Thursday, February 14, 2008

No Agenda? Right!

I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to re-open this festering wound, so for your perusal, check this out. It concisely covers a lot of bases perfectly.

32 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

What if we recast that message found at the end of your link, there?...

Americans who self-identify as “evangelical” or "fundamentalist" comprise roughly 62% of the population. Yet the "christian" movement — led by extremist evangelical pressure groups like the so-called Focus on the Family (FotF) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. Consider that FotF and the HRC foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of 900 gazillion and gets so much mail it has its own ZIP code.

Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, evangelical activists have successfully cast evangelicals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority - in spite of their huge numbers! They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history and every major world religion have long identified as immoral and deviant (behaviors like lying, twisting words, cheating, ends justify the means-sort of reasoning).

The Goal

As with every major political movement, the evangelical lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “christian agenda” - although it has little to do with any of Jesus Christ's teachings. At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of religious morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of religious relativism. That is to say, when it comes to religion, there is never right or wrong - as long as it's evangelically-based. If it feels good, then you're probably evil and hellbound...

Marshall Art said...

Nice game, Dan. It would work better if there was truth to it.

First of all, to label evangelicals like FotF as a "pressure group" is a bit over the top. Groups like these are responding to the pressures upon Christianity by atheists and relativists. They are responsive in their activism as opposed to those you are so wrongly defending. And despite their numbers, they have to defend themselves against not greater numbers, but much smaller numbers, those in black, such as the 9th Circuit Court, who would strip God from any public edifice, organization, or anything else for the lamest of arguments. It is those same judicial activists that have allowed the subjects of my link to prosper as they have legislatively despite every indication that the country is opposed.

I would defy you to present any evidence of lying, twisting words or cheating going on by groups like FotF that can be confirmed as true lies, that is, maliciously speaking that which they know for certain is untrue.

But they do have an agenda. It is to defend the traditional, the true message of Christ as described in the Bible for the purpose of gaining, if not maintaining, God's Blessings upon us as a nation. Not a bad agenda if you ask me.

Dan Trabue said...

Nice game, Dan. It would work better if there was truth to it.

I reckon there's 'bout as much truth in one story as the other.

Dan Trabue said...

I would defy you to present any evidence of lying, twisting words or cheating going on by groups like FotF that can be confirmed as true lies...

The purpose of my "article" was to point to the malignancy of your article, not to say that FotF is a big pot of liars.

Having said that, if you'd like, I can provide some lies and twisted statements.

Such as:

MISTRUTH 1: “Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth, Dobson said.”

(The Oklahoman, 10-23-03)

FACT: It is quite easy to verify that some homosexuals ARE monogamous and that some aren't. Just as some heterosexuals are monogamous and some aren't.

I can tell you without a doubt that "they" are not out to destroy marriage. Perhaps some gays would like to see that, it's possible. Just as some heterosexuals might want to see marriage destroyed.

MISTRUTH 2:

Dobson remarked to his guest, conservative radio host William Bennett, that "the liberal community" and the media "despise this country and its freedoms, and they're doing everything they can do to undermine it."

mediamatters.org

FACT: (Sigh. It is so ridiculous to even say this...) The "liberal community" does not despise this country nor our freedoms. Do you think this is NOT a twisted statement? A way of misrepresenting what people believe and want?

I could probably go on a while like this - pointing out lies and misrepresentations by Team Dobson. Shall I?

Marshall Art said...

Well Dan, what you could do is to provide Dobson's own materials as sources rather than Hillary's MediaMatters or other lib versions of events. Naturally, I'm not inclined to give much credence to such. And context would be helpful as well.

But for what you've listed I'll try to respond.

I've presented in a recent series of posts a few sources of my own that speak to the rate of monogamy amongst the homosexual population. The average number of partners is quite high as is the percentage of "open" marriages. Staying "married" isn't always a sign of monogamy in its strictest sense. Of course, there are likely to be those who are indeed monogamous, but they are more the exception than the norm. You won't have to spend too much time in my archives to find the series of which I speak, and a recent post several down from this also has someone speaking on the topic.

Now, it's important to remember contrary to what ol' Hashfanatic thinks, I don't spend time with bashers. I look to facts and studies to bolster my position. So when I use a source you might consider biased to the right, you'd be hard pressed to show how anything they say or do is out of bigotry or malice. I just wanted to get that out of the way. I don't see anything beyond unquestioning support for the homosexual agenda from sources leaning left. None I've seen thus far.

Proceeding now.

I'd like to see the first Dobson quote in its entire context. Better still would be to hear him. I don't have the opportunity to listen to FotF on my local Christian station, but I don't believe I've ever heard Dobson say anything like what he's accused of saying, without there being much more to it. In any case, the link provided in this post has shown two or three instances where the desire to push their agenda does indeed include changing what marriage means. Now it means man/woman. Their altering it to include themselves would indeed destroy it by allowing others to use the same arguments to include themselves. That is destroying marriage plainly and simply. Thus, Dobson's statement is fact.

For the second quote, libs do despise the country, or more specifically, what they foolishly believe conservatives want to maintain or else they wouldn't be currently pushing for "change". There is no doubt about the fact that libs despise the traditional, the fundamental, the conservative, the middle-America aspect of the nation and it is seen in their condescension and constant berating of all we hold dear as "backwards", "bigoted", and other such words.

Finally, your "facts" are simply your opinion and anecdotal at best. In short, they aren't good enough.

Dan Trabue said...

MA, you don't appear to have an open mind at all to anything but your talking points, but consider this:

Dobson said that "Homosexuals are not monogamous." that is a blanket statement.

All I have to do to disprove that is to show ONE gay couple that IS monogamous. That I can factually do. I have in my acquaintance many monogamous gay couples.

Factually, Dobson is wrong. That is what you asked me to provide, a statement where Dobson twisted the truth. I have provided one such example right there.

Dobson also said that "the liberal community despises this country."

I am part of this "liberal community" (or at least, according to people like you I am). My whole church would fit in with this description. AND YET, there is not a ONE of us who despises our beloved homeland.

Factually, this is wrong. Are you trying now to twist statements to say that up is down and that right is wrong? That we who love our nation actually hate it?

There is no doubt about the fact that libs despise the traditional, the fundamental, the conservative, the middle-America aspect of the nation...

There is "no doubt," you say, that we despise the traditional, fundamental, conservative aspect of our nation.

1. There IS a great deal of doubt. You offer no evidence - ZERO, NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE - to support that I or my community despise any of this.

2. Further, you are redefining the statement, twisting words. We DO NOT despise our nation. We MAY disagree with elements of what some people believe. However, America does NOT equal ONLY CONSERVATIVE values.

You have switched the terms. From saying that we despise America to saying that we despise "conservative values." Believe it or not, YOU DO NOT REPRESENT THE WHOLE OF THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE OR WHAT MAKES OUR COUNTRY GREAT. Disagreeing with Marshall is not the same as despising our nation.

And shame on you for trying to twist the argument that way.

Mark said...

The statement that Jesus was a queer Jew is so offensive, I can't even form an intelligent comment. It is worse, even, than the ridiculous belief that President Bush was responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

On the topic of forcing adoption agencies to allow adoption of kids to homosexual couples, you know my opinion on that.

Allowing homosexuals to adopt children is child abuse.

Dan Trabue said...

Allowing homosexuals to adopt children is child abuse.

Fortunately for all of us, Mark's not making the calls on who gets to adopt and not. Praise God.

And it's statements like that and some of yours, Marshall, that show just who has an agenda. Let's isolate and marginalize those child abusing, marriage-hating, US-hating gays, right?

No agenda, there...

Marshall Art said...

Dobson's statements are generalizations. In that sense they are pretty accurate. You like to distort the issue with responses that are opinions of yourself. In fact, you made the same type of generalization about your own church, as if you have a survey in your hand that would show all your church members saying "no" to the question, "Do you despise your country." In addition, some anecdotal response with one or two examples does not overturn the truth of the generality regarding the opinions of a group millions strong. So if that's the type of statement you think proves your opinion about FotF, than I guess we indeed can say that Hillary intends to take oil company profits to use as she sees fit, which actually is more true than your points regarding either Dobson or myself.

As to evidence, I've offered quite a bit. My archives aren't that large. There's a three part response to Les regarding the downsides of homosexuality. It contains several sources for my position. I'll wait here.

As to your response to Mark, I feel as he does (no surprise) but to clarify my feelings, if homosexual behavior is sinful, which it is to anyone who objectively reads the Bible, then to allow kids to be influenced to their way of thinking regarding human sexuality falls under, "...causing such as these to sin...", which would be a form of abuse. They'll grow up thinking wrong is right, or at least not wrong. Now if it could be proven beyond a doubt, a homosexual fighting his carnal desires knowing they would not be pleasing to God, would be fine with me.

That's if I ruled the world. All my efforts would be slanted toward helping them recover from their affliction, which compels my notions in the real world. However, I find abusive hetero parents more troubling. The child's interests always come first with me. A child's best interests are not served by either.

Les said...

"As to evidence, I've offered quite a bit."

And he's summarily dismissed any responses to his "evidence", Dan. Art's seen the data he needs to see to convince him he's in the right. Trust me - you're going nowhere with this guy on the gay issue.

Marshall Art said...

"And he's summarily dismissed any responses to his "evidence", Dan."

Summarily dismissed? More like "soundly refuted".

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for the heads up, Les, but I'm trying to convince Marshall of nothing. I'm just pointing out the fallacies of his argument. He can take 'em or leave 'em as he wishes.

For instance, when Dobson said:

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. Liberals despise our nation."

Marshall is changing what he actually said to suggest Dobson means "MANY homosexuals are not monogamous. MANY liberals despise our nation..." and by "Despise our nation" what he means is "Despise conservative values, because if you despise conservative values, then you obviously despise our nation."

And it could well be that Dobson meant "SOME" gays are not monogamous. And if Dobson had SAID that, I'd agree. There's not really anything to disagree with in that statement.

If Dobson or Marshall had said, "Many liberals despise conservative values as espoused by OUR type of conservatives," I wouldn't have disagreed with that, either.

But Dobson and Marshall didn't say that, and I was just pointing out the error by saying clearly, many gays ARE monogamous and most Liberals DO love our country. That ought to set Marshall's mind at ease, if he's interested in Truth.

If not, then that's on him.

If Marshall'd like me to be concerned about those people (gay and straight) who live licentious lives, having unprotected sex with hundreds of strangers, then I'd be glad to join with him.

If Marshall would like me to be concerned about those people (liberal and conservative) who hate our nation, I'll be glad to join with him.

We could unite on these sorts of issues, if finding common ground is something Marshall is interested in.

Les said...

"More like 'soundly refuted'."

In no one's head but yours, Marshall Art. That's why I love ya (but not in any gay kind of way).

Marshall Art said...

"Common ground" is a nice sounding term. In this discussion it means agreeing with Dan. This I can't do when it is based on Scriptural interpretation (for us, anyway) which doesn't support Dan's position. I think Dan also makes the mistake in believing wickedness is always overtly malevolent. Just because he knows homosexuals who are "nice guys", it doesn't mean that they are acting in accordance with God's Will.

But of course, the argument from Scripture doesn't wash for many, and that's because there's no where for them to go on this issue. So I've also offered much in the way of more tangible support for my position, and against that I've gotten nothing in return to put my position in question. And frankly Les, my friend, it is in YOUR mind where the difficulty lies. I see things as they are. At least on this topic.

So Daniel my brother, there is no common ground on right and wrong. One follows what is right or one doesn't. Mostly right doesn't cut it if partly wrong completes the equation.

Les said...

"And frankly Les, my friend, it is in YOUR mind where the difficulty lies."

I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I?

This argument is dumb. Let's quarrel over something else. End of story.

Dan Trabue said...

"Common ground" is a nice sounding term. In this discussion it means agreeing with Dan.

Interesting. I agree with you that we can be concerned about those who hate the nation and about those who live sexually/emotionally unhealthy lives. I agreed with you.

I asked in return that you acknowledge the reality that "liberals" don't hate the nation and that some gays do, in fact, lead monogamous lives. It's a reality. I was just asking that you recognize that reality.

You seem unwilling to do so.

And somehow, I'm the one insisting on only agreeing with me.

You see, in a nation of brothers and sisters who are concerned about their children, about doing right, living right, getting by, taking care of our needs; in this nation where sometimes we get it right and sometimes we mess up and fail - sometimes out and out act sinfully - in this nation of ours (as well as this world) we're all in this together. There's not a group of us that have it always right and another group of monsters seeking to celebrate wrong-doing, but rather, all of us trying to work life out the best we can.

And in this world, it behooves us to get along with the others. To find common ground where we can. Yes, I could reject Marshall as a soulless hater of humanity and say "I'll have nothing to do with someone who'd reject God as I understand God the way Marshall does!" but to what end? Why would I do that?

Marshall is my brother. He's trying his best to do the right thing. As I am.

And sometimes he fails. As I do.

And so, rather than reject Marshall for the areas where he gets it so very, very wrong, I COULD choose to try to embrace Marshall for the areas where he gets it right. We could work together on those places where we find common ground. Encouraging wholesome living. Encouraging the love of our brothers and sisters.

That's what I'm trying to do here. I will continue to point out when I think you've got it wrong. Especially when you're encouraging blatantly bad behavior and speaking deliberate untruths ("liberals DO hate the US"). Nonetheless, I am trying to do so as a brother who recognizes that you are not a monster, just a guy like me, who is wrong sometimes. Like me.

That's what makes sense to me.

Marshall Art said...

"Let's quarrel over something else. End of story."

There you go again, ending the story! You are incorrigible!

Les said...

Knew you'd enjoy that.

I'm priceless.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Would you go for: libs "aren't greatly fond of the nation"? This at least would answer the question of why they seek to alter our course so as to reflect their philosophy, which contradicts original intent in almost every area.

If you mean monogamous while they're married, I wouldn't begin to debate whether any such exist at all. At the same time, I don't follow them around to monitor their private behavior. But such are rare according to source cited in previous posts. And please don't compare to heteros, since the failures of one group doesn't in any way justify the support for another group that has shown itself to be no better if not worse.

Now, I'm more than willing to get along. But you expect me to compromise on issues that are clearly wrong for both society who you expect to endure it, and the people themselves who engage in it. But I can allow that folks will do what they want regardless of civil law, and I don't "hate" them at all, so I can't support hunting them down to do them harm. But supporting the traditional is not oppression of the non-traditional, particularly if the non-traditional is wrong and unhealthy. I base my opinions on the subject on Biblical teaching, which you consistently have wrong, but argue on the biological facts involved as well as the track record as recorded in a variety of places as the sources in previous posts illustrate.

So I'm with you as far as how to treat them as people, but not with you in terms of supporting that which will not enhance our culture on whit.

And by the way, I NEVER encourage bad behavior. EVER.

Bicycling for Louisville Blog said...

I would say that repeating and supporting the mistruth that "liberals despise the US" IS bad behavior that you're encouraging and taking part in.

And, no, it is not valid to say that "liberals aren't greatly fond of the nation" either. I, we LOVE our nation and its ideals. What we disagree with - sometimes quite strongly - is the view of our nation espoused by some on the Right.

And I will say it again, disagreeing with YOUR version of what the US should be or what you think the US is, is not the same as despising the US.

It is entirely possible that you were merely mistaken when you supported and repeated the claim that "liberals despise the US" but now, you have been corrected. I am part of the liberal community, at least to folk like you, and I'm telling you that I have not met the first person who has anything but the deepest love for our nation.

You'd think that would come up in our weekly Liberal meetings if our party line was that we hate the US, but if that's the case, someone's doing a poor job of disseminating the information.

I suspect it's more likely that you were just wrong.

And now that you have been corrected, you will be engaging in bad behavior if you repeat a known and established lie.

Fortunately, we have your word that you don't EVER support bad behavior, so we can count on you to quit supporting that lie.

Dan Trabue said...

Sorry, that last one was from me...

Mark said...

I think when Libs blame America and President Bush for terrorism, it is because they hate their country.

I think when Libs tell us that The United States is the principle cause of "Global Warming" it is because they hate America.

I think when Lib newspapers and news outlets like The New York Slimes write stories that efectively tell our enemies what we are trying to do to defeat them, it is because they hate America.

I think when Libs like Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Hanoi Hussein Jane Fonda, etc, consort with the enemy like Hugo Chavez, the Iranian President, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Quaida, and then call Americans war criminals, "little Eichmann's, terrorists etc, and then call President Bush a liar, a war criminal, a terrorist, etc, they must hate America.

So maybe ALL libs aren't America haters, but certainly the most vocal of them are, for the most part.

Allowing homosexuals to raise children is child abuse, because they will attempt to teach those children that the gay lifestyle is normal and it isn't. It will only confuse them and give them a warped view of sexuality, which usually results in grownups that rape and commit a myriad of other crimes, both sexual and non-sexual.

Dan Trabue said...

Mark said:

I think when Libs blame America and President Bush for terrorism, it is because they hate their country.

You are free, of course, to think that. But your thinking it, does not make it so. When I blame Bush policies for making our nation less secure and more open to terrorism, it is because I love my country and don't want to see terrorism given support (as I think Bush policies do).

When you criticize Bush for his immigration proposals, can I assume that it's because you hate our country? Pah! You don't criticize policies if you don't love the nation. It is exactly our love for our nation that causes us to criticize policies we disagree with.

Come now, fellas, just because it's easier to assume that the Other is irrational and a hater of the nation does not mean that it is true. You all are more reasonable than this.

Dan Trabue said...

As to this:

Allowing homosexuals to raise children is child abuse, because they will attempt to teach those children that the gay lifestyle is normal and it isn't.

Are you saying that those who teach their children something outside the norm are being abusive? What of those who teach their children that God hates gays? Are they, too, being abusive and do you advocate that they not be able to have children?

What of those who teach their children that their God says they ought to be pacifists? That's outside the norm. Shall we start removing the children from their Amish and Mennonite parents - or not allow them to adopt?

What of those who teach their children abortion is always wrong and out to criminalized? That is (barely) outside the norm, shall we not allow them to have children?

I'm doubtful that you think all "abnormal" behavior (behavior outside the norm) is cause for not allowing people to have children. So where do you draw the line? Who will make the call as to who gets to have children and who doesn't? As to what IS abusive and what isn't?

You don't really think all behavior outside the norm is abusive, do you?

Marshall Art said...

"...and I'm telling you that I have not met the first person who has anything but the deepest love for our nation."

As it is? Then why seek to change it? We on the right seek to change it back to what it was. We could find our common ground on those aspects of the way it was that should be corrected, but you want to change it entirely. You disparage the system under which we have thrived. You berate corporations that employ millions and create the products we use and need. You sound off on the system of government and electoral process and hope to change that. Just where's the love? So it's hardly a lie to say that libs aren't fond of this country when they seek to change so much about it, including those things that played a part in making the nation great. It ain't people on the right who say that we're the greatest terrorist on the planet. It ain't the people on the right who say we're oppressive to women when we seek to protect the unborn. It ain't people on the right who think we're biased and intolerant for our position against bad behavior, such as homosexual behavior. It is those from the left who say all these nasty things about America and it's people and somehow we're to believe you don't despise America in some way? That seems every bit dishonest as you accuse the accusation of being.

As to your response to Mark, you are purposely confusing "normal" with "healthy" or "good". Mark most assuredly does NOT believe that "abnormal" means wickedness in every situation where it can be applied. In homosexuality, it of course carries that burden due to Biblical admonitions against it, despite your improper beliefs to the contrary. Homosexuality also carries with it severe health concerns which, if ignored in raising kids might lead them to believe that to engage in such behavior carries no risk. In short, it sets kids up for all sorts of problems that would not exist within a traditional upbringing. So simply "outside the norm" is not cause for concern, but the specific abnormal scenario could be. But you knew this. You just like to muddy the issue since your support of the actual topic is so weak.

Dan Trabue said...

Then why seek to change it? We on the right seek to change it back to what it was. We could find our common ground on those aspects of the way it was that should be corrected, but you want to change it entirely

Not so much. I'd like to go back to the way it was when our nation was founded in these respects:

1. Corporations did not have legal rights as a person.
2. We were living sustainably with our economy NOT utterly dependent upon a finite resource.
3. We had a MUCH smaller militia - a defensive military. G Washington et al were very wary of a large military.

For example.

Can we find common ground in getting back to those sorts of basics?

I DON'T want to go back to "the way it was" in these areas:

1. Slavery.
2. Blacks, women, unlanded men didn't have the right to vote.
3. Our health care has improved.

For example.

Can we find some common ground in rebelling against the way it was in these areas? I suspect so.

The truth is, it is a bald-faced lie to say that liberals despise our nation. I've set you straight and you can in good conscience cease repeating and supporting that particular lie.

Or you can continue to say that because we sometimes want reform (just as you do), that is an indication of our clear hatred for the nation. But it will be a damnable lie, nonetheless.

Dan Trabue said...

In homosexuality, it of course carries that burden due to Biblical admonitions against it, despite your improper beliefs to the contrary.

Says you.

But shall we then place Marshall or Mark in charge as the sole arbiters of who is and isn't "worthy" of having children? Shall you be the one who decides which gays, liberals, blacks, Jews we castrate, imprison, deny rights to?

Who gets to decide these sorts of questions? And on what basis?

Mark said...

Marshall, to paraphrase Lone Ranger, speaking logic to Dan is like speaking French to a poodle. You THINK it should work, but it doesn't.

Dan: Unlanded?

Dan Trabue said...

Am I using the term incorrectly? The unlanded - meaning that those who don't own property (real estate) can't vote. Is that not the correct term?

And what's illogical about my comments? You said the abnormal shouldn't be able to have children. I asked you if you meant ONLY those who are gay (and thus abnormal) or if ANY abnormal people are child abusers?

I then followed up with a legitimate question asking who gets to decide what's abnormal or unhealthy?

You are the one calling for keeping loving parents from their children (which is illogical without some reasoning), I was asking for you to support your logic.

You have not done so, only claimed that I wasn't being logical. That is no answer.

But thank you very much for playing, come back sometime when you have real answers...

Mark said...

Dan, I'll forgive you for your grammatical incorrectness, but you said, "Shall you be the one who decides which gays, liberals, blacks, Jews we castrate, imprison, deny rights to?"

I think those "solutions" are a little extreme, don't you think? Of course you do. You are simply employing your tired old tactic of obfuscation to distract from the topic at hand.

I think adoptions should be limited to married couples (married meaning one man and one woman)only.

I think Liberals should not be allowed to vote without first taking a test to determine their competency.

I don't want to punish gays. I never said we should. I do think they should remain in their closet and we should do everything legally we can do to try to get them to return to heterosexuality, instead of give them affirmation for their depravity. And that doesn't deprive them of any rights they don't already have as Americans.

Perhaps if you didn't hate America so much, you would realize that the people to whom you wish to treat like American prisoners instead of prisoners of war (in other words, terrorists)are the ones that want to kill homosexuals and Jews etc, just because they don't worship Allah.

I don't have a problem with blacks and Jews. I guess you do or you wouldn't single them out. I see them as members of the human race, just like you or me.

More evidence of illogical Liberal reasoning is the way they continue to try to widen the gap between races while insisting they are actually "helping" them.

Dan Trabue said...

Perhaps if you didn't hate America so much...

And perhaps if you weren't a bald-faced liar who rejects logic and morality we could have a more civil conversation?

Marshall Art said...

What is illogical in rejecting the call for state sanction of a behavior that is inherently dangerous to the practitioners? How is it immoral to reject a behavior God has rejected?