Rep. Kern's Statements

[Wingnut]

quote: ...she has created a paranoid delusion that there is some vast conspiracy of gays infiltrating schools and governments to turn others gay and force their lifestyles on everyone.

Conspiracy theory?

Is this next?

Has anyone read this book?
The Marketing of Evil

Matt. 16:2 He said, "When evening comes you say, 'It will be fair weather, because the sky is red,' 16:3 and in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, because the sky is red and darkening.'  You know how to judge correctly the appearance of the sky,  but you cannot evaluate the signs of the times.

Right or wrong, at least Kern isn't doing a Barry Goldwater change.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

I want to interject something.  Remember, Sally is a Christian.  Christians will tend to think along the same lines and the Christian men and woman who "shaped" this nation.  

I never implied she was part of the KKK.  Furthermore, the notion that we were founded as a Christian nation remains a myth advocated by a very vocal minority.  Many of the founders were far from "Christian" in actuality.  Ben Franklin, George Washington, Jefferson, Madison among many were Deists (not intervening god) or Theists (multiple creating deities) if not nearly agnostic (none of which would be compatible with modern Christianity).    Many had a strong belief in creator(s) but all came together to reject a theocracy.

You quoted Adams as in favor of religious sentiment (though he spoke of "morals" which do not necessarily entail religion), Adams disestablished the Congressional church as president.  Effectively terminating a growing relationship between church and state.  He frequently lamented forcing religion or his bleiefs on others:

quote:At the age of twenty-one, therefore, Adams resolved to become a lawyer, noting that in following law rather than divinity, "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.

Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 88. By Edwin S. Gaustad.  Excerpt from a letter to Richard Cranch, dated August 29, 1756.

quote:Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it.

Id. P.88. John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816.  

And Adam's certainly was not against religion.  He spoke fondly of it and was active in the Congregationalist and later the Unitarian church.  Both are now considered liberal churches by the Christian right - with Unitarians being technically outside the definition of Christian.   I use him as an example simply because you brought him up - but he was serves as a great case study in religion and government during the time of the Founders... and it does not support the strong influence of religion on law.

(I know your new-ish, please don't be offended.  I try to keep my discussion rational but some people take that as an attack)

[cannon_fodder]

James,

I have attended religious affiliated schools for 15 years of my life (public schools for another 6).  I have read several version of the Bible.  I have read the Book of Mormon (most of it, I admit skimming large sections!).  I have read the Koran, several Buddhist text, and a host of other religious texts and writings from Ash'ari to Zoroaster.

I've read the Nostic Gospels, what little of the dead sea scrolls that have been translated and released and any many other texts that were written at the same time as books that were blessed by Roman Emperors and popes for inclusion in your book.  The ones you aren't supposed to read because a Roman Empreror's counsel dictated which books you should and should not have access to...

I've studied translations of certain passages that interest me.  The nuances of translation from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic (I do not speak these languages nor do I pretend do, I have looked at translation variables and alternatives, as well as common mistakes that have been written about by others). Studied the historical context of the parables and actions.

I have an uncle that is a priest.  My Grandfather was a Decan.  I served on my Church's Counsel with a congregation of 1650 families for a couple years.  

I'm no theological expert, I'm not a linguist, nor am I a biblical scholar.  But to dismiss me as some neophyte who picks up tidbits of information from "Dr. Laura" and regurgitates with no understanding is a total misconception.  I have looked at religion with an exceptionally open mind and believe I am in a position to make and have made informed and rational statements in that regard.  

If you can say the same, I welcome further discussions with you.  If not, please feel free to rant and rave with the understanding that I will not be responding.

[NellieBly]

Cannon -- Dr. Laura makes me regurgitate, too.

Ellen Degeneres tried to call Kern's office yesterday at the beginning of her show to "clear up a few things about gay people." Pretty funny albeit completely embarassing for the state.

[CoffeeBean]

To:  mrhaskellok

Re:  KKK reference

I started that reference.  It has nothing to do with Kern's ideology about race;  it has everything to do with her logic.

Both Kern and the KKK spew hate against other people, not based upon their merits as a human being, but upon a trait.  

"Hate is great!"  
--Not Jesus

[Wingnut]

Just curious, but did Kerns say anything that was untrue?
I can't see the video here at work, so I don't know or remember all she said. The few stats I could find seem to concur with what she said.

Also, why is it that when someone says something that is truthful about someone it's considered hate, but when the other person says something awful back, it's not?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

Just curious, but did Kerns say anything that was untrue?

1) "The homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation."   I have seen no study that indicates this.  Actually, areas with higher concentrations of homosexuals have higher standards of living, less violence, and generally higher property values (The Hamptons, Portland, San Francisco, Key West, NYC).

2) "poses a bigger threat to the U.S. than terrorism or Islam"

Death toll from terrorism:  Thousands
From Gays:  Zero

Terrorist Expressing a Desire to Destroy the USA:  Many
Gays: None that I am aware of.

I haven't seen a study or anything that supports her contention.

3) Societies that have embraced homosexuality have lasted centuries.  From Greece, Rome, Ptolemaic Egypt, Babylon, Persia and on and on.  Her statement that societies that embrace homosexuality last "decades" is patently false.

4) "We're not teaching facts and knowledge anymore. We're teaching indoctrination."

Yesterday my son told me that the season change because of the Earth tilt in relation to the sun.  He can read, write, and do math problems.  Damn indoctrination.

5) There is no evidence that the "gay agenda" is to get elected and force 2 year olds to be accepting of people.
- - -

Those are the only patently false statements I could find.  Those are also the only statements she made subject to fact checking. The only factual things she said was that the gay-straight alliance seeks understanding between the two groups and that there are gays being elected to office (stupid democracy).  

Otherwise, her entire statement was false.

quote: The few stats I could find seem to concur with what she said.

The only stats that would support her contentions would be about gay elected officials.  Everything else either has no support or the support is contrary to her contentions.  Rome stood for about 600 years.  The Greek states for about 300.  Babylon for a similar time frame... etc. etc.
- - -

Other than a religious conviction that homosexuality is wrong, explain to be why we should have contempt for gay men and women?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut

Just curious, but did Kerns say anything that was untrue?
I can't see the video here at work, so I don't know or remember all she said. The few stats I could find seem to concur with what she said.

Also, why is it that when someone says something that is truthful about someone it's considered hate, but when the other person says something awful back, it's not?

Hate crimes or speech are generally determined to be such because the speech or action attacks a group of people because they are part of a group that shares some point of distinction, i.e. race, religion, orientation, height, ability etc.

If you are attacked for something you say, that is due to a tangible action on your part, not because you are member of some social group or class and therefore not considered to be a "hate" crime or speech.

[mrhaskellok]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

I want to interject something.  Remember, Sally is a Christian.  Christians will tend to think along the same lines and the Christian men and woman who "shaped" this nation.  

I never implied she was part of the KKK.  Furthermore, the notion that we were founded as a Christian nation remains a myth advocated by a very vocal minority.  Many of the founders were far from "Christian" in actuality.  Ben Franklin, George Washington, Jefferson, Madison among many were Deists (not intervening god) or Theists (multiple creating deities) if not nearly agnostic (none of which would be compatible with modern Christianity).    Many had a strong belief in creator(s) but all came together to reject a theocracy.

You quoted Adams as in favor of religious sentiment (though he spoke of "morals" which do not necessarily entail religion), Adams disestablished the Congressional church as president.  Effectively terminating a growing relationship between church and state.  He frequently lamented forcing religion or his bleiefs on others:

quote:At the age of twenty-one, therefore, Adams resolved to become a lawyer, noting that in following law rather than divinity, "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.

Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 88. By Edwin S. Gaustad.  Excerpt from a letter to Richard Cranch, dated August 29, 1756.

quote:Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and Dogmatism cannot confine it.

Id. P.88. John Adams, letter to John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816.  

And Adam's certainly was not against religion.  He spoke fondly of it and was active in the Congregationalist and later the Unitarian church.  Both are now considered liberal churches by the Christian right - with Unitarians being technically outside the definition of Christian.   I use him as an example simply because you brought him up - but he was serves as a great case study in religion and government during the time of the Founders... and it does not support the strong influence of religion on law.

(I know your new-ish, please don't be offended.  I try to keep my discussion rational but some people take that as an attack)

I appreciate you not wanting to scare me off .

I agree totally with what you said though I differ slightly with your interpretation of the statements made by the men you listed.  I have read so many letters from founders like Washington to know that they were definitely Christian.  But, regardless of there denomination, my point is simply that we have to stop and wonder why people like Kern say the things she says. It just makes me laugh a little when people act surprised when people resist homosexual agendas, as if this nation has ALWAYS accepted homosexual behavior.  I personally couldn't care less if someone is homosexual, but if anyone believes that it is immoral, then then certainly have the right to think that.
This is where I am going to sound like a broken record.  She is OBVIOUSLY a Christian, so instead of acting surprised she says things that are consistent with traditional Christian views, why not just collaborate and find someone to run against her.  
I guess I just think that calling it hate speech is simply not true.  At least if you use the more politically correct definition of hate speech.  
It is like calling a Liberal a bunch of names and saying they promote hate speech because they are against republican views.  
No one is entitled to be exempt from being told they are doing something wrong..no one.  It does not make the accuser correct, but they are nevertheless free to say (in this case) homosexuals are immoral).
In my world (which is hopefully a free one) you can still just walk away and ignore them.
In other words, lets target not what they are saying but the fact that people are paying attention to it or giving HER credibility if she does not deserve it.
Am I making any sense?  Lol... I fear I rambled too much that time.

Again, thanks for your clear and well-educated reply.

Sid

[mrhaskellok]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

To:  mrhaskellok

Re:  KKK reference

I started that reference.  It has nothing to do with Kern's ideology about race;  it has everything to do with her logic.

Both Kern and the KKK spew hate against other people, not based upon their merits as a human being, but upon a trait.  

"Hate is great!"  
--Not Jesus

I understand.  Sorry if I misplaced your intent.
Logic though is relevant to perception.  This is certain premises must be agreed upon before any logical conclusion can be reached...if two parties can't agree on two premises, then no conclusion as to what is illogical can be reached.  Ergo, her argument is going to be, "Well sure it is logical, but your statements are not."
This is why I say you must target the medium and the foundation of any argument and ignore the illogical conclusions.

[cannon_fodder]

mrhaskellok, I think we're on the same page.  I do not think it was "hate speech" and generally I think that is a BS statement anyway.  

U of Tulsa is in OT, can't talk now. []

[mrhaskellok]

quote: mrhaskellok, I think we're on the same page.  

Whew![]    
Now lets paint some murals!  
[]

[mrhaskellok]

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

This I think is what Kern is concerned about...a nationwide day of silence in our schools to help promote homosexual behavior?  Are we going to have a day of silence to promote straight behavior?  
Just makes me giggle, er eh, laugh.  []

[pmcalk]

Why would you claim that this is a day of silence to "promote homosexual behavior?"  Did you read the link?  This is a day to protest the discrimination and hate crimes perpetrated against homosexuals.  As a Christian, how could you not support that?  If it is truly about the lifestyle, and not about the person, than don't you have to insist that acts of violence against homosexuals are wrong and immoral?  Aren't random acts of baseless violence always something that good Christians deplore?  Your statement is the kind of thing that leads people to conclude that this is really about hate, not about religious belief.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wingnut


Conspiracy theory?

No.  Articles from Scaife sources aren't hard news.  The bill says that teaching discrimination based on "sexual orientation" is as bad as teaching discrimination based on "disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, or religion."  What the hell is wrong with that?

quote:
Is this next?

Again...WND is a conservative newspaper run by an evangelical Christian.  It's slanted.  I don't post stories from Daily Kos, do I?  Same thing, other end of the spectrum.  I think it's fine if you post this stuff, but I don't think it strengthens your position.  It simply says you get your "news" from the same paranoid and deluded places that Sally does.