Thursday, January 24, 2008

You Think Channel 7 Will Be There?

I hate to give them any more publicity, but in case you're one of the few people who doesn't receive their emails, the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever are planning a "rally" this weekend to protest the new Montgomery County antidiscrimination law.

This is a test of our local media. We could list off the names of the few people who care, the core CRW group who started out being against the school district and now are against the county council. There might be ten of them -- Johnny, Retta, Ruth, Peter, Michelle, Rosemary now, Theresa, a couple more. They don't believe gay people deserve to be treated like human beings, and they are now on a great crusade to win back the right to discriminate against transgender people. They'll do anything, say anything -- the recent hoax at the Rio gym is typical -- to see that sexual minorities are treated badly. They don't have a point other than prejudice, and each news outlet will decide for itself whether to promote that prejudice.

The newspapers and TV crews can show up at this planned rally, or not, and it will be interesting to see who does cover it. This is a made-for-media event, and it only has meaning if they publicize it. It's not really a rally, like, say, the pro-life march on the mall this week was, even though I don't agree with their cause that was at least a real rally. People went there for the unity, to march together and chant slogans, and it didn't matter if the media showed up. The CRW's "rally" though is only staged for the press. There's nothing else to it. They'll hold their stupid yellow signs and make "statements."

We saw two commercial media outlets fall for the Rio hoax -- Channel 7 and The Examiner. I hate to say it, but The Examiner has not been very good through this -- do you remember the story where they got everything wrong, and even showed a picture of the Montgomery County, Virginia, superintendent of schools? I would like to know a little more about Channel 7's involvement, they seem to be on a first-name basis with the CRW, and it is not clear how they responded so quickly to the Rio incident, or why -- like, who called them? Well, whatever, there will always be better and worse, though sometimes it's a little embarrassing.

By the way, the CRW are now saying they have 4,500 signatures. They need 12,500 by February 4th. I don't believe they have 4,500, but it doesn't matter what I think. In a couple of weeks they'll deliver their petitions to the Board of Elections right here in my neighborhood, and they'll bundle them into sets of twenty-five and go through them, signature by signature, to make sure every one is valid. The 12,500 number is the halfway mark, if they meet that then they have to get another 12,500 by February 16th. You know, it could happen, they could get people to sign these petitions by telling them that discrimination against transgender people has something to do with pervy guys lurking in the ladies room. They are trying to work all this through the churches -- you oughta read this flyer they've got, they want people to go to different churches than their own to get signatures. This is really important to them. Who knows, there might be 25,000 stupid people in our county, but I doubt it.

89 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the recent hoax at the Rio gym is typical"

What was the evidence of a hoax again?

January 24, 2008 8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"sexual minorities are treated badly"

Why is everyone always concerned about sexual minorities? How about personality minorities? It is very difficult for grouchy people to get a job. Yet science tells us that people are just born irritable and really can't change. When will the bigotry ever end? We need the long arm of the law to step in and make sure people have to hire disagreeable people.

At least, they don't present any health problems.

January 24, 2008 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The anonymoid said:

"How about personality minorities? It is very difficult for grouchy people to get a job."

You have one, don't you? Case in point.

I agree with you; even bigots deserve jobs and fair treatment.



rrjr

January 24, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The one of many personalities asked:

"What was the evidence of a hoax again?"

I mentioned this repetitive, trolllike behavior of asking empty questions when you don't have anything to say. It's reminiscent of the two-year-olds use of the word "no": automatic and without real meaning. Don't wear out the keys on your computer.

January 24, 2008 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Jim

I believe the Examiner is the latter-day version of the Journal newspapers, which were conservative and slanted in the way that the Washington Times is.

Pity my poor students while they take their midterms.

January 24, 2008 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I mentioned this repetitive, trolllike behavior of asking empty questions when you don't have anything to say."

You don't seem to mind repetitive accusations of a hoax without evidence. Don't be surprised if repetitive baseless accusations are met with repetitive questions asking for their justification.

January 24, 2008 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

All the evidence is there, Anon.

Thank goodness that we have IEP (Individualized Education Plans)for people like you who need tons of repetition in order to learn concepts in school.


I am not saying that there is anything wrong with you needing an IEP plan--- but it's a strange situation becuase most people "grow" out of this accomodation.

MTM

January 24, 2008 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All the evidence is there, Anon."

Where? Let's here it.

January 24, 2008 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"Where? Let's here it."

Meaningless. Repetitive. Pointless. Annoying. Non-responsive. Troll-like.

Nice example. Thank you.

rrjr

January 24, 2008 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, you can try to make people think that, Robert. But I think everyone who reads this knows that you can stop the question by answering it.

Until then, the baseless accusation will be met with the request for proof.

You may be annoyed, but reasonable people expect accusations to based on facts. Otherwise, it's just slander.

January 24, 2008 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Do you mean your outrageous offensive comments on the other thread that hospital-MRSA should be blamed on gay men? Disabuse yourself: people don't view you as a thoughtful person rightfully challenging other people's baseless comments, but as a bigoted fool. For evidence, why don't you take a poll of the people who read Jim's well-written, articulate blog.

My guess is that you relish being despised; I would venture that it reinforces your notion that you and people you identify with are better than people who are not like you. This is the essence of bigotry.

January 24, 2008 12:24 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Why is everyone always concerned about sexual minorities? How about personality minorities?".

There are organized efforts to deny sexual minorities equality before the law. The same isn't true of "personality" minorities. And what makes you think grouchy people are in the minority, got any proof of that?

January 24, 2008 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you mean your outrageous offensive comments on the other thread that hospital-MRSA should be blamed on gay men?"

This is false, Robert. I didn't blame gays. I said there is sufficient evidence to necessitate an inquiry into the cause of the link. I don't know if the result will be that gay promiscuity is to blame like with the AIDS situation. You need to show a little objectivity and stop being so partisan.

I don't see why you wouldn't welcome that inquiry unless you think that the result will be a finding that will be that gay promiscuity is a public health risk.

January 24, 2008 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There are organized efforts to deny sexual minorities equality before the law."

This is nothing more than a reaction to the organized efforts to get gays special protections.

January 24, 2008 1:14 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, NO WHERE are gays asking for "special" rights. Gays are asking for the same right you have to marry, to not be fired from your job or evicted from your house, to be protected by hate crimes laws just as you Christians are.

You're a despicable liar.

January 24, 2008 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two guys go into a bar. Both want to be hired for the vacant bartender slot. Both are equally qualified. One is grouchy and one is gay. If there is an anti-discrimination statute protecting gays, the gay guy will get the job every time because there is no way the owner of the bar can prove he wasn't being biased by not hiring the gay guy. Making the law covering gays gives them nore protection than grouchy guys.

That's called special protection.

January 24, 2008 1:54 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Nonsense. If he bases his decision on the qualifications each presents for the job and the grouchy guy presents better qualifications then he can and will hire him without repercutions. You're a lying fool.

January 24, 2008 2:01 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And I might add that by your logic Christians have special protections because they are protected by anti-discrimination laws. By your logic the bartender has to hire the Christian even if he is less qualified. Not the case - you're a liar.

January 24, 2008 2:02 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Where's your campaigne against the special rights Christians have Red Baron, why do you oppose gays having the same rights Christians already do in anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws if you're oppposed to "special" rights?! Because you're full of it.

January 24, 2008 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both your comments show you didn't read my bartender story. I said both applicants are equally qualified.

Of course, you may have noticed that and still made your stupid remarks anyway. In that case, you're a liar.

I might add that this all puts an additional burden on business owners to meticulously document every hiring decision to protect himself from litigation. And hinders his ability to make intuitive and intangible decisions that cannot be proven, an edge most successful entrepreneurs have.

But, oh well, our variants must be protected.

January 24, 2008 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Where's your campaigne against the special rights Christians have Red Baron"

I'm not involved in any campaign. I merely make comments on a blog.

I don't really have any faith in political action. It is all terribly amusing though.

January 24, 2008 2:13 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Yes, I did miss the equally qualified line. That being the case the bartender would be justified in hiring whichever candidate is needed to see the makeup of his employees fit the makeup of the general population. If he has 10 employees he should have 1 gay one.

Where your story falls down is that Christians are currently protected by anti-discrimination laws and you are not harping about Christians having special rights which is exactly the case according to your logic. You only complain once its proposed to give gays the same rights Christians have - you don't want gays and Christians to have equal rights.

January 24, 2008 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The anonymote said:

"This is false, Robert. I didn't blame gays. I said there is sufficient evidence to necessitate an inquiry into the cause of the link. I don't know if the result will be that gay promiscuity is to blame like with the AIDS situation. You need to show a little objectivity and stop being so partisan."

This is bigotry pure and simple: incrimination of a class of people by incrimination. You are the poster child for prejudice, Peter.

Anonymosite, people such as Jim, Randi, Andrea, et al. (and I as well) make our statements under our real names because we are genuine people with genuine things to say. You blog here because you derive a perverted pleasure from annoying LGBT people and our friends. Go back to PFOX/CRG/CRC/CWA/FRC/FOF/TMLC-land and play with your friends in your own sandbox.

I figured out what bothers me about you so much. You are mean. I don't like meanness. You are also fairly highly-developed in the deceitfulness of your bigotry and prejudice. You are not a nice person. I like reading Jim's blog, but with you spewing your hatred for lgbt people and our allies in the comment section, it dramatically reduces the pleasure I derive from this. Go away. Get lost.

BTW, your incivility and basic nastiness belie your facetious defense of Christianity. The basic messages of Christ to my mind were kindness, fairness, forgiveness and redemption. He certainly didn't go about saying rude things about people (Christ never asserted that the Pharisees caused leprosy, for example). You are one of the most irreligious and unchristian people I've ever met.

I repeat, go away.

January 24, 2008 4:28 PM  
Anonymous rrjr said...

I said:

"This is bigotry pure and simple: incrimination of a class of people by incrimination."

I meant "...by innuendo."

January 24, 2008 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Two guys apply for sargeant. One says to the Lieutenant "I'm kind of a grouch." The other says, "I'm gay." What happens now?

I'm really just curious what the FRC stance on DADT is?

January 24, 2008 4:35 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Further to Red Baron's "two equally qualified" story, the heterosexual grouch would have just as much a right to claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as the gay would - this works both ways.

To highlight that a straight woman recently won a case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7171418.stm


Red Baron, if you think being protected by anti-discrimination laws are "special rights" and that that is wrong, why have you NEVER complained about blacks, Jews, or Christians having "special rights?!

January 24, 2008 4:46 PM  
Anonymous youwish said...

Anon, were you a real lonely child? I think your constant craving for attention, most of it negative, would suggest that you are also pretty lonely as an adult. But, of course, you have Jesus. Why don't you pray to Him and ask him for some friends that don't have emotional issues like those people of PFOX/CRC/CRG. That way, you can finally move on with your life and be happy. That is all I wish for you: genuine happiness without being self-loathing and spewing all that hatred that you having pumping through your veins on those who want to be treated as equals because, believe it or not, they are pretty happy with who they are (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight).

January 24, 2008 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrea- not anon
Gosh, too bad I can't be at the non-rally Saturday. Out of town again. Of course, after my attendance at the original Recall hatefest, I had to burn my clothing and go in for high level decontamination. Can't totally clean my brain of the hatred I heard and felt but each day I get a little better.

January 24, 2008 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was asked, You Think Channel 7 Will Be There?

Question will the guy in heavy make-up, muscles and blue ruffled skirt be there too? Will Theresa?

If so that would be a good time for an apology. See below:

________________________

It Looked Like Sh*t, It Smelled Like Sh*t, And By Golly It Apparently Was Sh*t

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4266

Excerpt:

Theresa Rickman, if you're reading this, you and your man-in-a-skirt owe my transgender peers and me an apology -- or an explanation. It sure looks like you and your organization bore false witness against us by having a man pretend to be transgender, and act in a provocative way that doesn't mirror how my peers and me really act. To me, it looks like you couldn't find a case where an out transgender women had engaged in the kind of activities that you keep saying we would engage in, so it's becoming clear you created an incident to make your "straw man" story seem real.

If true, that would be you bearing false witness angainst your transgender neighbors -- it makes you and your man-in-a-skirt liars.

I'll be waiting to read your apology, or your explanation of how you knew to be at the gym to be interviewed by the local ABC station before the provocative incident occured. And, I would expect you to name who the man-in-a-skirt was if this was pure publicity stunt, and he should be publicly apologizing to my transgender peers and me also -- and probably to your Christian peers as well for behaving in direct contradiction to your own interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 and Genesis 1:27 to make your inane point.

I won't hold my breath.

January 24, 2008 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

“Robert said...
The anonymoid said:

Robert said...
The one of many personalities asked:”


I’m seeing a theme here. Perhaps we should start referring to it as Legion?

January 25, 2008 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 25, 2008

Equality Maryland Applauds Introduction Of The Religious Freedom And Civil Marriage Protection Act

Senators Madaleno and Raskin and Delegates Barnes, McIntosh, Kaiser, Mizeur and Schuler Take the Lead to End Marriage Discrimination

CONTACT:
Dan Furmansky, Executive Director
Cell: (301) 461-4900

Annapolis, Md. – The lead sponsors of The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act announced today the introduction of this historic measure in the Senate and House of Delegates with nearly 50 cosponsors. The legislation expands civil marriage in Maryland to include same-sex couples while preserving the rights of religious institutions and leaders to perform and recognize only those marriages that are consistent with the tenets of their faith.

"For those naysayers who say that Maryland isn't ready to end marriage discrimination, I ask you, if not now, when?" said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. "Thousands of same-sex couples are denied the more than 1,000 basic legal protections of a marriage license. Granting these families the stability that marriage provides is good for their health, good for their children, and good for society."

On Sept. 18, 2007, a divided Maryland Court of Appeals ruled 4-3 it was not a violation of the state constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-couples. Within days of the decision, Senator Gwendolyn Britt and Delegate Ben Barnes announced they would serve as the lead sponsors of legislation to end marriage discrimination. Following the sudden death of Sen. Britt on January 12th, Senators Rich Madaleno and Jamie Raskin announced they would lead efforts in the Senate to pass the measure.

Hearing dates for the bills should be set in the coming week.



(This article is from: www.equalitymaryland.org)

January 25, 2008 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, I did miss the equally qualified line. That being the case the bartender would be justified in hiring whichever candidate is needed to see the makeup of his employees fit the makeup of the general population. If he has 10 employees he should have 1 gay one."

Even the requirement to hire one of ten is an infringement on his ability to run his company. Truthfully, even the equally qualified provision isn't needed to show the imposition here. "Qualified" is a matter of opinion and now the employer is burdened with finding some way of documenting it and will probably have to change his criteria to something that is more easily verifiable. Furthermore, employers are pressured to show the proportional representation will be obligated to seek out employees to meet the criteria, another special situation.

"Where your story falls down is that Christians are currently protected by anti-discrimination laws and you are not harping about Christians having special rights which is exactly the case according to your logic. You only complain once its proposed to give gays the same rights Christians have - you don't want gays and Christians to have equal rights."

Well, you always bring this up and I always agree that discrimination laws based on religion are not needed. Christians didn't lobby for them.

"Further to Red Baron's "two equally qualified" story, the heterosexual grouch would have just as much a right to claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as the gay would - this works both ways.

To highlight that a straight woman recently won a case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

There's theory and then there's reality. Most straights don't want to work in a gay bar and most gay establishments aren't hiring 95% straights to get proportional representations and straights aren't suing over it.

The case where the gay gets special protection, as I outlined, happens virtually every day.

Discrimination laws are a burden to freedom but, maybe, necessary in certain hardship societal conditions. They're pretty obnoxious and unjustified infringement of liberty when based on behavioral desires.

January 25, 2008 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It sure looks like you and your organization bore false witness against us by having a man pretend to be transgender, and act in a provocative way that doesn't mirror how my peers and me really act. To me, it looks like you couldn't find a case where an out transgender women had engaged in the kind of activities that you keep saying we would engage in, so it's becoming clear you created an incident to make your "straw man" story seem real.

If true, that would be you bearing false witness angainst your transgender neighbors -- it makes you and your man-in-a-skirt liars.

I'll be waiting to read your apology, or your explanation of how you knew to be at the gym to be interviewed by the local ABC station before the provocative incident occured."

So, this is your proof? As I recall some gym employee claimed they saw someone who looked like someone petitioning at Giant.

It's not alot to go on.

January 25, 2008 1:20 PM  
Anonymous David Weintraub said...

Why would anyone hire a grouchy bartender?

There are jobs for which grouchiness would not be detrimental to performance. I don't think bartender is one of them.

I can't think of a single job other than straight porn actor for which gayness would be a detriment to performance. Can you? Answer carefully.

January 25, 2008 1:39 PM  
Anonymous David Weintraub said...

Louder and slower, just for the troll:

It's clear from the manager's statement that the "activist" in the lobby was the same person interviewed by channel 7, not a different person. The person interviewed by channel 7 was Theresa. Therefore, the "activist" in the lobby was Theresa.

Do you get it now, or will you still pretend to not understand?

January 25, 2008 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Show me the quote, David. I don't remember it that way.

January 25, 2008 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert

Below is your reaction to Anon's suggestion that the county needs to investigate the link between gays and a new type of often fatal and incurable disease surfacing in the nation's hospitals, given that gays are 13 times more likely to have the disease, at least in areas where homosexuality is embraced by the local populace, and the high incidence of emergency room use by gays.

I'm afraid your reaction reinforces a point made by anon the other day that in the early 1980s gays hindered progress on containing the AIDS virus by protesting that testing could threaten their civil rights.

You seem to think that, regardless of the facts, this matter shouldn't be looked into because it might give a negative glow to homosexuality.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that exacerbated the AIDS crisis: the exaltation of the interests of gays above the health of the general public.

The vital question is: why are gays so much more at risk for newly arrived diseases, giving the dieseases a platform into the general populace? The obvious answer is promiscuity. It certainly needs to be considered.

See the cover story on romance in this week's Time. Inside is a story on gay romance citing studies that show even gays with "partners" are much less likely than straights to be monogamous and often have agreements with their partners that complete monogamy is not expected.

Objective research needs to be conducted on how this is affecting the nation's health.





"This is bigotry pure and simple: incrimination of a class of people by incrimination. You are the poster child for prejudice, Peter.

Anonymosite, people such as Jim, Randi, Andrea, et al. (and I as well) make our statements under our real names because we are genuine people with genuine things to say. You blog here because you derive a perverted pleasure from annoying LGBT people and our friends. Go back to PFOX/CRG/CRC/CWA/FRC/FOF/TMLC-land and play with your friends in your own sandbox.

I figured out what bothers me about you so much. You are mean. I don't like meanness. You are also fairly highly-developed in the deceitfulness of your bigotry and prejudice. You are not a nice person. I like reading Jim's blog, but with you spewing your hatred for lgbt people and our allies in the comment section, it dramatically reduces the pleasure I derive from this. Go away. Get lost.

BTW, your incivility and basic nastiness belie your facetious defense of Christianity. The basic messages of Christ to my mind were kindness, fairness, forgiveness and redemption. He certainly didn't go about saying rude things about people (Christ never asserted that the Pharisees caused leprosy, for example). You are one of the most irreligious and unchristian people I've ever met.

I repeat, go away."

January 25, 2008 2:07 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Even the requirement to hire one of ten is an infringement on his ability to run his company. Truthfully, even the equally qualified provision isn't needed to show the imposition here.".

Nonsense. If, as you said, the two candidates are equally qualified its certainly no infringment to suggest he have the makeup of his workforce reflect the makeup of society - there is no burden whatsoever - its just common sense and social justice to do so.

Red Baron said " "Qualified" is a matter of opinion and now the employer is burdened with finding some way of documenting it and will probably have to change his criteria to something that is more easily verifiable.".

And it is the employer's opinion that counts so once again it is no burden. As a normal course of good business practices an employer would want to be able to document that his decisions make sense, if he's making decisions he can't justify he's opening himself up to lawsuits anti-discrimination law or no anti-discrimination law.

Red Baron said "Furthermore, employers are pressured to show the proportional representation will be obligated to seek out employees to meet the criteria, another special situation.".

Not a special situation at all, they are just as obligated to seek out straights as they are to seek out gays - once again the law is about equality.


Red Baron said "Well, you always bring this up and I always agree that discrimination laws based on religion are not needed. Christians didn't lobby for them.".

They most certainly did lobby for them or otherwise we wouldn't have them. When I drag it out of you you reluctantly concede this, but when it comes to ranting about who gets "special rights" you always claim its gays and never begin by announcing its Christians. You always begin by shouting that gays shouldn't have "special" rights by you never acknowledge up front that by your definition Christians have "special" rights.


Red Baron said "There's theory and then there's reality. Most straights don't want to work in a gay bar and most gay establishments aren't hiring 95% straights to get proportional representations and straights aren't suing over it.".

You don't know that -where's your proof?! If a minority group rarely or never applies for a certain type of job then an employer has a justifiable reason for his workplace not reflecting the makeup of society and many employers have used this fact as a defense in discrimination cases. And as the case I presented shows, straights ARE suing over it.

The fact is that in your hypothetical situation with two equally qualified applicants and an anti-discrimination law it would be just as wrong for the bartender to refuse to hire the grouchy guy because he's straight as it would be to refuse to hire the gay guy because he's gay. There is NO "special" rights, both are equally protected under the anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation. If the bartender can't decide on a basis other than sexual orientation then he should flip a coin. The fact is you lied and have lied repeatedly about this. Gays most certainly aren't seeking special rights - they are 100% exclusively seeking equal rights - the exact same rights you have.

January 25, 2008 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A job is not a right. Gays want a right to have one. No one else is given that right. It's special protection.

January 25, 2008 2:18 PM  
Anonymous youwish said...

You want to see gays be even MORE monogamous than straights? Let them get married. Marriage would solve a lot of that bull sh*t language of yours, Anon.

January 25, 2008 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

I am really looking forward to marrying the man who I have been committed to and MONOGAMOUS with for the past 4 years.

I found this on www.nbc4.com

Gay Marriage Bills Proposed With Almost 50 Sponsors

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Forty-nine lawmakers have signed on to bills allowing gay marriage in Maryland.

Sponsors of the bills introduced in the House and Senate said they have seen more support for the idea than ever before.

The bills would remove gender definitions in state marriage law. They would also include the caveat that religious leaders would not be required to perform or recognize the unions.

Almost all of the sponsors come from Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Supporters said they are seeking support in other areas.

January 25, 2008 2:22 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said " given that gays are 13 times more likely to have the disease, at least in areas where homosexuality is embraced by the local populace, and the high incidence of emergency room use by gays.".

You have no proof that gays have "high incidence" of emergency room use - stop lying.

And it is also a lie to say that gays are 13 times more likely to have this infection. Those groups studied weren't based on a random sample of the entire gay population, they were based on an unrepresentative subset of gays. A close look at the medical literature shows that MSRA BEGAN in the straight population and moved to the gay population from there:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/is-mrsa-the-new-gay-plague/


When the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases reported last February on the heterosexual transmission of MRSA in New York, nobody worried about a super-bug hitting straight men and women.

When the CDC reported in 2004 of an outbreak among 1.1% of naval recruits in the Southeastern U.S. and Clinical Infectious Diseases reported a 3% prevalence among US army trainees at Brooke Army Medical Center, there were no warnings of a super-bug infecting the military. And when Military Medicine reported an outbreak on a naval ship at sea or when the Journal of Clinical Microbiology reported that 11% of naval trainees in San Diego had MRSA during the summer of 2002, there was no seaman scare.

When the New England Journal of Medicine reported in 2005 that 9% of the St. Louis Rams football team had MRSA during the 2003 football season, there was no hue and cry over a flesh-eating jock staph.

When Epidemiology and Infections reported last April on a September 2004 outbreak which infected 14% of a communal religious community in upstate New York, there were no demands to halt the promotion of religion as an acceptable lifestyle.

As you can see, looking at isolated groups of gays and claiming their rate of MSRA infection represents the rate for all gays is no more accurate than saying 14% of straights have MRSA based upon the rate of infection in a certain religious community.

January 25, 2008 2:29 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "A job is not a right. Gays want a right to have one. No one else is given that right. It's special protection".

See, this is where you're totally dishonest. You're saying gays being covered by an anti-discrimination law is special protection and that "No one else is given that right when you know Christians ARE covered by anti-discrimination laws and by your logic have the SAME right.

And of course the reality is that anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation don't give anyone a right to a job, they simply say that no one can be denied a job solely because of their sexual orientation. This means you can't be denied a job because you are STRAIGHT or GAY - the protection is EQUAL.

January 25, 2008 2:39 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 25, 2008 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi always has a cupboardful of studies that reinforce the gay agenda but any study that contradicts it is "a lie".

Classic denial. What basis is there for thinking that only studies that reinforce a gay lifestyle are true?

January 25, 2008 3:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "See the cover story on romance in this week's Time. Inside is a story on gay romance citing studies that show even gays with "partners" are much less likely than straights to be monogamous and often have agreements with their partners that complete monogamy is not expected.".

Stop lying. The studies cited no such thing, the author gave the unsupported theory that monogamy is not expected and no where did the article say "gays are much less likely than straights to be monogamous". The truth of the matter is made apparent in actual research here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012201742.html

"Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journalDevelopmental Psychology."

"Regardless of civil union status, same-sex couples were more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples.".

"The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research."

If you were concerned about encouraging monogamy amongst gays you'd support gay marriage. Clearly you couldn't give a damn if gays are promiscuous or monogamous - your goal is to attack gays regardless of the reality of how they behave.

January 25, 2008 3:07 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Classic denial. What basis is there for thinking that only studies that reinforce a gay lifestyle are true?".

You lied about what the studies referred to in Time said. They never said "gays with "partners" are much less likely than straights to be monogamous and often have agreements with their partners that complete monogamy is not expected.".


The author offered his unsupported opinion that gays have agreements that monogamy is not expected and he never said that gays are much less likely to be monogamous. The studies in no way made this suggestion - that was just his baseless wild guess.

January 25, 2008 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
"Discrimination laws are a burden to freedom...and unjustified infringement of liberty when based on behavioral desires."

Good point, heterosexuals have no behavioral desires.

January 25, 2008 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heterosexuals aren't seeking special protection under the law.

January 25, 2008 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, apparently outside of one sad person in England who wanted to work in a gay bar, they aren't getting it.

January 25, 2008 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
"A job is not a right. Gays want a right to have one. No one else is given that right. It's special protection."

Again, that’s such a good point. How selfish of we gays to not stop and think about the sea of humanity who are discriminated against every day, simply for being heterosexual.

I can’t tell you how many friends of mine have been fired simply for being attracted to the opposite sex.

Heterosexual bigotry is virtually epidemic, it truly is. Thank you for reminding us of this horrible burden upon your community Anonymous.

January 25, 2008 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
"Heterosexuals aren't seeking special protection under the law."

And truly, God bless them for not going OUT OF THEIR WAY to define themselves by their own humanity.

Unlike we evil gays who DEMAND to be considered JUST AS worthy of happiness.

Tsk tsk tsk. If only we could get it though “rebellious” little minds that we are spiritually inferior to heterosexuals - there would be peace on Earth.

Anonymous, you’re a bastion of light in the sewer of the "gay agenda."

January 25, 2008 5:03 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red baron said "Heterosexuals aren't seeking special protection under the law.".

And neither are gays. Banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation protects hetersexuals just as well as it protects gays.

January 25, 2008 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
"Red baron said "Heterosexuals aren't seeking special protection under the law.".

And neither are gays. Banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation protects hetersexuals just as well as it protects gays."


Yes, but it's only there because of the gays, therefore it's an evil protection..

January 25, 2008 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And neither are gays. Banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation protects hetersexuals just as well as it protects gays."

No, it doesn't. It discriminates against them. Whenever two equally qualified candidates apply for a position, a situation that, in practicality, happens frequently, an employer can hire a gay on a gut feeling without documentation but can't do the same for the heterosexual.

The gay gets special consideration.

Real world, Randi. Not Yukon fairy tale land.

January 25, 2008 5:21 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

You're lying. The proposed anti-discrimination laws protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the basis of "being gay".

The employer would have every bit as much right to hire the equally qualifed heterosexual based on "a gut feeling". NOWHERE are gays seeking "special" rights. Gays strictly seek equal rights.

January 25, 2008 5:28 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE HETEROSEXUALS!

January 25, 2008 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The employer would have every bit as much right to hire the equally qualifed heterosexual based on "a gut feeling"."

This is ridiculous. Shows how out of it you are.

"Gays strictly seek equal rights."

Jobs aren't rights. They go to the person who has the qualities an employer is looking for.

"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE HETEROSEXUALS!"

Better yet, let's consider the welfare of our society.

January 25, 2008 5:41 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "This is ridiculous. Shows how out of it you are.".

No, its plain and clear. The law prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the basis of "being gay". The law does not favour any orientation over any other and you're just too dishonest to admit the obvious.

Red Baron said "Jobs aren't rights.".

I never said they were.

Red Baron said "They go to the person who has the qualities an employer is looking for.".

Generally speaking. However if the employer is looking for a quality that is irrelevant to the ability to do the job that is sometimes illegal.

January 25, 2008 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE HETEROSEXUALS OF SOCIETY?


You're so right anonymous, that sounds much better.

January 25, 2008 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anon said I always agree that discrimination laws based on religion are not needed.

Good, then maybe you will work to repeal "religious exemption laws" that are currently on the books in 44 states.

Anon continued Christians didn't lobby for them.

Oh yes they did! Christian Scientists and other religious adherents have gotten themselves a very special right: they are permitted to allow let their children to die by denying them medical treatment and relying solely on faith healing instead, and they lobbied long and hard, statehouse by statehouse to get "religious exemption laws" on the books in 44 states.

The deadly consequences of religious exemption laws are apparent nationwide: over the past 25 years there have been over 150 reported deaths of children whose parents chose to rely on faith healing rather than medicine.
There are at least 20 different sects and religious groups in the U.S. whose teachings deny the use of medical care. These groups include: Faith Assembly, Christian Science, The Believer's Fellowship, Faith Tabernacle, Church of the First Born, Church of God of the Union Assembly, Church of God Chapel, Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God, Jesus through John and Judy, Christ Miracle Healing Center, NE Kingdom Community Church, Christ Assembly, The Source, True Followers of Christ, "No Name" Fellowship, End Time Ministries, Faith Cathedral Fellowship, Living Word Assembly of God, Traveling Ministries Everyday Church.

Christian Science is the largest and most prominent of these groupings. Church membership is estimated at 100,000 - 200,000 persons. The church estimates it has 1,800 churches and societies active in all parts of the United States. Since the 1970's there have been at least 18 deaths of Christian Science children; these deaths occurred when the parents denied their children medical care in favor of purely "spiritual healing." Of these deaths: three were from juvenile onset diabetes, an illness which can be controlled by insulin but which is otherwise invariably fatal; four from bacterial meningitis, a deadly illness which, with proper administration of antibiotics, is 90 percent curable; one from a ruptured appendix; one from pneumonia, and one from diphtheria (due to lack of vaccination).

Forty-four states have had religious exemption laws in force since the mid-1970's. (In 1990 South Dakota became the first state to repeal its religious exemptions from health care requirements for sick children.) Furthermore, the above deaths are only those that have come to public attention. Certainly there are other known and unknown cases of death, injury, prolonged suffering, and permanent disability of children whose parents have refused effective medical treatment.

In 1988, the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union made the following statement regarding state religious exemption laws:


Children have rights too, and parents have certain rights which end when they intrude too far into a child's right to live…the parent's right to bring up the child in the way the parent thinks best-an important right…ends at the point at which the parents' actions endanger the lives of kids…there cannot be in our view a religious exemption no matter how sincere a parent's belief…

Prior to 1982, "For nearly seven years after religious immunity was put under federal mandate, no charges of child abuse, neglect, or manslaughter were filed in any cases of religiously-based medical neglect. Beginning in 1982, though, prosecutors filed charges in some deaths of children due to religious beliefs against medical care. From 1982 through 1989, criminal charges were filed in 29 such cases. To date there have been 21 convictions, 5 acquittals… of the 29 cases, 7 involved Christian Scientists, with a result of 5 convictions for manslaughter and child endangerment." (Swan, The Law's Response When Religious Beliefs Against Medical Care Impact on Children, 1990).

How is it that parents can be prosecuted in the deaths of their children when states have legislated religious exemption? Prosecutors and courts have determined that the state religious exemption laws do not necessarily exempt parents from responsibility from obtaining medical care if a child is seriously ill or if the illness results in the child's death. In 1988, the California Supreme Court (People v. Walker) determined that the state's religious exemption law applies only to the neglect statute and does not carry over to the state's manslaughter statute. The Twitchells in Boston were convicted under a similar interpretation of the Massachusetts religious exemption law.

Not only do the religious exemption laws leave children vulnerable to death and disability, the laws can mislead (and be used by their churches to mislead) parents into believing that the state allows the substitution of prayer for medical care. Only when it is too late, after the agony of a child's death, do parents come to realize they are accountable under the law. In effect, religious exemption laws are punitive rather then preventative.


It would be better, however, to make a parent's legal duty clear before a child dies. Many parents would be relieved to obey the law if the state would make its standards clear. They do not comprehend the risks they are taking with their child when the state seems to endorse the withholding of medical care.

Rita Swan, "Barriers to Medical Care for Children: How You Can Help," The Exchange, Jan. - Feb., 1988.

Swan, in the same article, further went on to state:


No one is trying to outlaw prayer. Doctors are willing for people of any denomination to pray for their patient. Religious exemptions appear to make prayer a legal substitute for the medical care needed by a sick child.

Prayer cannot be a substitute for medicine in serious childhood illnesses in which medical treatment has proven its effectiveness over decades or when medicine is expected to have some reasonable likelihood of success.


Faith and reason may both have their place in healing, but not the same place. The state must remain neutral between religions, defending everyone's right to believe. But that does not mean it must remain neutral between "treatment," as if spiritual healing and science were equal options for curing a bowel obstruction.

Ellen Goodman, "Healing: Faith vs. Reason," Boston Globe, July 12, 1990


But where the issue is beyond real scientific dispute - as for exampble, with an operable malignant tumor, a case of acute appendicitis or treatable condition like juvenile diabetes - the state must have the power to compel parents to treat their children medically until they become adults.

Alan Dershowitz, "Let's Not Sacrifice Kids to Religion," Boston Herald, April 16, 1990

Religious exemption laws are unconscionable because they deprive a group of children of the basic rights and protections of life and health guaranteed by law to all other children. In effect religious exemption to medical care constitutes an apparent state sanction of child abuse/neglect.


The conviction that led to a sentence of 10 years' probation for David and Ginger Twitchell ought to alert Americans to a legal double standard that subjects the children of Christian Scientists to risks that are not tolerated for any other child. In ordinary circumstances, parental failure to safeguard a child's health, including seeking medical care for a grave illness, constitute child neglect or abuse and is subject to prosecution. But 43 states, including Massachusetts…provide an exemption for Christian Scientists, whose faith rejects medical care in favor of "spiritual healing." Given modern scientific knowledge, the legal exemptions can't be excused. Society has a duty to say that Christian Science parents may take whatever personal hazards they choose on practicing their religion - but they may not expose their children to the risk of death and disability by refusing medical treatment. Editorial, Chicago Tribune, July 8, 1990

Lawrence Tribe, a leading constitutional lawyer at Harvard, stated in a Boston Herald article on July 7, 1990: There should be a very clear duty on the part of all parents to take children to the doctor when a certain threshold is reached. Repealing the religious exemption would make it clear in the future that people like the Twitchells have to call in a doctor.


http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_1.html

January 25, 2008 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon-B

If you're saying faith-healing cults shouldn't be allowed to let their children die from lack of medical care, I 100% agree. The law should intervene.

Christian Scientists are not Christians, btw.

This is irrelevant to the discrimination discussion.

January 25, 2008 6:26 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, Christian scientists believe in Jesus, they are by definition Christians. And it is relevant to the discrimination discussion. You claimed that Christians didn't lobby for discrimination laws based on religion - you lied, again...

January 25, 2008 6:46 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anon lied again Christian Scientists are not Christians, btw.

Anon has her faith in Christ and Christian Scientists have theirs. Ms. Eddy based her Christian Scientist faith on Jesus' healings documented in the New Testament.

Mary Baker Eddy began believing in this method of healing when she recovered from an injury in 1866 after rereading a passage of one of Jesus' healings. She believed that the method of healing must have been that used by Jesus Christ to heal the cases documented in the New Testament. Both her study of the Bible over many years and the application of what she learned to varied cases of illness in the late 19th century compelled her to document her findings and teach her discovery to those who were interested. The resulting textbook, first copyrighted in 1875 and the primary source for learning Christian Science, is titled Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

Anon has an "us vs. them" attitude, not only with people of different sexual orientations but with people of different Christian faiths as well.

January 25, 2008 7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Red Baron, Christian scientists believe in Jesus, they are by definition Christians. And it is relevant to the discrimination discussion. You claimed that Christians didn't lobby for discrimination laws based on religion - you lied, again..."

Randi, you are exhausting.

Did you know that George Bernhard Shaw said of Christian Scientists that they are neither Christians nor scientists?

But you think they are. Because they say they "believe in Jesus."

Did you know that Muslims believe in Jesus? Yep, they believe he will return at the end of time to destroy the anti-Christ.

Buddhists? Yeah, they believe in him. Ask the Dalai Lama. He says Jesus is a "bodhisattva."

How about Hindus? They believe in him too. Think he's something they call a satguru.

Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Gnostics- they all say they believe.

Heck, I rarely talk to a humanist or agnostic who doesn't say they believe in his teachings.

By your definition, sounds like everyone's a Christian. Except, of course, you.

Better up that less than a third number Dawkins has given you.

and, anon-B, it's not a matter of "us vs them", it's a matter of accurate definitions

January 25, 2008 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

and, anon-B, it's not a matter of "us vs them", it's a matter of accurate definitions

Let's go to the source, Merriam Webster, for an "accurate definition" of Christian:

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


Christian Scientists certainly profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but you, with your "us vs. them" attitude reject the objective definition of Christian. You judge Christian Scientists not to be Christians because they are different than you.

January 26, 2008 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so do most humanists and agnostics, anon-B

He is the most revered figure in history and people who say they don't believe in his teachings are a distinct minority

are they Christians too?

you need to look at what people say they believe rather than how they characterize it; hard as it is to believe in this postmodern age, whether they actually believe in the teachings of Christ is more than a matter of opinion

January 26, 2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You judge Christian Scientists not to be Christians because they are different than you."

No, it's because their teachings are different than Christ's.

January 26, 2008 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, unlike the CRW, who are opposed to transgender people because of their "deep religious beliefs," though there's nothing in the bible about it, and Jesus would surely have preached tolerawnce and forgiveness. Or aren't the CRW Christians, either?

January 26, 2008 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

people who say they don't believe in his teachings are a distinct minority

are they Christians too?


I see what you mean, Mr Teacher Man. This Anon needs lots of remedial help.

No Anon, as Merriam Webster points out, a Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

If a person professes s/he does not believe in Christ's teachings, then that person is not a Christian.

January 26, 2008 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Merriam Webster points out, a Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"

Could someone tell Randi? Sounds like most of the world are Christians.

January 26, 2008 11:56 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Yeah, right Red Baron. Show me the poll that says most agnostics and humanists believe in the teachings of Jesus - once again you're a liar.

And Muslims don't believe Jesus was divine, they believe he was an ordinary person. The Koran says Jesus and his kind are like pigs and monkeys. The Buddhists and Hindus don't believe in Jesus - you're a liar.

January 26, 2008 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

BWAHAHAHA- N. M. Anon says Christian scientists are not Christian because their teachings differ from Jesus' teachings. I guess all of CRC/CRW/Recall/Michelesstupidshower
people aren't Christian either. I have read the Christian scriptures and I am sure Jesus didn't teach people to hate and discriminate. I think that came from other people so N.M. anon better watch it- now he is attacking himself and his little CR-ABCDGEFG buddies. They profess that their religion brings them to what they do.

January 26, 2008 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea

As I've pointed out endlessly, some are Christians and some aren't. CRC is not a Christian group although some involved are.

What so interesting is how this bunch of atheists, agnostics and humanists all seem to think that saying someone isn't a Christian is such an offense. Strange world.

Of course, everyone knows the drill. If a Hindu pointed out that someone is not really a Hindu, no one would be outraged. Liberals try to claim every nut is a Christian so they can associate the nutty ideas with Christianity.

Nuts try to attach themselves to Christianity for the same reason everyone else does. It's true.

January 27, 2008 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Show me the poll that says most agnostics and humanists believe in the teachings of Jesus - once again you're a liar."

My experience has been that they are. I've talked to alot of them.

This idea that nothing is true unless there is some kind of documented study is so obvious a fallacy, it's demented. You are undocumented demented.

"And Muslims don't believe Jesus was divine,"

This is a point and you're on to something Webster missed. Many people say they believe in the teaching of Jesus but don't believe in all of them. Christian Scientists are among those.

"they believe he was an ordinary person. The Koran says Jesus and his kind are like pigs and monkeys."

Not quite. Here's the Muslim view:

"Islam holds Jesus (Arabic: عيسى‎ `Īsā) to have been a messenger of God who had been sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl (gospel). According the Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be God's final revelation, Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid him in his quest, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles. These included speaking from the cradle, curing the blind and the lepers, as well as raising the dead; all by the permission of God. Furthermore, Jesus was helped by a band of disciples (the ḥawāriyūn). Islamic traditions narrate that he will return to earth near the day of judgement to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl (lit. "the false messiah", also known as the Antichrist) and the enemies of Islam.

Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim, as he preached for people to adopt the straight path in submission to God's will."

"The Buddhists and Hindus don't believe in Jesus - you're a liar."

Here's a current Buddhist view:

"Some Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama regard Jesus as a bodhisattva who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings."

And the Hindu:

"Hindu beliefs about Jesus vary. Contemporary Sant Mat movements regard Jesus as a Satguru. Ramakrishna believed that Jesus was an Incarnation of God. Swami Vivekananda has praised Jesus and cited him as a source of strength and the epitome of perfection. Paramahansa Yogananda taught that Jesus was the reincarnation of Elisha and a student of John the Baptist, the reincarnation of Elijah."

Why does Randi say things when Randi doesn't know what Randi is talking about? Is it lying? Stupidity? The zeal of extremism? Hatred for religion?

It's a mystery.

Still, we know Randi likes to call others liars.

Is it a guilty conscience? A cry for help?

It's a mystery.

January 27, 2008 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Aunt Bea said...
"No Anon, as Merriam Webster points out, a Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"
--

Nice catch. :)

January 28, 2008 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure was. A-B proved that almost everyone is a Christian.

January 28, 2008 1:15 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron says that he has no poll that shows most atheists believe in the teachings of Jesus, he says "My experience has been that they are. I've talked to alot of them.".

You're a notorious liar, your claim is totally unsubstantiated as I said. This reminds me of your lunatic claim that the Catholic church never persecuted Galileo, that they "had a vigourous debate" about it and "the pope was on Galileo's side". You just make crap up as you go along. Your assertions about what you think most atheists believe carry no weight whatsoever.

Red Baron said regarding Jesus " Here's the Muslim view:".

Not quite. Not the same Jesus.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Islam/sundquist.htm


1. Islamic Jesus was created and not eternal

2. Islamic Jesus is a created human

3. Islamic Jesus is not the Lamb of God who was slain

5. Islamic Jesus prophesied (but did not send) the coming of Mohammed (Islamic Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit

6. Islam which says Salvation is found only in the Five Pillars of Islam not in Jesus

7. Islamlic Jesus which is an involuntary Slave to Allah

8. Islamic Jesus was never crucified and therefore was not resurrected

9. Islamic Jesus is not the God in the flesh as the Messiah

AND

Islamic Jesus is NOT the Son of God

(whoever believes this will be thrown into the fire)


10. Islamic Jesus can not be worshipped

12. Islamic Jesus will judge by the Law of the Quran and not by the Gospel

13. Islamic Jesus is simply another prophet

20. Islamic Jesus will die forty years after his return

January 28, 2008 1:50 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And I should add that neither the Hindu nor the Buddhists accept Jesus as the one true god.

January 28, 2008 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Red Baron says that he has no poll that shows most atheists believe in the teachings of Jesus, he says "My experience has been that they are. I've talked to alot of them.".

You're a notorious liar, your claim is totally unsubstantiated as I said. This reminds me of your lunatic claim that the Catholic church never persecuted Galileo, that they "had a vigourous debate" about it and "the pope was on Galileo's side". You just make crap up as you go along. Your assertions about what you think most atheists believe carry no weight whatsoever."

Well, to begin with, I never discussed atheists. I mentioned humanists and agnostics. I don't know about actual atheists. People that irrational are, fortunately, exceedingly rare. The only explanation for them is some bad personal experiences.

Your knowledge of the Galileo incident is about as deficient as the rest of your knowledge. The Galileo incident is as I described it and I'd be happy to provide books by historical researchers that substantiate it. The war that you imagine, and I suppose you deem yourself a soldier in this war, doesn't exist. Science as an organized and sustained effort was invented and supported by the Christian church. That's because scripture deems observation of nature to be a part of studying God's "general revelation". Whenever a scientific finding contradicts scripture, it is recognized that a reconciliation between the two must be made. You can find writings of this type throughout Christian writings for the last two millenia. Reliance on reason is the characteristic that distinguishes Christianity from other world religions.

"Red Baron said regarding Jesus " Here's the Muslim view:".

Not quite. Not the same Jesus."

Oh, I agree. They don't believe in the same Jesus. Neither do Christian Scientists.

You said anyone who "says they believe in the teachings of Jesus is a Christian". I'm glad you now realize you were wrong.

Progress is slow with morons.

January 28, 2008 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And I should add that neither the Hindu nor the Buddhists accept Jesus as the one true god."

I never said they did. I said they fit your definition of a Christian because they "say that they believe in the teachings of Jesus".

BTW, when you said Islamics think Jesus is a pig, you were wrong.

Was that a lie or did you really believe it?

January 28, 2008 2:22 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

None of them believe in the teachings of Jesus, Red Baron, none of them accept the Christian gospels, none of them believe in your Jesus. Anyone who believes in your jesus is a christian - they don't and aren't.

January 28, 2008 3:24 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "BTW, when you said Islamics think Jesus is a pig, you were wrong."

Fraid not.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/memrireport.html

Islamic Religious Sources on the Jews - The 'Descendants of Apes and Pigs'


The divine punishment of Jews is mentioned in three Koranic verses: "... They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine..." (5:60); "...You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which we condemned them: Be ye like apes, despised" (2:65);[13] and "when, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, we condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised" (7:166).[14]

Although in the Koran, transformation into apes and pigs is connected only with Jews, Koranic commentary links transformation into apes and pigs with Christians as well. Verse 5:112-115 relates that the Apostles wanted to know whether God could bring down a table laden with food from the heavens. Jesus directed this request to God, and it was answered. However, God warned him that anyone who ate at the table and would then commit blasphemy would be punished in a way that no one had yet been punished. In his commentary on this verse, the renowned 10th century commentator Al-Tabari[17] says, that despite God's warning, some did commit blasphemy and were punished by being turned into apes and pigs – or, in another version, only into pigs.[18]


In his article "Apes, Pigs, and the Islamic Identity," the researcher U. Rubin indicates that the Muslims threatened with being turned into animals were not ordinary sinners, but those whose sin had a Jewish or Christian nature.

January 28, 2008 4:09 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
Sure was. A-B proved that almost everyone is a Christian.
------
I really don’t think it’s very polite to knock the Red Baron’s definition of being a Christian:

the red baron said... January 08, 2008 11:11 AM:

"Red Baron: I don't have my own definition. I go with the English language. here's Webster on it:

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"

---------
Or do you really think it's ok to attack people's religious beliefs about Christ?

I have yet to see the Red Baron attacking you for your beliefs, so why would you mock Red Baron's definition of what it means to be a Christian?

Or Webster's for that matter?

January 28, 2008 7:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In his article "Apes, Pigs, and the Islamic Identity," the researcher U. Rubin indicates that the Muslims threatened with being turned into animals were not ordinary sinners, but those whose sin had a Jewish or Christian nature."

I guess I'm beating a dead horse at this point, Randi, but you are still incorrect. You should read more closely. The Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and wouldn't include him as one like a pig or monkey. They have somehow differentiated him in their mind.

It's not hard to understand why. The truths revealed by Jesus are so undeniably profound that like the Buddhists, Hindus, humanists, agnostics and everyone else, the Muslims would like to be associated with him.

January 29, 2008 12:47 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Wrong Red Baron. I've heard many muslims say Jesus and his kind are like pigs and monkeys. The "jesus" referred to in other religions is not the Jesus you worship, none of them believe in Jesus the supreme being. As to Jesus's "profound" truths, are you referring to his suggestion that parents stone their disobedient children to death(See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) Mark7:9-10}
; his statememt that he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell(Mark 4:11-12); his statement that god is like a slave owner who beats his slaves with many stripes(luke 12:46-47); where in in the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow and the parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:22-27); where he shows he believes people are crippled by god as a punishement for sin (John 5:14); where he suggests burning heretics at the stake (John 15:6); where Jesus says he will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9); or where everyone on earth wails because of Jesus (Revelation 1:7) Are those the "profound" truths of Jesus you're talking about? Or maybe you're referring to the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you line" which was found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era"? Or are you referring to the profound truths of Jesus stolen from Aesop's fables?

January 29, 2008 12:56 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Also Red Baron, the romans believed in the Greek god Zeus, they just called him Jupiter. Do you think this proves Zeus existed? That's what your trying to imply here.

January 29, 2008 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the ever amusing Randi, recovered and back for more. I feel like that kid in the Home Alone movie: "So, have ya had enough or are ya thirsty for more?"

"Wrong Red Baron. I've heard many muslims say Jesus and his kind are like pigs and monkeys."

Well, don't tell any ayatollahs. They're liable to wind up with a fatwa. As we've seen, Islam considers Jesus a prophet.

Those wild and crazy Canadian Muslims! I tell ya.

"The "jesus" referred to in other religions is not the Jesus you worship, none of them believe in Jesus the supreme being."

That's true, and one of those other religions is Christian Science. As I told you to get you started on your repertoire of irrationality, Christian Scientists are neither Christian nor scientific. And you have asserted that anyone who says they believe in the teachings of Jesus is a Christian. That was really stupid because, as we have seen, most people say they believe in the teachings of Jesus. I agree that most people who say that don't actually know the teaching of Jesus but that's what I said from the beginning and you said this was just more close-minded bigotry.

"As to Jesus's "profound" truths, are you referring to his suggestion that parents stone their disobedient children to death(See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) Mark7:9-10}
; his statememt that he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell(Mark 4:11-12); his statement that god is like a slave owner who beats his slaves with many stripes(luke 12:46-47); where in in the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow and the parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:22-27); where he shows he believes people are crippled by god as a punishement for sin (John 5:14); where he suggests burning heretics at the stake (John 15:6); where Jesus says he will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9); or where everyone on earth wails because of Jesus (Revelation 1:7) Are those the "profound" truths of Jesus you're talking about? Or maybe you're referring to the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you line" which was found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era"? Or are you referring to the profound truths of Jesus stolen from Aesop's fables?"

I'm referring to all of his profound teachings. The ones where these other religions sit down and say: Gee, I wish I'd a said that!

"Also Red Baron, the romans believed in the Greek god Zeus, they just called him Jupiter. Do you think this proves Zeus existed? That's what your trying to imply here."

Face it, Randi. Christianity denounced the pagan false gods of Greece and Rome. It maintains exclusivity as God's revelation and every other religion tries to incorporate Jesus somehow. That says something.

January 29, 2008 1:29 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said " And you have asserted that anyone who says they believe in the teachings of Jesus is a Christian.".

No what I said was anyone who believes in Jesus is a Christian. None of those other religions believe in your Jesus, the "one true god".

Red Baron said "most people say they believe in the teachings of Jesus.".

LOL - another wild fantasy of yours. What kind of drugs are you doing anyway? Over 2/3 of the world says they don't believe in the teachings of Jesus.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,956,Why-the-Gods-Are-Not-Winning,Edge-Gregory-Paul-amp-Phil-Zuckerman,page1#36316

You think if you can fantasize something that that makes it true - hate to disapoint you, but it doesn't.

Red Baron said "I'm referring to all of his profound teachings. The ones where these other religions sit down and say: Gee, I wish I'd a said that!".

Oh, you mean like his suggestion that parents stone their disobedient children to death(See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) Mark7:9-10}
; his statememt that he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell(Mark 4:11-12); his statement that god is like a slave owner who beats his slaves with many stripes(luke 12:46-47); where in in the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow and the parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:22-27); where he shows he believes people are crippled by god as a punishement for sin (John 5:14); where he suggests burning heretics at the stake (John 15:6); where Jesus says he will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9); or where everyone on earth wails because of Jesus (Revelation 1:7) Are those the "profound" truths of Jesus you're talking about? Or maybe you're referring to the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you line" which was found in the Analects of Confucius and in the motto of the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, who long predate the Christian era"? Or are you referring to the profound truths of Jesus stolen from Aesop's fables?"


Red Baron said "Christianity denounced the pagan false gods of Greece and Rome. It maintains exclusivity as God's revelation and every other religion tries to incorporate Jesus somehow. That says something."

It says that religions have a long history of stealing bits and pieces from each other and no religon has done more of this than Christianity.

The Greatest Story Ever Copied

http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter08.htm#OtherGospels


In examining the story of Jesus, we find many elements that seem similar to earlier myths and legends of the area. It’s easy to see how Jesus could be a composite of different religions that preceded Christianity.



The idea of a sacred character who was supposedly the son of a mortal woman and a divine father wasn’t unique to the Christian faith. This happened quite frequently in Greek mythology. Zeus (known to the Romans as Jupiter), the head of their pantheon, was said to have fathered many of their demigod heroes with mortal women. A sexless conception was unusual but not unheard of. Zeus came to Danae, daughter of king Acrisius, in the form of a golden shower to sire the Greek hero Perseus.[15]



“We propound nothing different (about Jesus) from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

-Justin Martyr, 2nd Century Christian Apologist[16]

Many Christians believe that December 25 was originally made a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus. In reality, many other savior gods that predated Jesus, such as Mithra and Krishna, were also thought to have been born on that date. See chapter 10, Section “Remember the Reason for the Season” for further discussion on this point.

The “nativity scene”, with its adoring shepherds and singing angels, was told of earlier savior gods including Krishna.[17] The “Madonna with child” image of baby Jesus and Mary seems reminiscent of the earlier Egyptian gods, baby Horus and Isis.[18] The subsequent story of a tyrant’s attempt to kill him is found in other myths, including the story of Moses.[19] As with Buddha, Jesus was a child prodigy and taught at the temple at the age of 12.[20]



Like the Romano-Persian savior god Mithra, Jesus had 12 disciples.[21] Like Buddha, he was a traveling teacher of great wisdom and admonished his followers to renounce wealth and worldly desires.[22] Like Krishna, he preached a message of charity, peace and love.[23] Like the Persian god Zoroaster, he taught of Heaven, Hell and the resurrection.[24] Like the Greek god, Dionysus, he turned water into wine.[25] Like the Greek god, Asclepius, he performed healing miracles including raising the dead.[26]



The dying and rising savior-god Mithra seemed especially similar to Jesus in many ways. He had a last supper with his followers. His worshippers were admonished to symbolically eat of his flesh in order to conquer death. He promised on the Day of Judgment that all the dead would be raised back to life. He had sacrificed himself to redeem humanity, descended into the underworld for three days and rose again on Sunday, the holy day for Mithraists.[27]



All of these other mythical godly beings or central icons to other religions predated the alleged life of Jesus Christ by hundreds if not thousands of years. Is it just a coincidence that Jesus’ life story contains so many elements of theirs?

By your logic the religion that is copied from must be the one true religon and this must be all the other religions that came before Christianity.

January 29, 2008 3:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home