California fires ... God's judgement

[Dumbledore]

The religious right wack jobs are at it again blaming the wild fires in California on the recent bill in California preventing hate crimes (aka bullying) against gay kids in California. Check out these letters:

Subject: The Righteous Judgment of GodDate: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:00:18 +0000

Dear Friends,

Last week I groaned when I read how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law in California which foisted homosexuality upon the children of that state through the state school system. The bill was SB777 and it clearly redefines (perverts) what sexuality is, as well as promotes the legitmacy of homosexuality upon children starting from kindergarten on up. He signed the bill on Saturday, October 13th.

Seven days later on October 20th, wildfires broke out across California in several places.

The smoke can know be seen from satellite! The headline for MsNBC web site now read s 'WE CAN'T STOP IT.' Firefighters concede defeat as 1 Million flee Calif. blazes. Evacuees jam streets. The story then goes on to talk about 600 square miles up in flames and over 1300 buildings burnt to the ground. President Bush has declared a national emergency.

Do you think they will see it as a warning from the Lord for their calling evil good? Do you think they will be able to connect the dots? I won't be holding my breath.

Pastor Matt Trewhella
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/10/tole..._wild.php#more

Then there was the other letter from an ex-gay none the less:

They shook their fists at God and said, "We don't care what God says, we will issue our legal brief to support gay marriage in San Diego!" Then Mayor Jerry Sanders mocked the Christian vote and signed off on this rebellious legal document to support same-sex marriage. And then the streets of La Jolla under the Mt. Soledad Cross began to cave in.

They shook their fists at God and said, "We don't care what the Bible says, We want the California school children indoctrinated into homosexuality!" And then Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the heinous SB777 which bans the use of "mom" and "dad" in the text books and promotes homosexuality to all school children in California.

And then the wildfires of Southern California engulfed the land like a raging judgment against the radicalized anti-christian California rebels.

James Hartline
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/10/god_...u_have_sex.php

Wowie Wowie.

[pnggrad79]

If you google this guy, he is a real nut case...watch out for this one..he has lost it... I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of Fred Phelps cousins or something...inbred...you know...I don't what these people do but they are psychowierd from the same gene puddle...yikes!!!!

[Alecto]

Well, Katrina was the homogays' fault too (although, the gayest neighborhoods were the ones that were still left in NO...maybe it was God's judgement on straight people?).

This kind of thinking reeks of Animal Farm, and i never understand how people don't get it. If something that you like happens, it's Napoleon's doing, but if something you don't like happens it's Snowball's fault. ::sigh::

[RedneckDyke]

These people are idiots. Not onl idiots, they are soul rapists. Anybody who claim to know what God is thinking or God's motives on anything are blaspheming as far as I'm concerned

[Progo35]

Did the bill actually forbid the use of mom and dad in textbooks? Because that would seem totally seperate from the hate crime bill.


This stuff is crap. This man should be ashamed.

[Unmasked]

There have always been men blaming natural disasters on the people's "sin and inequity". It will continue as long the cults known as churches are left on earth.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Did the bill actually forbid the use of mom and dad in textbooks? Because that would seem totally seperate from the hate crime bill.


This stuff is crap. This man should be ashamed.

The wording of the bill, which I have read in detail and is available here http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...chaptered.html, prevents painting GLBT, disabled, or any other groups included in hate crimes classifications in negative terms. It does NOT require that they be discussed in positive terms, since it does not require they be discussed at all.

From the Bill:

Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a
school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of
discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities
and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race
or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other
characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is
contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual
orientation for this purpose.

The "mom and dad" issue does not exist, but simply presents an easy way for opponents to this bill to enrage those who won't take the time to read it. The portion under questions says:

SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

This, however, is included in those things that cannot be taught negatively - it does not require they be taught positively. There is a big difference.

Lastly, I agree with Progo - this man should be ashamed, as should all who will take snippets from a bill, twist them in a way that is guaranteed to get people's knickers in a wad, and then parade their opinion around as if it truth incarnate. What does he think he is - a Bible translator?

[ladyinred]

#8 Today, 04:16 PM
ladyinred
Member Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 950



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I get this right, the bill is prohibiting religious indoctrination that reflects badly on GLBTS to not be taught in schools ? Good idea. That means they can leave their hate in their own churches, which is where they should keep it anyway. People have a free will they can decide for themselves if they want to go to their churches or not and support their antigay agenda.Schools are for education not religious indoctrination anyway. (At least not having a certain one imposed on them anyway.)

I personally don't think this impinges on others religious rights , because people again have free will to go to the churches they want to, and decide for themselves how to bring up their kids according to their values. They can always have their after school prayer meetings somewhere else.

Let's keep the fight out of the schools and away from the kids who don't need to have this dumped on them anyway. The religious right has their tele-ministries and mega churches and other means and ways to reach people who want to believe their ideology they aren't being gagged or censored in other ways.

Not ony will the kids not be bombarded with right wing propaganda but other Christians won't have to endure this for their children either and have it forced down their throats. It will hopefully make school alot safer for all kids who can then focus on their education. And not turn a school into a battleground over what people do or don't believe or should or shouldn't believe.Kids have enough of their own problems to worry about without them being caught in the middle of this. I guess the right will have to be like all the other churches ,actually invite people to come to their churches and advertise. The law is totally fair. They can't spread their hate and terror to kids.
Fists? Very vivid imagination I must say. The pastor mentioned above is a real drama king, he overlooks this portion of the bill: SEC. 12. Section 220.5 of the Education Code is amended and
renumbered to read:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution
that is controlled by a religious organization if the application
would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that
organization.

[BruceChris]

That somehow, it MUST be interpreted as God's punishing somebody for something.

My theory is this: That the very existence of people like James Dobson, Fred Phelps, and all of the other Fundie-gelicals is God's way of punishing US for not getting our act together, and Standing up for ourselves.

(O.K., tongue firmly in cheek)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[ladyinred]

Bruce,lol

[dewdrop_world]

I recall reading somewhere that the gayborhoods in San Diego suffered little to no fire damage. So where does that leave the "God's wrath" nonsense?

But what really frosts my cupcakes about that line of "reasoning" is that the right wing corruptors of Christianity, by opposing action for environmental responsibility and by promoting "God loves you, buy another SUV" prosperity theology, are actively hastening climate change disasters... then, you can count on it, they will ignore the obvious causal link from wasting resources to global warming, and claim that climate change is God's punishment for the USA not executing more homosexuals when they had the chance.

That's a prediction... we will hear this from them, within my lifetime.

James

[ladyinred]

Paul Cameron even said homosexuals should be exterminated, I guess you are right on target with that prediction. It has already happened:

Extermination of Gays
"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, [Dr. Paul] Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995. (FYI - Cameron's now-debunked research forms the foundation of most religious right anti-gay 'studies' - see Mattthew Shepard Online Resources Hate Speech archives for more information on Cameron, and for a listing of religious right organizations that continue to use his faulty research.

No wonder he was discredited by the APA, he is probably also an embarrassment to them with his quack pseudo science and research. No reputable or credible psychiatrist or psychologist (since they are in the profession of helping people)would want be aligned with him. His statements do reflect a malicious intent toward GLBT people

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Paul Cameron even said homosexuals should be exterminated, I guess you are right on target with that prediction.

Extermination of Gays
"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, [Dr. Paul] Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995. (FYI - Cameron's now-debunked research forms the foundation of most religious right anti-gay 'studies' - see Mattthew Shepard Online Resources Hate Speech archives for more information on Cameron, and for a listing of religious right organizations that continue to use his faulty research.


No wonder he was discredited by the APA, he is probably also an embarrassment to them with his quack pseudo science and research. No reputable or credible psychiatrist or psychologist (since they are in the profession of helping people)would want be aligned with him. His statements do reflect a malicious intent toward GLBT people

Lady, can you give us some more context for this comment? or a link or something? I am not really understanding what Cameron is saying. "option" for what?

[ladyinred]

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05...amerons-world/
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typep...ian_group.html
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?pid=872 (Southern poverty law center website)


Excerpted from exgay watch website above:
And how can we forget this, which Mark Peitrzyk reported in 1995:

At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, “Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.” According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.

A year later, when Paul Harkavy asked Cameron whether he endorsed extermination, Cameron replied, “That’s not true. All I said was a plausible idea would be extermination. Other cultures have done it. That’s hardly an endorsement, per se.”

But where on earth does he get the idea that extermination would ever be “a plausible idea”? In all of Anglo-American history, I can find no precedent whatsoever for extermination for medical reasons. He says “other cultures have done it,” but we know there is only one other western culture to have sunk to such depths of criminal depravity. Nazi Germany provides the only precedent for such an idea in all of Western Civilization — the very same example that Cameron upheld in 1999 to lend credence to his theories.

And remember too, that Cameron proposed that everyone who was HIV-positive should be tattooed — just as everyone who entered Höss’ concentration camps were made to bear the indelible marks of their “undesirable” status.

But now it all seems to come together, doesn’t it? Cameron’s description of Höss’ accounts casts a dark shadow on his own fascination with exterminations, quarantines, tattoos and capital punishment. And yes, while his recommendation for recriminalizing sodomy omitted capital punishment (just as Germany’s Paragraph 175 did), he nevertheless invokes it twice in his manifesto alone. First, there’s this:

An excellent — but by no means isolated — example of the long-term decline is provided by the District of Columbia. When the District was established in 1790, sodomy was a capital crime. Today, homosexuals have more legal rights in D.C. than non-homosexuals....... read whole article on website
In otherwords genocide. Here's more on James Dobson's ties with FRI and Cameron http://www.pflagdetroit.org/Holy_War_OnGays.htm,
http://www.queervisions.com/arch/200...s_drive_r.html
Cameron with Narth.http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04...-paul-cameron/ ,also ,http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/10...ric/#more-2685
Another article on who uses Cameron's studies, Dobson again: http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html

Note some of the articles are somewhat dated Cameron has also recommended other extreme measures such as castration of gays, moving those infected with HIV and aids to a former Hawiian leper colony. Here is something odd:

" From the geocities site,"What is particularly odd about Cameron's attempts to link Gays with perverted sex practices is that he is not at all disapproving of the same practices when heterosexuals perform them. In his 1981 book Sexual Gradualism, Cameron approved of heterosexual sodomy, remarking, "The anus is potentially 'sexy'...Animals do not use the anus to sexual advantage, but many humans do." He also approved of heterosexual "golden showers" (urinating on one's partner), though he found the practice personally distasteful, because "anything both partners do is OK. "Cameron also gave qualified approval to heterosexual adolescents having pre-marital sex, on the grounds that "active heterosexuality inhibits the formation of homosexuality."

My personal opinion , what a goofball. And they raise hell about consenting homosexuals having anal sex? And actually recommend punnishing them for it by wanting to reinforce sodomy laws. Does anyone see a double standard here. The very thing they condemn homosexuals for they approve of for themselves.

I'm not a researcher, but to me none of what they claim seems to hold much water. Crap-yard science..Also Cameron was molested as a boy by a man. (May explain alot of things.)
Doesn't seem to make much sense , obviously bigoted and hypocritical.... I also found this an article that says statistically heterosexuals based on numbers practice anal sex more than gays do:http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/0..._at_a_time.php Now if sodomy is a sin and goes against their conclusion that God ordained sex between a man and women for procreation and it is God's ideal..I guess that put's them in same boat with gay people, off to hell they go.

They continously contradict themselves, on divorce, marriage and other things.... In fact I read the red states including the bible belt have the largest divorce rate :http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/we...ew/14pamb.html.
Of course because divorce would be an extremely unpopular subject to attack as well as premarital sex ( between adults) politically. they aren't going to rock the boat with many of their own congregations, it would hurt where it counts ,money wise for them.Theoretically they believe in hell, where are they going then for being deceptive, dishonest, and hypocritical? Insincere? You betcha. What an oxymoron to say we love the sinner but hate the sin and then turn around and say and do things that are totally the opposite.

I also read an article on James Dobson saying this: USA Religious News.Com
"Soulforce members claim Focus on the Family, along with other Christian groups, engage in so-called "spiritual violence" against homosexuals and deny them justice. The homosexual group accuses Focus of being "one of the world?s primary sources of defamation against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) people and same-gender families" and of disseminating misinformation that encourages bias, discrimination, and violence against homosexuals.

But Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for the Colorado Springs-based pro-family ministry, says it has never condoned any type of violence against homosexuals and, on the contrary, has reached out to them in love. Despite what some people may say or think, he asserts, Focus is not the type of organization "that says, 'Okay, if your son or daughter comes out of the closet and says that he or she is gay, disown them, throw them out of the house, don't talk to them again.'"

The emphasis of Focus' ministry to homosexuals, Schneeberger explains, "is on equipping parents, friends and loved ones to love the child, the friend, the co-worker [who is 'gay' or lesbian], the way that Jesus would; but also, at the same time, not compromising their own faith principles."

[ladyinred]

I thought they were notorious for wildfires, must be climate change.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I recall reading somewhere that the gayborhoods in San Diego suffered little to no fire damage. So where does that leave the "God's wrath" nonsense?

But what really frosts my cupcakes about that line of "reasoning" is that the right wing corruptors of Christianity, by opposing action for environmental responsibility and by promoting "God loves you, buy another SUV" prosperity theology, are actively hastening climate change disasters... then, you can count on it, they will ignore the obvious causal link from wasting resources to global warming, and claim that climate change is God's punishment for the USA not executing more homosexuals when they had the chance.

That's a prediction... we will hear this from them, within my lifetime.

James

I don't see how the fires were global warming. I see arson. As in some a**hole decided to play with matches and screw with state. fires have always been here. this was just a particularly wild wild fire.

[antiochian]

If my toilet backs up can I blame it on gays, too?

Or maybe it would be a sign of God's wrath towards evangelicals. Yeah, that would be it!

[antiochian]

Let's clarify: homophobic fundamentalist evangelicals!!

[seifer_boy]

I wouldn't be surprised if the wildfires were started by arson by the very followers of that man who said they were God's judgement. They would do that just to "prove" a point that they were right or something just as stupid.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by Alecto

Well, Katrina was the homogays' fault too (although, the gayest neighborhoods were the ones that were still left in NO...maybe it was God's judgement on straight people?).

Ok, so now that it is our fault i guess that makes us pretty darn important and powerful doesnt it? Perhaps God destroyed the straight neighborhoods becuase he was really mad that it took them so long to protect the innocent(children)