Friday, January 11, 2008

CRW Gathering Signatures For Important Religious Mission

You know the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever are trying to get 25,000 12,500 signatures on petitions to support a referendum to allow discrimination on the basis of gender identity in Montgomery County. They're working through the churches, saying that people with "deep religious beliefs" need to be able to discriminate against transgender people. (I'm still waiting to see some chapter-and-verse on that one -- exactly where in the Bible does it say anything at all about people fitting gender stereotypes?)

OK, I was a little bored, I started going through their materials. See, their big lie is that if you can't discriminate against transgender people, perverted men are going to go into ladies rooms and expose themselves and also look at the ladies there. Nothing will stop them, unless the people of the county quickly act to restore the right to discriminate. They have predicted that there will be rapes and murders galore all over the county if we allow transgender people to do the things the rest of us do, like catch taxis and eat in restaurants.

As support for this, the CRW web page links to a document called "Division 1. Discrimination In Public Accommodations," which is apparently taken from the Montgomery County code.

The big deal, according to them, is that the nondiscrimination law addresses "public accommodations." You might want to look at this. Public accommodations are defined, in this document, as:
... every public accommodation of any kind in the County whose facilities, accommodations, services, commodities, or use are offered
to or enjoyed by the general public either with or without charge, such as:
(1) restaurants, soda fountains, and other eating or drinking places, and all places where food is sold for consumption either on or off the premises;
(2) inns, hotels, and motels, whether serving temporary or permanent patrons;
(3) retail stores and service establishments;
(4) hospitals and clinics;
(5) motion picture, stage, and other theaters and music, concert, or meeting halls;
(6) circuses, exhibitions, skating rinks, sports arenas and fields, amusement or recreation parks, picnic grounds, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses,
gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool rooms, and swimming pools;
(7) public conveyances, such as automobiles, buses, taxicabs, trolleys, trains, limousines, boats, airplanes, and bicycles;
(8) utilities, such as water and sewer service, electricity, telephone, and cable television;
(9) streets, roads, sidewalks, other public rights-of-way, parking lots or garages, marinas, airports, and hangars; and
(10) places of public assembly and entertainment of every kind.

Did you see ladies rooms in that list?

I didn't either.

I know the word "accommodations" is sometimes used to mean bathrooms, but that isn't really what it means, that's a colloquial usage but that is clearly not what this law is about. The list gives you a clue.

In fact, the CRW has highlighted this sentence a few lines later in the document:
(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.

I would say restrooms are "distinctly private and personal," wouldn't you? It looks to me like this law specifically excludes protection for perverted men leering at and frightening innocent and modest ladies in the ladies room.

I understand that they want to stir up some excitement, but ... don't they ever get embarrassed?

Oh, by the way, there is an interesting alliance shaping up in the county, it looks like. Today (Friday), the CRW is sponsoring "signature gathering opportunities" at the ICM (Islamic Center of Maryland) Mosque in Gaithersburg and the Muslim Community Center on New Hampshier [sic] Ave, according to their recent newsletter.

It is fascinating to see the various faiths coming together for the important religious goal of promoting discrimination against transgender citizens. All the despair in the world, the violence, the loneliness, starvation, genocide, tyranny -- and this is what motivates them.

35 Comments:

Anonymous the red baron said...

The funny thing is whenever the topic comes up everyone here seems to argue vociferously that not forcing business owners to let guys who dress and feel like girls use the girls' room somehow endangers their lives. County council members who were asked seemed to think the bill applies to bathrooms.

Question for all TTFers:

Do you or do you not believe that business owners should be compelled by law to guys who identify themselves as females use the women's room?

If you do, and if you don't believe this bill does that, would you prefer that a new bill specifying that be written?

January 11, 2008 10:28 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Religious Freedom Day is Jan. 16, and President Bush is asking public schools to promote and participate. But, if history is any indication, it's unlikely many schools will stop to celebrate the nation’s religious heritage.

Along with the presidential proclamation, the Department of Education sends guidelines to school districts, urging administrators, teachers, students and parents to play a part. Those guidelines, however, seem to be getting lost along the way.

Eric Buehrer, president of Gateways to Better Education, said the day has become something of a secret.

“I travel all across the country," he said, "and everywhere I speak I ask the audience, 'Has your superintendent ever distributed this information to you?' And I never get anybody who says 'yes.' ”

Schools may be keeping quiet to avoid problems, Buehrer said, but he thinks they can better avoid problems by recognizing religious freedom.

“If everybody understands what religious freedoms are in schools, then there won’t be these conflicts and confrontations and people getting upset because somebody mentioned Jesus," he said.

Lori Windham, legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it's not wrong to talk about a large part of the nation’s history.

“It’s a way to give students an understanding of where we come from, where we’re going and the liberties and blessings that we enjoy as Americans," she said.

January 11, 2008 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

Red Baron-

Thank goodness you do not teach in a public school. That would be most unfortunate.

January 11, 2008 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"Question for all TTFers:

Do you or do you not believe that business owners should be compelled by law to guys who identify themselves as females use the women's room?"


Question for red baron:

Why do you continue to support (via promotion of Citizenlink articles like the one above) Focus on the Family's efforts to legalize genocide?

January 11, 2008 1:44 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Thank goodness you do not teach in a public school. That would be most unfortunate."

Unfortunately, you apparently do. Have you ever looked at a graph showing the decline of American public education, which began, quite tellingly, right at the moment prayer in public school was outlawed by an aberrant supreme court?

Any kid taught things such as that Thanksgiving was when the pilgrim had a dinner to thank the Indians or that ignores the role of the Protestant movement in shaping our government or ignores the role of the 19th century religious revivals in ending slavery has been lied to.

Read chap 4 of Dinesh D'Souza's new book, Miseducating the Young.

January 11, 2008 2:04 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Why do you continue to support (via promotion of Citizenlink articles like the one above) Focus on the Family's efforts to legalize genocide?"

Can you document this effort? It must be a big secret since no one with a minimal grip on reality seems to have heard of it.

January 11, 2008 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

Oh, Red Baron-

Yes, I do teach in a public school because I believe in public education.

I am also a GAY religious man who goes to church every Sunday and still believes that there should be a great divide between Church and State. I am sure the only reason you think it is unfortunate that I teach in a public school is because I am gay. Shame, shame, shame... ON YOU!

January 11, 2008 2:27 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

I didn't know you were gay, TM. I don't think you should be teaching because you don't have a proper understanding of how the Constitution's freedom of religion clause relates to public education. Government should not be participating in an effort to control religious expression in any sphere of life.

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they had no idea that in the future, the government would take over education and that anti-religionists would use this as an excuse to force a compartmentalism of students' lives, seperating their beliefs from their most time-consuming endeavour. A much better system would be a governmental reimbursement of educational costs to parents who would choose whatever school they thought was appropriate for their children.

That would probably vastly reduce the number of gay teachers, since you brought it up.

What kind of church do you go to?

January 11, 2008 2:48 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "if history is any indication, it's unlikely many schools will stop to celebrate the nation’s religious heritage.".

That's because its nothing to celebrate. Religion was responsible for defending slavery and opressing non-christians, atheists and gays - not something to be proud of.


Emproph said ""Why do you continue to support (via promotion of Citizenlink articles like the one above) Focus on the Family's efforts to legalize genocide?"

Red Baron replied "Can you document this effort? It must be a big secret since no one with a minimal grip on reality seems to have heard of it.".

No secret, the bible states in Leviticus that gays are to be put to death and "Focus" on the "Family" and Christians like you uncritically promote the bible as appropriate morality. If you don't believe in the genocide of gays lets hear you condemn your bible. What, no comment? Didn't think so.

Red Baron said "Any kid taught things such as that Thanksgiving was when the pilgrim had a dinner to thank the Indians or that ignores the role of the Protestant movement in shaping our government or ignores the role of the 19th century religious revivals in ending slavery has been lied to.".

Religion was used to support slavery, not to end it. Note the pro-slavery Baptist position paper from 1838

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm


Note the roughly 22 biblical passages condoning slavery that Aunt Bea posted in this thread

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/01/laws-against-things-that-people-will-do.html#comments

At Jan 09, 2008 7:55 AM

Christians who opposed slavery did so in spite their religion, not because of it. Its only because Christianity was vastly weakenend by the enlightenment and because it is too weak to put to death challengers of the Christian orthodoxy that a few good Christians choose to oppose the Christian orthodoxy and oppose slavery and oppression against gays.

Red Baron said " Have you ever looked at a graph showing the decline of American public education, which began, quite tellingly, right at the moment prayer in public school was outlawed by an aberrant supreme court?".

Let's see that graph, I call BS. And public prayer was never outlawed by the supreme court, schoolchildren are free to pray all they want in school, the supreme court simply ruled that they can't be forced to pray by the government. You know you're repeating a lie, but you have no morals so you do it anyway.

Red Baron said "Government should not be participating in an effort to control religious expression in any sphere of life. ".

If that's your sincere belief then you must support the supreme court ruling that prevented government from controlling religious expression by forcing children to pray to the christian god. Now that control has been removed and children are free to pray as they see fit, not as the government once wrongly dictated that they must.

January 11, 2008 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"Can you document this effort? It must be a big secret since no one with a minimal grip on reality seems to have heard of it."

Sure, Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It's all over their website, go nuts.

Now would you answer the question please: Why do you continue to support (via promotion of Citizenlink articles like the one above) Focus on the Family's efforts to legalize genocide?

January 11, 2008 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"...you don't have a proper understanding of how the Constitution's freedom of religion clause relates to public education. Government should not be participating in an effort to control religious expression in any sphere of life."

Except we're not talking about religious "expression," or religious "freedom," we're talking about religious supremacism, which is NOT protected by the Constitution.

Religious freedom does NOT mean the freedom to take away the freedoms of others, that's precisely where your freedom ends -- RELIGIOUS OR NOT.

So your statement above is nothing short of projection on your part:

"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."

It's absurd how people like you and your genocidal friends think that American freedoms include the right to wage war on fellow Americans.

January 11, 2008 3:59 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Buffalo Churches Apologize & Welcome Gay People

http://www.outcomebuffalo.com/episc-Buffalo-8-0810004.htm

Date: January 11, 2008

An Open Letter to the GLBT Community:

We leaders of Episcopal congregations in Buffalo want to offer our apology and ask forgiveness from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender community. For centuries the institutional church and organized religion have slandered, tortured, disenfranchised and sometimes murdered members of the community. We ask forgiveness for using our Sacred Scriptures to wrongly justify hatred, bigotry, prejudice and violence against those of different affectional orientation and gender identification, both in the past and, unfortunately, still today.

January 11, 2008 4:10 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Sure, Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It's all over their website, go nuts."

Improv, this is a verse recording a law God set up in ancient Israel. It's a good verse to use to show that God doesn't approve of abusive, sado-masochistic homosexual behavior, where one of the participants denies his essential nature and takes on the role of another gender, humiliating himself. While that moral principle still applies, we don't have such harsh penalties for this behavior today and I don't think Focus on the Family has ever suggested that America adopt such penalties. Indeed, I don't think they even have advocated for banning private homosexual behavior. Even in Ancient Israel, furthermore, the penalty was for an action not a desire. As long as a gay didn't do these things, they were not in danger of any penalty.

All this is beside the point. You lied and said Focus on the Family is engaged in "efforts to legalize genocide." They haven't done that. You're a sick twisted liar.

January 11, 2008 4:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "this is a verse recording a law God set up in ancient Israel. It's a good verse to use to show that God doesn't approve of abusive, sado-masochistic gay behavior, where one of the participants denies his essential nature and takes on the role of another gender, humiliating himself."


It doesn't distintguish between abusive sadomasochistic gay behaviors and loving committed gay sexuality, and hence the problem. We're all against abusive sadomasochistic sexuality, hetero or gay, that goes without saying. There's no humiliation in enjoying a loving committed sex life, gay or straight. The problem is that your bible commands that gays in loving committed relationships be put to death.

Red Baron said "While that moral principle still applies, we don't have such harsh penalties for this behavior today".

That's moral relativity that you Christians condemn so frequently. If an act is worthy of the death penalty at one point in time it is worthy of the death penalty at every point in time. You falsely claim that you want morality to be absolute and in this case you contradict that. Not only that but your Jesus states that old testament law is always in effect:

Matthew 5:18

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Luke 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Your bible teaches that loving committed gays must be put to death and Jesus makes clear that there are no exceptions to this law. You and "Focus" on the "Family" have repeatedly stated that Jesus is the perfect role model for Christian behavior. Your theology clearly binds and obligates you to legalize genocide - like Huckabee you just won't admit to it in polite company.

January 11, 2008 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you go Jim, we just added a new page on the bathroom issue, and anyway, dana admitted on this blog that bathrooms are covered...

distinctly private and personal refers to private organizations...
please, I have found you to be intellectually honest even though seriously misguided....

http://www.notmyshower.net/bathrooms.html

Hey and by the way, I want to sincerely thank you for posting those letters from the council on the website, we went down and got 1500 new email address for our referendum drive of folks who weren't already on our list... I never would have known that was public information if you hadn't posted it :-)

Theresa

Please, at least be honest.


What does Bill 23-07 Say about Bathrooms now?


Bathrooms are “facilities” at public accommodations. After Bill 23-07, the public accommodations non-discrimination code reads:



“An ..agent..of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the accommodation: …..make any distinction with respect to …gender identity in connection with… use of any facility (bathrooms, lockers or showers)…”

Read the full unabbreviated code on public accommodations



The county council’s internal discussion of Bill 23-07 and specifically the bathroom issue (read the Nov 13th memo) indicated that if Bill 23-07 were “silent” on the issue of bathrooms, the Human Rights Commission would:



“if Bill 2307 were silent on the issue of public facilities they would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person’s gender identity.”



Gender identity is defined in Bill 23-07 as:



“Gender identity means an individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”



Wait a minute …. Didn’t they pull the bathroom amendment?


The council had specifically added an amendment to expressly ALLOW transgenders access to the bathrooms of the sex they identify with – thus they expressly added language to allow transsexual males access to female bathrooms. They did delete this amendment. Read the deleted amendment here….



However, without specific language to exclude access to bathrooms, conflicts will be determined by the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission has already stated they will allow access to bathrooms based on gender identity.



But I wrote the council, and they said there is an exception for “distinctly private and personal accommodations”


Read the code. Distinctly private and personal is substantiated by years of case law as referring to private organizations such as the Boy Scouts. Read the detailed letter to pastor, or the AFF legal challenge, for a full discussion. The Montgomery County Council has been sending out automated standard email replies on the subject and seems unwilling to discuss the issue.

January 11, 2008 5:12 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And Red Baron how about you head over to this "Wide Stance" thread:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/01/wide-stances.html#comments

and acknowledge the lies you told about the nature of hell as described in your bible. Among the many biblical passages demonstrating your lies is this one:

2 Thessalonians Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9

January 11, 2008 5:16 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Theresa said "thus they expressly added language to allow transsexual males access to female bathrooms.".

Wrong. Transexual males will use the mens bathroom. Transexual females will use the female bathrooms.

Theresa, you're trying to get transwomen assaulted and killed. Repent of your sins and renounce the evil you're attempting to perpetrate. Think about it - you're insisting that transmen use the female bathroom with you, you know you're going to be far less comfortable sharing the bathroom with a transman than a transwoman.

What are you going to do if you succeed and transmen start sharing the bathroom and lockerrooms with you? Are you then going to insist they can't use the ladies room either, that transpeople shouldn't have accesss to any bathrooms at all? Wake up and smell reality and what's right Theresa. Stop trying to deny transpeople the right to use any restroom and trying to endanger our lives. We're not hurting you, stop trying to hurt us.

January 11, 2008 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anonBaron moron- move to Northern Montana or Idaho- I think that is where you would find people who would agree with you. Theresa- I am sorry for you and your family. Hatred and bigotry are a bad way to live. You claim to be religious- I hope God enters your heart and mind and clears the way for you back to the path of truth. Hatred is not a religious value although the right wing has made it seem so. 25% of the children in Montgomery County go to bed hungry at night- helping to feed them would be a better use of your time instead of trying to consolidate hatred.

January 11, 2008 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

RB said Do you or do you not believe that business owners should be compelled by law to [allow] guys who identify themselves as females use the women's room?

I don't think business owners should be allowed inspect genitals before a patron is permitted to pee.

CitizenLink said Religious Freedom Day is Jan. 16

I notice it's called Religious Freedom Day, not Christianity Day. Those of us old enough to remember prayer in our public schools know it was The Lord's Prayer from the New Testament that all students were required to recite every morning. Being required to repeat prayers of one faith is not "Religious Freedom" IMHO -- it is forced religious conformity analogous to Sharia as practiced in Osama bin Laden's native Saudia Arabia, a monarchy where the Quran is considered the Constitution. I fully support religious freedom here in the land of the free.

RB said Have you ever looked at a graph showing the decline of American public education

No I haven't. Where would I find such a graph?

Theresa said I never would have known that was public information if you hadn't posted it

Mail and email to elected officials is public information and our laws require such correspondence to be preserved. That's why a US District Court has given the White House five business days to say whether its computer backup system is possibly storing millions of old e-mails that the Bush administration said were missing. Maybe if you weren't so obsessed trying to relegalize discrimination against trans people in Montgomery County you'd have noticed and known sooner. What's next, resegregating the races?

January 11, 2008 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"While that moral principle still applies, we don't have such harsh penalties for this behavior today"

So in other words, you just pick and choose what ever you want to when it comes to God’s word. In other words, you believe that man’s law trumps God’s law. You just take what you like and leave the rest, and then hypocritically and falsely claim that your beliefs are BASED on the Bible. Those of you ilk don’t seem to realize the difference between views that are based on the Bible, and views that simply coincide with the Bible.

"and I don't think Focus on the Family has ever suggested that America adopt such penalties."

-FOTF believes this is a Christian nation and that laws should reflect this.
-Christianity is based on the Bible.
-The Bible calls for the death of gays.
-Ergo, Focus on the Family is ultimately working to legalize genocide.

"Indeed, I don't think they even have advocated for banning private homosexual behavior."

Boy, you are uniformed. Focus on the Family:

"Given the outrageous decision in Lawrence v. Texas (the so-called "sodomy case")"

They openly admit that it is “outrageous” that gays cannot be arrested for “private homosexual behavior” as you call it. And that was just one example.

So, by promoting Citizenlink articles, you advocate for our imprisonment AND death.

Now could you answer the question please: Why do you continue to support (via promotion of Citizenlink articles like the one above) Focus on the Family's efforts to legalize the imprisonment and death of gay Americans?

January 11, 2008 8:39 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

theresa,

my guess is that if someone emails your group voicing complaints about your ludicrous campaign (which is highlighted by that ridiculous web address - notmyshower.com) you probably put them on an email list.

Congratulations, you have been around the main anti-gay industry groups for so long that you are starting to pick up certain distortion techniques.

You have the nerve to tell TFF to be honest when your entire campaign is built on lies and fear tactics.

This is not about people of faith being "forced" to accept anything. This entire campaign is about lies.

And since you want to play this game, let me ask you this - what proof do you have that this policy would cause sexual predators to invade women's bathrooms and locker rooms.

I really want to see this proof, not hypothetics, not "it COULD happen" scenarios.

Where is the proof that it will
happen?

January 11, 2008 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Theresa said...
"we just added a new page on the bathroom issue"
And:
"Please, at least be honest."

That's rich coming from her.

Re, the bathroom "issue.":
Antigay distortion technique #4: Dire Consequences:

"CRG spokeswoman Michelle Turner says her group is concerned about the impact the law (Bill 23-07) will have on women and children. "This bill is taking away the privacy of women and children by allowing individuals, primarily men, who are 'feeling' like women [to have] access to women's restrooms, shower rooms, and locker rooms," she laments. The group argues the law may even result in religious schools being forced to hire transgender teachers."

From Anti-Gay Lies and Liars:
"4. Dire Consequences - Claiming that a pro-gay law or ordinance will lead to negative consequences without proof that the consequences will take place:

Example 1 - "Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don't feel that that represents their values or the image that they're trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual." - Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America, 2007"
---
(Note: some of this is reposted)

Spurious worst case scenarios of this nature are NOT a legitimate arguing point for or against ANYTHING. A preliminary concern is one thing, to use this as an argument however, is to use Murphy's law as one's argument---if something can go wrong, it will. Following that logic, since something unintended might happen, somewhere, at some point, ever, no attempt to pass any law of any kind should ever be attempted.
Based on this understanding, "proof" of the possibility of the abuse of a law, already exists for every law on the books, EVERYWHERE.

A cogent argument of this vein requires evidence that an INCREASED possibility for abuse will occur, yet no such evidence has been proffered.

To claim that the abuse of law is unique to this situation is among other things, a red herring.

So Theresa, congratulations on adding another page to your Murphy's Law "issue."

January 11, 2008 9:14 PM  
Anonymous flying taco brother said...

Improv

Great tactic. Throw up a bunch of BS and hope no one notices that you still haven't addressed your lie of earlier today.

You lied and said Focus on the Family is engaged in "efforts to legalize genocide." They haven't done that. You're a sick twisted liar.

Put up the evidence or apologize for your lie.

January 12, 2008 1:24 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

flying taco brother said...
"You lied and said Focus on the Family is engaged in "efforts to legalize genocide." They haven't done that. You're a sick twisted liar.

Put up the evidence or apologize for your lie."


Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?

January 12, 2008 5:46 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Theresa, I see that in the "detailed letter to pastor" link on your website you say:

"Dr. Paul McHugh, formerly psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins University Hospital, relates how a careful study of transgenderism led them to abandon the practice of performing sex change operations."

Among other things, I recently ran across this about Dr. Paul McHugh:

"From the conservative Washington Times August 21, 2002

Strange bedfellows by Judith Reisman and Dennis Jarrard

If you found the clergy sex abuse scandal shocking, prepare for another jolt: the Catholic bishops are getting their "expert" advice on pedophilia from people who have covered up or even defended sex between men and children.

The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board. Yet Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them."


I'm confused Theresa, does Citizens for a Responsible Government endorse the protection of child rapists?

January 12, 2008 7:00 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Barren said ""You lied and said Focus on the Family is engaged in "efforts to legalize genocide." They haven't done that. You're a sick twisted liar.

Put up the evidence or apologize for your lie.".

God's word is clear and unchanging. The bible says gays must be put to death and you and "Focus" on the "Family" promote your bible as the unchallenged guide to good behavior. The one who has lied is you. You said hell isn't a place of torture, that its just the removal of your god's protection - no where in the bible does it say that. What it does say over and over and over is things like this:

2 Thessalonians Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9

As you demand of others, apologize for the lie you told about your bible.

January 12, 2008 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

JIMK said..."(I'm still waiting to see some chapter-and-verse on that one -- exactly where in the Bible does it say anything at all about people fitting gender stereotypes?)"

Here we go Jim, courtesy of CRG, proof positive that God hates women who wear pants, and men who wear kilts:

From Citizens for a Responsible Government:
"Deuteronomy (22:5) clearly delineates a distinction between men and women and further describes cross-dressing as an abomination. If the act of cross-dressing is condemned so strongly in the Bible, certainly considering a man AS a woman could not be accepted by the faith community."

And now from God:
Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

Makes sense don't you think?
What could be more important to an all powerful God of infinite love than the need to prevent a guy from wearing a barrett to keep the hair out of his eyes while he's driving someone to the hospital in an ambulance?

Come to think of it, isn't long hair also a sin?

1 Corinthians 11:14
"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

Clearly then, given "the very nature of things," women with short hair should also be ashamed of themselves.

Thus, the sin of gender nonconformity makes a mockery of the sin of hair length.

Therefore, Montgomery County should enact a measure requiring all men to have short hair, and all women to have long hair.

Can I get an amen?

January 12, 2008 12:20 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Amen Emproph.

January 12, 2008 12:24 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Amen Emproph. I am thinking maybe this will be the decade I get a haircut.

Nah, probably not.

JimK

January 12, 2008 12:25 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And speaking of lies, Red Baron/flying taco said "I didn't say the Bible opposes overturning slavery....Democracy is actually part of our system".

The word "democracy" NEVER appears in your bible. Do what you demand of others and apologize for your lies.

January 12, 2008 12:25 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 12, 2008 12:45 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Barren said "Even in Ancient Israel, furthermore, the [death]penalty was for a [gay] action not a [gay] desire. As long as a gay didn't do these things, they were not in danger of any penalty.

The president of the "Focus" on the "Family" backed Exodus disagrees with you. Alan Chambers said "This is why I believe that it is so important to clarify that just living a celibate gay life is just as sinful as living a sexually promiscuous one.".

According to him one is deserving of death simply for having same sex attractions. Look at how insane anti-gay Christians are when it comes to gays - its just as sinful to be celibate as sexually promiscuous. That's the kind of craziness you get when your desire to attack gays is paramount over doing what's right.

January 12, 2008 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Emproph- EMPHATICALLY- AMEN! And I write this while wearing pants and a boy's(formerly my son's) sweatshirt.

I never understand(okay, I do) the religious wrong's picking and choosing among the many prohibitions in the Bible for what they go after. I am planning a big protest against the Red Lobster in Silver Spring- it is an abomination unto the Lord. Also my neighbor works on Sunday and is a Christian- should the other neighbors stone him on Monday or should we just collect signatures to put his stoning on the ballot? I am not a bigot- I will also ask that any Jews who work on Saturday and Moslems who work on Friday be included in the law.

January 12, 2008 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

Agreed, Emproph!!

January 12, 2008 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Amen, Emproph!

January 12, 2008 8:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home