Between Iraq and a Hard Place - The Children of the 21st Century
“This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient.”
George W. Bush
September 16, 2001
Some of George Bush’s biggest gaffes happen when he accidentally says what he means. In the quote above, he used the word “crusade” to describe his newly minted war on terror, just days after the attacks of 9/11. This word stirs up a thousand years worth of animosity in the Muslim world like few others can, and he later expressed his regret at its use. He has spent the 4 1/2 years since talking about how we are not at war with Islam, and how it is a peaceful faith. It may not have been politically expedient to say it, but he was right the first time. The so-called “War on Terror” (which is an absurd idea as stated) IS a war with Islam. To George W. Bush, it’s a war between Islam and Christianity. What it should be is a war between Islam and secular modernity.
Unless we take action, we will lose this war. By “we,” I don’t mean the United States. I mean American atheists.
In one possible outcome, the Muslims prevail. If Muslim fundamentalism succeeds in breaking the spirit and then breaking the back of the United States, the world will become Muslim. I don’t mean to imply that this will happen in five years or fifty years, but it will happen eventually because Islam will never stop fighting. A person who reads and believes the Qur’an and Hadith has no choice but to spread Islam to the four corners of the Earth at the tip of a sword. It’s simply part of the DNA of the religion, as it were. I have written about this before, so I won’t get into quoting passages here.
Another possible outcome is that the west prevails. The United States that comes out of that victory will look quite unlike the nation that was attacked in 2001. The struggle against Islam is largely responsible for the resurgence of religious fervor and Christian fundamentalism in the last few years. Heartland evangelicals can be totally certain that god is involved and playing favorites in a war against Islam. They feel a calling that hasn’t been felt by such a large group of Christians since the 13th century… the call of crusade. And so, as churches multiply and grow to unprecedented sizes, and the Supreme Court looks more and more like Vatican II, the country is slipping closer to the edge. In a country of 300 million with 250 million Christian, the threat of theocracy (overt or covert) is real.
So if either result leaves the United States in the grip of religious madness at some undetermined point in the future, what hope is there? Given a choice between living under “modern” Islam or a violent, xenophobic and willfully ignorant Christianity resembling that of Europe in the dark ages, the choice makes little practical difference. Luckily, there is a third choice.
While Crusader and Saracen drench the sand in each other’s blood in this modern holy war, other forces are at work. There are those of us, though few in number, who are focused on the root of the problem. This should not be a war against a tactic or a belief system. As we have seen throughout history, no one ultimately wins that type of war. It is up to us, the evangelical atheists of the world, to make this a war against a way of thinking. It is our task to ensure that this clash of civilizations is remembered by history as the last great war of religion. We must wage our battle on the field of ideas under the banner of reason. If the United States that wins this war is one that has been ideologically transformed by our efforts, the future of our planet is bright.
The key to this victory is the children. While there is no doubt in my mind that democracy is the best system of government yet developed, it is not perfect. It only works properly if the majority is right. We disciples of reason suffer the tyranny of the majority. It is the same reason any attempt to democratize the Middle East in its current state will ultimately fail. Under the rule of the majority, a minority idea, no matter how valid or necessary, will be ignored or squelched. The only way we can rescue the world from entering another dark age of ubiquitous religious oppression (of whatever flavor) is to change the numbers. This second renaissance can only be achieved with an atheist majority, and that majority must be built over the next few generations.
Once the cancer of religious thought invades a host, the chance of a cure is virtually zero. Given a disease with this characteristic, the only reasonable course of action is to focus our efforts on prevention. All newborn babies are atheists. We must keep them that way in sufficient number to turn the tide.
For this reason, the religious issues that concern me most are those affecting our schools. The pledge of allegiance and intelligent design are infecting our children daily. For those who enter the classroom healthy, these may be their first exposure to the pathogen. For those who have been exposed at home, these references can strengthen the cancer, allowing it to metastasize to the point of inoperability. We must stop teaching faith in our public schools, and we cannot allow tax dollars to support private ones. For a teacher, who represents knowledge of the world to a young child, to lend credence to the superstitious drivel he learns from his family makes his acceptance of those ideas permanent and virtually irrevocable. On the contrary, if authority figures teach skepticism and the scientific method - teach our children how to learn rather than trust and memorize - that can change the world.
There are hopeful signs. The number of atheists in many parts of the world is on the rise. The transfer of religion from one generation to another is not perfect, and that trend will ultimately spell the end of religion in those places, though not quickly enough. I’ve seen a lot of American children participating in the online atheist movement, so clearly some of them are learning the right things and seeing the danger for themselves. Kingdom of Heathen is a perfect example. This is a blog formed when several atheist teenagers decided to join their independent, secular voices together to reach out to others their own age. Some of the things I’ve read from the contributors there give me a tremendous sense of hope. There are sensible, intelligent and thoughtful leaders already emerging from the next generation. It’s up to us to give them a shot at as many followers as we can in the time we have.
This post is already far too long, so I will sum it up and bring it to a close. If we fail to protect our children from superstition and substantially secularize the United States while the current war rages amongst the “peoples of the book,” it may well be another thousand years before we have another chance to stomp out religion and all of its hateful manifestations. Well, that may not be true. We may never have another chance.
~I AM~
March 9th, 2006 at at 12:41 pm
Perhaps the greatest strength of the US is sadly often overlooked when considering international politics, like in Iraq. The US marketing machine is second to none.
(Inspired by a quote I no longer really remember) We must package their pain and sell it back to them for a profit. Rather than feeling ill used by the process they will feel “understood” and thank us for it. Not embracing this, has been one (of many) of the greatest failings of the Bush administration. A long, patient, insidious marketing campaign, will always be more effective than an obvious and brutal frontal assault.
This mind set can be applied to religion or nationalism or any other form of fundamentalism. I would argue that the campaign of secularism had/has been very effective in this country for many years. Unfortunately, the churches saw what was happening and began to take direct action against it. When 911 hit, that gave religion that extra little kick it needed to really swing the pendulum back the other way.
As the theists tip their hands and play their radical cards, like the recent move in SD, I foresee the pendulum swinging back in reaction to the extremism of their position. On the heals of that swing we will begin to see the waning years of the baby boomer’s, who have become rather conservative in their old age. This should at least bring the US back to a middle ground.
With all of that in mind, I agree that the most critical thing to watch, is the education of youth. I would argue that secularism is a more natural outcome of an upbringing in a capitalistic society, provided it is not corrupted by religion. This is the reason, of course, that ID is so important to theists right now. Thankfully, for the most part, ID has hit a wall. I just hope that trend continues.
March 9th, 2006 at at 12:53 pm
As one who succeeded in beating the odds, I submit myself for memetic testing.
Psst: Add a carriage return between your third and fourth paragraphs.
March 9th, 2006 at at 1:18 pm
I’ve been saying for years that ahteists need a banner under which they can unite, but sadly, there are far too many problems with that concept for it to ever become a reality. Atheists are free thinkers, not “joiners” and as such it would be VERY hard to fall in line, as it were, and form a heirarchy system of command. Despite the difficulties inherent in such a system, I still propose that it will become a necessity, if only for the defense of our own ideals and rights. The ACLU is losing ground daily, and there are even some atheists out there who think that the ACLU actually gives us a bad name (i’m not one of them). Secularism will eventually be crushed at this rate, and we will soon be facing a culture war on a scale and scope previously unimagineable in this country. If there is a full-blown war of religion in America, it will make the LA riots look like the float parade march down main street at Disney World. The only downside to pooling any type of “power” we have and establishing some sort of militia is that it will give everyone a reason to point to us and say “see that? they’re preparing to mount an offensive!” Now, generally speaking, i am against the notion of forming militias, but I think it will soon become necessary to seek means to protect ourselves, especially if we wish to remain vocal about our atheism and fight the future. If there is no mechanism in place to protect us, then we’ll be facing a “final solution” all our own.
There is also virtually no chance whatsoever for an atheist candidate to win any major election, so we can pretty much forget about having an openly atheist president within our lifetimes. Our options are severely limited by the stigma most ignorant people associate with the very word we choose to define ourselves. We must work to reverse the damage done by the psycho-affective godidiots and teach children at an early age that it is not necessary for one to believe in a higher power in order to lead a good, productive life. Once we have done that, it will become easier for people to acknowledge their own atheism and embrace it as a viable option without fear of ridicule or worse.
March 9th, 2006 at at 1:37 pm
Psst: Add a carriage return between your third and fourth paragraphs.
Thank you. It seems that Wordpress 2.0’s WYSIWYG editor likes to decide for itself whether I mean <br> or </p> when I hit the enter key.
March 9th, 2006 at at 2:59 pm
You need Paragraphpress. Ahha… what?
March 9th, 2006 at at 5:46 pm
You’re absolutely right. This is near and dear as my first born is 5 months old and both my wife and I come from catholic families. We don’t want the child baptised, for the reasons listed above. So this is how I squelched the inevitable bloody murder over the baptism.
Pre-emptive strikes.
I went to the more moderate one side of the family as the broken sheep, saying “they all hate me because Im an Atheist….(sob)….If Gretchen married a Jew, they wouldn’t dare to mention it, but because I’m a fallen catholic, they’re on me all the time.”
They were so reasonable.
Then I went to the extreme part of the family and had a sit down. I accused them, and said that I thought if I didn’t get the baby baptised, then they would do it on the sly.
****Kabooooom*****
Heads exploded. People got pissed, but then they started defending themselves against the accusations, saying things like “I wouldn’t do that! I’m open minded dammit!”
So what I ended up with is one side who is afriad to breach the topic because they may hurt my feelings and look like jerks, and the other side who aviods it because I painted them crazier than they really are and they don’t want to feed the “misconception”
I won’t say it wasn’t a little painful and embarrassing, no one like to hurt the families feelings. But I’ll be damned if anyone’s even broached the topic except my mom! and she’s quieted with “You WANT to have this discussion Mom, huh? cause I’m HAPPY to discuss it. I just thought you might want to let it be, but if you WANT to discuss Athiesm, I’ll be happy to do it.” hee heehee, works everytime.
Anyway, NO WAY she’s getting baptized. There’s enough for her to be afraid of without making shit up.
(individual results may vary)
March 9th, 2006 at at 7:41 pm
I was thinking maybe we should do what the evangelical Christians do as they seem to be very successful with that. They use many different activities that need involvement and participation. They use music and picnics and etc. to keep their followers excited and involved and basically have been successful in creating a homogenous community of “followers”. As I Am said in a few post back that customs makes it hard for followers to brake away from their believes, because of those customs. Maybe if atheism can provide them with an alternative it could be easier to de-convert or keep people from converting in the first place.
I do admit that it’s not an attractive way for atheists and they are much more interested in power of reason but honestly how successful has that approach been. I am not suggesting that evangelical atheists should forget about reasoning but rather to use other tactics to attract people and then use reason.
If we can create a community and the environment of interest in reason for a kid to grow in and get involve in, it would be much harder for Christians to convert them. Individuals need a sense of belonging and Christians have used this to their advantage.
One example of such approach would be to create churches and conferences that anyone can get involved in, where various intellectuals could come and talk about atheism, science, philosophy and especially the dangers of theism and etc. There could be weekly magazines about important events and news on atheism, we could have music (with atheist lyrics off course), dancing etc. to make sure people do come and INJOY it. We can distribute atheist calendars with important atheist days e.g. Darwin day etc.
We could raise the future thinkers of the world in such “communities”. If atheists can create communities then it would be easier to get atheist candidates for parliaments. Atheists could become a strong electoral lobby.
You may think I am a dreamer, but I’m not the only one, I hope some day you’ll join us, And the world will live as one.
I’m not kidding. seriously
March 9th, 2006 at at 7:45 pm
my English is not good, sorry if it seems confusing to understand.
March 9th, 2006 at at 8:44 pm
You got your point across just fine Roya!
March 9th, 2006 at at 8:53 pm
If atheists can create communities then it would be easier to get atheist candidates for parliaments. Atheists could become a strong electoral lobby.
Yeah, but then atheists would have to admit to having beliefs. Maybe it’s my lack of imagination, but I can’t imagine a politician who doesn’t take a stand for something, and I can’t imagine what an atheist politician would take a stand for, as an atheist politician. It’s damn hard to stand and give a stump speech when you’re stumped for a leg to stand on.
(Off topic, that’s way too many trailing prepositions for my taste.)
March 9th, 2006 at at 9:04 pm
Required reading in every classroom every year ought to be Richard Dawkin’s letter to his daughter (last chapter in A Devil’s Chaplain).
March 9th, 2006 at at 9:07 pm
uber
you make it sound like unless you are with god your political position is weak. I hope I’m reading it wrong….i’ve been drinking, but reasoning and intellect are usually benifits to getting elected (GWB being the exception.) It is a political point that can be sold to many. I guess the problem is that most americans are idiots and would vote for Schwartzegger if given the chance. hypothetically.
March 9th, 2006 at at 10:00 pm
We already have our community. For now it is this internet and blogs. Also some communities have skeptic, Atheist, freethinker, meetings. But whats more imporatant is we agree on so many ideals. We would be remiss in our duty to future generations if we do not influence the politics of our day. And we do this. Americans united fights for us everyday and I contribute with letters to editor and my money. Money well spent. What we are seeing in politics today is the Evangelicals uniting under one common theme and placing THEIR boy in the white house. It took them the better part of 30 years. And they did not let up. Neither can we. More and mre people are disenfranchised by their religion and they really are left out of the idea of community. Many feel alone and isolated when in fact we are right here every day. If we need anything it would be one good idea that would be apparent to everyone that we as a nation need to work toward it’s accomplicshment. Like a constitutional amendment eliminating the current IRS tax code. We would not need to emphasize our atheism but we individually would let it get out there to brinng people to our side of rationality. And it is obvious to anyone and everyone that we need to do it. Just a suggestion and I am willing to work on it if anyone else is.
March 9th, 2006 at at 10:01 pm
PS Great post I am
Thanks
March 9th, 2006 at at 10:07 pm
you make it sound like unless you are with god your political position is weak.
I forgot to mention that I also can’t imagine an honest politician.
March 9th, 2006 at at 10:49 pm
Uberkuh said:
Yeah, but then atheists would have to admit to having beliefs.
Lack of belief is quite different to lack of opinion/stand-point (correct me if I’m wrong). Being an atheist is a stance in itself without needing a belief.
I can’t imagine a politician who doesn’t take a stand for something, and I can’t imagine what an atheist politician would take a stand for, as an atheist politician.
For evolution and against ID, to start with? Against oath under god, and for other liberal stances.
March 9th, 2006 at at 10:58 pm
Very thoughtful post, I Am.
March 9th, 2006 at at 11:50 pm
What can and should we do? An important twofold question that requires a nuanced answer.
The answer begins with a realistic appraisal of what we can credibly accomplish, both as individuals and as a community.
Those of us who are atheists know that one of the common assumptions made about us is that we lack morals, or at least, by not believing in a God, we lack a moral foundation, and that if we succeeded, society would lose its moral bearings as well.
Of course, this is utter bullshit. But are we doing enough to counteract that as individuals and as a collection of like-minded individuals? Maybe not.
One of the biggest differences between atheists and religious folks is that we do not believe in the concept of sin. We generally believe actions are right or wrong based upon the harm they do to others. Religious believers on the other hand will quote some passage of scripture to argue that an action is sinful and wrong because it is an abomination in the eyes of God. In other words “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” as the bumper sticker on the car of my next door neighbor’s Bible thumping friend read when I was a kid.
One issue that exemplifies this is how we view and treat gays. A religious person will claim that gays are sinners engaging in sodomy and other perverted acts that are an affront to God and are probably to blame for 9/11, hurricanes, earthquakes and all manner of ills that afflict the world. Or that diseases like AIDS are God’s punishment afflicting homosexuals for their sinful behavior. At their most charitable, religious people will take the position on homosexuals that “we hate the sin but love the sinner!) Most hetero atheists (I assume) take it for granted that gays are attracted to people of the same sex because they are born that way, and we take the view that if two men or two women in a relationship with one another find happiness and fulfillment from their relationship, then who are we to tell them that they shouldn’t? We believe that gays should be accorded the same dignity and respect as everybody else.
However, there are issues that we can take a stand on that put us on the same side as religious people which are important. One issue is the sexual trafficking of women. Atheists might have differing opinions as to whether prostitution should be legal based upon the principle of consenting adults. But sexual slavery of women and young girls is not something that can be written off in this manner. Not only is it a human rights issue, but it is a health issue as well, as many times sex slaves are not afforded protection, such as requiring their customers to wear condoms, with the result that not only are the sex slaves infected with HIV, hepatitis and all other kinds of nasty stuff, but they can also infect some of their customers as well, who then go home to their wives or girl friends and infect them as well. Atheists and secularists should make the combatting of sex slavery a big issue because it puts us in a morally unassailable position with respect to the religious fundamentalists.
We also need to forcefully condemn vulgarity in music, television and the movies. I’m not calling for a return to the 1950’s. Don’t get me wrong. Sometimes sex, violence or gore is a necessary element of a story. But movies that are violent and sick simply for shock value, like “Saw” for instance, have no meritorious value and should not be rewarded with a sequel.
In one sense, the terrorism against us by Islamic fundamentalists is fueled by their view that modernity and democracy is just a front for imposing corruption and degredation upon the Muslim world. Of course, that does not mean that we should become puritans in the hope of lessening Muslim anger. But it should give us some pause for self examination and wonder whether maybe we taking some things a little too far at times. I remember a couple of years ago when I would ride the train to work in New York City, there was this large billboard for an Italian airline that featured the face of an attractive young women holding a cannoli in front of her mouth. Her mouth was open and her eyes were looking upwards in anticipation, as if someone were standing above her, and it was so plainly obvious that the ad was an allusion to oral sex. Some people here might say that maybe I am reading something into the ad that wasn’t there, but if you saw the ad, you would find it hard to disagree with me. Now I doubt many of us here are prudes, but what the fuck does a blow job have to do with flying on an airplane, and why was it necessary to have such a sexually provocative ad?
It’s getting late, so I am going to wrap this up, though I will probably have more to add as I think of other ideas, plus I am sure there will be some responses from other readers here for me to reply to.
March 9th, 2006 at at 11:52 pm
what does moderation mean? has my post got deleted I Am?
March 10th, 2006 at at 3:06 am
Jim rrr Says:
We already have our community. For now it is this internet and blogs.
Well my (teenage) Christian friends always insist on me to go to their churches where they sing, they have picnics once every few months (for kids and adults), and get free tickets to movies such as chronicles of Narnia, they go to Christian parties and so many other activities which as a teenager are quit exiting. They even make celibacy until marriage exiting for kids by using a stupid ring. When I try to invite them, all I have is reading on the internet, some none pictorial books and a pub for old grumpy skeptics which is really boring.
Most people are not so attracted to increasing their knowledge. You can’t change this by overwhelming them with information. They want excitement and something that they can role their life around it. There needs to be more human interaction if you want to get the majority (the not so well read majority) to listen to you. And I can’t see AU in the winning side when America is becoming more and more religious, ID is getting into science classes and Christian morality has become the source of morality.
March 10th, 2006 at at 6:18 am
what does moderation mean? has my post got deleted I Am?
Moderation just means that the software thought it might be spam, so it held onto it until I could take a look at it. I’ve just approved it.
March 10th, 2006 at at 5:08 pm
You’re absolutely right. This is near and dear as my first born is 5 months old and both my wife and I come from catholic families. We don’t want the child baptised, for the reasons listed above. So this is how I squelched the inevitable bloody murder over the baptism.
Pre-emptive strikes.
I went to the more moderate one side of the family as the broken sheep, saying “they all hate me because Im an Atheist….(sob)….If Gretchen married a Jew, they wouldn’t dare to mention it, but because I’m a fallen catholic, they’re on me all the time.”
They were so reasonable.
Then I went to the extreme part of the family and had a sit down. I accused them, and said that I thought if I didn’t get the baby baptised, then they would do it on the sly.
****Kabooooom*****
Heads exploded. People got pissed, but then they started defending themselves against the accusations, saying things like “I wouldn’t do that! I’m open minded dammit!”
So what I ended up with is one side who is afriad to breach the topic because they may hurt my feelings and look like jerks, and the other side who aviods it because I painted them crazier than they really are and they don’t want to feed the “misconception”
I won’t say it wasn’t a little painful and embarrassing, no one like to hurt the families feelings. But I’ll be damned if anyone’s even broached the topic except my mom! and she’s quieted with “You WANT to have this discussion Mom, huh? cause I’m HAPPY to discuss it. I just thought you might want to let it be, but if you WANT to discuss Athiesm, I’ll be happy to do it.” hee heehee, works everytime.
Anyway, NO WAY she’s getting baptized. There’s enough for her to be afraid of without making shit up.
(individual results may vary)
March 10th, 2006 at at 5:24 pm
been there on the baptism front, only my side are catholic so they already knew my veiw. to his dying day my old man said odd things about the kids even though he loved them and was great with them. he would say things like ‘they’re not really’ and cut short, and i heard him say when my bro had a kid that it was his first proper grandchild.he was daft, i laughed all day.
at the crux it doesn’t do you any good to hide your feelings, but if i don’t fancy an argument i say something like, i dont do that god stuff. my daughter 7, at school getting lots of bollocks from teachers, told me the other day that she didn’t believe in god, only nature. good girl
March 10th, 2006 at at 6:20 pm
See we’re out there! The problem is that it sometimes looks, like WE are going to be fed to the lions by the x-ians, instead of the other and proper way around. Thats why we need to keep our heads down sometimes. Those Jesus-Freak people are Crazy! I used to get miffed when I would see the jesus-fish stuck on the back of someones car, then I realized that it was a good thing to have these people clearly marked.
Eventually we’ll win, kids are smarter today, that’s why there are no young nuns, and the priests have to choose their ranks from weirdos and perverts. The internet is key. Some young x-ian will have some doubts, be on the computer, the porn will be blocked by his folks, so he’ll look for rebellious things that aren’t blocked. Enter the Evangelical Atheist, and a hundred other blogs. I bet Atheism will like crack to smart kids who are being smothered by religious families.
We’ll win.
March 10th, 2006 at at 6:33 pm
Another wonderful opinion piece from I Am. Good sir, you truly are a god among men.
Great quantities of thanks for the shout out.
March 10th, 2006 at at 7:40 pm
I’m at school today, and one of my theist friends (not that I generally label my friends as such) pointed to someone and said “Hey Seth, she doesn’t believe in god either!”
‘Twas depressing.
Yep, good post. Thanks for the shoutout.
March 10th, 2006 at at 8:18 pm
Atheism will be like crack to smart kids. Blade, that has to be the best line I’ve heard yet. I think that is pretty close to the truth though. Today so few people understand that there is someting to replace their religion. When asked wat they have if they do not have religion most think they have nothing. That is why it is essential for us to remain determined and available to present our views to people who do not know us. We as a community of individuals are just barely able to come together. In a few years it will be different. We do not need to associate exclusivelyy with each other but just by our acceptance in our communities when people find out that we are NOT believers. We have a long way to go and we will prevail. We can be accomodating to newly born rationalists. And accepting of our xian friends and collegues. It sure does put them off guard when they find out that I am a non-believer. And that is the only way I know of to influence their beliefs. I am not talking about the vicious evangelicals or flaming fundies but about normal people . People who if given the chance will be accepting of us.
JIM
March 10th, 2006 at at 9:35 pm
He wear no shoeshine, he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger, he shoot coca-cola
He say I know you, you know me
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me
I just probably vastly misrepresented the meaning of that song, but oh well, you can’t go wrong with the beatles.
March 11th, 2006 at at 12:38 am
thanks I Am
March 12th, 2006 at at 12:55 am
Hmmmmm I gotta start wearing my reading glasses when I am making comments on other people’s blogs. The “crusade comment” is meant to be viewed here! lol
March 12th, 2006 at at 2:33 pm
Good post, the children are definitely our hope. And we are surely winning that war. It is much more likely for a child of christian parents to become atheist later in their life than a child of atheist parents becoming christian. This of course because if you are exposed to how ridiculously absurd religion is it makes it extremely difficult for you to embrace it later on. Same rules apply to these children’s children, and so on. So we’re winning this war of “transition rates” at least. But the question is, will we win the war quick enough?
March 18th, 2006 at at 7:45 am
Tk said:
“Most hetero atheists (I assume) take it for granted that gays are attracted to people of the same sex because they are born that way, and we take the view that if two men or two women in a relationship with one another find happiness and fulfillment from their relationship, then who are we to tell them that they shouldn’t? We believe that gays should be accorded the same dignity and respect as everybody else.”
Tk,
Though scientists have looked into it, they have found no genetic physiological evidence to suggest people are born gay, and have like many of us, concluded that to be gay is a CHOICE a lifestyle choice, if this were not so then how do you explain people who were gay when they were young and experimenting with sex, but later had no problem marrying and being sexually aroused by the opposite sex? I repeat, there is no biological cause for being gay that scientists have discovered.
It is wrong to stereotype Christians as being against gays, personally as people, that is not true, I am a Christian and I have gay friends who I do not treat any different to my straight or Christian friends. Now if you are talking about legalising gay marriages, or creating more politically correct laws so gays can take Churches, Christians and heterosexuals to court over frivilous issues or Churches being forced by discrimination laws to acknowledge gays as Christians in a position leadership in the church when the Bible forbids it, then that is a different story. Christians are against that! And I wager some atheists don’t want the law changed to alter the special meaning and purpose of marriage or to allow them to be sued over frivilous non-criminal politically correct matters either! But that is issues they are against, not people personally who are gay.
March 18th, 2006 at at 7:42 pm
I agree with you SS, that it is a choice to be gay. Women (in general) in the studies bellow have been found to be biosexual in nature, yet most say they are hetero. If people didnt choose then we would have had a lot more gays.
“In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern”.
“Even gay men who deny their own homosexuality will become more sexually aroused by male sexual stimuli than by female stimuli.”
(if you’re arguing about gay men becoming aroused by women, well men have been found to have sex with animals as well)
Study Suggests Difference Between Female And Male Sexuality
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm
March 19th, 2006 at at 6:17 pm
I totally disagree with you SS. Gays, including several I have known, stated that they “knew” from a very early age what they were. Homosexuality a choice? Yeah, a man or a woman is going to choose to be ostracized by family, friends and society at large just to be in a relationship with someone from the same gender. That makes a lot of sense.
I don’t claim to know why a small percentage of people are gay, perhaps there is some evolutionary purpose for it. Another thing, SS, there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. Gays are just as varied as those of us who are not. Some are very outwardly conservative in dress, and appearance, work in professions and such, while others are shall I way, more flamboyant.
You refer to some people as “experimenting” with the same sex while younger but having no trouble being aroused by someone of the opposite sex and getting married later on. That’s an easy one SS. Gee, maybe that’s just it, they were straight people who were experimenting. Maybe we are talking about hedonistic people who are essentially heterosexual in nature but have sexual experiences with someone of the same gender out of curiosity, to break cultural taboos and so forth. That is not the same as being gay, and yes, what they did was a choice. On the other hand, a gay person is attracted to someone of the same gender as heteros are attracted to people of the opposite gender. They have this choice: (a) they can suppress their homosexual feelings and try to lead a “straight” life and hope that it will all work out, or (b) they can decide to be true to who they are and face the prospect of not being accepted by family, friends, neighbors etcetera.
Anyone here who has watched the tv show “The Shield” will be familiar with one of the minor characters, Julien. He is a black LA police officer who is a Bible believing Christian who from the first season of the show, has had to come to grips with the fact that he is gay. He loathes himself at times, precisely because his Christian faith tells him that what he is doing is an abomination. At one point, he tries to goad a fleeing suspect he has cornered into shooting him because he does not want to live anymore. He becomes involved in a relationship with a petty criminal. Eventually he goes to some kind of sexual reversion therapy or something like that recommended by his pastor. He gets into a relationship with a single mother of a young boy and marries her. They try to have a child of their own but he is unable to perform. There is a scene in one episode where he goes to a clinic where he is supposed to provide a sperm specimen so that his wife can be artificially inseminated. Again, he is unable to bring himself to the necessary arousal until he takes out a gay sex mag. Julien’s character is perhaps the saddest in the ensemble cast of “The Shield”, but the show stopped focusing on his character’s personal life in Season 4, and has only barely touched on it in season 5. It’s too bad, because I felt it was one of the bravest performances ever shown on a television program. The only thing I felt that topped it in terms of bravery was Dylan Walsh going at it with the Kimber blow-up doll in season 2 of “Nip/Tuck”.
March 21st, 2006 at at 4:47 pm
Social S & Roya: Recent findings are that male homosexuality seems to be determined during the final 3 months of gestation, and is apparently a hormonal effect. Indications are that a male fetus stimulates the mother’s immune system to a far greater extent than does a like-gendered fetus. An interesting consequence is that the liklihood of a homosexual child (male) increases for each subsequent male offspring. In other words, the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely it is that he will be homosexual. This pattern does not hold for females. Interestingly, it also does not hold for left-handed males (apparently right-brainedness confers some manner of immunity or protection from the hormonal effect.) Stay tuned for further discoveries. In the meantime, try to remember just when it was that you decided you were going to choose to be heterosexual, and when it was that you decided not to like squash or spinach.
March 29th, 2006 at at 2:42 am
Conleythorn,
I decided I was heterosexual when I first tried sex with a member of the opposite sex, who knows what I may have decided had I tried it in my youth with a member of my own sex? Maybe I might have liked it and decided to go that way, I’ll never know.