The New Straight Talk Radio

[Joe Brummer]

I will try that and see.....it could be, but I don't know that is part of their repsonsiblity. I think their game is to monitor and answer complaints, what I am becoming intrigued by.....is STR's claims that 4 million are listening false, and if they are making a false claim, it that not illegal? I don't know the rules, but I have a few lawyer friends who may know.

Stephen Bennett has released a press release today that basically says we are all drug addicts and alcoholics who try to kill the pain of our lives. While some part of me chuckles at that, like most of his claims. I am wondering how to state that I have heard his claim and can't be bothered with it.

I know Stephen visits my blog on a frequent basis. I know and have seen reactions from him, based on things I have blogged about. How do I say...yeah, I hear ya, but I am going to ignore your claim.

I am starting to believe that not nearly the amount of people hear him, that he claims. I do know there are 100's of sites linking to his....scary thought. How do we tell him, we hear you, but we don't hear you....much like Zerbie is saying. I don't think ignoring his latest completely is good, he will just assume we haven't seen it. How do we let him know, we see what you are doing and we are not giving him the satisfaction of a reply.


A large and important part of Martin Luther King's vision of a beloved community and his guide for non-violence asks us to constantly re-evaluate our own contribution to the situation. I have re-read some of Zerbie's thoughts and I wonder if in some way, is that what he is asking is to do. How are we contibuting to the conflict rather than helping to resolve the confict? Something to think about.

[Shep]

I kind of feel that we shouldn't put too much stock in blogs. What I mean is I don't think blogging and commenting always plays a major role in resolving a problem.
I'm not against blogs and people expressing their opinions, I've been in the middle of it a few times myself, and probably will be again, but a lot of the time it ends up in a tit for tat thing that accomplishes nothing but getting a few things off our chests. Unless both sides are willing to be open enough to consider the other's point of view, nothing will be accomplished. It is fruitless to continue to try and develop a positive dialogue with someone who takes great pride in persistent name calling, insulting and other immature behavior.
I'm sure there are other avenues that are much more effective and necessary in the movement for civil rights, equal rights, gay rights etc.

[Emproph]

Zerbie, Vanessa, Joe, thanks for the response, I absolutely adore what you guys have been saying.

I’ll make more of a point to articulate what I’m saying in my posts. I’m working on the “hurts my brain part,” I think if I can describe what I’m saying better it’s a lot easier to assimilate, Point well taken. I appreciate the kudos Joe, thanks.

Joe, that was the NDE site I was thinking of, I’ve read a lot of stories on NDE’s, books and online, but I that’s the most comprehensive site I’ve come across so far. Come to think of it, the stories of miracles in regard to ‘angelic visitation’ are nearly identical in scope of miracle/divine intervention and outcome. Possibly a more pragmatic ‘miracle’ to pray for as it would not require the trauma of ‘near death’ or even necessarily “a being of light,” I think miracle should be the focus. (P.S. I’ve Googled everything too, several times in recent weeks and have been all over the FCC site too (good suggestion Shep), is it 2000 listeners or 4 million? Is that the kind of accuracy he applies to his fact checking?)

Responding to Biblical arguments is like the Intelligent design controversy. As long as we “debate” whether or not something should be taught as science, before it’s even been determined to be science, we're teaching and therefore also learning that it is intelligent to do so. Furthermore we're "confirming" that this is "intelligence" indicative of the "Designer" we're allegedly arguing about. (Though if you’ve read “The Wedge Strategy,” the manufacturing of the "debate" was their intention. Talk about an agenda!). Like you guys were saying, especially Zerbie and Vanessa, responding to Biblical arguments (as I put it), is confirming that it is acceptable to consider something true that cannot be known to be true.

I’m glad you guys got that much out of it. I do want to clarify that I wrote that with the intention of creating and implementing a strategy. The minority of the religious community (10-15%?, no idea.) Are spreading around 90% of the lies and misinformation and MUST be addressed. The insidious aspect of this fight is that we are being attacked with accusations of attack, it's a brilliant tacitc, despicable, but brilliant.

What you were saying Zerbie is the essential jumping off point, that’s the way I meant to present it. I think you got that though, those of us who know better need to show better, lest how will they know we know better. Therein lies our challenge, war without violence, spiritual or otherwise. Not the truth, but it’s presentation fashioned as weaponry, "to peirce their armor" (< Zerbie).

These are the lines I’m thinking along:
They call their bigotry “religious freedom.” They portray their prejudice against people as prejudice against a “behavior” or a “chosen lifestyle” in order to make it consistent with Christianity. What they never clarify though is that This implies that all gay people who say they were “born” gay or did not “choose” to be gay, are all liars, delusional, or both. A hefty underhanded yet damning accusation presented with skewed or discredited “facts” with an unverifiable third party source to back them up, the Bible. Therein lies the bigotry, not the belief in those “facts” or in the Bible but in the abject disinterest in being certain of them with specific knowledge of the harm they cause. This is NOT ‘doing unto others as you would have done unto you,’ immediately disqualifying them from presenting their behavior as a “religious right,” often the basis of their argument.

Nearly all of the gaping holes in their logic come specifically from the attempt to avoid being viewed as a bigot, this is the pivot point upon which our arguments should be based. The gay marriage amendment is a prime example. Obviously the redefinition of marriage is nothing more that the politically correct way of saying that by our defining ourselves as equal, we are “redefining” their definition of us as inferior, opposite to “all men are created equal.” The anti-gay marriage amendment is not only contrary to the equality Christianity is based on but also the equality this country is based on, making their “religious freedom” anti-American as well. Not “tolerating” that is an “irony” lost on us though.
(With reasoning like that, who needs comedians? )

(Just for the record, I’m not assuming everyone here is gay)
Briefly, just a few others. They suggest we are all actually heterosexuals and should want to be so. By presenting this as “truth in love” without so much as acknowledging that they understand that it is perceived by us exactly the same way they would perceive our suggesting that they are all actually gay and should want to be physically attracted to the thing that revolts them most, demonstrates they not only do not understand, but are not even interested in the verifiable truth of here and now, let alone unverifiable “truth” of things written and re-written (and how many times, and by whom?), thousands of years ago.
-The fact that they even have to use the Bible to back up their claims is evidence that they themselves are not eye witnesses to the truth they claim, they literally do not “know” what they are talking about.
-Presenting their assumption of Biblical inerrancy as being adequate evidence for me to consider that I am wrong about something that I am as certain of as I am certain of what occurred yesterday, demonstrates ignorance of the absurdity of their own suggestion, this coming from the idea that they know BETTER, so throw in idiocy as well.

The list goes on and on, the one joy about it though is that once a premise is based on illogic, every successive reasoning of that “logic” becomes more and more absurd, further demonstrating, they haven’t even thought through their own arguments. They are not even interested in the truth of their own arguments! If we really are all proven incurable child molesters, what kind of a Christian wouldn't be openly fighting tooth and nail for legislation to have us all thrown in jail, and using all the "facts" and "studies" in their arsenal to do so?

I’m working on a couple of letters and a format of bullet points that hopefully can be used as templates capable of being modified for any situation, preacher, radio show etc. We need a specific strategy too, listing the order of importance as to what organizations/people we should contact first and how (snail mail, e-mail, content of message etc.).

I do mailings for my dad all the time, I’ve got a paper folder, label peeler, envelope sealer, so it’s nothing to send out a few thousands letters at a crack. It’s less than a thousand dollar investment, but none of it is necessary it just cuts down on the labor and speeds up the process a bit.

Let me see what I can put together.
-Take care you guys.

P.S. Do any of you listen to Christian radio? Is there an FM station available in your area?
One invaluable skill I’ve learned is the ability to distinguish between the messenger and the message, I rarely find this necessary with Christian music though, at least not the songs on the station I listen to. NEVER condemnatory and NEVER preachy (though the station itself may be). The music is as quality as “secular” pop music and the messages they convey are epitome of the meaning of Christianity, ONLY LOVE. It’s incredibly inspiring and motivating, often overwhelmingly so.

Joe, we hear him and we’re GOING to respond, we’re just need to do it with surgical precision in order for it to have it’s intended effect. Remember the order of importance when thinking about how to be effective.