical thinking, for reasoning based on facts and logic. This is what we're fighting in our little county, and this is what the folks over in Federal Way had better wake up to. Our society is coming to worship ignorance.

The school board went along with it.
School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."

Ooh. My forehead just left an impression in the table-top.

Just in case there's any doubt, the story goes on:
"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," states a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advises policymakers.

"Furthermore, it is very likely that the 20th-century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of seawater and widespread loss of land ice."

The basics of that position are backed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.

But what about PFOX? What do they think? Maybe the earth is warming because so many people discriminate against ex-gays.
Laurie David, a co-producer of the movie, said that this is the first incident of its kind relating to the film.

"I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision," David said in a prepared statement. "There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now."

Look, knowledge can change, no doubt. But right now the best knowledge in the world says that people are causing global warming. Why would you bet against that?
The Federal Way incident started when Hardison learned that his daughter would see the movie in class. He objected.

Hardison and his wife, Gayla, said they would prefer that the movie not be shown at all in schools.

"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

Scientists say that Americans, with about 5 percent of the world's population, emit about 25 percent of the globe-warming gases.

Ah, maybe that's it, that's why global warming is political -- because it'd be us, Americans, who'd have to do something about it.

Well, we can easily readjust the facts to prevent that.

23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Federal Way is not the only place where some people are trying to dumb down science education. People who control big oil special interest funds strive to dumb down science that shows the harm their industry does to the planet for all American students:

Science a la Joe Camel
By Laurie David
Sunday, November 26, 2006; B01

At hundreds of screenings this year of "An Inconvenient Truth," the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.

The producers of former vice president Al Gore's film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.

The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.
In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.

Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.

Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.

That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.

It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.

And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education.

So much for special interests and implicit endorsements.

In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.

And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.

NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence.

The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.

"The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission," Borowski says. "The oil and coal guys won't address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts."

An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."

So, how is any of this different from showing Gore's movie in the classroom? The answer is that neither Gore nor Participant Productions, which made the movie, stands to profit a nickel from giving away DVDs, and we aren't facing millions of dollars in lost business from limits on global-warming pollution and a shift to cleaner, renewable energy.

It's hard to say whether NSTA is a bad guy here or just a sorry victim of tight education budgets. And we don't pretend that a two-hour movie is a substitute for a rigorous science curriculum. Students should expect, and parents should demand, that educators present an honest and unbiased look at the true state of knowledge about the challenges of the day.

As for Exxon Mobil -- which just began a fuzzy advertising campaign that trumpets clean energy and low emissions -- this story shows that slapping green stripes on a corporate tiger doesn't change the beast within. The company is still playing the same cynical game it has for years.

While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.

laurie@lauriedavid.com

Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," is a Natural Resources Defense Council trustee and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html

January 13, 2007 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the previous post may be outdated

Exxon made some policy changes this week

January 13, 2007 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) that has to change it's policy. As long as it is beholding to its funders, which include other big oil companies and advocacy groups besides Exxon/Mobile such as Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute, it won't change it's policy.

In fact, on November 30, 2006, the NSTA responded to Ms. David's piece in the Washington Post and after offering some alternatives, reaffirmed it's position:

"...NSTA's Board stands by the decision that we cannot accomodate your request for NSTA to mass distribute the DVD to all of our members..."

The NSTA website currently provides a link to a website (http://www.participate.net/educators/DVD/giveaway) that offers free copies of An Inconvenient Truth DVDs to teachers who request them by January 18, 2007. Thank goodness for the public pressure that managed to override SOME of the influence of the oil industry over the NSTA.

January 13, 2007 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I don't know how anyone can make a religious issue out of global warming. The quote from some guy out in Washington isn't in context or complete so we don't that he was doing that. For all we know, he was joking. Never let it be said that JK passed up a chance to attack religious belief however.

Personally, I do think global warming has occurred in the last fifty years but there are many other facets of the controversy which the media- and Al Gore's movie- distorts.

First of all, there is really no evidence that human activity is causing it. There are other credible theories.

There is further doubt about the uniqueness of the current situation. A researcher down at George Mason, who Jim said he knew, has done analysis debunking Al Gore's hockey stick graphic from the movie.

Also unknown is whether the environment has compensating checks on the warming. Geological history suggests it might.

Further, the extent of disruption appears greatly exaggerated. It could well be that it has nothing to do with human activity and is unstoppable. It's probably not the extinction level catastrophe it's made out to be however and humanity may have to simply adjust to change. There will probably be winners and losers. Central Canada's climate, for example, will probably improve.

Lastly, the emerging economies like China have always shown little regard for the environment so there is probably not much we can do about it even if it were proven to be the result of human activity.

Of course, much like he "created" the internet, Al probably also discovered all this hot air. The guy is amazing. Don't know why he's not President- *sigh*

Oh, and let's let the kids know scientists debate issues. They certainly have on aspects of global warming.

January 13, 2007 1:23 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

I guess I am a tad old fashion, but I think teachers ought to teach, not pop any sort of video/DVD as a substitute for lack of a lesson plan...

From the article in the Seattle Post-Intel.,

Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.

Yikes! Has he ever taken a geology class? Opps, wrong question...LOL...he doesn't believe in geology.

Seriously though, wasn't there a biology professor nearly in sack cloth and ashes, claiming end of the world stuff due to over population? Oh, yeah, Paul R. Ehrlich, author of the debunked and derided "The Population Bomb".

And Jim wonders why even folks like me (who believe that the world is ALOT older than 14,000 years) tend to view the claims of Al Gore with a healthy degree of skepticism? Just as conservatives can politicize and hence distort science, liberals are capable of doing the same (though for different polititcal purposes).

Are we humans having an effect on this planet? You bet we are. I suspect what we do about it will reflect choices and trade-offs that reflect the fact that this is an incredibly complex global issue.

January 13, 2007 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Judy said...

My daughter is an eighth grader at Hoover Middle school. An Inconvenient Truth was shown in her science class. Before it was shown, the teacher sent an email to the parents because of the political nature of the movie. The parents were given the option of pulling their kids from class that day. My duaghter watched the movie and doesn't think anybody left that day.

January 13, 2007 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't know how anyone can make a religious issue out of global warming."

Don't you read the Bible?

Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?

Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.

January 13, 2007 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that Judeo-Christians are called to be good stewards of the planet. What I meant was there is nothing in scripture that would speak to whether it is actually happening or not or whether its necessarily a disastrous thing. Could be that are more important issues too.

Anyway, I just think it's one of those issues where Judeo-Christians of good will might have differing opinions.

January 13, 2007 4:03 PM  
Blogger digger said...

Did y'all see the awesome picture of Jim and his daughter on the front page of the Blade?

http://washblade.com/2007/1-12/news/localnews/localnews.cfm

You go girl!

January 13, 2007 6:30 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Is that me? I thought it was a girl kissing a chipmunk...

Thanks, Robert.

Actually, I think the Blade had a really good story about this. I have three papers due for submission on the 15th, and am frantically trying to catch up with that, otherwise, I'd blog some of that story. I hope to get to it soon.

JimK

January 13, 2007 6:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allrighty then! Anon slimed the next four threads at:

January 14, 2007 1:19 AM

January 14, 2007 1:42 AM

January 14, 2007 2:14 AM

January 14, 2007 2:43 AM

It looks like Anon's winning personality and scintillating conversational skills won him or her another lonely Saturday night. Theresa's often up at that hour too. I'd suggest you two should just chat amongst yourselves at that hour but then we'd miss your brilliant displays of bigotry and hate.

Thanks for sharing.

PTA

January 14, 2007 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing.

PTA
Well I jumped on line after the bar I saw PTA still looking for someone desperate enought to have sex with it, but there were no takers sad. Nothing worse than an old Queen. and a poor one at that. Global Warming is a Billion Dollar industry Gore and Bill the Rapist Clinton are cashing in but the fact is that global warming is do to the sun and the BBCi published a good artical about it and the bs in an inconvanate truth was full of lies. but that will not satisfy you limmings who still whant to jump into the sea.

January 15, 2007 1:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please keep it up Anon. You are the clearest example of the religious radicals who would replace the teaching of science with Biblical dogma in our public schools. You make a fool of yourself and your cause with your hate-filled irrational fears and falsehoods.

PTA

January 15, 2007 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say religious though you blame everything on religion you’re just so full of hate and it makes you irrational. Only homosexuals think that religion is evil and needs to be destroyed. Hitler wanted to destroy religion just like you, and just like you he was a homosexual. The holocaust against the Jews, Jehovah witnesses and catholic hierarchy was motivated by his lust for the love that dare not speak its name.

January 15, 2007 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only commenter on this blog who said "religion is evil and needs to be destroyed" was Anonymous January 15, 2007 11:38 AM, but go ahead and delude yourself that I am the one who said it for all of this blog's readers to see. That quote was part of your response to my statement "You are the clearest example of the religious radicals who would replace the teaching of science with Biblical dogma in our public schools."

Unlike your overactive imagination's pronouncements, I am in fact a Christian who thinks replacing science with dogma in our public schools is a bad idea. I do not believe that teaching only abstinence-until-holy-matrimony in sex education classes is enough to protect our teens.

With your misconceptions of the holocaust, it appears you would support rewriting public school history lessons to fit your questionable beliefs. What documentation have you got that proves your delusion that the Wikipedia entry about "The History of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust" is not true?

Thanks for your personal insults. I take no offense at them and am truly grateful you are so willing to show the readers of this blog that your heart is filled with hate, anger, and fear. FYI I've been legally married and faithful to my only spouse for decades so that makes me an old monogamous heterosexual. Our entire family fully supports the MCPS Policy on Human Relations, which reads in part:

"...MCPS will not condone acts of insensitivity, disrespect, bias, verbal abuse, harassment, bullying, physical violence, or illegal discrimination toward any person, and to promote exemplary human relations for all without regard to race, color, gender, religion, ancestry, national origin, marital status, age, disability, or sexual orientation..."
www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/policy/pdf/aca.pdf

PTA

January 15, 2007 1:08 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Hitler wanted to destroy religion just like you, and just like you he was a homosexual.".

Wrong on both counts. Hitler loved religion and all mainstream historians have rejected the idea that he was gay.

Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“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.

Fittingly, the man you worship, Jesus, was gay:

That there was indeed a secret gospel and an initiation into the mysteries of the religion now known as Christianity is dramatically attested by the "Secret Gospel of Mark," found in a manuscript discovered by Morton Smith in 1958, in the Monastery of Mar Saba southeast of Jerusalem. The Greek text found by Smith appears originally to have been composed at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria. [10] Clement is replying to one Theodore who has been upset by claims that there was a secret gospel of Mark which differed from the canonic (official) version. Clement tells him that indeed there is a secret gospel used by the Alexandrian church for initiation into the Christian mysteries. He gives several examples of material present in the secret gospel but absent in the canonic one. One of the more interesting "secrets" revealed by Clement tells us:

…Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. [11]
10] Titus Flavius Clemens (ca. C.E. 150 - ca. 211), Prominent early church father.

[11] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973, p. 447.

It is well known that gay men are often spiritual leaders. North American native tribes held gays in high esteem, believing that these "two spirited" people were a sacred bridge between the sexes. The were often given leadership positions within the tribe and were often the spiritual leaders and shamans.

Jesus clearly fit into this mode. He was single, never married, hung around with a group of single men and John is referred to in the bible as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.

During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20. Robert Goss, assistant professor of comparative religion at Webster University in St. Louis, LA, noted that Jesus and the beloved disciple: "... eat together, side by side. What's being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A Greek reader would understand."

"Jagannath" interprets the Gospels differently. He argues that Jesus may have been bisexual. He wrote:

"In the Book of John a word is used eight times that means 'is in love with' with the implication of sexual intimacy. Five times it is used with reference to Jesus' relationship with John. Once it is used to define Jesus' relationship with Lazarus. And it is also used to describe his relationship with Mary and with her sister Martha." 7

Jagannath, "Was Jesus Gay? Or: Can We Finally Let Him Out of the Closet?," http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1723/roam/jesus.html

During the crucifixion, in John 19:26-28, Jesus is described as seeing his mother and an unidentified man: "the disciple standing by, whom he loved." Again, Jesus probably loved all of his 12 or 70 disciples in a non-sexual manner. But this particular disciple is identified as "the" disciple who Jesus loved. That indicates a special intimate relationship with one special disciple.

J Richards suggested thatMark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..."

J Richards, "Jesus Speaks of Homosexual Acts," http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/JesusProGay01.html

Mark 14:51-52 describes the incident when Jesus was arrested by the religious police. It describes how one of Jesus' followers was scantily dressed. The King James Version says he had a linen cloth cast on his naked body; the size and location of the cloth is not defined. The New International Version says that he was "wearing nothing but a linen garment." When the police tried to seize him, they were able to grab only his cloth; the man ran away naked. Reverend Peter Murphy wrote: "We don't know from the sources what really was going on, but we do know that something was very peculiar between Jesus and young men." 11

Reverend Peter Murphy, "The Sexuality of Jesus?," http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Jesus%20Sexuality.htm

Michael Kelly wrote of Jesus' attitude towards a same-sex couple as described in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2: "One day a Roman Centurion asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male slave to be their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen into loving partnerships....Jesus offered to go to the servant, but the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a 'gay relationship,' we see him simply concerned about — and deeply moved by — their faith and love." Kelly implies that Jesus' sensitivity towards the gay couple might have arisen from his own bisexual or homosexual orientation. 1

Michael B. Kelly, "Could Jesus Have Been Gay?," http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/gayjesus.htm

January 15, 2007 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Hitler was as gay as you Randi imbrace him he is your leader.

J Richards suggested thatMark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him..."

Mark 7 12-24
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can adefile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that bdefile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that adefileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the aheart of men, proceed evil thoughts, badulteries, fornications, murders,
22 aThefts, bcovetousness, cwickedness, ddeceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these aevil things come from within, and bdefile the man.
24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, aand would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.

January 17, 2007 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Recently uncovered documents have stopped homosexuals from denying one of their own.
Secret writings of Hitler IM GAY IM GAY IM GAY IM GAY

January 17, 2007 6:49 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Hitler was not gay and he is not my leader.

Jesus was gay and he is your leader.

January 17, 2007 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 23, 2007 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 23, 2007 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 23, 2007 8:36 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if you've got something to say, go ahead and express yourself. I'm not putting up with this, though.

JimK

January 23, 2007 8:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home