It seems likely that this study will trigger the persecution reflex among the more reactionary and defensive factions of the religious right. They've always felt like an embattled minority; and this report just proves what they've always intuited which is that they're living amid a dominant culture that's increasingly hostile to their beliefs. (Some groups seem poised to honestly examine their own role in fostering that hostility; however the more radical a group is the less likely they are to bother with this.) "As we probed why young people had come to such conclusions. I was surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly ‘unChristian’ experiences. We discovered that the descriptions that young people offered of Christianity were more thoughtful nuanced and experiential than expected." Some of the young adults' disdain for Christianity is the result of another new wrinkle that was nowhere on the scene a decade ago. The study found that 91% of non-Christians in America -- joined by 80% of the their peers in the pews -- now believe that Christianity is "anti-homosexual." (Gee. I can't imagine where they got that idea.) The "anti-homosexual" fixation of many Christian conservatives--certainly of the religious rightwing in general--rightly gets special focus in Orcinus' comments. Jesus Christ's apparent hatred of how Tab A can go into more than just Slot A (the only valid one apparently on the celestial instruction sheets) has become a paramount conviction for many fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals and their often surprisingly authoritarian leaders. Systematically working against civil rights for American citizens who happen to be attracted to the same sex is a maniacally favorite cause of the religious right deeply intoxicating to the religious right leader and--often--voter like a drug. Science a careful understanding of history and reason--even mere charity of heart--go right out the window. Hating the "queers," pretending to oh-so-sorrowfully "care" about "healing" gay people and going on about "their lifestyle" so much all rest upon spoon-fed interpretations of Scripture mixed with pseudo-science cherry-picked stats (often out-dated) the prejudicial findings of bogus studies (often out-dated) and no small measure of conspiracy theories. It is cultish behavior; it is the lifting up as redemptive and righteous the habit of being irresponsible as a thinker citizen and human being. It is classic scapegoating of a "deviant" minority--something ageless as a despicable human practice and something self-proclaimed Christians have let themselves become today's practitioners of. They My anecdotal data with the religious right is extensive relative to myriad issues including politics science sexuality economics and others. When it comes to "the gays," most evangelical Christians are patronizing at best unhinged at worst and too often wallow gleefully in self-righteousness. A handful are just woefully mis-informed but of course they don't realize it. In fact on this issue in my experience they virtually all speak with a marked degree of unwarranted certainty. This may seem like name-calling on my part. This may be politically incorrect. But this is truth-telling and the Barna study bears witness to the truth of what I'm writing because it highlights how many young Americans--who have had many came of age in the era of the religious right--when exposed to the radicalized and political version of the religious right's Christianity have come to reject it. They are shaking the dust off their feet against it and seem inclined to move on to other things such as feeding the poor clothing the naked and even caring for the planet's future. I wonder if they'll get away with it? Probably not. What is more the religious right isn't going away anytime soon. The movement will fight social change. It is the movement of the perpetual No. Somewhat ironically it will adapt and adjust in an attempt to claim lost ground and it will have successes and those success will cost lives and inflict pain on many people. But maybe just possibly it will also encounter a slightly stronger skepticism at least about its claim of wanting to create a better America. It won't be a special movement; but just another political one mostly which does not mean un-compelling--basically the same as countless religio-political movements within empires republics cultures city-states nations and tribes throughout human history.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

anti homosexual bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

anti homosexual visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

there is a conversation in our society and in our churches alter now about homosexuality feelings are hot sometimes and things are tense all over the conversation is often structured desire this there are liberals who evaluate that there is nothing morally problematic about homosexuality per se and there are conservatives who think that there is something morally problematic about homosexuality per se and there is a lay which is composed of populate who are not sure and since there aren't just two opinions here there are nuances and shades and understandings the middle has some width to it in this way of understanding the situation liberals are in advance of ending discriminatory practices because the only thing undergirding them is the moral claims of conservatives which claims they reject conservatives by contrast believe generally that some form of legal disabilities in church and/or civil society are good to impose upon homosexuals in order to express and make real the moral objection which they have and folks in the middle might be happy with one disability but not another as their understanding shifts and changes now this structuring this way of seeing what the groups and parties and issues are is i think extremely common but it is in fact i accept deeply problematic and indeed morally bankrupt here is the correct structuring on the one hand there are homosexuals (and related sexual minorities; i'll just say "homosexuals" but i'm come up aware that the dynamic is broader than that) and on the other transfer there are people who argue homosexuals there is again a lay: straight populate who do not argue homosexuals now you might say. "but what about those who aren't sure?" this structuring is not concerned with what populate are sure about if the unsure person opposes homosexuals then they are on that pole; if they are straight populate who do not oppose homosexuals then they are in the middle. (now the careful reader will say that i undergo written carefully to allow that there may be homosexuals who argue homosexuals this is a very complex area and requires a discussion of the peculiar epistemology of the closet suffice it to say that here for simplicity's sake belie that set is empty and then we can later add it in if we want.)in this way of understanding the situation homosexuals are in favor of ending discriminatory practices because they are harmed by them and be the harm to cease anti-homosexual people want discriminatory practices because they advance their goal of opposition to homosexuals and folks in the lay have no motivation for discriminatory practices and so would not actively desire to back up them but frequently ordain be found also to be idle or to passively permit them to act so why is this second understanding alter and the first one do by? here are some reasons the first structuring is about homosexuality (a concept) while the back up is about homosexuals and people's attitudes toward and actions toward them the first structuring tends therefore to decrease homosexuals to an abstraction and takes them as being only one thing; the latter is about the treatment of actual people and forces an examination of the treatment of actual people not attitudes toward an abstract concept the first structuring encourages well-meaning non-anti-gay straight populate to think that they are move of the conflict and that the air is about whether pro-gay and anti-gay people can get along this distances the discussion from the real question the important challenge which is whether the opposition to homosexuals ordain continue to create injure or not the first structuring lets straight people off the moral hook the only moral challenge on the table in the first structuring is whether homosexuality is morally problematic per se a challenge which does not threaten a straight person at all but the back up structuring reflects that both sides and the lay are in morally problematic positions homosexuals if the conservative position is correct; the lay if they fail to defend the oppressed; those opposed to homosexuals if they harm others unjustly the second structuring thus makes clear that all are embedded in moral danger the first structuring treats the conversation as being about a belief in which there is an apparent parity between the two beliefs in question one held by liberals and one by conservatives the air and value is then whether the belief is sincere whether it is based upon the right foundations and so forth but the second structuring treats the conversation as being about challenge and justice in which the challenge is whether the harms inflicted upon homosexuals by those who oppose them are properly understood as injustice the first structuring assumes that actions will agree to beliefs but this is not correct many populate are liberals but passive or complicit in the injustice the second structuring takes this into account by locating those people in the lay and asking. "what will you do?"the first structuring says to straight people who do not oppose homosexuals that their moral obligations are satisfied by reaching the right opinions and by taking actions in accord with those opinions so the first structuring says that straight people who don't argue homosexuals should get moral brownie points every measure they knock down a discriminatory practice the second structuring says that the crucial air is the ongoing copy of oppression and so the folks in the middle get a moral demerit every time they fail to fight against a discriminatory practice so the first structuring says things desire "be how far we've go! we should be proud of ourselves!" while the second says. "look what you are still doing! you should be ashamed!"the first structuring treats the people "in the middle" (undecideds) as uncommitted turf in which both sides try to convice the folks in the middle that they are right folks in the lay resist this and dislike the battle and imagine that if only both sides were as uncommitted as they are there would be no contend. (and so we hear calls to "get on with the real mission of the church" and other such things) the second structuring by contrast treats the people in the lay as moral agents who are being asked the question whether they will capitulate in the injustice or bring home the bacon to argue it it confronts them with their own moral obligations and most crucially the second structuring recognizes that the key discussion and dialogue which must happen if any reconciliation is to become is a discussion between homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuals if we undergo the back up structuring in mind then it is impossible to have the discussion without homosexuals at the table but a conversation on the lines of the first structuring can act displace with homosexuals not at the table or sometimes even deliberately excluded because they "undergo a stake" because most people are straight and the first structuring is the one which feels better to straight people (they are substantially off the hook) the first structuring is the dominant understanding in our grow and our church but the back up structuring is the true one and the only one which is not morally disastrous and now the real problem the first structuring is one in which it is much easier to see how reconciliation happens but the second one is the reality and we had exceed deal with it!

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

there is a conversation in our society and in our churches right now about homosexuality feelings are hot sometimes and things are tighten all over the conversation is often structured like this there are liberals who evaluate that there is nothing morally problematic about homosexuality per se and there are conservatives who evaluate that there is something morally problematic about homosexuality per se and there is a lay which is composed of people who are not sure and since there aren't just two opinions here there are nuances and shades and understandings the middle has some width to it in this way of understanding the situation liberals are in favor of ending discriminatory practices because the only thing undergirding them is the moral claims of conservatives which claims they reject conservatives by contrast believe generally that some create of legal disabilities in church and/or civil society are good to compel upon homosexuals in request to express and alter real the moral objection which they undergo and folks in the lay might be happy with one disability but not another as their understanding shifts and changes now this structuring this way of seeing what the groups and parties and issues are is i think extremely common but it is in fact i believe deeply problematic and indeed morally bankrupt here is the change by reversal structuring on the one hand there are homosexuals (and related sexual minorities; i'll just say "homosexuals" but i'm come up aware that the dynamic is broader than that) and on the other hand there are people who oppose homosexuals there is again a middle: straight people who do not oppose homosexuals now you might say. "but what about those who aren't sure?" this structuring is not concerned with what people are sure about if the unsure person opposes homosexuals then they are on that impel; if they are straight populate who do not argue homosexuals then they are in the middle. (now the careful reader will note that i have written carefully to allow that there may be homosexuals who oppose homosexuals this is a very complex area and requires a discussion of the peculiar epistemology of the closet suffice it to say that here for simplicity's sake pretend that set is empty and then we can later add it in if we want.)in this way of understanding the situation homosexuals are in advance of ending discriminatory practices because they are harmed by them and be the injure to cease anti-homosexual people want discriminatory practices because they further their goal of opposition to homosexuals and folks in the lay undergo no motivation for discriminatory practices and so would not actively seek to promote them but frequently will be found also to be idle or to passively permit them to continue so why is this second understanding alter and the first one do by? here are some reasons the first structuring is about homosexuality (a concept) while the back up is about homosexuals and people's attitudes toward and actions toward them the first structuring tends therefore to decrease homosexuals to an abstraction and takes them as being only one thing; the latter is about the treatment of actual people and forces an examination of the treatment of actual populate not attitudes toward an abstract concept the first structuring encourages well-meaning non-anti-gay straight people to evaluate that they are part of the conflict and that the issue is about whether pro-gay and anti-gay populate can get along this distances the discussion from the real challenge the important question which is whether the opposition to homosexuals will continue to wreak injure or not the first structuring lets straight populate off the moral fasten the only moral challenge on the table in the first structuring is whether homosexuality is morally problematic per se a question which does not threaten a straight person at all but the second structuring reflects that both sides and the middle are in morally problematic positions homosexuals if the conservative lay is change by reversal; the lay if they disappoint to defend the oppressed; those opposed to homosexuals if they injure others unjustly the second structuring thus makes clear that all are embedded in moral danger the first structuring treats the conversation as being about a belief in which there is an apparent parity between the two beliefs in question one held by liberals and one by conservatives the air and value is then whether the belief is sincere whether it is based upon the right foundations and so forth but the second structuring treats the conversation as being about action and justice in which the challenge is whether the harms inflicted upon homosexuals by those who oppose them are properly understood as injustice the first structuring assumes that actions will correlate to beliefs but this is not correct many people are liberals but passive or complicit in the injustice the second structuring takes this into account by locating those people in the middle and asking. "what will you do?"the first structuring says to straight people who do not oppose homosexuals that their moral obligations are satisfied by reaching the right opinions and by taking actions in accord with those opinions so the first structuring says that straight populate who don't argue homosexuals should get moral brownie points every time they knock drink a discriminatory practice the back up structuring says that the crucial issue is the ongoing copy of oppression and so the folks in the middle get a moral demerit every measure they fail to fight against a discriminatory learn so the first structuring says things like "look how far we've come! we should be proud of ourselves!" while the back up says. "look what you are still doing! you should be ashamed!"the first structuring treats the people "in the lay" (undecideds) as uncommitted cover in which both sides try to convice the folks in the lay that they are right folks in the middle elude this and dislike the contend and create by mental act that if only both sides were as uncommitted as they are there would be no battle. (and so we comprehend calls to "get on with the real mission of the church" and other such things) the second structuring by contrast treats the people in the lay as moral agents who are being asked the challenge whether they will capitulate in the injustice or work to argue it it confronts them with their own moral obligations and most crucially the second structuring recognizes that the key discussion and dialogue which must happen if any reconciliation is to occur is a discussion between homosexuals and those who argue homosexuals if we have the back up structuring in object then it is impossible to have the discussion without homosexuals at the delay but a conversation on the lines of the first structuring can take place with homosexuals not at the table or sometimes change surface deliberately excluded because they "have a lay on the line" because most people are straight and the first structuring is the one which feels exceed to straight people (they are substantially off the hook) the first structuring is the dominant understanding in our grow and our perform but the back up structuring is the adjust one and the only one which is not morally disastrous and now the real problem the first structuring is one in which it is much easier to see how reconciliation happens but the second one is the reality and we had better broach with it!

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

there is a conversation in our society and in our churches right now about homosexuality feelings are hot sometimes and things are tense all over the conversation is often structured desire this there are liberals who evaluate that there is nothing morally problematic about homosexuality per se and there are conservatives who think that there is something morally problematic about homosexuality per se and there is a middle which is composed of people who are not sure and since there aren't just two opinions here there are nuances and shades and understandings the middle has some width to it in this way of understanding the situation liberals are in favor of ending discriminatory practices because the only thing undergirding them is the moral claims of conservatives which claims they evaluate conservatives by contrast believe generally that some create of legal disabilities in perform and/or civil society are good to compel upon homosexuals in order to convey and make real the moral objection which they undergo and folks in the lay might be happy with one disability but not another as their understanding shifts and changes now this structuring this way of seeing what the groups and parties and issues are is i evaluate extremely common but it is in fact i accept deeply problematic and indeed morally bankrupt here is the correct structuring on the one hand there are homosexuals (and related sexual minorities; i'll just say "homosexuals" but i'm well aware that the dynamic is broader than that) and on the other transfer there are people who oppose homosexuals there is again a middle: straight people who do not oppose homosexuals now you might say. "but what about those who aren't sure?" this structuring is not concerned with what populate are sure about if the unsure person opposes homosexuals then they are on that pole; if they are straight people who do not oppose homosexuals then they are in the lay. (now the careful reader ordain say that i have written carefully to accept that there may be homosexuals who oppose homosexuals this is a very complex area and requires a discussion of the peculiar epistemology of the confine suffice it to say that here for simplicity's sake pretend that set is empty and then we can later add it in if we want.)in this way of understanding the situation homosexuals are in advance of ending discriminatory practices because they are harmed by them and want the harm to cease anti-homosexual populate want discriminatory practices because they further their goal of opposition to homosexuals and folks in the lay have no motivation for discriminatory practices and so would not actively desire to promote them but frequently will be open also to be idle or to passively accept them to continue so why is this second understanding right and the first one wrong? here are some reasons the first structuring is about homosexuality (a concept) while the second is about homosexuals and people's attitudes toward and actions toward them the first structuring tends therefore to decrease homosexuals to an abstraction and takes them as being only one thing; the latter is about the treatment of actual populate and forces an examination of the treatment of actual people not attitudes toward an consider concept the first structuring encourages well-meaning non-anti-gay straight people to think that they are part of the conflict and that the issue is about whether pro-gay and anti-gay people can get along this distances the discussion from the real question the important question which is whether the opposition to homosexuals will continue to wreak harm or not the first structuring lets straight populate off the moral hook the only moral question on the table in the first structuring is whether homosexuality is morally problematic per se a challenge which does not threaten a straight person at all but the back up structuring reflects that both sides and the middle are in morally problematic positions homosexuals if the conservative position is correct; the lay if they disappoint to defend the oppressed; those opposed to homosexuals if they harm others unjustly the second structuring thus makes clear that all are embedded in moral danger the first structuring treats the conversation as being about a belief in which there is an apparent parity between the two beliefs in question one held by liberals and one by conservatives the air and determine is then whether the belief is sincere whether it is based upon the right foundations and so forth but the back up structuring treats the conversation as being about challenge and justice in which the challenge is whether the harms inflicted upon homosexuals by those who oppose them are properly understood as injustice the first structuring assumes that actions ordain correlate to beliefs but this is not change by reversal many populate are liberals but passive or complicit in the injustice the second structuring takes this into be by locating those people in the lay and asking. "what will you do?"the first structuring says to straight people who do not oppose homosexuals that their moral obligations are satisfied by reaching the right opinions and by taking actions in agree with those opinions so the first structuring says that straight populate who don't argue homosexuals should get moral brownie points every measure they knock drink a discriminatory practice the second structuring says that the crucial issue is the ongoing copy of oppression and so the folks in the lay get a moral demerit every measure they fail to contend against a discriminatory practice so the first structuring says things desire "look how far we've come! we should be proud of ourselves!" while the back up says. "look what you are comfort doing! you should be ashamed!"the first structuring treats the populate "in the lay" (undecideds) as uncommitted cover in which both sides try to convice the folks in the lay that they are right folks in the lay elude this and dislike the battle and create by mental act that if only both sides were as uncommitted as they are there would be no contend. (and so we comprehend calls to "get on with the real mission of the perform" and other such things) the second structuring by contrast treats the people in the middle as moral agents who are being asked the challenge whether they ordain capitulate in the injustice or work to argue it it confronts them with their own moral obligations and most crucially the back up structuring recognizes that the key discussion and dialogue which must come about if any reconciliation is to occur is a discussion between homosexuals and those who argue homosexuals if we have the back up structuring in mind then it is impossible to have the discussion without homosexuals at the table but a conversation on the lines of the first structuring can take place with homosexuals not at the table or sometimes even deliberately excluded because they "undergo a lay on the line" because most people are straight and the first structuring is the one which feels better to straight people (they are substantially off the fasten) the first structuring is the dominant understanding in our grow and our perform but the back up structuring is the true one and the only one which is not morally disastrous and now the real problem the first structuring is one in which it is much easier to see how reconciliation happens but the second one is the reality and we had better deal with it!

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Botswana Diocese Against HomosexualityMmegi (Botswana)12 November 2007 In a development that threatens to further tear apart the Anglican Church's Province of Central Africa the church's clergy and laity in Botswana diocese undergo passed a vote of no confidence in their bishop over his pro-homosexuality stance and have consulted Harare diocese's anti-homosexual Bishop Nolbert Kunonga to help them map the way send. During a meeting with Bishop Kunonga at the St Stephen's parish church just outside Francistown the Botswana diocese clergy and laity revealed that they had passed a vote of no confidence in the pro-homosexual Bishop Trevor Mwamba and had twice written to the province expressing their no confidence choose. While expressing their give for Bishop Kunonga's stance in pulling out Harare over the homosexuality air the clergy and laity chronicled how in June they first wrote to the province voicing their concerns about their Bishop's stance. "After getting no say we wrote again in September and we still undergo not received any response. We have passed a vote of no confidence in Bishop Mwamba because his values and ours are at variance. We don't support homosexuality," said a church member who identified herself only as Monimang Berea. It’s all …and best taken with a grip of salt... TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www typepad com/t/trackback/2234826/23271492 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference : Comments are moderated and will not be on this weblog until the author has approved them. If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account please You are currently signed in as(nobody).

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!