Monday, May 30, 2011

Goodness Gracious Me!

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert Einstein

We often get well-intentioned goddists who would come into the Facebook page of the Malaysian Atheists, Freethinkers and Agnostics who thought that all it takes for us to change our sinful unbelieving ways is someone who's willing to take the time out to tell us  "Jesus loves you ♥," or type out "ALLAHU AKBAR" in all caps. Sometimes, they would divulged "proofs" allegedly showing that biological evolution or Big Bang cosmology is wrong (and therefore, God!) while not realising that they are addressing a mostly erudite group of college and university graduates who actually studied these concepts in real schools and can see exactly how hilariously scientifically illiterate they are. Most of these encounters wound down pretty predictably and the only thing these misguided proselytisers usually achieve is to give us a reinvigorated appreciation for the propensity of religion to cause profound brain damage.

Once in awhile though, one would turn up and say something hauntingly sinister,

Muslim Rapist Waiting to Happen
He is a Muslim, and a fan of Samurai Deeper Kyo.

By his own confession, he's a seething ball of carnal beastliness barely restrained by the threats of eternal torture in Jahannam, and he used this as an argument to say that religion is necessary to ensure that humanity doesn't overthrow civilisation and degenerate into a hellhole of bloodshed, murder and rape. But what does this say about the followers of God?

I am an atheist for most of my adult life. I have no belief in the concepts of heaven, hell or karma, and I don't believe that there is a Supreme Being keeping tabs on my behaviour. Yet, I don't feel the need to go "rape someone else right now", stab a person I dislike, rob people on the streets, or perform any one of a million other equally deplorable deeds despised by society either. I am better than him. There are roughly one billion people in this world who, like me, consider themselves non-religious; none of them need the threat of hellfire to compel them to behave like decent human beings. We are all better than him. Morality is not rocket science; it's a simple mixture of empathy, conscience and observing the rule of reciprocity. We have no need of a centuries-old outdated fiction written by a schizophrenic nutcase with grandiose delusions to tell us right from wrong.

However, most people's dependence on religious texts for their morality can explain why some people are so willing to unfeelingly commit crimes against humanity in the name of God. When one isn't reliant on their empathy and conscience for their morals, it is easy to see how they can become psychopaths ready to fly airplanes into buildings to kill thousands without batting an eyelid if they believe that that's what honouring their faith entails. This is the same psychopathy which has Christians and Muslims opposing the human right of homosexuals to love and marriage. They aren't thinking, "these are people just like us who love as deeply as we do" or "gays aren't hurting anyone with their love - they deserve to be happy too." No, they do not consider these things because they are just following orders. "Because God said so" is the ultimate Nuremberg Defense.

In the first speech of his papal visit to the United Kingdom last year, Pope Benedict XVI said,

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime's attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a "reductive vision of the person and his destiny".

No, Pope Benny Ratzi, you amoralistic, paedophile-sheltering, slanderous, lying fuck. It is religion that leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a "reductive vision of the person and his destiny". Your conception that a human being is in essence evil without the jurisprudence of faith is an affront to human dignity. It is religion which convinced a person to think that without the threat of hell, he would "rape someone else right away now".

It is also in the name of religion that Pope Benny told dirty blatant untruths about how atheism led to Nazism and the Holocaust when in reality, the vast majority of World War II Germany's population was officially Christian, the Wehrmacht (German defense forces) at the time had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) stamped on their belt buckles, and Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf unambiguously stating that he believed he was doing God's work - but I digress.

There is a meaningful difference between goodness and obedience. We atheists have known this for thousands of years, and we will always be here to remind everyone of that crucial distinction. And we do this by simply existing.

P.S. I bet some people are still going to find my post more offensive than that Muslim guy's confession about his willingness to commit rape.

Good without god,
k0k s3n w4i


Anonymous said...

Sick much? :/

nicoletta said...

Well, this is all hardly surprising considering that religions such as Christianity (and maybe others as well) believe that all humans are inherently sinful / evil. The concept of the Original Sin claims that even the most ignorant, innocent of newborn babies are tainted thanks to the doing of one man a billion years ago. Hellfire becomes a justifiable method of restraining this intrinsic evil in their believers; faith capitalises on fear, and offers itself as the solution to fear, which actually stems from ignorance. This is all too sad.

k0k s3n w4i said...

lovealynna: very much so.

nicoletta: well, i've always encountered religious people who think that being atheist means that you can do anything you want without fear of any consequences in the afterlife; hence the popular impression that atheists are wicked, depraved hedonists. i've even attended sermons in which priests and pastors denounce the atheist worldview for this very reason (much like pope benny's dishonest attempt at demonising atheists). however, this is the first time i've seen this meme brought to its logical conclusion by a believer; that he would he would force himself on women to slake his lust if he should one day decide that there is no god or hell - and what more, he publicly admitted it. anyway, aren't you required, as a catholic, to believe in the doctrine of the original sin?

nicoletta said...

I can't help doubting it. I can't help doubting quite a significant bit of Catholic doctrine and significant tracts of the bible especially since these last few years when I actually began reading up just a little. I'm definitely opposed to many of the Church's views on subjects such as homosexuality, women's rights, contraception, the treatment of those paedophilia cases etc. I was especially religious when I was a child, and I think a lot of it might have had to do with fear. These days, though, it just doesn't seem possible for me to believe everything I used to without a doubt in my mind. I'm determined to follow my own sense of morality regardless of whether it concurs with Catholic doctrines.

On a different note, I've heard several stories from people about some parents who aren't even the least bit religious, and who have no intentions of becoming so, but who instead insist on sending their children to Catholic schools or getting their children baptised - all under the pretext of wanting their children to grow up into good, moral people. It seems a rather funny thing to me.

k0k s3n w4i said...

nicoletta: i know precisely what you mean. believe it or not, the reason why i started reading the bible was because i intended to convert but the more i look into it, the more i realise that the image of god which proselytising christians often publicise is inaccurate, deceptive or at the very least, incomplete. there are a few good moral lessons in the book, and most of them are in the new testament. jesus, as described by the four gospel writers, is nothing like the capricious, cruel old testamental god (though I have problems with some of his teachings too, since the hellfire-for-non-believers thing started from ol' meek and mild jesus; and consequently, many atheists actually think that jesus is worse than his father).

and i'm also familiar with the phenomenon of non-religious parents wanting to give their kids a religious upbringing. phoebe is... was like that. it has something to do with the misconception that religion has a monopoly on morality, i guess, and the belief that it's better to be baptised than sorry. it's similar to knocking on wood. a lot of people do it "just in case" even though they are sure it's superstitious malarkey.

I commend you on not getting your morality wholesale from the bible or any other holy books for that matter. that's where all the problems seem to come from anyway :)

Azygous said...

Back to the basics,

Niceness does not equal goodness, as it is not a character trait.
People seeking to control others almost always present the image of a nice person in the beginning.

Just like our friend Mibu Kyoshiro :

I wanted to rape someone so badly, but god say I'll go to hell, so I won't. But that doesn't mean I don't want to, you know.

MYOB said...

There is a saying, u use a text to state your claims is protext. To make melodramatize a statement is pretext. That is what you are doing. Tough luck bub! Go get ur facts right. HAHAHahahaha!!

k0k s3n w4i said...

Azygous: that what i always say; just because someone is nice or polite doesn't mean they are good or right. i go out of my way to be blunt and scathing when i speak about religion. i use it as a quick and dirty screen to differentiate the idiots from the smarter believers. the smart ones try to address my arguments. the dumb ones simply complain about my rudeness, but ignore all the points i've made as if being rude automatically makes me wrong.

MYOB: it must not be an english saying then because "protext" is not an english word. was it made up? y'know, like your religion?

Anonymous said...

anjing jantan nie tak reti english ler. biasalah, tau jer lebih cam bajingan.

tapi gambar muka cam beruk. tulah, kalau ikut ayam jadi ayam, kalau ikut beruk jadi KOK SEN WAI.

Jesscia said...

Hey closet homo. This one is dedicated esp for you.

IdWorkLi said...

Atheists Are Hypocrites
This is taken right from the website of American Atheists, which was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and one of the most visible godless organizations in the world. They stand out as a mouthpiece for the typical garden-variety professing atheist here and abroad.

Atheists Are...

POSITIVE! We are for solutions to human problems here and now, not in some never-never land after death. The concept of a place where all human needs are fulfilled and there is no hunger, poverty, or disease is an attainable goal here and now through human effort and interaction.

If atheists are "positive" by nature, then what is the necessity of the condescending comment about a "never-never land after death"?

And where are the atheist-run Rescue Missions, soup kitchens, Medical ships, after-school programs, Third World assistance organizations, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs? There are a number of secular programs (mostly run by tax dollars) and private programs, but where is the privately funded atheist equivalent of the Salvation Army, the world's 2nd largest welfare organization, 2nd only to the United Nations?

Atheists love to pull out the example of Bill Gates and his now full-time dedication to philanthropy, but that appears to be the exception more than the rule.

Atheists are by their own definition Utopians, but statistically, they don't show much effort in helping all of us get there.

ECLECTIC! We draw information from a variety of sources around us, selecting the best to be applied to the solution of human problems. We do not limit ourselves, as does the theist, to a set spectrum of allowable information with dogmatic systems based on subject faith.

IdWorkLi said...

Are not all systems for the solution of human problems faith-based until we act upon them? And what if these "other sources" don't work? Atheists, by definition, wouldn't consider a faith-based or religious solution to anything, even if it turns out to best way of fixing a problem. They are no more open-minded than their religious counterparts.

INNER-DIRECTED! This is in distinction to being outer-directed as the theist is. We rely on ourselves for the solutions to our problems. We realize that we have but three areas from which we can draw guidelines to aid us: natural history, human history, and communication with our fellow human beings. We cannot rely on supernatural intervention into our problem-solving processes.

What a silly comment. The decision to believe in God and follow God's will is in fact an INNER decision. God is not a puppetmaster or a ventriloquist. This declaration by atheists denies that believers have the same free will as non-believers.

And what are believers commanded to do once they learn what to do? ACT upon it, the same way Jesus did when He and his followers helped the poor and ailing.

INDEPENDENT! We have no system of dependence on rigid dogmas to govern the events of our daily lives. The theist relies on a set of specific rules of conduct on a daily basis. Such a person is dependent upon those rules to function normally. An Atheist can function normally in society without reference to any arbitrary set of rules for his conduct.

This comment spreads the myth that atheists are morally superior to religious believers. I'd like to see the atheist community pull out a set of statistics that PROVES, not IMPLIES, that real professing atheists are less likely to lie, cheat, or steal than real, hard-core Christians.

However, this line of reasoning by American Atheists explains quite nicely how Joseph Stalin, after dropping out of seminary school and declaring himself an atheist, could justify the enslavement and needless deaths of 25 million Russians in the building of a Communist regime. After all, his conscience was his guide, wasn't it?

IdWorkLi said...

HAPPY! Atheists are content with their life-style. They are *not* unhappy that they have not chosen a closed theistic system inside of which they must operate. Atheists are comfortable and content with a life-style free from theism.

When was the last time you heard a "happy" atheist on a radio call-in program? When was the last time you read anything "happy" from an atheist on a blog? Just check out the American Atheists website. It is loaded with articles that bash religion and attempts to ridicule religious believers at every turn. Is this what you expect to see and hear from "happy", "positive" people?

On top of that, have you ever read any accounts of the life and personality of American Atheists' founder, Ms. Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Her own son's testimony revealed Ms. O'Hair to be one of the meanest, most foul-mouthed, and derogatory human beings you'd ever run across. Although American Atheists have tried to sugar-coat the memory of Ms. O'Hair, you'll discover that the emerging Positive Atheism Movement was attempting to distance themselves from her because she was becoming a public embarrassment. Even worse, Ms. O'Hair was funneling money from American Atheists to fund her own lavish lifestyle while the organization's employees went unpaid. So much for atheist moral superiority! I guess Ms. O’Hair’s happiness exceeded the needs of her employees.

CONCERNED WITH PRESERVATION OF FREEDOM! We know that one is born within a circle of freedom. The size of that circle is directly proportional to the number of freedoms one enjoys. It is the duty of each of us to see to it that during our lifetime that circle of freedom is never decreased, that it either remains the same size or is enlarged. We know that if we allow it to decrease that the following generation will have a smaller circle with which to start. Each generation must preserve the freedoms gained by the previous generation and enlarge on them if possible. Each freedom that is preserved is a stepping stone toward the achievement and preservation of the ultimate freedom: freedom of the mind. In keeping with this concern, Atheists have a dual attitude toward religion. From a logical perspective, religion is untenable and even harmful to the human thought process; it is something to be held in contempt of logic and reason. From a legal perspective, however, profession of religion is the civil right of any individual. If a man wishes to believe he is a tree, for example, that is his prerogative as long as he does not interfere with anyone else. When there is interference on the part of the religious community, the Atheist can and does object.

Hmmm… I guess that means criminals enjoy a larger “circle of freedom” than the rest of us law-abiding folks.

I’d also like to know in what way the atheists are working to achieve “freedom of the mind” when that freedom already exists. This aspiration by American Atheists flies in the face of the sad fact that atheistically-based totalitarian governments are guilty of doing whatever they can to limit and control what people think just as much as any hard-core theocracy. History has proven that time and time again.

I’d like to see some proofs of to how religion is “harmful” to the human thought process, and in contempt of logic and reason, when some of the greatest minds that ever existed believed in God. Guess what? Those are just more empty words from the morally superior atheist crowd.

IdWorkLi said...

”For my own part, I esteem professed agnostics much more highly than I do professed atheists. In reality, though, I've discovered that professed atheists are, in truth, nothing more nor less than agnostics. Ask any atheist to prove their case for atheism, and they will, invariably, say, with their usual irascible vehemence, "There is no proof; not one shred or sliver or scintilla of proof, that any 'God' or group of 'gods' exists!" Well, of course, this is, plainly and simply, an agnostic statement. At the core, any professed atheist is, therefore, really an agnostic.
In my opinion, any man or woman is at perfect liberty to say, agnostically, that there is no legitimate proof of there being a God (or group of gods). Likewise, any man or woman is at perfect liberty to say, theistically, that there is plenty of legitimate proof of there being a God (or group of gods). But, as I see it, no man or woman can say, with impunity, that there is no God, or group of gods, at all.
But, naturally, you can never convince an atheist that he/she is really an agnostic. I have, far more often than not, found atheists to be incapable of mature conversation, let alone reason.”

Atheists, by and large, don’t really practice any more of what they preach than garden-variety, lukewarm Christians, yet they insist on proclaiming their own mental and moral superiority through straw man arguments against Christianity. Perhaps it’s time for the atheist crowd to take a pooper-scooper to their own backyards before pointing their fingers at Christianity’s so-called “flaws”.

Yawn said...

So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!1

Yawn said...


What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results.


What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!

I've met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly. Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!

k0k s3n w4i said...


This is taken right from the website of American Atheists, which was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and one of the most visible godless organizations in the world. They stand out as a mouthpiece for the typical garden-variety professing atheist here and abroad.

No they aren't. They don't speak for me or any other atheists who isn't a member of their organisation. Note the word "American" in the name of the organisation. In fact, no atheist organisation can claim to speak for all atheists, and that's about the only thing every atheist agree unanimously on. Atheists are notoriously difficult to organise and efforts at doing so had been likened to "herding cat".

"And where are the atheist-run Rescue Missions, soup kitchens, Medical ships, after-school programs, Third World assistance organizations, and alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs? There are a number of secular programs (mostly run by tax dollars) and private programs, but where is the privately funded atheist equivalent of the Salvation Army, the world's 2nd largest welfare organization, 2nd only to the United Nations?"

Ah, another LIAR from the party of God trying to SMEAR atheists, just like what Pope Benny tried to do!

To answer your question, here are some atheist charities you are too DISHONEST to even Google:

Atheist Centre of India
Supports intercaste marriages, actively works to end child marriages and caste separation, provides aid to women in distress such as single mothers and prostitutes, promotes equality of the sexes, run education campaigns are designed to fight dangerous superstitions and practices such as witch hunts which can result in harm to innocent people, provides many services such as a Working Women's Hostel and a home for women with social problems, runs the Vasavya Centre for Social Development program which provides outreach services for more than 50 villages (includes education, health care, advanced medical care including eye banks and corneal transplants, social programs, training for women, counseling and career guidance, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, sanitation facilities, drinking water facilities, sex education and contraception education, youth programs, and crèches for children along with many other humanitarian services).

k0k s3n w4i said...


Foundation Beyond Belief
Each quarter Foundation Beyond Belief features ten charitable organizations, one each in the categories of animal protection, child welfare, education, environment, health, human rights, Foundation Beyond Belief itself, peace, poverty, and The Big Bang Fund - a small charity with a big impact. Members can choose which cause or causes to support from the featured causes. Its current Quarter 2, 2011 beneficiaries, based on their goals are:
Health: Japanese Organization for International Cooperation in Family Planning
Human Rights: The Innocence Project of Texas
Peace: Central Asia Institute
Child Welfare: Bright Star Vision
Education: National Center for Science Education
Poverty: Water For People
Animal Protection: Straydog
Environment: The Pachamama Alliance
The tenth being the Foundation Beyond Belief itself.
They also added a new category this year called Challenge the Gap where the foundation chooses a charity that may have religious ties but does secular, non-proselytizing work. This quarter’s charity is Buddhist Global Relief.
So, when you said "Atheists, by definition, wouldn't consider a faith-based or religious solution to anything, even if it turns out to best way of fixing a problem. They are no more open-minded than their religious counterparts.", you are LYING again.

This is a charity established specifically to fix the horrors that religious people do. It provides humanitarian aid to victims of religiously motivated violence, usually in the form of food, clean drinking water, temporary shelters and medical aid. Their mission is to help victims of religiously motivated crimes and violence whether committed by governments, individual terrorists, or organizations that claim religious justification for their crimes.

Fellowship of Freethought
Organizes blood drives, collects food for local food banks, participates in holiday toy drives for needy children, and collects donations for deployed soldiers.

International Humanist and Ethical Union
It's a union which includes more than a hundred atheist, secular and freethought organizations from 40 different countries around the world. IEHU fights for freedom of expression, human rights, and separation of church and state. They support the victims of religious persecution and superstition. IHEU fights to end untouchability, caste systems which place people in abject poverty with no hope of escape due to accident of birth. IHEU is very active in trying to save people convicted of religious "crimes" (homosexuality, women wearing trousers, loss of virginity, witchcraft, or similar accusations) from imprisonment, torture, and execution. Again, another organisation created to fix the shit religions caused in the world.

k0k s3n w4i said...


"Atheists love to pull out the example of Bill Gates and his now full-time dedication to philanthropy, but that appears to be the exception more than the rule."

So typical of a religious person to dismiss what good atheists do, saying that any good we do must be contrary to the "nature" you bigoted religious scumbags have wrongfully assigned us. Bill Gates, the second richest man on the planet, have given 28 billion to charity. The third richest man on the planet, Warren Buffett pledged to give 99% of his wealth to charity.

The richest man on the planet is Carlos Slim who while isn't uncharitable per se, publicly said that he doesn't believe in charity. He is Catholic.

David Cameron LIED in speech some time ago, much like you did here, saying that there is "no such thing as a Humanist Soup Kitchen."

Here is a YouTube video of a man who volunteers at a humanist soup kitchen - and he also points out that unlike most religious organisations, secular humanists do do charity work in order to proselytise to the needy. We do good for the sake of doing good, unlike your ilk.

"I'd like to see the atheist community pull out a set of statistics that PROVES, not IMPLIES, that real professing atheists are less likely to lie, cheat, or steal than real, hard-core Christians."


In the database of the Federal Bereau of Prisons in the US, the percentage of godless people in prisons are 0.2%. Compare that to the 8-15% of Americans who identify themselves as atheists, agnostics and non-religious. That's a very, very big difference.

In this article about social science research, atheists score higher than the religious answering basic questions of morality and human decency on issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights. The irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

k0k s3n w4i said...


"When was the last time you heard a "happy" atheist on a radio call-in program? When was the last time you read anything "happy" from an atheist on a blog?"

You clearly don't read atheist blogs, and I find it very DISHONEST of you to try and paint atheists as being constantly unhappy and negative when you don't even know the first thing about us personally. Even in my own blog here, I frequently write positively about a lot of other things like my love for films and contemporary literature, my backpacking trips, and my relationship with my girlfriend. What, did you think atheists like me just sit around all day seething about the horrible things religious people commit on a daily basis?

Just recently, Hemant Mehta from the Friendly Atheist blog set up a scholarship fund for Damon Fowler, a high school secular activist. In just 10 days, it raised $31,250.40. PZ Myers (from Pharyngula), Hemant Mehta and many other popular atheist bloggers also recently raised $30,074.80 for Camp Quest in a rather hilarious contest where most of them pledged to do something silly or embarrassing in order to woo donations.

"For my own part, I esteem professed agnostics much more highly than I do professed atheists. In reality, though, I've discovered that professed atheists are, in truth, nothing more nor less than agnostics. Ask any atheist to prove their case for atheism, and they will, invariably, say, with their usual irascible vehemence, "There is no proof; not one shred or sliver or scintilla of proof, that any 'God' or group of 'gods' exists!" Well, of course, this is, plainly and simply, an agnostic statement. At the core, any professed atheist is, therefore, really an agnostic."

Agnostics and atheists are not mutually exclusive descriptors of anyone. I have identified myself as an agnostic atheist multiple times within this blog. A lot of modern agnostics think that the word "agnosticism" means to be in a state of belief between theists and atheists, but that's simply not true. I subscribe to Thomas Henry Huxley's definition of the word (and he is the most authoritative source since he coined the word). Huxley said: "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Atheism describes a position of belief while agnosticism describes a method of inquiry. But is it dishonest to make a stand of atheism when we've found that there's no objective, verifiable proof for God's existence after all of this time? After all, what is said of God can be said about fairies, unicorns, dragons and the goddamn Batman. Do we have to suspend judgment on their nonexistence for the rest of time? You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

Most theists such as yourself, on the other hand, are dead certain that God exists, and whatever Holy Book that was nearest to you when you were born is the Word of God. My approach is simply this: I don't believe in the existence of anything until it's proven to exist. This is called intellectual honesty, something which faithheads such as yourself don't understand.

Now, are you going to apologise after I've proven your defamatory remarks about atheists false?

k0k s3n w4i said...


"Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense."

Is there a chance that a deistic God exists? Yes, but on the preponderance of the absence of objective verifiable proofs of this claim, the null hypothesis of "no god" stands. I follow the evidence, wherever it leads me. If one day, scientists are able to prove God's existence - then I'll gladly change my mind. I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to recognise that your God can only be taken on faith at the moment.

But on the possibility that God - as described so exactingly by the so-called Holy Books of men - exists, I would say nay, there is no chance at all because there are historical and scientific claims in these tomes which have already been disproved time and time again.

"Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?"

I can do better. I have shown on multiple occasions that I can change my mind when I discovered that beliefs I've previously held are untrue or unproven. I was a Buddhist, but I have discarded belief in all the supernatural elements of Buddhism since high school. I explored Christianity when my friends (the majority of which are Christians) told me I should look into it and I did everything they told me, including attending church, studying the Bible and praying. Prior to that, I honestly believed that Christianity teaches nothing but goodness but that's not what I found in the Book and in the churches. So, I changed my mind about Christianity and picked up the cause of speaking against the hypocrisy and crimes of people who claim to speak for God. I've seen how religion hurt people every single day in the news, and I honestly think the world will be better without it. Notice that all my posts are written in response to what religious people say or do.

Your statements told me that you have made the mistake of thinking that I'm atheist because it's what I believe in. I am an atheist because I simply don't believe in what every religion in the world says. I can no more make myself believe in God than you can make yourself believe that the Batman exists. Atheism doesn't need to make sense. It's simply the default position I assume until one religion meets the minimal standard of scientific evidence.

"Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!1"

Nope, I have never asserted that God *cannot* exist. Straw man. Read all of the above.

k0k s3n w4i said...


"It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results."

Prove to me that the taboo against murder is a God-given law and not simply a good idea to adopt in order for society to function. I have very little respect for pseudo-intellectual windbags such as yourself who randomly throws completely unproven statements in your discourse. Humanity have already decided that murder is bad before the 10 Commandments were allegedly given to Moses. If anything, it's the Bible which have stolen that law from humanity and pretend that it's its own thing.

You are doing precisely what I deride in this post of mine - saying that men cannot be good without religion.

"The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable."

Eugenics has nothing to do with evolution, and you are intellectually dishonest when you claim that. And your standing in my eyes dropped even lower when you try to link evolutionary biology to Nazism. Let me educate you, you poor benighted soul. Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries banned and burned books about evolution, including Darwin's writings. Other books that made the list includes "writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God."

In fact, the prime motivation for choosing the Jewish race to eradicate is because of antisemitism born from the belief that they are a race of Christkillers. I really hate it when religious people like you try to pin the crimes you did on secular and scientific concepts, just like that bastard Pope Benny Ratzi.

k0k s3n w4i said...


"Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference."


The point I was trying to make with this post is that religion is not the source of morality. I specifically deride the notion that men are inherently evil and blame religion for that notion. I also noted that religion sometimes overrides people's sense of decency. Now, I'll give you a rundown of my personal take on morality, because I can't pretend to speak for all atheists.

Atheism does not inform morality. The only thing atheists have in common is a disbelief in the existence of god/gods. Neurologists and psychologists knew for the longest time that doing good gives us pleasure. One wonders: why should that quirk be selected for in our species evolutionary history?

As a social species, social cohesiveness is one of our most important survival strategies. Sociopaths who murder, rape and steal are shunned by their communities, and thus, have reduced survival rates and are far less successful than other humans in passing on their genes. Naturally, well-adjusted people with their traits for sociobility like empathy and generousity are strongly selected in the human race. We can see a primitive form of morality quite similar to our own in other social hominids. We are hardwire to want to benefit our own species. This is why the murder of a chicken for food is seen as far more heinous as the murder of a human being, even when there's no objective way we can prove that the life of a person if worth more than a chicken's. Serial killers and mass murderers are examples of individuals whose "moral compass" fail to develop but in most instances, the rest of the world are quick to oppose them. What happened to the regimes of Hitler and other crazy despots? Why, they were overthrown.

However, we are also a thinking species. We do not rely wholly on our instinctive good nature to guide our actions. Hence, we developed moral philosophies that stand apart from religion. Mine happen to be "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" and the dictum of my chosen profession, "First, do no harm". These are morality by humans, for humans - and we make no pretensions about it. Like I said, it's not rocket science. It's not perfect, I admit, but it's really the best we got.

What does religion offer? Moral laws by people who claim to write or speak in God's stead. You boast of God's alleged dictum of "thou shalt not kill" when in just some chapters ahead, God commanded the Levites (Exodus 32:27) to "slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour." 3000 people were murdered. Huge tracts in the Book of Joshua were basically Joshua committing genocides after genocides on God's order. In fact, God is so bloodthirsty that he gave Jephthah victory in battle in exchange for him burning his own daughter as an offering to Him (Judges 11:30-31, 11:34-40). It is also God's law that gay people should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13), and that's what they try to do in Uganda today. They are following God's perfect, objective law. You know what the Holy Books like the Bible teaches people? It's not okay to kill, except when you're doing it in God's name. So fuck you and your God-given morality, theist.

All of your arguments are hollow, intellectually dishonest and sometimes outright dishonest.

k0k s3n w4i said...


I wrote preemptively in this post: "P.S. I bet some people are still going to find my post more offensive than that Muslim guy's confession about his willingness to commit rape."

I was right. So many tried to (unsuccessful) deride atheism, as if it doing so automatically refutes the points I've made about religion. Some just came to hurl insults at me.

But none of these theists condemn the Muslim who admitted he's only restrained from raping someone because of his fear of hell. None of these theists criticise the Pope for telling lies and attempting to smear the reputation of atheists. These are all okay to them, I guess.

What they aren't okay with is the atheist who spoke against these people.

Every single pro-religion commenter here proved my case. Faith does indeed warp people's sense of morality and priorities.

Azygous said...

Read this :

"Obedient Wives Club to offer sex lessons on how to pleasure husbands"

Interesting extracts,

“A good or religious wife should also be good in bed,”

Just can't admit that the religion is treating the women as sex slaves, procreation machines, isn't it?

Men's "gatalness" is all women's fault? That's their teaching...haha

There's even more actually.
But, I seriously think you should be the one writing about this.

Faith does indeed warp people's sense of morality and priorities.


Azygous said...

Sorry, 1 more extract :

Kelab taat suami?

"Seorang isteri yang baik adalah pekerja seks yang baik bagi suami mereka" "Seorang isteri perlu menjadi seorang isteri yang baik sampai bila - bila.
Jika terjadi padanya sebagai contoh didera, mereka perlu memikirkan bahawa ini adalah ujian dari Allah kepada mereka". (Dr. Rohaya Mohamad, Vice President of Kelab Taat Suami)

Just cannot tahan these flers..

Bionrewp said...


such a nitwit mind you have. Pick and choose what you like.

Mingnes said...

Don't layan lar. This fellow has obviously got nothing better to do. He being an atheist is not the reason he is like this. One day that lose mouth is gonna get him whacked. Obviously he is trying to be like Dawkins but that man is highly more sophisticated for a mangle-minded brain like this guy. He just gives us a bad name.

He is an ASSHOLE. An ASSHOLE is an ASSHOLE. May he be an ATHEIST a THEIST or a DEIST.

You don't have to be from a secular or from a certain believe to be retarded in the brain & he is going to be a doctor. What a joke. Nuff said.

k0k s3n w4i said...

Azygous: i've read about that. i'll see what i can do :)

Mingnes: there is muslim guy who told me he's ready to commit rape as soon as he knows there's no eternal punishment waiting for him. he said it in a conversation with me to say that godless people are immoral.

there is a pope, the head of one of the largest religious group in the world, who have protected child-rapists and interfered with the law in bring them to justice. he also told lies about how atheism lead to nazism to smear people like me.

there is a couple of commenters who called me a male dog, an ape, and a closeted homosexual.

there is another commenter who lied about how there is no such thing as atheistic charity organisations when less than a minute of googling turned up so many.

there is yet another commenter who lied about how the holocaust was caused by the theory of evolution, when darwin's writings were banned and burned by hitler's regime.

the commenter above you called me a nitwit without acknowledging any of my the points i've made which i've painstakingly supported with external links and references.

and you, mingnes, you denounce me? have i told a single lie in my writings? have i wrote anything which i did not support with facts? is it wrong for me to respond to people's assertion that atheists are immoral?

and you think i deserve to be "whacked" for defending myself against the slanders and lies that religious people said about me and people like me?

i'm "retarded in the brain" because i chose to point out (with evidence) that these people are wrong about me and people like me? what do you suggest that i do then, Mingnes? seriously, tell me what i should do.

Anonymous said...

I think you would also be committing rape right now if not for God's restraint. It scares me, he says: SOMEONE ELSE. He already raped someone?

Anonymous said...

The absolute contrast between the Christian and the non-Christian in the field of knowledge is said to be that of principle. Full recognition is made of the fact that in spite of this absolute contrast of principle, there is relative good in those who are evil... So far as men self-consciously work from this principle they have no notion in common with the believer... But in the course of history the natural man is not fully self-conscious of his own position... He has within him the knowledge of God by virtue of his creation in the image of God. But this idea of God is suppressed by his false principle, the principle of autonomy. This principle of autonomy is, in turn, suppressed by the restraining power of God’s common grace... And by the striving of the Spirit...their hostility is curbed in some measure... And as such they can cooperate by virtue of the ethical restraint of common grace (The Defense of the Faith; Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, pp. 67, 189-190, 194).

Bahnsen, Greg (2011). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (p. 149). Covenant Media Press. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959).

Anonymous said...

It appears dogmatic and absolutistic because, it is dogmatic and absolutistic. The Christian should not be ashamed of this fact. He ought to have the humble boldness to tell a lost world that the Christian message is unconditionally true and the necessary presupposition of all thought (absolutistic), that Christ’s gospel demands repentance (including a “change of mind”), and that God’s word has definite doctrinal content which is authoritatively revealed “directly from above” (dogmatic). Of course the biblical outlook is not “dogmatic and absolutistic” in the derisive sense often attributed to these words. The Christian’s claim that all thought requires the presupposition of Christ’s word is not arrogant, unreasoning, or unfounded.

Bahnsen, Greg (2011). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (p. 149). Covenant Media Press. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

Believers themselves have not chosen the Christian position because they are wiser than others. What they have they have by grace alone. But this does not mean that they accept the problematics of fallen man as right... Fallen man does in principle seek to be a law unto himself. But he cannot carry out his own principle to its full degree. He is restrained from doing so... In spite of what he does against God, he can and must work for God; thus he is able to make a “positive contribution” to human culture. (Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969, pp. 43, 44).

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake, this is not just telling youngsters to ignore “odd” classmates, the traditional tolerance-based solution. … Rather, this is a drive to legitimize homosexuality, swathed in the rhetoric of tolerance, by portraying this sexual predilection as “normal” at a time when youngsters barely grasp sexuality of any variety. This quarrel is hardly an academic one: confrontations are real, and, ironically as so often is the case, their tumultuousness undermines the very social tranquility tolerance instruction is supposed to bring. Robert Weissberg, Pernicious Intolerance: How Teaching to “Accept Differences” Undermines Civil Society (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008), 142. (emphasis mine).

Anonymous said...

"The quoted work of Remafedi looked at 12 year-olds who would be expected to be even more unstable than adolescents. An estimate that 85% changed orientation, or perhaps more accurately attractions, is inherently reasonable. “The most detailed study to date is a very large longitudinal study by (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2007) who found changes in attraction so great even between ages 16 and 17 that they queried whether the concept of sexual orientation had any meaning for those with same-sex attractions. In considerable contrast those with opposite sex attractions overwhelmingly retained them from year to year. From ages 17-21 those with some initial same sex attraction (this includes those with concurrent opposite-sex attraction) 75% changed to opposite sex attraction only. This is within error the same as the 85% figure which is the current object of debate.”

See, concisely, Dr. Neill Whitehead, “The Changeability of Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,”, accessed
September June, 05, 2011

Anonymous said...

• Harvard University was founded in 1636 as Harvard College with the motto “Truth” (Veritas). Its purpose was, “To train a literate clergy.” Among the “Rules and Precepts” to be observed by the students were these: “Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life”; and, “Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoretical observations of Language and Logic, and in practical and spiritual truths….”

• Princeton University was founded in 1746 as the College of New Jersey. The school’s motto was “Under God’s Power She Flourishes,”13 and until 1902, every president of Princeton was a minister. Although seminary training was the school’s first goal, its founding purpose went beyond that: “Though our great Intention was to erect a seminary for educating Ministers of the Gospel, yet we hope it will be useful in other learned professions -- Ornaments of the State as Well as the Church.”14

One can only imagine what would happen if any passionate Christians still remaining at Yale demanded a Christ Month [referring to Yale's "Gaypril" month], with full staffing and funding from the university? What would the campus look like with crucifixes, crosses, and chalices hanging from trees like the pink and lavender streamers that presently cover the campus each April during the BGLAD Pride Month celebrations? Such an image of Christian images and icons at an Ivy League school founded 300 years ago by a Christian church is unimaginable, isn’t it? The answer to that question provides a snapshot of the intellectual and moral deterioration of Yale, in particular, and American higher education, in general, where tolerance is one-way, and morality is in the eyes of the beholder.37

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 2571-2576). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

To put queer studies in the larger context of shifts in academic emphases on our campuses, cf. Patrick J. Deneen, “Science and the Decline of the Liberal Arts, who noted that, “The scandalous state of the modern university can be attributed to various corruptions that have taken root in the disciplines of the humanities. The university was once the locus of humanistic education in the great books; today, one is more likely to find there indoctrination in multiculturalism, disability studies, queer studies, postcolonial studies, a host of other victimization studies, and the usual insistence on the centrality of the categories of race, gender, and class. The humanities today seem to be waning in presence and power in the modern university in large part because of their solipsistic irrelevance, which has predictably increased students’ uninterest in them.”

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 13257-13263). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Dr. Dean Hamer’s paper detailing the alleged discovery of a gay gene, Prof. Gerard van den Aardweg, notes that “The whole thing was, after all, a storm in a tea cup. Subsequent analysis and research vindicated the verdict by the famous French authority in the field, Jerome Lejeune, that the methodological defects of the investigation were so serious that ‘were it not for the fact that this study is about homosexuality, it would probably never have been accepted for publication.’”

Gerard van den Aardweg, “Homosexuality And Biological Factors: Real Evidence -- None; Misleading Interpretations: Plenty,” in the NARTH Bulletin, 13 (Winter 2005), 19-28, citing a private communication from Lejeune, who discovered a gene that causes Downs syndrome; reprinted

Anonymous said...

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

“… to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

This conclusion was echoed by Prof. Douglas Abbot, who wrote, I believe that the genetic evidence for homosexuality is just not there. It’s the values and politics of homosexuals and their supporters that is driving the gay gene agenda, not good science.11 As expressed by John D’Emilio, a well-known gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, “Born gay” is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 3960-3968). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

k0k s3n w4i said...

Homophobic anonymous commenter: i fear you've wasted both our time because i already mostly agree with you on what we currently know about human sexuality. i don't think that there is any one factor which can reliably predict is a person would be homosexual or not, and similar to most other behavioural patterns, it is probably a complex mixture of nature and nurture. one thing we do know is that homosexuality is completely natural, as it had been widely documented in the animal kingdom as well. at any rate, it's in no way a "lifestyle choice" as many bigoted christians such as yourself have characterised it.

but that is also immaterial to me even if it's true. i believe in the human rights of homosexuals to love and marriage, and i will gladly place myself between your ilk and them to champion that. they aren't interfering in your rights and what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of your business, nosy christian.

and i rebuke you for daring to suggest that the reason why i haven't raped anyone is because of god. i do not believe in god and according to god, an atheist "does no good" (psalm 14:1), and here you are claiming my good behaviour in god's name? what nerve.

Anonymous said...

Grand slam as always. I salute your intellect, Kok.

Homophobic anonymous commenter said...

i don't think that there is any one factor which can reliably predict is a person would be homosexual or not, and similar to most other behavioural patterns, it is probably a complex mixture of nature and nurture. one thing we do know is that homosexuality is completely natural [:/], as it had been widely documented in the animal kingdom as well. at any rate, it's in no way a "lifestyle choice"

This is a completely incoherent and illogical statement, very inconsistent. It has been documented in the animal kingdom, indeed, as an abnormality.

"Pedophilia" is natural in the animal kingdom also. Some moms even eat their babies.

Anonymous said...

But scientific accuracy is not always important. Good strategy is often what carries the day. As Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote in 1989: We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness.16

Who cares about facts when you’ve got a good angle! And so, gay is the new black – especially among influential liberals. In April, 2009, I wrote an article entitled, “Gays Out, Conservatives In – the Closet,” which contained the following line: “Simply stated, if homosexuality is legitimate in every respect, then any opposition to homosexuality is illegitimate.”That article was then posted on the ultra-liberal Daily Kos website, and a blogger called PerfectStormer replied, “Let’s make a substitution, shall we?” My sentence was then changed to read, “Simply stated, if marriage between black and whites is legitimate in every respect, then any opposition to marriage between black and whites is illegitimate.”17 There you have it! Gay is the new black.

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 4002-4009). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

According to psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health (writing in 2005), It was pointed out 11 years ago how time and again “scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. Findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors all were announced “with great fanfare; all were greeted without skepticism in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.”18 Nevertheless, considerable grant money has been available in this country for research seeking to show a genetic basis for homosexuality. Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the “gay gene.”[Homosexuality: Some Neglected Considerations,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 10/3 (Fall, 2005), 2.]

Anonymous said...

Christl Ruth Vonholdt, a pediatrician and the Director of the German Institute for Youth and Society, summed up the evidence as follows:

There is only one point on which today’s scientists agree: homosexuality is not simply innate. It is true that scientists who are close to the homosexual movement have been trying hard to identify a special gene [Citing D. H. Hamer, et al.], specific brain structures [Citing S. Le Vay] and a modified hormone balance [Citing G. Dörner] as possible causes of homosexuality, but none of these attempts have so far been successful [Citing W. Byne et al.]. The claim that homosexuality is innate is scientifically not tenable [Citing M. Dannecker].

[Christl Ruth Vonholdt, “Homosexuality – Expression of an Unresolved Gender Identity Conflict,”]

Anonymous said...

Psychologist Louis A. Berman wrote,

Inborn, irreversible, natural; like left-handedness. Predictable in its onset and chronic in its duration, like male pattern baldness or adult diabetes. Surprisingly, this “conventional wisdom” survives despite the abundance of evidence that in fact homosexual behavior comes and goes in the widest variety of ways. It may emerge at 14, or not until well into middle age, or may exist side-by-side an appetite for heterosexual gratification.[Louis Berman, The Puzzle: Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of Male Homosexuality (Wilmette, IL: Godot Press, 2003), 250.]

Anonymous said...

And an April 8, 2008 statement by the American College of Pediatricians stated bluntly, "During the last 40 years the majority of SSA [same-sex attraction] studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked." [“Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children,” 1, with documentation; to download, see]

Anonymous said...

With regard to lesbianism in particular, Prof. Robert Alan Brookey, himself a strong proponent of gay rights, noted that “[Gay scientist Dean] Hamer has gone on record as saying that lesbianism is not genetic but socially and culturally produced.”

[Reinventing the Male Homosexual: The Rhetoric and Power of the Gay Gene (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 7, n. 1, with reference to J. Gallagher, “Gay for the Thrill of It,” The Advocate, February 17, 1998, 32-37.]

Anonymous said...

correlation is not causation

predisposition is not predetermination

influence is not destiny

Having certain tendencies is not the same as having no choice, and having leanings towards certain behaviors does not mean that one is locked into acting out those behaviors. [me]

Anonymous said...

As noted by openly gay (and/or gay-affirming) psychologists J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Brian Mustanski of Indiana University: Despite common assertions to the contrary, evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or policy consequences. To assume that it does logically requires the belief that some behaviour is non-biologically caused. We believe that this assumption is irrational because the most proximal cause of behaviour is neurophysiological, and thus all behavioural differences “will on some level be attributable to differences in brain structure or process. Thus, no clear conclusions about the morality of a behaviour can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behaviour is biologically caused. [“A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18 (2003), 429-436; the quote is from 432. In more detail, see A. S. Greenberg and J. M. Bailey, “Do biological explanations of homosexuality have moral, legal, or policy implications?”, Journal of Sex Research 30 (2003), 245-251.]

Anonymous said...

People with a particular variation of the MAOA gene called 2R were very prone to criminal and delinquent behavior, said sociology professor Guang Guo, who led the study. “I don’t want to say it is a crime gene, but 1 percent of people have it and scored very high in violence and delinquency,” Guo said in a telephone interview….

Remarkably, Prof. Guo noted that: … a certain mutation in [the gene called] DRD2 seemed to set off a young man if he did not have regular meals with his family. “But if people with the same gene have a parent who has regular meals with them, then the risk is gone,” Guo said.

Anonymous said...

Allow me to wax sarcastic for a moment. Perhaps a violent man who beats up a gay man is only being himself. Perhaps he is only doing what he is genetically predisposed to do. (What folly!) Perhaps he should no more be faulted for his behavior than a gay person should be faulted for engaging in same-sex relationships. After all, if homosexual activity is a matter of sexual orientation rather than sexual preference, perhaps violent behavior is a matter of aggressive, angry orientation rather than aggressive, angry preference.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, “ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.” That and how many friends you had during high school…. “It is the crucial interaction of two factors – the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence – that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study. []

Anonymous said...

A decade ago, who would have thought that an entire book could be written on the subject of homosexuality and education – written, in fact, using real names, real schools, and real incidents, many of them not only positive but spectacularly so? [Today, you could fill a small library with books like this.] Who would have thought that in so many buildings throughout the United States, in large cities, medium-sized suburbs, and tiny towns, there would be not only openly gay teachers, administrators, coaches, and students, but also gay-straight alliances, gay-themed curricula, and gay topics discussed honestly and intelligently in workshops, classes, and the pages of school newspapers? [And who would have thought that, from 1995 to 2010, these gay straight alliances would grow by more than 3000%?] It would have seemed like a fairy tale. [Dan Woog, School’s Out: the Impact of Gay and Lesbian Issues on America’s Schools, (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1995), 373.]

k0k s3n w4i said...

Homophobic anonymous commenter: incoherent? illogical? inconsistent? homosexuality was documented in most species of animals. in fact, species which are exclusively heterosexual are more of the exception rather than the rule. hence, natural and normal. paedophilia and cannibalism are natural but are far rarer... but even if they are as widespread in nature as homosexuality, you can't liken them to homosexuality. homosexuality does not hurt anyone. it's the expression of love between two consenting adults so like i said, it's really none of your business, you bigoted christian. cannibalism and paedophilia clearly involve victimising another individual. you are on the wrong side of history, christian homophobe. in a few decades, your ilk is going to be considered as backward and cruel as the christians who used the bible to justify the subjugation black people. in fact, it's happening now. we have no place in the modern world for hateful bigots such as yourself. if we let you people have your way, you'd take leviticus 20:13 to its logical conclusion and kill gay people as if they are abominations rather than human beings. the lot of you are pharisees and hypocrites; that's the name jesus had given to people like you.

even if it's somehow true that all gay people chose their sexual orientation, i'd still be on their side rather than on yours - because your side is the one which seeks to deny others of their right to love and happiness of life.

Anonymous said...

The GLSEN Lunchbox 2 [starting at the Kindergarten level] is a comprehensive training program aimed at providing educators and community members with the background knowledge, skills, and tools necessary to make schools safer and more affirming places for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students.

..Let’s take a look inside...Outside of the lunchbox is a 141 page notebook binder, “The GLSEN Lunchbox Trainer’s Manual.” Some of the activities include “North American History Game Cards,” listing twenty-eight North Americans, most of whom are fairly well known and all of whom, according to GLSEN, are (or were) gay or transgender. (Among the better known names are Sara Josephine Baker, James Baldwin, Leonard Bernstein, George Washington Carver, Babe Didrickson, Allen Ginsberg, Barbara Jordan, Margaret Mead, Harvey Milk, Bayard Rustin, Renee Richards, Andy Warhol, Walt Whitman, and Tennessee Williams.)

A similar game card activity is provided for World History, listing luminaries such as Alexander the Great, Hans Christian Anderson, Pope John XII, King Edward II, Noel Coward, Hadrian, Dag Hammserskjold, Joan of Arc, Elton John, Juvenal, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rudolph Nureyev, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, and Oscar Wilde.

According to GLSEN, all of them were gay (or bisexual?). The object of these activities is to help children and teachers recognize that many outstanding personalities in world and national history, including musicians, artists, statesmen, religious leaders, authors, and others, were gay. Therefore, being gay is neither negative nor bad nor degrading nor harmful nor dangerous.

Of course, a different set of conclusions could have been reached, namely, that until recently, these alleged homosexuals (or bisexuals) were content to function effectively and creatively in society without making a major issue of their sexuality – indeed, in a number of cases, the sexual orientation of these individuals is a matter of debate because they did not make an issue of their sexuality – and they were able to make important contributions to their generations and beyond without drawing attention to their sexual orientation.

There’s also a dirty little secret that GLSEN will never mention, namely, that some of the men on this list were not just alleged homosexuals but alleged pederasts. As noted by Jim Kepner, formerly curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, "if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today."

I guess as far as famous pedophiles are concerned, GLSEN has adopted a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.


Anonymous said...

Thus the NAMBLA website boasts in its article “History of Man/Boy Love”: From famous couples such as Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, to cultural institutions such as that of ancient Greek pederasty, to cultural concepts such as China’s “passion of the cut sleeve”, to iconic figures such as Francis Bacon or Walt Whitman. From the earliest known homoerotic couple, Smenkhkare and Akhenaten, to medieval Andelusian troubadors, to 20th century figures such as Allen Ginsburg and Arthur C. Clark, man/boy love spans every dimension of history, both Western and non-Western.

So, some of these men cited in GLSEN’s Lunchbox as being gay are cited by NAMBLA as being pedophiles. In fact, according to NAMBLA, among the famous men listed in GLSEN’s North American and World History Game Cards, Alexander the Great, Leonard Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Oscar Wilde, were all “man-boy lovers.”

Thus, much of the alleged evidence for their homosexuality points specifically to pederasty. So, if they were practicing homosexuals, they were practicing pederasts. Should this be celebrated?

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 1668-1675). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

k0k s3n w4i said...

The other anonymous who simply doesn't get it: all your arguments and analogies are pointless. i am not supporting the rights of homosexuals because i think it's innate. unlike criminals and individuals who choose to act violently, homosexual union between two consenting adults hurt no one. there is no victims in that. there are, however, victims in the christian agenda of bigotry and hate. get it through your thick christian skull.

Anonymous said...

homosexuality was documented in most species of animals

You think this proves something? It has been documented, I affirm again, as an abnormality. Is a hermaphrodite just "another gender" to you? A third gender? Because it is an abnormality of genes, ie. NOT normal or natural.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Girls Will Be Boys Will Be Girls coloring book will help. The book’s write-up states, The antithesis of the “Dick and Jane” coloring book, this is a funny, playful and provocative deconstruction of traditional gender roles. The activist authors use drawings as well as images taken from old children’s books to show how completely silly and unnecessary most common gender assumptions are. Covering topics such as clothing, assumptions about bodies, toys, intimacy and education, this entertaining book affirms our right to be ourselves. Ages 12 and up.11 The opening page lists these thought-provoking questions: • How do you define gender? • How many genders are there? • What would the world look like without gender? • In what ways do you feel confined or restricted by your assigned gender? • Was the gender assigned to you the one you feel most comfortable with? • What privileges do you or don’t you have due to the gender you have been labeled? • Do you feel forced to act in certain ways because of your assigned gender? • What happens when you don’t act these ways? • How do you unlearn gender? And I remind you: This book is for kids as young as twelve. One of the illustrations features two kids of undetermined sex standing in front of the school bathrooms, with one of them commenting, “I should have worn a skirt. The pants bathroom is full.” Another picture shows three kids, at least one of whom appears to be a cross-dresser, standing in front of four “Gender Menus.” The caption reads, “I never knew we had so much to choose from!” There’s even a page featuring four girls holding the GAGA sign – standing for “Girls against Gender Assignment.” GAGA? Seriously? And while the kids are coloring, maybe mom and dad (or, mom and mom, or dad and dad) can read Judith Butler’s book, Undoing Gender. That way the entire family can be deconstructed together.

Anonymous said...

Especially helpful are the “Terminology Game Cards,” which quiz students and teachers on terms such as: Biological Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role, Transgender, Gender Expression, Sexual Orientation, Heterosexism, Transphobia, Asexual, Bisexual, Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual, Intersexual, Androgyny, Cross Dresser, Genderqueer, Gender Non-Conforming, Queer, LGBTQ, Sexual Reassignment Surgery, D/L (Down Low), MSM. The matching answers to the game cards include these definitions: Biological Sex: Our “packaging” determined by our chromosomes, hormones, and internal and external genitalia.[The expanded definition also notes, “About 1/7% of the population can be defined as intersexuals born with biological aspects of both sexes to varying degrees. So, in actuality, there are more than two sexes.”]Gender Identity: One’s innermost concept of self as “male,” “female,” or “intersexual.”15 Gender Role: The socially constructed and culturally specific behavior and appearance expectations imposed on females (“femininity”) and males (“masculinity”). Transgender: A broad term for all gender-variant people, including transsexuals, cross-dressers, and people who choose to identify as neither of the two sexes as they are currently defined.

Anonymous said...

...consider this scenario, which is anything but farfetched. Your six year-old son Johnny comes home from the school, and when you ask him what he learned today, he tells you that he played a fun game in the morning called “discovering your inner trannie,” in which he tried to see if he had a little girl hiding inside his body. Then, after lunch he learned that sometimes it’s better to have two daddies than just one daddy and one mommy (better known as “deconstructing definitions of family”), and then, before going home, he learned some fun sounding terms like Genderqueer and Crossdresser. And when you ask him if he’s been working on his ABC’s, he might just tell you, “Yes, and my LGBTQ’s too!” Of course, Johnny might also ask if he can invite his friend Sally over to play, and when you tell him you don’t remember him having a friend named Sally, he tells you, “Well, Sally used to be Billy, but now Billy wears a dress to school and his new name is Sally!” Outrageous, you say? Impossible? Then consider this Dec. 2, 2006, New York Times report by Patricia Leigh Brown, entitled “Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear.” Until recently, many children who did not conform to gender norms in their clothing or behavior and identified intensely with the opposite sex were steered to psychoanalysis or behavior modification. But as advocates gain ground for what they call gender-identity rights … a major change is taking place among schools and families. Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.16 Of course, not everyone is ready for this new approach, and “Cassandra Reese, a first-grade teacher outside Boston, recalled that fellow teachers were unnerved when a young boy showed up in a skirt.”17 More and more, however, little kids are going to school dressed as the opposite sex, and often, the media portrays them, along with their parents, as heroes (see below). Shocking headlines like this are losing some of their shock value: “3rd-graders asked to help classmate in gender change. Parents given 1-day notice of presentation explaining boy would now wear girl clothes.”18 Third-graders!


Anonymous said...

...And what happens as these young children start to get older? The NY Times reports, “As their children head into adolescence, some parents are choosing to block puberty medically to buy time for them to figure out who they are, raising a host of ethical questions.” Not surprisingly, “some schools are engaged in a steep learning curve to dismantle gender stereotypes.”19 What exactly does this mean? At the Park Day School in Oakland, teachers are taught a gender-neutral vocabulary and are urged to line up students by sneaker color rather than by gender. “We are careful not to create a situation where students are being boxed in,” said Tom Little, the school’s director. “We allow them to move back and forth until something feels right.”20 Yes, they don’t want their students, some of them as young as five, to feel “boxed in” – meaning, “boxed in” to being a boy or a girl. Not surprisingly, “The prospect of cross-dressing kindergartners has sparked a deep philosophical divide among professionals over how best to counsel families.”21 Yes, you read that correctly: cross-dressing kindergartners.

...The rest of us, of course, need to accept this development and become sensitized to it, otherwise we’re being hateful and bigoted and intolerant. How our sense of right and wrong has shifted! Already in 2004, GLSEN offered a lesson plan that included a section on “cross dressing and non-gender conforming clothing,” with the cross dressing lesson entitled, “What’s With the Dress, Jack?”22 Yet it gets worse. According to a March 30, 2008 article in the Boston Globe by Pagan Kennedy, the renowned Boston Children’s Hospital has been offering full transgender service for prepubescent children, beginning with hormone-blocking treatments and then sex-change surgery.23

...What makes this all the more striking is that, as of this writing, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is still recognized as a diagnosable mental illness by psychologists and psychiatrists. In other words, the major mental health organizations, which tend to be quite gay-affirming, still recognize GID as a real mental disorder, as the name implies.30 Yet this aberrant behavior is now being codified as fully acceptable in our schools, protected by the GLSEN-inspired “anti-bullying” policies which seek to ensure all students are “valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression” (my emphasis).31 So seven year-old Mark, who in his genetics and body is a boy, can decide that he is “Mary” and come to first grade wearing a dress, and students will be taught and expected to “respect” his cross-dressing behavior by requiring little girls to share their bathroom and locker room facilities with him as well as requiring all students and teachers to refer to him as “her” – despite the fact that none of this comports with objective reality.

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 1766-1774). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

As noted by John Garza in a dissenting editorial, “The curriculum presents the story of ‘Portia’ the boy who becomes a girl. When Portia finally becomes a girl, ‘she’ gets a key to the teachers’ unisex bathroom.” Garza is therefore quite right to ask, “When our children follow the curriculum and chop off body parts, take hormones and ‘reassign their gender,’ won’t they expect the key to the bathroom like Portia?”32 So there is even a reward for being transgender.

...One pre-school teacher in Charlotte, North Carolina reported to me that she was not allowed to address the four year-old children as “boys and girls” – I kid you not – since that would be making a gender distinction. Rather, she had to call them “friends.”33 And we wonder why so many more kids these days are confused about their gender identity? Our schools are contributing to the problem, and if GLSEN has its way, that contribution will be active, rather than passive, the rule rather than the exception.34

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 1849-1859). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

..GLSEN’s “Safe Space Kit,” which includes a forty-two page manual, was released in 2009, with the goal of being used in all of America’s more than 100,000 middle and high schools. The manual offers this advice for those wanting to be “allies” of GLBT kids (and adults): Make no assumptions. When engaging with students, or even other staff and parents, do not assume you know their sexual orientation or gender identity. Don’t assume that everyone is heterosexual or fits into your idea of gender roles – be open to the variety of identities and expressions. In our society, students constantly receive the message that everyone is supposed to be straight. Show students that you understand there is no one way a person “should” be.35 Did you catch that? Yes, we must “be open to the variety of identities and expressions” since “there is no one way a person ‘should’ be,” meaning that the sky is really the limit, and however a kid wants to express his or her gender identity or sexual orientation at school – regardless of age or maturity – we must accept that, embrace that, and nurture that. And anyone thinking that, perhaps, a fifteen-year-old boy “shouldn’t” come to school wearing a dress, high-heels and make-up, or that, perhaps, an eleven-year-old girl “shouldn’t” be coming out as a genderqueer dyke (without her parents knowledge, no less) – well such a person needs to be reeducated and delivered from their bias. And be sure not to assume that the boy you’re talking to is actually a male or that his mom is really a woman! Who can tell me with a straight face that this will not lead to greater gender identity confusion, not to mention overall social confusion?

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 1875-1876). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

...To quote Patricia Leigh Brown again, The Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, requires that students be addressed with a name and pronoun that corresponds to the gender identity. It also asks schools to provide a locker room or changing area that corresponds to a student’s chosen gender.40 So then, if “he” decides that he is now “she,” it is school policy in Los Angeles to address him as her, and to allow this boy to change in the girls’ changing area. Yes, this is school policy! As stated in the San Francisco Unified School Policy, “Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.”41 Not surprisingly, I read a report about an eight year-old boy who came home from his California school crying, traumatized after having to undress in his locker room in the presence of a girl who considered herself to be a boy.42 If this were fiction, it would be very bad fiction; as reality, it is tragic.43

There must be changes in school textbooks as well, and thus California bill SB 777, which was introduced by openly lesbian Senator Sheila Kuehl and passed in 2007, bans the use of textbooks or any classroom instruction that is considered to be discriminatory against gays, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues. (As first crafted, the bill spoke of “any matter reflecting adversely upon” such persons).46 In other words, as explained by Meredith Turney, the legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, “The terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.”47 Conservative columnist Peter LaBarbera explains further what this bill involves: SB 777 incorporates the strange Penal Code definition of “gender” and places it into the Education Code, reading: “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” This means boys becoming girls and girls becoming boys would have to be positively portrayed in health textbooks, sex education classes and school assemblies.48 To repeat: This is now California law. But none of this should surprise us. The handwriting has been on the wall for some time, not to mention that the media has also been fully compliant.

Consider these examples from Massachusetts schools compiled by John Haskins in his 2001 article, “It’s 1984 in Massachusetts, and Big Brother Is Gay.” • In Brookline, a transsexual told first-graders how his penis was cut off and he became a woman. With no sense of irony, the [Boston] Globe called it “sex-change counseling.” Parents, never notified, had to comfort their terrified children. • Newton North High School. Pupils learned in an R-rated film how “Ludo enjoys being a girl. Borrowing mommy’s red high heels, her lipstick, her earrings … yummy!” Trouble is, 7-year-old Ludo is a boy, even if he is pretty in pink.

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 1926-1932). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

k0k s3n w4i said...

pharisaical hypocritical christian: please, stop posting copy-pasted SPAM and christian hate propaganda on my site or i'll have to start doing a bit of moderating. you have the right to limit your children's exposure to these materials, but you do not have the right to determine anyone's sexuality. and you most certainly do not have the right to oppose their right to love or marriage. i have been very patient and i have just about enough of you insulting my homosexual friends and relatives. and approval for sex reassignment surgery have very strict screening processes in place and it's not done on anyone who wants it. so fuck off. your hate speech is not welcomed here, and if you have any decency you'd know when you're not wanted, scum.

Anonymous said...

No my friend, actually we do not have a right to monitor such materials. There are literal confidential laws FOR KIDS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL stating that parents do not need to be informed by the school if a transvestite comes to talk to 1st graders or they are made to read "Joe had two mommies." I just want you to read some of this material that is why I am posting it. I will answer your question about God in a second.

k0k s3n w4i said...

Pharisee: "No my friend, actually we do not have a right to monitor such materials. There are literal confidential laws FOR KIDS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL stating that parents do not need to be informed by the school if a transvestite comes to talk to 1st graders or they are made to read "Joe had two mommies."

show me proof. or admit you are a liar.

Anonymous said...

And what shall we say about the books that are being written for your children – or perhaps even being read to your children as early as pre-school? I’m talking about books like:
• One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads, by Johnny Valentine. There is a special dedication at the beginning of the book, “To Jacob, who has only one mom and one dad. But don’t feel sorry for him. They’re both great parents.” So, two dads are not just acceptable; two dads are now better than one dad and one mom. Extraordinary!
• Even more overt in its message is Oh the Things Mommies Do! What Could Be Better Than Having Two?, written by Crystal Tomkins with illustrations by “her wife” Lindsey Evans. The Boston Spirit magazine writes, “Given the physical and mental capacity available to one mom, it’s hard to imagine that of two. Imagine even more phone calls ‘to say Hi,’ and exponentially more when you’ve got a cold or vocational hiccup.”64 This is so much better than having one mom and one dad. (Really, what kind of physical and mental capacity does a dad have?)
• Emma and Meesha My Boy: A Two Mom Story, by Kaitlyn Considine, recommended for ages three-six.
• Two Daddies and Me by Robbie Ann Packard, who, “already a mother herself, had the amazing and joyous opportunity to become a surrogate for a gay couple.”
• The Sissy Duckling, by gay activist Harvey Fierstein, and dedicated to “proud sissies everywhere.”
• A Family Alphabet Book, by Bobbie Combs, depicting a two-dad household on the cover, and with lines like, “C is for cookies. Both of my dads know how to make great chocolate chip cookies.”
• Molly’s Family, by Nancy Garden, with the cover depicting two sweet moms taking happy Molly for a walk in the woods
• Felicia’s Favorite Story, by Lesléa Newman, with another two-mom cover and this description on the back: “It’s bedtime, but before Felicia goes to sleep she wants to hear her favorite story, the story of how she was adopted by Mama Nessa and Mama Linda.”
• Newman has also written Daddy, Papa, and Me and Mommy, Mama, and Me. • And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, based on the true story of the so-called gay penguins in a New York City zoo and the baby penguin they “adopted.” (In a fascinating sequel to the book, but a sequel that has certainly not been added to this reader, one of the supposedly “gay” penguins ended up leaving his partner and taking up with a hot new female penguin – and fathering a chick.)65
• King and King, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland. This tells the story of Prince Bertie, who, when informed by his mother, the queen, that he must get married, meets all the lovely princesses who “come from far and wide hoping to catch his eye” but in the end chooses to “simply follow his heart” – and marries Prince Lee...There are now widely-circulated reports of outraged parents who reacted with shock when their first-graders came home to talk with them after reading this book in school.66 Following on the heels of King and King came King and King and Family, celebrating the honeymoon of the two kings and the beginning of their new “family.” The book is recommended for children aged four to eight.

Anonymous said...

I have been posting it. I will show you proof of that in a second also. But I do not understand why you keep deleting my comments when they are ON TOPIC of this post?

Anonymous said...

Of course, there are the older “classics,” like Michael Willhoite’s Daddy’s Roommate, first published in 1990, featuring the typical two-dad cover picture and lines like, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together, work together, eat together, sleep together, shave together, and sometimes fight together, but they always make up.”67

Perhaps the mother of them all (or should I say the “double mother” of them all?) is Lesléa Newman’s Heather Has Two Mommies, first published in 1989. Not that long ago, this book was hard to come by. Since 2000, however, it has been available in a special Tenth Anniversary Edition and referred to as a “classic.”68 For the older readers, ages ten and up, there is Robie H. Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health, replete with cartoon-like, but fully-graphic, naked illustrations of adolescent boys and girls. (We’re talking about full frontal nudity of young teenagers on the inside cover page and full frontal nudity of all ages groups on pages 20-21, along with detailed illustrations of the private parts of young adolescent girls and boys, to the point that the boys are pictured both circumcised and uncircumcised). One of the book’s chapters is entitled, “Perfectly Normal: Masturbation,” and it not only supplies “how to” details but also notes, “After having an orgasm, a person usually feels quite content and relaxed” (49). (Remember: This book is recommended for kids aged ten and up, and it’s partly intended to answer the questions parents have a hard time answering.) Of course, there is the requisite chapter on “Straight and Gay: Heterosexuality and Homosexuality,” which notes that, “There have been gay relationships all through history, even before ancient Greece,” explaining: Some people disapprove of gay men and lesbian women. Some even hate homosexuals only because they are homosexual. People may feel this way toward homosexuals because they think homosexuals are different from them or that gay relationships are wrong. Usually these people know little or nothing about homosexuals, and their views are often based on fears and misinformation, not on facts. People are often afraid of things they know little or nothing about (17-18).
There you have it, and that should settle it. After all, the book says so! If you disagree with homosexual practice, you are either ignorant, fearful, misinformed, hateful, or all of the above. In any case, you have no right to differ with It’s Perfectly Normal – you can’t differ with something that is “perfectly normal” – since the glowing endorsements for this award-winning book take up two full pages, including such prestigious honors as being named: an American Library Association’s Notable Children’s Book; a Booklist Editors’ Choice; a New York Public Library Best Children’s Book; a New York Times Notable Book of the Year; a Parenting Reading Magic Award Winner; a Publisher’s Weekly Best Book of the Year; and a School Library Journal Best Book of the Year. In keeping with this, the Los Angeles Times Book Review called the book “Utterly contemporary and comprehensive,” while USA Today stated that, “The book, for ages 10 and up, is sophisticated, comprehensive, reassuring.”

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 2123-2135). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

...Children, especially little children, are so impressionable, so easily influenced, so readily molded. And while it is good that some of our schools have become more sensitive to issues like name-calling and bullying and harassing, it is absolutely unconscionable that our schools have also become bastions of homosexual and transgender activism, places where captive kindergarteners learn about transgender behavior and kids just removed from their toddler years are taught about same-sex households.

According to a May 10, 2008 report: A Pennsylvania elementary school has angered parents by giving them one-day’s notice of planned counseling sessions with 100 third-grade students to explain that one of their male classmates would soon begin wearing girls’ clothing and taking a female name and to ask that they accept him as a girl and not make unkind remarks. The exercise in “social transition” was initiated by the boy’s parents who approached the administration at Chatham Park Elementary School in Haverford Township asking that the school help in having their child’s female identity find acceptance among his peers.

After consulting experts on transgender children, the Haverford School District sent letters to parents advising them the school guidance counselor would meet with their children, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer. … In the letter to parents, Chatham Park principal Daniel Marsella assured parents the counseling would use “developmentally appropriate language” to explain “how we need to help this student make a social transition in school.” “This is something that was going to come out,” said Mary Beth Lauer, district director of community relations. “Isn’t it better to be proactive, and let people know what is happening and how we’re dealing with it?”70 Yes, this happened in a third-grade class.

“But,” you might protest, “the fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of same-sex households, and you just can’t stick your head in the sand and deny that they exist. Kids need to be taught about this when they’re little so they can be introduced to these new social realities.” What about polyamorous households, then, where kids are being raised by a mix of several different parents?.. Shouldn’t children be introduced to these realities too while still in elementary school? Interestingly, when I asked this question to a local lesbian leader with whom I was in friendly dialogue – a woman who in many ways held to high moral standards – she was repulsed by the thought of teaching kids about multi-parented homes. Might there be a double standard here? The queering of elementary school education, however, is just the prequel to the full-blown, unapologetic gay and transgender activism that is found with increasing frequency in our middle schools and high schools.

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 2174-2179). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

Anonymous said...

Ok my friend, I am done with those. Now I will answer your question about God, and Lord Willing, in about an hr. to two hrs. I will be back with all of the documentation for the confidentiality laws regarding underage students and their parents.

God's restraining grace abounds to all, and no, an atheist, "does no good" in God's eyes, ever.

The..."methodology" might be spot on, the "research" might be great, but a man centered approach will always, always, lead to a faulty conclusion, as it has with you.

The problem I have with the "queering" of elementary and highschools is that they are confusing little children with absolutely no concept of sexuality, even preschoolers. Eventually, every great nation based on same sex attraction FELL violently, history attests to this. Why do the Homosexuals want to be legislated into some sort of protected class status of marrige if they cannot procreate? They literally cannot ADD to society, they cannot contribute a life without alternative means, a third party, and LOADS of money! Thats contributing? We cannot supplicate everything with science, one day we might not have it. But a man and a woman will always be able to contribute a life, together alone.

I have a problem with this:::

Richard Green was very actively involved thirty years ago in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual] list of mental disorders. As is known, homosexuality was successfully removed in the early seventies. Now he argues for the removal of pedophilia from the same list. Abstract of article by Dr. Richard Green in Archives of Sexual Behavior 31 (2002) (the special issue devoted to pedophilia)

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream. David Thorstad, “Pederasty and Homosexuality,” Speech given at the Semana Cultural Lesbica-Gay, Mexico City, June 26, 1998

If paedophiles are no longer forced to live underground and to be secretive about their relationships, but instead their desires are recognized as legitimate, and they are guided towards a responsible expression of their desires, we might prevent some cases of genuine sexual abuse. Dr. Theo Sandfort, “Constructive Questions Regarding Paedophilia” (Sandfort was a member of the Gay and Lesbian Studies Department, State University of Utrecht, the Netherlands; he is now a professor at Columbia University)

[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. Harry Hay (American gay rights movement founder), cited in Jeffrey Lloyd, “When Nancy Met Harry,” The American Spectator, October 5, 2006

It is particularly important to begin to make three to five-year-olds aware of the range of families that exist in the UK today; families with one mum, one mum and dad, two mums, two dads, grandparents, adoptive parents, guardians etc. Recommendation from the UK’s National Union of Teachers (NUT), July, 2006

Restroom Accessibility: Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school. Official Policy of the San Francisco Unified School District School Board (SFUSD)

k0k s3n w4i said...

Anonymous: besides, i've not deleted a single one of your comments. if they are caught by the spam filter, i'm not going to bother rescuing them. if you want discourse, summarise your points with links to the sources you've been copy-pasting like a christian robot and i'll address them. otherwise, i'll start moderating.

Anonymous said...

Little Johnny went to school There to learn a brand new rule; No longer could the boys be boys Or have their special trucks and toys; Only six, so young and tender It’s time for him to unlearn gender And break the binding two-sex mold That hurtful thinking that’s so old. Parents at home can have their say But here at school, the slant is gay. In other words, to make this clear There’s nothing wrong with being queer. Having two moms is mighty fine; To disagree is out of line. We’ll deconstruct the family And smash religious bigotry And keep the church out of the state By saying faith is really hate. Free speech can only go one way, Since here at school, the slant is gay. So little ones, it’s time to learn ’bout famous queers, each one in turn; Lesbian greats long neglected Well-known gays just now detected. Some, perhaps, were man-boy lovers; We’ll keep that stuff under the covers. GLSEN will fill in for Granny And help kids find their inner-trannie.Those born in a body that’s wrong Will hear of sex-change before long. And through the years as Johnny grows He will learn that anything goes. With Bill, who’s trans and Joe, who’s bi-, And Sue, who thinks that she’s a guy. United in the Day of Silence, Joining the Gay Straight Alliance – A queer new system rules the day, Since here at school, the slant is gay.

k0k s3n w4i said...

Anonymous: as a physician, i see no problem with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. i would oppose the removal of paedophilia, as it is a paraphilia that is harmful to people other than the patient.

and note this: i support homosexual rights, not the rights of paedophiles. stop likening the two. one has victims. the other doesn't. show some recognition to this distinction or i'll assume you're only interested in parroting your ideology without any interest in engagement.

and fuck you and fuck psalm 14:1. that's all you christians ever do. demonise anyone who isn't like you hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

Yes you have not deleted any, you are spot on. I was mistaken earlier when I said you did, I did not reload.

Till later bro, like your new article on al Tawba, good stuff, be back with that "confidential" documentation after some work.


Anonymous said...

the other doesn't

These are fallacies. Think deeply about it. Is mom interchangeable for dad? What about the homosexuals that are celebrated FOR their homosexuality, while at the same time the NAMBLA (man boy love)website lists those same people in support of "man-boy" love? ie. Pedophiles?

Why should we celebrate such things?

k0k s3n w4i said...

Anonymous: i protect free speech, even hate speeches from the likes of you. and when you do return, please post one comment at a time so my comment box wouldn't be further inundated under your massive load of copy-pasted propaganda. i only speak to people who believe in a two-way conversation. extraneous comments will be deleted without being read. savvy?

k0k s3n w4i said...

Anonymous: homosexuality are celebrating their right to love between consenting adults - i'm all for it. we need more love in the world and less christian hate. nambla supports paedophilia and the exploitation of children considered too young to make any sound sexual judgments - thus victimises children. anymore posts from you likening homosexuality to paedophilia will be deleted because i have already addressed it multiple times.

Anonymous said...

whoops, I meant al-Baqara

Anonymous said...

nambla supports paedophilia and the exploitation of children considered too young to make any sound sexual judgments

But my friend! children considered too young to make any sound sexual judgments are being taught to COME OUT in 3rd grade! They are being taught about CROSS-DRESSING in PRESCHOOL! Do you not see how inconsistent your argument is?

Anonymous said...

The reason you think im "linking" homosexuality to pederasty or polyamory is because I am using the same exact argument that homosexuals use against heterosexuals (and the one you are using). And you have to be consistent across the board or your worldview is hyppocritical.

If you look on the NAMBLA website, it states that in a man-boy love relationship, the boy is usually the first one who initiates it. So if a 12 year old homosexual boy is attracted to an older man and wants a sexual relationship with him, there is no victim is there? Nobody gets hurt, or do they? A pedophile will tell you that the greatest thing to happen to them was their "man-boy" love relationship while they were kids. They do not think they are victims at all, at least not most of the man boy lovers. [all of this is documented on the NAMBLA website, they even have statistics of the boys who "want" these types of relationships when young].

And how about polyamory or incest? Who is the victim of those? How does it "harm" a child living with multiple parents, say two dads and a mum? Can you present me a victim using your method in that case? Of course not, there would be an EXTRA parent to rear the child, according to your criteria, therefore it would be BETTER then just two parents!

What about incest? Where is the victim there, as long as protection is used, there is no harm done to anyone! What if the daughter is 18 and wants to sleep with her father?She is old is consensual? Does that sound crazy? I thought so, it is exact thing some prominent homosexuals persue today, and please dont ask me for evidence becuase I would probably crash your server with all my documentation - but you DONT want me to post comments like that either way, do you?

You see, the ONLY way to be consistent is to point out that ALL and ANY type of family besides 1 MOTHER and 1 FATHER are HARMFUL to the child. We know single parent households have great impact on their kids. You dont think that substituting a man for a woman will have an impact on the child? Of course it will, it will have a harmful and confusing impact on any child. But what can we do? Every study looking at children reared in a homosexual household is funded and researched by slanted homosexuals who make their own figures.

Anonymous said...

Educators are getting into our kids’ heads without our permission and they are exploiting our children’s developmental vulnerability, yet hardly anyone raises an objection. On October 21, 2010, seven teachers at Concord-Carlisle High School in Massachusetts participated in a school assembly sponsored by the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) and told students how they came out as gays and lesbians, encouraging students to do the same, and all this took place without parental notification or approval.


Talk about getting into our kids’ heads without our permission and exploiting our children’s developmental vulnerability! And remember: These are the respected role models, the ones whom the kids are encouraged to listen to, learn from, and emulate.

Anonymous said...

Several of the teachers described what they portrayed as the irrational fear, “homophobia,” and general backwardness of their parents, relatives, and others who first reacted negatively to their coming out. But afterwards, they assured the students, their relatives accepted them as gay, so students shouldn’t be worried about that.

How twisted that it is the parents who are considered backwards if they are not encouraging their kids to discover their homosexuality, even though a gay math teacher at the assembly “began his talk by saying that all his college friends have died of AIDS.” And to think: Parents are suing McDonalds over toys in a Happy Meal while at the same time, the courts are protecting the “rights” of teachers to indoctrinate our kids with gay propaganda. What kind of world are we living in?

k0k s3n w4i said...

Anonymous: last warning about posting one comment at a time.

do not quibble about my consistency until you have proven your case. like i said, until you've shown to me that parents have no control over exposure of such material to their children i'll assume that you're just another paranoid propagandist who thinks that there's a gay agenda.

glad you like my post about the misogyny displayed in the muslim community. how about some praise for my post about christian hypocrisy in criticising islam's misogyny. the bible's treatment of women is just as backward.

all you have are baseless assertions and accusations. why do you think i'm against polyarmory? i don't so long as it's between consenting adults. incest does have victims. children born of incest have an increased chance of birth defects. but i personally don't care otherwise.

i ask for evidence in links. you can't post entire sites in my blog.

Anonymous said...

Here is some evidence from the Supreme Court:

The Parkers were shocked when their son Jacob came home from kindergarten with a bag of books promoting “diversity,” including Robert Skutch’s book Who’s In a Family?, “which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.”50 David Parker complained to his school district, insisting that the school notify him and his wife “about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.”51 When the Parkers’ request was declined by the school, leading to other conflicts between the Parkers and the school system, they took their case to court, ultimately making it to the US Court of Appeals. There, a deeply disturbing ruling was rendered against the Parkers, with Judge Mark Wolf writing the decision with a decided focus on “diversity,” that special code word for homosexual causes.

"Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation…. As increasingly recognized, one dimension of our nation’s diversity is differences in sexual orientation. In Massachusetts, at least, those differences may result in same-sex marriages. In addition … Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation …. Consistent with this, the Department of Education requires that all public schools teach respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, sexual orientation …. It also encourages instruction concerning different types of families…. Some families are headed by same-sex couples."52

So, the schools have a greater responsibility to teach “diversity” than to honor the parents of the students. And because the state is committed to teaching children “diversity,” and because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school has no responsibility to notify parents when such issues are being taught. The court was almost saying, “We couldn’t care less about traditional family values and faith-based moral convictions. It’s more important to teach kids about two-dad and two-mom families, about homosexuality as a healthy alternative to heterosexuality, and about the ins and outs of transgenderism. As for you parents, you have no right to be informed, let alone to interfere. The courts and the school system, not you, know what’s best for your kids.”

Brown, Michael (2011). A Queer Thing Happened To America: And what a long, strange trip it's been (Kindle Locations 1944-1949). EqualTime Books. Kindle Edition.

k0k s3n w4i said...

nonymous: i am trying to verify the alleged case from external sources - excuse me if i don't take your word for it because i'm used to seeing christians play the martyr card. too often have i see christians in your country violate the separation of church and state while crying foul that prayers are banned (when in fact, you are free to pray at any time in the privacy of your own home - just not on government time or property).

but meanwhile, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. i think parents should have some measure of control over their children's exposure to material they are too young to understand. personally, i have no problems with letting my kids know about the existence of transgendered, homosexual and christian people out there. i agree that parents should be informed.

but still, i can't help feeling that your objection to teaching kids about things they are too young to understand to be a tad hypocritical because i'm sure a young child can hardly make an informed choice about what religion they should profess to.

let me ask you in turn. in your opinion, do you think homosexual marriages between consenting adults should be legalised?

Anonymous said...

let me ask you in turn. in your opinion, do you think homosexual marriages between consenting adults should be legalised?

ABSOLUTELY NOT (your que to call me a "homophobic bigot")

I believe people have a right to do what they want under their own roof (be it legal etc.). I believe homosexuals could get "eloped" or whatever they want to call it, a partnership, and If they want, give them some rights for it. But to STEAL our Concept and our Word? Nah Nah. To have benefits other people get when they combine together and CONTRIBUTE a child to society, NO way. Even if a homosexual couple are the BEST parents around, the fact remains, they cannot contribute a life to society without draining society of some of its resources, and they cannot do it naturally!

They should not call it marriage, and they should not get the same benefits. Marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman.

And you did in fact erase one of my comments, the one about the Supreme Court case where the principal quotes the case. I will try to post it again if you allow me.

k0k s3n w4i said...

i deleted the extra because i believe in keeping my promises.

"But to STEAL our Concept and our Word? Nah Nah."

you concept? your word? holy fucking shit! as if non-christians all over the world hasn't been marrying one another for thousands of years before jesus was even born! i looked up the etymology of the word marriage and it featured no overt christian themes in it. you can't trademark a common noun, christian. it seems that you think that everything is about you people, isn't it?

i engaged you because i believe in hearing people out and trying to see their side of the argument before dismissing them, but i have heard enough to be convinced that you are simply a bigoted homophobe with an outright christian agenda. this line sealed it for me:

"Even if a homosexual couple are the BEST parents around, the fact remains, they cannot contribute a life to society without draining society of some of its resources, and they cannot do it naturally!"

i've read about how hard the christian right worked to block homosexual parents from adopting. i disagree about gay parents being inferior, but there is absolutely no way that having same sex parents is worse than leaving them in an orphanage. and if they adopt, they are actually saving resources.

i believe that any further discussion between us will serve no purpose. now, kindly go be hateful elsewhere.

Terri said...

Children, especially little children, are so impressionable, so easily influenced, so readily molded. And while it is good that some of our schools have become more sensitive to issues like name-calling and bullying and harassing, it is absolutely unconscionable that our schools have also become bastions of homosexual and transgender activism, places where captive kindergarteners learn about transgender behavior and kids just removed from their toddler years are taught about same-sex households.

I'm really unwilling to get dragged into this, but I just wanted to point out that educating young children about (economically and emotionally functional) non-gendernormative households is no different from being exposed to, or growing up in, a traditional mum-dad-children household.

(In fact, a lot of children come from homes with substance abuse, physical and emotional abuse and neglect, et cetera. So should we pretend everyone's families are like an 80's housewife commercial, and hide all the "abnormal" households from children?)

But anyway, back to the point I was making, exposing children to the concepts of homosexuality and transgenderism is hardly going to "influence" them into being gay. In the same way, gay parents do not turn their children gay any more than straight parents always raise their children to be straight. Clearly, or we'd have no homosexuals since until recently, only straight folk can procreate as you have so oft repeated.

"You don't choose to be gay, you can only choose to accept who you really are."
-Youtube artist lol.