Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Clash of Convictions

My message board friend Sothenes, sent the following article via email. It certainly reveals just what the title says...a clash of convictions! What I find quite ironic throughout the article is the claim that one side is labeled as "hate speech" and the opponents are trying to squelch the newly found free speech rights of the Christian Slavics; while claiming that their gay rights parades are free speech rights that should not be countered in the way that the immigrants have chosen.

What is wrong with this picture?

It is central to the culture war going on between evangelicals who are willing to speak out against the sin of homosexuality and the homosexuals and their supporters who are willing to display any type of behavior, no matter how offensive it might be to religious people and call their gay pride antics "good" while frowning upon the opposition's choice of expression.


Isn't that intolerant??

Why are only certain kinds of "tolerance" allowed by the gay community?

I personally think it is because the term "tolerance" is misused. It's supposed to mean disagreeing with the other side but allowing that side a right to disagree. But "tolerance" to the gay community has been hijacked into meaning total acceptance without allowing the other side to protest it's agenda.


How do homosexual activists get to squelch the protest of anyone who is against their agenda? You can clearly see how in this article because they use the usual propagandistic mantra against these Slavic Christians; however, they are brave enough not to back down! But the gay activists tried their usual technique by labeling these Christian immigrants and their protest as "hate speech."

Is that fair?

Of course not.

Read this article and see what you think.

I think that these Slavic Christians are putting
many of our timid, "fear of being labeled a bigot" American Christians to shame for exposing the fact that Christians here are so willing to leave their heads in the sand; shying away from the political issues that can deeply and negatively affect our children and grandchildren in the public school cesspool where they could literally drown in sinful depravity...

Christine

*******


Thousands of religious refugees mass in the streets of Sacramento to shout "Shame!" Their targets, with their own history of persecution still fresh and raw, retort: "Go back to Russia!"

How did it come to this?

In the last few months, the growing conflict between Sacramento's Slavic Christians and its politically savvy gay community has erupted on campuses, at school board hearings, and on the grounds of the Capitol.

Russian-speaking hecklers lined the march of this year's gay pride parade downtown. At least 15 Slavic students were suspended in April for wearing shirts proclaiming, "Homosexuality is sin." This spring, Slavic Christians packed board meetings in three local school districts to make their position clear: Being gay is not OK.

Gays are starting to respond in kind. A dozen staged a counterprotest in July, demonstrating outside the region's largest evangelical Slavic church during Sunday morning services.

Gays say the Slavic protesters have hit them with signs, spit on them and displayed a menacing lack of civility. Gay leaders have met with local police and press to say they're worried about violence, and now they're forming a "Q Crew" -- a new political activism group -- to tell the public their fears.

"They're more and more brazen with their signs and their numbers," said Tina Reynolds, a lesbian activist and owner of a gallery in downtown Sacramento. "It's much more in our face, and I'm beginning to feel like something's going to happen."

Beyond the surface animosity, this is a collision of two powerful forces: a deeply held religious conviction and the determined march of homosexuals toward equal rights.

The region's large Russian-speaking Christian community, usually shy of publicity, is stepping into the public eye, saying they have to save California from a dangerous moral decline. Gay leaders worry that these protests will erode their community's political progress and spoil the security they have come to feel in Sacramento.

Free speech or hate speech?

The evangelical Slavs, refugees who fled religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, are finally hitting their stride in the land of the free. They came for the freedom to worship. Now they say they're exercising the freedom of speech to spread a fundamental belief: Homosexuality is a sin and a choice.

"We have tasted the power of democracy -- now we go and protest," said George Neverov, a Baptist who emigrated from Uzbekistan in 1991 and lives in Carmichael. The father of three young daughters, he is a vocal opponent of any endorsement of homosexuality in the public schools.

"Am I against tolerance?" said Neverov, 33. "God forbid, no. But my whole belief system is based on the Bible. I say homosexuality is a sin. Why are you offended by that?"

Gay activists contend that this sentiment, when aggressively expressed in public protests, is nothing less than hate speech. The demonstrations seem suffused with a frightening rage, they say.

"At their protests, it's all about God, burning in hell and sodomy," said Darrick Lawson, president of Sacramento's Stonewall Democratic Club, a gay political organization. "They want to use their rights and freedoms to suppress another community. It goes against the reasons they moved here. The Bible never taught this kind of hatred."

Lawson, himself the son of an evangelical pastor, spent nearly three years in therapy trying to overcome his own homosexuality before accepting it.

"We have no problem with them saying this in their churches," Lawson said. "Do I want to ban them from Gay Pride? No. I don't. In no way do I want to infringe upon the right they came here for. But they need to consider our safety and play by the rules."

These refugees say they understand rules. They fled from an officially atheistic society where the rules discriminated against the religious. People of faith sometimes were imprisoned, their children wrenched from them, their careers stalled.

Some harbor memories of a grandfather executed, a grandmother who died in jail.

Community leaders estimate 100,000 Russian-speaking residents live in the Sacramento region, about a third of them evangelical Christians. Mostly Ukrainian Baptists or Pentecostals, many came here in recent decades believing the United States was a Christian nation -- a place where their literal interpretation of the Bible would be the rule.

Instead, they landed in freewheeling California and encountered a culture of widespread divorce, premarital sex, and -- almost unheard of in their home countries -- open homosexuality.

Political clout downplayed

Even more offensive to them is the increasingly strong push by gay leaders to bring acceptance of homosexuality into public life and public schools.

State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Legislature's first openly lesbian member, has spent her political career fighting for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. She has little patience for the anti-gay feelings of these immigrants.

"This kind of aggressive homophobia is nothing new," said the senator, a Democrat from Santa Monica. "This is just one in a long line of communities who have become convinced that they have a moral obligation to discriminate."

One of Kuehl's bills, Senate Bill 1437, has aroused special consternation among the Slavic Christians. As drafted, the bill would require the public school curriculum to note the contributions of gays and lesbians to society.

Conservative Christian groups across the state -- as well as several mainstream newspapers and the governor -- have criticized the bill. But Sacramento's Slavs are its most visible opponents.

On June 12, whole families showed up at the Capitol to demonstrate against SB 1437 and other pro-gay bills. One little girl held up a sign that said "Homosexuals Do Not Touch My Kids." A young boy waved a hand-painted message: "I'm NOT learning about gay people."

Kuehl downplays the Slavs' political clout, saying they are puppets of the right who are not taken seriously by the Legislature. But one of her staunchest opponents, conservative lobbyist Randy Thomasson, gives them a lot more credit.

"When it comes to parental rights and family values, Russia may just save California," said Thomasson, president of the Sacramento-based Campaign for Children and Families.

Thomasson notes that the Slavs are fast becoming citizens, registering to vote and learning how to make themselves heard. He credits them for playing a major role in gaining Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's pledge to veto SB 1437.

Bible believed absolutely

The power and size of Sacramento's Slavic evangelical community is evident any Sunday morning at 75 churches across the region.

At the Russian Baptist Church of West Sacramento, a Sabbath service fills the huge nave with 2,000 worshippers. The two-hour service rings with music -- trumpet, grand piano, organ and hundreds of sweet voices. Headsets translate the sermons and prayers into English.

On one recent Sunday, a young couple, married here one year before, kneel before the congregation to present their baby, Victoria. Tears stream down the young mother's face. In the pews, children sit quietly beside their parents, barely fidgeting.

The décor is simple, but bold stained-glass windows bathe the room in blocks of primary colors. At the end of the service, Pastor Paul Khakimov reads individual prayer requests: peace in Israel, safe flights, help in finding a job, that a daughter be protected from bad influences.

In an interview, Khakimov explained what their faith means to this community.

"Religion is our life, it's not just words," he said through a translator. He said he believes the Bible is absolutely, literally true.

"Our people suffered for their Bible teaching -- they were put in jail just for following the Bible," the pastor said.

As for gays, he cites from memory several Bible verses he says declare homosexuality to be a sin, but adds: "First of all, we don't hate them. We pray for them. They are also people. They are sinners and they need help. This is like any other sin."

His community has rallied against gay issues, he said, because gay advocates are making political inroads. If Christians don't defend their beliefs, he said, God will rain down wrath as he did on Sodom.

A familiar refrain for gays

This is a tenet of faith that Darrick Lawson has heard all his life.

"My father is an evangelical minister," said Lawson, who is 39 and came out as a homosexual a decade ago. "I have personally fought this battle a long time."

Sitting in the cozy surroundings of his midtown chiropractic office, Lawson spoke of the heartache he experienced as the gay son in an evangelical Christian family.

"Growing up in a Christian household, I know that people have their opinions. They think we're all pedophiles. They think we're promiscuous. … I didn't come out till I was 28, I was so scared. For every person from my Christian world, it took a while to accept me. It took my dad an incredibly long time."

Lawson said he is living proof that being gay is not an option but an orientation he was born with. "The 'choice' thing cracks me up," he said. "I wanted to be straight. I went to 2 1/2 years of therapy. It did not work."

Now comfortable with his identity, he has his own message for the Christian fundamentalists: "Frankly, I refuse to go back in my closet or tolerate misbehavior because they have a cultural issue. Honestly, they need to get over it."

That message doesn't play well with people who have clung to their beliefs in the face of imprisonment or death. One young protester, Nadiya Chorney, will tell you her grandmother was tortured and died in jail.

"People were coming and searching our house during the night," said Chorney, the daughter of a Baptist pastor. "A couple times, they tried to kill my father." The family fled Ukraine two years ago and Chorney, now 18, enrolled at Sacramento's Mira Loma High School.

She was a vocal leader in the protests that followed the annual Day of Silence in April, a nationwide event during which students support their gay and lesbian peers. A number of Slavic teens were suspended from area schools for wearing T-shirts declaring that "Homosexuality is sin" and "Jesus can set you free."

"We were sharing the Gospel," Chorney said. "Not because we hate them, but we want to warn them that homosexuality can be cured."

About 100 people, Russian-speaking adults and children, picketed Mira Loma for days afterward to protest the suspensions. The words "persecution" and "First Amendment" flew through the crowd.

Local educators said any shirt that sends a negative message about a particular group isn't allowed in school.

"If you had the words 'football player' or the word 'Slavic' or 'cheerleader' or any other name, and then you put that inside a red circle with a line through it, you are (against) a person or a group," said Oakmont High School Principal Kathleen Sirovy, who suspended 13 Slavic students.

Because it took place in schools, the very concept of the Day of Silence touched a nerve in the Slavic Christian community.

Jade Baranski, a 20-year-old lesbian who lives in midtown Sacramento, was present when the Sacramento City Unified School District board voted in April to support the Day of Silence. Hundreds attended the meeting to speak on both sides of the issue; many Slavic parents urged the board to vote no.

As Baranski and some friends celebrated outside the board room, "these two older (Slavic) women, probably in their 50s or 60s, turned to us and, puh" -- Baranski mimed spitting -- "right at our feet. It was atrocious."

She said she experienced a similar shock at the June protest spurred by the Kuehl legislation. She and a friend, she said, were encircled by Slavic men and women who stood inches away screaming at them for committing "sodomy."

"I was shaking. I was walking away thinking, 'If anyone is going to hurt me, it's going to be someone from this community,' " she said.

Disturbing epithets

Darrell Steinberg witnessed the culture clash firsthand in June, when he rode as a dignitary in the city's annual gay pride parade. A longtime political figure in Sacramento and Democratic nominee for state Senate, Steinberg is known as a town mediator. He says he was concerned by the attitude of the Slavic protesters who picketed the parade.

"There were some epithets used -- well, I was shocked, and I was disturbed," Steinberg said. "I believe strongly that this issue should be a real concern to the community. We have a history in this community of hate crimes. Given our history, it is essential that we use our past experience to educate people -- especially new immigrants -- that we are one."

As a gay leader, Darrick Lawson said he is looking for points of connection with the Slavic community. Already, he said, quiet inroads have been made.

"Our alliances need to meet with their alliances," he said. "It's a matter of time. They will get it eventually -- that we can respect each other while disagreeing. It will trickle down as we get to know their leaders, and as their own children grow up and some come out as gay."

For his part, George Neverov is willing to tone down the debate by asking young Slavic Christians to be less confrontational.

"People screaming 'Shame' -- I will teach them not to do that and not to react to gays." He paused, then spoke of how he loves his new country. "There's a lot to learn from Americans as a people. There is acceptance."

There is, however, a line he will not cross.

"Live your lifestyle, do whatever you want to do in your bedroom," Neverov said. "But if you think we will ever agree with the homosexual lifestyle -- that will not happen."

http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/religion/

12 comments:

Boo said...

I know it's pointless to ask these kinds of questions, but where exactly in this article do you find any evidence of anyone trying to squelch anyone's free speech rights? One side is expressing their free speech rights to say they believe that homosexuality is sinful, the other side is expressing their free speech rights to say they believe the first side is wrong. Free speech is a two way street. Each side calls their own "antics "good" while frowning upon the opposition's choice of expression." That is tolerance. Schools have a legitimate interest in not letting students wear clothing with messages attacking any particular group of other students, and there can be no serious doubt that if a student showed up in school with a tshirt that said "Slavs are not welcome" they'd be punished.

So where exactly is the "squelching"?

limpy99 said...

Jeez, Boo, must you rain on my parade every time?

I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the article, both sides seem to be energitically exercising their free speech rights, and I don't see any instance of authority moving in to squelch that right. I suppose you will point to the 15 kids who were suspended for wearing the "No Homosexuals" T-shirts, or words to that effect. I understand some kids were wearing "Jesus Will Save You" shirts as well. To me, it's obvious that kids in high school can't be allowed to wear anti-(fill in whatever group you wish) shirts. This is high school, not a political arena, and singling out any particular group to be condemned is virtually guranteed to create trouble. Let's say the kids were allowed to wear those shirts and the next day 15 gay kids come in with "Go Back To Russia" shirts. I suspect little would be accomplished in the way of learning that day. Also, it has long been the law that free speech rights may be restrcited when high school kids are involved. That's nothing new.

My only concern would be the menacing nature of some of the comments. And since I wasn't there I admit the allegations could be false or exaggerated. The point is that the Constitution doesn't protect hate speech or speech calcualted to incite harm to an identifiable target. If the Slavs are surrounding lesbian wome and spitting at their feet or screaming about sodomy, that may be going too far. On the other hand, if they're attending a gay pride event and holding signs condemning homosexuality, well, I may not agree with them, but I do agree they have a right to express themselves. And I don't see anyone in this article trying to keep them from doing it.

Christinewjc said...

Comments like these:

"It's much more in our face, and I'm beginning to feel like something's going to happen."

Translated: They don't have the right to be in their face but gay pride parades are as in your face as you can get.

Somethings going to happen translated: because they hate the sin this means that they hate us and want to do violence against us. Is that the truth? Not according to this man:

"Am I against tolerance?" said Neverov, 33. "God forbid, no. But my whole belief system is based on the Bible. I say homosexuality is a sin. Why are you offended by that?"

And what is the typical gay agenda intolerance come back to such a view?

Gay activists contend that this sentiment, when aggressively expressed in public protests, is nothing less than hate speech. The demonstrations seem suffused with a frightening rage, they say.

The good ole' "hate speech mantra" strikes again!

But these people have experienced real hate and oppression in Russia! They aren't going to have their new found freedoms so easily squelched by the gay community because they don't like the "in your face" views coming back at them. They are used to always having the upper hand in such issues just because they have that "hate speech" weapon in their counter-culture arsenal. The Slavics aren't so easily swayed or dismissed! Good for them!!

Paul tells us in Colossians to "declare it fearlessly, as I should." The Slavics take God's Word seriously and aren't afraid to be called "bigots," "homophobes," and "haters." They understand what is at stake and who the real hater of mankind is! This hater of mankind will do absolutely anything to persuade people to go against God's Word on this issue as well as many others. It is the lost who do not know how much they need Jesus! He is going to come back as the Judge of the universe. Are gay pride paraders ready? If not, how (and whom) shall warn them of their eternal destiny if they don't repent?

Again, the gospel message is being depicted as "hate speech" in this quote:

"They want to use their rights and freedoms to suppress another community. It goes against the reasons they moved here. The Bible never taught this kind of hatred."

"Suppress" another community? Isn't that what the gay activists are trying to do towards the Slavic Christians?? Oh YES! That is exactly what their underlying point is. It may be subtle, but I see it clearly!

Notice this "play by our rules" mantra:

"But they need to consider our safety and play by the rules."

Why should they? Who says? Why? As the Slavic Christian said in the quote above, "But my whole belief system is based on the Bible. I say homosexuality is a sin. Why are you offended by that?"

Does offending another happen only in one direction in the culture wars because of "political correctness" here?

You betcha!

But the Slavic Christians aren't buying that!

Even more offensive to them is the increasingly strong push by gay leaders to bring acceptance of homosexuality into public life and public schools.

Their offended! Why shouldn't the homosexuals be offended in return?

And, of course Sheila Keuhl has to label them as "homophobic."

"This kind of aggressive homophobia is nothing new," said the senator, a Democrat from Santa Monica. "This is just one in a long line of communities who have become convinced that they have a moral obligation to discriminate."

Some forms of "discrimination" are good and positive! Like the discrimination against her loonie public school gay indoctrination bills!!

Randy Thomasson said it well: "When it comes to parental rights and family values, Russia may just save California," said Thomasson, president of the Sacramento-based Campaign for Children and Families."

In an interview, Khakimov explained what their faith means to this community.

"Religion is our life, it's not just words," he said through a translator. He said he believes the Bible is absolutely, literally true.

"Our people suffered for their Bible teaching -- they were put in jail just for following the Bible," the pastor said.

[Sheila Kuehl calling them "homophobic" is nothing compared to the persecution against their faith that they faced in their former country!]

As for gays, he cites from memory several Bible verses he says declare homosexuality to be a sin, but adds: "First of all, we don't hate them. We pray for them. They are also people. They are sinners and they need help. This is like any other sin."

Christinewjc said...

This post over at SharperIron discusses What Does Worldly Look Like.

The following portion could be applied here in our "clash of convictions" discussion. It certainly reiterates why the Slavic Christians hold their particular worldview that is based on Scripture rather than the ideas of secular humanistic man:

"The “world” that Scripture calls believers to oppose must be something other than cultural popularity. A survey of the passages that deal most directly with our relationship to “the world” underscores this and moves us closer to understanding which “world” should be the object of our consistent disapproval.

The “World” That Is the Believer’s Enemy

The New Testament reveals that the “world” we should oppose . . .

Has Satan as its “god” and “ruler” (2 Cor. 4:4; John 12:31).

Hates Christ and hates Christ’s followers (John 15:18-19; John 16:20; 1 John 3:13).

Has “elements” that hold people in “bondage” (Gal. 4:3; Col. 2:20), and some or all of these are attitudes and ideas (Col. 2:8).

Stains (from spilos, James 1:27), pollutes (miasma, 2 Pet. 2:20), and corrupts (phthora) by means of lust (2 Pet. 1:4).

Includes a “course” of obedience to lusts of the flesh and mind that all believers used to walk (Eph. 2:2-3).

Should not be “conformed” to by believers (Rom. 12:2).

Includes spiritual powers that believers are at war against (Eph. 6:12).

Is not to be loved by believers (1 John 2:15), and friendship with it and friendship with God are mutually exclusive (James 4:4).

Consists of nothing but lust and pride (1 John 2:16).

Clearly, the “world” described by these passages is not everything and everyone in the created order as a whole, nor is it everything in the fallen order of the present age. Since unbelievers and the cultures they inhabit practice some good things as well as bad, the “world” in these passages is also not everything associated with unregenerate human beings in the present age or even everything that is popular among unbelievers.

The “world” Scripture warns believers to avoid at all costs has some other defining characteristic.

This defining characteristic separates the “worldly” from the “not-worldly” in a believer’s culture and alerts him that non-conformity, overcoming, and keeping himself unspotted is the proper response.

limpy99 said...

You seem to be getting off the subject here, which is whether or not the original story supported your claim that the Slavic group's right to free speech was being squelched. I understand your belief that homosexuality is a sin. I don't agree with it, but I support your right to have that opinion, to march up and down the street proclaiming it, (don't forget your permit!), write letters to the editor or whatever else you want to do short of threatening homos. And I would agree that the "hate speech" card is an easily played one and probably overplayed at that. I do not know enough about the facts of this case to say whether or not the Slav's actions rise to that level, so I won't comment further on that. The point is that no authority is telling them to knock it off. The gay groups would like them to, and that's certainly understandable, but that's hardly squelching free speech. Any group targeted by another would like the second group to shut up; the test of free speech is whether or not the State will make that group shut up, and again I don't see any evidence that that is the case here.

As an aside, the fact that the Slavs may have faced horrific oppression in Russia does not give them the right to abuse others. Again, I'm not sure that their actions rise to that level, but two wrongs don't make a right. Three of them might though.

Boo said...

""It's much more in our face, and I'm beginning to feel like something's going to happen."

Translated: They don't have the right to be in their face but gay pride parades are as in your face as you can get."

Actually, a parade isn't that in your face. If you don't want to watch the parade, you just walk away. Pretty simple.

"Somethings going to happen translated: because they hate the sin this means that they hate us and want to do violence against us. Is that the truth? Not according to this man:

"Am I against tolerance?" said Neverov, 33. "God forbid, no. But my whole belief system is based on the Bible. I say homosexuality is a sin. Why are you offended by that?""

To answer Neverov- because that's an offensive thing to say. Just because he has the right to say offensive things doesn't mean they aren't offensive. To answer you, I'm guessing the belief that something's going to happen stems less from Neverov and more from these people:

"Gays say the Slavic protesters have hit them with signs, spit on them and displayed a menacing lack of civility. Gay leaders have met with local police and press to say they're worried about violence, and now they're forming a "Q Crew" -- a new political activism group -- to tell the public their fears."

Call me a sinner all you want, but if you spit on me or hit me with a sign I will try to have you arrested, because free speech does not cover threats or assault.

"Gay activists contend that this sentiment, when aggressively expressed in public protests, is nothing less than hate speech. The demonstrations seem suffused with a frightening rage, they say.

The good ole' "hate speech mantra" strikes again!

But these people have experienced real hate and oppression in Russia! They aren't going to have their new found freedoms so easily squelched by the gay community because they don't like the "in your face" views coming back at them. They are used to always having the upper hand in such issues just because they have that "hate speech" weapon in their counter-culture arsenal. The Slavics aren't so easily swayed or dismissed! Good for them!!"

Again, how is this "squelching" anyone? You can say sinner, I can say hate speech. Neither of us is squelching the other, at least until someone resorts to hitting.

""Suppress" another community? Isn't that what the gay activists are trying to do towards the Slavic Christians?? Oh YES! That is exactly what their underlying point is. It may be subtle, but I see it clearly!"

What exactly do you see? If the Slavs have the free speech right to call the gays sinful, then the gays have the free speech right to call the Slavs hateful. Nobody's crossing the line until there's a direct threat to someone or a spitting or a whacking-with-sign.

""But they need to consider our safety and play by the rules."

Why should they? Who says? Why? As the Slavic Christian said in the quote above, "But my whole belief system is based on the Bible. I say homosexuality is a sin. Why are you offended by that?""

The police says. They says no spitting and no hitting. Again, you can state your beliefs, and I can state my opposition to your beliefs, and it's free speech for both of us. Wave your sign if you must, but don't whack me with it. And if I have a sign to wave back I'll wave it, but not whack you with it.

"Does offending another happen only in one direction in the culture wars because of "political correctness" here?"

Nope, offending each other happens in both directions. And both sides are free to offend each other with words that do not constitute a direct threat unto their hearts' content.

"Their offended! Why shouldn't the homosexuals be offended in return?"

They are! They're both free to be offended. Isn't freedom wonderful?!

"And, of course Sheila Keuhl has to label them as "homophobic.""

Just as her free speech rights allow her to. Whoo-hoo!!!

""Our people suffered for their Bible teaching -- they were put in jail just for following the Bible," the pastor said."

And if any of them are put in jail today, it will be for hitting or spitting on people. Maybe some of them use a very different translation.

"Sheila Kuehl calling them "homophobic" is nothing compared to the persecution against their faith that they faced in their former country!"

Exactly! They can both call each other all kindsa stuff!

So again, free speech works both ways. It protects your right to say "sinner" and someone else's right to say "hate speech." It's America.

Christinewjc said...

Limpy99,

I'm not sure if you had been visiting and posting at this blog when the subject of the trio of homosexual indoctrination bills presented by gay CA legislators were being discussed. If you want to familiarize yourself with them, you can read about it here.

The Slavic Christians were protesting the possible future implementation of such bills that would inevitably require homosexual behavior acceptance in public schools while never allowing any speech that would counter their secular humanistic philosophy on this subject.

The Slavic Christians recognize socialistic oppression with the inability to allow dissent when they see it...because they have lived it for probably most of their lives while under Soviet rule.

These people probably cannot believe their eyes and ears as to what is happening within the CA legislature. These three horrible bills would subject their children to a new form of socialism...that of indoctrination into the homosexual agenda and beliefs.

They haven't been lulled into a position of complacency like many Americans have on this issue. They weren't subjected to the desensitization, jamming and conversion tactics over the last 30 years like we have here in America. They see this specific marketing of evil tactic being used here in the U.S. in order to change their children and grandchildren's current biblical worldview into one that more closely resembles Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Hat tip to Mark at Chester Street. Be sure to click on this link to get a real history lesson on this issue!]

limpy99 said...

Christine, I went to an all boys Catholic high school so of course I wouldn't know anything about environments conducive to promoting homosexual...Hey, wait a minute.

On a more serious note, I will agree with you that the bills referenced in your article, (to the extent they were described accurately), are a bad idea. I think high school should be strictly a learning environment as much as possible. Anything that detracts from that, be it Slavic kids marching around in anti-gay T-shirts or would-be transvestites showing up for PE with sports bras and hot pants, should be precluded. So I think we agree on this issue to the extent that high school is for learning and distractions from that need to be minimized as much as possible.

Again though, I think you are going too far with statements like "The Slavic Christians recognize socialistic oppression with the inability to allow dissent when they see it...because they have lived it for probably most of their lives while under Soviet rule." There's simply nothing in this article that supports this. The Slavic group certainly doesn't like what they're seeing, but no one is preventing them from protesting it, and in fact it appears that their view is prevailing given the veto mentioned in the article.

Free speech guarantees that someone will almost always be offended, but it beats the heck out of the alternative.

Christinewjc said...

Limpy99,

I just typed out a long reply, but lost it while attempting to x out of some other windows...hate when that happens!

I'll try to summarize. I am glad to read that you agree with me about how wrong it is to promote the homosexual agenda in public schools. I agree with you that schools should be a place for academic learning, not socialistic styled homosexual indoctrination.

If you read the bills in question, you would see that if they passed and were signed by the Gov., then no Christian person could ever say ANYTHING negative against homosexual behavior. In fact, the textbooks would include many contributions by gays throughout history (which I personally think can be done without identifying their sexuality), but will forbid any negative comments or discussion of homosexuals. This may sound harmless on the surface, but if you look at it more closely it is extremely biased! Heterosexual dictators, communists, fascists, Islamofacists, murderers etc. would be discussed in the textbooks, but not the negative attributes of homosexual persons throughout history? That's just absurd!

Taken to it's logical conclusion,
we can see how Christian and biblical worldview viewpoints would have to be eliminated completely in public high schools in order to accomodate the new law these bills would dictate. And that's just what it sounds like to me...a dictatorship of the homosexual agenda with no room for dissent allowed!.

Perish the thought!

limpy99 said...

"Taken to it's logical conclusion,
we can see how Christian and biblical worldview viewpoints would have to be eliminated completely in public high schools in order to accomodate the new law these bills would dictate. And that's just what it sounds like to me...a dictatorship of the homosexual agenda with no room for dissent allowed!.

Perish the thought!"

A couple of things come to mind in reading your response, and also skimming through the laws you posted above. First, if the purpose of the laws proposed is to prevent discrimination against homosexual students, I doubt I'd have a problem with that. As I recall from high school, kids can be remarkably cruel. I do sometimes think that we go overboard with these anti-discrimination laws. I don't think we need sepcial laws to prevent discrimination against gay kids. I think it's generally understood that if you pick on kids for any reason, you get in trouble. I've always been bothered by enhancing the rules for perceived "hate speech" because I think it tends to erods free speech, even if well intended. I guess I'm of two minds on that, but since I don't live in CA., I leave it to you and your co-residents to reach a decision.
I take your point that historical figures will be able to be criticized for being dictators or what have you, but not for being gay. I don't agree with it however. A person's sexual orientation shouldn't enter into it the equation at all when looking at their historical record unless it's directly relevant to the discussion. If you can show me that Hitler was gay, and that homosexuality causes a person to pursue genocidal campaigns, then we'll talk. But if not, let's just agree Hitler was evil and leave his sexual preferences to the side. On the flip side, if Leonardo Da Vinci was gay, (side note: I have no idea if either was gay, I'm just throwing out some names), unless you're going to show me that being gay enhances a person's scientific side, their sexual preference again has nothing to do with their accomplishments. let's agree he was a great scientist, etc. and move on.

The other point, and this would be my main point, is that you're right, public schools have no room for a Biblical or Christian viewpoint. By law, they can't. Separation of church and state. While I understand that you hold your views with great conviction and are upset that they aren't taught as part of the curriculum, imagine how you would feel if the school started to teach the Koran, or Buddhism or, perish the thought, Unitarianism.

Public schools can't be in a position of teaching one religion at the exclusion of others. There are many other options for parents such as yourself such as Bible school or religiously oriented schools like the ones I went to through high school.

Christinewjc said...

We agree on a lot Limpy99!

The homosexual agenda is being pushed upon our children through the guise of teaching tolerance and combating bullying. However, as you noted, it has been taken way to far. Teaching tolerance for all is a better solution. This can be done through a program called "Breaking Down the Walls" which covers any kind of intolerance and bullying.

Today, because of the efforts to make a special kind of recognition for only gay intolerance, it could make for a very unpleasant situation.

The same type of problem exists in the push for "hate crimes" laws. they are geared to gave more protection and more adverse punishment for the same crime that would be done against any other student. Hate crimes laws dictate that if the victim is gay, then the punishment would be greater.

I recognize that gay students get ridiculed in school. But so do geeks, fat, skinny, freckled, red haired and (you name it) students! Where's the geek/cool alliance? Where's the fat/regular weight alliance? Where's the skinny/regular weight alliance? Where's the freckled, red haired/smooth skinned, blonde hair alliance?

I'm sure you get the point.

I attended a few gay/straight alliance meetings and what they are teaching the kids usually veers far away from the stated intended purpose. They are promoting the homosexual identity and behavior (with little emphasis on the sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS etc.) and even promoting placing them in harms way through getting them to deliver free food to AIDS patients with the admonition NOT to tell the gay partner in the home that the person gets the food because he has AIDS!

What's worse, is that some GSA's (like in Mass.) lead students to off campus activities that teach them homosexual acts and even advocate adult/student sexual encounters.

This is not good for teens under the age of 18 to be doing! There's much more, too. For instance, a group of GLBT adults came to the meeting to speak to the kids. The literature they distributed was inaccurate and downright false in their statistics! They promoted their lifestyles to the kids as "normal, natural, and healthy."

Yet, when some concerned parents asked the school to bring in a straight speaker who happened to be ex-gay, he was rejected! The talk would not have been religious in nature. But he was still rejected. So, the kids aren't getting the entire picture of the fact that gays can and do change to heterosexuality.

Back to your post.

I wasn't advocating teaching Christianity or the Bible to kids in high school. What I was saying is that students who hold those beliefs would be shunned and silenced (much like what is attempted already, but) to a much greater extent.

The Day of Silence that the gay kids have could not be countered with the Christian kids Day of Truth.

This is what this legislation is really all about. It's a blanket effort to silence the opposition through bogus bills that make the public think that they will "make gay kids safer" in public schools. As you can probably see from our ongoing conversation here, much more than that is being pushed through this unrelenting homosexual indoctrination spin machine.

Boo said...

If you can check the hysteria for a second and actually read the bill, you may note that it's not introducing any new class of rights or protections especially for LGBTs. They are adding sexual orientation to a list that already includes race, national origin, sex, religious affiliation, etc. If your nightmare scenario were really a possibility, why hasn't it happened already? Why aren't you up in arms about Christians being persecuted and denied their free speech rights to say anything negative about Islam and any Muslims, as would surely have happened already if your predictions are accurate?

The comparison to hate crimes laws is very telling. These laws had already existed in various forms in various countries, with those in Canada and Europe actually restricting speech against the protected groups. There was not one peep of protest until LGBTs were added to the list, then suddenly the religious right began screaming about the end of the world.

So here's a simple question: are you concerned about free speech being restricted in principle or only as it applies with being critical of LGBTs? Defend to me the idea of overturning these laws as they already apply to black people and Muslims and Christians. Defend to me the right of a student to wear a shirt to school proclaiming that blacks are the cursed descendants of Ham.

Then try tacking a crack at the violence some in the Slav community have displayed that you so blithely overlooked in the article in your haste to demonize gays.

"What's worse, is that some GSA's (like in Mass.) lead students to off campus activities that teach them homosexual acts and even advocate adult/student sexual encounters."

Evidence please. Unsupported claims from Article 8 don't count.

"Yet, when some concerned parents asked the school to bring in a straight speaker who happened to be ex-gay, he was rejected! The talk would not have been religious in nature. But he was still rejected. So, the kids aren't getting the entire picture of the fact that gays can and do change to heterosexuality."

There is no scientific evidence that anyone has ever changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. The APA has stated that attempts to do so are ineffective and potentially dangerous. As such, the school has a responsibility not to promote it.

"I recognize that gay students get ridiculed in school. But so do geeks, fat, skinny, freckled, red haired and (you name it) students! Where's the geek/cool alliance? Where's the fat/regular weight alliance? Where's the skinny/regular weight alliance? Where's the freckled, red haired/smooth skinned, blonde hair alliance?"

Apparently, they don't feel systematically threatened enough to form them. Except for Chess club.