Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.

But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?

This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.

Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:

First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.

Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.

Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.

‘Islam’ in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.

Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.

Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual ‘crimes’ may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women’s testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to ‘Further discussion’).

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e.

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says:

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.

A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.

The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad’s use of torture.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

For more information on Muhammad’s brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . .

‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to ‘Supplemental material’).

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Fornication:

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.

The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

Adultery:

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:

An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’

It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today’s Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi’ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.

See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Here are the articles that support reason no. two.

This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.

Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to ‘The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates’).

This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.

For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.

For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.

Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.

Conclusion

The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad’s example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?

In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.

Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.

Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.

It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.

Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.

Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

Supplemental material:

In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam’s punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.

This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a ‘breathing lung’ for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words ‘breathing lung’ in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.

This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:

“Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars’ worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron.”

This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.

This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.

This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.

The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground. I really liked the idea of #5. It would rid Portland of all the homos here.

By: Hayden Talbot

“Fifty years from now, there won’t even be any white people!” said my pathological Middle Eastern neighbor. I will never forget those words. 

I found his attitude, and that of his angry black wife, repulsive. I don’t appreciate being presumed upon or being dictated to in any matter, especially in the matter of race. Nobody tells me how to think. I’m free to like and dislike whomever I please, for whatever reasons I choose.

My two neighbors were racists, obviously. And they were making me a victim of their racism. Because I was non-white, they presumed I was a natural partner in their resentment and animosity toward the white race. I was judged by the color of my skin, so to speak.

This all happened many years ago, but, I never forgot it. Today, I see truth in the words of my Middle Eastern neighbor. White women are leaping in bed with niggers, or other darkies of the world, and popping out strange-looking children. Generally speaking, the male in these incidents could not care less about the children. It’s all about sexual aggression against the white race. They’re happy to conquer for the moment, and to create ghastly, permanent consequences. Marriage and family have nothing to do with these misanthropes, nor the lusus naturae they create.

This denigration of race is a cruel mockery of manhood. It is a pathetic testimony of the personal irresponsibility and malignant selfishness of failed men. Indeed, a careless woman is generally such for the lack of a caring father.

But I will not dismiss this kind of race destruction as sexual caprice or mindless ego in aimless men. It is not some Über-design of social architects, or the express intent of integrationists. While racial disintegration may be the result, there are other inevitabilities at work in the process.

Like the universal law of aesthetics. We want beauty. Superior beauty lies in the white race. It is the variety of color, the red hair, the blonde hair, the green eyes, the blue eyes. All the other races in the world have only one coloring, the same black hair, the dark brown eyes and skin. A bit drab in comparison, can’t we say?

The darkies of the world are truly fascinated with the white race, and always have been. However, there is a certain envy that naturally, unavoidably develops. It seems Hitler had a point when he referred to “the hated white race.” (Mein Kampf, p.325.) But the sexual encounter of the dark with the white makes the white dark. And what most people—especially white people—forget is the fact that the white race is the minority in the world. It is, and has always been, vastly out-numbered by the dark races. Moreover, the pigmentations of the white race are all genetically recessive. The whiteness is first to fade.

Therefore, integration tends to mean elimination for the white race. That’s simply the way of the genetic world. That the white race became the most powerful, dominant, ruling race may be attributed to cultural values more than anything else. It was of course the white race that adopted the Judeo-Christian religion. The social constructs and psychological hierarchies in this tradition evolved a people more astute and agile in every way.

Whatever ‘mental’ problems the white race developed as a result of being more powerful are only fairly recent evolutions. In his day the white man has created a throne like no other in history. If it is criminal at the foundation, the challenge is chiefly from envy—always the weakest charge. Besides, what’s the point of the dark man accusing the white man of not keeping his white morals, if the dark man himself does not believe in those morals? The charge of hypocrisy is moot, made in impotence. (The white man’s self-flagellation is the only hope of the darkies.)

I would not look forward to a time when there is no white race. My neighbors were nothing I would want to see more of in this world—certainly not their attitude. But that there is a growing number of people in the world who think like them is a concern. The Muslim world tends to produce such a disposition.

Disguised though it may be in moral and religious terms, political terms, or even genetic terms, the case is fairly obvious: “the hated white race” is such for its beauty and power.

Citizen Link – Superior Judge William Cohen ruled last week that Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who is now a Christian, must hand her daughter, Isabelle, over to her former partner, Janet Jenkins by Jan. 1. Miller conceived Isabella through artificial insemination while she was in a civil union with Jenkins. About a year later, Miller left homosexuality. Jenkins sued for custody, even though she has no biological tie to the child. Miller admits she made mistakes, like signing a custody agreement while still in the relationship with Jenkins… Hat tip My Daily Trek.

If this judge had the child’s interests at heart, he would have kicked this case out and told the lesbian to get a life. But then these so-called progressives view children as mere accessories to be tossed around to make people feel good and be fashionable or something. Can you imagine the even bigger mess that this can turn into if the biological father decides he also wants a bit of the child. I can see such activist judges saying ‘no’ to him if he were a straight fellow, but do you think he/she would say ‘no’ to a homo man?

This is yet another reason why homosexuals and lesbians should not be allowed to get married, it ultimately does affect the children. You see even if the judge did not want to hand the child over and was not an activist judge, he/she still has to follow the law as the former lesbian signed a custody agreement. The fact that the current lesbian lives in some sort of lesbian stronghold and wants to indoctrinate the poor child with her lifestyle is of no relevance and cannot be used to prevent access to the child.

This is because the minute you say that this behavior is fine, which you are saying by allowing homo-marriage and homo-adoption, you can’t then turn around later when children are involved and say, oh no we can’t let this happen, blah, blah. You can only make that call when you see the evidence, as in when the child is all screwed up in the head and you’re able to prove that it’s because of the lesbian depravity.

This is but one example of what is at the bottom of the slippery slope that the regressive lefties want to pull us down. No to homo marriage, no to homo adoption and you won’t have this problem, the child would be with her biological mother where she belongs and the lesbo would have to find some other accessory to use in her activism.

A very controversial topic in Malta, at this very moment, is freedom of expression. I am all out in favour of people expressing what they believe in, and that includes people with whom I totally disagree on what they have to say. However, quite frequently I’m asked: ‘Does this freedom include hate speech?’ Treating this issue is very delicate. People’s freedoms are extremely important but so is the protection of those to whom the speech is directed. Where should one draw the line?

Let’s start with what in my opinion should not even be considered as controversial – shocking and vulgar language. I find it completely ridiculous to censor something (for example the play ‘Stitching’ and ‘Realta’s newspaper) just because it contains parts or articles considered as vulgar and shocking. Who defines what terms fall into this category? Some board of whatever authority?

More controversial is offensive language. Here we are not talking about ‘nasty’ words, but words deliberately used to offend others on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation and others. Should a Maltese Imam who compared homosexuals getting married to marrying cats and dogs be censored or face legal sanction? What about right wing extremists who call black people niggers? I know many will disagree with me on this, but I don’t believe these people should be censored or face criminal repercussions. Definitely they should be condemned, and if they aren’t it means we’re in trouble. The offended parties have the right to file libel. However they should have all the right to say it without fearing the authorities.

The next category is however different. I’m talking about what is termed as ‘fighting words’. These are used to overtly or subtly incite violence on the victims. The injured party is not just offended but threatened and put in danger. Had the Imam called for individuals or groups to harass homosexuals, or right if rightwing extremists to make a call to harass ‘niggers’, the story would have been very different.

An email that had been circulating a while ago shows a group of extremist Muslims in the UK calling for violence against a Danish cartoonist. In my opinion it is unacceptable to let these people protest and call for such action, even getting police protection for it. They are not ‘offending back’ the person who offended them. They are instigating violence towards him and his country. Though their demands are futile, intention is clear and in my opinion the protest should not only have been halted, but the ring leaders should have been filed criminal charges.

Right wing extremists sometimes also jump the line when it comes to freedom of speech. An example is the BNP who are not only allowed to voice their words, but two of them have been elected to the European Parliament. They don’t like a multicultural England, they deny the Holocaust, and even minimise what Hitler did: ‘Adolf just went a bit too far’. Disgusting as it is, I believe they have a right to say it. What they don’t have a right to is, for example, making an alliance with the Ku Klux Klan, an organisation responsible for thousands of deaths during the last hundred years, all based on racial prejudice. Asking these people their vote, telling them ‘they have the same objective but will have to use sweeter words’ is legitimising the Klan’s violence. On that basis, yes definitely the BNP should have faced criminal sanctions, even been prohibited from contesting elections.

Something that fascinates me is the comments sent daily to the online version of the Times of Malta. Some people repeatedly voice their opinion on African migrants, not only condemning illegal border crossing, but exposing their hatred towards these people. None of them is censored and as much as I despise (or sometimes laugh at) what they say I agree they should be allowed to voice their opinion. However occasionally they do cross the line. I remember a particular comment going something like this (referring to migrants in Britain and Malta): ‘The BNP will in the end take control because they have the support of the Army. Same should be done here’. The threat here is not so subtle. The author is definitely not talking about just the Army officials’ vote.

This topic is extremely delicate, and the line between what is acceptable or not is extremely thin. Thus I would like to make some things clear:

1) Though one may think in what s/he reads here and in most of the media that the issue of censorship is related mainly to race, religion and political correctness, this is not the case. These cases are the most controversial, thus newsworthy. In reality censorship is more often used in the form of trying to silence people like Mr Joe Falzon, MEPA’s auditor who want to expose serious illegalities at the expense of the Maltese taxpayer.

2) What I wrote here is my personal opinion. It does not necessarily reflect what Maltese or EU legislation states.

3) There are a lot of gray areas. For example what about psychological harassment? A recent case of a homosexual who had his house intruded by someone who sprayed the words ‘No Gays’ is not, in my opinion just a case of vandalism and trespassing but a hate crime. There was a deliberate (and successful) attempt at causing fear in the victim, even if there was no overt reference to violence. Once again, the million dollar question is, ‘Where does one cross the line?’

I’m largely indifferent to Adam Lambert. Sure, he’s hot, he’s gay and I’d totally hit that, but I probably won’t ever get the chance to, so who cares?

I'd hit that up one side and back down the other!

That said, I do find the recent fufurrah about his performace at the AMA’s to be really amusing.

See, he was performing on stage, singing some song or another, and started doing things like kissing one of the other (male) people on stage, doing some crotch grinding and the like. It was all fairly tame, frankly, by the standards of what goes on at such performances.

Ah, but in this case it was a gay man… with other men! Think of the children!

Adam Lambert did think of the children. He was asked by someone on CBS’ The Early Show if he thought he needed to apologize to his fans in general and the children (won’t someone please think of the children?!), to which Lambert replied with “Nope“. Good on him!

Lambert doesn’t have anything to apologize for. He didn’t do anything worse that someone like Madona, Brittney Spears or any of the other, generally female, singers out there. They do it and no one really minds (or they just get turned on). But when an openly gay man does it? Horror!

Oh, well. I’m sure that somehow our nation will find the strength to move on. We managed to survive the Crisis of Janet Jackson’s Nipple. If we lived through that, we can handle this.

Be strong, America!

For long enough we all have known that Americans aren’t the smartest people in the world… I mean, it’s amazing the percentage of them who still deny evolution as a fact… but this issue is part of a different post.  Stupid people is everywhere and they seem to reproduce a lot faster than smart people… lol

However, here’s what I have to say about a specific case for American Stupidity:

Today, randomly, I ended up watching a video interview of Adam Lambert, a singer from a reality show called American Idol.  Adam was a runner up of this singing contest and was best known because he was gay.  Yes, he liked kissing and having sex with guys.  Are you scared? Good, I’ll continue…

It seems that Adam kissed a guy in a presentation in the American Music Awards (which I’ve never seen since I don’t watch TV).  Anyways, it seems Adam had a kissed a guy and did a short dramatization of an oral sex scene in front of the cameras of America.

Take a look at the interview:

It is really sad to listen to the reaction of the “average” American TV fan… it seems this song caused a very interesting reaction among the audience.  First, the TV network ABC had to “blur” the image of the kiss before showing it on TV around 11pm… Their excuse? Because children could see it and freak out by the images!

And I mean, what parent would allow their children to watch TV at 11pm? And if so, why would a kiss be something bad?

Men and women have kissed for centuries and even longer… that’s what humans do to show how much they care for the people they are with.  I can assure you that men & men – and women & women, have done the same thing to tell how they feel to those they love for the very same time.  I can’t think of all the times I’ve wanted to do a “blur” effect on the heterosexual UGLY couples I’ve had to watch kissing in front of me…

I do have problem with ignorant, selfish, idiotic, religious, hypocrites and cynics… I really hate this people and consider them as stupid as a jelly fish.

However, at the end I was somehow happy to listen to this video.  This guy, Adam, is a Pop star and I was astonished by his answers to the interview.  Congrats to him for everything he said!  I hope one day people will be smart enough to understand what morality really is; as well as to understand all the hurt that Religion & the idea of a God has had in our not so civilized “Civilization”.

If you’ve read this far I’m sure you won’t have a problem with this pic, take a look.  To me he’s a normal guy.  Isn’t he?

During the past few weeks leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday I have enjoyed reading the emails, blog and Face book posts and Twitter tweets of family, friends, and acquaintances sharing their “thankful thoughts”.  I’ve wanted to join in but it seemed like I really didn’t have anything new or different to offer.  I was thankful for everything everyone else was thankful for.  I just wanted to say either “ditto” or “what she said” and wait for a Christmas post.  But tonight I thought of something I’m grateful for that has probably never been written on a Hallmark© Card.  When the thought first skipped through my mind (I believe the Holy Spirit directed it), I scratched my head and said “that’s interesting”, but the more I thought about my life, the more I knew my mistakes have had a huge impact on who I am today and my first thought was gratitude to the Lord, because He used them to change my heart.

My personality is pretty much black or white, right or wrong; can I just say it, if left to my own devices I’m a legalistic kind of girl.  So for many years of my life I was a self-appointed judge, jury and sometimes prison warden.  Just ask my kids!

Many, many times; too many to count, I have made a judgment about someone or some situation and said…

“I would NEVER do that.”

And many, many times; too many to count, I have had to walk through the exact circumstances.  Let me tell you things look a whole lot different when you’re the one in the hot seat.

 Here are just a few examples:

 Rebellious Teenagers- Before I had teenagers I thought bad parenting and not living a Christian life in front of your kids produced rebellious teenagers.  The Bible doesn’t make promises that we won’t have rebellious teenagers.  What it does promise in Proverbs 22:6 is if we “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”  Praise the Lord, I have seen this promise come true, but I did have rebellious teenagers.

 Divorced Christians-I thought these two words should never be a couple, until I found myself divorced.

 Depressed People-“Just pray more, watch what you put in your head, and listen to motivational tapes” and you’ll never be depressed.  That sounded read good until 15 years ago when I was clinically depressed and had to take antidepressants for a year.

 People with A.I.D.S.-“AIDS is the disease of homosexuals, they’re reaping what they’ve sown,” I’m so sad to say that’s what I thought until my best friend died of the disease that no one should ever have to face.

 Single Christians- “Why don’t single Christians just enjoy their time with the Lord and serve others in their singleness.”  That sounded great until I experienced the aloneness of being single.

 The Elderly- Now that I’m 54 years old and experiencing the aches and pains of aging; oh and let’s not forget to mention hearing loss and lower energy level; I understand my Mom a whole lot better.

 Unfortunately, this list could go on and one, but you get the point.  I’m thankful that the Lord did not leave me in my judgmental, hypocritical state.  He allowed life to teach me. Believe me I have a long way to go, but thank God I’m not what I use to be.  Thank God,  now when I see someone in a tough situation the first thing I think is, “but for the grace of God that could be me!” Everyday I’m asking Jesus to teach me to love like He loved.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanking God for You!

Dianne

Not surprisingly, critics and viewers have blasted Adam Lambert’s raunchy and tasteless stage act.  Even less surprising is that Lambert has been uttering the words “double standard” and “discrimination”, in an attempt to veil his performance as some kind of social message.  Homosexual activists have worked tirelessly for the past 30 years to place homosexuality as a sacred cow in American culture.  Unfortunately, what has resulted is that stupid performances such as Lambert’s can be dragged to a politically correct safe zone when faced with criticism.

Despite my strong opinions, I try to remain somewhat diplomatic in my writing.  This time, I’m going to let out the lines and allow them to swim a bit.  I’m sick of the gay agenda.  I’m sick of homosexuals parading their perversion in my face.  I’m sick of watching limp-wristed perverts in tutus dance in the streets.  I’m sick of watching men tongue kiss.  I’m sick of watching an entire generation act as if homosexuality is completely normal, and treat heterosexual men as “dogs”.  I’m sick of homosexual activists pushing laws that only serve to confuse and oppress a generation of what would have otherwise been healthy children, and watching their parents line up to vote for them.

Wake up and smell the santorum.  This country is falling to pieces, and you’re concerned with prop 8?  American citizens are being slaughtered by Muslims in our own country, and you’re wishing that your boyfriend was more metrosexual?  Who the hell do you think stabbed, shot and bombed our enemies in order for you to enjoy freedom, gay baristas?  You’re being taxed into poverty by a corrupt government, and you’re giving money to Code Pink?  America is turning into a third world with rampant illegal immigration, and you’re more concerned with the sanctity of the rainbow flag?

As I have said before, wake up and abandon your sick fetish for diversity or die.  It’s as simple as that.

Here’s an article about the backlash against Lambert’s flaming idiocy:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091124/D9C64U9O0.html

by D. Bennett

The Liberty Counsel reports that it has filed a complaint with the FCC against ABC for broadcasting Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards performance, calling the performance “outrageously lewd and filthy.”

The Counsel complains that the network consciously chose not to edit Lambert’s performance, quoting the network as saying it would be “what everyone will be talking about tomorrow.”

“This shows,” the Counsel writes, “that ABC used Lambert’s obscene sexual conduct and not his vocal performance to promote its show.”

The complaint blasts ABC for broadcasting, among other things, “simulated oral sex…sadomasochistic conduct, and homosexual open-mouth kissing.”

  The US sent the Israeli government a telegram, thanking them for all their help with Iraq (like what, pray tell?!) and offering the pipelines as a present (all of this was previously worked out–read the article). More work for Haliburton, yeah! 2003 Jew News article Every time this government’s elected leaders try to tell you that they want to do this or to do that, just say stop and say loudly: BULLSHIT! We’ve heard your stories, before. Here, we have another Washington Dog and Pony Show, once again led by the Democrats Nancy Pelosi (married to a billionaire Jew) and her co-star, Harry Reid, yammering on about how they’re going to change the direction of the war in Iraq and fight Mr. Bush tooth and nail, but will now it seems, quietly, give him a blank check. Hell, they’ve been building 14 bases over there as PERMANENT to begin with. That’s right, folks we’re there to stay, or at least as long as it takes to get away with turning it over to the Israeli Zionists, eventually. Plus, they’ve built a 700+ million dollar Embassy, the size of the Vatican. Haven’t you figured it out yet? It’s all BS. Always has been, too. They do things in DC only to please themselves (Elite Gentiles and Israel Firster Neocons) and their Zionist allies in Tel Aviv. And there’s little real difference between Republicans and Democrats, too. Just different names for the same AIPAC lapdogs. Always has been that, as well. This has all apart of a Neocon, Globalist Zionist scheme for something called “Eretz Ysrael.” This is where they expand the borders of Israel to include what they think to be the real Israel of the Bible. Also, they believe that all this has been promised them by the British way back in 1917 with the Balfour declaration (and all Gentiles, anywhere, because of the Holocaust). This includes: Much of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Sinai and some of Iraq and Saudis Arabia. The Zionists, along with his fooled Gentile cohorts, have visions of Oil pipelines stretching all the way back to Haifa, on the Mediterranean. And his bearded Holy Ones think that this is all part of some grand scheme to lure the Mossiach (Messiah) to finally appear among the Chosen. The “Zohar” tells them so. The Israeli Mossad (or Israeli elite group of some sort) have been in Iraq since day-one. Too bad few American Jews have. You know how many American Jews have died in Iraq AND Afghanistan while serving in US forces? 17! That’s less than a Mexican bus crash, for crying out loud. Proportionally, it should be over 200. What a big, fat joke! Jew dead US Servicemen And when the Jew Messiah finally comes (soon, according to them), the borders to Israel will magically expand to cover the entire globe! At least that’s what the freaky Orthodox Jews are saying about it. Trouble is, many Zionist Jews think the same and deluded Christians are going along with the whole shebang. But Evangelical Christians think it’ll really be Jesus who shows up to the little end of the world party– too bad for the Jews, eh? That’s when they’ll have to convert, since they won’t do so now. And what if it’s the Jew Messiah? Well, then the Christians get the shaft–big time– Noahide Slavery forever and for all of us Gentile Goyims. And no more Santa Claus or Easter Bunny stuff, anymore — since all Christian Idolatry will be verboten! It’s a horrific combination for us regular Americans. Power mad Pax Americans, Zionists, Money Grubbing Jews, Big Oil Fat-cats, Military/Industrial complex salesmen, Zohar Jews and Jesus Freaks. Trouble is, such things have a nasty way of getting out of hand– fast. History is littered with the dead from such thinking. And with the kinds of weapons at the fingertips of these people– we gotta lot to think about here. You think they’re going to let some Mad Iranian Mullahs and Ahmadinejad screw up their little Mideast plans by having the big stick (nukes)? Nah, they sure as hell won’t. Hell, less than a week after 9/11, General Wesley Clark says he saw a plan that listed out most of these countries (above) for eventual attack. This has been in the works for quite some time, now. The whole nine yards. They’ve had these plans from before Bush took office. That’s right, one of Bush’s former cabinet officers, Paul O’Neill, said as much in his book The Price of Loyalty, that the first week in office Bush had plans to attack Iraq. Makes you wonder about 9/11, huh? So, I guess the rest of us have to go along with all this until we find out who the real Mr. Messiah will be. Jew or Jesus? Any takers? – Hayden Talbot

This is what the idiots of America elected.  A Chicago thug community organizer, along with all of his thug friends and communist ideology.

Simply put, what is described in this article is fascism and blackmail.  Contrary to the peace and harmony promised by Chairman Maobama before he was elected, contrary to the promise of engaging those who disagree with him in honest discourse, what we see is who Barack Hussein Obama really is.  A thug, communist/socialist street hustler from Chicago (after arriving from parts unknown) who will employ any tactic to silence anyone who disagrees with him.  He threatens, smears, bribes, and Lord only knows what else he has done to silence opposition to his dictatorial ways.

Obama has demonstrated by his votes, words, and deeds that he supports everything that destroys the moral fabric of America, to include gay marriage and abortion, and those who perform and cause its proliferation, such as Planned Parenthood.  Obama’s support of organizations such as Planned Parenthood is puzzling, since their original goals were to eradicate people like him (mentally retarded, black, Jew, etc.).

Former Obama Organizer Threatens to ‘Out’ Catholic Priests to ‘Encourage’ Them to Repudiate Church’s Moral Stand on Homosexuality

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – A longtime Washington, D.C., liberal Internet activist has founded a Web site that he says will collect accounts of homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood–accounts he will use to “encourage” them to change their views on homosexual marriage and other issues.

“Outing” the priests–publicly revealing their homosexuality–is “not off the table,” Phil Attey, founder of the Web site ChurchOuting.com, told CNSNews.com. The site will also collect information on straight priests who have broken their vow of celibacy, using the information to “encourage” those priests to go against their Church’s teachings on homosexuality as well.

“This is a campaign to collect information about closeted gay Catholic priests, as well as heterosexual Catholic priests who secretly engage in romantic or sexual affairs, yet are unwilling to speak out against the church leadership’s anti-gay political campaigns,” the Web site says.

Attey, a former Obama campaign organizer and Internet organizing pioneer, said the goal of his site was not to “out” the priests, but to end what he called the “spiritual abuse” inflicted by Catholic priests who teach against homosexual marriage and the homosexual lifestyle.

“The goal of this site is not to out priests,” Attey said. “It’s to end the cycle of spiritual abuse that has gone on for generations within the Catholic Church, demonizing what it is to be gay. Closeted gay priests spiritually abusing young gay kids and giving them the alternative of going into the clergy and into the priesthood.”

Priests who refuse to come out after being confronted may be publicly exposed, according to Attey.

“We’re not taking that option off the table,” he said.

Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, strongly condemned the plan.

“There’s a word for this–it’s ‘fascism.’ They’re just out to publicly destroy people,” Donahue told CNSNews.com.

“Are they going to start harassing, intimidating, stalking priests?” Donahue asked. “This is a religious cleansing; this is a witch hunt. This is simply beyond the pale.”

Focusing on Washington Archdiocese

Attey’s campaign is focused on the Washington, D.C., archdiocese, where Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, who has spoken out against the D.C. City Council’s move to recognize gay marriage.

“For the archdiocese and Catholic Charities, two core tenets of our faith are at the heart of our concerns: our understanding of the nature of marriage and our commitment to expressing Christ’s love through service to others,” Wuerl wrote in a Nov. 17 Washington Post op-ed.

“Under the legislative language before the D.C. Council, the archdiocese would be forced to choose between these two principles. The archdiocese has long made clear that all people have equal dignity, regardless of sexual orientation. But marriage is reserved for husband and wife because of its essential connection with the creation of children.”

Wuerl noted that if the D.C. City Council moves to redefine marriage to include homosexuals his church may not be able to continue partnering with the city on other charitable projects, such as feeding the homeless.

“(T)he District requires Catholic Charities to certify its compliance with city laws when applying for contracts and grants. This includes contracts for homeless services, mental health services, foster care and more. Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses,” Wuerl explained.

According to Attey, homosexual and non-celibate heterosexual priests who support these and other positions of the Washington archdiocese are “hypocrites,” whom his Web site would work to bring out of the “closet.”

“The dream of this site is to collect enough stories about enough priests so that we can go to them and say ‘Listen, this Web site has collected enough stories about enough of you in the archdiocese to where the archbishop can’t seek retribution against you or retaliate against you if you all come out at once. And if you do that there aren’t going to be any stories floated about you (to media outlets.)’ ”

After that, where a homosexual or non-celibate priest stands on gay issues is up to him, Attey explained, saying he doesn’t care so long as “everyone knows the priest is gay.”

“Where they stand on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) issues after that is totally fine with me. If they want to be an openly-gay priest standing up as an openly-gay person standing up in front of their parish supporting whatever ideology the Catholic Church wants them to support, that’s fine.”

Attey said he will use “rigorous scrutiny” in investigating any tip he receives about a potentially gay priest, pointing out that people who wish to leave tips on his web site cannot remain anonymous and must be able to provide the names of other witnesses that can corroborate the stories.

“No report is allowed to be anonymous, they have to give us their names (and) their e-mail address at least. We send them an e-mail, if it all seems credible, and we ask them if we can speak with them about it. At which point I ask them to write it out in the form of a narrative and sign it.

“I’m specifically looking for situational or logistical information around their story: where it took place, any other individuals involved, dates, and times, so that we can start looking into (it.) After we’ve verified it through two or three different sources then I think it’s fair to say that it’s a credible story.

“No name would ever be released unless it goes through that rigorous scrutiny,” he said.

Attey said that he will use the accounts to “encourage” gay and non-celibate priests to come out publicly and turn against the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.

“We’re going to encourage them to change,” Attey explained. “This is a much bigger issue within the Catholic Church–rectifying the hypocrisy of their stands on LGBT people, not just civil equality.”

Priests who might face public exposure, he said, would be either high profile priests or more junior clergy who were outspoken proponents of the Church’s teachings on gay issues.

Attey said that high profile priests would receive a visit first, to let them know that they were going to be exposed whether they cooperated or not.

“We’d go to him first and we’d explain to him that we’re about to do this and then we’d probably do it whether he was willing to come out on his own or not.”

Priests who strongly support the Church’s teaching may also be exposed, depending on how outspoken they are.

“It also depends upon how heavy handed the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is and a particular bishop or archbishop is on making them follow through on the agenda of the USCCB.

“If that priest is allowing his Church to disseminate the pastoral letter condemning homosexuality again and or using their collection plate to fund anti-gay initiatives well that’s another marker–I’m not taking it off (the table.) We’re going to analyze what’s going on within that parish and the behavior of that particular priest to decide whether or not at the end if they’re not willing to come out on their own we’re going to need to intervene.”

Donahue thinks the tactic is so heinous that even some homosexual leaders probably oppose it.

“It’s borderline blackmail, at the very least, if not rank blackmail as one could maintain,” Donahue said. “Even if one disagrees with the archbishop in Washington in terms of what he’s doing, these kinds of tactics are obviously so incredibly monstrous and odious that it would seem to beg a response from gay leaders.”

News.com.au – AMERICAN Idol runner-up Adam Lambert has refused to apologise for his daring performance at the American Music Awards where he simulated oral sex with a male dancer. In front of millions of primetime viewers, Lambert also made out with a male keyboardist Tommy Ratliff, grabbing his crotch before flipping his middle finger to the crowd. …The openly gay Lambert has refused to apologise saying that the sexual gestures happened “in the moment”. …He told Access Hollywood: “You know honestly, if I offended some people… it’s apples and oranges.” “I’m not an artist that does things for every single person, I believe in artistic freedom and expression…

Apparently the above scenes were cut from the west coast broadcast, which this fellow squealed was ‘discrimination’. What is it with these queers and insisting that everyone celebrate their homosexuality, being free to do whatever it is that they do to each other in privacy is just not enough for them. No, we all have to celebrate(?) and cheer their depravity or else!

I too also believe in freedom, freedom not to be subject to crap like this on television from assholes like this who like to take it up the tailpipe. I too refuse to apologize for it, so screw you and the homos you rode in on chump. I sure hope that Americans who are offended by the actions of this asshole also choose to exercise their freedom not to listen to this angry asshole and leave his music there on the shelf, where it belongs. He can express his artistic side back in the alley if he feels like it.

Gaylestots es el nom de la nova associació del col·lectiu homosexual de blanes que es presentara oficialment el proper dia 11 de desembre .

El president de Gaylestots, Andrés Villaseca, explica que l’entitat, a banda de tenir una vessant específica per al col·lectiu, ha nascut amb l’objectiu d’integrar-se dins la vida social i associativa de la vila per poder realitzar diverses accions i activitats desvinculades de l’àmbit homosexual com, per exemple, la realització de tasques socials als geriàtrics de la població, el manteniment del delta de la Tordera, la promoció de festivals de cinema i música i la conscienciació en campanyes mundials com la del Dia Internacional contra la sida.

Tamber podem trobar gaylestots a la xarxa social Facebook , ja té més de 400 adhesions d’amics i simpatitzants. A més, l’entitat ha inaugurat recentment un bar musical a l’avinguda Mediterrània, anomenat Too much, que serveix alhora de local de reunions de l’associació.

Thanks to homosexuals, I am no longer married to my husband of nearly thirty years. Nor is my daughter actually married to her husband of two years. In fact, she never was married, and Bill and I haven’t been married since 2005.

It all started with those blasted homosexuals who had the audacity to demand the same rights as everyone else in the US– to get married to a single partner of their choice in a mutual relationship in which both parties are of legal marriageable age. Why homosexuals want this right is simply beyond me– being allowed to go visit some sick person on their deathbed isn’t a piece of cake, after all, and anyone who has ever been without health insurance in this country KNOWS that we do a fantastic job of providing health care for those without it.

But for some silly reason homosexuals want to have the same rights as married people so they’ve been demanding the right to get married and have actually been successful in some hotbeds of liberalism such as Iowa and Vermont. Thank the god I don’t believe in that I live in the great state of Texas that doesn’t allow such tomfoolery.

In fact, Texans saw this push for gay marriage for what it was– an attempt to sneak the gay agenda in the back door and to force EVERYONE to marry someone with the same plumbing between the legs. Now Texans KNOW what is right, and one of the things we know is that if perverts are allowed to marry each other, then it’s going to ruin the marriages of all right thinking people.

So in 2005, Texans passes an amendment to make darned sure that any gays wouldn’t go doing some end runs to try to get their sicko practices through the back door so to speak. We banned gay marriage and said that not only would we not do it in Texas, but we wouldn’t recognize it if some queers got married in another state and then tried to come here and say they were married. Uh-uh, no sir. We don’t care what those liberals in Iowa do, they ain’t gonna do it here in Texas.

Except now Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general says that Texas went a little overboard and in our zeal to ban gay marriage, Texans managed to ban all marriages in the state.  The problem, Radnofsky says, is this tiny little clause in Subsection B of the amendment which states, “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Um.

Texas cannot recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage? Um. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but I can see some fancy schmancy attorney getting up before a judge and saying, “Judge, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck and since Texas says we can’t have anything that looks, talks or acts like a duck in this state, we can’t have ducks here.”

So there you have it folks. The red necks were right after all– if we start allowing gays to get married it WILL ruin the institution of marriage. They certainly ruined mine.

To make things clear, as some of the material you’ll find here is very light-hearted, this is an actual news report. All quotes are original. I welcome comments below.

Gay Christians Criticise ‘Hate’ Bill

Dan Bloom

Senior gay and transgender Christians have attacked a pro-discrimination law which was defeated four times in the House of Commons and criticised by the European commission.

The clause, which allows “criticism of sexual conduct” on religious grounds, was kept in the Coroners and Justice Bill in the dying hours of the last parliamentary session despite being defeated in the House of Commons. Justice minister Jack Straw retreated after lords voted to keep it for the fourth time on 11 November.

But the comments from within the UK’s gay Christian community put pressure on the mainstream church, after the European commission wrote to the government last week to say its discrimination laws were “broader than permitted”, effectively forcing churches to end bans on homosexual staff.

Pastor Kieren Bourne of the Living Springs church, Bath, had a sex change operation in 1999 and is part of a small minority of gay or transgender Christians in the UK. He said: “I think it’s appalling. It seems to me that the church is being allowed to get away with discrimination when every other section of society is not.”

Brought up in New Zealand, Rev Bourne, 51, moved to Bath 14 years ago but was surprised by what he perceived as a less liberal atmosphere in the mainstream church. He joined Living Springs, a branch of the 95 per cent gay Metropolitan Community Church (MCC).

“Having the opportunity to question the appropriateness of [gay sex] should be open to people, but without being critical of the individuals concerned.”

-Patrick Whitworth, rural dean of Bath

Now living with a woman in Bathford, Avon, he said the pressure put on gay Christians by employment bans and discrimination leaves many feeling forced out of the mainstream church, and into organisations like the MCC.

And although the minority church, which was founded in 1968, holds tri-annual conferences – the next is in Acapulco, Mexico next year – it does not have the same political weight as other organisations. It has fewer than 15 churches in the UK and the Bath branch has only 13 full-time members.

One of these, Bill Fraser, has been a full-time churchwarden in Bath for five years. He first contacted the MCC last year after announcing his sexuality at an annual parish meeting. But he stayed in the mainstream church to “fight from the inside”, following the example of controversial gay American bishop Gene Robinson.

Another, 64-year-old lay delegate Jenny Bailey, was a long-time member of the Church of England when she began attending the MCC. She revealed her sexuality to her vicar in 1997, and said his hostile reception made her feel pressured to leave.

She said: “I did not feel my personal preferences were relevant inside the church. He said they were. He seemed to think I was going to walk in holding hands with another woman.

“Just a few weeks after that I had a serious accident and broke my ankle into about seven or eight pieces. Nobody phoned to check up and see how I was. I thought, ‘Why am I kidding myself?’. They didn’t want me.”

“I did not feel my personal preferences were relevant inside the church. My vicar said they were.”

-Jenny Bailey, lay delegate, Metropolitan Community Church

But Ms Bailey, who was married for more than 22 years before realising she was gay in her 40s, also issued words of caution about restricting free speech. She said: “I want it for myself, so why should I not want it for other people? It’s up to them, and it’s their personal opinion. But they should not be able to impose it on me.”

While the MCC argues anti-homosexual readings of the bible do not reflect its meaning, the mainstream church in Bath is more traditional.

The Church of England rural dean of Bath, Patrick Whitworth, said: “From the church’s point of view it is not God’s view. So having the opportunity to question the appropriateness of it should be open to people, but without being critical of the individuals concerned.”

Meanwhile a group hosted by the MP Clare Short will meet at the Commons this Tuesday to campaign against similar clauses in the Equality Bill drawn up by Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader.

The bill is designed to ensure greater equality between people of different gender, race, religion and social class. But the group argues religious ‘opt-out’ clauses could be added as the bill progresses to the House of Lords.

by Jessica Bryan

The FRC’s latest posts included one about visiting a federal prison and how they can be “incubators for terrorists,” discussed the Obama Administration ”pushing the homosexual agenda,” linked to some “articles of interest,” criticized Obama to bowing to foreign heads of state like the Emperor of Japan and the king of Saudi Arabia, reminisced about Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, criticized Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try terrorists in New York City,  criticized Obama for his long decision-making process with regards to the U.S. Afghanistan policy, discussed public funding for abortion in health care reform and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, and talked about the Senate vote to bring the health care reform bill to the floor for debate.

A Washington Update email from the FRC discussed Sen. Harry Reid’s plans for the Senate health care reform bill, talked about Obama’s nomination of Chai Feldblum to the EEOC, and advertised Mark Rodgers lecture entitled “Culture Upstream of Politics: Why Art and Entertainment Are Essential to Communicating Truth.”

An email from the group talked about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), arguing that it threatens “traditional values and religious freedom.”  They also argued that:

This law would punish anyone in the workplace who dares oppose homosexual behavior, cross-dressing and other unhealthy behaviors. The liberals intentionally want to define “discrimination” very vaguely so that their allies in the courts and federal and state agencies will have broad latitude to silence traditional moral viewpoints about sexuality.

The email also asked subscribers to donate to the group to help them fight against ENDA.

One of the major sect in Christian religion are the Anglicans, or basically, the followers of the Church of England. The Church of England was created by Henry the Eighth, when he broke all links from the main Catholic Church of  Rome, the Vatican (over a woman, only to behead her later). Apparently, after all these years the Anglicans want to go back to being members of the Roman Catholic Church under the Pope, probably because they have some issues with women and Gays being bishops and priests. So the Vatican is going to “allow” the new members to read from its special prayer-book. I wonder what’s special about the prayer-book that people have to be “allowed” to read it. Shouldn’t prayer and praying be accessible to all? Its a good thing for women to preach, but I think they should do so in a women’s gathering only, because in a mixed gathering, its common sense, that men being men, would hardly concentrate on the preaching, and that would spoil the whole point. I’m also amazed at the Church of England for allowing Gays to preach…doesn’t the Bible clearly mention God’s view of homosexual behaviour? No wonder people want to move away from the Church of England…And this brings us to the cause of distress…the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams is not happy about the move of the Vatican to accept members of the Anglican Church into Roman Catholicism. The Church of England went to great lengths to keep itself attractive to the community (accepting homosexuality). What will it do now to bring back the disappointed and dissatisfied Anglicans? Oh well…You win some…you lose some….

clericalwhispers.blogspot.com

The child abuse crisis in the Catholic church has been the subject of considerable attention, law suits and two major research projects. In 2004, the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People released a study titled, “A Report On The Crisis In The Catholic Church In The United States.”

In addition, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York published empirical data on the nature and scope of the abuse problem in dioceses and religious orders across the country in its report: “The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and deacons in the United States 1950-2002, was also released in 2004.

Sex abuse rife in other religions, says Vatican

According to this article in the Guardian.co.uk, the Vatican lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was “busy cleaning its own house” and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger. Defiantly, it said that the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that “available research” showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

Yet, of all the world religions, Roman Catholicism has been hardest hit by sex abuse scandals. In the US, churches have paid more than $2bn in compensation to victims.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common. He also added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.”

Now that may be so, but many see this as nothing less than a damage control counter-attack — a feeble attempt to distance itself from controversy by pointing the finger at other faiths. It’s not working. The Vatican must be held to account, something it has been unwilling to do so far. It has not opened its files, changed its procedures worldwide, and openly reported ALL suspected abusers to civil authorities.

Sex abuse report pays special attention to homosexual priests

Looking further into the subject, I perused CatholicNews.com where it stated that when the bishops’ National Review Board issued its report on the causes and context of the clergy sexual abuse crisis, it paid particular attention to a long-controversial issue — the ordination of homosexually oriented men.

A four-page section of the report is titled, “Special Issues Relating to Sexual Orientation, which states that “81 percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys, showing that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior. In light of that, it said, the current crisis cannot be addressed without consideration of issues related to homosexuality.

While the board found a homosexual dimension in the preponderant abuse of young males by Catholic clergy, one of the John Jay researchers (Louis Schlesinger) who specializes in issues of sexual anti-social behavior said the board was correct only in part. He said the real problem is in the disorder of pedophilia, adult sexual attraction to young people, not in the person’s sexual orientation as such. “Some married men prefer adolescent males,” he said, repeating “married men” to emphasize the heterosexual character of their adult relationship.

Gay subculture in Catholic church?

The National Review Board said that, “In the 1970s and 1980s, in particular, there developed at certain seminaries a ‘gay subculture,’ and at these seminaries, according to several witnesses, homosexual liaisons occurred among students or between students and teachers. Such subcultures existed or exist in certain dioceses or (religious) orders as well.”

The board said it believes a failure to take disciplinary action against that conduct “contributed to an atmosphere in which sexual abuse of adolescent boys by priests was more likely.”

Noting the current debate going on in the church over the acceptability of ordaining homosexually oriented men, the board said it spoke with some bishops who do not accept homosexual candidates and others who do.

Are homosexuals more inclined to molest in a chaste lifestyle?

The Review Board stated further: “For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals, there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny and perhaps additional or specialized formation to help them with the challenge of chaste celibacy.” The board quoted one of the bishops it interviewed: “Training for celibacy is different if someone is homosexually oriented or heterosexually oriented. The occasions of sin are different. The danger flags are different.”

So why hire those who have inclinations opposite those that the Bible teaches? Is homosexuality not deemed a sin in the Bible? In both the Old and New Testaments, male and female homosexual acts are denounced as abominable, unnatural, vile perversions. Please read Genesis 19:1-13, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Judges 19:22-24, I Corinthians 6:9-10, I Timothy 1:9-10. In no scriptural reference is homosexuality approved!

In the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul speaks of a people who “deliberately forfeited the truth of God and accepted a lie…. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another…receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity” (Romans 1:25-27, Phillips translation).

I Tim. 3:1-4 says: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous…disobedient to parents, un-thankful, unholy, without natural affection…lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God…. From such turn away” (I Timothy 3:1-4). God wants us to avoid unnatural and unholy things—especially those that destroy families. The Catholic church merely condones such destruction by hiring those of homosexual inclination.

God, therefore, commands us to avoid the serious sin of homosexuality—and the Catholic church which says it is the true church of God-should then follow that admonition, should it not? That is, IF it was the true church of God.

So now the question posed was, “Are homosexual men more inclined to molest in a chaste lifestyle?” First, the use of sex within marriage between a man and a woman is the only God-ordained pure expression of romantic love. Many people will disagree, but homosexual thoughts are perverted – God says so. Think about it: Why would a wise Creator God design humans to be attracted to a member of their own gender? He wouldn’t. The Genesis account shows that our first parents, Adam and Eve, had a natural attraction for one another. And any good high school anatomy class supports the fact that a man and woman are compatible physically and can produce offspring. It was God’s original intent and purpose for man and woman to be sexual partners—not man with man or woman with woman.

Anyone can be tempted by a fleeting thought to commit a wrong sexual act. That is a temptation. But it becomes a sin if it is given in to and allowed to stay in the mind. Homosexuality is a lust (of the flesh), just like adultery or any other sexual sin. And allowing lusts to continue in your mind is dangerous, because thoughts usually lead to actions.

Jesus Christ taught that it is a sin even to look at someone else in lust (Matthew 5:28). Lingering thoughts or fantasies about illicit sex (in a chaste lifestyle while around young boys) can develop warped feelings or desires and cultivate evil practices that are nearly impossible to break.

The Catholic church admits that the abusers were homosexuals, and it admits it hires them. Do their thoughts about men (or young boys) merely go away while being priests? A chaste lifestyle is unbiblical and merely leads to temptation and wrong sexual thoughts. God says to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (II Corinthians 10:5).

Will the Catholic church accept blame?

While the Catholic church says child abuse is unacceptable, its actions and statements do not convey anything resembling repentance. In fact, the forthcoming statements more closely show defiance. Another CatholiccNews.com article featuring a 90-minute program broadcast on the Eternal Word Television Network says that sex abuse stems from a crisis of faith and morality. Sounds great, but then it is said that: “This is a societal problem, not a Catholic problem,and the work of the National Review Board provides “a model for everyone else to do a self-examination of their own institution.”

So why try to shift the blame? Does it matter if the problem exists elsewhere? Is this not like a thief telling the judge at sentencing that he is a thief because others are also thieves? Can a murderer blame other murderers for his actions? Clean your own house and don’t worry about others! You are supposed to be (though I dispute this) the true church of God. This abuse is happening in YOUR house. Who cares, as board member William R. Burleigh emphasized, “Things do not happen in the church that are not part of general society.” Does that make it right, or less of a crime? It sounds more like the feeble excuse a seven year old child makes in blaming his sibling for his own actions.

How many priests abuse children?

A study done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York shows about 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor. The 4,392 clergymen — almost all priests — were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.

The sex-abuse related costs totaled $573 million, with $219 million covered by insurance companies. The study noted, however, that the overall dollar figure is much higher than reported; 14 percent of the dioceses and religious communities did not provide financial data and the total did not include settlements made after 2002, such as the $85 million agreed to by the Boston Archdiocese.

FindLaw.com says the shocking and most telling of all was the statistic as to the percentage of abusers who were ever incarcerated — only 2% (3% were prosecuted and convicted but apparently, of those, a third either will not serve time, or have yet to serve time). I believe that it is primarily because the Church simply transferred the offending priests rather than report them to authorities. It made them a conspirator. That is why they have had such big judgments levied against them and why they have been advised by their own legal counsel to make such huge settlements. It shows a pattern.

Though the Catholic church likes to point fingers elsewhere to divert attention, other religions and institutions didn’t cover the problem and therefore receive front page news, by simply moving pedophile priests around the country for decades. They also didn’t threaten the victims with hell if they complained. This tells us the Church dramatically failed in its obligations to the public good. And it also tells us that one current “remedy” for abuse that the Church is still putting forward — more self-policing — will never work.

The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops says that priests are not more likely to be child molesters than others simply because they are celibate, and that celibacy does not distort ones’ sexuality or attract a larger proportion of men with sexual problems. It states, “In fact, the sexual difficulties and inner psychological problems that give rise to child sexual abuse are largely in place long before a person enters into the formation process for a celibate priesthood.

So here we have the shift of blame again. It is NOT a celibate lifestyle (without the contact required of humans by male and female) that is to blame, but it definitely is thoughts previously harboured by men entering into the priesthood. So say the experts and so says the Catholic church. Proof enough?

While no mainstream researcher would suggest that there is any link between homosexuality and true pedophilia, that is, sexual attraction of an adult to prepubescent minors, the Bible says otherwise. It tells us that homosexual thoughts are “lusts of the flesh,” or the senses [Eph. 2:3].

Citing statistics that say most adults in society who sexually molest minors are not homosexually oriented is a cop out. The rejoinder to this is the fact that most victims of priests are young males, and this to me is not open to misinterpretation. A significant number of priests who sexually molest minors are involved with post-pubescent adolescent males, about 14 to 17 years of age.

The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops will even admit that it appears to be true that many in this sub-population of priest child-molesters are homosexually oriented, but it then offers the lame excuse that “theirs is a particular kind of homosexuality, which one might call “regressed” or “stunted.” It downplays the significance of the problem by saying that homosexual men are emotionally stuck in adolescence themselves, and so are at risk for being sexually active with teenage males. The issue is therefore not so much homosexuality but rather their stunted emotional development.”

So therefore the problem is not that the church ordains homosexuals, but rather “regressed or stunted homosexuals?” That is, those who should not be blamed because of their own terrible childhood. Sounds like a large dash of liberalism to me. let’s give rights to the perpetrators because they themselves are victims. So therefore the solution, then, is not to ban all homosexuals from ordained ministry, but rather to screen out regressed homosexuals before ordination.

I can tell you this – a self policing of such sorts will never work. The sociologist and Catholic priest Andrew Greeley predicted long ago that the number of victims was probably on the order of 100,000. Decades ago, psychologist Richard Sipe, an expert on the issue predicted that as much as 6-8 % of priests sexually abused minors. Why are the numbers deemed so high? FindLaw.com says psychologists estimate that only a fraction of childhood sexual abuse victims ever come forward, anywhere from 5-35%. But let’s pity the poor regressed homosexuals, right?

ReligiousTolerance.org states: “Even if, as one researcher estimates, six percent of priests sexually abuse youth or children, then that still leaves an average of almost 19 priests out of every 20 who are non-abusive.”

Such language to me sounds pathetically weak. 1 in 20 is an astonishing figure! AllAboutReligion.com estimates there to be 400,000 Catholic Priests, worldwide. At six percent, that’s 24,000 pedophile priests that are molesting children — in the supposed true church of God.

Conclusion

While the Catholic church has recently taken some steps to tackle the problem, it also has gone into defensive mode and in my opinion, has not been repentant. Changes seem forced, purely because its sordid past has been revealed. This is proven by not accepting 100% blame and by the decades long cover-up.

In moral panics, as in wars, truth is often the first victim. Here we have the supposed church of God lying and breaking the ten commandments. We’ve witnessed a large number of priests – supposedly people of God – undertaking a crime so heinous, Jesus Christ would be aghast. In the true church of God, no cover up would be allowed. No such crime would be tolerated, and beyond the minimum time of proving the facts, accused priests should be removed from duty. The situation would be immediately remedied, as Christ loved children and God the Father is all about family. Yet this pope, and past popes, have known about the allegations for decades.

By taking upon itself to operate in a private sphere untouched by concerns with the public good, the Church by its own actions increased the number of crimes, pushed the numbers of victims to stratospheric heights and destroyed its own credibility on social and faith issues. My point – this is not the true church of God, as led by Jesus Christ as the head. By their fruits you shall know them….