+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
I've often talked on this blog about how dangerous atheism is not only to the individual person but also to society as a whole. However, whenever I point this out to an atheist, I hear the same statement set every time:
"What about Sweden? That's an atheist nation and they seem to be doing great."
"Doing great" is a relative term (although we will come back to it) but overall how truthful is this as a whole? Is there a slight chance that atheists missed something important in their conclusion?
It comes as no surprise the answer to these in order is "not very" and "yes, by a wide margin."
Let's break this down to the separate notions atheists use to support their conclusion:
MYTH:"More than half of Swedes are atheist."
THE TRUTH: According to surveys, no more than 23% of Swedes are atheists, and 23% is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. According to a Eurobarometer poll, only 13% are atheists.
I once pointed the 23% out to an atheist who claims to live in Sweden and his answer was (and I am not making this up):
"You must have been looking at a poll done at the start of the 20th century. The atheist rate in Sweden is much higher than that."
I then pointed out to him the figure was from a 2012 survey conducted by his own (supposed) government. What was his answer after that?
"You're a poopy-head."
(Disclaimer: Ok, he didn't phrase it like that but that's what it boiled down to.)
Going back to the Eurobarameter poll for a moment: The 2012 poll said 13% of Swedes are atheist, but atheists shouldn't cheer at that: when the poll was conducted in 2010, 34% of Swedes were atheist, meaning more than half gave up on atheism after just two years.
MYTH: "The Swedish government recognizes mulitiple religious holidays."
THE TRUTH: Sweden's Parlament recognizes eleven federal holidays (not counting Sundays because those are considered "days of rest" for the government), and here they are:
-Christmas
-Epiphany
-Easter
-Ascension Day
-Pentecost
-All Saint's Day
-New Year's Day
-International Worker's Day
-National Day (the American equivalent would be Independence Day)
-Midsummer
-St Lucy's Day
Once you factor in New Years is also a day for the Virgin Mary, and Midsummer is also called St John's Day, that means 9 out of 11 recognized holidays are Christian and Christian only.
"But wait," the atheist I argued with said. "Swedes also celebrate some Viking holidays too and St Lucy's Day isn't on the federal holiday list so that shouldn't count."
Notice the slight of hand here: if the holiday is pagan but not on the list, it should count but if it's Christian, it shouldn't count. That's not being honest in the slightest. Besides, he was wrong anyway: whereas some Swedes might celebrate Norse or Viking holidays, that's peanuts compared to how many Swedes celebrate St Lucy's Day.
When I confronted him with this error, what was his response?
He didn't give one: he was so tired of his ignorance showing, he just gave up...proof positive atheism makes one ignorant of your own nation.
MYTH: "Swedes as a whole don't care about religion."
TRUTH: That would come as a shock from the Swedish government who has made it mandatory for all children in pubic schools to learn about all religions. While only 1 in 10 Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life, around 7 out of 10 children are christened in the Church of Sweden, just over 5 out of 10 weddings take place in church and almost 9 out of 10 Swedes have Christian burials.
Geez, for a group who supposedly doesn't care about religion, their actions tell a different story.
MYTH: "The greater acceptance of atheism in Sweden means a brighter future."
TRUTH: Studies have shown as atheism goes up, birth rates go down, and if the birth rate goes down far enough, a nation will no longer have enough people to support itself.
That's because higher atheism goes hand in hand with making a false idol out of the state, which in turn means growing the state far past its proper role, which often means bloated government programs and handouts.
All these programs mean higher payments and taxes the citizens must pay, but what happens when there are not enough people paying into the system to support the programs? It's basic economics: when you spend more than what you take in, you run in the red. Because the people are so used to things being handed to them, and since the state can't force people to have more children or worse won't give up the insane notion of world overpopulation, then you have a huge gap of elderly people taking out of the system vs a smaller work force being into the system.
This has also taken its toll on Sweden in economic freedom terms. In 2010, the Fraser Institute came out with their Economic Freedom of the World Index; whereas the US tied with Switzerland for 4th place, Sweden sank all the way down to 30th place.
MYTH: "But atheism must be better. Sweden is consistently ranked as one of the happiest nations."
TRUTH" The notion of Sweden being a happy nation comes from studies which base happiness on how many handouts people are given, not on any psychological basis for happiness. Those come from things like being married (single people are not as happy as married people), going to church/finding religion, and giving of yourself. While I won't bash any money giving to worthy causes, it's impossible to ignore other nations just give away more than Sweden does.
So there you have it: there is no way Sweden can be used as an example of how atheism can work. All it does is show atheists don't know what they're talking about because atheists are idiots.
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Idiotic Atheist Monument
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
As an American, I believe in everyone's 1st amendment right to free speech (which makes sense or else this blog wouldn't exist). However, as a believer of free speech, I disavow all forms of false and/or misleading speech. This is the reason why I bring up this atheist monument and why this is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen atheists come up with so far this decade. (Since the decade is still young, I foresee far more atheist stupidity on the way).
It took me some time to find out what all the quotes are on the monument, but I have found them so let's take a look at the ones chosen and see why none of them make a valid case for atheism with an explanation in red italics:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" – 1796 Treaty of Tripoli
[I have to laugh at this one right out of the gate because it's so typical of how atheists love to lie right to people's faces. First off, it's neither quoted right or presented in its entirety; this is the complete quote:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Second, according to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
Third, every atheist who brings this up ALWAYS---without exception--ignores the fact there are two Treaties of Tripoli. The most famous one, that of 1797, was broken in 1801. There was a revised treaty written in 1805 and it doesn't say anything about Christianity one way or the other.]
"When religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin
[There is no proof Franklin ever said this. I tried finding it, and all I got were sites talking about the atheist monument. Let's assume for argument's sake it is a real quote. What is the quote trying to get at: it's okay for atheists to sue for their rights but not okay for Christians to sue for theirs? And how is asking for the help of civil authority a sign of a bad faith? Seems pretty obvious when a government excludes religion, that's a sign of a bad government, not the other way around.]
"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [writing the Constitution] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven." – John Adams
[That would come as a shock, if it were a true quote, but once again it isn't. In fact, it wouldn't make sense in light of the fact Adams once compared the right to private property as a law from God. I would also like to ask why atheists are quoting John Adams in regards to the Constitution; wouldn't quoting James Madison make more sense, since he's---you know---considered the "father of the Constitution? Oh, but they can't have that fact brought to light since Madison once wrote this:
This next one is longer so let's break it down into its parts:
"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
[Don't churches build hospitals, often out of their own pockets? How many hospitals have atheists built? Is this somehow suggesting only atheists or government should build hospitals?]
An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
[And if atheists actually gave anything to charity, that would mean something. Also, since when are prayers and action mutually exclusive?]
An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
[That makes no sense.]
He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
[How are any of these exclusive to atheism? History has shown atheism created eugenics, passed programs that bred poverty and caused far more wars than anything else.]
American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair
[Funny they mention her: O'Hair had a son who she raised as an atheist. The son...would later grow up to become a minister and founder of the Religious Freedom Coalition. To show how loving his mother was, when she learned of her son's conversion, she said this:
"One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times ... he is beyond human forgiveness."
Apparently, lack of forgiveness ran in the group she founded: O'Hair, along with her other son and granddaughter, was killed and mutilated by a disgruntled former American Atheist office manager.]
Not to stop looking foolish, it also quotes Deuto 13:10 and making it look like those who don't follow the commandments should be stoned to death.
Hey, atheists, ever heard of something called context? Clearly you haven't, because had you put it in context, you would have found a key piece:
[6] If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, [7] Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other, [8] Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, [9] But thou shalt presently put him to death. It Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people. [10] With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage:
Notice how verse nine uses the phrase "presently put him to death?" That phrase means an objective authority is to decide whether stoning is a fit punishment; people can't do it willy-nilly, but the atheist fools behind the monument made it look like you can.
So...atheists hate the Ten Commandments so much they didn't care about things like facts or context, or being honest, because why be honest when honesty defeats athesim.
Yet another reason why atheists are idiots.
THE MASKED ANGEL:
As an American, I believe in everyone's 1st amendment right to free speech (which makes sense or else this blog wouldn't exist). However, as a believer of free speech, I disavow all forms of false and/or misleading speech. This is the reason why I bring up this atheist monument and why this is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen atheists come up with so far this decade. (Since the decade is still young, I foresee far more atheist stupidity on the way).
It took me some time to find out what all the quotes are on the monument, but I have found them so let's take a look at the ones chosen and see why none of them make a valid case for atheism with an explanation in red italics:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" – 1796 Treaty of Tripoli
[I have to laugh at this one right out of the gate because it's so typical of how atheists love to lie right to people's faces. First off, it's neither quoted right or presented in its entirety; this is the complete quote:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Second, according to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
Third, every atheist who brings this up ALWAYS---without exception--ignores the fact there are two Treaties of Tripoli. The most famous one, that of 1797, was broken in 1801. There was a revised treaty written in 1805 and it doesn't say anything about Christianity one way or the other.]
"When religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin
[There is no proof Franklin ever said this. I tried finding it, and all I got were sites talking about the atheist monument. Let's assume for argument's sake it is a real quote. What is the quote trying to get at: it's okay for atheists to sue for their rights but not okay for Christians to sue for theirs? And how is asking for the help of civil authority a sign of a bad faith? Seems pretty obvious when a government excludes religion, that's a sign of a bad government, not the other way around.]
"It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [writing the Constitution] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven." – John Adams
[That would come as a shock, if it were a true quote, but once again it isn't. In fact, it wouldn't make sense in light of the fact Adams once compared the right to private property as a law from God. I would also like to ask why atheists are quoting John Adams in regards to the Constitution; wouldn't quoting James Madison make more sense, since he's---you know---considered the "father of the Constitution? Oh, but they can't have that fact brought to light since Madison once wrote this:
The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the
moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments
which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with
too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be
impressed with it.]
This next one is longer so let's break it down into its parts:
"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
[Don't churches build hospitals, often out of their own pockets? How many hospitals have atheists built? Is this somehow suggesting only atheists or government should build hospitals?]
An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
[And if atheists actually gave anything to charity, that would mean something. Also, since when are prayers and action mutually exclusive?]
An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
[That makes no sense.]
He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
[How are any of these exclusive to atheism? History has shown atheism created eugenics, passed programs that bred poverty and caused far more wars than anything else.]
American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair
[Funny they mention her: O'Hair had a son who she raised as an atheist. The son...would later grow up to become a minister and founder of the Religious Freedom Coalition. To show how loving his mother was, when she learned of her son's conversion, she said this:
"One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times ... he is beyond human forgiveness."
Apparently, lack of forgiveness ran in the group she founded: O'Hair, along with her other son and granddaughter, was killed and mutilated by a disgruntled former American Atheist office manager.]
Not to stop looking foolish, it also quotes Deuto 13:10 and making it look like those who don't follow the commandments should be stoned to death.
Hey, atheists, ever heard of something called context? Clearly you haven't, because had you put it in context, you would have found a key piece:
[6] If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, [7] Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other, [8] Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, [9] But thou shalt presently put him to death. It Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people. [10] With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage:
Notice how verse nine uses the phrase "presently put him to death?" That phrase means an objective authority is to decide whether stoning is a fit punishment; people can't do it willy-nilly, but the atheist fools behind the monument made it look like you can.
So...atheists hate the Ten Commandments so much they didn't care about things like facts or context, or being honest, because why be honest when honesty defeats athesim.
Yet another reason why atheists are idiots.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Debunking Popular Notions about Homosexuality (PART 3)
+AMDG+
Myth #14: There are no differences between gay marriage and straight
marriage.
Reality: Studies show two key
elements missing in same-sex marriage.
Those two elements appear to be
fidelity and oneness. Let's start with oneness first.
We've all heard the theology of Adam
and Eve, ie how each was made to complement the other so I won't go into more
detail on that. However, I will point out this oneness the Bible speaks of is
much more than a lovely idea or just a mere theological concept but rather a
provable scientific fact.
According to Dr. Youmasu J.
Siewe, director of the Center for Rural Health Practice at the University of
Pittsburgh at Bradford, married individuals have lower rates of depression and
schizophrenia compared to unmarried individuals. They also handle stress better
and are unlikely to feel lonely. Married individuals, according to Siewe, feel
more hopeful and better about themselves than unmarried individuals.
This has not been proven to be the
case in gay marriage.
As I stated in Part 2, if the gay relationship did have benefits, then one of the most obvious benefits would be increased life span, but gays in a "committed relationship" (more on this in a bit) have SHORTER lifespans, not longer. In fact, the numbers show what the Catholic Church has said all along: people with homosexual tendencies are better off if they live alone than with someone who enables their sin.
Notice how I put "committed relationship" the way I did? Because that is mocking a little known fact about gay relationships:
Unlike heterosexual relationships where faithfulness to your partner is not only a given but is also an unspoken expectation, in gay relationships it is expected that each partner will cheat on the other.
This was first proven in a 1984 study. This study follows the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, reported in The Male Couple (1984), which found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years. Studies done since 1984 have shown nothing has changed in the gay community in almost three decades. In one recent study
of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some
conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no
restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants
(21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months,
and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in
the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or
discordant HIV-status.
Even Alfred Kinsey, of the debunked "10% of all people are gay" notion, admitted in his findings that long term homosexual relationships were few and far between.
The desire for sexual fidelity in relationships and the benefits of such
a commitment are universal. In the long history of man, infidelity has
never been associated with maturity. Even in cultures where it is
relatively common, it is no more than discreetly tolerated.
Myth #15: If one is for liberty, one
must be for gay marriage.
Reality: Liberty is not possible
with the acceptance of gay marriage.
Liberty is defined as the value of individuals to have control over their own actions, but in the classical definition, liberty meant the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion. One could also extend this to mean a belief that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.
When someone accuses a group of taking away their liberty when that group as a whole don't believe in liberty themselves, then we have the mess we're in now. Already, we have lawsuits against business over this. Consider these examples:
-A Seattle florist is being sued by a lesbian couple because she refused to sell them flowers for their wedding. Even though she stated it conflicted with her religious beliefs, that wasn't good enough to prevent the lawsuit. (Story can be found here.)
-A cake decorator in Colorado had a motion filed against him by the state attorney general after he refused an order for a gay wedding ceremony. (Story can be found here.)
-The Knights of Columbus (which I am a proud member of) was fined $2,000 by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after they learned a contract they approved was going towards using one of their facilities for a gay wedding. (here).
My point is when someone is not allowed to voice their opposition to what they believe is wrong, and when feelings are allowed to trump the truth---no matter what it may be--, then their liberty is infringed and the whole concept of liberty loses all meaning.
Even voters in California now know how little their liberty means: despite the fact the majority of voters said yes to only heterosexual marriage, and despite the fact no evidence of voter fraud could be found, that didn't matter to the courts, who said the voters do not have a legal interest in whether the amendment they voted on is allowed to be part of their constitution.
Myth #16: It was a great victory to
strike down the Defense of Marriage Act
Reality: Even the Supreme Court
admitted states can decide for themselves.
Don't let all the celebrations over
the Supreme Court ruling fool you: the Supreme Court did not---I REPEAT, DID
NOT---say gay marriage is legal, nor did they make any rulings concerning the
full faith and credit over state lines or any ruling concerning states with
constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. As far as the court is
concerned, those bans are still in effect. In the opinion of this blogger, that
will be the next legal battle concerning this issue, which will in reality be a
fight between activist judges vs the vote of the people.
Myth #17: People should be allowed
to marry whoever they want.
Reality: It is not up to individual
people to define what a marriage is.
In the Catholic Church, there exists
a notion called subsidiarity. In a nutshell, it means that matters ought to be
handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized (or most localized)
competent authority. So to break it down: the proper authority to decide
matters needs to be:
-the most local, as in closest to
you
-proven competence in the area in
question.
Now, let's look at the more
complicated issue of marriage. Who gets to decide what counts as a marriage?
Our options are individual people, church or state. Sure, each person could decide
for themselves, but consider what that often entailed. Men often left their wives
when the wife was too old to have more children; an individual person came up
with the idea of no-fault divorce laws. Now we have people wanting polygamy and
poly-amorous relationships. If people decided it, what's to stop them from
wanting to marry their pets? So people don't have that authority.
What about the state? The state can
never have the right to define marriage because of a conflict of interest, i.e.
it would conflict with their need to have more citizens for the future and
their need to want to protect everyone's rights. The best it can do is
acknowledge the marriages done by the only proper authority:
The Church.
"But wait," some may ask.
"If churches are the only ones with the authority, then if a church
officiates it, then you must accept it."
Again, that might make
sense...except the churches that do allow this are losing members because of
this very subject. Giving only churches the authority doesn't change the fact
it's still up to the parishioners whether they want to stay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there you have it: every last myth about homosexuality debunked and the truth brought to the light of day.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Debunking Popular Notions about Homosexuality (PART 2)
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Continuing on with myths concerning homosexuality:
Myth #9: The march for gay rights is no different than the black civil rights movement or the women's suffrage movement.
Continuing on with myths concerning homosexuality:
Myth #9: The march for gay rights is no different than the black civil rights movement or the women's suffrage movement.
Reality: That logic is dishonest at
worst and sketchy at best.
In his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama compared Stonewall to Selma and Seneca Falls (a town in New York state considered the starting point for the 20's women's movement) as examples of our striving for all to be equal before the law.
There are several things wrong with that comparison.
First off, unlike being gay, you can't help it if you were born black or born a woman (Michael Jackson and transsexuals notwithstanding). Second, although the majority of blacks voted for Obama, the vast majority are against gay marriage and don't buy the "equality with civil rights" argument. Third, there was a whole legal code that prevented blacks from having full rights (better known as Jim Crow); there is no such thing concerning homosexuals. Fourth, those other two didn't demonize their opposition; the gay movement is NOTORIOUS for demonizing their opposition.
Even the Civil Rights Act doesn't agree with this notion. In order to be a protected class under the law, the group must meet these three criteria:
(1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics. It further states that any business that engages in interstate commerce cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin. Sexual orientation does not meet any of these requirements.
(1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics. It further states that any business that engages in interstate commerce cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin. Sexual orientation does not meet any of these requirements.
Myth #10: Legalizing gay marriage
will settle the issue once and for all.
Reality: Even the most optimistic
estimates predict several future legal headaches.
With DOMA in essence struck down, we now have opened Pandora's Box when it comes to legal issues concerning this. Sure, gay marriage is legal on the federal level, but the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits that could make their way back to the Supreme Court. The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them.
The problem lies in a constitutional notion called full faith and credit, meaning in some instances states must recognize the laws of other states. The problem concerning this is some states legalized gay marriage but most have not. Are we supposed to believe the gay couple would stay in the state where it is legal? What's to stop them from filing lawsuits against these bans?
Now, let's forget about the legal consequences for a moment; what about employment?
Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide. She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.
Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of work is, so there's no simple answer. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gay-couples-employers-could-face-legal-maze-supreme-094406233--politics.html
With DOMA in essence struck down, we now have opened Pandora's Box when it comes to legal issues concerning this. Sure, gay marriage is legal on the federal level, but the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits that could make their way back to the Supreme Court. The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them.
The problem lies in a constitutional notion called full faith and credit, meaning in some instances states must recognize the laws of other states. The problem concerning this is some states legalized gay marriage but most have not. Are we supposed to believe the gay couple would stay in the state where it is legal? What's to stop them from filing lawsuits against these bans?
Now, let's forget about the legal consequences for a moment; what about employment?
Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide. She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.
Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of work is, so there's no simple answer. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gay-couples-employers-could-face-legal-maze-supreme-094406233--politics.html
Myth #11: Gay marriage won't destroy
heterosexual marriage.
Reality: Several gay figureheads now
admit destroying straight marriage is the main point.
In a speech given to the Sydney Writer’s Festival, gay activist Masha Gessen voiced her support for gay marriage but also included the following remark:
"I also think equally it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist...Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there."
The most disturbing part? These remarks were greeted with thunderous applause from the people there.
Doug Mainwaring, another activist, spoke in front of the National Mall, and said this:
“Same sex marriage will not redefine marriage — it will un-define it, and unravel it, and in so doing will un-define children.”
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/29/lesbian-activist-says-gay-marriage-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage-65379?utm_source=feedburner
Still don't believe me? The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.”
Myth #12: Even if the gay couples later divorce, the divorce rate is no different than straight couples.
Reality: Notice the slight of hand in the statement.
They first claim the supposedly high divorce rate in straight couples means we should allow gays to marry then they say the gay marriage divorce rate is no different than the straight rate.
If it isn't any different, why make a bad situation worse? Besides, if they say that about the gay divorce rate with a straight face, they're wrong. According to a joint study by Norway and Denmark, divorce rates were between 50-167% higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more subject to serious change, than unions of gay men.
Myth #13: There is no proven evidence for the effect of homosexuality on a person.
Reality: There exists death records and studies that tell a different story.
Dr Paul Cameron, the first doctor to document the dangers of second-hand smoke, cited a study published in Oxford's International Journal of Epidemiology that found a gay man or woman married in the legal sense to their partner died at about age 60; for straight people married to their partner, they lived to about age 80.
In his own study of 2,428 obituaries from The San Francisco Chronicle and The Boston Globe, Cameron said the median age of death for conventionally married men was 82, women 85, similar to Denmark. Of 1,400 obituaries in San Francisco’s gay press, the median age of death was 54 for gays who died without a listed partner, 51 with. For lesbians, the median age of death was 56 for those without a listed partner, but 54 with. For transsexuals, the corresponding figures were 46 and 42.5. “Whether informal, as in San Francisco, or formal, as in Denmark, homosexual partnerships were associated with lessened lifespan,” said Cameron, “just the opposite of man-woman marriage.”
(CONTINUED IN PART 3)
In a speech given to the Sydney Writer’s Festival, gay activist Masha Gessen voiced her support for gay marriage but also included the following remark:
"I also think equally it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist...Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there."
The most disturbing part? These remarks were greeted with thunderous applause from the people there.
Doug Mainwaring, another activist, spoke in front of the National Mall, and said this:
“Same sex marriage will not redefine marriage — it will un-define it, and unravel it, and in so doing will un-define children.”
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/29/lesbian-activist-says-gay-marriage-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage-65379?utm_source=feedburner
Still don't believe me? The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.”
Myth #12: Even if the gay couples later divorce, the divorce rate is no different than straight couples.
Reality: Notice the slight of hand in the statement.
They first claim the supposedly high divorce rate in straight couples means we should allow gays to marry then they say the gay marriage divorce rate is no different than the straight rate.
If it isn't any different, why make a bad situation worse? Besides, if they say that about the gay divorce rate with a straight face, they're wrong. According to a joint study by Norway and Denmark, divorce rates were between 50-167% higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more subject to serious change, than unions of gay men.
Myth #13: There is no proven evidence for the effect of homosexuality on a person.
Reality: There exists death records and studies that tell a different story.
Dr Paul Cameron, the first doctor to document the dangers of second-hand smoke, cited a study published in Oxford's International Journal of Epidemiology that found a gay man or woman married in the legal sense to their partner died at about age 60; for straight people married to their partner, they lived to about age 80.
In his own study of 2,428 obituaries from The San Francisco Chronicle and The Boston Globe, Cameron said the median age of death for conventionally married men was 82, women 85, similar to Denmark. Of 1,400 obituaries in San Francisco’s gay press, the median age of death was 54 for gays who died without a listed partner, 51 with. For lesbians, the median age of death was 56 for those without a listed partner, but 54 with. For transsexuals, the corresponding figures were 46 and 42.5. “Whether informal, as in San Francisco, or formal, as in Denmark, homosexual partnerships were associated with lessened lifespan,” said Cameron, “just the opposite of man-woman marriage.”
(CONTINUED IN PART 3)
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Debunking Popular Notions about Homosexuality (PART 1)
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Quick disclosure: I was about to name this post "Debunking Myths about Homosexuality" but then it dawned on me that if I went with that name, then people would get the idea that I was going along with the direction of society (the zeitgeist, one might say) that stated there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. I not only do not agree with that notion but given what I have found about homosexuality, I will most likely never agree with that notion; once one reads the truths presented here about it, I don't think any rational human being can ever say homosexuality could ever be okay.
So here we go: popular notions about homosexuality and why none of them make sense.
Myth #1: People are born gay.
Reality: Science has found no proof of this.
In order for the "born gay" or "born that way" to work, there would have to be either a gene or something unique brain structure wise for that stand to hold up.
Recently, we have a perfect, living, breathing example of the gay gene theory not being true: Jason Collins. I'm not sure if many people caught this but while he was being interviewed, it was revealed he has an identical twin brother---who is in fact not gay himself. That right there should have been enough to bust the myth of there being a gay gene, but since that isn't politically-correct, the media quickly glossed over it.
Research has found some brain structure differences in gay people ( proportioned right hemispheres, INAH3, startle response, a different response to fluoxetin) but so far, these have all been mere coincidence and nothing conclusive can be drawn.
Myth #2: God made people gay.
Reality: We have our own crosses to bear.
Some people are born with a disposition to anger, or to alcoholism, or to drug use or to blood disorders. That doesn't change the fact we still have the power of choice nor does it change the fact there are such things as appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. In the case of biological disorders, we have the choice to treat it or not to treat it. In the case of temptations, we can choose to act on them or not to act on them. The point of these examples is to show we don't just make things moral or legal just because we want them to be. There is such a thing as absolute truth and the notion of God making people gay tends to ignore that.
Myth #3: There is no difference between the gay lifestyle and the straight lifestyle.
Reality: On average, practicing homosexuals die 10 to 20 years sooner than heterosexuals.
Now, before people write to me about this, the fact that some people have been killed for being gay won't be denied here. Such an event is tragic and has no place in a civilized society.
Having said that though, that doesn't change the fact even the CDC now admits practicing gays can at best expect a lifespan 10 to 20 years shorter than their heterosexual counterparts. And it's not because of one main reason either.
According to a 2010 CDC press release, out of all new HIV cases found in American men, 72% were spread through homosexual activity. According to Americans for Truth, gays are 44 times more likely than straight men to contract HIV and 40 times more likely than straight women to get HIV. I'm not saying straight people can't get HIV; I am saying though we need to be honest about the consequences of homosexual actions.
(Side note: I am not alone in thinking that. That same CDC press release said the following: "Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority."
Show of hands: how many ads have you seen directed to gays encouraging them to practice safe sex? Anyone?)
The CDC has also determined gays are more likely to come down with not just HIV but all known STDs, including syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, not to mention more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer, depression, substance abuse , and commit suicide. And before anyone writes to me and says "gays suffer depression and abuse drugs because of the societal hatred of gays", keep in mind both of those are complicated mental issues that have no one cause so it is at best illogical and at worst insulting to the person suffering those disorders for someone to pass off their own assumptions as a diagnoses. I would also refer you to what I said in Myth 3 concerning power of choice.
So why are the rates so high? Mostly because gays act like teenagers, in the sense that they think they can do whatever they want and not suffer the consequences. I won't get into much more detail because the explanation is X-rated, so instead, I'll refer you to this article: http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html
Myth #4: 10% of America is gay.
Reality: Figures vary but none come close to the 10% estimate.
The Human Rights Campaign, the forefront of the gay rights movement, has gone on record admitting at best 2.9% of Americans are gay. According to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute at the
UCLA School of Law, the gay population is 3.8% or 3.5%. Out of all major cities in America, only six report
a gay population over 10%, no state has a population over 6% and only 3.4% of voters in Election 2012
were gay. By all measurements, the 10% figure is a myth.
So why do people still tout it?
The figure comes from a now debunked study from Dr. Alfred Kinsey called The Kinsey Reports. Among the most shocking errors was the American Statistical Association condemning the sampling procedure. Famous psychologist Abraham Maslow (of the famous Maslow's hierarchy of needs) also condemned the study, proving Kinsey didn't accurately represent the general population. (See the Voris video on homosexuality for more problems with the report).
Myth #5: If the people are okay with gay marriage, then it should be legal.
Reality: Then why are gay rights people suing in court when the vote doesn't go their way?
I'm not going to put much into this because this is preposterous on the surface alone. You can't say in one breath "let the people decide" and then say "the people voted to take my civil rights away." In addition, you can't say "let the people decide" and be okay with judges making the decision for the people. That's
tyranny.
Myth #6: Half of straight marriages end in divorce so straights shouldn't be talking about the "sanctity of marriage."
Reality: Even if the half figure was true (which it isn't), people still have more faith in straight marriage than gay.
First off, the amount of failing marriages is NOT 50%. That figure comes from dubious math that divides the number of divorces by the number of marriages that happen in a year....in other words, it assumes the people marrying are the same people divorcing. What it should be based on is the number of divorces per 1000 married couples; that gives us a divorce rate of about 20%.
Let's assume for a moment the 50% figure is right. So what? Logically, how does that translate to needing to redefine what makes a marriage. I have yet to come across anybody who can explain this.
Myth #7: Marriage hasn't stayed the same through history and gay marriage is just another type.
Reality: Not all takes on changing marriage have proven successful.
For example, in some cultures, it was okay to marry a 9 year old girl to a grown man, despite the fact that practice wasn't always in the culture. Up until a few decades ago, there was no such thing as no-fault divorce laws in America. Up until four decades ago, divorce was frowned upon; now we hardly bat an eye at it. Up until five decades ago, it was considered immoral to have a child out of wed lock; now it's almost expected.
Even practices within marriage haven't all been for the better. A good number of engaged couples live together before marriage, even though studies show that's a sure sign of divorce later. Some couples don't even bother with marriage or getting engaged and go right to the living together. Even the number of children being born has dropped quite a bit since the 60's.
So just because change comes concerning marriage does not by itself mean it's for the better.
Myth #8: 14 states already legalized gay marriage.
Reality: Only 2 out of those 14 were voted on by the people.
The other 12 made it legal from either elected officials or by judicial fiat. It doesn't matter which of those two were chosen, the fact of the matter remains the people in those states had to "get used to it" by force. Is that an American action to take? I don't think so.
But honestly, can you blame gay marriage advocates for not wanting people to vote on it? In 35 states, the people were given the choice to vote and only 2 out of those 35 were successful. So if you hated the vote of the people that much, wouldn't you find some sneaky way to get around it?
(CONTINUED IN PART 2)
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Quick disclosure: I was about to name this post "Debunking Myths about Homosexuality" but then it dawned on me that if I went with that name, then people would get the idea that I was going along with the direction of society (the zeitgeist, one might say) that stated there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. I not only do not agree with that notion but given what I have found about homosexuality, I will most likely never agree with that notion; once one reads the truths presented here about it, I don't think any rational human being can ever say homosexuality could ever be okay.
So here we go: popular notions about homosexuality and why none of them make sense.
Myth #1: People are born gay.
Reality: Science has found no proof of this.
In order for the "born gay" or "born that way" to work, there would have to be either a gene or something unique brain structure wise for that stand to hold up.
Recently, we have a perfect, living, breathing example of the gay gene theory not being true: Jason Collins. I'm not sure if many people caught this but while he was being interviewed, it was revealed he has an identical twin brother---who is in fact not gay himself. That right there should have been enough to bust the myth of there being a gay gene, but since that isn't politically-correct, the media quickly glossed over it.
Research has found some brain structure differences in gay people ( proportioned right hemispheres, INAH3, startle response, a different response to fluoxetin) but so far, these have all been mere coincidence and nothing conclusive can be drawn.
Myth #2: God made people gay.
Reality: We have our own crosses to bear.
Some people are born with a disposition to anger, or to alcoholism, or to drug use or to blood disorders. That doesn't change the fact we still have the power of choice nor does it change the fact there are such things as appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. In the case of biological disorders, we have the choice to treat it or not to treat it. In the case of temptations, we can choose to act on them or not to act on them. The point of these examples is to show we don't just make things moral or legal just because we want them to be. There is such a thing as absolute truth and the notion of God making people gay tends to ignore that.
Myth #3: There is no difference between the gay lifestyle and the straight lifestyle.
Reality: On average, practicing homosexuals die 10 to 20 years sooner than heterosexuals.
Now, before people write to me about this, the fact that some people have been killed for being gay won't be denied here. Such an event is tragic and has no place in a civilized society.
Having said that though, that doesn't change the fact even the CDC now admits practicing gays can at best expect a lifespan 10 to 20 years shorter than their heterosexual counterparts. And it's not because of one main reason either.
According to a 2010 CDC press release, out of all new HIV cases found in American men, 72% were spread through homosexual activity. According to Americans for Truth, gays are 44 times more likely than straight men to contract HIV and 40 times more likely than straight women to get HIV. I'm not saying straight people can't get HIV; I am saying though we need to be honest about the consequences of homosexual actions.
(Side note: I am not alone in thinking that. That same CDC press release said the following: "Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority."
Show of hands: how many ads have you seen directed to gays encouraging them to practice safe sex? Anyone?)
The CDC has also determined gays are more likely to come down with not just HIV but all known STDs, including syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, not to mention more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer, depression,
So why are the rates so high? Mostly because gays act like teenagers, in the sense that they think they can do whatever they want and not suffer the consequences. I won't get into much more detail because the explanation is X-rated, so instead, I'll refer you to this article: http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html
Myth #4: 10% of America is gay.
Reality: Figures vary but none come close to the 10% estimate.
The Human Rights Campaign, the forefront of the gay rights movement, has gone on record admitting at best 2.9% of Americans are gay. According to a 2011 study by the Williams Institute at the
Myth #5: If the people are okay with gay marriage, then it should be legal.
Reality: Then why are gay rights people suing in court when the vote doesn't go their way?
I'm not going to put much into this because this is preposterous on the surface alone. You can't say in one breath "let the people decide" and then say "the people voted to take my civil rights away." In addition, you can't say "let the people decide" and be okay with judges making the decision for the people. That's
tyranny.
Myth #6: Half of straight marriages end in divorce so straights shouldn't be talking about the "sanctity of marriage."
Reality: Even if the half figure was true (which it isn't), people still have more faith in straight marriage than gay.
First off, the amount of failing marriages is NOT 50%. That figure comes from dubious math that divides the number of divorces by the number of marriages that happen in a year....in other words, it assumes the people marrying are the same people divorcing. What it should be based on is the number of divorces per 1000 married couples; that gives us a divorce rate of about 20%.
Let's assume for a moment the 50% figure is right. So what? Logically, how does that translate to needing to redefine what makes a marriage. I have yet to come across anybody who can explain this.
Myth #7: Marriage hasn't stayed the same through history and gay marriage is just another type.
Reality: Not all takes on changing marriage have proven successful.
For example, in some cultures, it was okay to marry a 9 year old girl to a grown man, despite the fact that practice wasn't always in the culture. Up until a few decades ago, there was no such thing as no-fault divorce laws in America. Up until four decades ago, divorce was frowned upon; now we hardly bat an eye at it. Up until five decades ago, it was considered immoral to have a child out of wed lock; now it's almost expected.
Even practices within marriage haven't all been for the better. A good number of engaged couples live together before marriage, even though studies show that's a sure sign of divorce later. Some couples don't even bother with marriage or getting engaged and go right to the living together. Even the number of children being born has dropped quite a bit since the 60's.
So just because change comes concerning marriage does not by itself mean it's for the better.
Myth #8: 14 states already legalized gay marriage.
Reality: Only 2 out of those 14 were voted on by the people.
The other 12 made it legal from either elected officials or by judicial fiat. It doesn't matter which of those two were chosen, the fact of the matter remains the people in those states had to "get used to it" by force. Is that an American action to take? I don't think so.
But honestly, can you blame gay marriage advocates for not wanting people to vote on it? In 35 states, the people were given the choice to vote and only 2 out of those 35 were successful. So if you hated the vote of the people that much, wouldn't you find some sneaky way to get around it?
(CONTINUED IN PART 2)
Saturday, June 22, 2013
The Truth about the Stonewall Riots
+AMDG+
I've often wondered why out of all the months out of the year, June is the one chosen for so-called gay "pride" month. After doing some research, I found out the reason is because June is the month that an event called the Stonewall Riots happened.
What are the Stonewall Riots?
The Stonewall Riots refer to a series of violent protests against an event that happened at the The Stonewall Inn located in Greewich Village in New York City. Before more details can be given about it, there are several things to keep in mind concerning the event:
1. It took place in the 1960's, a time of upheval and protests against the "establishment".
2. The riots themselves are considered the cataylist for the modern so-called "gay rights" movement.
3. The Stonewall Inn itself at the time was owned by the Mafia.
4. The Inn often catered to people considered to be on the fringe of society, so it was not unusual before the raid for people like drag queens to go to the Inn.
5. Police raids on gay bars in the 1960's did happen quite often, but for some reason, something went wrong on this raid, which we'll get to shortly.
6. The Inn itself was an anomaly even if one factors out their clientele: the bar area did not have an official liquor license but the owners arranged for people to buy drinks anyway. Like many other areas controlled by the Mafia, the owners were often tipped off when a raid was about to happen and the time for the raid was per-arranged so the bar wouldn't lose that much business.
Now, keep all of this in mind while you read the story.
The raid that sparked the riots happened on June 29, 1969. Members of the NYPD were called to the scene at 1:20 am. Standard procedure was to line up the patrons, check their identification, and have female police officers take customers dressed as women to the bathroom to verify their sex, upon which any men dressed as women would be arrested. Those dressed as women that night refused to go with the officers. Men in line began to refuse to produce their identification. As if the refusal by the patrons wasn't bad enough, the patrol car used to hall the liquor (which by the way, the Inn couldn't serve anyway since they didn't have a license) wouldn't get there for another fifteen minutes. Those who were cleared by the cops were allowed to leave but instead of going back home (or the nearby park, as a good number of youth who frequented the bar were homeless) started forming a crowd outside. The cops on the scene called in for another wagon but it was delayed because of a communication error.
It was around this time the growing crowd starting believing any and all rumors that anyone started. One person claimed the police raided the place because the Mob didn't pay them off so the crowd started throwing coins at the officers. Another person said people inside the bar were being beaten by police, even though a follow-up investigation found no evidence of police brutality. Yet another rumor spread that the Inn was targeted because the patrons were gay, even though that was not the reason why police were called in the first place.
But when people who have lost their minds long ago gather in a big group and believe whatever they're told as long as it suits their viewpoint, they turn violent and that is exactly what happened over the next few days. While the weather did slow some altercations, overall the street Stonewall faced was flooded with people and people living in the Village, whether gay or not, cheered the violence and in some cases participated in it.
The next year marked the first gay "pride" parade in remembrance of the event and national attention to the groups Daughters of Bilitis, Mattachine Society, and the Gay Activists Alliance; one of these thought it was a good idea to form libraries with lesbian porn, one was founded by a man who would later create NAMBLA and the other got the idea to interrupt press conferences for no reason.
And there you have it: the truth behind the gay "pride" parades. Notice I keep putting "pride" in quotation marks? That's because gays have nothing to have pride in. Would you be proud if you learned your movement was created on false pretenses and marked by blind violence?
I've often wondered why out of all the months out of the year, June is the one chosen for so-called gay "pride" month. After doing some research, I found out the reason is because June is the month that an event called the Stonewall Riots happened.
What are the Stonewall Riots?
The Stonewall Riots refer to a series of violent protests against an event that happened at the The Stonewall Inn located in Greewich Village in New York City. Before more details can be given about it, there are several things to keep in mind concerning the event:
1. It took place in the 1960's, a time of upheval and protests against the "establishment".
2. The riots themselves are considered the cataylist for the modern so-called "gay rights" movement.
3. The Stonewall Inn itself at the time was owned by the Mafia.
4. The Inn often catered to people considered to be on the fringe of society, so it was not unusual before the raid for people like drag queens to go to the Inn.
5. Police raids on gay bars in the 1960's did happen quite often, but for some reason, something went wrong on this raid, which we'll get to shortly.
6. The Inn itself was an anomaly even if one factors out their clientele: the bar area did not have an official liquor license but the owners arranged for people to buy drinks anyway. Like many other areas controlled by the Mafia, the owners were often tipped off when a raid was about to happen and the time for the raid was per-arranged so the bar wouldn't lose that much business.
Now, keep all of this in mind while you read the story.
The raid that sparked the riots happened on June 29, 1969. Members of the NYPD were called to the scene at 1:20 am. Standard procedure was to line up the patrons, check their identification, and have female police officers take customers dressed as women to the bathroom to verify their sex, upon which any men dressed as women would be arrested. Those dressed as women that night refused to go with the officers. Men in line began to refuse to produce their identification. As if the refusal by the patrons wasn't bad enough, the patrol car used to hall the liquor (which by the way, the Inn couldn't serve anyway since they didn't have a license) wouldn't get there for another fifteen minutes. Those who were cleared by the cops were allowed to leave but instead of going back home (or the nearby park, as a good number of youth who frequented the bar were homeless) started forming a crowd outside. The cops on the scene called in for another wagon but it was delayed because of a communication error.
It was around this time the growing crowd starting believing any and all rumors that anyone started. One person claimed the police raided the place because the Mob didn't pay them off so the crowd started throwing coins at the officers. Another person said people inside the bar were being beaten by police, even though a follow-up investigation found no evidence of police brutality. Yet another rumor spread that the Inn was targeted because the patrons were gay, even though that was not the reason why police were called in the first place.
But when people who have lost their minds long ago gather in a big group and believe whatever they're told as long as it suits their viewpoint, they turn violent and that is exactly what happened over the next few days. While the weather did slow some altercations, overall the street Stonewall faced was flooded with people and people living in the Village, whether gay or not, cheered the violence and in some cases participated in it.
The next year marked the first gay "pride" parade in remembrance of the event and national attention to the groups Daughters of Bilitis, Mattachine Society, and the Gay Activists Alliance; one of these thought it was a good idea to form libraries with lesbian porn, one was founded by a man who would later create NAMBLA and the other got the idea to interrupt press conferences for no reason.
And there you have it: the truth behind the gay "pride" parades. Notice I keep putting "pride" in quotation marks? That's because gays have nothing to have pride in. Would you be proud if you learned your movement was created on false pretenses and marked by blind violence?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
For the Fortnight for Freedom
+AMDG+
On June 21, 2013, the USCCB has called on all faithful Catholics to celebrate the Fortnight For Freedom.
For those new to this, the Fortnight for Freedom is a two-week period of prayer and action, to address many current challenges to religious liberty, including the August 1, 2013
deadline for religious organizations to comply with the HHS mandate,
Supreme Court rulings that could attempt to redefine marriage in June, and religious
liberty concerns in areas such as immigration and humanitarian services.
In celebration of it, I present here a copy of a prayer for government penned by the great American
Archbishop John Carroll. Feel free to spread this around to everyone.
On June 21, 2013, the USCCB has called on all faithful Catholics to celebrate the Fortnight For Freedom.
For those new to this, the Fortnight for Freedom is a two-week period of
In celebration of it, I present here a copy of a prayer for government penned by the great American
Archbishop John Carroll. Feel free to spread this around to everyone.
Prayer for Government
We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.
We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope N., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, N., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.
We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.
We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state, for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.
We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.
Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)