Gov. Arnold tosses School Moral Codes...

[Eric McTavish]

From the WorldNUT Daily (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51732)

Poor poor fundies...if you feed from the state trough you can no longer decry homosexuals...et.all...

Oh swing wide the Gates of Hadies!

Gov. Arnold tosses school moral codes
Bill forces condoning of homosexuality,
critics say 'the gates of hell are prevailing'

Posted: August 29, 2006
9:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.

The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions, critics note.


"The gates of hell are prevailing against the church," Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, told WorldNetDaily. "It's because Christian colleges and churches have ignored the political process for so long. Now the political process, absent religious values, is coming back to assault the church."

"This isn't even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "SB1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California."

Her group's analysis of the legislation concluded it will prevent parochial schools such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon and other religious institutions from getting financial assistance for students if they maintain a code of conduct that does not endorse such behavior.

Whether that behavior is approved by their religious beliefs is, at this point, irrelevant, the analysis showed.

"As a citizen of California and a religious person, I am terribly disappointed in Gov. Schwarzenegger," said Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for CRI. "It is bad public policy to add to the list of protected classes a sexual behavior.

"Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected," she said.

Constitutional assurances of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech both are destroyed by the action, CRI said. And Thomasson believes it is "setting up a tremendous church-state conflict in the courts."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has two faces," said Thomasson. "He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he's stabbing pro-family Californians in the back."

"This bill is yet another attempt to prevent citizens with moral and religious principles from expressing their beliefs and educating their children according to those beliefs," said England. "On behalf of California families, private schools and other private organizations, I express our outrage at this attack on our freedom."

"Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants," concluded Thomasson's organization.

He said the governor "has trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists."

"He's not the lesser of two evils, he's doing evil," Thomasson said.

CCF earlier had publicized the situation, and generated thousands of telephone calls, e-mails and faxes opposing the plan.

But it was supported by Democrats in the state legislature and specifically requires "any program or activity that receives any financial assistance from the state" to support the alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

CCF said the change also will affect any program or activity at the local level that gets any state funding from programs including Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, child support services, veterans services, home loan assistance programs and others.

And as bad as the single bill is, the CCF said, several other "sexual indoctrination bills" are heading to the governor. One would prohibit textbooks or school-sponsored activities from "reflecting adversely" on a certain list of sexual choices.

Another would allow the California superintendent of public instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education's "model policy" promoting transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.

Still another would spend state money promoting transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles.

As WND reported, James Dobson, president of the action affiliate of Focus on the Family ministries, earlier broadcast an urgent call to the millions of radio program listeners to contact Schwarzenegger about the homosexual promotions.

Mona Passignano, the state issues analyst for Focus, told WND the combination of bills would reinforce homosexuality and a limited number of other sexual choices but also prevent people from reflecting on their religious beliefs that may address those choices.

"You cannot preach the Gospel. If you want to preach about Romans 1, you can't. Someone could say, 'That makes me feel bad,'" she said. "You cannot preach what the Bible says.

"If you're a Christian, it's got to be alarming. If you are not a Christian, it's got to be alarming," she said. "Because what comes next?

[Ysobelle]

Wow. Go, Arnold!

And in other news? YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS! YOU CAN'T CATCH GAYNESS!

If you could, there'd be a lot fewer fashion crimes in the world.

[Vixynne Rose]

Wow. Go, Arnold!

And in other news? YOU STUPID FUCKING MORONS! YOU CAN'T CATCH GAYNESS!

If you could, there'd be a lot fewer fashion crimes in the world.

*rotfl**rotfl**rotfl**rotfl*

So true! On both counts! Yso, you almost made me irrigate my sinuses with piping-hot French Vanilla coffee...but it was worth it!

[Gellis Indigo]

"The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality."

And this is a problem because....?

"This isn't even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "SB1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California."

It is terribly radical to have an agenda of being able to love who you want, isn't it.

"Today's disastrous action by Schwarzenegger means Christian and other faith-based colleges in California will be forced to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality if they accept students with Cal Grants," concluded Thomasson's organization.

Last time I checked, condone and promote did not mean the same thing.


"If you're a Christian, it's got to be alarming. If you are not a Christian, it's got to be alarming," she said. "Because what comes next?

I'm not alarmed? Anyone else?

[surlywench]

"Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected," she said.



To everyone who believes that sexual preference is a "variable behavior" please try for the period of one year to try and be sexually attracted to the same gender as yourself.

you just lemme know how that works out for you....k?

[Peaches O Malley]

*rotfl**rotfl**rotfl**rotfl*

So true! On both counts! Yso, you almost made me irrigate my sinuses with piping-hot French Vanilla coffee...but it was worth it!

Ditto, but with green tea frapp....euwwww!*rotfl* *rotfl*

[Myfanawy]

Ditto, but with green tea frapp....euwwww!*rotfl* *rotfl*

M'dear, you drink those?! I really shouldn't tell you what goes into those...

[Ysobelle]

I live to serve, friends.

And Heather? BWAAAAH!

[Leyla]

All this will do is insure that only the rich kids get the educations offered by religious oriented schools. Now poor kids can only get into state schools and private, non-religious classes. This isn't likely to change college policy.

[Ysobelle]

All this will do is insure that only the rich kids get the educations offered by religious oriented schools. Now poor kids can only get into state schools and private, non-religious classes. This isn't likely to change college policy.


Where the hell are you coming up with THAT staggering piece of illogic? Religious schools are mostly private already. All this law means is anyone getting government money has to abide by the First Amendment. You want to whine about kids not getting into Fundamentalist schools? You have a remarkably narrow view of this law. Teach your private morals to your kids in private. You have a problem with gays being treated the same as everyone else, that's your problem. Not the government's.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

All this will do is insure that only the rich kids get the educations offered by religious oriented schools. Now poor kids can only get into state schools and private, non-religious classes. This isn't likely to change college policy.
Finally! Some good news for poor people.

Now if we can just find a way to help rich kids from having religiously oriented schools inflicted upon them.....

[Leyla]

Where the hell are you coming up with THAT staggering piece of illogic? Religious schools are mostly private already. All this law means is anyone getting government money has to abide by the First Amendment. You want to whine about kids not getting into Fundamentalist schools? You have a remarkably narrow view of this law. Teach your private morals to your kids in private. You have a problem with gays being treated the same as everyone else, that's your problem. Not the government's.

This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies. Therefore students who require grants to attend said colleges will have to find other means of paying for them or pick another school. It's not that illogical. Private religious colleges are not too likely to declare homosexuality etc to be o.k., or change policy just so that students can use state grants. There are many non-religious students wishing to attend these private institutions for the quality of the education offered.

[daBaroness]

I second that "way to go Arnie" sentiment. Looks like the governator ain't all that bad!

Now ... to quote the stupid bazoo from the Society for Puckered Asses, "Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected," she said.

Maybe she ought to move to Kansas with the rest of those who can't seem to reconcile science and religion and live in the midst of some wheat field somewhere with her ignorance, cuz even before the genome project was completed, researchers discovered sexual preference IS an immutable characteristic - and they also believe it is inherited. The brains of homosexual men are structurally different than those of heterosexual men (no jokes please - even though it's tempting).

Research at the University of Minnesota that is part of a nearly 40-year study of twins, especially those separated at birth and raised apart has provided some truly astounding, documented information regarding the nature vs. nurture debate. The research found that identical twins, separated at birth through adoption to different families (some not knowing they were twins at all) were consistently alike and sometimes errily identical as adults even though they were raised in different locations by different families.

The similarities extended to sexual preference - and in a amazingly high number of cases where sexual attraction to same-sex partners existed in one twin, it was also discovered to existed in the other. Seems to be either pretty solid evidence that one's environment or upbringing has little to do with one's sexual preference - or it's just a collosal fluke - one probably initiated by Satan. ::devilmaycry::

Anyway - I'm proud of Arnold - and I have a feeling the Kennedy's may be rubbing off on him just a little bit.

[Ysobelle]

This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies. Therefore students who require grants to attend said colleges will have to find other means of paying for them or pick another school. It's not that illogical. Private religious colleges are not too likely to declare homosexuality etc to be o.k., or change policy just so that students can use state grants. There are many non-religious students wishing to attend these private institutions for the quality of the education offered.


Y'know what? Tough shit. You go to the school you can afford. The First Amendment says there is to be no state-sponsored religion, and if I lived in California and knew my taxes were going to fund schools with your homophobic, right-wing, Fundamentalist agenda, you'd better believe I'd be screaming. If you don't like it, well, it sucks to be you.

My parents sucked it up and sent me to a Quaker school they paid for themselves. They didn't expect anyone to help them. It was the best education in Philly, and we all knew it was a religious-based school. That was what they wanted for me, and they didn't ask the government to coddle my ass to pay for it.

You want your theoretical kids to have a specific education? You'd better start saving now.

[Alianne]

This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies. Therefore students who require grants to attend said colleges will have to find other means of paying for them or pick another school. It's not that illogical. Private religious colleges are not too likely to declare homosexuality etc to be o.k., or change policy just so that students can use state grants. There are many non-religious students wishing to attend these private institutions for the quality of the education offered.

Um, I graduated from a religiously affiliated university. Never did they (even 25 years ago) decry homosexuality -- there was even a university-sanctioned gay and lesbian club on campus.

Even though many universities have a religious affiliation, they also realize that they're part of the *real* world, where students of *all* varieties come for an education.

Now the students who attend schools like Bob Jones University will probably just have to make their own way....but if universities like that choose to adhere to policies that might cost their students the ability to get state and/or federal grants, they'll also make sure the students are aware of this.

The choice then becomes the students' to make -- either accept that those forms of funding education are going to be unavailable to them or attend another school.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies.
You say that like it's a bad thing.....

[Eric McTavish]

This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies.

Incorrect... a school may still have religious agendas and policies they just cannot decry homoesexuals, bisexuals...et.all or discriminate against them. IF they recieve state funding.

Therefore students who require grants to attend said colleges will have to find other means of paying for them or pick another school.

Or the school will have to give-up their dark-ages policies

It's not that illogical. Private religious colleges are not too likely to declare homosexuality etc to be o.k., or change policy just so that students can use state grants.

And therefore the state (and it's taxpayers) no longer have to pay for biggitoed rettoric.

There are many non-religious students wishing to attend these private institutions for the quality of the education offered.

And those students (or their parents) might have to work a little more for their education... I held 2 Jobs (one as a night watchman) while I worked thru my double major in college...I lost out on a lot of sleep but I did it!
If something is important to you you work for it... PERIOD

[Capt. Stamina]

I didn't see which bill was passed. If it was SB 1441, I don't see a problem. If SB 1437 comes up and is approved, that is going to be a problem.

Excerpt

Democrat Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

He continued, "The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing.’Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."

Nunez's solution to the people he disagrees with is to outlaw their ability to disagree with him.

[DoñaNina]

This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies. Therefore students who require grants to attend said colleges will have to find other means of paying for them or pick another school. It's not that illogical. Private religious colleges are not too likely to declare homosexuality etc to be o.k., or change policy just so that students can use state grants. There are many non-religious students wishing to attend these private institutions for the quality of the education offered.

It's true, and hopefully there are some religious schools out there that don't condemn homosexuality. I'd like to say they'll do that because they actually believe that homosexuality is okay, but they might just do it just to get the grant money.

[Leyla]

World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51733) By Joseph Farah


California's forced conversions
Posted: August 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


While much of the world was watching the forced conversions of two kidnapped Fox News journalists in the Gaza Strip, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a huge step toward forcing millions of Californians to convert.

It's not Islam that Schwarzenegger and the state are forcibly pushing through all schools that accept any public form of financial aid for students. It's paganism. It's the worship of Baal. It's a primitive form of religion that is making a comeback. It's a faith that says sacrifice your sons and daughters on this altar – or else.

In case you missed the stunning news, Schwarzenegger has signed a new law that effectively tosses out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other so-called educational facilities across the state.



The law requires all businesses and groups receiving any form of state funding – even if it's a grant for one student – to condone homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and God knows what else.

There are no exceptions – not for other religious beliefs, not for personal moral convictions, not for health reasons, not even for the possession of something increasingly rare in the Golden State, common sense.

Here's more evidence that Republican officeholders are the key to advancing social justice and progress. This is something not even former Gov. Gray Davis could have pulled off.

I don't want to overstate this, but this is the end of religious freedom in the biggest state in the union.

The only alternative left for Christians and Jews and people of other faiths in California is quite literally to drop out. That means homeschooling. It means creating new institutions that won't touch any public funding – even when it is as tenuous as one student accepting a state grant. When you submit yourself or your institution to government regulation in California now, you tacitly accept the official state religion of paganism.

And don't think it will end here. It never does.

When more people choose to drop out, as they inevitably will, the coercive state will find new creative ways to come after them as well.

I saw this coming 15 years ago when I chose to leave California for good. It's over. It really is the late, great state of California.

Remember how it all started.

It started with acceptance of the seemingly benign, libertarian notion that "what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom is none of the government's business." Now, of course, it's everyone's business.

By going to virtually any educational institution in California today you are swearing allegiance to the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and a growing list of other sexual sins and pathologies are just as good, just as normal, just as acceptable, just as healthy as heterosexuality.

Even worse, you are converting to this religious view. You are rejecting your old religious code – if you had one. You are accepting what might be called "the mark of the Terminator."

What's next?

It's unlikely the people who believe in forced conversions will stop after this victory.

They have been trying to force their way into every facet of life in California and across the nation. They want to regulate homeschooling. They want to approve curricula. They want to ensure that no child escapes their efforts at indoctrination and brainwashing.

These are the same people who consider the Boy Scouts of America one of the most subversive organizations in America because of their commitment to the simple non-sectarian principle of monotheism. If you believe in one true God who rules the universe and has established a standard of behavior for all men, these zealots are coming after you.

The war is not over until everyone bows before Baal.

When government starts dictating morality and ethics, what's next to go. Sex with children? ACLU is already working on that one. Didn't that great scientist Kinsey already begin a study for the age a child can reach sexual gratification? That means it's ok right? So why not have the government force everyone to accept child sex as o.k. and all natural too?

[Dmitri]

Arnold is going to change the law about presidential candidates needing to be born in the USA...

Now if he can hook up with Jesse Ventura as a running mate... We might have a match for the inevitable Hillary run...

[DoñaNina]

Arnold is going to change the law about presidential candidates needing to be born in the USA...

Now if he can hook up with Jesse Ventura as a running mate... We might have a match for the inevitable Hillary run...

They already have my vote.

[Mighty Rontor]

"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I think that the spirit of the law is what's important: If you're getting money from the state, then your school's not aloud to hate.

I submit for your consideration that the government isn't dictating morality and ethics; rather it's preventing religiously-biased school from dictating morality and ethics. One of the reasons predicating the founding of this country in the first place is the promise that there's no state religion that you must submit to.

By the way, I've yet to hear anyone gay, bisexual, or transgenders have anything good to say about NAMBLA or other organizations of that ilk. By the logic of the argument, religiously-biased schools should not make provisions for people with physical handycaps because it's God's will. Where's the morality and ethics there? If the First Amendment keeps a religious institution from dictating law to people, then by extention it keeps a religious institution from imposing morality. That it leaves to the people, which is good, because this country was made for people, not religions. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to the Vatican City or Saudi Arabia or someplace like that.

[Mighty Rontor]

Arnold is going to change the law about presidential candidates needing to be born in the USA...

Now if he can hook up with Jesse Ventura as a running mate... We might have a match for the inevitable Hillary run...

Given those parameters, I'd vote for Arnold.

[Alianne]

[QUOTE=Leyla]World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51733) By Joseph Farah

Do you *ever* get any news from anywhere else but World News Daily?

I've said it before -- you might have some leg to stand on from a credibility standpoint if your sources were not so clearly, obviously and proudly Christian Fundamentalist.

C'mon, Leyla. Don't be afraid. CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS, the New York Times...Yes, media sources can and usually have some sort of editorial slant, but at least their journalists make the *attempt* at some sort of objective news reporting.

Read one of them. You might be surprised.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

When government starts dictating morality and ethics, what's next to go. Sex with children? ACLU is already working on that one. Didn't that great scientist Kinsey already begin a study for the age a child can reach sexual gratification? That means it's ok right? So why not have the government force everyone to accept child sex as o.k. and all natural too?
Actually, I believe the slippery slope argument of choice for the anti-homosexual crowd is sex with dogs. That's the one made famous by soon-to-be-ex Senator Santorum anyway.

In any case, do you have a citation for the lawsuit or policy statement made by the ACLU asserting the right of adults to have sex with children? I only ask because I have a sneaking suspicion that you might be misinterpreting their position.

Look, you want to condemn gays to hell, that's all well and good, more power to you, apparently it's a popular viewpoint. But when you start making unfounded accusations or invoking the crazed rhetoric of World Net Daily (forced conversions? really? over-extrapolate much? :roll:) you are really doing your position a disservice.

The reciept of public funding is not a right or an entitlement, it's a privilege. This country has a long and storied history of making recipents of public funds adhere to a code of conduct in order to be eligible for those funds. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you were in favor of some of those requirements when they were aligned with your particular world view (the "abortion gag rule" immediately comes to mind), so when you make arguments against this particular rule, one can't help but believe that the objection is based less on principle and more on self-interest.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

When government starts dictating morality and ethics, what's next
I think I know what's next.... a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But somehow I think you'd support that.

Look, be honest, you don't oppose the govenrment dictating morality and ethics, you oppose the govenrment dictating morality and ethics that you disagree with.

[DoñaNina]

Look, be honest, you don't oppose the govenrment dictating morality and ethics, you oppose the govenrment dictating morality and ethics that you disagree with.

I don't think it's fair to accuse her like that. While it's possible, can we at least give her the benefit of the doubt?

[Leyla]

Arnold is going to change the law about presidential candidates needing to be born in the USA...

Now if he can hook up with Jesse Ventura as a running mate... We might have a match for the inevitable Hillary run...

Speaking of Hillary have you seen this youtube for Hillary in 2008? *rotfl*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvAE0WQSXAI

[Eric McTavish]

Speaking of Hillary have you seen this youtube for Hillary in 2008? *rotfl*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvAE0WQSXAI

Thats an old one! I give those guys credit they smakc both sides!

Ok tell me this is it ok for a state or the US Gov. to outlaw Gay marrage? If so why and under what leagal precidence?

[Alianne]

I don't think it's fair to accuse her like that. While it's possible, can we at least give her the benefit of the doubt?

Search her posts. She's got enough of a track record supporting exactly what Bob says that it's a fair assertion to make.

[Ysobelle]

Search her posts. She's got enough of a track record supporting exactly what Bob says that it's a fair assertion to make.



Yes, do have a look. Pay especial attention to the thread that had to be shut down after she said all women who've had abortions are murderers.

In a forum with several survivors of sexual abuse.

Which begs a question, Leyla. You're not a Wench. You obviously despise many of us and the open, non-judgemental organisation we support. Why are you here?

[Lady Laurel]

I think that the spirit of the law is what's important: If you're getting money from the state, then your school's not aloud to hate.


I say yeah for Arnold!!!!!!
I am so sick of people judging other people because of religious, sexual, or otherwise. If you are going to school to get an education that is your business just like, what partner you choose, or what church you go to.
Way to go Arnold for having some Sense!

[Capt. Stamina]

I don't think it's fair to accuse her like that. While it's possible, can we at least give her the benefit of the doubt?

You’re new to the boards DoñaNina, so I will let you know that there are some that support some conservative ideas on the boards and many that support liberal ideals. It’s fairly easy to tell the difference. Those that strongly support the liberal ideas, when they disagree with your point of view, will ignore the subject matter and attack the person.

Oh…the other thing to watch out for is the misquoting that goes on. One word, phrase, or sentence will be taken out of your post and twisted completely out of context. Once this happens, you’ll get one or two more posts clarifying your position and then be subject to the personal attack.

I know, since I’ve had personal experience in this. If this does happen to you, and it most likely will; you can not take it personally. As long as what you post are the facts and you can support it no one can fault your statements.

[Ysobelle]

Let's get one thing absolutely clear, here.

We are women of many opinions. We have women who believe everything under the sun. That's part of our strength, and what makes these boards a lively, welcoming place.

But your right to express your opinion, whatever it is, ends when you're being deliberately inflammatory and causing strife and pain to others. You either respect other's views, no matter how different, or you don't get to play here. Have an opinion. Fine. But don't you dare bludgeon others with your judgementalism.

In other words, show some basic humanity.

[Eric McTavish]

Those that strongly support the liberal ideas, when they disagree with your point of view, will ignore the subject matter and attack the person.

Hay no fair Im one of those Liberals and I dont believe I've ever attacked you... or misquoted your arguements...

[Pathos]

there are some that support some conservative ideas on the boards and many that support liberal ideals.
Then there are those of us who walk straight down the middle and think both sides are equally screwed.

We get abused by everyone.

8-)

[Buxom Wench]

Yes, do have a look. Pay especial attention to the thread that had to be shut down after she said all women who've had abortions are murderers.

In a forum with several survivors of sexual abuse.

Which begs a question, Leyla. You're not a Wench. You obviously despise many of us and the open, non-judgemental organisation we support. Why are you here?
for anyone interested... here's the link that had ALOT of us upset... including me.

Leyla did apologize for causing me major distress but, it didn't keep away the nightmares that followed.

[Capt. Stamina]

Hay no fair Im one of those Liberals and I dont believe I've ever attacked you... or misquoted your arguements...

And you are absolutly correct. And I not only am I thankful for that, you have a great deal of respect on my part for you professional conduct when it comes to hot topic issues. You also have a wicked sense of humor which I greatly enjoy.

[Leyla]

Which begs a question, Leyla. You're not a Wench. You obviously despise many of us and the open, non-judgemental organisation we support. Why are you here?

I don't despise any of you. I disagree with your viewpoints frequently, but I don't hate you...given the attacks though I think dislike is a more accurate emotion. I do however feel very much despised by you and Alianne. "Non-judgemental" are you kidding me? No one is allowed to have an opinion if it brushes morality that you do not agree with. You and your friends have made many judgements that are incorrect based on your opinions of Christians, right-wingers, and pro-lifers. You are allowed to make broad brush statements about any of the above because the majority of the wenches here happen to be on the same side of the fence as you. You and Allianne bully people into shutting up...I don't take well to bullying which is why I haven't entirely given up on responding to the boards. You make political arguments into personal attacks. For instance, I have nothing against gays, but disaprove of the government trying to force a religion to alter it's doctrine. Because I disapprove of the governments involvement people here are saying that I hate gays...news flash people, I don't.

I joined the forums originally for the Garb Goodies, then the ladies here seemed so friendly and inviting, and the community seemed very welcoming. It becomes more and more apparant though that only those who agree with the majority are truly welcome. The lack of a local in this state kept me from sending off to become a full-fledged wench. The animmosity towards anyone with my belief system who voices their beliefs is what prevents me from becoming a wench despite the lack of local.
I was hoping to meet more renfest fanatics who lived around here that I could attend fest with. As the faire has opened, and I've been introduced to another online community that is truly open-minded and welcoming, I've already been spending less time here.

Please feel free to continue with the personal attacks.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

disaprove of the government trying to force a religion to alter it's doctrine Please cite the part of the legislation in question (or of any legislation for that matter) that is doing that.

Once again, I think you are misinterpreting.

On a slightly related topic, what do you think of the decree by President Bush placing broad restrictions regarding stem-cell research on scientific institutions that seek federal funding? Do you agree with it? Do you feel that is an imposition of a religious doctrine upon men of science?

If you agree with the restriction, how do you reconcile that with you oposition to the California matter other than to say you don't mind govermental interference when the interference is favor of positions with which you agree?

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Please feel free to continue with the personal attacks.
Adopting a victim mentality is not going to do much for your credibility.

Then again, it's not like you have anywhere to go but up.

[Ysobelle]

You feel personally attacked? So did I when you spouted your ignorant comments about Jews after you were told you were wrong. So did the women you vilified after you'd been told several of them had been through abuse and abortion.

I'll say it again: you've been the one attacking with your utter lack of any manner of tact or consideration for others' views, backed up with increasingly whacked-out rhetoric, illogic, and non-facts, after which you protest indignantly about how "anyone" with opposite views is made unwelcome. There are plenty of Wenches around here with whom I don't agree. We get along fine. You, however, have deliberately hurt my friends, and my fellow Wenches. And that's something no Wench should countenance.

[surlywench]

I live to serve, friends.

And Heather? BWAAAAH!

I'm here for *you* dahling!!

(and WtF?! 5pages of posts?! I'm soo late to this party!!)

[surlywench]

It's not Islam that Schwarzenegger and the state are forcibly pushing through all schools that accept any public form of financial aid for students. It's paganism. It's the worship of Baal. It's a primitive form of religion that is making a comeback. It's a faith that says sacrifice your sons and daughters on this altar – or else.


-----ex-cuse---me?-----------

I'd like to think that this sort of blatant mis-informed, malicious mud-slinging was beneath someone who claims to walk in the path of Christ....
perhaps he got lost along the route to loving kindness and above all else, forgiveness and grace.....

I am going to back away from my keyboard now. I'll see you all in a few days when I've calmed down........

[Buxom Wench]

-----ex-cuse---me?-----------

I'd like to think that this sort of blatant mis-informed, malicious mud-slinging was beneath someone who claims to walk in the path of Christ....
perhaps he got lost along the route to loving kindness and above all else, forgiveness and grace.....

I am going to back away from my keyboard now. I'll see you all in a few days when I've calmed down........

we'll all miss you a great deal!!! :cry:

[syndony]

Leyla
Do yourself and us a favor and follow the advice that several people here have given you and that is quote from sources other than the extremely biased one that you prefer. That isn't the only crayon in the box, use them all to get a well rounded view of things. It isn't too much to ask.
just my 2 cents
Paige

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Yes, do have a look. Pay especial attention to the thread that had to be shut down after she said all women who've had abortions are murderers. I had missed that thread. I just read it now.

Great googly-moogly. :shock:

[Buxom Wench]

I had missed that thread. I just read it now.

Great googly-moogly. :shock:
heh.... you should have been here when it was being written.

I swear, you could have started numerous fires from the friction from all the keyboards!..... not to mention, put out those same fires from the tears of pain and frustration.

[Myfanawy]

The lack of a local in this state kept me from sending off to become a full-fledged wench.

For the record, anyone can become a "full-fledged" wench--you don't have to have a state local to become one. Anyone who doesn't have a local in their state is put into Local 69, if I'm not mistaken.

[surlywench]

For the record, anyone can become a "full-fledged" wench--you don't have to have a state local to become one. Anyone who doesn't have a local in their state is put into Local 69, if I'm not mistaken.


I don't think that was quite what she meant. She was looking for other wenches in the MN area to play at faire with, hang and such with. Since there aren't any (or many right now) it's not alway worth it to send off the money and get the spiffy pin. :shrugs: It's a personal pref. sort of thing. Some people prefer the in person contact, and some are happy with the boards alone.
=================
I'm calmer now.....really, I am....

[Alianne]

You feel personally attacked? So did I when you spouted your ignorant comments about Jews after you were told you were wrong. So did the women you vilified after you'd been told several of them had been through abuse and abortion.

I'll say it again: you've been the one attacking with your utter lack of any manner of tact or consideration for others' views, backed up with increasingly whacked-out rhetoric, illogic, and non-facts, after which you protest indignantly about how "anyone" with opposite views is made unwelcome. There are plenty of Wenches around here with whom I don't agree. We get along fine. You, however, have deliberately hurt my friends, and my fellow Wenches. And that's something no Wench should countenance.

And this states my feelings in totality as well, so I'll just agree with this and leave it at that.

Leyla, your track record of posting is your track record. Suggesting to someone to check it out is certainly not what I'd consider 'bullying'. Disagreeing with someone's views is not bullying anyone into 'shutting up'. I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Sorry if you disagree.

Personally, I find your views rather hypocritical -- if government tries to support something that you agree with, you're all good. If it tries to support something that either interests or is respectful of the rights of the majority of the citizens in the US, who do *not* align themselves with the Fundamentalist Christian Right, then you protest that the government is trying to 'squash Christianity'.

Sauce for the goose, m'dear....because maybe those of us who aren't Fundamentalist Christians dislike having *our* rights and beliefs trampled on by a minority that is not reflective of the majority of the citizenry.

[Pathos]

the Fundamentalist Christian Right (i.e., the majority of citizens of the US)
because maybe those of us who aren't Fundamentalist Christians dislike having *our* rights and beliefs trampled on by a minority.
Wait...is the Christian Right the majority or the minority?

[Ysobelle]

Psst:


If they try to support something that interests other people besides the Fundamentalist Christian Right (i.e., the majority of citizens of the US)....


"Other people" are the majority.

[Pathos]

"Other people" are the majority.
Right. Gotcha.

That could read the other way though couldn't it?

[Alianne]

Right. Gotcha.

That could read the other way though couldn't it?

Well, since I wrote "other people *besides*..." [emphasis mine], I don't think so.

But let me rephrase: "The majority of citizens in the US, who do not align themselves with the Fundamentalist Christian Right...."

How's that? Better? ;)

[Pathos]

But let me rephrase: "The majority of citizens in the US, who do not align themselves with the Fundamentalist Christian Right...."

How's that? Better? ;) Yeah that's better. My mis-read of your original post was understandable though I think.

In these battles of fundamental ideals (which no one ever wins in my opinion) things like inflection can make a big difference.

8-)

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Well, since I wrote "other people *besides*..." [emphasis mine], I don't think so.

I agree that it was slightly ambiguous. The way the sentence was structured, it was unclear if the adjective-noun "majority" was describing "the Fundamentalist Christian Right" or "other people".

[Alianne]

I agree that it was slightly ambiguous. The way the sentence was structured, it was unclear if the adjective-noun "majority" was describing "the Fundamentalist Christian Right" or "other people".

I edited! I edited!

I hope it's clearer now. :)

[Leyla]

All this will do is insure that only the rich kids get the educations offered by religious oriented schools. Now poor kids can only get into state schools and private, non-religious classes. This isn't likely to change college policy.

Where the hell are you coming up with THAT staggering piece of illogic? Religious schools are mostly private already. All this law means is anyone getting government money has to abide by the First Amendment. You want to whine about kids not getting into Fundamentalist schools? You have a remarkably narrow view of this law. Teach your private morals to your kids in private. You have a problem with gays being treated the same as everyone else, that's your problem. Not the government's.
This law means that state grants will not be given to students attending colleges with religious agendas or policies. Therefore students who require grants to attend said colleges will have to find other means of paying for them or pick another school. It's not that illogical. Private religious colleges are not too likely to declare homosexuality etc to be o.k., or change policy just so that students can use state grants. There are many non-religious students wishing to attend these private institutions for the quality of the education offered.

Y'know what? Tough shit. You go to the school you can afford. The First Amendment says there is to be no state-sponsored religion, and if I lived in California and knew my taxes were going to fund schools with your homophobic, right-wing, Fundamentalist agenda, you'd better believe I'd be screaming. If you don't like it, well, it sucks to be you.

My parents sucked it up and sent me to a Quaker school they paid for themselves. They didn't expect anyone to help them. It was the best education in Philly, and we all knew it was a religious-based school. That was what they wanted for me, and they didn't ask the government to coddle my ass to pay for it.

You want your theoretical kids to have a specific education? You'd better start saving now.

So which one of us is personalizing this argument Yso? "your homophobic...agenda" Really, thanks for the labels. I don't have any issue with gays, but it's nice to know what box I'm in.

This thread started as a debate of ideas, for which I opined that the law would not lead to a policy change. I did not rant, I did not personalize.

It's also nice to know that so many of you are so forgiving. I've made my appologies where applicable. I admited to my errors, admited to my ignorance, even for offending when offence hadn't been my intent and attempted to correct things. I've had my sins once more paraded about as though I were somehow proud of my errors and the harm I caused. Which one of us isn't forgiving?

As for using WND...seems to me this thread was started, by someone other than myself, using WND as a source. So further publishing an OBVIOUSLY opinion piece from the same source is wrong how?

If you want me off the boards be an adult please, tell me to leave. Start a forum on "The many multitudes of sins and offenses of not-a-REAL-wench Leyla." Send me a PM telling me straight out that I am not welcome. Otherwise, if I make a so non-personal post, regarding my opinions maybe we could limit the objections to the ideas.

Perhaps a more appropriate response to my argument would have been...If the institutions do not adopt change after accepting such large amounts of government monies the chances of them continuing to function without aid is unlikely. I am pleased that these bigotist schools will have to change their tune.

Now for another non-personal opinion. If the first amendment is going to be invoked here as the reason for restricting funding, then I think funding should be cut from all institutions founded or using religious policy. It must be one or the other, either colleges can use state grants regardless of policy or they can't. Otherwise the government is saying "this religious institution which also condones homosexuality can be supported, but that religious institution which believes that homosexuality is wrong can not use government funds."

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I did not rant

Uhhh......

When government starts dictating morality and ethics, what's next to go. Sex with children? ACLU is already working on that one. Didn't that great scientist Kinsey already begin a study for the age a child can reach sexual gratification? That means it's ok right? So why not have the government force everyone to accept child sex as o.k. and all natural too?

You must be using some new definition of rant with which I'm not familiar.