Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Story Tools

Email this story | Print this story

Indexes

November 30th, 2008
November 29th, 2008
November 28th, 2008
November 27th, 2008
November 26th, 2008
November 25th, 2008
November 24th, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT

Weighing in on Prop. 8

Politics at local pulpits becoming a hot issue

By Ross Farrow
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Updated: Saturday, October 4, 2008 6:00 AM PDT

Religious leaders are taking a firmer stand than they ever have on political issues this year, from the presidential election down to state ballot measures.

In Lodi, some evangelical pastors are asking their congregation to vote for Proposition 8, which would limit marriage in California to a man and a woman. In 2007, pastors spoke out against a cardroom opening on Cherokee Lane in Lodi, and in previous years they actively spoke out against sex-related businesses.

And for several years, Christian Community Concerns has issued a "voter's guide" in which local candidates give their views on moral issues like homosexuality and abortion.

Churches risk losing their tax-exempt status if they endorse specific candidates, but they are legally permitted to speak up on ballot measures such as Proposition 8.

Christian Community Concerns is leading the effort to spread the word about Proposition 8, urging pastors to promote the measure that would toss out the California Supreme Court's ruling in May that overturned a law banning gay marriage.

Violating federal law by endorsing candidates from the pulpit could be costly because churches rely on their nonprofit status to solicit contributions from their congregation.

Law professor John Sims, of McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, says the law is quite reasonable.

Conservative pastors to test constitutionality of IRS law

Through the encouragement of the conservative Christian organization Alliance Defense Fund, more than 30 pastors throughout the nation intentionally violated federal law by preaching on Sept. 28 supporting political candidates. The organization termed the day "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."

Since 1954, pastors have been forbidden from speaking for or against political candidates at their church. Failure to comply means that a church would lose its tax-exempt status.

"We believe that that law is unconstitutional, that it violates the First Amendment," said David Prather, pastor of the non-denominational Central Christian Church in Lancaster, one of three California churches to participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. "It needs to be challenged."

Saying he addressed his congregation this week on gay marriage and abortion, Prather said he would not vote for Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Prather said he doesn't think there's much of a chance that the Internal Revenue Service will remove his church's tax-exempt status.

"But we're willing to take the risk," he said. "We're responsible to God."

Law professor John Sims, from McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, sees it a little differently. Many churches are fearful of the alliance's pending court challenge because it could result in all churches losing their tax-exempt status.

The IRS issued a brief statement about Pulpit Freedom Sunday: "We are aware of recent press reports. We are monitoring the situation and will take action as appropriate."

— News-Sentinel staff

"The government provides churches a large subsidy in tax-exempt status," Sims said. "If I give $1,000 to my church and I'm in the 20 percent tax bracket, it only costs me $800, and the government pays $200."

However, Sims doesn't see any problem with ballot measures such as Proposition 8 because churches already discuss moral issues like the death penalty, nuclear war, nuclear disarmament and poverty.

Lodi-area religious leaders' opinions vary on churches' roles in politics, aside from a general statement that people should go out and vote. Here is a sample:

Sister Terry Davis, Stockton Catholic Diocese: Advertisements supporting Proposition 8 are included in church bulletins, and the diocese has given priests ideas for homilies to support the measure. The diocese has also taken positions supporting Proposition 4 (parental notification of minor's abortion) and opposing Proposition 6 (law enforcement funding, criminal penalties).

David Hill, Grace Presbyterian Church: When it comes to a ballot measure like Proposition 8, he would most likely not address it at the pulpit, but if he did, both sides of the issue would be covered. If the congregation wants to talk about an issue, the church could discuss it in Sunday school or a separate forum so that there can be full dialogue. Speaking from the pulpit is a monologue, not a dialogue, so he prefers not to speak from the pulpit.

Frank Nolton, New Hope Community Church: Has addressed Proposition 8 in his newsletter. On Sundays, he preaches the Bible verse-by-verse, book-by-book, so every conceivable topic will be discussed. He talked about homosexuality while preaching the Books of Genesis and Romans.

Bill Cummins, Bear Creek Community Church: Says it's not a pastor's role to tell people which political party or candidate to support. However, the church needs to take a stand on issues that have Biblical applications, like Proposition 8.

Basil Matthews, interim rector, St. John's Episcopal Church: Says he has never used the pulpit to canvass the policies of any one political party or to suggest how members of his congregation should vote. It is the San Joaquin Diocese's policy to be inclusive of all residents in matters of state or national legislation.

Nick Qayyum, board member, Lodi Muslim Mosque: No political statements have been made since Imam Ahmed Hashimi took over. One time, a candidate asked to speak at the mosque. Mosque leaders said "yes," as long as the other candidate comes.

Rabbi Jason Gwasdoff, Temple Israel, Stockton: Not only is it illegal for religious leaders to endorse candidates, it's an abuse of the pulpit. However, it is appropriate for clergy to preach about political issues when there is a moral component involved because they are real-life issues. Says clergy shouldn't assume that they know God's will and that their positions are the only correct ones.

John Kah, St. Peter Lutheran Church: Believes churches have a moral obligation to discuss morality. He will discuss Proposition 8 during adult Bible study on Oct. 12. Says churches are different from politically motivated organizations because churches address what God says. Agrees that pastors should endorse candidates.

Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

edumacation wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:54 PM:

" To JD: You have a good point. I guess the media isn't interested in showing the other side of "the "lifestyle". They must be miserable. Few understand them because of the smokescreen of popular media and support od the radicals, who will do anything to promote the nanny state. Its called left wing facsism. Freedom for only those appointed few on the left who demand that we follow their PC rules. It reminds me of Hitler youth in the 1930's or the Chinese cultural Revolution where thousands were killed because they disagreed with the dictatorship of Communist party Chairman Mao Tse Tung. There is an uncanny resemblance between the social goals and PC behavior goals of American liberals (I am thinking of Obama and Bill Ayers) and Mao's Communist party.

http://www.billayers.org/

Visit HIS site, in his own words to learn why the FBI charges were dropped after he bombed the Pentagon with a nail bomb. Nice guy? "

real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:03 PM:

" ("Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:46 AM:
Siting Oprah (move away from the daytime talk shows) and your disease stats does not make it okay to deny gay people the right to marry. Are we now to weigh disease stats before deciding who gets to marry?").

nope

just "cite" 6,000 years of history, and for extra "lodian" bonus points, go ahead and discard the religion arguement, and it is STILL a slam dunk issue of perversion

always has been, always will be

speaking of talk shows, riddle me this, how come maury povich on all his rediculous "whose your baby's daddy" day in and day out shows DOESN'T have any "adam and steve" action?

because even bottom dwellers like jerry springer and maury povich recognize 6,000 years of history CAN'T deny what's "moral"

btw, jerry springer and maury povich aren't "Christians"

maury povich + 6,000 years of history = no adam and steve

even those two "pillars of society" would vote YES on prop 8

baHHHHHHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWA "

real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:54 AM:

" (Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:48 AM:
" real facts is a pillar of the community. ").

i actually am.

if you only knew who i really am in this city.

btw, "pillars" in life straight away condemn people that even hint at perversion such as billy spews about having sex with children.

your just as ugly as billy, because you NEVER condemn it, and still won't right now.

if YOU were running for "pillar of the year", they would have to burn an effigy of pinnochio to get their point across as to why that's an impossibility

the truth is in the action.....you still won't "

real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:49 AM:

" real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:04 AM:
want more evidence? she NEVER denies it "

Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:48 AM:

" real facts is a pillar of the community. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:46 AM:

" edumacation: Again, I could easily paint a nasty picture of a heterosexual male (I defer to your expert knowledge about such things -- I know you are not a male). There are extreme examples in all walks of life, but we still put up with you.

Siting Oprah (move away from the daytime talk shows) and your disease stats does not make it okay to deny gay people the right to marry. Are we now to weigh disease stats before deciding who gets to marry? "

real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:45 AM:

" ("Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:08 AM:
" OhMy/real facts: Your "split" personality is showing again. Where's Aimee? ").

look rolling freak show, your going to have to ask her.

in the meantime, if you love your freak status, and you want to keep it a rollin, by all means, keep lying about it.

all it ever does is demonstrate what a weak person you really are.

with OHMY coming out and saying she differs in opinion than me on certain angles of this discussion, and my NEVER bending position, even a moron can tell we are not the same person.

your just a desperate lonely freak show who gets her personal jollies lying about others.

wow, that's some accomplishment in life lodian. makes me want to run to be like you

puke

those two, aimee and OHMY, spell better than i do, have better grammar AND capitalize. what a loon.

but, the "loon" will continue to lie about it because she has no self control, and IS a freak just like i said "

JD wrote on Oct 17, 2008 11:41 AM:

" If your acquaintances feel so strongly about the issue, I would think it helpful if they publicly repudiate the clown who are hurting their cause?

They have. Repeatedly. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:55 AM:

" To JD: "...TV news stations put these particular gays on the five o'clock news precisely because they are not normal?..."

Thank you! You made my point.

If your acquaintances feel so strongly about the issue, I would think it helpful if they publicly repudiate the clown who are hurting their cause?

I know, its not a fair request. Would Democrat leaders ever repudiate criminal acts by other Democrats? Not a chance. The same with Republicans. If they actively stand up against criminals who happen to be Republicans, the World would be a better place.

If there could be a way for your acquaintances to exrt some inflence on the rag tag gay parade, their (gay lifestyle advocates) objectives would be more understandable. I have no malice for the individuals involved, only those who have outrageous behavior. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:41 AM:

" To Lodian: 1) Your comment re ugly. Ugly is as ugly does.

I would like to accomodate you, but I am female. The hint was the Oprah show, watched mainly by females and liberal males. See Oprah marketing profile: White Female over 45 = 91% of her viewers. Average HHI= $80,000/yr


To OhMy: I can fight my own battles. The Castro is a world onto itself. It will NEVER happen in Lodi. Many of the male gays who live in "the city" are infected with HIV (32%) according to the San Francisco Dept of Public Health. The incidence in the general population is 500 cases per 100,000. African-American gays at age 60 have a probability of 80% of being infected. So encourage them to get "married"?

These are facts from The Centers for Disease control. But wait, gays have rights? "

JD wrote on Oct 17, 2008 10:26 AM:

" To JD: What would you think if you turn on KRON 4 NEWS and see the weirdeness that is San Francisco. There are no doubts about who they represent. And the contrast of a flyer with a meek or almost he;lpless looking woman. Give me a break! Lets see some of the San Francisco freaks who parade around on television.

Edumacation--

Has it ever occurred to you that TV news stations put these particular gays on the five o'clock news precisely because they are not normal? The nightly news does not typically concern itself with the mundane.

I could name, off the top of my head, three gay personal acquaintances of mine, and two or three more I've corresponded with through online fora. Every one of them despises the exhibitionist freaks you see in San Francisco and elsewhere. "

deblaw wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:56 AM:

" Lodian..
Also serve in our military and honor our country....

Only if they don't tell! Otherwise, they are out.... "

Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:08 AM:

" OhMy/real facts: Your "split" personality is showing again. Where's Aimee? "

Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 9:07 AM:

" edumacation: Like I said, I could easily paint a nasty picture of a heterosexual male (I defer to your expert knowledge about such things). There are extreme examples in all walks of life, but we still put up with you. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 17, 2008 8:13 AM:

" To Lodian: I did not manufacture the weirdness I can watch on KRON 4. It was recorded and broadcast. The anti Prop 8 people might want to tone it down a bit. Some of this behavior is noxious ansd disgusting. I only mentioned what I saw. That 300 pound hairy guy in the speedos marching down market street with his "life partner" doesn't help your case. I will concede one point ro you. If you turn on any Oprah TV show, you will usually find a segment behaviors of a few men, that are despicable. Oprah is a misandrist and unfairly shows the worst behaviors of the male gender, but where is the outcry about that? Yes, not "all" homosexuals are promiscuous pederasts. I know a neighbor who has outstanding behavior, considerate, helpful. This person is a homosexual. So yes, not all gays are narcissistic psychopaths. It is interesting to note this neighbor is still "in the closet". Its not my prejudice that causes this. He is a Priest. He placed himself in that untenable situation. I defer to your expert knowledge about these things. "

OhMy wrote on Oct 17, 2008 7:29 AM:

" Real Facts: She SURE IS!! That is why I had a hard time believing she claims to be "Christian", but your absolutely right, the truth is in her words. Its rediculous. LODIAN is in for a mighty BIG wake up call on judgement day!!

Edumacation: GOOD JOB to you for not believing the phony propaganda! You are right, if they were so "normal" why do all of the "No on Prop 8" comercials show HETEROSEXUAL couples? Why are they hiding behind this if they are so "normal"?? Wow. Rediculous.

GOD HELP our little town from becoming a little castro district!!! "

Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:15 AM:

" edumacation: You try to paint an ugly picture of the usual gay person in this country, but as I conveyed in my previous post, you miss the mark. I could easily paint a nasty picture of a heterosexual male. There are extreme examples in all walks of life. "

real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:09 AM:

" ("Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:03 AM:
There is no reason whatsoever why these law-abiding Americans should be denied their right to marry the love of their life. ").

it's perversion, and there is no "love" in the perversion equation.

it's lust, just like edumacation said.

if i remember correctly, edumacation is an atheist. even a non religious person recognizes moral absolutes THROUGHOUT the history of mankind, and the 'attempt' at legitimacy. "

real facts wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:04 AM:

" billy on the other blog LIED/implied i was interested sexually with a boy.

billy is a pervert, that was established two years ago. that guy is a bottom feeder.

what's even more of a gem, is right after he said it, lodian high fived it.

you want evidence of who lodian really is OHMY? then keep up with my posts that provide it.

no true follower of Jesus Christ would SUPPORT lying AND perversion. she does

want more evidence? she NEVER denies it

yep, she's a phony. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 17, 2008 12:03 AM:

" edumacation: Yes, believe it or not there are gay people among us that look exactly like you and I. There are more gay people in this country than you think. They work with us, eat with us, they're our doctors and teachers, they save us in a fire and will save our lives in an emergency. They also serve in our military and honor our country. I could easily go on. There is no reason whatsoever why these law-abiding Americans should be denied their right to marry the love of their life. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:04 PM:

" To JD: What would you think if you turn on KRON 4 NEWS and see the weirdeness that is San Francisco. There are no doubts about who they represent. And the contrast of a flyer with a meek or almost he;lpless looking woman. Give me a break! Lets see some of the San Francisco freaks who parade around on television. They are hiding until the elections are over. If No on prop 8 loses, YOU KNOW they will be prancing or tippie toeing in the streets in all there regalia or lack thereof. VOTE yes, and watch them hide. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:01 PM:

" OhMy wrote "...you will not be completely honest"

OhMY: Who says? And about what? "

real facts wrote on Oct 16, 2008 10:31 PM:

" it's this simple...

lodian-claimed-in-the-blogs-long-ago-to-be-a-"Christian".

while i was systematically dismantling her claims by comparing her consistent verbage, the issues she picks, and the solidarity she shows to people COMPLETELY opposed to Christ OR his word, she STOPPED claiming it.

now the problem is, if she WAS a Christian, why would she stop standing up for being one on an anonymous board?

doesn't-matter-what-a-person-claims, the PROOF is in the CONSISTENTCY in the "stance" of the person.

you pick God OVER anything, your a "follower"

you pick people and agenda OVER God EVERYTIME, your a phony

in the epistle of 1 john, it states that ANY person that lies without conscience, IS a phony

case-closed...(at-least-in-her-current-state)

her "phony" status is the EXACT reason i oppose her mercilessly, is because she HAS claimed she is a "Christian", yet she opposes Gods authority over mankind like it's her FIRST CHOICE.

i will not sit back and watch while someone "pretending" they are a Christian, selling the notion that AS a Christian, you do not have to obey God OR his word, but YOU can redefine the "standards" at will

THAT'S-why-i-am-i-here "

OhMy wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:22 PM:

" Well Lodian, you have indirectly said you are a "Christian". Also, because you are being so shady I have to believe what Real Facts has said, the fact that you do consider yourself a "Christian", because you will not be completely honest. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:20 PM:

" So, OhMy, where do you get this information about me? "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:59 PM:

" OhMy: I never told you that I am a Christian or not. "

JD wrote on Oct 16, 2008 6:00 PM:

" If they were normal, they wouldn't try so hard to look normal.

With all due respect, over-generalizations like this are hardly helpful. "

Edumacation wrote on Oct 16, 2008 4:31 PM:

" To OhMy: I have a good one. This afternoon I opened my mail to see a slick advertisement PLEADING to fight Prop 8. On the cover of the flyer was a large photo of an innocent enough looking woman stating she was gay. So what? If they were normal, they wouldn't try so hard to look normal. Where is the 250 pound hairy guy with the feather boa and bikini. Or the motorcyle "ladies" with the beards. They are the clowns on parade. Where are they hiding? They all want to get married---isn't that special. Lets see GLBTLSMFT . What by golly is that? Gay,Lesbian, Bisexual, Transexual, I dont know what the LSMFT is but I can guess: Here goes: L, S, M, F, T.

Lucky Strikes Means Fine Tobacco. LOL Say What? If you need a dictionary to figure it out maybe, just maybe its because they are weird. So Paraphiliacs, tri and Quadra sexuals and your proto dendrophiliacs. Don't worry, be happy. You are supposed to be gay (the original definition), so do your thing in private. "

OhMy wrote on Oct 16, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Does anyone else find this as ironic as I do? An atheist who is for Prop 8 (edumacation) and a "Christian" (Lodian) who is against it...LOL!!!!!! "

OhMy wrote on Oct 16, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Well said edumacation!! You are right on. Well there you go Lodian, a "non-religious" argument that MAKES SENSE and IS TRUE!! Just what you were waiting for. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:56 PM:

" To Lodian: Try not to fall for the slick reasons and explanations for failure. Psychopaths of all types try to get support for their causes. Just say no to them and they will whine somewhere else. They sound like a bunch of borderline psychos. Go to work, deal with life and be happy. If they need rings to prove something, go buy rings. But the only factor these people want is for normal people to suffer their weirdness. I don't care. I maintain I have my right to laugh when they tell me they are "married'. ROFL Who is on top? "Lipstick" or "Beard", they are both weird. Ask them. Same with the "boys". They cease to exist in their own culture as soon as they get a gray hair or wrinkle. It sounds like narcissism with a component of sexual monomania, but never a clinical mental disorder. LOL. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:44 PM:

" To Lodian: You misquoted me. Gay HIV infection is there problem that they are inflicting on othres. Thats not my concern, but it could be good for society if they cooled it down to only a few hundred contacts from thousands. It looks like Darwin is winning this game. If its a "lifestyle" choice it won't matter, but if its biological. over a very long time, there might be a measurable effect. No, my decsion if based on my experience that many of these people are sexual psychopaths and I do no want to enable ANY of them for their selfish interests. I have not discussed the high rates of FAS among lesbian mothers. This is because of the high rate of alcoholism another DSM symptom. I don't know which is the cause or the effect, but they are related. Do they drink because they are lesbians or are they lesbians because they drink? There are so few homosexuals anyway, they are not worth the all the stress. Thank Darwin. They are less than 5% of the population so its a personal issue. "

OhMy wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:23 PM:

" Lodian: I wish you could just be honest with me and tell me if you believe yourself to be a Christian. Why are you being so dishonest? Are you afraid of what I will think of you? And if you think your religion has nothing to do with this post, you are wrong. It has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR posts because it will tell us ACTUAL CHRISTIANS about YOUR character.

Oh. Also you never answered another question of mine: "What have I done that hasn't been Christian? ( " OhMy/real facts: You can tell yourself you are a Christian all day long, but it doesn't show. (it never has) ") " "

OhMy wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Lodian said "With all of this it is beyond me why anyone would get behind a law that would deny a law-abiding adult couple the right to marry in the United States of America in 2008!"

I'll tell you why. It is because people do not want something they are morally against pushed on their society. Do you have children Lodian? How would you feel if your children were taught IN SCHOOL about sex before you felt it was the right time? Don't I have rights as a parent??

This IS THE START OF IT. Gay marriage in California is opening the can of worms that will lead to us being FORCED TO ACCEPT SOMETHING WE FIND MORALLY INCORRECT.

You heard edumacation. He is an athiest and he is for Prop 8. How do you explain that away with the reasons he has given?

If you want to leave "religion" out (even though mine is not a "religion" it is the TRUTH) fine. It will come down to majority rules. And most likely the majority will rule in favor of this proposition. This IS still a democracy yes? "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Separation of church and state. If we allow religion to cross this line then where will it stop? We've come so far in separating church and state. Why regress now? All kinds of people marry legally now. Hey, most heterosexual marriages even fail and end in divorce. With all of this it is beyond me why anyone would get behind a law that would deny a law-abiding adult couple the right to marry in the United States of America in 2008! It is a "dark ages" way of thinking. "

OhMy wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Rhodie wrote: "My favorite part is when the wroter compares the Gay struggle to the oppression of the black people. Anyone what to comment on that? "

Well Gee, we never enslaved the gay community. Also black people didn't CHOOSE their skin color, that is something we know for sure. Science has yet to prove that the gays haven't CHOSEN their lifestyle. And theoretically, regardless if they have or not, that still does not make it any better in GODS eyes. And on a completely SECULAR level, someone mentioned before that men and women are compatable sexually. THAT IS WHAT IS NATURAL!! I'm sorry but homosexuality is NOT NATURAL, and that is on a purely secular level. Just the fact that "evolution" (still speaking secularly here) made men and women PHYSICALLY compatable to continue the human species speaks VOLUMES on the fact that homosexuality is NOT NATURAL. How can you argue with that? "

Rhodie wrote on Oct 16, 2008 10:57 AM:

" "Wow, prejudice and ignorance abounds in your reasons for denying these American's their rights"
Comments like this make me wonder how long until the Homosexual agenda starts pushing for quotas. Let's see, 2% of the population claims to be gay or Bi so that would require larger businesses to make sure to have at least 2% employees that identify themselves as gay or face discrimination suits.
Lets look at the terminology already used by the Homosexuality in terms of thier rights "apartheid", "segregating and dehumanizing classification", "shameful and inexcusable oppression of the civil rights of same-sex", "insecure homophobes", "heap terror upon the gay", "at the expense of the disenfranchised and the politically powerless", "mindful of the dehumanizing effects of apartheid", "fomenters of group-hatred", "no different than erecting barriers like the 1950`s "Whites Only" signage", "Our segregation doesn't even allow us to sit in the back of the bus", "the Black community refuse to see the parallel", "reserved those so-called "equal rights", "a legitimate United States has yet to be born".
Taken from http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/sna160207.htm
My favorite part is when the wroter compares the Gay struggle to the oppression of the black people. Anyone what to comment on that? "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Aimee: Ya you've said that already, but for some reason you're still here chasing me around to let me know that you will not debate me on another issue. Okay, dear....whatever you say. LOL! "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:21 AM:

" edumacation: So, let me get this straight (no pun intended)... you will vote yes on prop 8 due to your belief that gay people are promiscuous and spread disease? Wow, prejudice and ignorance abounds in your reasons for denying these American's their rights. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:21 AM:

" So, edumacation, it seems you have made your decision based upon the premise that voting against those who wish to commit to life-long, monogamous relationships with the person of their choice will prevent rampant outbreaks of AIDS that would result from marriage? "

Aimee wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:10 AM:

" Lodian wrote: "Aimee: That's okay dear. I know you have a very hard time debating on these boards. You have to be a big girl in order to take the hits like a mature adult. Stick to practicing in the mirror. LOL! Maybe someday you can come back and hang with the big dogs. :-) As always, you can come back with a new handle (or use another old one). Can't wait! With all your weaknesses it will be easy to make your new handle too. Bye, Aimee."

Lodian, debating you would be a waste of my time and energy since you have nothing pertinent or intelligent to say.

Please look for another target to spew your hate onto. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:02 AM:

" I look at the statistics of HIV infections, and its a "No brainer". Its not homosexuality that implies infection. Its promiscuity. Promiscuity is defined in the DSM as a symptom of underlying mental illness.

I won't try to save you or your soul, but here is a link to how many others think. Objectivism is more popular than you may want to know. So-called altruism is one of two malignant movements. The other is theism.


http://www.peikoff.com/opar/altruism.htm "

edumacation wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:51 AM:

" To Lodian: The REAL problem is political correctness, the nanny state, or ALTRUISM. In 1973, politically correct pyschologists redefined homosexuality from a clinical mental disorder to a lifestyle choice. A diagnosis does not necessarily imply its etiology or treatment. Medical science has not answered this puzzle, but that does not mean that homosexuality is NOT a clinical disorder. Medical science has NOT determined the etiology of this behavior. Narcissim, and other psychopathic behaviors are still highly correlated with "these people". I had to say that---since most nannys hate the words "these people". The definition implies nothing else, but it could help them receive medical insurance benefits for treatment of behavior related to the old definition in the DSM.

I have met a few admitted homosexuals that seemed pleasant, but generally I don't trust them, not because of "fear" or phobia but because of my experience with them. One example: Heterosexuals usually restrain themselves to a countable number of relationships. Many or most homosexual males have thousands of contacts. HIV transmission rates are very low, but with extremely high contact ratios, the incidence is very high. Statistically homosexuality implies promiscuity. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:31 AM:

" edumacation: If you are voting yes on prop 8 just because it's a simple "preference" with no real reason behind it then I don't think you are taking this issue serious enough. You seem flip and dismissive of the importance of this issue when it comes to the rights of Americans. You sort of sound like you will vote yes on prop 8 because you just feel like it at the moment. Not very wise in taking your roll as an American standing up for equal rights on November 4th. Perhaps you should give your vote on prop 8 more consideration than just a passing glance. To you it may not mean much of anything (if so then vote no!) but to some this prop means a great deal. It would be big of you to give it more thought. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:19 AM:

" edumacation: Since you are willing to deny the rights of some Americans I must ask you... what rights would you like some Americans to decide that you should not be entitled in these United States? "

Lodian wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:13 AM:

" edumacation wrote "I defer to your wisdom about these issues."

Oh, sure. Pass the buck. "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:14 PM:

" this is where lodian copy and paste's billy's words/post and says "i agree", just like she ALWAYS does.

and that, after she claimed she was a "Christian"

TRUTH landed another two-for-one deal in here tonight.

"IT" always does

TRUTH score tonight...
TRUTH 4, "ain't's" = ZILCH (again)

TRUTH will make an appearance tomorrow. it won't change. it won't budge. NO ONE can redefine it. NO ONE can lie about or twist it. TRUTH won't go away. TRUTH will take it's rest in recorded and UNrecorded history. and at the end of tommorrow, TRUTH will STILL be what it has ALWAYS been, and thus shall ever be.

NO ONE can move Gods TRUTH.

EVER

(but you are welcome to try) "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:59 PM:

" Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:12 PM: " Careful calling it a lie, Lord Fruitcake. Disgusting as you may find them now, they're either your own words or scripture.

That's the beauty part.

It's all your own words or scripture.

LOL ").

laugh all you want, it's your life to trash. lying pervert

and NO, they WERE my words, until YOU distorted, twisted and lied about what i did say. your same "methodology" was applied to your "scripture replication" techniques.

am i going to be surprised if you end up in hell given your ease into depravity without conscience.....NO.

i will be SHOCKED if you don't.

in the meantime, i will be happy to demonstrate AGAIN your a lying pervert, and the EXACT reason why for ALL of history the world has labeled you justly

they were YOUR words. NOT mine

read it (again) and not weep "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:50 PM:

" ("JD wrote:
I love the US Constitution as drafted and amended. But I don't hold any illusions about its lasting power to directly shape the evolution of law. The lasting influence of a constitution is in the way it shapes culture--the values it conveys to the people, independently of judicial interpretations. ").

ahhh the age old change the laws to suit the "culture".

wrong JD.

that's the beauty of Gods laws, as they DON'T change (unlike mormon doctrine), which has changed so many times it's dizzying. remember awhile back we had a "chat" about blacks, and how mormon theology taught for 150 years how blacks were "cursed" by God, then "reinstated" (sort of) in mormon theology via OUTSIDE pressure and discrimination laws? remember how you back out of that "discussion" like michael jackson during his pepsi commercial?

my point is, that you AND scout can't pick Gods truth over mans laws to save your life

you said "i love the US constitution", preceded by your NUMEROUS exits from Gods word via mormon theology = JD is in big big trouble, and no "lawyer" can get you out of it "

Bry wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:27 PM:

" Nature itself makes it quite clear how the man and woman's bodies compliment one another and that is defined by the beauty of birth. Almighty God also made it clear at Sodom and Gommorah what he thinks of homosexual perversion.

Homosexuality is not a race, creed or gender of human being who are entitled to rights. Homosexuality is a perverted behavioral practice or conduct which people choose to indulge in.

Read the book of Romans and it is clear that the conduct & practice of "men of who lie with men" (aka) homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes. God says to love what is good and hate what is bad. That does not mean to hate the people but to hate the conduct. Only God can judge man and he will but it is essential for Christians to judge good from bad and right from wrong to follow God's laws and commands. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:30 PM:

" To silly Billy: I am not religious, nor are most of my acquaintances and friends. My daughter and her husband are atheists. They couldn't hate a fly. You are using a spurious "Gay card" type of argument. I am not personally against homo, bi, tri or quadra sexuals. I don't care if they have affections for gophers, or roosters, as long as they keep to themselves. Am I mean or hateful. I dion't care what they do as long as its legal (all above coital behaviors are possibly legal?). So NO hate here! I just have a personal opinion. No gay marriage. It doesn't require hate, just a preference. Remember that word "preference"? Heterosexuals are also allowed to have a preference. I suppport YES on prop 8....just voting my preference. When I see whiny sissy types, or coulda shoulda woulda talkers, I vote NO. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:06 PM:

" JD, there will always be plenty of home-spun hate taught to children in homes all across America. From what I've read here, Prop 8 is exactly what California Christians need to protect their right to continue the tradition. "

edumacation wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:03 PM:

" To Lodian: 1) The way my daughter was talking, she won't stop at $50,000. Maybe she can start a group "Atheists for Prop 8"?

LOL

2) The topic is prop 8 and gay marriage. Many psychologists might associate paraphilias with this "lifestyle" (I don't know what to name the behavior ---it seems more cultural than biological? some say homosexual, others gay, some say its biological, others a lifestyle or choice. I have no idea. The bestiality / dendrophilia topic has no direct correlation since prop 8 concerns marriage. Marriage is a contract and implies communication and consent. My reference was only - a reference. No other paraphilias were implied. I have no opinion about them other than possible irony or humor with the possible permutations and combinations of dendrophilia I(trees) agalmatophilia (mannequins) ie splinter jokes. I found a few unusual websites devoted to affection for these creatures---and plants. I guess the metaphor of RAINBOW is accurate when considering possibilities of relationships. I am no expert on this matter. I defer to your wisdom about these issues. "

JD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Scout--

Granting for a moment your assumption that most Americans wouldn't shut down the KKK if they had a chance, I can see people making a good argument that by 2058, fundamentalist Christianity will be more harmful to gays than the KKK will be to blacks. For example, you don't hear of many black kids born to a family of Klansmen. But you hear about gay kids being born to Christian families, leading to conflict, psychological disorders, and even occasionally suicide. So, isn't the natural result to either ban the propagation of harmful ideas or else remove the child from the home?

I don't dispute that it would take time for society to come to this. It might not happen at all. But then again, there's no real guarantee that it won't. The closest we could come, I think, is a constitutional amendment that either a) weakens the value of nondiscrimination against gays, or b) strengthens the value of religious freedom. It's unfortunate that Prop 8 took the former form rather than the latter, and I have my own theories as to why this occurred. But that's a different discussion. "

scout wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:22 PM:

" So won't it therefore be extremely difficult for a church to be sued for discrimination if it refuses to perform a same-sex marriage? Won't the Supreme Court have to basically amend the definition of the first amendment (which I do not seeing it ever doing)? It seems to me the commericials running in California stating churches will be sued if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages is an exagerated political fear tactic. Culturally I would argue that most Americans are strongly against the views and beliefs expressed by the KKK and yet I believe most of us would still defend their first amendment rights. "

JD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Scout--

Speaking hypothetically (I am not licensed in California), for someone to prevail in a discrimination suit against the KKK basically all it would take is for the US Supreme Court to change its mind. It could happen all at once in a major case, or it could happen by degrees over several decades.

Suing, say, the Catholic Church would be a little trickier (the Bill of Rights is more explicit as to free exercise of religion than it is as to free association). But it's certainly not impossible. Some of the groundwork for limiting the Free Exercise clause is already there. To the extent that it's lacking--well, the Supreme Court has performed impressive gymnastics in the past to re-define the clear intent of the Constitution (see, e.g., Wickard v. Filburn) and can do it again.

I love the US Constitution as drafted and amended. But I don't hold any illusions about its lasting power to directly shape the evolution of law. The lasting influence of a constitution is in the way it shapes culture--the values it conveys to the people, independently of judicial interpretations. "

scout wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Thanks, JD. So what would it take for the KKK to be sued for discrimination? "

JD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:02 PM:

" Scout, my understanding (and it's been a couple of months since I took my state's bar exam, so I'm a little hazy on the correct terminology here--maybe Aimee will correct me) (and yes, RF, I passed) is that a private group may discriminate provided that the discrimination is based on a core purpose or doctrine of the group.

I'm not particularly worried about the consequences of Prop 8's failure in the short run. The trouble is that the "living constitution" doctrine means that, in the long run, government can do whatever the people are willing to let it do. If our culture changes to the point that non-discrimination dogma is allowed to trump religious freedom (and I believe we're slowly inching towards that state), the First Amendment won't be worth the paper it's printed on by the time legislatures and courts get done with it. In that sense, Proposition 8 (from my point of view) is much more a cultural battle than a legal one. "

JD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:57 PM:

" RF, I was replying to Scout's assertion (Oct 14, 2:36) which was basically that religions would not be forced to do anything vis a vis gay marriage. What I said was,

the US Government's dealings with Mormonism do not exactly support the idea that unpopular religions will never be forced to conform their marital views to prevailing social norms

How you get, from that, that I have "inferred [sic]. . . that mormons aren't going to sit there while the govt calls polygamy illegal" is beyond me. "

scout wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:48 PM:

" JD: this is an actual legal question without any hidden meanings, but how is the KKK protected by freedom of speech and religion? I have not heard of that group being sued for discrimination. Is it because they are a private group? "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Careful calling it a lie, Lord Fruitcake. Disgusting as you may find them now, they're either your own words or scripture.

That's the beauty part.

It's all your own words or scripture.

LOL "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:54 PM:

" ("JD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:46 PM:
With all due respect, RF").

you would have HAD my respect, if you would have stayed around nad handled your business during our last go around.

you didn't.

what you did was your cut and run so that you didn't have to face the music.

the tune by which YOU hummed FIRST "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:51 PM:

" i will be back later to take billy to task for his current "PR" move lie.

in the meantime JD, YOU inferred in your post that mormons aren't going to sit there while the govt calls polygamy illegal.

i said, i agreed with the tenent that GODS laws supercede mans laws, followed by my demonstration of mormonism being a cult "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:47 PM:

" people from ALL walks of life that struggle with sin a HAVE compassion for, INCLUDING homosexuality.

what i DON'T have compassion for IS sin/lying evil that shakes it's fist at God, and seeks to redefine his standards.

"those people" i will defend against with every ounce of strength i have "

JD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:46 PM:

" i AM with you JD about Gods laws being above mans laws.

With all due respect, RF, I did not say this. I might agree with it to an extent, but not insofar that it justifies forcing non-Christians (or liberal Christians) to conform their behavior to standards enunciated by fundamentalist Christians.

If I come down in favor of 8, it will be almost exclusively because of religious liberty concerns. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:46 PM:

" No, Lord Fruitcake.
I said father/daughter sex was biblical - I didn't say DO it. You took the mention of it and RAN with it.

It is you who have been talking of little else since then, daydreaming of it and mentioning it here almost daily. I don't think that's healthy at all.

It was you who, after a conversation about selling your daughter into slavery, said slavery was such a wonderful institution, writing at length several times, about what a pleasure it was.

I thought the idea of slavery and actually selling your daughter was reprensible but you became enthralled by all of it because it's biblical. In fact, you have never, not ever once, said any of the old laws should not be followed to the letter.

Then that whole killing atheists thing and rounding up gays and throwing them into prison... your Christian ideals have always seemed a little too barbaric. "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:42 PM:

" ("Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:04 PM: " So, Lord Fruitcake, we can definitively say it is your wish to have gays rounded up and imprisoned? ").

homosexual sex should be illegal under moral law like it used to be.

if a person is caught doing it, they should receieve whatever the punishment it is that the court has pre-decided in law as per the incident.

pornography used to be illegal, and when caught doing it when it was, people went to jail for it.

homosexual sex is immoral, and it should be against the law, and anyone caught doing it should be arrested.

see billy, i own my statements.

the trouble is, my statements seem a liitle harsh all because homosexuals have "somewhat" succeeded in making immorality a "rights issue".

before, it was "right" to commit acts of immorality.

like i said, sex with children is next "

OhMy wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Billy Rubin: I am just curious, have you ever even considered that Christianity is the truth? Surely you have at least questioned it before. You sound educated, but I hope it isn't arrogance that has ruled out Christianity completely. Have you ever researched it? The history, to determine if it is true or not? I assure you that I am not trying to convert you. (lol)

Again, Billy, I have nothing against you. I know we disagree, and I respect your opinion. I don't want to get into a war of words with you, I want to have a discussion with you. To me, YOU are not your sexuality, YOU are YOU. I have nothing agains homosexuals, I have several friends who are as well as relatives (not to mention my father). I'm just curious. And once again, I swear to you I am not Real Facts. (Unless real facts is a 23 year old female lol) "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:35 PM:

" Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:09 PM: " NO, Lord Fruitcake, you DID NOT refer to "character assassination".

I beseached you to recant such a hateful, murderous statement and you LAUGHED at me and said [again] that YOU OWNED YOUR STATEMENTS. I asked AGAIN that you retract it and you LAUGHED AGAIN.

It was only AFTER one of your little stooges in your fan club said it was too harsh, even for you, that you tired to re-write history.

YOU SAID DAILY ASSASSINATIONS OF ATHEISTS AND GAYS").

i don't back down to anybody. i don't change my opinion because of pressure.

i FULLY explained in these boards what i meant, and i PROVED it by replicating the times i used the word "assasination" even when referring to Christians over character issues.


your spew lying trash, because you can't "get me" from any other angle.

not to worry, YOUR the one that is going to pay for YOUR choices

it's what you do, because your whole life is a lie "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:29 PM:

" Lodian wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:13 PM:
" Billy's accounts are correct. ").

you mean the ones where he told me to go have sex with my daughter, and that "i" favored child molestation?
those accounts?

your just as sick as that guy is with your moronic solidarity of him.

BUT, i called it. even AFTER billy said the most vile of all humanity, i said that there would be those that STILL high fived him.

good. liars breed other liars until the species destroys itself.

lodian is all too willing to flush her complete life down the toilet all in the name of "liberality", and that with her foot mashing the gas peddle.

yeah. life should be "directed" by you two

PUKE "

OhMy wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Lodian: This is an instance where I differ in opinion from Real Facts. No I don't think that gay people should be put in jail, just for being gay. I do have compassion. I try to be like Christ, and I don't think he would want to put gay people in jail. Christ hung out with all of the "misfits", showing them love and compassion and teaching them, and my job is to be Christ-like.

What have I done that hasn't been Christian? ( " OhMy/real facts: You can tell yourself you are a Christian all day long, but it doesn't show. (it never has) ") "

Lodian wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Billy's accounts are correct. "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:09 PM:

" NO, Lord Fruitcake, you DID NOT refer to "character assassination".

I beseached you to recant such a hateful, murderous statement and you LAUGHED at me and said [again] that YOU OWNED YOUR STATEMENTS. I asked AGAIN that you retract it and you LAUGHED AGAIN.

It was only AFTER one of your little stooges in your fan club said it was too harsh, even for you, that you tired to re-write history.

YOU SAID DAILY ASSASSINATIONS OF ATHEISTS AND GAYS.

NOW YOU SAID YOU WANT TO ROUND UP GAYS AND THROW THEM IN PRISON.

Lord Fruitcake, you and all your alter egos are insane. "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:00 PM: It *may* have been unintentional, but it does reveal your subconscious opinion of yourself").

sure billy. we all know YOU are the "go to" guy for all things truthful and insightful.

your just a plain lying perverted moron.

what a great resume you have accrued for yourself. "

Lodian wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:05 PM:

" So, Aimee and OhMY, Do you both also believe that being gay should be illegal and that gay people should be in jail (just like real facts believes)? "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:04 PM:

" So, Lord Fruitcake, we can definitively say it is your wish to have gays rounded up and imprisoned? "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:02 PM:

" Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:45 PM: "Since you called for executions (not just a one-time killing, but "daily assassinations" you called for) of atheists and gays").

your a sick liar.

what i said was about the CHARACTER assasination of gays. liar

i HAVE NEVER said, nor implied, that gays should be murdered you sick vile human being

your a human trash can

i will be back later to flush your toilet some more.

sick pervert "

Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:00 PM:

" It wasn't a misspelling problem.

You didn't say you were "...too god...", you called yourself "God" with a capital "G".

It *may* have been unintentional, but it does reveal your subconscious opinion of yourself.

That's what made it a Fruedian slip and not a "misspelling problem". "

Lodian wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Billy: Geez, he could at least try a little harder when bringing out a new persona to back up his real facts character. Lame! "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:45 PM: In your world, then, Lord Fruitcake, will the gays be tattooed? Stripped of their possessions? Gassed? Shot? Stoned? ").

nope. just put in prison just like what happens to people that break the law. pornography USED to be illegal, and people used to go to jail for illegal CHOICES. same with child molesters.

thanks to our immoral world, you won't go to jail for having homosexual sex. but if you don't repent, your "payment" in the next life far exceeds bars and three meals a day "

Lodian wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:53 PM:

" OhMy/real facts: You can tell yourself you are a Christian all day long, but it doesn't show. (it never has) "

real facts wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:52 PM:

" ("Billy Rubin wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:41 PM: "