Thursday, December 22, 2005

The Third Group

I have said before that there are three kinds of parties in the controversy over sex education in Montgomery County. First, there are those people who are concerned about the innocence of children, who believe in a certain sense of modesty, feel that the modern world has become too sexualized, and do not believe the public schools should contribute to the tawdriness. Second, there are those who believe that the public schools should educate young people about the objective facts of sexuality in order to lead them to make better decisions in their own lives, and to have knowledge of their own feelings and the feelings of those around them, with the result that they will be better citizens.

Those two groups can hold a debate and come to a conclusion. They are not actually opposed to one another, in fact a member of one group should have no difficulty seeing the point of view of the other. It is really just a matter of emphasis, is it more important to protect their innocence even though they may find themselves in situations that they don't know how to deal with, or is it better to give them knowledge that they may not be ready for?

But there is a third group. This group wants to disrupt. Unfortunately, this group tends to use the language of religion to insist that their views are not only superior but infallible, because they emanate directly from God. This group demonizes people who are different from them, seeing only evil and immorality where a person stands. The third group believes a conspiracy exists, where some people want to be treated with respect. This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.

The third group does not want to talk about the issues. The school district is going to teach about sexual variation, and soon a curriculum will be offered up which will discuss some facts about homosexuality, and the third group will be against it. Not because the facts are wrong, or because the emphasis is wrong, but because we shouldn't be talking about this topic at all. We will see the third group continue to interrupt, perhaps with lawsuits, certainly in the press.

We have had, in our comments section, some people from all three groups. We have heard some articulate conservative voices, people who are concerned about some of the things that might be taught, and who are making the arguments that support their views. I tend to lean the other way, personally, but I appreciate their expression and am glad they come here to discuss. And of course we've got people who come here to present the case for accepting and respecting sexual minorities, because, well, that is an important part of what this group stands for. On both sides, I might say, we have those who are more and less articulate, and those who are more and less short-fused. It's not all pretty, there are idiots like me who stick their feet in their mouths, but in general I think it makes a lively and worthwhile dialogue.

But the third group visits us, as well. The image that comes to mind is the chimpanzee in the zoo who learns to poop in his hand and throw it at people. The chimp is locked up in a cage, I understand why he's got a bad attitude. But I really don't know why somebody who just knows their morals are better than everyone else's, who just knows that gay people have an "agenda" that they are trying to trick the rest of us into accepting, who just knows that truth can only come from God, and God speaks only to them ... I don't know why they come here to fling poop.

But that's the controversy over sex-ed in Montgomery County. It's not whether to include more or less detail or information at a younger or older age or whatever, it's whether we can discuss the subject at all. Some people want to stop all talk by any means. It's up to the rest of us, the first two groups, to see that the discussion is held, that it is open, that it is civil.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out."

This is a bigoted lie. Who has suggested "punishing and abusing homosexuals"?

You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms. They want to push the boundaries until none are left.

December 22, 2005 5:17 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms

What makes you think you know what "society's norms" are for sex?

Do the non existent "ex gays" fall into society's norms?

You do not think that CRC members, etc. have sex whatever way they choose..... anal, oral or whatever? Would that be considered
sexual activity that is not within society's norms???????

December 22, 2005 5:44 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous said...
"This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out."

This is a bigoted lie. Who has suggested "punishing and abusing homosexuals"?

You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms. They want to push the boundaries until none are left.

I gotta say, I love it when they do this. Thanks, Anon.


December 22, 2005 5:49 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said, "You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms."

Would this be outside your version of "society's norm?"

Court OKs Group Sex in 'Swinger' Clubs

December 22, 2005 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did anyone ever notice that whenever Jim gets in trouble, he starts talking about excrement?

quite a puerile tendency

I wonder what reaction he thinks he's getting

I'm copying this one and sending it out to all his fellow CAC committee members

December 22, 2005 9:17 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Will yousend it out under a real name- or just anon- that will make a big impression - as it does with us

December 22, 2005 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Will yousend it out under a real name- or just anon- that will make a big impression - as it does with us"

I'll sign it. They all know me.

December 23, 2005 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But that's the controversy over sex-ed in Montgomery County. It's not whether to include more or less detail or information at a younger or older age or whatever, it's whether we can discuss the subject at all."

You know, TTF needs to get their screwy story straight. Does CRC want to teach their "hatefulness and bigotry" or does it want to stop all talk about the subject?

And, just to spark a new round of epithets and illogic with a reasonable question, why can't the new curriculum teach that scientists have not determined what causes homosexuality? And remember, Jim, anything you say may wind up in the papers.

December 23, 2005 8:59 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anon you are fixated on Jim..why?





Wish you had a seat on CAC???

I bet Jon Ward over at Wash Times would relish your "tidbits."

December 23, 2005 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon you are fixated on Jim..why?"

Isn't he the one writing these posts?

December 23, 2005 9:40 AM  
Blogger Agius said...

Anon's a flamer - and not in a good way. He (I'll make the gender assumption) sounds like the annoying half-bully nobody likes in high school.

Anon comes in, calls Jim a bigoted lying, puerile conspiracy member, and then threatens to gossip with his friends about all the mean things Jim is saying about him. He then threatens to tell the teacher, too.

Anon - grow up.

December 23, 2005 9:47 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC Anon will never tell what was said from a CRC member side ever.

They lie..we all know that.

December 23, 2005 9:57 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said...
"Anon you are fixated on Jim..why?"

Isn't he the one writing these posts?


...and Peter Sprigg/PFOX does not write thing....?????

Get real....Should someone take all the hateful things Sprigg has written/said about homosexuals and say look what that CAC member writes and has said? Should everyone point out his link to Dobson?

December 23, 2005 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon's a flamer - and not in a good way. He (I'll make the gender assumption) sounds like the annoying half-bully nobody likes in high school.

Anon comes in, calls Jim a bigoted lying, puerile conspiracy member, and then threatens to gossip with his friends about all the mean things Jim is saying about him. He then threatens to tell the teacher, too.

Anon - grow up."

Oh please. Do a word search for "bigot" "liar" and "hateful"- you'll find most of the hits are from Jim, Kay and Andrea.

I'm not going to gossip- I'm going to show the actual statements made by Jim. The committee (which isn't the teacher) needs to know about the ugliness that they're dealing with.

"puerile" applied perfectly to this post.

December 23, 2005 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...and Peter Sprigg/PFOX does not write thing....?????

Get real....Should someone take all the hateful things Sprigg has written/said about homosexuals and say look what that CAC member writes and has said? Should everyone point out his link to Dobson?"

I don't think I've heard Peter Sprigg make any personal comments about Jim. Too much class.

Sprigg's position in Dobson's group is well known and, who are you kidding, you bring it up constantly. People on our side acknowledge our associations as opposed to TTF, which tried to hide its plotting with GLAAD and GLSEN until the CRC outed them.

December 23, 2005 10:12 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC anon...keep in dreaming.

December 23, 2005 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


throwing out incomplete sentences won't hide the fact that you're a liar

let's see some statements that Sprigg has made about Jim

December 23, 2005 10:21 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

throwing out incomplete sentences won't hide the fact that you're a liar


CRC Anon....

Third Group

December 23, 2005 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and she wants us to believe she's not "free" and "snow white"

December 23, 2005 11:02 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC Anon..

Third Group

December 23, 2005 11:29 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC anon said...Sprigg's position in Dobson's group is well known


Peter Sprigg

“We think homosexuality is a gender identity disorder, and therefore homosexuals are not fit to be role models,” said Peter Sprigg, senior director of culture studies for the Family Research Council, based in Washington.

Revealed: the tangible harms and significant costs to society wrought by homosexuality -- including higher rates of promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse

Sprigg argues that homosexuals are likely to change marriage more than marriage will change homosexuals, because they are: less likely to enter into long-term relationships; less likely to be sexually faithful; and less likely to stay together for a lifetime.

He shows how children are harmed by the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless families, and demonstrates that same-sex marriage would logically lead to marriages based on polygamy, incest, and pedophilia.

“I think we have a whole generation that has been raised on pro-homosexual mythology.”

Sprigg says higher education has been a big culprit, with public schools playing a smaller role. He notes that polls show that those with a college education are more likely to support same-sex “marriage.”

“That’s not because they’re more intelligent,” he said. “It’s because they’ve been subjected to this kind of teaching.”

"[Homosexuals] feel if they can indoctrinate children at an early age, those children will never even be open to the message that other groups have been telling the truth about homosexuals — which is that people are not born gay and that they can change," - Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council40

(Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, but homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.[ Peter Sprigg, “Homosexuality and Children”; Volume 15, Number 5, November, December, 2002 p.19]...

“Pornography, incest, premarital sex as well as homosexuality are destructive to families and individuals.” “We are not homophobic and we do not hate homosexuals; on the contrary we want what is best for them. That is why we must oppose the radical gay agenda that has been attempting to ‘normalize’ homosexual behavior since the early 1970’s.”

The paper, entitled "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," was compiled by Dr. Timothy Daily, a senior fellow for Culture Studies at Family Research Council. Peter Sprigg, senior director of Culture Studies, concludes there is a definite link between homosexuality and child molestation. He points out the vast majority of child molesters are male, and one-third of the victims of molestation are young boys.
"You have a tiny percentage of the population -- male homosexuals, less than 3% of the male population -- committing a third of the acts of child sexual abuse," Sprigg says, "and that suggests a much higher prevalence of child sexual abuse among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."

December 23, 2005 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Kay. The positions of Sprigg and his organization are well known. He would say any of this stuff anywhere. His views are mainstream- at least now- and commend them.

You still haven't met the challenge and given us examples of Sprigg calling Jim a "nut" or "despicable". That's inflammatory demagoguery and typical of TTF.

December 23, 2005 11:48 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC has no seat and that is what bothers you CRC anon the most. Why didn't you get nominated for your group to help them meet criteria?

PFOX/Sprigg did...CRC did not. Now whether PFOX represents community is another matter.

Jealousy of Jim for TTF having a seat has driven you into a frenzy.

Get over it!!!

CRC Anon--Third Group

December 23, 2005 11:56 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, it doesn't seem like you have been following this discussion very long, or paying much attention. Did you see this one?


December 23, 2005 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


As I've told you, I'm not jealous of anybody. To recap, a journalist reporting about the new committee provided readers with some background on the statements made by Jim Kennedy about another committee member. He has complained that the journalist is unfair (although the quotes were competely accurate). Then you, for some reason, decided to jump in and say that Sprigg is just as bad as Jim. I noted that Sprigg had too much class to resort to this kind of name-calling and gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong. Now, your starting to do something that seems like ranting to me. Can you back up your claim about Sprigg?

December 23, 2005 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, it doesn't seem like you have been following this discussion very long, or paying much attention. Did you see this one?


I read it, Jim. You were trying to justify your lack of discretion. Anything else I'm missing?

December 23, 2005 12:11 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC anon said,

"Then you, for some reason, decided to jump in and say that Sprigg is just as bad as Jim. I noted that Sprigg had too much class to resort to this kind of name-calling and gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong."


CRC Anon you lied or let's use the word misconstrued. Sprigg is in a bad league of his own along with Dobson/PFOX and company like CRC.

Jim's higher level of decency and fairness precludes Sprigg.
Sprigg lives and breaths promoting negativity toward homosexuals just like CRC does. That is not class as you think or maybe you do think that. Class to you equals being negative/hateful toward homosexuals it seems.

You CRC anon promote negativity toward Jim because he has a CAC seat and CRC does not.

Jim provided you the link to what was actually it.

December 23, 2005 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a simple question: what makes you think the students will believe everything that is taught to them from this curriculum?

Possible answers:

1. Teenagers are impressionable and gullible enough to take everything at face value.

2. Teenagers ignore news, so they won't know anything different.

3. Upon its release the curriculum will be believed by the students to have been revised and corrected numerous timess to ensure accuracy.

I'm only a couple of years older than the students this curriculum is aimed at. I live in the UK, yet I've managed to follow the developments of this curriculum since the beginning of January. The sex-education I received here mentioned almost nothing about homosexuality, and when it did I learned nothing new. I knew far more than what was taught due to my own research which was far more informative than a single curriculum could ever be.

December 23, 2005 1:23 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Ok, now I have a little time to reply...

Dana writes,

I don't think anyone will argue with your right to "push back," as you say. As I said, I will defend your right to do so. I will not defend the right of the Right to lie, misrepresent, slander, etc. And you should understand that we will push back as well.

And neither will I...however, you seem to assume that the Vast Vight Ving Conspiracy are the only ones that "lie, misrepresent, slander, etc." As a conservative I understand that human nature is pretty much a constant, and that liberals are as prone to lying as are conservatives. In fact this reminds me of a favorite quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn,

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

In pretty much the same way as the Right can tell lies, so can the Left...a classic lie of the Left that still manages to make the rounds is that 1 in 10 are homosexual (when the figure is actually 3 to 5%, at best).

Like the way-outdated statistics on trans persons, though estimates on the gay population were just that – estimates. The consensus now is 3-5%, depending on how you define homosexuality. And there are many ways to define it. The most common these days is simply self-identification as reported by the census, As for trans persons, for decades, with no evidence, the medical community (and it’s in all the textbooks), claimed 1:100,000 for the prevalence of transsexualism. And they completely ignored trans men. About ten years ago a study was done in the Netherlands, and the number was dropped to 1:11,200. Today estimates range from 1:500 – 1:1500, again, depending on how you define it. And the same problem remains – there is no money, no desire, and in fact outright hostility to doing the study in the first place. So people do the best they can.
I have no doubt that the Left has used awful lies, as was common in the 30’s and 40’s. On a par with the Nazis. But today’s Left is nothing compared to the Right, and there is no VLWC to compete with the well-documented VRWC. And I will use the term “conspiracy” loosely. I think you know what I mean.

Dana continues,

I'm sorry your maternal grandmother might have to attend such a service off school grounds or after paying a rental fee, but I consider that a small price to pay to forestall a more serious religious war. The question is not whether a pastor has a right to give such a speech, or your grandmother the right to listen to it, but that it cannot be given on PUBLIC school grounds.

The practice I described was not stopped to "to forestall a more serious religious war," but rather to satisfy the few secular malcontents in American Society (again, I think the "poster child" for the secular malcontent could very easily be Michael Newdow).

Our public schools are supported by taxes that are collected from just about everyone...including those that self-identify as religious. Secular extremists have been so successful in scrubbing every last inch of public education clean of any trace of religion that one would never guess that US religious history remains one of the great shining moments in the history of humankind (not perfect, mind you, but relative to the history of so many other countries so much better, peaceful and accommodating).

And now, on top of all of this, it appears that many of these same advocates of secularism in The Public Square want to fill this void with a brand of sex ed that is patently offensive to those that identify as religious (and here I am not just talking about those pesky evangelicals). As I have said before, if this trend is continued what those that support this will find are public schools that lack the wide scale public support needed to carry on their mission. I went my last two years of high school in a school district dominated by Senior Citizens; needless to say, there was really never any money for anything but the bare essentials (for example, though there was space allocated for an indoor swimming pool for the school swim team, it remained a dirt lot for lack of funding). Dana, is this what you want?

No, it is not what I want, but I don’t expect it to happen. America is an example of religious tolerance in recent history because the religious kept their faith personal and private. I was part of that culture, and even as a fundamentalist Jew I was content to live my religion privately. I wanted people to respect my celebrations of holidays, to allow my people to clothe themselves as they saw fit, but I did not expect the majority to start celebrating Jewish holidays or to teach Torah in schools, let alone require a Jewish prayer.

I have said that I would welcome teaching the history of religion in schools, if it can be done, and comparative religion as well. Prayer and Christian holidays do not belong; nor do any other prayers. If communities see fit to include all the holidays, I don’t have a problem.

I don’t think you can infer the motives of “a few secular malcontents.” That’s pretty offensive. I, for myself, am fighting this battle to forestall a bloodier one. But that’s just me.
Again, I still don’t understand what it is in our sex-ed curriculum that you find unacceptable, and why you consider sex in toto to be something that can’t be taught in any form.

Dana, continuing, writes,

As one who has made us aware of the politics of religion in Mormon country, I'm a bit surprised that you're so sanguine about inviting organized religion (back) into the public square.

The problem in Utah is not one of religion in the public square per se, rather the sheer concentration. I have developed this theory about humankind...put too many of any like group together and members of any group will exhibit a level of wackiness they would otherwise not exhibit. For example, gays and lesbians. Once while visiting a friend in San Francisco we went to Castro Street for dinner and a movie. What I saw was...well, a bit of an eye-opener. Since that time, I have had gay and lesbian neighbors in every place that I have lived, and I have never seen this same sort of behavior. Need another example? Ok, how about this...when the LDS Church wanted to build one of their temples in Nashville TN they found that every site they would choose would be nixed by the political powers to be of the area. It got to the point that the LDS Church finally had to threaten serious legal action before the local Baptist crowd understood that like it or not, those Mormons would have a temple of theirs smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Heck, I would find it challenging as a Roman (hence Papist) Catholic.

Bottom-line is this: get too many of any single group together and concentrated in a certain area, and you are bound to see weird things happen. It is human nature...something I make a point of never betting against.
I won’t argue with that. It’s mob rule, the psychology of crowds. As for the gay community, “gay culture,” as manifest in the Castro, developed due to marginalization, and as tolerance progresses, more and more gay folk just disappear into the burbs like straight folk. Andrew Sullivan pointed this out in a recent The New Republic cover story. I can tell you that 90% of trans persons live quiet lives under the radar, most lesbians do as well, and more gay men simply want to be able to do that. That’s the main motive behind marriage equality. And considering that the straight community now has the opportunity to assimilate the gay one into “wedded bliss, mortgages, two car garages and PTAs” yet is so resistant in pockets around this country, I really have to wonder as to their motivation.

Dana, again continuing, writes,

Yes, I recognize that it used to be the norm. But so was slavery, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.

The above comment, while revealing, is not surprising...I know I would not dream of saying (much less even giving thought to) of those that are secular what you seem to be implying here of those that are religious. So, are you saying that those that are religious and would like to see a place of accommodation for the same in the public sphere are the same as those that once advocated on behalf of slavery??? I have several dear friends that are as secular as I am religious and I don't feel or think that way about them...I am genuinely sorry if you feel this way, Dana.

I seem to have touched a nerve, Orin. I am responding to the notion that somehow religion is a higher state of being. Very religious people have been anti-Semitic, racist, etc. and Christianity was used to justify each and every one of those beliefs. And my response is also to those who talk about tradition being anti-gay. Sure it has been, but that tradition has also been guilty of all of the above. I would tend to your earlier comment, that it’s human nature that reacts like this. But I am fully aware that many couch their human nature in religious language to cover themselves, and it is that to which I am responding.

Dana, again,

And just maybe, instead of criticizing western Europe for having secularized, you might want to step back and review the last, oh, 1500 years of European history, culminating in the religious war known as the Holocaust and ask yourself if maybe the Europeans finally got it right.

I will not go into the 1500 years you claim taught Europeans that secularism was the path to peace. What I will correct is your claim that the Holocaust was any sort of "religious war". This is factually incorrect, period. It is simply not so. About the only ones that claim anything remotely similar are Holocaust Deniers... I have read one complete account, from start to finish (the one written by British historian Martin Gilbert) on the Holocaust, not to mention countless articles. The political ideology of National Socialism (Nazism) was secular to its evil core. True, in places like Poland (for example), Hitler tapped into historic Catholic anti-Semitism to accomplish his purposes. But make no mistake, his purposes were secular, not religious. Dietrich Bonhoffer, as well as other people of faith, recognized this, knew that their faith demanded that they do something, and then as often paid for that something with their very lives.

Sorry, Orin, but that’s a whitewash. Your Catholic Church was a co-conspirator in the Holocaust before, during and after the fact. Yes, there were exceptions, quite a number in fact. But while the Nazi philosophy was racial, and not religious, many went to church. But more importantly, the crimes of the Nazis could not have been carried out in a nation that hadn’t been primed to hate Jews by 2000 years of vicious Church propaganda. Pope John recognized this, as did John Paul to a further degree. But there still has been no accounting for the war years, and the archives have not been opened.
And I didn’t say that 1500 years of religious wars taught the Europeans that secularism was the path to peace, but that they needed to get beyond the religious hatreds and secularism was as good a way as any.

And finally, Dana writes,

I have no problem with you, or people like you.

In light of your own words that show a clear and consistent pattern of animus against religion and those that self-identify as religious, I find this difficult to believe...and here I am thinking of past comments that indicate you believe that the United States is one step away from becoming "A Handmaid's Tale".

But I think you are also aware that not only do the evangelicals with whom you don't associate want to dominate political and social life in this country, but they already have, in the guise of the Republican Party. If you enjoy that, then keep supporting them.

In the last election it was not just Evangelicals that re-elected Bush, but Catholics (the figure I've heard is 4 to 5 million). In many ways I feel a kinship with evangelicals that I do not feel with self-identifying Catholics like Francis Kissling (Catholics for a Free Choice) or John Kerry, for that matter. I can even remember back to when I was LDS, and I thought that Sen. Ted Kennedy was many things, but certainly not a faithful Catholic.
Support them? I do.

Orin, I thought I made it clear that I have nothing against religious people like you, but I am firmly against fundamentalism of any kind. I know many Jewish fundamentalists, and I like many of them. I respect them, and support their living as they see fit. I just do not support their dictating their religious beliefs to me or trying to impose them upon me. And I will certainly not support a party that is intimately tied to the haters of Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council. I’m sorry that you give a religious litmus test to your Catholic politicians, but it’s your right. I just think that applying the term “faithful” to anyone is a recipe for disaster. It was at the core of those European religious wars that you dismiss, and is at the core of intra-Jewish and intra-Muslim conflict to this day as well.
Oh, and Bush wasn’t elected in the first place. And as the data comes out about the Diebold fraud, it may very well turn out he wasn’t even elected in the second place.

If not, the only way, as American history has shown, to prevent religious wars, is to keep this country firmly a secular constitutional republic.

Again you have asserted something that has no foundation in factual history. If American history shows ANYTHING at all it shows how religion as well as those that self-identify as religious can participate in the Public Square as religious people, while still allowing those not interested in religion to opt out and remain safe in their rights.

I’m not interested in opting out of my Public Square. That’s the point. In the Public Sqaure we need to meet on common ground. Insofar as your religious beliefs motivate your morals and politics, that’s perfectly fine. I have those beliefs as well. But once it gets down to “The Bible says so” or “it was always done this way” then it comes apart.

Before asserting anything more about American history and preventing religious wars you might want to read Daniel L. Dreisbach, a professor in the department of justice, law, and society at American University in Washington, D.C. and his book, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press; October 2003). While there are other titles, that is one of the most recent...

Thanks for the reference. The fact is that this is a secular constitutional republic with a secular constitution, regardless of how much religion was in the Public Square during earlier history. And you may want to recall the vicious anti-Catholicism of the 19th century when you have the time.

December 23, 2005 2:11 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I think this young man makes an interesting point, which we usually ignore. Most kids get their sex-ed elsewhere, as they get their sex elsewhere. The best I can see this curriculum, or any curriculum, doing, is to teach basic facts and hope to stimulate the kids to weigh those facts against what they've learned elsewhere.

I don't support this new curriculum because I believe the students will be taught much about sexual or gender variance. They won't. They'll learn much more from watching Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica. I simply want the sex-ed and biology teachers to be able to respond to questions, to get the kids talking in a civilized way about these issues, and to create a school environment where everybody feels comfortable, regardless of their identity. And I don't want to see sexual minorities sacrificed for someone's religious beliefs.

December 23, 2005 2:15 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

UK-Anon, I suppose you are not the same Anon who's been entertaining himself here recently? Since you say you've been following this situation, should I presume that you have clicked on the curriculum links on the righthand side of this page, and read what was going to taught? If so, then you will have noticed that there was almost nothing about homosexuality. In the present curriculum there is, literally, nothing; they were going to mention it, which triggered a self-righteous outburst from the wackos (as the Republican Party calls them).

I think Dana summarizes my view, too. Life isn't about gay people, but there are some, and it doesn't hurt anything to know what's up with them, and to treat them with whatever respect they deserve. There is certainly no justification for being mean to them because of the way they are.


December 23, 2005 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is basically my view on things too.

I do have the same question as the other Anon though: does the new curriculum teach that the causes of homosexuality have not been clearly identified? That is a fact too.

The trouble with including too many viewpoints is the likelihood of completely confusing students to the extent where there will simply be mass debates.

December 23, 2005 3:42 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

The new curriculum is in production, and I would assume it will state that the biological cause(s) is (are) unknown, as is the cause of heterosexuality. We know very little about the biology of human sexuality, and it would help us all if we could spend a little bit of money to study it. It is undoubtedly quite complex. But, no, the radical fundamentalists don't want that, because it runs counter to their religious beliefs.

What we do know is a)one's sexual identity, being male or female, is inborn, b) one's sexual orientation, similarly, is likely to be predominantly inborn, c) one can choose whatever behavior one desires, but one cannot choose one's feelings, and d) Freudian and Freudian-like notions that family dynamics determines sexual identity and sexual orientation are false.

We also know that cherry-picking anyone's Bible does a great disservice to all students, but that's another matter.

December 23, 2005 4:22 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Here is CRC Anon Third Group's "journalist.."

Anonymous said...Previous posted on blog)
From Jon Ward (February 2005)of Washington Times sent to Ellen C of Recall (CRC)


Time for some research?

Here's Jon Ward's email to me today. I put it out for anyone with the time:

(I had asked why they didn't refer to Throckmoron as Dr.)
We only refer to people as Dr. if they are medical doctors.

By the way, if you already haven't, do some research on a couple things.
What's happening in MoCo started with 50 years ago with Kinsey, of course.
Two of his pals started Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information
and Education Caucus of the United States), and the ideology extended then
into GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), who has started their
own caucus within the NEA.

I may be telling you things you already know, but check out the connections
between GLSEN and the NEA.


Jon (Ward)

[Date=02-11-2005] Name:Ellen ellenmc7(Blank), [Msgid=779956]

Jon Ward's comments
I think we need to get others on the CRC email to assist with this kind of stuff. Can you(Ellen) do a "blast" to the rest of the folks that have showed up at general meetings and done nothing else? This may be a way to spread the wealth and let others feel some ownership in our work.

Michelle (Turner)

July 24, 2005 8:10 PM
JimK said...
Excuse me, Anon, can you fill us in a little bit here? I can't quite tell what's what here. Is this Jon Ward, the reporter for the Washington Times, collaborating with the group he is covering?


July 24, 2005 8:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Appears so......As we all know Jon Ward of the Washington Times is included in private emails from the President of CRC relating to things such as:

Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:08 PM
Subject: FW: Ten Commandments

I did not know this. Did you?

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

Wonder if some would say that is a conflict for Jon Ward?

December 23, 2005 8:42 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC Anon Third Group said, " I'm not going to gossip- I'm going to show the actual statements made by Jim. The committee (which isn't the teacher) needs to know about the ugliness that they're dealing with."

Jealousy showing again over the CAC seat CRC does not have. The fixation over Jim is just bullying which is what kids that are gay face everyday in schools from folks like CRC Anon Third Group and the kids they teach that behavior to.

Go ahead and make sure it is taped.

December 23, 2005 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see after I went out shopping yesterday afternoon there's was a lot of activity here. Didn't read it all but did see this from Dana:

"What we do know is a)one's sexual identity, being male or female, is inborn, b) one's sexual orientation, similarly, is likely to be predominantly inborn, c) one can choose whatever behavior one desires, but one cannot choose one's feelings, and d) Freudian and Freudian-like notions that family dynamics determines sexual identity and sexual orientation are false."

These assertions are actually not proven. Dana has a dubious grasp of science and her papers are widely dismissed by other scientists.

Also, it's sad that Kay can't defend Jim's lack of civility other than to attack me. He's called a fellow member of the CAC a number of names and this person has notably not responded. Jim should give him an apology if he wants to be taken seriously. But that's just me being a big bully.

Anyway, no more comments from me until after the holidays. Whatever you celebrate, here's hoping you and your families know joy. And here's my Christmas present for all you TTFers. A tip:

Don't just mutate....evolve.

December 24, 2005 10:21 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

The third group believes a conspiracy exists, where some people want to be treated with respect. This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.

To which Anonymous replies,

This is a bigoted lie. Who has suggested "punishing and abusing homosexuals"?

And my "two cents"? Well, I think calling someone a "bigoted" liar is unfair, uncharitable and not particularly helpful in furthering discussion...which I assume is the purpose of this forum. I do think Jim, Dana, and others that support Teach the Facts are unfamiliar with groups like Focus on the Family. I would like to think that a little familiarity with what Focus on the Family actually says and does might soften the all too often harsh assessment of those that are on the other side of the political spectrum. Then again, maybe not...

Permit me to explain...

Earlier this year my wife had to present a lesson to the ladies of her church; the lesson was on the dangers of pornography. I looked over the resources provided to her by her church and quickly came to the conclusion that they would not only be insufficient, but would not help those in need. I went to a subsite of Focus on the Family called, and in short order found all of the resources needed to help present a lesson that would heal and help those in need.

What I found remarkable was the lack of hell, fire or brimestone in any of the writings. In fact, what I found was an approach that It seem to me that the primary focus was to heal the individual addicted to pornography first thru intensive counseling and therapy. Then once that is under way, to encourage the individual to seek spiritual healing. What I did not find any of was an extra heaping of guilt.

Need another example?

Ok, one more...the religion I grew up in was especially good at loading on the guilt with regard to masturbation. Once, while at the Focus on the Family website I wondered what advice or counsel they would have on the subject. I went to,

and using the search funtion, typed in "masturbation". Check it out...I am not sure about any of you, but what Dobson wrote with regards to this subject was downright refreshing after what I grew up with as a hormone raging teenager. And make no mistake, Dobson realized that his rather progressive advice would be controversial among the same religious crowd that often looks to him for advice, "Well, those are my views, for what they are worth. I know my recommendations will be inflammatory to some people. If you are one of them, please forgive me. I can only offer the best advice of which I'm capable. I pray that in this instance, I am right."

My preference is to assume that someone holding a harsh opinion about abstinence, Dobson, the Catholic faith, or any other similar topic is simply misinformed and only needs more information.

Will this change your mind?

Probably...maybe...who knows?

I know that because I have made a habit of talking to people with different opinions than my own over the course of many year now I understand that reasonable people often will disagree. In the past, when I have heard religious people demonize gays and lesbians I have spoken up in defense of their right to respect, dignity and to be left alone to live their lives.

Again, Jim,

This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.

Since this charge is a tad vague, I do wonder what exactly it has in mind. I could assume that it might be a nod to the debate about same-sex marriage now raging across the American political landscape (in fact, it appears that it is expected to be THE hot topic of next years election...right next to the national campaign to demonize and defeat my member of Congress, Marilyn Musgrave). If that is the case then I have a ready answer...

The debate over homosexual "marriage" is a debate about the nature of marriage. What advocates on behalf of same-sex marriage are attempting to do is radically redefine what marriage means for American society (indeed redefine what it has meant for a long time). And this is being attempted thru the least democratic branch of government, the Judiciary, on the basis that same-sex marriage is a civil right (in an ironic twist of history, the LDS Church is now opposing same-sex marriage with the same fervor they once reserved for defending their religious right to practice polygamy).

Without getting too long winded here...yes, there are social norms and someone needs to enforce them. I distinctly recall in the early days of HIV/AIDS that gay bathouses were defended as a component of "gay culture". It took the final realization of the apocalyptic specter of annihilation of gays via AIDS for them to at last cooperate with public health officials in closing the bathhouses.

Absent norms and enforcement of those norms, American society will become a free for all where the weakest and most vulnerable are place at greatest risk.

As I do not know what time I will have of my own in the next week with the time off that I have, I wish to bid you all,


and a healthy New Year (since with one's health just about anything can be accomplished).

Be well,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

December 24, 2005 12:46 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC Anon Third Group...

Amazing that you come into our backyard to sling poop and then take offense to people stopping you.

We do not agree with you period. You already know surprise there. Jim is a big boy if he needs to apologize for anything in his life he can make that decision don't you think? But if you think it will be about Sprigg and his hatefulness toward homosexuals..won't happen. Why should it... just because you say so..???

Get real...and get back over to your CRC Thrid Group where like kind think on same page with bigotry, hate, and intolerance.

You will be happier there and that third group will agree with you all the time.

December 24, 2005 12:47 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

For those who think they udnerstand the Third Reich --

from Brian Ladd's review of the volume, The Third Reich in Power, 1933-39:

Particularly fraught was the Nazi state's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church and the established Protestant Church. Neither was completely Nazified, but many church leaders heartily endorsed the Nazi's anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. Evans restores the complexity of well-known figures like the pastor Martin Niemoller, a once-enthusiastic Nazi whose attempt to preserve the autonomy of the Protestant churches turned him, paradoxically, into an anti-Semitic defender of the Jews.

December 24, 2005 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Nazi Persecution of the Churches by J.S.Conway

December 27, 2005 10:13 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I haven't read Conway's book. Why don't you summarize it for us?

December 27, 2005 2:10 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Oh, and Anon, please explain to the group here that your author writes for the Institute for Historical Review, the world's leading Holocaust denial organization.

December 27, 2005 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The book discusses Hitler's attitude about the Christian church and how he tried to destroy it.

If you're saying the guy has denied the Holocaust or is secretly serving those who have, let's see your proof. From your past comments, my guess is that you've seen one of these groups quote something from him and now your saying he's "writing" for them.

December 27, 2005 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

more from Brian Ladd's review of the volume, The Third Reich in Power, 1933-39:

"He places Nazi anti-Semitism in the context of the Reich's broader ambitions for racial purity, which justified the persecution of homosexuals, the disabled and Gypsies, among others. But he argues that no twisted logic of pseudoscientific eugenics can explain the Nazis' obsession with the Jews."

Ladd seems to understand that Darwinian-inspired eugenics was the central rationale for the Nazis.

December 27, 2005 4:32 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 27, 2005 9:01 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I beg your pardon. I misread a quote from the IHR, which IS the journal of Holocaust deniers, but they were referring to Conway, who is not a member of their group.

That's good.

But to the point of whether the Nazis hated the Church, or, more importantly, whether the Church worked to help Jews, or was complicit in their dehumanization and ultimate extermination, I will quote a review Conway published on his newsletter last year. Yes, there were "Righteous Gentiles" who have been honored by Israel at the Yad vaShem Memorial in Jerusalem. But the Catholic Church, and the mass of individual Catholics and Protestants, is another matter.

Robert A.Krieg, Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany, New York/London: Continuum 2004. ix + 234 pp.
ISBN 0-5264-1576-8.

Professor Robert Krieg of Notre Dame University, Indiana, has given us a valuable addition to the English-language studies of German Catholicism during the Third Reich. Together with the work of some younger scholars, such as Kevin Spicer, Mark Ruff, Derek Hastings and Oded Heilbronner, we now have a much more balanced picture than in Gunter Lewy's initial survey forty years ago. And in contrast to many of the German-language accounts, Krieg has the merit of both clarity and brevity. This will be an excellent work for undergraduates.

These studies have all begun with the inherent question: why did the Catholic Church not forestall or resist more forcefully the tide of Nazi totalitarianism? Or put more sceptically, why did the Church compromise and capitulate so fatefully to the Nazi menace?

Krieg's answer looks carefully both at the history of the Catholic milieu, and at the theological leaders, five of whom he examines at greater length, while placing them very ably in their context. He points out that German Catholicism was in a unique situation, and, as others have already done, he stresses as major factors the lasting impact of Bismarck's Kulturkampf, and the hierarchy's search for stability and security thereafter. At the same time, he shows that the prevailing trend in Catholic theological teaching concentrated on the somewhat abstract ideas of Thomas Aquinas, and seemed to give little guidance to the faithful for their political stance in everyday politics. Krieg could possibly have made more of the impact of the loss of the first world war, which in the 1920s disconcerted both Catholics and Protestants alike, resulting in confused and conflicting responses to the challenge of the secular world.

Three of the five theologians whom Krieg analyses, Eschweiler, Lortz and Adam, achieved later notoriety for their open support for the new Nazi regime, at least to begin with. Together with lesser-known figures whom Krieg discusses, their motives were extremely varied. In fact, as he points out, none of these men can be seen as representative of the whole Catholic milieu. Despite the prestige of these professors, their affirmations were matched by the opposing views held by their colleagues and bishops. Karl Eschweiler would seem to have been a firm authoritarian. Hitler's leadership against modernity and especially against the Bolshevik danger was the main attraction. Joseph Lortz however had a much grander vision. He looked for the renewal of Western civilization, whereby Hitler's political energies could be united with Catholic spirituality. Such co-operation, as Mussolini had shown, could be beneficial in rebuilding a spiritually vibrant society along organic lines. It was, as Victor Conzemius pointed out, "idealism separated from reality".

To be fair, Lortz soon enough began to recognize that the Nazi movement contained other and more dangerous elements. His subsequent withdrawal was sufficient to enable him to resume a long and fruitful academic career after the war.

The most noteworthy of these scholars was Karl Adam, professor of systematic theology at Tübingen University, who already in the 1920s had gained a world-wide audience, and indeed may be considered one of the most creative theologians of the early twentieth century. But, in Krieg's view, he was also most naive in his assessment of National Socialism. As a result, in 1933, he enthusiastically endorsed Hitler's new regime, believing that here was a leader of messianic capabilities, who would rebuild the national community and revive Catholicism in the process. To his credit, he
recognized the need for a new start, and the spiritual hunger caused by the confusions and uncertainties of political affairs. He agreed with Lortz and Oswald Spengler that the West was suffering a spiritual and cultural breakdown. His answer was to reject the corrosive influences of modernity and individualism, and return to the authority of the church. Faith and culture should find a new synthesis.

Karl Adam saw himself as a mediator between the church and the Nazi state. This led him to approve the Nazis' antisemitic policies because each nation has a duty to strengthen its racial identity. But Catholics should relate to individual Jews with justice and love. In Krieg's view, Adam's fault lay in not recognizing that Nazism's goals were incompatible with Christianity, despite overlapping terminologies.
But there were others. Romano Guardini was professor of theology in Berlin until dismissed by the Nazis in 1939. He early on recognized the "barbaric" character of the movement and wrote books implicitly criticizing the Nazi manipulation of the public through their invasive propaganda. But Guardini's upholding of Christian tradition was muted during the war and only flourished afterwards in rebuilding the Bonn republic on good Christian lines.

A lesser-known figure was the Freiburg dogmatic theologian, Engelbert Krebs, whose broader vision of the church's mission separated him from those colleagues searching for a political leader who would somehow restore Christendom. Krebs was singular in writing and speaking in favour of Judaism, and thus challenged both the Nazis' antisemitism and the church's theological anti-Judaism. But he paid the price of being removed from his professorship in 1937. Like Guardini he was silenced for the rest of the Nazi era.

The variety of these theologians' responses to the Nazi regime reflected views prevalent throughout German Catholicism. The leading bishops sought to preserve its institutional autonomy, and on the whole succeeded. The result was an absence of any strong prophetic witness on behalf of the suffering and oppressed. Catholics had not been armed by their theologians with the moral fervour or compelling arguments which would have been required for such a stance. None of the German bishops or theologians supported an overthrow of the regime, even when its tyranny became clear. But the limited ecclesiology they espoused did inoculate them against Nazi infiltration or subversion. Their passive resistance saved the pastoral life and ensured institutional survival. However, as Krieg notes, their moral authority was eroded by their silence over Nazi atrocities. Subsequent commentators have rightly criticized this model for the church, and the failure to equip the laity for a more active role in defending freedom and justice.
Krieg is ready to acknowledge the inadequacy of the Catholic ecclesiology adopted during the Nazi era, and blames the popes and theologians who suppressed any more relevant stance. Indeed he goes so far as to affirm that the majority of theologians of the 1920s and 1930s failed to understand the real consequences of the first world war. Not until after the Nazi onslaught did younger theologians like Karl Rahner begin to forge a newer more appropriate response.

December 27, 2005 9:14 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I don't know how you guys can manage to continually "misread," and to keep it up. We all make mistakes, as I've just admitted I did, but you keep coming and coming and . . .

You quote Ladd saying that "no twisted logic of pseudoscientific eugenics can explain the Nazis' obsession with the Jews." This means that pseudoscience canNOT account for Nazi hatred of the Jews. That's pretty obvious, considering that the racialist program began in the 1890s but was founded on a fertile ground of 2000 years of Catholic anti-Semitism, to which Luther then added his virulence in the 16th century.

But there's another constant error, that I see in many places. Only Christian extremists equate evolutionary theory with social Darwinism. I guess, since it was originally Darwin's theory of evolution, and then Spencer and Co. interpreted it for social theory and called it social Darwinism, that means they are one and the same? Same name, same theory? That's absurd.

I suggest you read this week's article on evolution in The Economist magazine if you don't or can't wade through this week's issue of Science devoted to evolution.

December 27, 2005 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Unless Dana has requested that you delete her comment, I'd encourage you to put it back up. Let's keep a free exchange going here. The topic is important.

December 28, 2005 8:22 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I haven't deleted anybody's comments.


December 28, 2005 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, you're right- looks it was by author- never mind

December 28, 2005 8:38 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I deleted it, because the blogger messed me up again. It doubled my comment when I hit "Login and Publish," (after not posting anything at all for over a minute), and not being excessively egotistical, I felt one copy of my post would suffice. So I deleted one of the two.

December 28, 2005 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm one of the few people in town who is busy today but I can see you wrote a long comment and will try to read and respond later tonight. I've got a feeling we're not that far apart- I just think you may go a bit overboard.

December 28, 2005 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know about the rest of you but I think it's improper for Jim to put a picture of himself at the first CAC meeting with this post.

December 28, 2005 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry. Meant to sign.

Bacchus Gigante (BG)

December 28, 2005 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what he thinks is so funny?

jiminy cricket

December 29, 2005 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Probably someone at the meeting said "underwear".


December 29, 2005 3:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home