The Church’s stand on homosexuality was bluntly stated by the Catholic theologian, Peter Damian in his Book of Gommorah. Sodomy was defined as “acts against nature” and included the following: solitary masturbation, mutual masturbation, copulation between the thighs (interfemoral sex), and copulation “in the rear,” or anal sex (the last phrase was so upsetting to some readers, it was often left out). St. Thomas Aquinas expanded the definition of sodomy to include all acts other than vaginal intercourse. He also named lesbianism a sin.

http://www.oddee.com/item_96646.aspx

Guess that puts a whole bunch of posters to these forums on the same footing with homosexuals.

Just saying...

Religion is for people who fear going to hell.

People who are so bereft of personal responsibility and accountability to the present and those around them that they require an invisible being who threatens to spank them for eternity if they don't behave.

Me? I'd rather do the right thing because it has it's own reward.

This study says what I have been saying for some time. Camera's don't make you any safer. A camera won't stop a rapist or someone that runs into your car.

Surrender privacy for the illusion of safety right?

CCTV schemes in city and town centres have little effect on crime, says report

Criminologists' research shows surveillance cameras are 'at their most effective' in cutting vehicle crime in car parks

The use of closed-circuit television in city and town centres and public housing estates does not have a significant effect on crime, according to Home Office-funded research to be distributed to all police forces in England and Wales this summer.

The review of 44 research studies on CCTV schemes by the Campbell Collaboration found that they do have a modest impact on crime overall but are at their most effective in cutting vehicle crime in car parks, especially when used alongside improved lighting and the introduction of security guards.

The authors, who include Cambridge University criminologist, David Farrington, say while their results lend support for the continued use of CCTV, schemes should be far more narrowly targeted at reducing vehicle crime in car parks.

Results from a 2007 study in Cambridge which looked at the impact of 30 cameras in the city centre showed that they had no effect on crime but led to an increase in the reporting of assault, robbery and other violent crimes to the police.

Home Office ministers cited the review last week in their official response to the critical report from the House of Lords constitution committee on surveillance published earlier this year. The peers warned that the steady expansion of the "surveillance society", including the spread of CCTV, risked undermining fundamental freedoms, including the right to privacy.

In their response the Home Office disclosed that the National Police Improvement Agency is planning new research into the effectiveness of CCTV. The Campbell Collaboration review, by Farrington and a Massachusetts University criminologist, Brandon Welsh, concludes that CCTV is more effective in reducing crime in Britain than in other countries – as the Home Office points out. But it also makes clear that of the 44 research studies the authors reviewed, only seven covered countries outside Britain and four of those involved the United States.

The Campbell Collaboration report says that CCTV is now the single most heavily-funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system and its rapid growth has come with a huge price tag. It adds that £170m was spent on CCTV schemes in town and city centres, car parks and residential areas between 1999 and 2001 alone. "Over the last decade, CCTV accounted for more than threequarters of total spending on crime prevention by the British Home Office," the report says.

The Lords report said that £500 million was spent in Britain on CCTV in the decade up to 2006, money which in the past would have gone on street lighting or neighbourhood crime prevention initiatives.

Welsh and Farrington say there has been concern that all this funding has been based on a handful of apparently successful schemes that were usually less than rigorously evaluated, done with varying degrees of competence and varying degrees of independence from government.

Their research review, which was funded by the Home Office and the Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, says that future CCTV schemes need high quality, independent evaluation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/18/cctv-crime-police

Gosh...speaking against the State of Israel to be a crime? Even for it's own citizens?

And we pay for this crap!!

May 27, 2009
This is beginning to look like panic - Israeli Knesset considers bill making it illegal to criticize Israel as a Jewish state

First there was the Nakba law, then the loyalty oath, now the Israeli Knesset is considering a bill that would institute a one year jail sentence for anyone who speaks "against Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state."

According to Ynet, the act of criticizing Israel as a Jewish state becomes illegal when "it may lead to acts of hatred, scorn or lack of loyalty to the State or its government authorities or law systems which have been established legally." The bill, which just passed its first reading in the Knesset, was introduced by MK Zevulun Orlev from the right wing Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party. Orlev is chairman of the Knesset's Education Committee.

Although the bill passed this initial test by a 47-34 vote, there were some strong reactions against it. Ynet quotes Meretz Chairman Chaim Oron as saying, "Have you lost your confidence in the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state? This crazy government – what exactly are you doing? Thought Police? Have you lost it?" MK Jamal Zahalka, from the Balad party, had a more profound reaction that seems to summarize apparent state of the Israeli government as these bills get introduced and move forward:

"Many intellectuals in the academia who talk about a country belonging to all its citizens belong in prison, according to MK Orlev. Arab and Jewish leaders who seek real democracy in Israel also belong in jail, according to Orlev… He wants to put anyone who doesn’t agree with him in jail."

"This is the proposal: Whoever says 'death to the Arabs' should not be put in prison, but whoever says 'a country of all its citizens' should not be put in prison. This is a crazy law aimed at managing the political discourse according to laws."

Posted by Adam Horowitz at 05:37 PM in Israel/Palestine, Netanyahu/Lieberman
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/05/this-is-beginning-to-look-like-panic-israeli-knesset-considering-bill-making-it-illegal-to-criticize.html

See the video of this Rove lie at the link below. Oh and before you sling any poop about the clip appearing on Media Matters please pause to see this is a clip from FOX news and no one is putting any words in his mouth.

Blown circuits: Rove levels attack on Sotomayor based on false claim that she and Alito were colleagues
May 28, 2009 5:33 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
EMBED

Embed this video:

SUMMARY: Karl Rove claimed that he "got wind of" allegations that Sonia Sotomayor "was combative, opinionated, argumentative" while reviewing the record of her "colleague on the court" Samuel Alito. In fact, Sotomayor served on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Alito served on the 3rd Circuit.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905280037

Having read a lot of right leaning forums, bloggers and pundits pissing and moaning about Obama's emphasis on empathy as a an important quality in a judge while insisting empathy is a code word for judicial activism I wanted to share this with you all.

Looks like President Bush was using code words too! Except he didn't just say empathy he said "great empathy"

So please...enough about the empathy being a code word.

From Bush's July 1, 1991, remarks nominating Clarence Thomas (accessed from the Nexis database):

After graduation from Yale Law School, he worked for then Missouri attorney general John Danforth, and spent 2 1/2 years litigating cases of all descriptions. In 1977, Judge Thomas practiced law in the private sector, and in 1979, he rejoined Senator Danforth as a legislative assistant in the U.S. Senate. In 1981, President Reagan appointed him Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990, he served as President Reagan's Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And I appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1990.

I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He's also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind, who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the Court with a commitment to deciding them fairly, as the facts and the law require.

Judge Thomas' life is a model for all Americans, and he's earned the right to sit on this nation's highest Court. And I am very proud, indeed, to nominate him for this position, and I trust that the Senate will confirm this able man promptly.

There were two reasons I didn't post it in the political thread. First because I thought it would be moved and second because I know there are people who consider themselves people of faith that may visit this forum and not the other.

I was hoping to hear the opinions of those people about this pastor's statement.

Fear is a powerful tool as we have seen time and time again. The fact that fear is used to control people is nothing new. It has been occurring since the dawn of civilization. That makes it no less ugly however.

As we all know, nothing unites people like a common enemy or the fear of powerful enemy...someone "not like us" which is just what this preacher is doing.

Remember kids!

Just say no to drugs.

ermm Well wait...unless they are drugs the doctor and mommy and daddy give you.

Oh and please don't wonder about the adults around you who take meds for everything from their diet to their bed and wash it all down with caffeine and alcohol while sucking down cigarettes.

I teched in a pharmacy in a small town. After awhile I started noticing that students from certain teachers classes were much more likely to be medicated.

Makes me want to throw up.

What happened to hands on involvement with kids? Exercise, stimulating lessons, reward and punishment, alternate teaching methods, teaching to a kids strengths...all can be much more helpful than losing a kids spirit in a medicated haze.

I am not sure everyone realizes why I posted this.

Those that know me I hope understand my motivation.

I have a small issue with sex offender lists. They make no distinction between teens who are in Romeo and Juliet situations and violent offenders.

Mistakes are rampant, names are sometimes wrong, the true locations of offenders are not revealed...there have been issue after issue with these lists. Some that have ruined the lives of innocent people. (Please save the that's the price you pay crap cause it is crap)

It's a NIMBY issue...the trouble is...if you are going to let people who are sex offenders out of jail they have to live somewhere right?

When you have situations where the law has so limited the places that former sex offenders can live you end up with situations like the mess where sixty plus offenders are living under an overpass. While I have little sympathy for most of these folks that is a situation ripe with potential violence to innocent people.

I know a young man who is on the sex offenders list. His crime? Smartening up and breaking an engagement to his high school sweetheart. Her vengeance? Charges that they were intimate before she was old enough to legally consent. He was older than she. He is on this list, has lost jobs and scholarships, been threatened and harressed when he attempted to move and now as a thirty year old happily married father of two he cannot attend his children's school activities.

All I am saying is...think twice before grabbing the pitch fork and the torch.

Get outta the gutter Fran and Yellow...you are crowding me!

hahah

Saw these posted as numbers to sneak onto your firends cell phone.

Might make for some fun? hehe

The White House - 202-456-1414
This number works as a great replacement for the HOME number. If your friend calls it really drunk one night, they’ll either get, “Mr. Biden, do we need to send a car for you?” or “Damnit George, quit calling this number.”

North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) - 212-631-1194
NAMBLA works best as a phone list entry on its own. Girls have a tendency to secretly check potential boyfriend's phones for other girl’s numbers. If you have had several girls run for the door on the first date, you should probably check your own phone. If they see this in your phone and decide to stick around, YOU should run for the door.

FBI - 202-324-3000
The FBI phone number makes a good replacement number for someone you do not like in your friend’s cell phone address book. Then you can call them out as a government stooge and make it back to the top of the friend list.

National Herpes Hotline - 919-361-8488
Another good number to add as-is. What really can stink about this one is when you add it and the phone tells you, “Number all ready exists in memory.” In that case, put down the phone and wash your hands with Valtrex.

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery International - 703-845-7400
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery International is world renown for their penis enlargement skills and breast augmentation. Use this number under your friend’s current listing for “Doctor” or even better, “Dentist.”

Suicide Hotline - 1-800-273-8255
An oldie, but goodie. See if you can exchange this number for whatever your friend has under their #2 speed dial. OR if they have just been dumped, enter the number as is. They might need it.

Scientology - 323-960-3500
Careful with this number. I would recommend using this number with a fake name like John Travolta or Tom Cruise.

One Night Stand Hotline - 212-201-3517
Your friend rushes home to tell you about that perfect person they met at the bar and went home and had six hours of unbelievable unicorn sex with. They pass out from drink and love. You update that new number with this one and the next day when they call, they get a high pitched recording of some dude telling them they’ve been one night standed. Classic!

Green Door Swinger’s Club in Vegas – 702-732-4656
This is the number one phone number to stick in your friend’s phone as-is. Once they find it and do an internet search on what the Green Door is, they will re-label the phone number as “Stacy EnVegas” hoping one day to call it as a local number.

World of Warcraft Support Line - 800-592 5499
What’s great about this number is that I’m not sure if support means “Did you forget your password” or “Just lie down and tell me how it all started back in Necromancer school.”

BONUS NUMBER - 614-GAY-IDOL
Just because I like getting phone calls in the middle of the night asking for directions to the audition.

http://www.holyjuan.com/2008/08/10-numbers-to-sneak-into-your-friends.html

They did say it was just a few titles in a large (1,200 item) collection.

I agree it is very bothersome that specific titles or descriptions of what material was found to be child porn by the court is important in a case of this nature.

I hope someone is looking into this.

New research shows that some trees appear to react to pain.

So...if veggies feel pain what will vegans eat?

I remember when my then thirteen year old daughter told me she would no longer eat anything with eyes. I laughed and asked her if that included potatoes.

Her adventure in vegetarianism lasted just a few weeks. I think she finally broke when we attended a pig roast. It was delicious.

Here we go with the obscenity question along with a whole slew of other questions as well.

I am pretty curious about what people think of this mans story.

Myself, I find it scary for a couple reasons. Who decides what's obscene? Might I go to jail for owning a copy of Lolita? When will the thought police knock on my door? When they do will I have to plead guilty too because I cannot afford an attorney to mount a proper defense?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your Manga Could Get You 15 Years in Prison
May 28, 2009 by Casey |

By Casey Lynn
Contributing Writer, [GAS]

mangaAn Iowa man recently pled guilty to one count of “possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children” and to one count of mailing obscene material. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. This obscene material? Manga.

Christopher Hadley, 39, ordered some manga from Japan two years ago. When a postal inspector decided that the content of the books was obscene, he applied for a search warrant. And when Hadley retrieved his package from the post office, having no idea it had been searched, he arrived home to find police officers who seized his manga, comic book, and DVD collection, as well as his computers. The charges against Hadley were based on only a small number of materials in the collection of over 1,200 publications.

Child pornography is obviously a touchy subject, and it’s a complicated one. The laws were originally enacted to prevent child abuse or any other harm to children, but since then, reported links between the use of pornography and actual abuse have led to the additional banning of virtual child pornography (i.e. illustrations or computer-generated images depicting children in a pornographic manner that did not involve the participation of any actual children). Though the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the first law to this effect, there is a new law, the PROTECT Act, that specifically prohibits obscene virtual child pornography. This is the law under which Hadley was prosecuted; his guilty plea makes him the first person to be convicted for possessing cartoon art without any evidence that he viewed actual child pornography.

Manga is particularly problematic with respect to child pornography laws because of the illustration style; not only do characters tend to simply appear younger than they may be intended to be, but males are often androgynous, and the Japanese have a taboo against pubic hair. Of course, obscenity laws are supposed to protect works that have serious artistic value, which brings up the additional problem that many people don’t consider manga (or comic books generally) to be “real” art. Even the heavy hitters in the comic world were worried about what a conviction for Handley might mean. Neil Gaiman told MTV News in November: “I wrote a story about a serial killer who kidnaps and rapes children, and then murders them [referring to a storyline in 'The Doll's House']. We did that as a comic, not for the purposes of titillation or anything like that, but if you bought that comic, you could be arrested for it? That’s just deeply wrong. Nobody was hurt. The only thing that was hurt were ideas.”

We have written before about the issue of obscenity laws possibly going too far, and the common refrain seems to be “slippery slope.” Obviously the law should take all reasonable steps to prevent child abuse, and this includes child pornography laws; but where should the line be drawn? If it’s manga now, does this pave the way for Neil Gaiman next, or maybe Alan Moore? You might scoff at that, but you probably would have done so ten years ago as well if I’d told you that someone might go to jail for fifteen years because of possessing (not even drawing!) some cartoons.

As to why Handley pled guilty instead of fighting the charges? Supposedly it was partly because he couldn’t afford his defense, but the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was already serving as special consultant for the case and probably would have stepped up some fundraising efforts. Apparently Handley’s lawyer also thought he wouldn’t be able to convince a jury once they saw the images in question. “If they can imagine it, they drew it,” he said. Isn’t that kind of the whole point of art? No matter how disturbing we might find the finished product, should it be illegal to see it?

It should be noted that (due to a gag order, apparently) we don’t actually know what manga titles were problematic for Handley, though some have their ideas. So should you be worried about your own manga collection? If there is anything that might possibly maybe somewhat be considered a depiction of an underage character in a sexual situation, maybe so. As one blogger put it, “hope you own a cross-cut paper shredder and an indoor fireplace.” Because unfortunately you never know when the justice system might decide to make an example of someone.

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2009/05/28/your-manga-could-get-you-15-years-in-prison/

I am a people watcher too. Every shape, size, nationality, age...I just like to look.

Still, I have to say the phrase "remotely naked" tickled my funny bone so much I just had to post. Thanks for your post...I will be looking for a way to use it in future.

Umm so we need to organize a "Naked Men for Omnivores" protest soon? I was going to go for "Naked Men for Meat" protest as the title but the poor guys might feel exploited standing under a banner like that. /smirk

Good post Pointy1! Thanks

hehe Remotely naked eh?

Is remotely naked anything like a little pregnant?

Opps I shouldn't connect the scary pregnant with the wonderful naked should I?

I was thinking about posting some example pics here to see what might quality as remotely naked but I would get suspended forever I am sure.

Anyone wishing to send remotely naked pics to me? If so feel free to IM me for contact info. You want in on this Fran? haha

Joking...well a little anyway...

Humm maybe we should organize an omnivore naked protest somewhere!

Yeppers, I take in strays too...all sorts it seems.

One of my sons friends who lost a job and must relocate was facing giving up his female pit to the local shelter. For a pit that is an almost certain death sentence.

Pepper the Pit is here on a trial stay now. The only negative so far is the wrath of the kitty who hates us all with a burning hot passion right now.

So, maybe someone should organize a pet shower for men's rights? Somehow I doubt it would be a big draw. Maybe you should try to draft some women for that?

More news from the Wasilla Baptist Church.

Any thoughts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?

By Ron Hamman
Religion Views
Published on Monday, May 25, 2009 9:15 PM AKDT
In answering this question, it is important to assert the question does not originate with me, lest someone out there think that I am bringing some new doctrine out to bolster the political climate. But as the study of Bible prophecy includes verbiage as to the behavior of the one called “that Wicked” by Paul in II Thessalonians, it is not only a legitimate question to ask, but also one to answer.

While the word “homosexual” is not in the Bible, the behavior of those who practice homosexuality, and God’s estimation of them, very definitely is. When the word came into existence I cannot tell you, but what we can say for sure is that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828, it was not included. This means that homosexuality is a modern word invented to replace the word Noah Webster did include, sodomy, defined as a crime against nature. This is historical revisionism in action.

Sodomy is defined in scripture by two things, the first being that of where it began: Sodom. In Genesis 13:13 we have the first mention of the men of Sodom, pronouncing that they “were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Their saga is continued in chapters 18 and 19 with their sin being so great that not only does God say that it “is very grievous,” but he himself comes down to destroy them with fire, the rubble of which still stands as a warning to us today.

While the Genesis account does not graphically describe their sin, leading some to deny it as being the same as homosexuality, their sin is obviously just that by how it is described: lying with mankind as with womankind. What other conclusion can be reached when they want to “know” the men who were in Lot’s house, the same word the Bible uses in Genesis 4 in relation to the conception of Cain? And that Lot himself understood their intentions is clear; not only did he call such behavior wicked, but he also offered his virgin daughters as substitutes, which the men of Sodom refused.

And one more thing: Sodomy is the only sin for which God came down from heaven to destroy. Though God dealt with many other sins in various ways, there is no other for which he came down from heaven to verify and destroy. In the New Testament, sodomy is declared to be “against nature.” And of the men, Paul in Romans 1 says they leave “the natural use of the woman....” In effect, there is no greater sin against God than to reject how he made you, and no greater sin against women than to reject how God made them.

But will the Antichrist be a homosexual? Having seen what the Bible says of sodomy, we have no further to look than the book of Daniel, chapter 11 to find our answer. It says, “Neither shall he [Antichrist] regard... the desire of women....” As I said at the onset, I am not the first to draw attention to this, but the verbiage is clear.

From a lost perspective, the reason sex sells, pornography is profitable, and prostitution is “the world’s oldest profession” is mankind’s desire of women. From Christianity’s position, it is part of the glue for the bond of marriage and the propagation of a godly heritage. But homosexuality does not regard this — in their unbridled lusts they burn for their own gender.

But consider this: The time is ripe for such a leader. Indeed, it should not be surprising that the one who is against everything Biblical and Christian should be a partaker of so great a sin; there is no greater way to reject the Creator than to reject your gender and his design for it. And at what other time have we seen such perversion come out of the closets onto our streets, threatening violence if we do not accept their ways?

Is it any wonder that Revelation 13 says that this same Antichrist will make war with the saints of the tribulation, and overcome them? Are they not now readying themselves to make it illegal to “offend” them in any way, calling it hatred to preach against their sin? Is it because they love us? The time is ripe for such a man.

But remember that sodomy is the one sin that God left heaven and came to earth to destroy. Could it be that this will be the predominate sin on earth when Christ descends from the clouds to fight against the armies of wickedness? And will it be just a coincidence that the Antichrist will be the very first occupant of the lake of fire, tasting eternal death 1,000 years before even the devil himself?

You be the judge.

Ron Hamman is pastor for Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla. Contact him at 357-4229.