More on Extremism

More News on Extremism

Police arrest 20 far-right extremists after Swedish National Day rally
International Herald Tribune - France
Swedish news agency TT says most of the demonstrators are believed to belong to a neo-Nazi group. Marklund says about 100 demonstrators were released …

Bigotry Monitor: Volume 8, Number 23

Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union - Washington,DC,USA

NEO-NAZI GANG BATTERS AZERI IN MOSCOW. Six neo-Nazis attacked an Azeri man in Moscow, according to a May 30 report by the Sova Information-Analytical Center …  

Neo-Nazi Child Porn Enthusiast Denies All
Intelligence Report - Montgomery,AL,USA
Kevin Strom, the longtime neo-Nazi leader, had a surprising revelation for the judge who was about to sentence him to almost two years in prison on federal …  

Anti-Semitism on the Rise in Canada
Intelligence Report - Montgomery,AL,USA
Another troubling development in Canada is the growing visibility of a neo-Nazi group called the Aryan Guard. This spring, about 25 members of the group 

A reminder of hate's dangers

Houston Chronicle - United States
By ALFRED M. MEYERSON and MARTIN B. COMINSKY Ten years ago today, the world was just learning about a horrific hate crime in the East Texas town of Jasper. …  

Online Hate Crimes are an issue for all religions
ShortNews.com - Regensburg,Germany
Law enforcement professionals from the Los Angeles Police Department and from the Sheriff's Dept Gang & Hate Crimes Investigation Unit informed about hate …  

Sikh Community Support Requested at Sentencing Hearing of Hate ...
Panthic Weekly - Concord,CA,USA
After approximately six days on trial, Ahmed was convicted of menacing in the second degree as a hate crime, coercion in the second degree as a hate crime, …  

France arrests 8 over mosque attack
PRESS TV - Tehran,Iran
President Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to step up the fight against Islamophobia in France following the mass desecration last month of the Muslim section of …  

Bigotry Monitor: Volume 8, Number 22
Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union - Washington,DC,USA
As part of preventative measures aimed at identifying neo-Nazi youths in the city, school officials are required to tell police about neo-Nazis among their …  

Italy’s Unwanted
Newsweek - USA
Tommasoli eventually died of his injuries, and five members of a neo-Nazi gang called the Veneto Skinhead Front were arrested in connection with the assault …  

Police make arrests in connection with KKK hate crime
KDRV - Medford,OR,USA
Police say Moss is charged for his alleged involvement in a KKK hate crime, in which the burned images of a cross and the letters KKK were left on the front …  

GAY HATE
Out & About - Nashville,TN,USA
Just as he’d done many times before, Anthony notified the Warren County Sheriff’s office on Friday morning about the hate crime. Two investigators came out …  

Hate crimes surge in Valley
Los Angeles Daily News - Los Angeles,CA,USA
By Brandon Lowrey, Staff Writer NORTH HOLLYWOOD - Hate crimes ranging from threatening letters to brutal beatings and firebombs at religious centers have …  

Seven arrested over hate crimes
News Shopper - UK
By Crime Reporter SEVEN people were arrested in Bromley yesterday (May 21) on suspicion of domestic, race and homophobic hate crimes. … 

 

Technorati Tags:hate crimes, xenophobia, homophobia, islamophobia, racism, neo-nazis, bigots, racism, hate speech
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

 

What a Waste

(c) 2008 Rev. Jim Sutter for Chasing Evil

When we are seeing worsening headlines, on an almost daily basis, telling us about the rising price of oil, of the price at the pump, of increases in the cost of food, riots over food shortages, rising unemployment, huge numbers of jobs going overseas, more layoffs at home, the foreclosure crisis at the highest point in American history, we look to the government, charities, religious organizations and the churches for help.

The government, thanks to excessive partisanship, has so far failed us. Hopefully the next administration will do better, but seven more months is a long way to go for families that have no money for food, medicine, house payments or to fill the car to get to work (if they even have a job.) Charities are running low on funding, while trying to do the best they can. Generous Americans are sometimes fooled into donating to what they think is a charity but in reality is a scam, this takes money away from needy families.

That leaves us with religious institutions and churches. While many are doing an outstanding job of helping those in need, there are some that are wasting huge amounts of cash, resources, and time on ridiculous political campaigns instead of helping people in need.

One of the latest examples of a huge waste of money is:


Giant Ads Recruit for 'Religious War' Against Gay Marriage

Not surprisingly, the Religious Right is upset at the failure of an effort to block California’s recent same-sex marriage decision from going into effect. “[N]ationwide legal chaos,” predicted the Alliance Defense Fund. The decision “abolishes the meaning of motherhood and fatherhood,” opined Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. A “further extension of their judicial activism,” said Pacific Justice Institute’s Brad Dacus.

At the same time, readers of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Times were confronted with an enormous advertisement urging them to “join the Crusade” of “conscientious resistance” to “the homosexual ‘moral revolution.’”

An obscure but well-heeled group called the American Society for Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) ran ads today covering two full pages in those newspapers, warning of the threat of same-sex marriage. The ad echoes the now-common Religious Right theme that equality for gays and lesbians would lead to the
“persecution” of Christianity, but with 4,600 words in some of the most expensive print around, TFP apparently tried to make the argument in the least succinct way possible, discoursing on Nazism, the definition of truth, various Vatican publications, and Joan of Arc.

(read the rest of the article at the link above)


More on the Alliance Defense Fund

More on the Family Research Council

More on the Pacific Justice Institute

These are “Christian” religious-based institutes? What was it that Christ said were to be our absolute priorities? Was it raising an army for a holy war against homosexuals or court rulings? I think not.

Love Thy Neighbor (Matthew 5:43)

Feed the Hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless (Matthew 25: 31-40)

Technorati Tags:homosexuality, christianity, scams, alliance defense fund, family research council, pacific justice institute, american society for tradition family and property, holy war, racism
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

CA Supreme Court Approves Gay Marriages

California court overturns gay marriage ban
Decision says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

===============================

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE, PAVING WAY FOR STATE TO BECOME SECOND TO ALLOW GAY NUPTIALS, THE AP REPORTS

Fear and Loathing in Florida

From: http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/ponce-de-leon-is-small-town-in.html

By Contributing Editor Philip Chandler

Ponce de Leon is a small town in the Northwest Florida Panhandle in Holmes County, not far from the Alabama state line, with a population of roughly 2,200. This town is billed as an idyllic rural enclave located half way between Tallahassee on the east, and Pensacola on the west. This town’s Web site describes Ponce de Leon as retaining “a rustic charm of beauty and tranquility, all its own [sic].” Some people believe that the Spanish explorer, Juan Ponce de Leon, may have searched for the Fountain of Youth in this area. Whether or not this is true is a matter of historical conjecture; what is not a matter of conjecture, however, is the fact that the Holmes County School Board (which has jurisdiction over Ponce de Leon High School) has besmirched one of the core ideals to which Americans claim to aspire.

Heather Gillman is an eleventh grade student at Ponce de Leon High School. Heather identifies as heterosexual, but is a staunch supporter of her gay friends and acquaintances. She expresses her support for gay Americans by wearing T-shirts carrying slogans such as “Gay? Fine By Me,” “I Support My Gay Friends,” and “God Loves Me Just the Way I Am,” along with stickers bearing rainbows and pink triangles.

David Davis is the principal of Ponce de Leon High School. High school principals are generally considered to be pillars of the community, alongside sheriffs, bank managers, town clerks, teachers, firefighters, and mayors. Davis, however, appears to have transcended all of these figures by managing to travel backwards in time – quite an accomplishment for a high school principle – to the 1950s.

With the backing of the Holmes County School Board, Davis prohibited all students from displaying such messages of support. Any student who so much as utters a single word supporting the rights of gay people is subject to suspension. Davis has already suspended several students for wearing gay-themed clothing (including a rainbow-colored belt). Furthermore, Davis interrogated a student (named “Jane Doe” for legal purposes) who told a teacher’s aide that she was a lesbian and that she was being taunted by other students. Davis summoned Doe into his office in September 2007 and instructed Doe “not to be gay” and not to tell anybody that she is gay. Davis also told Doe not to mix with or talk to any of the “middle school” girls, and Davis further opined that “gay pride” was a disgrace to the school; that being gay was “against the Bible;” and that Doe should not “go down that road.” Davis also declared that students who wear gay-supportive T-shirts or other symbols expressing support for the rights of gay people are members of a “secret society” and are members of an “illegal organization.” The school board defined an “illegal organization” as “any attempt to use the school day for activities that are not school related or school sponsored.”

Heather Gillman defied both Davis and the school board, filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court against Davis and against the school board under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The lawsuit contends that defendants Davis and the school board violated Gillman’s First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association, as made binding upon the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit contends that the defendants’ policy with respect to “illegal organizations” and membership in a “secret society” is unconstitutional, both as applied and on its face. More specifically, the complaint asserts that the policy is void for vagueness, overbroad, and unconstitutional.

Only in America – in the year 2008 – could such a ludicrous spectacle unfold in a court of law. As other Western nations become increasingly accepting of their gay citizens, and as barriers to equal treatment of gay people fall in nation after nation, the US stubbornly appears to move full tilt backwards with respect to this particular issue.

There is absolutely no question that both Davis and the school board will lose – big time. Both case law and common sense are firmly on the side of the students, who are being deprived of their right to political expression, as guaranteed them by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. This deprivation occurs under color of state law, thus permitting the plaintiffs to file suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and granting the Federal District Court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. section 1343(a)(3) (civil rights).

On June 26, 2003, the US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), declaring that all state statutes prohibiting people from having gay sex are unconstitutional as applied to private sexual activity between consenting adults for non-commercial purposes. The Court made it clear that gay people are fully entitled to respect for their private lives, and that the state cannot demean the dignity of gay Americans merely because of moral disapproval. In sweeping terms, the Court apologized for an earlier ruling (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) in which the Court had reached the opposite conclusion, thereby permitting the states to criminalize gay people for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes. The Lawrence Court made it clear that it had failed, utterly, to treat gay Americans with the respect that they deserved as members of a legitimate minority within the framework of a representative democracy, and the Court bluntly announced that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”

The Lawrence Court could have overruled Bowers using an equal protection analysis, and many legal commentators were surprised by the Court’s decision to go further. Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and most legal scholars believed that the Court would limit its analysis, in Lawrence, to the equal protection argument advanced by the gay plaintiffs. However, the Court went much further, holding that laws criminalizing same-sex sexual activity violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are no “secret societies” in 21st century America. Furthermore, neither Heather Gillman nor her fellow students attempted to hide their political views from the school authorities; to the contrary, they made it extraordinarily clear that they believed in the right of the lesbian student (and gay students more generally) to receive an education without being subjected to harassment and abuse. There is nothing “illegal” about a group of students protesting such harassment, whether limited to the school context or expanded to embrace broader social goals. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent. Community. School. District., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the US Supreme Court upheld the right of students to wear black armbands as a gesture of protest against the war in Vietnam. Then, as is the case now, the students were not disruptive; in wearing armbands, they were “quiet and passive” and “did not impinge upon the rights of others.” Furthermore, the students in Tinker did not act in a manner that “materially and substantially interfere[d] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” (cited from Burnside v. Byard, 363 F.2d. 744,749 (1966)). The students at Ponce de Leon High School are not acting in a manner that in any way interferes with the administration of appropriate discipline at the school.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which will hear any appeal from a decision handed down by the US District Court, has addressed a very similar issue, in the context of college education. In April 1997, this intermediate appellate court declared unconstitutional, in Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor (docket #96-6143), an Alabama state statute that forbad colleges and universities from using public funds to “sanction, recognize, or support” the activities or existence of any group or organization that “fosters or promotes a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Sections 13A-6-63 to 13A-6-65, inclusive.” The Alabama statute went further, prohibiting colleges and universities that received public funding from permitting or encouraging its members to provide information or materials explaining how such acts may be performed. Sodomy was defined as ‘any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.” Thus, oral sex between unmarried persons was defined by the Alabama criminal code as a form of sodomy. This statute was clearly aimed at the gay and lesbian community, and was intended to prevent colleges and universities that received public funding from supporting the activities of any group or organization that promoted the so-called “homosexual lifestyle.”

It is well established that the First Amendment protects advocacy to break a law. With respect to such advocacy, this protection is limited in one important respect – in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that the only forms of advocacy or expression that may be criminalized are those forms of advocacy directed to “inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [that are] likely to incite or produce such action” [emphasis added].

The First Amendment therefore protects the right of any person, gay or heterosexual, to advocate breaking any law that prohibits same-sex or opposite-sex “sodomy” (as defined above). This conservative Court of Appeals held that the Alabama statute discussed and struck down was not capable of a narrowing construction that would have enabled the state to enforce it against speech directed to such incitement and likely to produce such action. The Alabama statute was broad by its very terms (referring to the promotion of a “lifestyle or actions”) – hence, it was not possible to argue that the statute merely impinged upon speech falling outside the protective ambit of the First Amendment, as described by Brandenburg. The appellate court also noted that the Alabama statute constituted viewpoint discrimination – something that is prohibited within the context of a limited public forum (such as those fora created by state universities and colleges). A state university may determine what subjects are appropriate for discussion in such a forum, but may not proscribe the positions that students may choose to take with respect to those subjects (see Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)).

The appellate court also upheld the district court’s determination that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. A statute is deemed to be unconstitutional on its face if there are no sets of circumstances under which application of the statute in question could ever be found to be constitutional; in other words, a statute is unconstitutional on its face if every application of that statute, in every set of circumstances, would yield an unconstitutional result (see US v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), where this tent of statutory construction was expressed, albeit in dicta). Facial invalidation of a statute is “strong medicine,” and the Court of Appeals made it clear that such invalidation should only occur if the reviewing court is convinced “that the identified overbreadth is incurable and would taint all possible applications of the statute.” Generally, a statute should “be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.” In First Amendment jurisprudence, a statute that is challenged on its face will be upheld if it is “readily susceptible” to a narrowing construction that would make it constitutional. The key phrase to consider is the phrase “readily susceptible” – a federal court will not rewrite a state statute to conform it to constitutional requirements unless the state statute in question is readily susceptible to the proposed limitation. The District Court held that the Alabama statute was not readily susceptible to a narrowing construction that would render it constitutional, and the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court.

Note that the above analysis would be applicable were gay sex to be illegal in the State of Florida, as was the case in some 14 states before the US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence (supra). Here, school principal Davis and the Holmes County School Board have attempted to gag a group of students who are in no way advocating the violation of any law. These students are merely attempting to express their support of the right of one of their members to be treated decently and in a manner consistent with the educational mission of the school. Both Davis and the School Board have engaged in the worst form of McCarthyism – declaring that those students who support the rights of gay people are members of an “illegal organization” and members of a “secret society.”

We are not living in the 1950s, much as many right-wing commentators would like to see a return to the values that defined that era in American political life. Joseph McCarthy – a vicious, thuggish, bullying drunk – died shortly after his disgrace and censure by the US Senate. We live in a diverse, pluralistic society in which gay people have won some measure of acceptance, in both state and federal political spheres. Notwithstanding the rantings of jurists such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the US Supreme Court has declared that gay Americans are entitled to respect for their private lives, and that the constitutional guarantees of substantive fairness and the equal protection of the laws are available to members of this group, just as they are available to members of any other group of law-abiding citizens. Principal Davis and the Holmes County School Board have besmirched the values that are integral to the American political experience. Twelve years ago, another school board and another school principal disregarded these values, causing the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reinstate a lawsuit filed by Jamie Nabozny against the Ashland, Wisconsin School District and against school principal Mary Podlesny; the school authorities literally laughed at Nabozny’s pleas for help after he was repeatedly beaten up, shoved into a urinal, and mock-raped by several homophobic bullies (see Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (1996)). Just as Davis told Jane Doe “not to be gay,” Mary Podlesny told Jamie Nabozny that he should expect such vicious taunts and physical abuse if he “insisted” on being openly gay. Just as three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit expressed their disgust, referring to the defendant’s arguments as “indefensible,” so too will three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit express their disgust when this case reaches them and when they learn about the “secret society” – members of whom comprise somewhere between 4% and 10% of the American population.

Technorati Tags:http://www.technorati.com/tag/homophobia" rel="tag">homophobia, http://www.technorati.com/tag/equal rights" rel="tag">equal rights, http://www.technorati.com/tag/holmes county school board" rel="tag">holmes county school board, http://www.technorati.com/tag/ponce de leon" rel="tag">ponce de leon
Generated By http://www.gospelrhys.co.uk/" target="_blank">Technorati Tag Generator

New Jersey Passes LGBT Hate Crimes Bill

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/01/010708jersey.htm

NJ Passes LGBT Bias Bill
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 7, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) New Jersey lawmakers on Monday passed legislation to strengthen New Jersey's hate crimes and anti-school bullying laws.

The bill was approved in the Assembly by a 65 - 10 vote. Last Thursday, the New Jersey Senate approved the bill 35 to 0. It now goes to Gov. Jon S. Corzine for his signature.

The legislation has two key sections. The first adds "gender identity or expression" to the existing hate crime law with already covers sexuality, race and religion. It also mandates two hours of training on hate crimes for all new police officers, and offers sentencing options to judges, such as anti-hate sensitivity training for convicted defendants.

The second part cracks down on bullying in schools, making it mandatory for schools to post on the web, and widely distribute, their anti-school bullying policies. It also creates a Commission on Bullying in Schools.

(Read the full article at the link above)

The Savagery of Savage

Michael Savage has a long and checkered history of making an ass of himself with his proud display of blatant bigotry against Jews, Muslims, immigrants, Catholics and homosexuals on his radio show. Once again, he is targeting Muslims, joining other bigots who are calling for the removal of the US Constitution so that Muslims can be forcibly deported. For anyone who remembers history, this same type of racist rhetoric was prevalent in the late 1930's and early 1040's in Germany, except the target was Jews.

Savage, whose "The Savage Nation" airs on more than 300 radio stations nationwide, screamed attacks on Muslims, Islam and the Quran during his October 29, 2007, program. A number of concerned listeners contacted CAIR about Savage's attacks on Islam.

Savage's shouted anti-Muslim attacks included:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting on my all-fours and praying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

"What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it."
"What sane nation that worships the U.S. constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

(Of course, Savage forgets to mention that the Bible not only approves of slavery, but encourages it, and that America began with slavery being completely legal for the first 360-some years.)

To listen to these and other bigoted statements by Savage, click here.

Michael Savage has a long history of rhetorical attacks on Muslims and other minorities. In 2004, Savage stated: "I think [Muslims] need to be forcibly converted to Christianity...It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." In 2006, he called for a ban on Muslim immigration and recommended making "the construction of mosques illegal in America."

SEE: Savage Says Ban the Construction of US Mosques SEE ALSO: Michael Savage (Media Matters)

"Michael Savage obviously cares little about the safety or civil rights of American Muslims, but the stations that carry his hate-filled rants do care about listeners' attitudes toward advertisers who pay to air commercials during his program," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin. "Americans of all faiths should take a few minutes to contact any local station that broadcasts Savage's inflammatory tirades to say they will not buy the goods or services of his advertisers."

Rubin added that hate-filled words can and do lead to violent actions against American Muslims. She said there have been several recent apparently bias-related incidents targeting mosques, Islamic institutions and Muslim individuals nationwide.

In Ohio, Nazi swastikas and the phrase "white power" were spray-painted on a Toledo Islamic school and rocks were thrown at worshipers outside a Columbus mosque. In Texas, a shot was fired into a mosque. In New York, a Muslim woman was badly beaten in a bias attack. In California, arsonists torched one mosque and a group of men attacked another. In Maryland, vandals slashed the tires of vehicles owned by a Muslim activist.

ANTI-CATHOLIC / ANTI-IMMIGRATION

In March 2006, Savage drew the ire of the Catholic community when he accused the Catholic Church of breaking federal law by giving assistance to illegal immigrants (in response to statements by Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles calling it "pastoral support"). William A. Donahue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, was scheduled to be on the show that day but was refused after he became upset upon hearing Savage's language. Later he responded by saying "what is not fine is Savage's diatribe about the 'greedy pigs' in the Catholic Church and how 'the institution is rotten from the top to the bottom.' He owes all Catholics an apology." On March 28, 2006, Savage encouraged his listeners to burn Mexican flags to counter a pro-immigration group that had burned American flags.

HOMOPHOBIA

Resisting a lengthy campaign by human rights groups that asked that it not hire radio talk show host Michael Savage, well known for his bigoted on-air vitriol, then-MSNBC President Erik Sorenson gave Savage a major television talk show last March, saying Savage hadn't said anything hateful on MSNBC's air — at least not yet.

Then, in July 2003, Savage described a caller to his new show as a "sodomite" and a "pig," and told him to "get AIDS and die" and to "go eat a sausage and choke on it." The cable news network fired him within hours.

ANTI-SEMITISM

Savage has called Jewish talk show host Jerry Springer "hook-nosed," attacked a fictional ACLU lawyer named "Mark Nobodyberg," and referred to Sen. Joseph Lieberman as "throwing his bagel into the ring" of the 2004 presidential campaign. He has gone on an extended diatribe against the Southern Poverty Law Center's President Richard Cohen:

"I'll tell you the truth, it's enough to break your heart to see what this country has become," he said. "And I have a lot of things that I really want to say today, that I'm going to have to control myself and not say, because there are things that need to be done that I can't say. But the country's at a terrible, terrible balancing point."

Later in the same broadcast he mocked Jews in a fake Brooklyn accent and laid out a justification for anti-Semitism.

"That's next isn't it?" Savage asked. "From these verminous Brooklyn College lawyers, isn't it? Go down South and have a tee-hee over the goyim. Laugh at the goyim. Go down there and take away the crosses and they can't touch you, huh Mr. Cohen? [Mock laughter.]

"Mr. Cohen, and you wonder where anti-Semitism comes from. Let me strip the mask off it for you today, because if you think I'm going to mince words you are mistaken. It comes from situations like this, when you have a New York Jew like Cohen going down South into the heartland of Christianity and stealing the religious symbol from Christians."

Savage is himself "a New York Jew," a man who was born — and legally remains — Michael Alan Wiener. According to the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), Savage is the son of Jewish parents in the Bronx. He adopted his pseudonym in 1994, with his first major radio show.

Despite that, Savage frequently talks about Christianity as "our" religion and bitterly criticizes those he characterizes as "Christophobes." Now, with his attacks on Cohen, FAIR's Steve Rendall says Savage has crossed a new line.

"Savage's anti-Semitism is nothing new," said Rendall, a long-time analyst of Savage's show. "But this takes him a step beyond, into the company of neo-Nazi conspiracists like [hate group leader] Matt Hale and [former Klansman] Don Black."

Critics such as GLAAD, FAIR, and Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse him of fascist leanings,[23] racism,[12] homophobia,[24] and bigotry[12] because of his controversial statements about Arabs, Islam, homosexuality, feminism, sex education, and immigration.[25]

More on the bigotry and racism of Michael Savage:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=643

http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/savage.html

http://www.savagestupidity.com/enders_ap_2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_%28commentator%29

Technorati Tags:michael savage, homophobia, racism, anti-immigration, anti-semitism, islamophobic
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Dispelling Myths

Today we will look at some of the more frequently used myths about homosexuality, and see if there is any basis in reality.


1) Homosexuals are demanding special rights.

Our Constitution guarantees everyone shall have "equal protection under the law." Homosexual activists are working towards gaining that equal (not special) protection under the law, to stop the discrimination and abuse they current suffer at society's hands.


2) Homosexuality is a choice.

Scientists have known for some time now that some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, while others make a lifestyle choice. This is generally called the "nature vs. nurture argument." Genetic scientists have accomplished the most important part of the scientific method (of research) in this matter, in that they have been able to reproduce their results. These scientists do not yet know the exact gene that causes the predisposition towards homosexuality, but they do know what string it is on, and with this they are able to narrow the search.

A genetic predisposition towards homosexuality means that as a person ages, they will realize they are attracted to members of the same sex more than members of the opposite sex. They have on control over this genetic tendency, it would be like trying to control what color eyes or hair one has, how tall one is, what facial features one has, etc. Your genes determine your body's structure, including your sexual attractions.

If we believe in God, and if we believe that God made man(kind), that would include man(kind)'s genetic structure. Therefore, since homosexuals are such due to genetic predisposition (from their genetic structure), then logically it follows that God included this in making man(kind). For those that believe God cannot make a mistake, accusing homosexuals of being "abominations", "deviants" or whatever else, means you are saying God made a mistake, thus violating your own beliefs in making such a claim about homosexuals.


3) Homosexuality is always wrong.

At this point, we must distinguish between the sexual orientation of homosexuality, and physical acts of homosexuality. When we're talking about the sexual orientation of homosexuality, we are talking about someone with a genetic predisposition towards attraction to others of the same sex, but it stops there. It is just a state of being, period. It does not necessarily include lust, which is a far stronger form of attraction, and it does not include sex acts.

When we're talking about physical acts of homosexuality, we're talking about physical acts of sex between two or more consenting adult members of the same sex.

It is very important to distinguish between the state of being, and physical actions.

So let's look at this question from a biblical and a secular point of view.


4) The Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

There are three sections of the Bible that people usually cite when trying to claim that it is condemned by God. These are Leviticus, Genesis and the Epistles of St. Paul.

The Torah is the primary source for Jewish views on homosexuality. It states that: "[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to'eva" (Leviticus 18:22).
The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination". However, because the word is used twice in regards to homosexuality, its second use has been understood by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh hu va, meaning "He is deviating from what is natural." (literally "He is wandering with it [from the natural way of the world]" since the Hebrew word to'e means "He is wandering", va "with it"). [2]

It should be noted that in order to receive the death sentence under Jewish law, the offense must have been witnessed by two men of good repute, at least one of those men must have told the offender - during the commission of his act - that what he was doing was likely to bring a death sentence, the offender must have acknowledged understanding what was said and continued with his action anyway, both of the male witnesses must testify in court, and if the offender was found guilty one of the male witnesses must carry out the sentence of death. If either of the male witnesses lied, they were considered guilty of murder.

Also, the greatest Jewish philosopher in history - Maimonides - wrote, in his Guide to the Perplexed, that the Levitical prohibition was not about being a homosexual, rather it was about man's unbridled lust, and a prohibition of the Canaanite practice of using teenage boys as prostitutes. Even the early Jewish leaders recognized that there was a difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual action.

As for Christians - we are primarily to follow the teachings of Christ, over and above anyone else. You can read Christ's teachings in the Gospels over and over without finding a single word in condemnation of homosexuality. Not. A. Single. Word.

St. Paul spent quite a bit of time condemning all forms of sexual interaction, although we know that Paul was not the sole author of his Epistles. Modern biblical scholars now believe that at least four separate persons wrote what we commonly think of as Paul's letters (epistles). Why did Paul spend so much time condemning all forms of sexual interaction and intimacy? There are many theories, and there is not room enough here to go into them. The most prominent current theory is put forth by Bishop John Shelby Spong, and can be found at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_1.html . (Note I am not taking a position on this theory, I am just presenting it as one of the more popular current theories.)

When there is a conflict between what Christ taught and what St. Paul taught, I always council my congregants to remember that the term "Christian" literally means "follower of Christ". In choosing between whether to believe Jesus Christ or St. Paul, there doesn't seem to be a choice. We are not "Paulians", we are "Christians." (speaking for myself and fellow Christians) In deciding whether God - in the incarnation of Jesus - or St. Paul would be more knowledgeable, I would always choose God.


5) Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality.

Biblical scholars, looking at the story of these two cities, are convinced that they were destroyed for a far more serious sin - that of denying hospitality. In the days of long, dangerous trips across the desert, hospitality to strangers was of paramount importance, and Sodom already had a horrible reputation for denying such hospitality while they concentrated on their own indulgences. When the angels visited Lot and the townspeople tried to take them from Lot, they committed an extreme violation of the traditions of hospitality. [3]


6) Later biblical verses condemn Sodomites as homosexuals.

That is a common misconception. Rather, the prophets charge the Sodomites with a variety of other offenses, including a lack of justice (Isaiah 1:10; 3:9), a general disregard of moral and ethical values (Jeremiah 23:14) and ignoring the needs of the impoverished (Ezekiel 16:48-49). These themes are picked up later by the rabbis of the Talmud who describe the Sodomites as mean, inhospitable, uncharitable and unjust. [3]


7) Homosexuals, including lesbians, shouldn't adopt children, they will grow up without normal human values, they could grow up gay.

This is making a false assumption that being gay is contagious. If someone who is gay sneezes on you, are you going to suddenly become gay? Of course not.

As to children of lesbian couples, studies have shown that children born to lesbian couples grow up well adjusted and happy. [4]


8) Counseling can cure homosexuality.

To begin with, this is based on the false premise that homosexuality is a disease, that it is something that needs to be cured. Reparative therapy has not been shown to effect long-term change in anyone's sexual orientation, but it has been shown to be harmful to those who undergo it, as it forcefully suppresses the person's natural sexual instincts. This is why both the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have condemned reparative therapy and outlawed it. Anyone caught practicing it risks losing their license, as they are inflicting harm instead of doing good.


9) Homosexuals are responsible for the continuing spread of HIV/AIDS.

This is another popular misconception. According to the UN's Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic, the most rapidly rising demographic of HIV/AIDS victims are heterosexual women in sub-Saharan Africa. Throughout much of the rest of the world, HIV/AIDS rates have stabilized, and the primary cause of HIV/AIDS transmission today is unprotected (no condom) heterosexual sex.


10) Homosexuals are child molestors.

This theory was authoritatively disproven in the 1950's (see Journal of Projective Techniques, below in the Studies section). Children are most frequently molested by a heterosexual male that they know and trust.


11) Homosexuality is destroying marriages.

Lack of trust, adultery and the ease of obtaining a divorce are destroying marriages. Without a solid foundation of trust and fidelity, a marriage cannot survive the numerous perils it faces in today's world. The ease of obtaining a divorce allows one argument to quickly end a marriage. Wedding vows say "Till death do us part", not "Till someone better comes along."



[1] A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation, available in hardback from Barnes & Noble or Amazon.com

[1a] The Gay Gene: Human Handedness & Human Sexual Orientation

[2] Homosexuality and Judaism - ReligionFacts

[3] TorahQuest Commentary - "The Sins of Sodom" [4] Lesbians' kids develop normally

[5] http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH02_en.pdf



MORE RESOURCES:


A Season for Inclusion — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement


BOOKS

Burr, Chandler A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation, Hyperion, New York, NY. 1996

Green, Richard "The Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.1987.

Hamer, Dean The Science of Desire Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. 1995

LeVay, Simon Queer Science MIT Press, Boston, MA. 1996

LeVay, Simon The Sexual Brain MIT Press, Boston, MA. 1993



SCIENTIFIC STUDIES

Laura Allen, Melissa Hines, James Shryne, and Roger Gorski, "Two Sexually Dimorphic Cell Groups in the Human Brain," Journal of Neuroscience 9 (2)(1989): 497-506.

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (December 1991): 1089-96. (This is the best known of the studies for concordance rates in twins. There are others.)

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, et al. "Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (March 1993):217-223.

J. Michael Bailey and Kenneth Zucker, "Childhood Sex-Typed Behavior and Sexual Orientation: a Conceptual Analysis and Quantitative Review" Developmental Psychology 31 [1] (1995): 43-55. Finding: about 75% of boys who exhibit "extremely feminine behavior" are gay as adults and about 10% of girls who exhibit "extremely masculine" behavior are lesbians as adults. For boys and girls who, respectively, display "feminine" and "masculine" behavior, in adulthood 51% and 6% are homosexual.

William Byne and Bruce Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: the Biologic Theories Reappraised," in Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol 50, March 1993:pp. 228-239.

R. C. Friedman, F. Wollesen, and R. Tendler, "Psychological Development and Blood Levels of Sex Steroids in Male Identical Twins of Divergent Sexual Orientation," Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders 163 (1976): 282-288.

R. W. Goy and J.A. Resko, "Gonadal Hormones and Behavior of Normal and Pseudohermaphroditic Nonhuman Female Primates," Recent Progress in Hormonal Research 28, (1972): 707-733. Of particular significance is that using hormones, Goy has also succeeded in masculinizing behavior in female rhesus monkeys without masculinizing their bodies. NOTA BENE social constructionists and environmentalists: Critics had argued that the correct interpretation of the early work with androgenized rhesus was that their masculine behavior was due simply to the fact that they looked male; therefore their peers treated them as though they were male; therefore they acted male. This anthropomorphic argument is notably disproven by Goy's feat: R. W. Goy, F. B.Bercovitch, and M. C. McBriar, "Behavioral Masculinization in Independent of Genital Masculinization in Prenatally Androgenized Female Rhesus Macaques," Horm. Behav. 22 (1988): 552-71.

Dean H. Hamer, Stella Hu, Victoria Magnuson, Nan Hu, Angela M.L. Pattatucci,"A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science 261 (July 16, 1993): 321-7.

Dean H. Hamer and Angela Pattatucci et. al. "Linkage Between Sexual Orientation and Chromosome Xq28 in Males But Not in Females," Nature Genetics 11 (November 1995).

Evelyn Hooker, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual," Journal of Projective Techniques 21 (1957): 18. The theory of a connection between sexual molestation and homosexual orientation was studied in the 1950s and 1970s and, no correlation being found, was dispensed with. Data has, in fact, established that heterosexuals are more likely to molest children than homosexuals. See work of Charlotte Patterson, University of Virginia.

Simon LeVay "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (August 30, 1991): 1034-7.

Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, "Psychoendocrine Research on Sexual Orientation; Current Status and Future Options," Progress in Brain Research 61 (1984):375-98.

D. F. Swaab and M. A. Hofman, "An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men," Brain Research 537 (1990): 141-148.

Frederick L. Whitam, Milton Diamond, and James Martin, in"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets" (Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 [3] (1993), arrive at a 65.8% concordance for homosexuality for MZ twins and 30.4% for DZ twins. (MZ pairswere 34 male, 4 female.) There were also three sets of triplets; in two of the sets, there was a MZ pair concordant for homosexuality and one DZ sibling, who was heterosexual, while the MZ triplet pair were all three concordant for homosexuality. The figures slightly differ from those found byBailey and Pillard, but the percentage ratios, which is the fundamentally important point, are almost identical. More extensive work will be needed to establish precise percentages for MZ and DZ concordance. Arriving at a concordance figure for MZ twins for any trait presents difficulties, primarily due to the differences between pair-wise versus proband-wise concordance measurements. Proband-wise concordance always inflates the true concordance, so a researcher must know the population base rate of the trait. (Obviously, the lower the population frequency, the more robust a particular rate appears). Also, in proband-wise concordance, a twin and a co-twin can, due to the logic of the method, be counted as two concordant pairs. However, proband-wise concordance carries some statistical advantages