1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12
Topic: How Religion Is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youth
Redykeulous's photo
Fri 10/29/10 04:15 PM


Red, you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not contending your (our) definition of knowledge or how we arrive at our conclusions (well, maybe how you arrived at yours). I'm refuting your conclusion itself and your insistence that it be done your way or with your rules applied.

The most recent case being "If you do want to continue you need to leave being emphatic out of the picture..."

Definition of EMPHATIC
1: uttered with or marked by emphasis


You refute the conclusion itself. What conclusion are you referring to?

If there was disagreement about the statements in the sections of ‘basics’ we would leave out what we did not agree on or add statements that we both agreed on. The point WAS to come to an agreement. I noted that we would build on these agreements, but we had to start somewhere.

Since much of our disagreement, in past posts, seemed to be related to the attainment and use of information, then laying a ground work of agreement pertaining to knowledge seemed the best way to start. What does individual human knowledge consist of? How do individuals gain knowledge? How do individuals utilize their acquired knowledge? And then moving on to perception in order to clarify its effects on knowledge.

I was willing to take to the next step so we might find some kind of agreement regarding the difference between facts and opinion. Since you questioned my reference to “what is” I was trying my best to persuade you in the direction of adding statements in your words about that area.

Instead you wrote the following question:

What would you say if I told you that 11=3?
Would you call me a nutjob or would you assume that the statement could be correct in my reality?


You provided no context or situation through which to assess the question. You offered a choice of only two possible answers and without more information I could not choose between the two. So I offered another option and I respectfully included a situational context in which my option might fit.

You missed my point entirely. You already stated that 11=3 is not "what is" and equated me to being dyslexic. You jumped to your conclusion first and then tried to explain it.


You did not make a point – you asked a question without reference to context or situation and then you provided only two possible answers and there is no way I could possibly know what you think is real.

So I opted to offer one possible situation in which your question could be answered in terms of your own reality. I was not suggesting or inferring that YOU ARE dyslexic, I was offering one possible situation in which your reality would be respected.

If ANYTHING I was consciously trying to avoid “jumping to conclusions”.

So I emphasised the same question and added claims that would expose the fact that you are not open-minded. All I wanted you to do was to concede that I could be right, but you couldn't do that.
After all, I read the Bible, so I must have less knowledge than other people posses.


I think it is your own bias against me that has blinded you to the fact that I DID CONCEDE. I simply had to place it some kind of context in order to prove that I respected your claim, without sounding condescending or seeming disingenuous by accepting any old generalized or broad-based claim you might make.



You still don't get it...whoa
I told you before I'm not questioning your methodology, just your conclusions. You nit-picking the methods which one arrives at conclusions does nothing to change "what is". It just gives you an excuse to try to appear superior.

Does the following quote (your words) prove or even imply that you conceded???

"So if you equate 11 as being equal to 3, that is your perception however, that’s not ‘what is’. It would be important for you to understand that there is a difference between your perception, in this case, and what is. Your reality remains the same, (11=3), but to be understood by others when discussing that equality you would need to make a conscious correction"

Hmmm, 3 times you state that I was wrong (with different wordings), nowhere did you concede that I could be right. All that you "conceded" was that my perception of reality could be wrong.
I picked that example for a reason. Because I knew you would not question you conclusion and therefore not research it. So yes, you jumped to your conclusion.


I used dyslexia specifically because it relates to the use of numbers and letters, and NOT to equate you to that quality.

11 (in binary) does equal 3
11+3 does equal 2 (on a clock)
11 (in binary) + 3 does equal 6

Do you get my point now?


If you have a relevant point to make, there is nothing wrong with being transparent about it.
In this case you have only added adversity to the discussion which from it’s beginning was an effort to find common ground.

You may think that your methods are a way to get people to reconsider their position, but to others they look like manipulative ploys to make them look foolish.

In this case you are the only who looks foolish and that was none of my doing.


Ok, now you call me foolish. LOL! I think not...
I'm confident that I've proven my point, if not to you, to others who would read this post. My method is to get you to doubt yourself. But somehow you equate that to being manipulative when it is you who changes the goal posts, limits another's choices and tries to stack the deck.


As you are not happy with the way this discussion has evolved I will be transparent and ask you directly and respectfully the following questions and we’ll be done with it.

What specific sources of information would you use or deem acceptable in formulating a critical assessment of a situation?

What criteria do you expect an acceptable source of information to include?

AND

What criterion do you expect a valid and reliable study or survey to consist of?

If you answer these questions directly and authentically we can avoid many conflicts. Choose to answer them or not, either way your response, or lack of one, will influence how I respond to you in future posts.




I am quite happy with the way this discussion has evolved, it is you who keeps trying to steer it in a direction that would allow you to dismiss my claims and methods. I explained to you earlier what I think M-E and others do. (conclusions first - then facts to support them)

As for your questions, I've already stated that my assessments are my opinions and as such, I can and have been convinced to change them.

Acceptable sources of information = Any and all sources. I will purpously seek out contradicting info to challenge my assessments.

Valid and reliable study or survey = Hard to say, but only an all-inclusive survey would be 100% reliable. I'd be happy with one I deemed non-biased (like that exists...), so I try to find conflicting surveys and assess their merits individually.


Involving this discussion, my source is you and your posts. So feel free to try to discredit my source(s) if you like, but I think it'll be a lose-lose situation if you do.



waving thanks for the discussion - enjoy the threads!

no photo
Fri 10/29/10 04:21 PM



"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves," the posting reads. "The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin."

Arkansas school official accused of anti-gay screed

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A member of a northern Arkansas school board, commenting on a campaign to get people to wear purple to show support for bullied gay and lesbian youth, purportedly posted on Facebook that the only way he would wear purple is "if they all commit suicide."

http://newsok.com/arkansas-school-official-accused-of-anti-gay-screed/article/3508814?custom_click=headlines_widget





While I, for one, do not support abuse
or murder of gays & lesbians. Nor do I endorse the idea of their resorting to suicide.

I reserve judgement toward the school official's use of the term "sin" which is not indicative of his religious beliefs.
The article doesn't label or mention him as being religious.

The term "sin" nowadays is used rather loosely ... seeing that few acknowledge it's presence in a Biblical sense...It's surprising to see that the term was highlighted at all, except for propaganda purposes.

[ Thesaurus ]
sin (n)

--crime, misdemeanor, transgression, misdeed (formal),
wrongdoing, lapse
antonym: good deed

--wickedness, iniquity, depravity, immorality,
debauchery, evil, turpitude (formal or literary)
antonym: goodness

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


The campaigners refuse to accept any other view besides their own.
This is forced allegience.
Far from "liberty... for all"



So "sin" was not a religious word he used in the context of demonizing gays? Yeah okay...keep trying to worm your way in protecting religion from owning up to it's influences that discriminate against people for they way they are born.




earthling,

Your hatred toward Christianity has blinded you

as well as others ((((((grumble rant shades))))))

It's your own doing that you are unable to see

((((((glasses ))))))

no photo
Sun 10/31/10 01:32 PM



Red, you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not contending your (our) definition of knowledge or how we arrive at our conclusions (well, maybe how you arrived at yours). I'm refuting your conclusion itself and your insistence that it be done your way or with your rules applied.

The most recent case being "If you do want to continue you need to leave being emphatic out of the picture..."

Definition of EMPHATIC
1: uttered with or marked by emphasis


You refute the conclusion itself. What conclusion are you referring to?

If there was disagreement about the statements in the sections of ‘basics’ we would leave out what we did not agree on or add statements that we both agreed on. The point WAS to come to an agreement. I noted that we would build on these agreements, but we had to start somewhere.

Since much of our disagreement, in past posts, seemed to be related to the attainment and use of information, then laying a ground work of agreement pertaining to knowledge seemed the best way to start. What does individual human knowledge consist of? How do individuals gain knowledge? How do individuals utilize their acquired knowledge? And then moving on to perception in order to clarify its effects on knowledge.

I was willing to take to the next step so we might find some kind of agreement regarding the difference between facts and opinion. Since you questioned my reference to “what is” I was trying my best to persuade you in the direction of adding statements in your words about that area.

Instead you wrote the following question:

What would you say if I told you that 11=3?
Would you call me a nutjob or would you assume that the statement could be correct in my reality?


You provided no context or situation through which to assess the question. You offered a choice of only two possible answers and without more information I could not choose between the two. So I offered another option and I respectfully included a situational context in which my option might fit.

You missed my point entirely. You already stated that 11=3 is not "what is" and equated me to being dyslexic. You jumped to your conclusion first and then tried to explain it.


You did not make a point – you asked a question without reference to context or situation and then you provided only two possible answers and there is no way I could possibly know what you think is real.

So I opted to offer one possible situation in which your question could be answered in terms of your own reality. I was not suggesting or inferring that YOU ARE dyslexic, I was offering one possible situation in which your reality would be respected.

If ANYTHING I was consciously trying to avoid “jumping to conclusions”.

So I emphasised the same question and added claims that would expose the fact that you are not open-minded. All I wanted you to do was to concede that I could be right, but you couldn't do that.
After all, I read the Bible, so I must have less knowledge than other people posses.


I think it is your own bias against me that has blinded you to the fact that I DID CONCEDE. I simply had to place it some kind of context in order to prove that I respected your claim, without sounding condescending or seeming disingenuous by accepting any old generalized or broad-based claim you might make.



You still don't get it...whoa
I told you before I'm not questioning your methodology, just your conclusions. You nit-picking the methods which one arrives at conclusions does nothing to change "what is". It just gives you an excuse to try to appear superior.

Does the following quote (your words) prove or even imply that you conceded???

"So if you equate 11 as being equal to 3, that is your perception however, that’s not ‘what is’. It would be important for you to understand that there is a difference between your perception, in this case, and what is. Your reality remains the same, (11=3), but to be understood by others when discussing that equality you would need to make a conscious correction"

Hmmm, 3 times you state that I was wrong (with different wordings), nowhere did you concede that I could be right. All that you "conceded" was that my perception of reality could be wrong.
I picked that example for a reason. Because I knew you would not question you conclusion and therefore not research it. So yes, you jumped to your conclusion.


I used dyslexia specifically because it relates to the use of numbers and letters, and NOT to equate you to that quality.

11 (in binary) does equal 3
11+3 does equal 2 (on a clock)
11 (in binary) + 3 does equal 6

Do you get my point now?


If you have a relevant point to make, there is nothing wrong with being transparent about it.
In this case you have only added adversity to the discussion which from it’s beginning was an effort to find common ground.

You may think that your methods are a way to get people to reconsider their position, but to others they look like manipulative ploys to make them look foolish.

In this case you are the only who looks foolish and that was none of my doing.


Ok, now you call me foolish. LOL! I think not...
I'm confident that I've proven my point, if not to you, to others who would read this post. My method is to get you to doubt yourself. But somehow you equate that to being manipulative when it is you who changes the goal posts, limits another's choices and tries to stack the deck.


As you are not happy with the way this discussion has evolved I will be transparent and ask you directly and respectfully the following questions and we’ll be done with it.

What specific sources of information would you use or deem acceptable in formulating a critical assessment of a situation?

What criteria do you expect an acceptable source of information to include?

AND

What criterion do you expect a valid and reliable study or survey to consist of?

If you answer these questions directly and authentically we can avoid many conflicts. Choose to answer them or not, either way your response, or lack of one, will influence how I respond to you in future posts.




I am quite happy with the way this discussion has evolved, it is you who keeps trying to steer it in a direction that would allow you to dismiss my claims and methods. I explained to you earlier what I think M-E and others do. (conclusions first - then facts to support them)

As for your questions, I've already stated that my assessments are my opinions and as such, I can and have been convinced to change them.

Acceptable sources of information = Any and all sources. I will purpously seek out contradicting info to challenge my assessments.

Valid and reliable study or survey = Hard to say, but only an all-inclusive survey would be 100% reliable. I'd be happy with one I deemed non-biased (like that exists...), so I try to find conflicting surveys and assess their merits individually.


Involving this discussion, my source is you and your posts. So feel free to try to discredit my source(s) if you like, but I think it'll be a lose-lose situation if you do.



waving thanks for the discussion - enjoy the threads!


flowers Thank you for the lies, hypocrisy and lectures - enjoy the high horse...

MiddleEarthling's photo
Sat 11/13/10 06:07 PM
Edited by MiddleEarthling on Sat 11/13/10 07:02 PM




"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves," the posting reads. "The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin."

Arkansas school official accused of anti-gay screed

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A member of a northern Arkansas school board, commenting on a campaign to get people to wear purple to show support for bullied gay and lesbian youth, purportedly posted on Facebook that the only way he would wear purple is "if they all commit suicide."

http://newsok.com/arkansas-school-official-accused-of-anti-gay-screed/article/3508814?custom_click=headlines_widget





While I, for one, do not support abuse
or murder of gays & lesbians. Nor do I endorse the idea of their resorting to suicide.

I reserve judgement toward the school official's use of the term "sin" which is not indicative of his religious beliefs.
The article doesn't label or mention him as being religious.

The term "sin" nowadays is used rather loosely ... seeing that few acknowledge it's presence in a Biblical sense...It's surprising to see that the term was highlighted at all, except for propaganda purposes.

[ Thesaurus ]
sin (n)

--crime, misdemeanor, transgression, misdeed (formal),
wrongdoing, lapse
antonym: good deed

--wickedness, iniquity, depravity, immorality,
debauchery, evil, turpitude (formal or literary)
antonym: goodness

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


The campaigners refuse to accept any other view besides their own.
This is forced allegience.
Far from "liberty... for all"



So "sin" was not a religious word he used in the context of demonizing gays? Yeah okay...keep trying to worm your way in protecting religion from owning up to it's influences that discriminate against people for they way they are born.




earthling,

Your hatred toward Christianity has blinded you

as well as others
It's your own doing that you are unable to see

(((((( . ))))))



Well shucks gosh darn it all yo, I am so sorry I missed this reply...been busy seeing things I guess. I was in DC seeing the Rally to Restore Sanity (an/or fear) a few weeks back, also saw John Prine in Tulsa the next week, saw a Thunder game and have The Wall to see in Dallas soon....also saw and spoke with a great Christian who opened the show for John...named Paul Thorn. Paul is touting his new CD called "Pimp and Preachers". His dad was a preacher and his uncle a pimp...

Paul sings folk songs like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIm4tuDA9VI

I could give flying rats arse that people don't understand at least some realities. The problem with this organized Christianity is that in numbers they can impose their version reality and become dangerous...look how close we were to a theocracy in the 2000's.

Look at all the BS issues people vote on that means NOTHING to recovering from the disaster they voted for in the first place...the lying torturing DIPPIC...your "god's choice" in play.

Don't get me started...

PS: Thorn signed my CD, "To L**, my favorite atheist"...and yes he used the small "a"...what a great person...a Christian worthy of respect.

Again sorry, I was too busy SEEING things.

THE WALL UP NEXT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkJNyQfAprY

Read about the cause and reasons for bringing back The Wall:

See Something!


http://www.roger-waters.com/

no photo
Thu 11/18/10 03:41 AM

my son is 13 and he is atheist,i handed him a bible and he read it and asked me"dad people actually believe this?"i told him "yes"and he laughs and tells me,i really feel sorry for them,true story


Who is teaching who?
slaphead
You are responsible for teaching your child.

MiddleEarthling's photo
Thu 11/18/10 06:53 AM


my son is 13 and he is atheist,i handed him a bible and he read it and asked me"dad people actually believe this?"i told him "yes"and he laughs and tells me,i really feel sorry for them,true story


Who is teaching who?
slaphead
You are responsible for teaching your child.


Heh, looks like to me that person doesn't want to scare their kid into believeing your superstitious BS...which from what I can tell from the writings here causes brain damage.

And you got a lot of nerve telling a parent how to raise their kids.

Mind your own business...



Maybe we can have less teens killing themselves because of your religion.

CowboyGH's photo
Thu 11/18/10 07:00 AM



my son is 13 and he is atheist,i handed him a bible and he read it and asked me"dad people actually believe this?"i told him "yes"and he laughs and tells me,i really feel sorry for them,true story


Who is teaching who?
slaphead
You are responsible for teaching your child.


Heh, looks like to me that person doesn't want to scare their kid into believeing your superstitious BS...which from what I can tell from the writings here causes brain damage.

And you got a lot of nerve telling a parent how to raise their kids.

Mind your own business...



Maybe we can have less teens killing themselves because of your religion.


If they are "scared" into believing in Christianity as you claim, then they wouldn't dare commit suicide. For suicide is against the will of our father.

Think it's more like they were drove insane by people such as you throwing insults and demeaning the religion.

MiddleEarthling's photo
Thu 11/18/10 07:05 AM




my son is 13 and he is atheist,i handed him a bible and he read it and asked me"dad people actually believe this?"i told him "yes"and he laughs and tells me,i really feel sorry for them,true story


Who is teaching who?
slaphead
You are responsible for teaching your child.


Heh, looks like to me that person doesn't want to scare their kid into believeing your superstitious BS...which from what I can tell from the writings here causes brain damage.

And you got a lot of nerve telling a parent how to raise their kids.

Mind your own business...



Maybe we can have less teens killing themselves because of your religion.


If they are "scared" into believing in Christianity as you claim, then they wouldn't dare commit suicide. For suicide is against the will of our father.

Think it's more like they were drove insane by people such as you throwing insults and demeaning the religion.


BS, religion demeans itself when it promotes ignorances...you guys are anti-science and insist on your absurd writs. The fact is that people are born gay, it's NOT a choice but your religion forbids it therefore by proxy the teens are demonized and some commit suicide.

Why do you suppport teen suicide? Why?




msharmony's photo
Thu 11/18/10 01:58 PM
Edited by msharmony on Thu 11/18/10 02:04 PM
for every teenager who is gay and commits suicide there are probably six who arent and commit suicide as well,,why? because of depression and lack of coping skills(neither of which is the fault of religion)


who supports any type of suicide? The Bible teaches to treat the body as a temple and to repent of sin, not escape through death. I dont understand how people seriously see religion as such a large issue in this society.

with STD's, broken homes, promiscuity(that has led to broken homes and unwanted children), violence, and broken communities

does anyone seriously think RELIGION is what we have to be worried about or that RELIGION has endorsed any of these trends at large?


come on now,,,,

CowboyGH's photo
Thu 11/18/10 02:15 PM





my son is 13 and he is atheist,i handed him a bible and he read it and asked me"dad people actually believe this?"i told him "yes"and he laughs and tells me,i really feel sorry for them,true story


Who is teaching who?
slaphead
You are responsible for teaching your child.


Heh, looks like to me that person doesn't want to scare their kid into believeing your superstitious BS...which from what I can tell from the writings here causes brain damage.

And you got a lot of nerve telling a parent how to raise their kids.

Mind your own business...



Maybe we can have less teens killing themselves because of your religion.


If they are "scared" into believing in Christianity as you claim, then they wouldn't dare commit suicide. For suicide is against the will of our father.

Think it's more like they were drove insane by people such as you throwing insults and demeaning the religion.


BS, religion demeans itself when it promotes ignorances...you guys are anti-science and insist on your absurd writs. The fact is that people are born gay, it's NOT a choice but your religion forbids it therefore by proxy the teens are demonized and some commit suicide.

Why do you suppport teen suicide? Why?






We are not anti-science. The creation of the world according to science is a THEORY. Theory in itself means educated GUESS. It's a conclusion made through minor science evidence, not a complete set of evidence.

Our father told us we are to subdue the earth, we have command over everything in this world, we the human race. Therefore of course it would be alright to scientifically find out what makes this world tick if that's what trips your trigger. Science has gained alot of profitable things, such as medicine for the sick and the medical field in general.

So no it's not SCIENCE in particular Christians are against.
---------------------------------------

And no we don't support suicide, our father is quite against it. We have been told not to do as such. Again, it is THAT person(s) choice to do as such, does NOT represent the faith as a whole. Just that particular person's.

CowboyGH's photo
Thu 11/18/10 02:18 PM

for every teenager who is gay and commits suicide there are probably six who arent and commit suicide as well,,why? because of depression and lack of coping skills(neither of which is the fault of religion)


who supports any type of suicide? The Bible teaches to treat the body as a temple and to repent of sin, not escape through death. I dont understand how people seriously see religion as such a large issue in this society.

with STD's, broken homes, promiscuity(that has led to broken homes and unwanted children), violence, and broken communities

does anyone seriously think RELIGION is what we have to be worried about or that RELIGION has endorsed any of these trends at large?


come on now,,,,


Very true msharmony.

Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

no photo
Sat 11/20/10 05:04 PM

By Bishop Gene Robinson

"Posted: October 15, 2010 02:49 PM

How Religion Is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youth

An increasingly popular bumper sticker reads, "Guns Don't Kill People -- RELIGION Kills People!" In light of recent events I would add religion kills young people: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people.

Perhaps not directly, though. And religion is certainly not the only source of anti-gay sentiment in the culture. But it's hard to deny that religious voices denouncing LGBT people contribute to the atmosphere in which violence against LGBT people and bullying of LGBT youth can flourish.

The news is filled with the tragedies of teenaged boys who were gay and decided to end their living hell by committing suicide. Maybe they weren't even gay, but merely perceived to be by their peers, who harassed, taunted, and threatened them unmercifully.

These were real kids with real names. Asher Brown, an eighth grader in Texas, shot himself in the head after endless bullying by classmates and despite attempts by his parents to get school authorities to take his harassment seriously. Seth Walsh hung himself from a tree in his California backyard after relentless bullying by classmates. Asher and Seth were 13-years-old.

Billy Lucas, a 15-year-old high school freshman from Indiana, was only perceived to be gay. But the unrelenting bullying ended with him taking his own life. Seven students in one Minnesota school district have taken their own lives, including three teens.

With the exception of Brown in Texas these suicides are not happening in Bible Belt regions of the country, where we might predict a greater-than-usual regard for religious thought. Instead, they are occurring in states perceived to be more liberal on LGBT issues: California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The case of Tyler Clementi is especially instructive about how far we have to go in accepting our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender children. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University whose roommate secretly filmed a sexual encounter he had with another male student and then posted it on the internet.

Think about it. If Tyler had been heterosexual and instead filmed having sex with his girlfriend, it would still be an inappropriate invasion of his privacy and tasteless to post the video online. And it certainly would have been embarrassing for Tyler and the girl. But chances are he would have been the recipient of some congratulatory remarks from friends about what a stud he was. And if he was straight he likely wouldn't have contemplated -- not to mention successfully accomplished -- his own suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.

No, Tyler was a victim -- not of an inner disturbance of depression or mental illness--but of an external and in part religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people.

Despite the progress we're making on achieving equality under the law and acceptance in society for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, why this rash of bullying, paired with self-loathing, ending in suicide? With humility and heartfelt repentance I assert that religion -- and its general rejection of homosexuality -- plays a crucial role in this crisis.

Religious Right hatemongers and crazies are spewing all sorts of venom and condemnation, all in the name of a loving God. The second-highest-ranking Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer, recently called same-sex attraction "impure and unnatural" in an act of unspeakable insensitivity at the height of this rash of teen suicides. He declared that it can be cured, and that same-sex unions are morally repugnant and "against God's law and nature."

More....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bishop-gene-robinson/how-religion-is-killing-o_b_764568.html




Atheism: A religion

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

msharmony's photo
Sat 11/20/10 11:02 PM
"No, Tyler was a victim -- not of an inner disturbance of depression or mental illness--but of an external and in part religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people"



with love, this is a HUGE assumption,, ,kids have been the target of bullying for CENTURIES, that juvenile trend of targeting 'different' kids did not begin or end with religion


this kid was not a stud in appearance and he played violin and chess, chances are even if he had been taped with a girl, they would have teased his performance and he wouldnt have had the coping skills to deal with the COLLECTION of teasing and would have still chosen suicide

no photo
Wed 11/24/10 09:22 AM
Edited by CeriseRose on Wed 11/24/10 09:26 AM

"No, Tyler was a victim -- not of an inner disturbance of depression or mental illness--but of an external and in part religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people"



with love, this is a HUGE assumption,, ,kids have been the target of bullying for CENTURIES, that juvenile trend of targeting 'different' kids did not begin or end with religion


this kid was not a stud in appearance and he played violin and chess, chances are even if he had been taped with a girl, they would have teased his performance and he wouldnt have had the coping skills to deal with the COLLECTION of teasing and would have still chosen suicide


I beg your pardon,
but there is disdain for "vile affections"
because certain acts are "against nature".
Mankind by nature finds these acts disgusting.
It's not a Christian inspired thing.


True Christians do not practice hatred toward sinners.

Rom_1:26, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature:

Redykeulous's photo
Wed 11/24/10 11:18 PM
Edited by Redykeulous on Wed 11/24/10 11:20 PM

for every teenager who is gay and commits suicide there are probably six who arent and commit suicide as well,,why? because of depression and lack of coping skills(neither of which is the fault of religion)


who supports any type of suicide? The Bible teaches to treat the body as a temple and to repent of sin, not escape through death. I dont understand how people seriously see religion as such a large issue in this society.

with STD's, broken homes, promiscuity(that has led to broken homes and unwanted children), violence, and broken communities

does anyone seriously think RELIGION is what we have to be worried about or that RELIGION has endorsed any of these trends at large?


come on now,,,,


The following article describes a situation in Uganda, which is growing in much of Africa. The SOURCE of the problem can be directely attributed to the growth of fundamentalist Christian and Islam religions in those areas.

An interesting relationship exists between the news coming out of many African states to the news in America related to homosexuality. The terminology, hateful references, and discriminatory actions, of African fundamentalists is so strikingly similar to that of the fundamentalist religious factions in the U.S. that one can only wonder who is the leader and who the follower?

YES - RELIGIONS DO endorese such trends, and YES people continue to deny it, and these behaviors make organized religion a dangerious thing. It is not just bullying.


... Stosh, who agreed to use only a nickname during an interview out of fear of harassment, said her experience resulted from the publication last month of her sexual orientation in the Rolling Stone newspaper, which is not affiliated with the U.S. magazine.

The newspaper, which has published photographs of dozens of gay people and listed their names and addresses on two occasions — Monday and last month — was ordered Tuesday by the High Court in Kampala, the capital, to stop such publications at least until a hearing this month. Justice Vincent Kibuuka Musoke issued the temporary injunction, saying the publication of the names and photos amounted to an infringement of the individuals' right to privacy.

Rolling Stone Editor Giles Muhame said he did not know of any homosexuals who had been attacked as a result of his publication, though he said that if one was killed, it wasn't his responsibility.

"If you know you are doing something that makes you vulnerable to attack, you leave it," Muhame said in a phone interview. "If you feel you are going to be lynched, you stop it. Even if it happened, it would not be the responsibility of the newspaper. It would be their own mischief that caused the attacks on them."

In Africa, where evangelical churches are powerful, conservative social values are common. Homophobia is widespread and homosexuality is illegal in many countries other than Uganda. African politicians and church leaders have called homosexuality un-African and unbiblical.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has described homosexuals as lower than pigs and dogs. Gays have been jailed in Malawi, Morocco and Cameroon. In South Africa, where gay marriage is legal, lesbians in black townships have been beaten to death.

Gay people in Uganda routinely endure family ostracism, taunts in the street, hate messages, ejection from bars, and firings.

"You don't know what to expect the next day, you don't know what to expect the next hour, you don't know what to expect the next minute," said Frank Mugisha, spokesman for gay rights group Sexuality Minorities Uganda. "You wake up in the morning and you can be walking in the street and you can get beaten. Your family could throw you out. You can lose your job."

He said that things had gotten much worse since several American evangelical anti-homosexual activists addressed meetings in Uganda 18 months ago.

Months after the anti-gay crusaders — Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge — pressed for action in Uganda to curb homosexuality, a bill was put to parliament calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. After international condemnation, it was withdrawn. Lively distanced himself from the bill.

But Muhame, 22, who claims homosexuality leads to drug use and terrorism, is determined to wage what he calls "a war against homosexuality" in his newspaper. He believes homosexuals should be hanged.

The paper was launched in August and began with a print run of 2,000. He said it now prints 5,000.

Muhame said his newspaper had collected affidavits and other documents to prove homosexuals had "recruited" children, and that it would press police to arrest suspects.

Mugisha said Muhame used extreme language about homosexuals —linking them with drugs, terrorism and seducing minors — in order to incite hatred.

"These are just some of his strategies for his hate campaign. He's trying to use words that are really extreme to make people hate homosexuals," Mugisha said. "But we're very strong. We will not let anyone stop us from fighting for our rights."

Stosh said that when she arrived home the evening her photograph was published last month, some neighborhood men — friends — were waiting.

"They started saying, 'Oh my God, we didn't know you are gay.' It started like a joke. But then people started gathering. People were throwing stones."

She ducked into her gate, terrified a lynch mob would gather.

"It's dangerous. If you don't run for your life, you'll be burned," she said.

After a night worrying a mob would break in, she fled her home.

"With God's grace, I'm trying to be brave," Stosh said. "It's not easy at all."

SOURCE: robyn.dixon@latimes.com Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uganda-gays-20101103,0,5751148.story

msharmony's photo
Wed 11/24/10 11:33 PM
Edited by msharmony on Wed 11/24/10 11:34 PM
"With God's grace, I'm trying to be brave," Stosh said. "It's not easy at all."


I guess, within the pages and pages of religious readings, some of everything is mentioned and interpreted as embraced or condemned


including GRACE, (and other things like forgiveness and redemption and love)



until that study that proves how much more religion has HURT than it has HELPED,, I will stick with mine and not be lumped by a label with everyone else

no photo
Tue 12/07/10 09:03 PM
Religion isn't killing anyone. It is our sin that is killing us. The truth is laid down and cannot be change. As a result of sin we all die. Some of us may not like that but it is the truth and cannot be change. Newton's Law of gravity is a truth and cannot be change whether we like it or not: what goes up must come down. Try jumping off a building because you don't like the law of gravity. Therefore whether you like it or not, God is real, sin is real and death is real. However, God has provided a solution for us, that is, repent and you will be save.

Imprintable's photo
Tue 12/07/10 09:55 PM
Seems like the prop 8 (gay marriage) haters in CA were affiliated with religious groups. Seems like gays are shunned from most churches. And I hate the phrase, “that’s so gay”.

Just like with gravity, please use science to prove the existence of god. If were told god is real without evidence then we can discount god without evidence.
indifferent

Milesoftheusa's photo
Tue 12/07/10 09:58 PM


for every teenager who is gay and commits suicide there are probably six who arent and commit suicide as well,,why? because of depression and lack of coping skills(neither of which is the fault of religion)


who supports any type of suicide? The Bible teaches to treat the body as a temple and to repent of sin, not escape through death. I dont understand how people seriously see religion as such a large issue in this society.

with STD's, broken homes, promiscuity(that has led to broken homes and unwanted children), violence, and broken communities

does anyone seriously think RELIGION is what we have to be worried about or that RELIGION has endorsed any of these trends at large?


come on now,,,,


The following article describes a situation in Uganda, which is growing in much of Africa. The SOURCE of the problem can be directely attributed to the growth of fundamentalist Christian and Islam religions in those areas.

An interesting relationship exists between the news coming out of many African states to the news in America related to homosexuality. The terminology, hateful references, and discriminatory actions, of African fundamentalists is so strikingly similar to that of the fundamentalist religious factions in the U.S. that one can only wonder who is the leader and who the follower?

YES - RELIGIONS DO endorese such trends, and YES people continue to deny it, and these behaviors make organized religion a dangerious thing. It is not just bullying.


... Stosh, who agreed to use only a nickname during an interview out of fear of harassment, said her experience resulted from the publication last month of her sexual orientation in the Rolling Stone newspaper, which is not affiliated with the U.S. magazine.

The newspaper, which has published photographs of dozens of gay people and listed their names and addresses on two occasions — Monday and last month — was ordered Tuesday by the High Court in Kampala, the capital, to stop such publications at least until a hearing this month. Justice Vincent Kibuuka Musoke issued the temporary injunction, saying the publication of the names and photos amounted to an infringement of the individuals' right to privacy.

Rolling Stone Editor Giles Muhame said he did not know of any homosexuals who had been attacked as a result of his publication, though he said that if one was killed, it wasn't his responsibility.

"If you know you are doing something that makes you vulnerable to attack, you leave it," Muhame said in a phone interview. "If you feel you are going to be lynched, you stop it. Even if it happened, it would not be the responsibility of the newspaper. It would be their own mischief that caused the attacks on them."

In Africa, where evangelical churches are powerful, conservative social values are common. Homophobia is widespread and homosexuality is illegal in many countries other than Uganda. African politicians and church leaders have called homosexuality un-African and unbiblical.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has described homosexuals as lower than pigs and dogs. Gays have been jailed in Malawi, Morocco and Cameroon. In South Africa, where gay marriage is legal, lesbians in black townships have been beaten to death.

Gay people in Uganda routinely endure family ostracism, taunts in the street, hate messages, ejection from bars, and firings.

"You don't know what to expect the next day, you don't know what to expect the next hour, you don't know what to expect the next minute," said Frank Mugisha, spokesman for gay rights group Sexuality Minorities Uganda. "You wake up in the morning and you can be walking in the street and you can get beaten. Your family could throw you out. You can lose your job."

He said that things had gotten much worse since several American evangelical anti-homosexual activists addressed meetings in Uganda 18 months ago.

Months after the anti-gay crusaders — Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge — pressed for action in Uganda to curb homosexuality, a bill was put to parliament calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. After international condemnation, it was withdrawn. Lively distanced himself from the bill.

But Muhame, 22, who claims homosexuality leads to drug use and terrorism, is determined to wage what he calls "a war against homosexuality" in his newspaper. He believes homosexuals should be hanged.

The paper was launched in August and began with a print run of 2,000. He said it now prints 5,000.

Muhame said his newspaper had collected affidavits and other documents to prove homosexuals had "recruited" children, and that it would press police to arrest suspects.

Mugisha said Muhame used extreme language about homosexuals —linking them with drugs, terrorism and seducing minors — in order to incite hatred.

"These are just some of his strategies for his hate campaign. He's trying to use words that are really extreme to make people hate homosexuals," Mugisha said. "But we're very strong. We will not let anyone stop us from fighting for our rights."

Stosh said that when she arrived home the evening her photograph was published last month, some neighborhood men — friends — were waiting.

"They started saying, 'Oh my God, we didn't know you are gay.' It started like a joke. But then people started gathering. People were throwing stones."

She ducked into her gate, terrified a lynch mob would gather.

"It's dangerous. If you don't run for your life, you'll be burned," she said.

After a night worrying a mob would break in, she fled her home.

"With God's grace, I'm trying to be brave," Stosh said. "It's not easy at all."

SOURCE: robyn.dixon@latimes.com Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uganda-gays-20101103,0,5751148.story





I believe this is almost all the Arab nations Islam that does this. Human slaughter is ok..

Converts to the Scriptures in these days would never say its ok to slaughter.


WW 2 was so different.. All Japenes people in the Us had to live in thier own communities and stay yier for thier protection and for upheavels among Americans.

This war of 911 changed and we have had problems ever since with our own sence of security.


War is War and the people need to feel safe.

The Japeneese now are welcome in the Us and no troubles..Blessings...Miles

msharmony's photo
Wed 12/08/10 02:51 AM
I wonder how people can 'prove' that 'sins' such as lying, adultery, homosexual relations, murder , theft,etc,,,

are frowned upon MERELY because of religion or even MORE with religion than it would be without it,,,

truth of the matter is that people held beliefs since time began and religion could form because those ALREADY held beliefs were organized amongst similar believing people into RELIGIONS

religions formed because of regional values, not the other way around


so even without a scapegoat called 'religion', amongst the six billion on the earth,, you would have subgroups who held similar values and beliefs and who agreed on rights and wrongs,,,

1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12