LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY firepie)

***I think that this is something that we will add to our agenda for the SCHA-LA bar-b-que on the 27th. If anyone has or can get more information - could you bring it to the bar-b-que and maybe do a wee presentation on the situation? That would be great.

***Our bar-b-que is the 27th, though, and this event is the 16th - 21st. Maybe we can do an impromptu dinner/coffee meeting before to strategize, and then the folks who engage in an action can let us know what happened at the bar-b-que? What do folks say?

If you are interested, the bar-b-que is on the topic of dominionism and it's effect on LGBT and strategizing a response. You can e-mail scha_losangeles at yahoo dot com if you would like to come to the bar-b-que. You can check out what SCHA-LA is by going to our here

This is a forwarded message [with personal notes removed]:

>>> Jasmyne 8/10/2005 3:25 PM

Good afternoon,

Below is word for word text from a flyer faxed to me by a friend that works at a local newspaper where the church has taken out ad space to promote their upcoming event.

Bishop Portee has a large congregation which includes a television and radio show. His television show airs on KCAL 9 on Sundays here in Los Angeles. His radio show airs daily Monday through Friday on KTYM at 12:30 p.m.

I called and spoke with Bishop Portee this afternoon as a journalist. The following are quotes from my interview with Bishop Portee.

"America has become homosexual friendly by design."

"There is a difference between a practicing and unpracticing homosexual, it's the practicing homosexual we are concerned with."

"Homosexuals like adulters have rights. But not the right to make their legislation law."

The 6 day event is open to the public.

Again, is this something we should mobilize around?

If anyone wants a faxed copy of the flyer please let me know.

In light of the recent meeting of Black Baptist Ministers that I attended on Monday, we are under direct attack and we need to figure out what we are going to about this. They are mobilizing and organizing against us for 2006.

This fight in our community needs to be led by us and I don't think letter writing campaigns is going to do it.

Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop W.R. Portee: Miracle Healing Crusade Concerning omosexuality: Taking the Lid Off Of Sodom

Tuesday, August 16 - Sunday, August 21, 2005 7 p.m. Nightly

Southside Christian Palace 11243 South Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, CA

Topics to be covered include:
a.. Sodomy
b.. What is homosexuality?
c.. When is sex homosexual?
d.. Natural and unnatural homosexuality
e.. What is homosexual love? Is it real love?
f.. The stupidity of love
g.. How do you know if you are a homosexual or not?
h.. Does God really condone or condemn homosexuality or is it the church that condemns it?
i.. How did God respond to homosexuality in the Old Testament, in the New Testament?
j.. Does God love homosexuals? If so, how could He condemn them?
k.. What are the rights of homosexuals?
l.. Can the law make homosexuality morally right?
m.. Is homosexuality good for our children?
n.. Would you want your child to marry a homosexual?
o.. Why are so many churches quiet about this profound issue?

jasmynecannick at hotmail dot com

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wolfsinger2k)

In my perusals of various "old documents", I ran across a reprint of a lecture  titled "Protestant Menace To Our Government", given by L.K. Washburn to the Ingersoll Secular Society at the Investigator Hall in Boston, MA on 1/27/1889 concerning an attempted passage of a Congressional bill establishing Sundays as an official Christian church day and imposing other regulations with the bill.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/lemuel_washburn/protestant_menace.html">Full text</a>

The section referring to the Bill in question:

"Let me read enough of the text of this proposed law to show how far the Christian Church would go to save its institutions. The bill, which is expected to become a law, was introduced in the Senate of the United States by Mr. Blair, on the 21st of May, 1888. It was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. On December 18th, 1888, it was ordered to be reprinted. This bill is entitled; A bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's Day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship." It reads as follows: --

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in, Congress assembled, --
That no person, or corporation, or agent, servant, or employee of any person or corporation, shall perform or authorize to be performed, any secular work, labor, or business to the disturbance of others, works of necessity, and mercy, and humanity excepted; nor shall any Person engage in any play, game, or amusement, or recreation to the disturbance of others, on the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's Day, or during any part thereof, in any territory, district, vessel, or place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States........

See. 2. That no mails or mail matter shall hereafter be transported in time of peace over any land postal-route, nor shall any mail matter be collected, assorted, handled, or delivered during any part of the first day of the week."

There are certain provisos which are not important to our purpose. Sections 3, 4, and 5 relate to commerce between the States and with the Indian tribes; drills, musters and parades; and the payment and receipt of wages. Sec. 6 refers to such labor and service as are not deemed violations of the act, but says that "the same shall be construed so far as possible to secure to the whole people rest from toil during the first day of the week, their mental and moral culture, and the religious observance of the Sabbath Day."

The rhetoric is amazing.

This section in particular:

"Here is a deadly blow aimed at religious liberty in this country. Such a bill as this is the attempt of religious despair. Any endeavor to explain it on the ground of public necessity, or in the interest of public morals, is the veriest hypocrisy. Who demands such a law as this bill proposes? What is it demanded for? Have not the people who wish to go to church on Sunday the liberty to do so? Does any one deny them this right? Does any one object to their going or try to stop them? "

and:

"Let us ask the Protestant Christians of the United States, who are working to get their religion endorsed by the Government, if they are suffering from political injustice, if they are victims of political wrongs? Are they singled out among the inhabitants of this country for legislative afflictions? Are they compelled to observe against their convictions any particular day of the week as sacred above another? Is their property taxed unjustly; taxed to support a worship which they cannot join and a religion which they cannot accept? Are their children compelled by the laws of the State to listen to the reading of religious books which are obnoxious to them. Do they hear prayers in our legislatures that are offensive to their ideas of right? The necessary and just demand is not for the Government to give further aid to the Protestant Church, but to stop the immunities which this church now enjoys. In view of the many wrongs and evils which others have to bear on account of the privileges granted to this church, every Christian should hang his head in shame and blush with guilt before the American people. The truth is this: The Protestant churches of the United States want to control our Government for the advantage of their religion. They already have secured enactments in all of our legislatures which give them power to injure in mind and estate those who do not accept the Christian faith. Yet in face of this fact, and in face of the National Constitution, which says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, there is a movement among the Protestant party for greater ecclesiastical authority.

We cannot be blind to the efforts being made by Christian fanatics, nor can we see such attempts to weaken our political Government and strangle our political liberty without a protest. That the people who are seeking for religious power in this country are honest and sincere in their endeavors, is not any reason why our citizens should stand idly by and see their political institutions overthrown, and the freedom won by the patriots of the Revolution destroyed by the bigots of the Christian Church. "

Scary that this was only 116 years ago - barely over 100 years since the founding of this nation.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY britzkrieg)

The following is from a post to one of my other communities. It discusses a recent debate about Intelligent Design on Nightline. The author is vyoma, but the emphasis is mine.

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

...A substantial part of that is a discussion/debate between well-known (paleo)Conservative columnist George Will and slightly-to-the-right-of-Bill O'Reilly columnist Cal Thomas.

It's a big file, but it's well worth the download time. Thomas has been a rather loud voice in the call for inserting "intelligent design" into the science curriculum of public schools, and he makes it abundantly clear what the ID side is really all about. I find it interesting that in almost every single case, when these folks are pinned down about their ideology, they're ultimately forced to admit that it's based on religion. Thomas goes further; he admits — even asserts — that "intelligent design" is a political movement, not actually a scientific one, and that the people who are advancing all the "teach the controversy" nonsense are, to paraphrase Thomas himself, "flag-waving red-state Republicans who are sick of forced secularization" and who tie the issue to things like "abortion on demand, stem cell research and the Terri Schiavo case." He asserts that if religious values aren't taught in public schools (which he refers to in every instance as "government schools"), that there will be a mass exodus to private schools that teach religion as an alternative to science. He is clearly in favor of this.

Will, for his part, holds that precisely for the reasons that Thomas gives, "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory, and thus shouldn't be taught as part of a science curriculum...

If you really want to see "intelligent design" advocates pull away the mask for a few minutes, in any case, the Nightline clip is absolutely worth the download. Next time some ID advocate tries to convince me that their pet apologetic isn't based on religion, I'm going to make them explain what Stephen Meyers and Cal Thomas have to say about it.