Oh Yeah, Homosexuals Are So Oppressed.

[Snow]

Of course, I quote Christians, you quote Deists!

George Washington was a Christian, not a Deist.

Said John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court, about Washington, "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he [Washington] was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."

Said the Reverend J.T. Kirkland after Washington's death in 1799, "The virtues of our departed friend were crowned by piety. He is known to have been habitually devout. To Christian institutions he gave the countenance of this example; and no one could express, more fully, his sense of the Providence of God, and the dependence of man."

George Washington was born February 22, 1732, into a Christian family...raised in the Anglican church, Washington remained a member throughout his life. He had a deep appreciation for all religions that produced good character, but he expressed a special appreciation for all Christian denominations.

That President George Washinton was a devout believer in Jesus Christ and had accepted Him as His Lord and Savior is easily demonstrated by a reading of his personal prayer book (written in his own handwriting) which was discovered in 1891 among a collection of his papers. It consists of twenty-four pages of his morning and evening prayers, revealing many of his theological beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, sin, salvation, eternal life, and himself as a humble servant of Christ.

(Exerpts from Faith of Our Founding Fathers, Tim LaHaye).

Unfortunately this is the kind of mindless drivel guible people swallow when the read apologetic fluff instead of real history.

Enclyopedia Britannica: Deist / Episcopalian

Tim LaHaye (fiction novelist): Christian

Take two television viewers: One watches Dukes of Hazard and Knight Rider reruns, the other PBS and the Nightly News.

Now, which of the two viewers do you think turns to Tim LaHaye for information about Washington?

Note: if you are wondering who LaHaye is - here's a blurb from one of his recent books: THE SECRET ON ARARAT is the second installment in the Babylon Rising series, which concerns the adventures of Michael Murphy, an Indiana Jones-like figure who quests for physical evidence of the events recounted in the Bible. In this volume, the evangelical Christian and biblical archaeologist travels to Mount Ararat to search for the remains of Noah's Ark. The primary author of this series, Tim La Haye, is also one of the authors of the bestselling Christian post-apocalyptic Left Behind series.

If you have ever read his stuff you know he is strictly second rate.

[Fiannan]

Ever read the original Thanksgiving Day Proclaimatin issued by Washington?

Look it up -- the original.

[Snow]

Ever read the original Thanksgiving Day Proclaimatin issued by Washington?

Look it up -- the original.

Okay - read it.

Now what?

[Aristotle]

Dr. LaHaye has authored twenty-three books including The Act of Marriage (with Beverly LaHaye,) The Spirit Controlled Temperament, and The Battle For The Mind. Combined, his books have sold in excess of 7 million copies. Over the past several years, Dr. LaHaye has courageously spurred positive change in America through his American Coalition for Traditional Values. His "Capitol Report" is televised nationwide via satellite. The LaHaye's have two sons, two daughters and seven grandchildren.

Strictly first rate.

- Mrs. A

[Snow]

Dr. LaHaye has authored twenty-three books including The Act of Marriage (with Beverly LaHaye,) The Spirit Controlled Temperament, and The Battle For The Mind. Combined, his books have sold in excess of 7 million copies. Over the past several years, Dr. LaHaye has courageously spurred positive change in America through his American Coalition for Traditional Values. His "Capitol Report" is televised nationwide via satellite. The LaHaye's have two sons, two daughters and seven grandchildren.

Strictly first rate.

- Mrs. A

Ari,

Somehow I believe that you the kind of person that thinks that The Regime (Before They Were Left Behind), The Rising, Glorious Appearing, Tribulation Force, Armageddon and Babylon Rising are "strictly first rate" real Pulitzer Prize material, and not suprizingly, there are millions and millions of polyester wearing, pork rind eating, bible thump'n, Jimmy Swaggart lov'n folks that agree with you.

And besides that there's probably a couple dozen chawbacon bumpkins who get their history from minister/pulp novelists like Lahaye instead of from historians and scholars.

[Aristotle]

Actually, I'm the kind of person who enjoys non-LDS. We've even been known to tune into TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network)!

You know what we say in the Church...we seek after things that are of good report. ;-)

- Mrs. A

[prisonchaplain]

If you want the least reliable, most biased source possible - go to a Christian apologetic website whose only objective is to tell you their particular point of view.

FYI about Wikipedia. Its articles are entirely written by volunteers, and the cyber-encyclopedia takes no responsibility for the accuracy or falsehoods it contains. It may often be incredibly insightful, but it should be treated with the same skepticism as any web-only information source.

In one article--that remained posted for months--a journalist was falsely accused of having connections to a murder.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5TG3K681.DTL

Note: if you are wondering who LaHaye is - here's a blurb from one of his recent books: THE SECRET ON ARARAT is the second installment in the Babylon Rising series, which concerns the adventures of Michael Murphy, an Indiana Jones-like figure who quests for physical evidence of the events recounted in the Bible. In this volume, the evangelical Christian and biblical archaeologist travels to Mount Ararat to search for the remains of Noah's Ark. The primary author of this series, Tim La Haye, is also one of the authors of the bestselling Christian post-apocalyptic Left Behind series.

If you have ever read his stuff you know he is strictly second rate.

Actually, if it's Tim LaHaye's writing you want to savor, neither the Ararat book, nor any of the Left Behind books should be your choice. Tim LaHaye has fashioned himself as a prophecy expert (thus the "End Times Christian" perspective on the news). The books he actually wrote are all nonfiction. These latest fiction works were written by others, while he served as a biblical consultant. None of this is underhanded either--the names of both the writer and LaHaye are on the books.

As for his nonfiction works--they are "popular eschatology." Not too impressive to scholars, but accessible and engaging for most TBN watchers/CBN watchers.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

If you want the least reliable, most biased source possible - go to a Christian apologetic website whose only objective is to tell you their particular point of view.

FYI about Wikipedia. Its articles are entirely written by volunteers, and the cyber-encyclopedia takes no responsibility for the accuracy or falsehoods it contains. It may often be incredibly insightful, but it should be treated with the same skepticism as any web-only information source.

In one article--that remained posted for months--a journalist was falsely accused of having connections to a murder.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5TG3K681.DTL

Not hardly.

Britannica is the gold encyclopedia resources with it's articles written and reviewed by top scholars. In a recent study by the respect journal Nature, Wikipedia was found to be on par with Britannica.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html

There have been some recent well-publicized cases of tampering or spoofing with Wikipedia's open protocols and I myself have noted an inaccuracy in an ariticle about a minor public figure I know personally but on balance it stacks up well and in fact corrects many inaccuracies found in the gold standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Err...ed_in_Wikipedia

Besides, in reponse to the spoofing, Wikipedia has tightened up it's protocols. To say that it should be treated with the same skepticism as other web material is flat out wrong. I can go to any number of Christian apologetic websites and immediately spot numerous examples of bad science, inaccuracies, misstatement etc in only minutes. You can say the same about Wikipedia, and if you do note something amiss - you can see to it that it gets fixed.

As for his nonfiction works--they are "popular eschatology." Not too impressive to scholars, but accessible and engaging for most TBN watchers/CBN watchers.

I agree - that's his audience, I am not part of it. I don't actually have anything against him - I wouldn't waste my time with his stuff, there's simply too much GOOD material to read to waste time with ordinary stuff, but never in a million years would I use him as my source for responsible and unbiased history.

[Aristotle]

I highly recommend Dr. LaHaye's book, Faith Of Our Founding Fathers...very faith promoting, and reassuring to know that our founders were divinely inspired...the majority of which were Christian men. In particular, read George Washington's prayers.

Another book I would recommend reading is Prophets, Principles and National Survival.

- Mrs. A

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

<div class='quotemain'>

The website you quote is a Christian website, so I can't say they are unbiased...I would have to actually read the Writings of George Washington to verify their claim.

Of course, I quote Christians, you quote Deists!

George Washington was a Christian, not a Deist.

Then we need a more neutral source.

I was going to make the same comment that Snow made, which was that a good place to find unbiased information is Wikipedia. That is because anyone can write the articles, and they are then edited and reviewed by anyone with an interest in the topic. This usually means people with opposing views have to work together to include only facts, and present both sides when entering the realm of speculation and opinion. If an article appears to not be objective, it is labelled as such, and people are encouraged to improve the article's quality.

With that being said, I also read the Wikipedia article on Deism, which stated the George Washington may have been a Deist, but that there was controversy surrounding his religious views. Here is what Wikipedia had to say...I think it may be the same quote that Snow gave to you:

Washington's religious views are a matter of some controversy. There is considerable evidence that indicates he, like numerous other men of his time, was a Deist—believing in God but not believing in revelation or miracles. As a young man, before the Revolution, when the Church of England was still the state religion in Virginia, he served as a vestryman (lay officer) for his local church. He spoke often of the value of prayer, righteousness, and seeking and offering thanks for the "blessings of Heaven". He sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services; however there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!" His adopted daughter, Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis, and several others have said, however, that he was, indeed, a Christian. Various prayers said to have been composed by him in his later life are highly edited. He did not ask for any clergy on his deathbed, though one was available. His funeral services were those of the Freemasons at the request of his wife, Martha.

Washington was an early supporter of religious pluralism. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not burn the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night. In 1790, he wrote to Jewish leaders that he envisioned a country "which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

I find this article pretty balanced...although it leans toward Washington being a Deist, it still leaves room for him to be a Christian.

I think Washington will remain a controversial figure, when it comes to religion.

So as I mentioned above, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Human beings contradict themselves all the time. Even more common, human beings are confused and sometimes cannot decide what they believe in.

It is possible he was both a Deist and a Christian, being undecided on which was true...or contradicting himself.

I see no problem with this. If Prophets are not infallible, then neither are Presidents.

So, putting Washington aside as a mystery, the other founding fathers appear to be a mix of Christians, Deists, Unitarians, and possibly Atheists. Fortunately, this diverse group had a common set of morals, being more concerned with freedom and independence. They could not have predicted the modern complex issues Christians would face today.

Based on this evidence, I believe the United States was not intended to be Christian, but that its Constitution was influenced by the Christians who participated in writing it. However, I think those contributions were probably simply morals that they shared with the Deists.

Just my opinion, and I don't expect you to believe what I am saying...so I am just going to end this discussion by saying "let's agree to disagree".

I am not sure what you were asking me to look for...

You asked me about hate crime laws/crime statistics and I suggested you look on the internet. I found a diagrahm of the states which have hate crime laws in place. (Search under "hate crime laws").

Oh, I see.

I am not questioning the existence of hate crime laws. From what I understand, it seems that they are unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Labelling it a "hate crime" only refers to motive. We shouldn't punish people based on motive...we should punish them based on what they DO.

What I was asking you was this: Can you prove to me that CHRISTIANS are victims of hate crimes...I think you said they were attacked when they spoke out against homosexuality. I just wanted to know if you meant actual criminal attacks (assault, murder)...legal attacks (verbal responses). Because I don't hear much about LDS Bishops or Evanglical Preachers being attacked by homosexuals gangs...

[Aristotle]

Just my opinion, and I don't expect you to believe what I am saying...so I am just going to end this discussion by saying "let's agree to disagree".

I agree!

I am not questioning the existence of hate crime laws. From what I understand, it seems that they are unnecessary. A crime is a crime. Labelling it a "hate crime" only refers to motive. We shouldn't punish people based on motive...we should punish them based on what they DO.

I agree, again.

What I was asking you was this: Can you prove to me that CHRISTIANS are victims of hate crimes...I think you said they were attacked when they spoke out against homosexuality. I just wanted to know if you meant actual criminal attacks (assault, murder)...legal attacks (verbal responses). Because I don't hear much about LDS Bishops or Evanglical Preachers being attacked by homosexuals gangs...

As I stated before, I would advise you to search the internet...especially since we have established that we each use sources which the other may not agree with. ;-)

- Mrs. A

[Fiannan]

Snow, how would you rate Tom Clancy? After all, wasn't he merely an insurance salesman before he started writing books? His books have gained him a reputation for being an expert researcher on the topics he presents in a fictional manner.

[Fiannan]

In defense of Aristotle:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpfeature.asp?ID=1597

That took about 1 minute to find. This stuff is quite common.

[Outshined]

I note it was in the Baptist Press; certainly unbiased journalism...

You're right, though; "this stuff" is quite common. That is, hype about such things being discrimination or "hate" against Christians.

[Aristotle]

In defense of Aristotle:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpfeature.asp?ID=1597

That took about 1 minute to find. This stuff is quite common.

Thanks, Fiannan! Methinks this isn't about the search, but discrediting the source. ;-)

- Mrs. A

Here's my prediction: Ari will offere zero proof to back up her claims and will instead try to put the burden of proof on you, the reader.

Okay - I cheated on this one. I already know what she did.

My nickname is Aristotle; my wife's nickname is Mrs. A.

Our picture is in My Profile.

I'm the one on the left.

Mrs. A is on the right...in case you have trouble telling us apart.

[Outshined]

My nickname is Aristotle; my wife's nickname is Mrs. A.

Our picture is in My Profile.

I'm the one on the left.

Mrs. A is on the right...in case you have trouble telling us apart.

When you both use the same account/screen name, then of course people will have trouble telling you apart...

[sgallan]

That took about 1 minute to find. This stuff is quite common.

I guess what comes around, goes around.....

[Fiannan]

Outshined, are you seriously questioning if people are subject to intimidation, threats and vandalization for their political stands? In fairness it happens on all issues and all sides. I knew a guy in college who was riding his moped back to the dorms after working out. He also had a Reagan sticker on his backpack.

A couple of women driving a car yelled some nasty comments at him and then tried to run him off the road -- almost succeeding. The light turned red on them and that gave this guy time to take out a bar he used to attach to weights (the smaller bars one uses for developing your bicepts) rode up to their car and smashed their back window in.

Yes, that was extreme, but they never reported him since, to do so, would have subjected them to vehicular endangerment, attempted murder, assult and battery, and a few other things.

I have heard of many people who have put stickers on their cars supporting Bush, or urging votes on issues that were unfavorable to gay rights. I know these people and can think of no other reason people would spraypaint their cars, slash their tires or break their windows.

[sgallan]

I have heard of many people who have put stickers on their cars supporting Bush, or urging votes on issues that were unfavorable to gay rights. I know these people and can think of no other reason people would spraypaint their cars, slash their tires or break their windows.

Ya, and around here you tend to get the same thing in reverse. Just sorta depends on where once resides. Violence, judgmentalism and so forth begats violence and jusdmentalism. Sorta why we are at war, huh?

[Outshined]

Outshined, are you seriously questioning if people are subject to intimidation, threats and vandalization for their political stands? In fairness it happens on all issues and all sides. I knew a guy in college who was riding his moped back to the dorms after working out. He also had a Reagan sticker on his backpack.

Not at all, but the majority of hate and intolerance I've seen concerning this issue in this country is aimed at the homosexuals from religious groups, not the other way around. Ever heard of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps? He's a shining example.

Of course there can be threats and such from every side; I'm just saying it's usually critics threatening and intimidating homosexuals, not the other way around.

[Aristotle]

WHAT IS A HATE CRIME?

"A crime committed against persons or property which is motivated by an individual's dislike of a race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sexual orientation or gender."

If a person or a group is threatened, harassed, assaulted, even murdered, or someone's property is damaged by any means, including arson, a crime has occurred. If the primary reason the crime took place is because of someone's race, religious beliefs or practices, National origin/ethnicity, disability sexual orientation or gender, a hate crime may have been committed

ARE THERE SPECIFIC LAWS AGAINST HATE CRIMES?

Arizona currently maintains an "aggravated" or "increased sentencing" statute. This law provides that if a person is found to be responsible for a felony crime, and evidence satisfactory to the Court is presented, indicating the victim was intentionally selected because of race, religion, gender, National origin or sexual orientation, the court may impose a greater sentence of up to TEN (10) additional years.

WHAT IF I AM NOT SURE IT'S A HATE CRIME?

Example: If someone makes a racial or religious remark that is offensive to you, that person has not necessarily committed a crime. Their remarks may be considered "protected speech" under the First Amendment. If you assault that person in retaliation for the remark, then you have committed a crime. However if that same person assaulted you while spouting racist or religious slurs, then you may be the victim of a hate crime

If you are not sure whether you are a victim of a hate crime, call the police and report the incident. You may be the victim of a hate crime, discrimination, civil rights violations or all three.

Police departments only investigate criminal offenses, but if a different type of violation exists you will be informed about your options. You may be told that a hate crime did not occur, but you still may be the victim of a crime. If that's the case, a police report and an investigation into the incident are still important.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO CAN HELP ME?

American Jewish Committee

Chicanos Por La Causa

Gay & Lesbian Community Center

Local Victim Witness Programs

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Your local Law Enforcement Agency

For Emergencies 911

http://phoenix.gov/POLICE/hatecr1.html

[Aristotle]

Interesting, polygamists bordering Utah/Arizona were investigated by the Arizona state attorney general. He did not prosecute polygamists who marry minors, supposedly dismissing it as a First Amendment Right issue. So, these men were given license to sexually abuse/rape children under the guise of freedom of religion. The attorney general of Utah intervened. Warren Jeffs fled to Mexico, while the polygamists built a new compound in Texas.

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

Which has what to do with oppression of homosexuals?

[Aristotle]

Which has what to do with oppression of homosexuals?

Not at all, but the majority of hate and intolerance I've seen concerning this issue in this country is aimed at the homosexuals from religious groups, not the other way around. Ever heard of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps? He's a shining example.

Of course there can be threats and such from every side; I'm just saying it's usually critics threatening and intimidating homosexuals, not the other way around.

I presented a reverse situation. The attorney general in this case is a homosexual, as is the governor. Neither intervened on behalf of the molested children.

[Aristotle]

When you both use the same account/screen name, then of course people will have trouble telling you apart...

Mrs. A is the pretty one. :-)