Conservative Christian parents fight for right to discriminate against LGBT students

[cleanhippie]

A slew of conservative Christian parents — and even an orthodox rabbi — implored the Anoka-Hennepin School District to purge schools of any mention of homosexuality and demanded that teachers teach about the “ex-homosexual” movement and “gay-related immune deficiency.” One district member even assailed Dan Savage’s It Gets Better campaign as vulgar and accused the popular columnist of teaching children about “three-ways.” Several people testified using little more than versus from the Bible that are often used to demean and degrade the LGBT community.

The controversy in the district is over the sexual orientation curriculum policy also called the “neutrality policy” which says that LGBT issues are not to be discussed in the district’s schools. Six students are suing to eliminate the policy on the grounds that it makes for a hostile school environment and the district announced last month that they are considering scrapping the policy and replacing it with one that deals with “controversial topics” but doesn’t single out LGBT students and issues.

But the Parents Action League, a group of conservative Christians, want the policy to remain.

Brian Lindquist and Mike Skaalerud presented a resolution and list of demands that the Parents Action League wants to the school board to fulfill including incorporating “ex-gay” therapy into the school resources.

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/01/13/conservative-christian-parents-fight-right-discriminate-against-lgbt-students-anoka-

View the full resolution at the link

Isn't religion such a wonderful thing? Especially when one uses it to oppress and demonize others? Yeah, good stuff.

[Goblinmonger]

1. I'm not up-to-date on congressional district lines in Minnesota anymore, but

isn't that Bachman territory?

[cbayer]

2. This is backlash to the school districts proposal to change the

curriculum to be more inclusive and affirming.

The district has had an inordinate number of suicides among teens, some of which seem clearly related to issues around sexual identity.

Good news is that it appears the students are supportive of the change. In addition, the PAL resolution is so outrageously homophobic that it has virtually no chance of being passed.

[cleanhippie]

3. I think it is the fear of being labled a "bigot" that allows these things to get this far along.

Meaning that people are afraid to say that things like this are bullshit religious nonsense (which I would hope we all agree it is) but then get labeled a bigot by those that hold those beliefs.

If we stop allowing religious beliefs to held above criticism and scrutiny and giving it the privilege of protection, we would probably see very little of this stuff. No prop 8, no embryos are people, no gays are an abomination, none of that crap. The problem is that nearly ALL Americans have some religious beliefs, and they see that by allowing ANY criticism of the more wacky claims of religion would open up their "more reasonable" beliefs to the same criticism. That is the problem, IMO.

[cbayer]

4. The problem as I see it is trying to paint a highly diverse group

with a very broad brush.

Something you seem intent on doing.

[cleanhippie]

5. Well, you have your opinon and I have mine.

The rub lies in what is fact and what is not fact.

The fact is that the claims of the religious concerning a supernatural entity and/or what that entity wants is not supported by any facts, or evidence, whatsoever.

My opinion (it is more of an observation, really) is that to hold such beliefs without said belief having any rational basis in reality is ludicrous. Yours seems to be that it is not.

What is diverse about a group of people that hold those beliefs? How is my opinion/observation a broad-brush?

[cbayer]

6. Yes, that is why you are an atheist. And you are entitled to that opinion.

When you make blanket statements about religion or religious people, you appear to make it from the perspective that your position is the only accurate one. That's your prerogative, but it sounds like a "one way" argument to me.

Part of the scientific method is to disprove a hypothesis. A hypothesis which withstands the rigors of scientific investigation becomes a fact-based theory, still open to change if more data becomes available. A hypothesis that can not be proved or disproved remains a hypothesis. So show me where a supernatural entity has been disproved.

I learned that in 7th grade, lol.

[Angry Dragon]

8. I also thought part of the scientific method was to prove a hypothesis

and part of the proof was to be able to duplicate your findings

And as far as having an opinion, if one believes that another opinion is also correct then it just proves that your opinion is wrong

[rug]

14. Another part of it is to describe things with precision.

Making broad brush, imprecise statements is usually the result of stupidity or bigotry.

[Angry Dragon]

17. My god created everything and is the master of the universe

That is what organized religion says, I think that is pretty broad brushed
No proof at all to back it up

[rug]

21. That may be another article but it's not this one.

This one is about bigoted assholes.

Adding your own doesn't really advance the discussion.

[Angry Dragon]

25. For the most part I find your responses add

very little to discussions

And as far as bigoted assholes (christians), how does one separate them from Christians, how do you tell them apart??

[rug]

27. Bigots usually have trouble telling people apart.

[Angry Dragon]

31. Are you calling me a bigot??

[rug]

33. Do you consider religion in general, and Christianity, specifically, to be monolithic?

Do you have difficulty seeing differences within these groups?

[Angry Dragon]

38. I asked a question and you did not answer it

then you come back and ask me two questions.........
I have no idea what you are asking me
care to explain??

[rug]

42. The answer to your question is the same as your answers to my questions.

[Angry Dragon]

46. I asked if you were calling me a bigot

3 possible answers: yes, no, maybe
answer the first question and then I will answer yours

[rug]

48. Your answer to my two question will provide the answer to your question.

I need more data to answer you conclusively.

Come, now. They're not hard to answer.

[Angry Dragon]

49. I am asking myself if you are old enough to post on DU

If you feel that by answering a question with a question is a way to hold a discussion
then I have to wonder how you actually hear other people

[rug]

50. I am asking myself why you refuse to answer a dispositive question.

[Angry Dragon]

52. Go to post #31

answer the question posted there and I will be more than happy to answer your questions
See how that works, you answer the first question and then you get to ask a question
and answering a question with a question is not an answer, unless you are a politician

[rug]

60. See, this is how it works.

If the answer to my questions is "Yes", the answer to your question is "Yes".

If the answer to my questions is "No", the answer to your question is "No".

I can't say I'm surprised by your reluctance.

[Angry Dragon]

63. LOL ............

[rug]

65. Great answer.

[Leontius]

93. Well played point, his serve next I think

[cleanhippie]

95. Your really add a lot to the conversation.

Good stuff.

[Leontius]

96. Doesn't take much

considering you're part of it.

[cleanhippie]

99. Again, you really show how just one more voice adds so much.

I so appreciate your input and thoughtful, intelligent responses.

[cleanhippie]

71. Pay no attention. He thinks he is being clever by calling you a bigot, but not really calling you a

bigot. Its an attempt, and a somewhat successful one at that, to circumvent the DU ToS and Community Standards. What makes it even funnier is in the same thread he does this, he accuses others of violating the ToS for comments much more innocuous than his. Its dishonest, its disruptive, and its flamebait. Its the ultimate hypocrisy.

I

[cleanhippie]

11. Wow. For someone who says "take my word for it" regarding the scientific method

Your last post does not demonstrate that anyone should take your word for anything scientific. It actually demonstrates that you lack even a basic understanding of the concept of the scientific method. Lol.

[cbayer]

84. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

[cleanhippie]

85. Did you have a point?

You know what, never mind. You will probably just distort and misrepresent everything that was stated so far, as you did here ==>http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=7631


BE the change you want to see, cbayer, BE the change.

[MarkCharles]

45. You evidently didn't go on to college logic class, wherein

the proof of a negative is widely known "a fool's challenge".

That is, more precisely stated, the challenge OF a fool to others.

First lesson of logic: one cannot prove a negative.

Corollary to this: there is as much proof of a god as there is proof of unicorns, Easter Bunnies, flying spaghetti monsters.

[cbayer]

78. See, there you go again. Starting off with a rude insult.

[Goblinmonger]

79. Well, your statement of the scientific method was kind of silly.

I mean, your big finish is "you can't prove a negative" like that somehow wins an argument. I learned lots of thing in 7th grade English that got a lot more clear and indepth as I went on to college level English classes.

[cbayer]

80. The 7th grade reference was in light of another post here where I

was told that I didn't know anything about the scientific method, should return to the 7th grade and offered me a link to a science project site. Insulting in the extreme.

This need for some people to call you uneducated when they don't agree with you is lame. Really, really lame. And absolutely hilarious when it is used against me.

[cleanhippie]

83. TOTAL MISREPRESENTAION OF THE FACTS! Stop making things up, cbayer.

Lets look at the actual post you misrepresent...

Its the broad-brush assumptions about what the "study" reveals that is bogus.

To make such claims, as the "researchers" did, is NOT how the scientific method works. Thats how I know.

This is 7th grade science knowledge, cbayer. Here are some links to help get you up to speed, if you want to know more.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://sciencefairproject.virtualave.net/scientific_method.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=7507

Now, maybe you can show just where I said you didn't know anything or should return to the 7th grade.


I did not just not agree with you, cbayer, I answered your question about just how I knew the study failed to use the scientific method, and provided evidence to support my claim in an effort to help you understand just how I came to my conclusion.

YOUR need to label this as an insult, and to misrepresent my post in order to garner sympathy is what is, as you say, "really, really lame", and is not hilarious at all. It's actually quite sad.

[cleanhippie]

81. Actually, you started it off with an insult to everyone's intelligence

by claiming, as a self-identified scientist no less, that one cannot prove a negative. If you cannot see the insult you leveled at anyone with an elementary grasp of the scientific method by slinging that fallacious argument-ender against the wall, then I don't know what will.

Change starts at home. As Ghandi said, BE the change you want to see in the world, cbayer. BE the change.

[MarkCharles]

82. Nothing is rude about pointing out a fallacy in logical thinking.

I think you are probably a very nice person. You seem to think more demonically about me and my choice of words pointing out fallacies of logic.

Seventh grade science is a great thing to learn from. College logic classes teach folks not to waste time with purposeless argumentation.

[dmallind]

108. I'm sorry are any NONreligious people pushing for these things to be taught?

The gay bashing crowd doesn't look all that diverse does it? Pretty much 100% religious.

[cbayer]

109. Not that I know of. The groups pushing it seem to be 100% bigoted fundamentalists.

[dmallind]

110. So in what way is it incorrect to say religion is pushing this agenda?

[cbayer]

111. If you wish to conflate all religion into one group, that's your perogative,

but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Is atheism pushing the temple building project talked about in two other threads? Or is it just a group within the atheist population?

[dmallind]

112. When else does language work this way?

If 4 Blue Dogs block progressive legislation in the Senate can we not say that Blue Dogs are blocking the legislation if not all Blue Dogs are blocking it?

If Republicans insist on extending tax cuts to get unemployment benefits is that only true if every single one is insisting on it, even if the only people insisting on it are Republicans?

I've never seen you or any DUer object to these claims. Should you? Why not? Why another special pleading when religion is involved?

[cbayer]

113. It works this way everywhere, imo. It depends where you draw the line as to whether

one is making a stereotyped or broad brush generalization or a statement that applies to a clearly defined group of individuals that are pursing a common goal.

You just did it when you defined some Democrats as blue dogs. You are referring to a specific group of legislators that you have defined by ideology. Is it ok if someone defines you as a Democrat based on that sub-group's ideology?

[dmallind]

115. You're ducking the question

Very real situation from the last 2-3 years, repeated thousands of times on DU with no complaint from you or anyone else.

Not all Blue Dogs are blocking legislation but all the people blocking it are Blue Dogs. An exactly analogous situation to religious people, only religious people but not all religious people pushing anti-gay indoctrination. There are only three options

1) It is correct to say Blue Dogs are blocking the legislation, and therefpre must be correct to say religious people are pushing an anti-gay agenda

2) It is incorrect to say either, and you, and others, are selectively and hypocritically deciding to only complain about this when it's religious people doing something bad, but not complain about it when it's BDs, or Republicans, or corporations, or rich people or the many many hundreds of times such phrasing is used at DU daily.

3) You want a special pleading exemption where people are expected to spell out the only-but-not-all nature of a group doing something bad when that group is religious

[cbayer]

116. I think it is critical to define the different groups under a broad heading,

particularly when a sub-section of that group is promoting ideas or goals that are the antithesis of other sub-groups. To conflate the groups is counterproductive to the cause of marginalizing the voice of those who are bigoted or use their identification with the group to promote bigotry and hate.

This is particularly true in the case of religion, because a sub-section of the group called Christians have had significant political sway over this country in the last 10 - 15 years. Those most likely to decrease their power, imo, are other sub-groups who find them abhorrent. In short, progressive Christians have the power to take back some of the political sway.

Extinguishing, denigrating or otherwise conflating all Christians or all religious people within this group does impede the goal. There is a common enemy among Democrats and much of that enemy is driven by the Christian right. To make all Christians or all religious people that enemy is a mistake, imo.

I think the same argument can be made for Democrats (in regards to say the blue dogs), rich people and corporations. Not so much for Republicans, because they share an ideology with which I disagree pretty much across the board.

If you wish to hold all religious people responsible for the actions of a subset, so be it. Is it ok to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a militant subset? Is it ok to hold all atheists responsible for the actions of a subset that want to build temples?

[dmallind]

123. Still ducking - and making things up to boot

Did anybody say "ALL religious people"? No - so it is a pointless mewling strawman to whine about how that is wrong.

Again - which of the three options is correct or why is there a 4th?

Is it not true that Muslims carried out the WTC attack? It's certainly true that atheists want this temple you seem to want to make a gotcha. No idea why you would imagine I'd deny that. Probably because you seem to want to deny that it's Christians pushing this gay-bashing agenda. You can't - because they are overwhelmingly Christians. There is not the slightest implication in these statements that ALL Muslims carried out the attack, or ALL atheists want a temple or ALL Christians want a homophobic curriculum. I really have no clue why that's a complaint so frequent around here coming almost exclusively from Christians.

Do I complain every time somebody says "men committed rape X times last year", stupidly imagining that the term includes me, who committed zero? But men committed those rapes. Do we complain when the claim is made that Americans killed innocent people in drone attacks? We complain THAT they did perhaps, but in hundreds of threads bemoaning American attacks I have NEVER seen someone complain that saying "Americans" states or implies that ALL Americans did, or that we should carefully spell out "some small number of Americans didthis and it's antithetical to other Americans" every time we mention American attacks.

Why is Christianity to be treated differently from every other attribute?

[cleanhippie]

118. Actually, that is just one person. Its not even a group.

Aaaaaand he is promoting a new book, soooooooo.....

[cleanhippie]

117. So the 7,001,084 Californians that voted for Prop 8 are all bigoted fundamentlaists?

And here I am being told constantly that these very same bigoted fundamentalists are just a small, vocal minority.

[cbayer]

119. That is not what I said.

I said that I don't know of any groups that are pushing this agenda that are not religiously affiliated groups. That does not mean that every single one of those people who voted for Prop 8 are members of one of these groups.

There are many bigoted homophobes that are not affiliated with any religious group.

[cleanhippie]

120. Wait, you just said that 100% of them pushing that agenda were bigoted fundamentalists.

Now you are saying that not everyone who voted for (pushed the agenda) prop 8 are bigoted fundamentalists.


Which is it?


And can you show me some examples of bigoted homophobes that are NOT affiliated with any religious group?

[cbayer]

121. Quote: "The groups pushing it seem to be 100% bigoted fundamentalists."

note: groups.

There might be groups that are not religiously affiliated, but I am not aware of them. There are other kinds of hate groups without religious affiliation and one could probably get that specific information from SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), as the have a project to track it.

I guess if you have never met a bigoted homophobe who is not religiously affiliated then you haven't. I am not going to try to prove to you that they exist. Your mind is shut, imo.

[cleanhippie]

122. Oh yeah, it's MY mind that is shut, not yours.

You make the claim that non-religious homophobic groups exist, then lay it on me to prove they don't. Now THAT is a familiar argument. Where have I heard that before?

[rug]

7. Your comment is equating the words "Conservative" and "Christian" in the headline.

Which is, as you know, dishonest and disruptive flamebait.

[Angry Dragon]

9. It is the headline from the article

the poster did not add anything
Your disagreement should be taken up with the writer of the article

[rug]

10. He added the comment.

"Isn't religion such a wonderful thing? Especially when one uses it to oppress and demonize others? Yeah, good stuff."

It's the difference between discussion and flame bait.

[cbayer]

12. Agree.

[Angry Dragon]

15. These people are using their religion to justify their bigotry

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Pope Benedict XVI

Here the pope is calling gays evil, the leader of the Catholic Church. Do I have to go around and see how every catholic feels about this??

I do not see it as flame bait.

[rug]

19. That's right, "these" people.

Not all people, not all Christians.

It's as prejudiced as it is sloppy.

[cleanhippie]

24. It doesn't say ALL christians. It doesn't say ALL people.

But you know that. Prejudiced and sloppy, indeed.

[rug]

26. No, it says

"Isn't religion such a wonderful thing? Especially when one uses it to oppress and demonize others? Yeah, good stuff."

Not some religion, not this religion, just religion.

I retract what I said. It's not sloppy, it's intentional.

[cleanhippie]

34. It seems as if you are saying that religion itself is above criticism. Is that what you are saying?

If not, can you please clarify just what your objection is?

[rug]

39. What you implied, very clearly, is that religion itself is bigotry.

Which is an absurd statement.

If you didn't imply that, state clearly what it is you mean to say.

[cleanhippie]

41. No, you inferred that.

But religion IS bigotry when it is used to oppress and demonize people, wouldn't you agree?

[rug]

43. And do you say the article you posted applies to all religion?

[cleanhippie]

53. This article deals with Conservative Christians, as evidenced by the headline.

Everything else is conjecture on your part.


I think we have both had our say on the subject and it's time to move on.

Have a nice day, rug

[rug]

56. I must have missed that qualification in your comment.

"Isn't religion such a wonderful thing? Especially when one uses it to oppress and demonize others? Yeah, good stuff."

[cleanhippie]

59. Yep, you must have.

Have a nice day, rug.

[rug]

62. Nope, didn't miss it.

It's not there.

[cleanhippie]

67. Well you are entitled to your opinion.

Again, you have yourself a nice day.

[rug]

70. No, its absence is a fact.

[mike_c]

94. when religious delusions are used to justify bigotry...

...drawing a line between religion and bigotry is a distinction without a difference. The majority of religious people that I've known use their religious beliefs to justify some form of bigotry, even if only against people who suffer from other flavors of delusion. You're correct-- religion doesn't MAKE them bigots, but it provides them with tools for justifying and expressing their bigotry.

Don't be disingenuous and pretend that there isn't any connection, especially between socially conservative evangelical christians and rampant bigotry. The two go hand in hand.

[MarkCharles]

51. Challenge to religion: become a more "wonderful thing" wherein

absolute bull crap like this cannot be part of what one calls "religion".

If people are free to believe whatever they want to believe, even if it hurts, oppresses, kills, injures, threatens, or otherwise negatively influences the lives of other human beings for no scientifically based reasoning at all, it's not "religion". Until "religion" arrives there, it seems worthy of little or no respect.

[rug]

54. Absolute bull crap is also part of what one calls irreligion.

I'm surprised you've never noticed it.

[MarkCharles]

61. No, I noticed it in about 5th grade. What I find amazing is..

that people who call themselves religious fail to assault such thoughts openly, and daily, as part of their "religious" practices.

They seem to want to continue tax breaks for EVERY religious belief system, they seem to want those "beliefs" to be protected by law.

I have no such desires. Only religious people do.

[rug]

64. You do not want religious belief to be protected by law?

Too bad about the First Amendment.

[MarkCharles]

66. Religious belief is not protected by the first amendment, FREE speech is.

HOWEVER

As the Supreme Court of the nation has ruled, one cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I equate hate speech in the name of religion to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[rug]

68. And if you speak your religious belief?

[MarkCharles]

72. There is no such thing as governmental endorsements for any ...

religious belief.

Members of the KKK and some Jewish defense league, and some Islamic terrorist group and some worshipers of Satan and some other rogue Christian claimants that gays or blacks or Jews or whatever should not be treated as equals should be bullied, or whatever.

There's no government endorsements nor religious "protections" afforded in America for any of those expressions of "belief".

The first amendment has nothing at all to do with expressions and actions of hate.

[rug]

75. Are you saying religious expressions are "expressions . . . of hate"?

Have you answered my question?

[MarkCharles]

86. SOME, not all. What is your view of such expressions? Are they..

actually "religious" or are they simply the expressions of fools and bigots who hide behind the appearances of something close to what most people would call a "religious" belief, i.e. something wherein the belief, alone, without evidence, is worthy of respect?

[Angry Dragon]

29. The poster never said all

They said religion. Would you disagree that people use religion to justify their bigotry??

[rug]

32. Religion, unqualified.

Would you disagree with the Terms of Service?

"Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic."

Do you think using these idiots as a means to attack religion, unqualified, is bigotry?

[Angry Dragon]

36. I do not diagree with the TOS

I do disagree with you labeling this post as bigotry

[cleanhippie]

16. Then alert and let a jury decide.

Or should I just post articles with no comment or discussion points, as you often do, and leave the intent of the post open to interpretation by the reader, which nearly always results a flame fest?

[rug]

23. You're already transparent.

[cleanhippie]

40. As are you.

Have a nice day

[rug]

44. Actually no.

Your transparency page is quite interesting.

[cleanhippie]

57. You seem to be making the topic now about me. That makes it personal.

And making it personal is against the rules, right?

[rug]

69. The topic is your broadbrush against religion, using these idiots as the brush.

Is broadbrushing groups against the rules?

[cleanhippie]

74. Broadbrushing groups of PEOPLE is against the rules, and you just called a group of people "idiots"

THAT, my friend, is a broadbrush attack. Is that against the rules?

[rug]

76. Do you think these bigots you posted about are not idiots?

[cleanhippie]

77. As you did with Angry Dragon, you refuse to answer the question posed to you.

When you do, we can continue.

[cleanhippie]

13. That is the original headline of the article.

My comments are limited to the use of religion to oppress and demonize others.


Not really sure what it is you are calling dishonest, disruptive, or flamebait. Unless you are referring to YOUR post.

[rug]

18. The headline qualifiesas "Conservative Christians".

Your comment, "Isn't religion such a wonderful thing? Especially when one uses it to oppress and demonize others? Yeah, good stuff." doesn't.

Flamebait, as intended.

[cleanhippie]

20. Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

We all are.

Have a nice day.

[rug]

22. But no one is entitled to their bigotry.

Including you.

[cleanhippie]

28. Then certainly you can show where I exhibit this bigotry, right?

Or are you saying that religious beliefs are above criticism, and to criticize religion is bigotry?

[rug]

30. I did, in this very thread.

Or are you saying that you are above criticism, and to accept religion is bigotry?

[cleanhippie]

37. Well, then we strongly disagree that religion is above criticism.

If you are looking for an echo chamber where religion is held above criticism, might I suggest one of the many safe-haven groups specifically for that purpose?

[rug]

47. Reframing the issue only avoids the problem.

Neither of us said religion is above criticism.

I said your comment equates religion, in general with bigotry.

[cleanhippie]

58. You are entitled to your opinion.

We all are.

Have a nice day, rug.

[Goblinmonger]

73. Speaking of being dishonest, you do know that "Conservative" in this case

is an adjective describing (limiting and identifying) a subset of the larger noun "Christian." The use of adjectives in such a manner is very rarely seen as saying the two are the same thing. If I say that I hate red apples, am I saying I hate all apples?

[LeftishBrit]

89. No, it's not

I don't think anyone was saying that all Christians are conservative. The point is that there is a particular subset of people who define themselves as 'conservative Christians'. I would guess that virtually all of the parents in this case would define themselves as such.

[Rob H.]

35. "...including incorporating “ex-gay” therapy into the school resources."

As if school budgets aren't tight enough without wasting money on complete bullshit like "conversion therapy."

[MarkCharles]

55. Gay people are possessed by Satan! Religious people actually..

believe this bunk.

And religious people who don't believe this bunk keep defending "religion" by not striking out against such a silly concept as a "religion" that allows those beliefs.

Religion serves no purpose other than to shield whatever believers from actual accountability in an ethical and scientifically-based world.

Time for religions to take the back seat and grow up to encompass some solid ethical standards.

Hating gay people and calling it a "religious belief": ABSOLUTE FAILURE OF THE WORD "RELIGION".

[deacon_sephiroth]

87. are there OTHER uses for religion?

aside from the whole oppressing and demonizing others?

[cbayer]

88. Yes

http://www.believeoutloud.com/


http://www.wabaptists.org/

[LeftishBrit]

91. Yes, there are.

There are plenty of religious progressives, though perhaps not in communities such as the one describe.

[LeftishBrit]

90. Ugh. Why are the religious right so obsessed with homosexuality?

And when I say 'religious' I do mean religious right in general, not necessarily Christian. I note that a right-wing rabbi was also involved here; and Muslim right-wingers are also obsessed with hating teh gay! Sadly, this is one of the few issues on which the far-right of most religions seem to unite.

[cbayer]

92. Good question.

The Occam's Razor answer would seem to be concerns about keeping the numbers up over generations. Same for objections to abortion and birth control.

[Goblinmonger]

105. No, I think the Occzam's Razor answer is given just below

They have been told homosexuality it a horrible sin and they are afraid they are homosexual so the best way to cover is to flail loudly against it.

[Ken Burch]

98. I'm guessing that a disproportionate number of them

are either closet cases or are afraid that they are.

[Ken Burch]

97. How could you purge the curriculum any mention of homosexuality

and STILL teach about the "ex-homosexual" movement?



(btw, does anyone else think that the word "curriculum" sounds like it could be a really fun body part?)

[justiceischeap]

100. If Christian's are so upset about people slamming this kind of christianity

instead of arguing back and forth on DU about flamebait, how about going out and winning your religion back. Whether you want to admit it or not, the Conservative Fundamentalist Christians (did I get specific enough not to be accused of using a broad brush?) gives all of Christianity a bad name. And historically, christianity has been used as a tool to demonize and oppress and as an excuse to commit heinous acts against other human beings. Those are the facts and getting angry about facts is counterproductive.

I'm totally up for people believing whatever the heck they want to believe until that belief encroaches on my right to live equally and safely from the bigotry associated with certain segments of religion. These people that want to their kids to be allowed to bully and beat kids because they're LGBTQ give your religion a bad name. Fight them, not those pointing out the obvious.

[Plantaganet]

102. Precisely. n/t

[MarkCharles]

103. Excellently stated ! n/t

[cleanhippie]

104. Yeah, but doing this is so much easier than that!

They can fight a pseudo-battle here, then sleep well knowing they defended their faith from the evil atheists.

[cbayer]

106. Agree

[onager]

101. Gay-Related Immune Deficiency? WTF?

As the old country song says...

Losing my mind, going back in time,
To 1982...

[cbayer]

107. As I recall, we used that term for all of about 8 months before changing it.

wtf, indeed

[jeepnstein]

114. So much fail my head wants to explode.

I'd be willing to put support behind initiatives to lessen the increasing pressure our society uses to promote sexuality among children. There is an awful lot put on kids' plates before they're really ready to handle it. Gay, straight, doesn't matter. As a matter of fact I have seen people who eventually out themselves as gay really put through a grinder during adolescence and young adulthood. It just doesn't do kids any good to have any extra pressure to identify themselves in terms of sexual activity when their own bodies do a more than adequate job of that on their own.

We, as a society, turn our young women into sexual objects well before they're at the age of consent. The way some parents dress their children really makes me wonder. We've come really far as a society in a lot of ways but the value we place on women being sexually desirable and available just blows me away. Do we really need a ten year old to try to show "cleavage"?

And our young men? We teach them a whole lot about the mechanics of having sex but nothing about the great responsibility being an adult requires. They are taught to judge females as sexual objects first and foremost. Then we can't understand why marriages and relationships go up in smoke as often as not.

And the poor kids who just don't fit in with either group? Oh yeah, lets go ahead and demand that they be bold and declare their orientation in the face of the highly charged sexual atmosphere of most public schools. That's a great idea. Instead of letting them grow comfortably into their own skins we make them political footballs before their time. I've seen it done to friends and their kids. And that damage doesn't go away, ever.

If the "Parents League" were really interested in helping the kids at that school they'd be discussing ways to turn down that volume knob just a bit on the sexual message our society drums into kids' heads.