GAY BOOKS FOR 5 AND 6 YEAR OLDS!!!
John Lauzon
B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
wishes of a majority of parents.
James Chamberlain, an elementary school teacher requested that he be
allowed to use the books to instruct children about "diverse" families,
but the school board voted against his request. The Supreme Court's Madam
Justice Saunders overturned the board's decision saying it was based on
religious convictions and therefore "contrary to s.76(1) of the School
Act," which states that schools are to be "conducted on strictly secular
... principles."
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada praised today's reversal of the
Supreme Court ruling; EFC's legal counsel Janet Epp-Buckingham noted that
it highlighted that the term 'secular' should not be interpreted to
exclude religiously-based views.
In writing the decision Mr. Justice Mackenzie states: "Moral positions
must be accorded equal access to the public square without regard to
religious influence. A religiously informed conscience should not be
accorded any privilege, but neither should it be placed under a
disability." He concludes: "In my opinion, 'strictly secular' in the
School Act can only mean pluralist in the sense that moral positions are
to be accorded standing in the public square irrespective of whether the
position flows out of conscience that is religiously informed or not."
John Hof, of Campaign Life Coalition BC, told LifeSite that Justice
Saunders, the originator of the decision overturned today was the same
judge who reinstated the Bubble Zone in BC after it was thrown out by
lower courts. Heather Stillwell, President of the Surrey School Board
reacted to today's decision saying, "Sometimes the good guys do win."
See the full decision at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/00/05/
c00-0519.htm
--
QUEEN of PEACE, Medjugorje Message, June 25, 2000, "Dear children! Today
I call you to prayer. THE ONE WHO PRAYS IS NOT AFRAID OF THE FUTURE.
Little children do not forget, I am with you and I love you all. Thank
you for having responded to my call. " As recieved by the visionary
Marija Pavlovic Lunetti
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob
"John Lauzon" <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
>
> Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
>
> SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
> of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
> Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
> propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
> wishes of a majority of parents.
>
I'm sure you will get a lot of gays outraged at you for this post. Let me
suggest that if the minority of parents who were in favor of allowing
homosexual books into kindergarten and grade one, want their children to be
taught about alternative lifestyles, then they should create a special
school for their children . Who knows..... maybe they will grow up to be
gay also.
Ken
class re reading stories, etc. This was covered in depth last night on
BCTV.
John Lauzon wrote in message <8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 21 05:34:48 2000 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.75 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
>X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x55.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.135.79.70
>X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDdomino5
>
>
>
>B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
>
>Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
>
>SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
>of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
>Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
>propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
>wishes of a majority of parents.
>
wannabe_princess
And if its taught as normal from a young age it wouldnt be perceived as
"different"
It's all in the manner its taught.
All my personal opinion of course.
Nicole
Shadow Man wrote:
> In short.. what there are about ...1 or even.. .01 family with same sex
> couples ??
>
> I know one thing in elementry school.. if I found a book like that
> ..then someone told me that little johny had a family like that.. I know
> my friends little evil kids we were .. would bug that kid.. and made
> lots of fun out of the book.. specially if the book had the parents
> getting ready for bed..
>
> I do aprove of the same sex relationships .. but the book thing..
> Naaaaa... it will bring light to the subject but not.. really helping
> poor Johny .. ..
>
> I didn't understand bout sex in general till I was 10.. then it blew my
> mind when I found out about the Villiage People.. that guys kissed
> guys.. I still think I would of made a perfect Army guy..
>
> So.. I heard these books are going to be availible for like gr 2 and
> up... man.. I would hate to be Johny..
>
> The fact is.. kids at gr 1 to 8 are evil... and its just the growing up
> thing we all do .. at these young ages.. we don't under stand about
> univerisal .. love for all man kinda.. we are in the oh man look Mickey
> walks funny.. and lets bug sally for she is crossed eyed..
>
> Keep the books out.. of our schools.. please.
>
> In article <RYqy5.91121$47.10...@news.bc.tac.net>, "Ken"
Shadow Man
The Undisputed Voice of Reason
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:22:00 -0700, "Bob" <bbab...@attcanada.ca>
wrote:
>
>"John Lauzon" <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
>>
>> Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
>>
>> SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
>> of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
>> Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
>> propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
>> wishes of a majority of parents.
>>
>
Dances-with-hamsters
> I'm sure you will get a lot of gays outraged at you for this post. Let me
> suggest that if the minority of parents who were in favor of allowing
> homosexual books into kindergarten and grade one, want their children to be
> taught about alternative lifestyles, then they should create a special
> school for their children . Who knows..... maybe they will grow up to be
> gay also.
Yes, but those of us who understand the future want ALL kids to grow up gay
from now on!
John Lauzon
: "John Lauzon" <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
: news:8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: >
: >
: > B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
: >
: > Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
: >
: > SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
: > of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
: > Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
: > propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
: > wishes of a majority of parents.
: >
: I'm sure you will get a lot of gays outraged at you for this post.
Probably...but who cares?...:)
: Let me
: suggest that if the minority of parents who were in favor of allowing
: homosexual books into kindergarten and grade one, want their children to be
: taught about alternative lifestyles, then they should create a special
: school for their children . Who knows..... maybe they will grow up to be
: gay also.
They could always convert their special meeting places...the public
toilets into classrooms, they would love that idea...:)
--
John Lauzon
: The books will be available in the library,
...and public toilets...
: and the teachers may use them in
: class re reading stories, etc. This was covered in depth last night on
: BCTV.
Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they graduate
to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
Gay Pride Day Parade?
: John Lauzon wrote in message <8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
: >X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 21 05:34:48 2000 GMT
: >X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.75 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
: >X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x55.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.135.79.70
: >X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDdomino5
: >
: >
: >
: >B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
: >
: >Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
: >
: >SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
: >of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
: >Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
: >propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
: >wishes of a majority of parents.
: >
: >James Chamberlain, an elementary school teacher requested that he be
--
Bill K.
>
> Ken (Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca) wrote:
>
> : The books will be available in the library,
>
> ...and public toilets...
>
> : and the teachers may use them in
> : class re reading stories, etc. This was covered in depth last night on
> : BCTV.
>
> Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they graduate
> to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
> Gay Pride Day Parade?
No more than they'll be covering the progress of the children raised and
educated in Catholic schools as when they graduate and join the
priesthood, and eventually end up in jail for sexually assaulting
children?
--
Bill K. (bi...@spamcop.net)
**** WARNING **** All unsolicited bulk e-mail received at this address
will be promptly reported to the sender's system administrator, and to
law enforcement authorities whenever applicable.
(Done through SpamCop. See http://spamcop.net for details.)
Bill K.
>
> Ken (Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca) wrote:
>
> : The books will be available in the library,
>
> ...and public toilets...
>
> : and the teachers may use them in
> : class re reading stories, etc. This was covered in depth last night on
> : BCTV.
>
> Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they graduate
> to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
> Gay Pride Day Parade?
No more than they'll be covering the progress of the children raised
andeducated in Catholic schools as they grow up and join the priesthood,
Carter Lee
>
> But being homosexual isnt evil
> And if its taught as normal from a young age it wouldnt be perceived as
> "different"
> It's all in the manner its taught.
Sure and if child molesting, murder and bank robbery were taught as
normal at a young age they wouldn't be perceived as different or
unacceptable either.
>
> All my personal opinion of course.
Of course but it is one that I think you should consider more carefully,
it could rub off on other equally naive people.
Carter
Carter Lee
>
> John Lauzon wrote:
> >
> > Ken (Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca) wrote:
> >
> > : The books will be available in the library,
> >
> > ...and public toilets...
> >
> > : and the teachers may use them in
> > : class re reading stories, etc. This was covered in depth last night on
> > : BCTV.
> >
> > Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they graduate
> > to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
> > Gay Pride Day Parade?
>
> priesthood, and eventually end up in jail for sexually assaulting
> children?
Seems to me that you are insinuating that it was their Catholic
education which caused that. When did Catholic schools start teaching
sexual assault of children to young children?
Carter
Shadow Man
If you walk funny or talk funny... your picked on..regardless of how
much education.. they get about someone that is different..
But to say homosexuality is evil.. is kinda sick .. it's human it real
its part of the world.
ummm ok the next part.. sure ok..
Sman
In article <39CB500C...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Carter Lee
Carter Lee
>
> I think Princess is right .. Kids are Evil.. LOL..
>
> If you walk funny or talk funny... your picked on..regardless of how
> much education.. they get about someone that is different..
That has nothing to do with this issue.
>
> But to say homosexuality is evil.. is kinda sick ..
I didn't say it was evil and I'm not sure exactly what the term "kinda
sick" means.
it's human it real
> its part of the world.
So is child molesting, sexual assault, and many other unacceptable
things. That is not a reason to teach them to young children.
Carter
Bill K.
>
> "Bill K." wrote:
> >
> > John Lauzon wrote:
> > >
> > > to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
> > > Gay Pride Day Parade?
> >
> > educated in Catholic schools as when they graduate and join the
> > priesthood, and eventually end up in jail for sexually assaulting
> > children?
>
> Seems to me that you are insinuating that it was their Catholic
> education which caused that.
More importantly, it does little to prevent it, despite its self
proclamation as the ultimate guiding force of good. In fact, the
Catholic institution seems to serve as a convenient trap attracting the
children to these perverts, while the parents let their guard down.
> When did Catholic schools start teaching
> sexual assault of children to young children?
In many cases, through first-hand experience. Ask those who attended
residential schools.
Michael Voytinsky
> I didn't say it was evil and I'm not sure exactly what the term "kinda
> sick" means.
You did not say that homosexuality is evil? Really?
> So is child molesting, sexual assault, and many other unacceptable
> things.
You do seem to be equating homosexuality to child molesting, sexual assault,
etc. In other words, you are saying that homosexuality is evil.
Cheers,
Michael Voytinsky
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
Downtown
John....you show hate and intolerance....God is all about love ....Im sure
he is real proud of you .....
Lauzon <bk...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:G19w8I.4p...@torfree.net...
Kevin
>
> Shadow Man wrote:
> >
> > its part of the world.
>
On the contrary! That is an EXCELLENT reason to teach ALL of those
things to children!
My sister received basic information on sexual assault and child
molestation as early as grade 1. How else would they know that
what an adult is doing to them is wrong? If the adult doing it
tells them its OK, and no one else (particularly the only other
adults in their lives they spend any significant amount of time
with - their teachers) tells them otherwise, how would they know
that they don't have to accept it?
But before someone shoves a bucket of words in my mouth, I am
NOT saying that we SHOULD teach children about gay relationships
so that they can recognize a bad thing. My position is that we
SHOULD teach them about gay relationships so they know that it
is acceptable and normal. My comments above specifically
addressed Carter's statement that we should keep kids ignorant
about molestation and sexual assault, which I completely disagree
with.
I hope you're not a parent, Carter ...
Kevin.
Carter Lee
>
> Carter Lee wrote in message <39CB6220...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
>
> > I didn't say it was evil and I'm not sure exactly what the term "kinda
> > sick" means.
>
> You did not say that homosexuality is evil? Really?
Correct. Can you point out the quote where I said that?
>
> > So is child molesting, sexual assault, and many other unacceptable
> > things.
>
> You do seem to be equating homosexuality to child molesting, sexual assault,
> etc.
No I don't seem to be, I am.
In other words, you are saying that homosexuality is evil.
Why put in other words? The words I used are quite clear and "evil" is
not among them.
Carter
Carter Lee
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
> >
> > Shadow Man wrote:
> > >
> > > its part of the world.
> >
>
> On the contrary! That is an EXCELLENT reason to teach ALL of those
> things to children!
Certainly from the point of view that they are unacceptable things.
>
> My sister received basic information on sexual assault and child
> molestation as early as grade 1. How else would they know that
> what an adult is doing to them is wrong? If the adult doing it
> tells them its OK, and no one else (particularly the only other
> adults in their lives they spend any significant amount of time
> with - their teachers) tells them otherwise, how would they know
> that they don't have to accept it?
Correct.
>
> But before someone shoves a bucket of words in my mouth, I am
> NOT saying that we SHOULD teach children about gay relationships
> so that they can recognize a bad thing.
That is the only reason I can think of for teaching children about gay
relationships.
My position is that we
> SHOULD teach them about gay relationships so they know that it
> is acceptable and normal.
I disagree with that position.
My comments above specifically
> addressed Carter's statement that we should keep kids ignorant
> about molestation and sexual assault, which I completely disagree
> with.
>
> I hope you're not a parent, Carter ...
I am and a grandparent also. I think you know very well that I never
said, or meant, that we should keep kids ignorant of those things. We
should not teach kids that any of those things are in any way acceptable
and that includes homosexuality.
>
> Kevin.
Carter Lee
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Bill K." wrote:
> > >
> > > John Lauzon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
> > > > Gay Pride Day Parade?
> > >
> > > educated in Catholic schools as when they graduate and join the
> > > priesthood, and eventually end up in jail for sexually assaulting
> > > children?
> >
> > Seems to me that you are insinuating that it was their Catholic
> > education which caused that.
>
> More importantly, it does little to prevent it, despite its self
> proclamation as the ultimate guiding force of good. In fact, the
> Catholic institution seems to serve as a convenient trap attracting the
> children to these perverts, while the parents let their guard down.
Not being a Catholic and not having a "Catholic education" I'll have to
take your word for that. My point was, in case you misunderstood, that
I don't believe people who eventually became Catholic priests learned to
molest children in the schools they attended.
>
> > When did Catholic schools start teaching
> > sexual assault of children to young children?
>
> In many cases, through first-hand experience. Ask those who attended
> residential schools.
I don't think that subject was taught even in residential schools. It
may have happened there but it was not taught there. Residential
schools were BTW not main stream Catholic schools.
I do understand the point you are making but you should not attempt to
paint all Catholic schools the same colour as residential schools.
Carter
John Lauzon
No...those that hate me say I'm doing God's work, I'v never said that.
> yet you dont show love at all
> John....you show hate and intolerance....God is all about love ....Im sure
> he is real proud of you .....
Isn't it better Pat, that I speak out AGAINST the things He doesn't like
rather than ignore or support them? The world tolerated Hitler and he
started the biggest and worst war in human history! People love and
tolerate sexual promiscuity and a deadliest incurable disease the world
has ever known now covers the entire planet killing millions of people
and continues unabated, and yet known and unknown AIDS carriers still
walk freely among the populations spreading the disease even further into
society and throughout the world...UNABATED!!!
Today when someone blows the whistle on a wrongdoer, the whistle blower
is the one who suffers and is victimized moreso than the wrongdoer and no
one says anything in support...why?
You say I'm hateful, intolerant and unchristian, maybe..if true, it's
something I'v picked up from hateful and intolerant bigots that you or
anyone else never reprimand for their viciousness!!!
Nevertheless Pat, it was mainly Christians that ended up having to fight
against Hitler, because they tolerated him and did nothing until he
forced them to act...you shouldn't tolerate evil or it will stomp you
into the ground, kill your children than go to another victim...like
abortion, you have to expose it for what it is, the murdering of an
unborn child...another human being, because the media and most
politicians agree with it, does in no way mean it's right. It was
something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
COMMUNISM because their corrupt leaders couldn't make communism work well
enough to feed the mass'. Evil exists in the vacuum of a Godless society
as the CULTURE OF DEATH.
Where there is no God, there is no justice.
Kevin
>
> Kevin wrote:
> >
> > But before someone shoves a bucket of words in my mouth, I am
> > NOT saying that we SHOULD teach children about gay relationships
> > so that they can recognize a bad thing.
>
> That is the only reason I can think of for teaching children about gay
> relationships.
Huh? Why are gay relationships a bad thing?
Kevin.
Ken
which is to help children UNDERSTAND the world they live in, a world that
now includes openly gays parents, common-law relationships heterosexual and
other, divorced parents, single parents, and so on. Children with same sex
parents are just one part of a modern mix. Teaching them about all of them
is a service to the children, ALL of them. The fact that anyone would WANT
to marginalize ANY child by not including them in discussions of home lives,
etc. speaks volumes.
El Ka-Bong wrote in message <39cc0731...@news.aebc.com>...
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:24:48 GMT, John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Isn't it better Pat, that I speak out AGAINST the things He doesn't like
>>rather than ignore or support them?
>
>doesn't like. You have repeatedly taken the name of the Lord in vain.
>
>> The world tolerated Hitler and he
>>started the biggest and worst war in human history!
>
>complicit in not only tolerating Hitler, but aiding and abetting him.
>Pope Pius XII was practically a co-conspirator. Not that the Catholic
>church has any remorse about this, or even acknowledges their
>wrongdoing -- they're well on their way to cannonizing Pius! See this
>link: http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/hitlerspope.htm.
>
>This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Catholic church has a rich
>and colourful history of supporting despots and dictators. They have
>been on very friendly terms with beloved humanitarians like General
>Franco and the Duvaliers.
>
>>Today when someone blows the whistle on a wrongdoer, the whistle blower
>>is the one who suffers and is victimized moreso than the wrongdoer and no
>>one says anything in support...why?
>
>haven't been ANY negative repercussions!
>
>>You say I'm hateful, intolerant and unchristian, maybe..if true, it's
>>something I'v picked up from hateful and intolerant bigots that you or
>>anyone else never reprimand for their viciousness!!!
>
>explanation for your shameful behaviour amounts to nothing more than
>saying, "I know you are, but what am I?". This is your standard
>evasion.
>
>>Nevertheless Pat, it was mainly Christians that ended up having to fight
>>against Hitler
>
>unsurprising. It is a widely acknowledged fact that the Soviet
>Union's efforts were the major contributing factor in defeating
>Hitler. Without the Soviet Union, it is likely that they'd be
>speaking German in Whitehall. Do you even have the slightest idea of
>the casualties suffered by both Soviet civilians and the Red Army?
>I'll let you in on a little secret, John. The casualties suffered by
>the Western allies weren't even a drop in the bucket compared to the
>Soviets.
>
>Oh, and one minor point: Josef Stalin and the Red Army weren't
>Christians. -- but it is humourous when you shoot off your own foot,
>Lauzon. I'm just surprised you haven't run out of bullets yet.
>
>>, because they tolerated him and did nothing until he
>>forced them to act...
>
>
>>you shouldn't tolerate evil or it will stomp you
>>into the ground, kill your children than go to another victim...
>
>
>> It was something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
>> COMMUNISM
>
>Is that what they have at Cuban baseball games?
>
>>because their corrupt leaders couldn't make communism work well
>>enough to feed the mass'. Evil exists in the vacuum of a Godless society
>>as the CULTURE OF DEATH.
>
>Hitler -- so good Christians, like you, could run around taking the
>credit...as Pius XII was shameless enough to do after the war.
>
>> Where there is no God, there is no justice.
>
>the Inquisitions, the residential schools, and the Jews who died at
>the hands of the Nazis, thanks to your beloved Pius XII.
>
>-EK
>________________________________________________________
>"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
> -Adolf Hitler to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
>"The Duvaliers love the poor and the poor love the Duvaliers."
> -Speech given by Mother Theresa in Haiti, 1981, on
> the occassion of accepting an award from 'Baby Doc' Duvalier
>
>
Ken
write--books about adventures, various kinds of parents, and so on. Nothing
need by taught at the "expense" of something else. Learning to read, or
hearing stories read, about same sex parents is NOT forbidden by the court
ruling. They are according to the court permitted in the library for
children and teachers, and teachers may take them to class for reading, or
reading from them. Just because they are not formally part of the
curriculum does NOT mean that they are unavailable for use. As for learning
to write, surely children always have and always will write about their home
lives and proudly read them to the class. This will continue--and children
of single sex parents will do this too. Who would try to prevent them? Who
would be sick enough and mean enough to teach ANY group of children that
they should be excluded from such an activity? The book banners, perhaps?
Would they actually come out and say that is part of their aim?
Karl Pollak wrote in message <39cb68ea...@news.bluecrow.com>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>wannabe_princess <cole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>But being homosexual isnt evil
>>And if its taught as normal from a young age it wouldnt be perceived as
>>"different"
>>It's all in the manner its taught.
>
>
>1, Is it appropriate to teach sexually oriented materials to 5 and 6 year
>old kids, at the expense of teaching them to read and wrote?
>
>2, Why should we teach something as being normal when it is not normal?
>
>There are also a number of supplementary questions such as "Who is it that
>should determine curriculum in public schools, the employees/teachers or
>the owners/parents?" Or "If we teach something as not being different when
>even the yopungest kids can see clearly for themselves that it is
>different, how much trust will the kids in the system that is supposed to
>educate them?"
>
>--
>Greetings from Lotusland
El Ka-Bong
Bill K.
>
> ...like
> abortion, you have to expose it for what it is, the murdering of an
> unborn child...another human being, because the media and most
> something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
You mean, like, calling a fair ball a foul, or an out when the runner is
safe? ;)
Lyle Gardiner
fees, money that could have been put to much better use, talk about cutting
off your nose to spite your face. And it my not be over yet. Scarier yet
Heather Stillwell wants to be the next Premier of BC.
John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
>
> Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
>
> SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
> of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
> Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
> propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
> wishes of a majority of parents.
>
Shadow Man
Where the couple have have a child then yes.. then we should teach kids
at gr 5 ... where we can... can talk opening to them about marriage
things.. and younger.. I think it will just go over there little heads..
Guesss your first question is the holley cup of questions..
Evil is.. being closed minded.. that is evil..
Sman
Shadow Man
wrote:
He must be think'n in a nuts and bolt thing..the parts don't fit then
its a bad thing... do you drive a pick up ?
Relationships are great things.....
You Here
>
>
>So is child molesting, sexual assault, and many other unacceptable
>things. That is not a reason to teach them to young children.
>
hey Carter! isnt it time for you to renew your NAMBLA membership?
You Here
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>wannabe_princess <cole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>But being homosexual isnt evil
>>And if its taught as normal from a young age it wouldnt be perceived as
>>"different"
>>It's all in the manner its taught.
>
>That's fine Nicole, however I have two questions in this matter:
>
>1, Is it appropriate to teach sexually oriented materials to 5 and 6 year
>old kids, at the expense of teaching them to read and wrote?
>
you need to go back to learn how to 'read and wrote'
>2, Why should we teach something as being normal when it is not normal?
>
we used to teach people how to beat their slaves, is that normal?
Carter Lee
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Sure and if child molesting, murder and bank robbery were taught as
> >normal at a young age they wouldn't be perceived as different or
> >unacceptable either.
>
> acceptability. You do not have a choice whether you accept homosexuality.
> It is a fact, whether you like it or not. It will continue to exist
> regardless of your acceptance or lack thereof.
That may be true Karl but the fact that it exists is not a reason to
promote it in our schools. If it is dealt with at all it should be
dealt with as a lifestyle that is considered unacceptable by the
majority of the population.
I agree with the remainder of your post.
<snip>
Carter
Carter Lee
> >sexual assault of children to young children?
>
> Catholic church with respect to human sexuality are the cause of not only
> the assaults of priests on children but many social ills. I would further
> suggest to you that the Vatican's view of sexuality is at least as sick and
> abnormal as homosexuality. Or more.
You have widely missed my point Karl. I agree with what you say but my
original comment was generated in reply to a poster who seemed to me to
be implying that priests and others who have abused children were taught
to do that in Catholic schools. That is clearly not true. Your point
about the cause being the repression of human sexuality is probably
closer to the truth.
Carter
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Bill K.
>
> Karl Pollak wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >Seems to me that you are insinuating that it was their Catholic
> > >education which caused that. When did Catholic schools start teaching
> > >sexual assault of children to young children?
> >
> > I would suggest to you, Carter that the repressive policies of the Roman
> > Catholic church with respect to human sexuality are the cause of not only
> > the assaults of priests on children but many social ills. I would further
> > suggest to you that the Vatican's view of sexuality is at least as sick and
> > abnormal as homosexuality. Or more.
>
> You have widely missed my point Karl. I agree with what you say but my
> original comment was generated in reply to a poster who seemed to me to
> be implying that priests and others who have abused children were taught
> to do that in Catholic schools.
And likewise, what pro-gay education will actually teach the children to
have sex in public washrooms and the like, as the post to which I was
replying was insinuating?
Bill K.
>
> "Bill K." wrote:
> >
> > Carter Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill K." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Lauzon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they graduate
> > > > > to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked in the
> > > > > Gay Pride Day Parade?
> > > >
> > > > No more than they'll be covering the progress of the children raised and
> > > > educated in Catholic schools as when they graduate and join the
> > > > priesthood, and eventually end up in jail for sexually assaulting
> > > > children?
> > >
> > > education which caused that.
> >
> > proclamation as the ultimate guiding force of good. In fact, the
> > Catholic institution seems to serve as a convenient trap attracting the
> > children to these perverts, while the parents let their guard down.
>
> Not being a Catholic and not having a "Catholic education" I'll have to
> take your word for that. My point was, in case you misunderstood, that
> I don't believe people who eventually became Catholic priests learned to
> molest children in the schools they attended.
I don't think anybody's going to be encouraged to have sex in public
washrooms and bathhouses in by teaching them about the existence and
acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle either. You should be pointing
your questions of this sort at John, who made this insinuation, as well,
if you are going to point them at me.
> > > When did Catholic schools start teaching
> > > sexual assault of children to young children?
> >
> > In many cases, through first-hand experience. Ask those who attended
> > residential schools.
>
> I don't think that subject was taught even in residential schools. It
> may have happened there but it was not taught there. Residential
> schools were BTW not main stream Catholic schools.
>
> I do understand the point you are making but you should not attempt to
> paint all Catholic schools the same colour as residential schools.
They're both run by the same underlying organization, which supposedly
represents all that is good. I figure what keeps such abuses from
becoming so widespread in mainstream Catholic schools is the fact that
the children in them still have the guardianship and protection from
their parents, unlike Indian children forcibly removed from their
families and put into residential schools, and those in orphanages.
Hellrazor_
In article <8qgm6q$1d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>In article <56Oy5.10384$x6.6...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> "Downtown" <pbat...@home.com> wrote:
>> You say you are doing "God's work"...
>
>No...those that hate me say I'm doing God's work, I'v never said that.
>
>> yet you dont show love at all
>> John....you show hate and intolerance....God is all about love ....Im sure
>> he is real proud of you .....
>
>Isn't it better Pat, that I speak out AGAINST the things He doesn't like
>rather than ignore or support them? The world tolerated Hitler and he
>started the biggest and worst war in human history! People love and
>tolerate sexual promiscuity and a deadliest incurable disease the world
>has ever known now covers the entire planet killing millions of people
>and continues unabated, and yet known and unknown AIDS carriers still
>walk freely among the populations spreading the disease even further into
>society and throughout the world...UNABATED!!!
>
>Today when someone blows the whistle on a wrongdoer, the whistle blower
>is the one who suffers and is victimized moreso than the wrongdoer and no
>one says anything in support...why?
>
>You say I'm hateful, intolerant and unchristian, maybe..if true, it's
>something I'v picked up from hateful and intolerant bigots that you or
>anyone else never reprimand for their viciousness!!!
>
>Nevertheless Pat, it was mainly Christians that ended up having to fight
>against Hitler, because they tolerated him and did nothing until he
>forced them to act...you shouldn't tolerate evil or it will stomp you
>into the ground, kill your children than go to another victim...like
>abortion, you have to expose it for what it is, the murdering of an
>unborn child...another human being, because the media and most
>politicians agree with it, does in no way mean it's right. It was
>something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
>COMMUNISM because their corrupt leaders couldn't make communism work well
>enough to feed the mass'. Evil exists in the vacuum of a Godless society
>as the CULTURE OF DEATH.
>
> Where there is no God, there is no justice.
>
>
>
Best Man Fall
> > unborn child...another human being, because the media and most
> > politicians agree with it, does in no way mean it's right. It was
> > something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
> > COMMUNISM...
>
> You mean, like, calling a fair ball a foul, or an out when the runner is
> safe? ;)
<Hadean laughs out loud>
Carter Lee
In some cases people will probably be encouraged to do that after they
get out into the big bad world and discover that their teachers lied to
them about the level of acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle in
Canadian society.
You should be pointing
> your questions of this sort at John, who made this insinuation, as well,
> if you are going to point them at me.
I'm not "pointing" questions at anyone, just having a discussion with
anyone who cares to talk.
>
> > > > When did Catholic schools start teaching
> > > > sexual assault of children to young children?
> > >
> > > In many cases, through first-hand experience. Ask those who attended
> > > residential schools.
> >
> > I don't think that subject was taught even in residential schools. It
> > may have happened there but it was not taught there. Residential
> > schools were BTW not main stream Catholic schools.
> >
> > I do understand the point you are making but you should not attempt to
> > paint all Catholic schools the same colour as residential schools.
>
> They're both run by the same underlying organization, which supposedly
> represents all that is good.
True but there the similarity stops.
I figure what keeps such abuses from
> becoming so widespread in mainstream Catholic schools is the fact that
> the children in them still have the guardianship and protection from
> their parents, unlike Indian children forcibly removed from their
> families and put into residential schools, and those in orphanages.
Probably correct.
Carter
Ken
board claims now that it only wanted the books off the compulsory curriculum
but in the library and elsewhere. Brooks shows that this is a lie. As for
when children are "ready" to learn about a topic, that is surely best
handled by education professionals. In any case the books are there to
stay, teachers may use them, and when children play with children with gay
parents, or divorced parents, or common-law parents, or single parents, etc.
they are ALREADY learning about the domestic possibilties. Have a nice day.
Karl Pollak wrote in message <39ccbe04....@news.bluecrow.com>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>"Ken" <Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca> wrote:
>
>>Many things are taught to children WHILE they are learning to read and
Nothing
>>need by taught at the "expense" of something else.
>
>first two Grades. If you spend that time on stuff that is way over the
>kids' heads and which has absolutely no relevance to their lives, you are
>necessarily doing so at the expense of other materials.
>
>>Learning to read, or hearing stories read, about same sex parents is NOT
>>forbidden by the court ruling.
>
>The matter was about who runs the schools, the parents and their elected
>school board, or teachers and their union.
>
>>As for learning
>>to write, surely children always have and always will write about their
home
>>lives and proudly read them to the class. This will continue--and
children
>>of single sex parents will do this too.
>
>by homosexual parents compared to anything else, Ken? My guess is about
>between zero and none.
>
>My opint here is that thsi subject is not only way outside the ability of
>the children tounderstand at the age that this was intended for, but also
>more removed from their experience than the Tooth Fairy.
>
>>Who would try to prevent them? Who
>>would be sick enough and mean enough to teach ANY group of children that
>>they should be excluded from such an activity? The book banners, perhaps?
>>Would they actually come out and say that is part of their aim?
>
>particular case and are intent on making this a political issue. Seeing
>that I have no such interest, I will not bother responding.
>
>--
>Greetings from Lotusland
Ken
playgrounds, etc, where they play with children with divorced parents,
single parents, commonlaw parents, gay parents, and so on. Children talk
about their homes in the classroom ALREADY.
The Undisputed Voice of Reason wrote in message
<39cadf80...@news.direct.ca>...
>Troll.
>
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:22:00 -0700, "Bob" <bbab...@attcanada.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Lauzon" <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
>>>
>>> Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom
Use
>>>
>>> SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
>>> of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
>>> Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
>>> propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
>>> wishes of a majority of parents.
>>>
>>
Ken
playgrounds, where they play with kids with divorced parents, commonlaw
parents, single parents, gay parents, and so on. And the talk about their
homes in the classroom ALREADY.
of
>>which is to help children UNDERSTAND the world they live in, a world that
>>now includes openly gays parents, common-law relationships heterosexual
and
>>other, divorced parents, single parents, and so on.
>
>argument was over kinderegarten ans Grade 1 kids. If your purpose is
>understanding of the subject under discussion, you first must consider
>whetheryour audience is mautre enough to be capable of such understanding.
>You do not teach quantum physics to first Graders, nor do you teach them
>about homosexuality.
>
>--
>Greetings from Lotusland
Ken
to the teachers involved here than it does to the school board. The books
cannot be banned from the library, teachers are free to take them to class
for reading, etc (they just not part of the FORMAL curriculum), and so on.
Actually the publicity surrounding the case itself has done far more to
extend tolerance, etc. as the publicity itself was a way of educating the
public. And more people will flocking to public libraries etc to read the
books than would have before all the uproar. It`s appropropriate, of
course, that it was Surrey. Now there are scads of new Surrey jokes, jokes
that youth in Surrey soon pick up. Have a nice day.
Karl Pollak wrote in message <39ccc29e....@news.bluecrow.com>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>"Lyle Gardiner" <lgar...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>>The Surrey School District, gave nearly a $1.000.000 to lawyers in legal
>>fees, money that could have been put to much better use, talk about
cutting
>>off your nose to spite your face. And it my not be over yet. Scarier yet
>>Heather Stillwell wants to be the next Premier of BC.
>
>lawyers have earned their fees. The amount was much closer to $800,000.
>Secondly, the Surrey School Board did what it was supposed to do, represent
>the views of the parents of their pupils. That is what they had been
>elected for in a free and democratic election and what was demanded from
>them publicly by their voters.
>
>As for who wasted what, perhaps you should take a closer look at who the
>litigant was in this case. The School Board was being sued by one of the
>teachers. One can assume that the plaintiff's costs were most likely in
>the same league. Have you ever questioned the source of that money and for
>what purposes it was spent prosecuting a losing cause?
>
>Thirdly, the School Board still has the option of requesting the Court an
>award of costs, which would help them recover a substantial portion of the
>legal fees for a court case which they did not want or ask for. They were
>the defendants in this case and the court has clearly confirmed that the
>Surrey School Board had acted properly and within the limits of its powers.
>
>Perhaps the money would have been better spent in the classrooms instead of
>the courtroom. However, as a public and democratic institution, a School
>Board has an obligation to defend itself and the institution itself from
>the political dictates of small pressure groups which are not
>representative of their electorate.
>
>If you want to settle political questions about education, do so not in the
>courtrooms but in its proper place, at the ballot box. The homosexual
>political lobby could not and most likely will not accept the fundamental
>principles of democracy by accepting the results of free elections.
>
>If you do not like what Heather Stillwell or any other School Board member
>stand for, you are free to run for election agaisnt them. You are not free
>to hamper them in the execution of their office when they are doing so
>within the mandate given to them by their voters and authorized by the
>applicable legislation by the Legislative Assembly of this Province.
>
>--
>Greetings from Lotusland
Michael Voytinsky
news:39ccbc90....@news.bluecrow.com...
> You do not teach quantum physics to first Graders, nor do you teach them
> about homosexuality.
What exactly is the link between quantum physics and homosexuality? I do
not get it.
First graders are quite capable of understanding that some kids might have
two parents of the same gender, and that there is nothing wrong or immoral
about it. What has quantum physics got to do with it?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
"When entering a health club, make sure there are people leaving.
Otherwise it could be an alien meat processing plant in disguise."
Michael Voytinsky
news:39CCAAA0...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> promote it in our schools. If it is dealt with at all it should be
> dealt with as a lifestyle that is considered unacceptable by the
> majority of the population.
Do you actually have any specific numbers on how acceptable the majority of
the population finds homosexuality?
Given that half of the population had at least one homosexual encounter to
orgasm in their lives, and most of the other half have occasional fantasies
about homosexual sex, I would say that your claim is worthless without some
further backing.
Michael Voytinsky
> In some cases people will probably be encouraged to do that after they
> get out into the big bad world and discover that their teachers lied to
> them about the level of acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle in
> Canadian society.
I am not sure if I understand the argument here.
What you seem to be saying here is that we should not teach children that
there is nothing wrong with homosexuality because a lot of people find it
unacceptable.
This seems rather circular.
Carter Lee
>
> > promote it in our schools. If it is dealt with at all it should be
> > dealt with as a lifestyle that is considered unacceptable by the
> > majority of the population.
>
> Do you actually have any specific numbers on how acceptable the majority of
> the population finds homosexuality?
Yes the number is 60. I have lived in this world for 60 years and all
of my life experience tells me that the majority of the people in this
country consider a homosexual lifestyle unacceptable. If that was not
true then gays would not have to be lobbying and attempting to promote
their cause at every available opportunity.
>
> Given that half of the population had at least one homosexual encounter to
> orgasm in their lives, and most of the other half have occasional fantasies
> about homosexual sex,
Do you actually have support for those statistics, what is the source?
I would say that your claim is worthless without some
> further backing.
You can say anything you like.
Carter
Carter Lee
Maybe if you go back and read the whole thread you will understand. I
am not about to get into a pissing contest with you because you take one
isolated comment of mine out of context and decide that you think it
"seems to be saying" something it obviously does not say. Go build your
strawman somewhere else.
Carter
Ken
non-discrimination and other progressive changes to legislation brought in
by the Chretien government.
Carter Lee wrote in message <39CD27ED...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
Michael Voytinsky
> > Do you actually have any specific numbers on how acceptable the majority
of
> > the population finds homosexuality?
>
> Yes the number is 60. I have lived in this world for 60 years and all
> of my life experience tells me that the majority of the people in this
> country consider a homosexual lifestyle unacceptable.
Translation: You associate with people like yourself and they re-enforce
your preconceived notions.
Of course, my experience tells me that most people see nothing especially
wrong with homosexuality.
> > Given that half of the population had at least one homosexual encounter
to
> > orgasm in their lives, and most of the other half have occasional
fantasies
> > about homosexual sex,
>
> Do you actually have support for those statistics, what is the source?
There is a summary of Kinsey Institute's studies at
http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/ak-data.html - the results are dated and
today it is likely more people would be willing to report homosexual
experiences.
There are other studies on the subject - you could just try searching the
net for "homosexuality - studies". If you are really interested I can dig
up more info.
Carter Lee
>
> Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:39CD27ED...@ns.sympatico.ca...
>
> > > Do you actually have any specific numbers on how acceptable the majority
> of
> > > the population finds homosexuality?
> >
> > Yes the number is 60. I have lived in this world for 60 years and all
> > of my life experience tells me that the majority of the people in this
> > country consider a homosexual lifestyle unacceptable.
>
> Translation: You associate with people like yourself and they re-enforce
> your preconceived notions.
No my friend, I associate with a representative cross section of the
population. Additionally I am a well travelled ex military member who
has lived in almost every part of this country and has friends and
acquaintances from Newfoundland to BC, as well as other parts of the
world. A very small number of my acquaintances are gay. By far the
vast majority of my acquaintances do not accept homosexuality as a
lifestyle.
>
> Of course, my experience tells me that most people see nothing especially
> wrong with homosexuality.
Then obviously, according to your own reasoning, you associate with gay
people and they reinforce your preconceived notions.
>
> > > Given that half of the population had at least one homosexual encounter
> to
> > > orgasm in their lives, and most of the other half have occasional
> fantasies
> > > about homosexual sex,
> >
> > Do you actually have support for those statistics, what is the source?
>
> There is a summary of Kinsey Institute's studies at
> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/ak-data.html - the results are dated and
> today it is likely more people would be willing to report homosexual
> experiences.
LOL! Dated is the understatement of the week and what may or may not be
"likely" is of little statistical use.
>
> There are other studies on the subject - you could just try searching the
> net for "homosexuality - studies". If you are really interested I can dig
> up more info.
Sure you go ahead. When you find support for your stats that is current
and doesn't rely on what may or may not be likely let us know.
Carter
Michael T. Richter
news:39CD27ED...@ns.sympatico.ca...
>> Do you actually have any specific numbers on how acceptable the
>> majority of the population finds homosexuality?
> Yes the number is 60. I have lived in this world for 60 years
> and all of my life experience tells me that the majority of the
> people in this country consider a homosexual lifestyle unacceptable.
My father is in his sixties. Like you he has a lot of stupid beliefs.
(Unlike you he doesn't trumpet his stupid beliefs into cyberspace for all to
laugh at.)
Feel free to come back when you get an education. A good place to start
with your education is in learning how valuable anecdotal evidence actually
is....
Michael Voytinsky
> > Translation: You associate with people like yourself and they
re-enforce
> > your preconceived notions.
>
> No my friend,
Please do not insult me.
> I associate with a representative cross section of the
> population.
Who just happen to share your preconceived notions.
> > Of course, my experience tells me that most people see nothing
especially
> > wrong with homosexuality.
>
> Then obviously, according to your own reasoning, you associate with gay
> people and they reinforce your preconceived notions.
I was merely pointing out the flaw of "most of my friends believe X
therefore most people believe X" sort of reasoning. It is just as flawed
when I use it as when you use it.
Downtown
something I'v picked up from hateful and intolerant bigots that you or
anyone else never reprimand for their viciousness!!!"
Im quoting you John...I responded to you...this will be my last responce to
your post's...I guess Im reprimanding you John...goodbye...and may God have
mercy on your soul.......Pat
John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qgm6q$1d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> abortion, you have to expose it for what it is, the murdering of an
> unborn child...another human being, because the media and most
> politicians agree with it, does in no way mean it's right. It was
> something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
Vern Redel
"Bill K." <bi...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:39CB6BCD...@spamcop.net...
> Carter Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Bill K." wrote:
> > >
> > > John Lauzon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they
graduate
> > > > to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade naked
in the
> > > > Gay Pride Day Parade?
> > >
> > > No more than they'll be covering the progress of the children raised
and
> > > educated in Catholic schools as when they graduate and join the
> > > priesthood, and eventually end up in jail for sexually assaulting
> > > children?
> >
> > Seems to me that you are insinuating that it was their Catholic
> > education which caused that.
>
> More importantly, it does little to prevent it, despite its self
> proclamation as the ultimate guiding force of good. In fact, the
> Catholic institution seems to serve as a convenient trap attracting the
> children to these perverts, while the parents let their guard down.
>
> > sexual assault of children to young children?
>
> In many cases, through first-hand experience. Ask those who attended
> residential schools.
>
In Alberta, I attended public school, and right from grade 1, the children
were never taught that homosexuality or same sex coupling was normal or
acceptable. If it was around us, it was in the closets, and kids grew up
happy and normal. Especially those of us who accepted our sexuality. Boys
were boys and girls were girls and to consider an "alternate" lifestyle was
not an option. A falling out with a girlfriend did not mean "Oh, I must be
gay".
Male/ female couples living by these inherent morals are raising well
adjusted families, but the outside forces are trying to tell us that that
way of thinking is passe and we are wrong in our thinking. Homosexuality has
emerged from that closet and we are told now that we MUST accept it or at
least tolerate it to a point that we must
sit down with our children and explain that we were misled in our
understanding of right and wrong and it is now okay to be "that way". No
amount of name calling or purse throwing will convince me that homosexuality
is moral or acceptable. Religion asside, we must play the hand we were
dealt.
You Here
says...
>
>
If it was around us, it was in the closets, and kids grew up
>happy and normal. Especially those of us who accepted our sexuality. Boys
>were boys and girls were girls and to consider an "alternate" lifestyle was
>not an option. A falling out with a girlfriend did not mean "Oh, I must be
>gay".
After a falling out with a girlfriend, who would possibly think that means
they are gay? are you insane, vern? or are you gay and in the closet? how
could you possibly think that would happen unless you're confused about your
own sexuality, vern?????????
Michael T. Richter
Wow! I can't believe I missed this little revisionist gem!
The Catholic Church didn't just TOLERATE Hitler, little lunatic: they
SUPPORTED him.
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>The Surrey School District, gave nearly a $1.000.000 to lawyers in legal
>fees, money that could have been put to much better use, talk about cutting
>off your nose to spite your face. And it my not be over yet. Scarier yet
>Heather Stillwell wants to be the next Premier of BC.
And whose fault was that?
Parents should have the right to say what can and can't be divulged to
their children. Schools have no business being used for political
indoctrination.
When children become 18, then they can check Kraft-Ebbing out of the
library if they're interested in finding out about that sort of thing.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Carter Lee
>
> Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:39CD49E3...@ns.sympatico.ca...
>
> > > Translation: You associate with people like yourself and they
> re-enforce
> > > your preconceived notions.
> >
> > No my friend,
>
> Please do not insult me.
I had no intention of insulting you. Why in heaven's name would you
consider that comment an insult?
>
> > I associate with a representative cross section of the
> > population.
>
> Who just happen to share your preconceived notions.
I really don't know how you would know that. It is not true of course
but could you explain how you, who AFAIK are not within my circle of
friends and acquaintances, would know what they think?
>
> > > Of course, my experience tells me that most people see nothing
> especially
> > > wrong with homosexuality.
> >
> > Then obviously, according to your own reasoning, you associate with gay
> > people and they reinforce your preconceived notions.
>
> I was merely pointing out the flaw of "most of my friends believe X
> therefore most people believe X" sort of reasoning. It is just as flawed
> when I use it as when you use it.
Yes, I know what you were pointing out.
Carter
Carter Lee
Very typical of someone who has no reasoned argument to present and must
resort to ad hominem attacks. I feel sorry for you. Your life must be
as miserable as you probably made your father's.
Bye
Carter
Carter Lee
Agreed.
Carter
Ken
benefits etc. What is probably most significant is the fact that young
people, especially in the cities, have gay friends, go out with them, double
date etc., go dancing at gay friendly night clubs, etc. Gay night clubs
themselves have become popular with straights, etc. It`s simply not an
issue any longer with young people. Analysis of stats too show that
tolerance is highest re the better educated. Young families now turn out to
watch gays parades, etc. for the sheer fun of it. They want their children
to see the variety in life. Big applause is always given to a group called
P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). The children will grow
up without the baggage that some of the old antigays types still carry
around. Intelligent parents today are aware that one of their children or
their nephews or nieces could well turn out to be gay, and they will accept
them like they do all family members. Interestingly, many who make a big
stink about so-called family values not being adhered to (eg the comical
Surrey school board) don`t deep down give a shit about families. But the
world progresses without them.
Carter Lee wrote in message <39CE0437...@ns.sympatico.ca>...
Ken
the Christian, Sikh, Muslim variety. What is THEIR purpose? It`s all quite
funny, though, because youth picks up through CDs, movies, TV, etc. the
culture of their peers, regardless of what school they go to. The gay
characters in popular TV comedies (WILL and GRACE, FRIENDS, etc.) reflect
the acceptance that young people take for granted.
RaMMeR wrote in message <3otrsssrho16mqub0...@4ax.com>...
>You like that? RaMMeR <ram...@bombshelter.ca> , Who's yo Daddy! :
>
>>You like that? jsa...@fNrOeSePnAeMt.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) ,
>>Who's yo Daddy! :
>>
>
>>>Parents should have the right to say what can and can't be divulged to
>>>their children. Schools have no business being used for political
>>>indoctrination.
>>>
>
>can you say "catholic school board"?
>
>i knew you could! if that's not school being used for
>political/religious indocrination, then i've no idea what is.
>
>--
>Mark 'Rammer' Ramsden available at ThE BomBSheLTeR:
>RaM...@bombshelter.ca
>ICQ: 24505569
>"if you just joined us, I guess the question is 'why?'
>Why would you watch this?"
>-Jerry Springer.
Ken
although it would be rather comical to see her try to deal with
complexities, because that antigay group is operating at full throttle.
Approximately 30 percent of the electorate bothered to turn out for the last
school board elections, and approximately half of those (l4) percent did NOT
vote for stilwell`s team. So at their OPTIMUM, they are a small minority.
Most people who didn`t turn up weren`t concerned about the book issue as
they know children are getting educated on their own through their
playmates, etc. and in any case the books would be available elsewhere.
It`s fun to see how the school board members have kind of locked into the K
and Grade 1 ages--which means that the books must be fine for anyone older.
Watch them try to wriggle out of that one. As for the province at large,
the fact that the issue is big in Surrey at the moment merely means an
execuse for even more Surrey jokes. As for other students, high school
students are laughing themselves silly over the school board--and they will
be of voting age in a short while.
Lyle Gardiner wrote in message ...
>The Surrey School District, gave nearly a $1.000.000 to lawyers in legal
>fees, money that could have been put to much better use, talk about cutting
>off your nose to spite your face. And it my not be over yet. Scarier yet
>Heather Stillwell wants to be the next Premier of BC.
>
>>
>>
>> B. C. COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES GAY BOOKS IN SCHOOL DECISION
>>
>> Decision Respects Parents' Right to Object to the Books for Classroom Use
>>
>> SURREY, BC, Sept 20 (LSN.ca) - In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the BC Court
>> of Appeal has reversed a BC Supreme Court ruling in the case of
>> Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board. The Supreme Court allowed homosexual
>> propaganda books into kindergarten and grade one classrooms against the
>> wishes of a majority of parents.
>>
>> allowed to use the books to instruct children about "diverse" families,
>> but the school board voted against his request. The Supreme Court's Madam
>> Justice Saunders overturned the board's decision saying it was based on
>> religious convictions and therefore "contrary to s.76(1) of the School
>> Act," which states that schools are to be "conducted on strictly secular
>> ... principles."
>>
>> The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada praised today's reversal of the
>> Supreme Court ruling; EFC's legal counsel Janet Epp-Buckingham noted that
>> it highlighted that the term 'secular' should not be interpreted to
>> exclude religiously-based views.
>>
>> In writing the decision Mr. Justice Mackenzie states: "Moral positions
>> must be accorded equal access to the public square without regard to
>> religious influence. A religiously informed conscience should not be
>> accorded any privilege, but neither should it be placed under a
>> disability." He concludes: "In my opinion, 'strictly secular' in the
>> School Act can only mean pluralist in the sense that moral positions are
>> to be accorded standing in the public square irrespective of whether the
>> position flows out of conscience that is religiously informed or not."
>>
>> John Hof, of Campaign Life Coalition BC, told LifeSite that Justice
>> Saunders, the originator of the decision overturned today was the same
>> judge who reinstated the Bubble Zone in BC after it was thrown out by
>> lower courts. Heather Stillwell, President of the Surrey School Board
>> reacted to today's decision saying, "Sometimes the good guys do win."
>>
>> See the full decision at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/00/05/
>> c00-0519.htm
>>
>>
>> --
>> QUEEN of PEACE, Medjugorje Message, June 25, 2000, "Dear children! Today
>> I call you to prayer. THE ONE WHO PRAYS IS NOT AFRAID OF THE FUTURE.
>> Little children do not forget, I am with you and I love you all. Thank
>> you for having responded to my call. " As recieved by the visionary
>> Marija Pavlovic Lunetti
Ken
etc. where they play with children from single parent homes, divorced parent
homes, commonlaw parent homes, gay parent homes, etc. Soon the whole matter
will just be part of any science class re mating habits, etc. (new research
shows that homosexuality is far commoner in the animal world than previously
thought). Parents do NOT have the rights to censor science classes, or
history classes, or any other subject. If they feel strongly, they can put
their kids in private schools. But even there the provincial curriculum
must be covered too. The world is changing, as usual. Get used to it.
Your own kids or nephews or nieces or the sons and daughters of friends
might turn out to be gay.
John Savard wrote in message <39ce001b...@news.powersurfr.com>...
>>fees, money that could have been put to much better use, talk about
cutting
>>off your nose to spite your face. And it my not be over yet. Scarier yet
>>Heather Stillwell wants to be the next Premier of BC.
>
>
>their children. Schools have no business being used for political
>indoctrination.
>
Vern Redel
"You Here" <sp...@spammy.spam.spam> wrote in message
news:7uiz5.5591$pG1....@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com...
> >happy and normal. Especially those of us who accepted our sexuality. Boys
> >were boys and girls were girls and to consider an "alternate" lifestyle
was
> >not an option. A falling out with a girlfriend did not mean "Oh, I must
be
> >gay".
>
> they are gay? are you insane, vern? or are you gay and in the closet?
how
> could you possibly think that would happen unless you're confused about
your
> own sexuality, vern?????????
You There, Did you not recently catch the news that Rick Valentyn, pervert
who molested boys received a gentler sentence from a compassionate judge.
This bottomfeeder claimed that at 15 he had a falling out with a girlfriend
and at that point decided he was gay.
As politicians survive on votes from all angles, it is in their best
interest to bow to these groups and to try to convince the people that this
lifestyle is normal and moral.
Now, as gays have infiltrated governments around the world, they are getting
a stronger voice and hence, a stronger hold. Still, because it is here, that
doesn't make it right and there will be those who will never accept it as
moral or right.
And no, my sexuality has never been any cause for confusion to me. I am all
male. Just ask my girlfriends.
John Lauzon
elka...@elkab.ong (El Ka-Bong) wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:24:48 GMT, John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Isn't it better Pat, that I speak out AGAINST the things He doesn't like
> >rather than ignore or support them?
>
> doesn't like. You have repeatedly taken the name of the Lord in vain.
Lying Louie...show where I'v taken the Lords name in vain, taking your
name in vain is not the same thing if you had one.
> > The world tolerated Hitler and he
> >started the biggest and worst war in human history!
>
> And the Catholic church was probably one of the most cynically
> complicit in not only tolerating Hitler, but aiding and abetting him.
> Pope Pius XII was practically a co-conspirator. Not that the Catholic
> church has any remorse about this, or even acknowledges their
> wrongdoing -- they're well on their way to cannonizing Pius!
Hitler was probably one of your ancestors but not as proficient a liar as
you are...:)
> This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Catholic church has a rich
> and colourful history of supporting despots and dictators. They have
> been on very friendly terms with beloved humanitarians like General
> Franco and the Duvaliers.
The church is one of the first organizations attacked by despots similar
to you, when they rise to power, so over the centuries they've had to
learn how to cope with lying assholes like you who want to suppress
freedom of speech.
> >Today when someone blows the whistle on a wrongdoer, the whistle blower
> >is the one who suffers and is victimized moreso than the wrongdoer and no
> >one says anything in support...why?
>
> Not true. We're blowing the whistle on you, Lauzon. So far, there
> haven't been ANY negative repercussions!
That's why you keep your identity secret eh lying Louie M....:)
> >You say I'm hateful, intolerant and unchristian, maybe..if true, it's
> >something I'v picked up from hateful and intolerant bigots that you or
> >anyone else never reprimand for their viciousness!!!
>
> Don't blame us if you continue to be a misguided dolt. Your above
> explanation for your shameful behaviour amounts to nothing more than
> saying, "I know you are, but what am I?". This is your standard
> evasion.
...and your standard evasion besides hiding your identity, is your
inability to tell the truth which is your common nature, and probably why
your family wants nothing to do with you.
> >Nevertheless Pat, it was mainly Christians that ended up having to fight
> >against Hitler
>
> Your ignorance of 20th century history is horrifying, but
> unsurprising. It is a widely acknowledged fact that the Soviet
> Union's efforts were the major contributing factor in defeating
> Hitler. Without the Soviet Union, it is likely that they'd be
> speaking German in Whitehall. Do you even have the slightest idea of
> the casualties suffered by both Soviet civilians and the Red Army?
> I'll let you in on a little secret, John. The casualties suffered by
> the Western allies weren't even a drop in the bucket compared to the
> Soviets.
Russia was mainly a Christian nation before it was siezed by the
communists revolt in 1917, and the nations Russia siezed, such as Poland
where also Christian, therefore those that fought for the USSR armed
forces were mainly Christian.
> Oh, and one minor point: Josef Stalin and the Red Army weren't
> Christians. -- but it is humourous when you shoot off your own foot,
> Lauzon. I'm just surprised you haven't run out of bullets yet.
Your wrong lying Louie, Christianity didn't dissapear from the USSR, it
went underground, and the army was full of Christians but there where no
lying assholes like you in it I'm sure.
> >, because they tolerated him and did nothing until he
> >forced them to act...
>
> You mean like your buddy Pope Pius?
Who else saved more Jews than the Catholic Church?
> >you shouldn't tolerate evil or it will stomp you
> >into the ground, kill your children than go to another victim...
>
> And why do you think *you* get as much special attention as you do?
...because the articles I post are about the evil in our society and
people like you can't stand having the spotlight shined on it, you like
having the abortion murders done quietly out of public view and
attention.
> > It was something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
> > COMMUNISM
>
> [*snicker*]
> Is that what they have at Cuban baseball games?
Mainly because of the Popes actions in Poland, the COMMUNIST EVIL UMPIRE
came apart and freed the world of soviet tyranny...naturally lying Louie,
you can only equate the term EVIL UMPIRE jokingly to Cuban baseball
because the USSR no longer exists.
> >because their corrupt leaders couldn't make communism work well
> >enough to feed the mass'. Evil exists in the vacuum of a Godless society
> >as the CULTURE OF DEATH.
>
> Really? They seemed to make communism work well enough to defeat
> Hitler -- so good Christians, like you, could run around taking the
> credit...as Pius XII was shameless enough to do after the war.
Stalin, by taking all the food out of the Ukraine, the breadbasket of the
USSR, starved over 20 million Catholic Ukrainians to death, that's how
they fed Communism.
> > Where there is no God, there is no justice.
>
> Tell that to all the victims of (just a random sampling) the Crusades,
> the Inquisitions, the residential schools, and the Jews who died at
> the hands of the Nazis, thanks to your beloved Pius XII.
You tell them lying Louie, since God wasn't there, you would be better
informed.
> ________________________________________________________
> "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
> -Adolf Hitler to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941.
Lying Louie, Hitlers was almost as good a liar as you, wasn't he?...:)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The Duvaliers love the poor and the poor love the Duvaliers."
> -Speech given by Mother Theresa in Haiti, 1981, on
> the occassion of accepting an award from 'Baby Doc' Duvalier
Where can that quote be found other than on one of your lying web site.
Michael Voytinsky
>> You did not say that homosexuality is evil? Really?
>
>Correct. Can you point out the quote where I said that?
You said, on numerous occasions, that it is "unacceptable" and children
should be taught that it is "unacceptable".
Michael Voytinsky
>1, Is it appropriate to teach sexually oriented materials to 5 and 6 year
>old kids, at the expense of teaching them to read and wrote?
No, but the book in question did not teach sexually oriented material.
And where did you get the bit about "at the expense of teaching them to read
and wrote (sic)"?
>2, Why should we teach something as being normal when it is not normal?
I thought the teaching point was that there is nothing wrong with having a
family that has something other than two parents of opposite gender.
Lots of things are not normal - such as liking brussel sprouts. It does not
mean that there is anything wrong with many of them.
Cheers,
Michael Voytinsky
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
Michael Voytinsky
>The Catholic Church didn't just TOLERATE Hitler, little lunatic: they
>SUPPORTED him.
Is there any evidence for this? I have not seen any yet - as far as I know,
this is a piece of Catholic bashing that has been repeated often enough to
become "true".
Carter Lee
Yes that is exactly what I have said. I repeat, can you point out the
quote where I said that homosexuality is evil?
Carter
Michael T. Richter
>> Feel free to come back when you get an education. A good place to
>> start with your education is in learning how valuable anecdotal
>> evidence actually is....
> Very typical of someone who has no reasoned argument to present and
> must resort to ad hominem attacks.
Reasoned arguments only work on reasonable people. They don't work on
asshole seniors whose sole criterion for disliking something is that it is
different than their pathetic little lives.
Michael T. Richter
news:3KHz5.11481$oL4.2...@news2.nokia.com...
>> The Catholic Church didn't just TOLERATE Hitler, little lunatic: they
>> SUPPORTED him.
> Is there any evidence for this?
British historian John Cornwell wrote a book on the subject. The title was
something like "Hitler's Pope". (Yes the title is lurid. Authors outside
of the bestseller lists rarely have any control over book titles.)
Cornwell started off his investigation of Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII)
thinking that he could have Pius' pontificate exonerated. Instead he came
out in, using his own words, "moral shock" at Pacelli's anti-semitism and
his clear collaboration with fascist leaders.
The book, contrary to its title, doesn't portray Pius XII as a monster. It
portrays him as more a tragic figure who allowed his (relatively) mild
anti-Semitism, his strong bent toward centralised authority and his hatred
of communism to cause him to make a deal with the Devil.
> I have not seen any yet - as far as I know, this is a piece of Catholic
> bashing that has been repeated often enough to become "true".
Does the signed agreement between Pius XII and Hitler in which the Church
promised to stay out of politics in exchange for Hitler recognising and
supporting Catholic religious activities count as "Catholic bashing" or as a
historical document?
Carter Lee
> >> Feel free to come back when you get an education. A good place to
> >> start with your education is in learning how valuable anecdotal
> >> evidence actually is....
>
> > must resort to ad hominem attacks.
>
> Reasoned arguments only work on reasonable people. They don't work on
> asshole seniors whose sole criterion for disliking something is that it is
> different than their pathetic little lives.
Like I said you have no reasoned argument to present, if you did you
would not bother with this kind of personal attack. It appears that you
are not smart enough to understand that this kind of crap only serves to
destroy any creditability you may have had and identifies you as the
asshole.
Bye
Carter
John Lauzon
Funny, all I hear is that the church and state should be separate, but
now your complaining that the church shouldn't have signed an agreement
to keep out of Hilter's politics, apparently it's alright to align the
church with Hitler's dictatorship but it's not when it pertains to a
democracy...why fat Mikey???
--
QUEEN of PEACE, Medjugorje Message, June 25, 2000, "Dear children! Today
I call you to prayer. THE ONE WHO PRAYS IS NOT AFRAID OF THE FUTURE.
Little children do not forget, I am with you and I love you all. Thank
you for having responded to my call. " As recieved by the visionary
Marija Pavlovic Lunetti
Ken
for a gay man to have sexual intercourse with a girl, but still not feel
romantically involved in any way. The same is true of a straight man with a
gay man. True feeling surface when love, etc. is involved--the emotions
come through in dreams, or while day dreaming etc. No one can force or
"train" anyone to be gay or straight--they are or they are not. A gay man
could have sex with a hundred women, and he would still be gay. But he
wouldn`t be happy, not if he didn`t follow his true feelings with a true
love object. Sometimes a person might be bisexual, but will go where the
feelings take him or her. Telling someone to be straight when he`s actually
gay is like telling a straight to be gay when he is NOT. Intercourse is
mechanical and intercourse with a girl does NOT mean a man is straight. Or
vice versa. A lesbian could easily conceal her true feeling while getting
it off with a man. So no one can assume that if someone has girlfriends and
is sleeping around with them that that person is straight. Only he knows
for sure, and he may not wish to tell. At least not yet.
As for governments, gays have ALWAY been involved in governments--ALWAYS,
and those politicians or rulers moved in sophisticated, educated circles who
KNEW. Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, James I of England (who
sponsored the King James Bible), Julius Caesar (bisexual), LaFayette (who
was instrumental in winning the American`s War of Independence against
Britain with George Washington), the founder of West Point, the top rulers
or presidents or prime ministers or cabinet ministers of virtually every
European country, every North American country, every Asian country. They
do not have to "infilitrate". They have ALWAYS been there. Only now
they`re free to be more open about it. Keep in mind too that the vast
majority of intelligent heterosexual rulers, etc. had gay friends (they
still do)--popes were friends of Michelangelo, etc. etc. etc. Walt Whitman
(America`s greatest poet), Edward Albee (contemporary playwright), a host of
musicians and entertainers--all had or have friends in political circles.
It`s not a secret. All of this is news only to those who haven`t yet been
educated about the subject. Fortunately the school systems are now
providing curriculum and courses that deal honestly and openly with the
issue. It won`t make a difference as to who "becomes" gay. They already
are, or not. Studies involving gay parents show that their children are no
more likely to be gay than the regular population because orientation isn`t
"taught". What urgently needs investigation though is the pathology of
those pathetic people who feel threatened by something that has been around
since evolution began, and will no doubt continue until time ends. What`s
REALLY bothering them?
Vern Redel wrote in message ...
Ken
at the end of the war. The system used by those saving the Nazis was called
the "rat line" and also involved the secret services of a number of allied
countries.
John Lauzon wrote in message <8qojfn$lq0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
El Ka-Bong
wrote:
>...show where I'v taken the Lords name in vain.
Randomly select any of your numerous blasphemous posts.
I also notice you've spelled "Lords" as a plural. I take that to mean
you are a polytheist. Seems rather heretical for someone who claims
to be a good Catholic.
>> And the Catholic church was probably one of the most cynically
>> complicit in not only tolerating Hitler, but aiding and abetting him.
>> Pope Pius XII was practically a co-conspirator. Not that the Catholic
>> church has any remorse about this, or even acknowledges their
>> wrongdoing -- they're well on their way to cannonizing Pius!
>
>Hitler was probably one of your ancestors but not as proficient a liar as
>you are...:)
You repeatedly call me a liar, thou bearer of false witness.
Hitler was certainly not any relation to me. My family has the
official paperwork to back this up, provided courtesy of the GESTAPO.
How's that for proof, Senőr Boobyhatch?
>> This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Catholic church has a rich
>> and colourful history of supporting despots and dictators. They have
>> been on very friendly terms with beloved humanitarians like General
>> Franco and the Duvaliers.
>
>The church is one of the first organizations attacked by despots similar
>to you, when they rise to power
Really? They seemed to do pretty well by General Franco, the
Duvaliers, and Adolf Hitler, among many others. I must be the wrong
kind of despot.
>, so over the centuries they've had to
>learn how to cope with lying assholes like you who want to suppress
>freedom of speech.
Don't get me wrong, Johnny. I agree the Roman Catholic church is all
in favour of freedom of speech -- so long as they're the only ones who
have it!
>> Not true. We're blowing the whistle on you, Lauzon. So far, there
>> haven't been ANY negative repercussions!
>
>That's why you keep your identity secret eh lying Louie M....:)
Huh? You'll have to explain that one. My identity is not secret. My
identity is El Ka-Bong. Is your invisible friend "Lying Louie"
putting you up to this? Ask your doctor to increase your Thorazine
ration.
>...and your standard evasion besides hiding your identity, is your
>inability to tell the truth which is your common nature, and probably why
>your family wants nothing to do with you.
And again you call me a liar. Tut-tut, little man, you'll never get
to heaven by continually bearing false witness.
>> Your ignorance of 20th century history is horrifying, but
>> unsurprising. It is a widely acknowledged fact that the Soviet
>> Union's efforts were the major contributing factor in defeating
>> Hitler. Without the Soviet Union, it is likely that they'd be
>> speaking German in Whitehall. Do you even have the slightest idea of
>> the casualties suffered by both Soviet civilians and the Red Army?
>> I'll let you in on a little secret, John. The casualties suffered by
>> the Western allies weren't even a drop in the bucket compared to the
>> Soviets.
>
>Russia was mainly a Christian nation before it was siezed by the
>communists revolt in 1917,
So? And before that they were pagans of one sort or another. I don't
know if you're aware, but the revolution occurred 24 years before the
USSR went to war with Germany. That's an entire generation, Johnny.
They could have been flying monkeys before 1917, for all anyone cares.
Do you have enough bullets left to shoot your other foot off?
>and the nations Russia siezed, such as Poland
>where also Christian, therefore those that fought for the USSR armed
>forces were mainly Christian.
Huh? Russia never "seized" Poland prior to WW2.
Did you actually finish school ... or did it finish you?
>> Oh, and one minor point: Josef Stalin and the Red Army weren't
>> Christians. -- but it is humourous when you shoot off your own foot,
>> Lauzon. I'm just surprised you haven't run out of bullets yet.
>
>Your wrong lying Louie, Christianity didn't dissapear from the USSR, it
>went underground, and the army was full of Christians but there where no
>lying assholes like you in it I'm sure.
Prove it. You have no clue, do you?
And calling me a "lying asshole" again -- naughty, naughty, Johnny.
Perhaps someone should wash your mouth out with soap.
>> >, because they tolerated him and did nothing until he
>> >forced them to act...
>>
>> You mean like your buddy Pope Pius?
>
>Who else saved more Jews than the Catholic Church?
LOL!!!
Pretty much anyone!
My cat!
Or how about those bad atheists, The Red Army?
>...because the articles I post are about the evil in our society
The word "are" is superfluous in the above sentence.
"Your" "articles" are a prime example of the "evil in our society".
>people like you can't stand having the spotlight shined on it, you like
>having the abortion murders done quietly out of public view and
>attention.
Huh? Now you're prattling on about abortion.
Your mind (such as it is) seems to be wandering again.
>> > It was something that was and is mainly practiced in the EVIL UMPIRES of
>> > COMMUNISM
>>
>> [*snicker*]
>> Is that what they have at Cuban baseball games?
>
>Mainly because of the Popes actions in Poland, the COMMUNIST EVIL UMPIRE
>came apart and freed the world of soviet tyranny
My god, if stupidity were a natural resource, you'd qualify for tax
credits.
>you can only equate the term EVIL UMPIRE jokingly to Cuban baseball
>because the USSR no longer exists.
Holy shit, my sides are aching from laughing so hard!
Man, you are truly dumber than a box of hammers.
>Stalin, by taking all the food out of the Ukraine, the breadbasket of the
>USSR, starved over 20 million Catholic Ukrainians to death, that's how
>they fed Communism.
This has got to be the cherry on the icing! Just when I was afraid
you were running out of bullets to shoot yourself in the foot with,
you turn out to own a munitions factory!
Assuming you are referring to the famine of 1932-33, let's see if we
can't set you straight on a few points.
a) the figures quoted for deaths in the Ukraine during this
period are between 5 and 10 million. The generally accepted
figure is 7 million. So take your number and divide by three.
b) the overwhelming majority of Ukranians are Orthodox
Christians (two-thirds), NOT Roman Catholics.
Catholics in the Ukraine were, and still are, a tiny minority.
c) you should have paid more attention in school. You did
go to school, didn't you?
>> > Where there is no God, there is no justice.
>>
>> Tell that to all the victims of (just a random sampling) the Crusades,
>> the Inquisitions, the residential schools, and the Jews who died at
>> the hands of the Nazis, thanks to your beloved Pius XII.
>
>You tell them lying Louie, since God wasn't there, you would be better
>informed.
Maybe God wasn't there, but the Roman Catholic church
most certainly was!
>> ________________________________________________________
>> "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
>> -Adolf Hitler to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941.
>
>Lying Louie, Hitlers was almost as good a liar as you, wasn't he?...:)
I'm not lying, bearer of false witness. Hitler was raised a Catholic
just as you were.
>> "The Duvaliers love the poor and the poor love the Duvaliers."
>> -Speech given by Mother Theresa in Haiti, 1981, on
>> the occassion of accepting an award from 'Baby Doc' Duvalier
>
>Where can that quote be found other than on one of your lying web site.
That is a very well-known quote, reported in many newspapers at the
time. I'm sure you could even find a transcript of her speech in a
Vatican archive, if you wanted. There is even a photograph of Mother
Theresa accompanying these articles, were she is hugging Michele
Duvalier, and Baby Doc looks on fondly.
BTW, I don't actually have a web site, as "Lying Louie" is merely a
figment of your tortured little mind. However, I notice you have your
own (extremely bizarre) web site, Johnny. You should really see a
doctor about your acne problem.
HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/BINGO3539
Cheers,
-EK
Michael Voytinsky
news:IzIz5.86744$UO.2...@news22.bellglobal.com...
> Cornwell started off his investigation of Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII)
> thinking that he could have Pius' pontificate exonerated. Instead he came
> out in, using his own words, "moral shock" at Pacelli's anti-semitism and
> his clear collaboration with fascist leaders.
This is the promotional claim, yes. This claim is as self-serving as it is
unverifiable - which is itself enough cause for scepticism.
Further, his previous writings have not been exactly favourable to the
Vatican (e.g. "Thief in the Night") - which reduces further the credibility
of his claim further.
> The book, contrary to its title, doesn't portray Pius XII as a monster.
Haven't read it. Next time I am at Chapters I will take a flip through it.
But so far I am skeptical.
I find it odd that there is nothing to back Cornwell's claims up at
www.nizkor.com or www.wiesenthal.com
Nizkor outright denies the complicity of the Vatican in the Holocaust (one
of Cornwell's claims, AFAIK), and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre simply states
that the Vatican itself remained neutral.
I find it almost inconceivable that either organization would blatantly
ignore Cornwell's claims or contradict them.
> Does the signed agreement between Pius XII and Hitler in which the Church
> promised to stay out of politics in exchange for Hitler recognising and
> supporting Catholic religious activities count as "Catholic bashing" or as
a
> historical document?
Depends on what it is used to prove. There is nothing in what you say
showing that Church's support for Hitler's activities.
Yes, it probably could have done more than it did - but that is not the same
as support.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
"When entering a health club, make sure there are people leaving.
Otherwise it could be an alien meat processing plant in disguise."
gap...@vcn.bc.ca
"> I'm sure you will get a lot of gays outraged at you for this post. Let me
"> suggest that if the minority of parents who were in favor of allowing
"> homosexual books into kindergarten and grade one, want their children to b
"> taught about alternative lifestyles, then they should create a special
"> school for their children . Who knows..... maybe they will grow up to be
"> gay also.
I personally don't believe that 5 & 6 year olds need to be getting a pointed
education regarding the admittedly existing "alternative family types" but for
a very simple, and I believe fair, reason:
AGE(mental/maturity age,not merely calendar) APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION!!!
And who is best suited to assess whether a particular child is intellectually,
emotionally, and mentally ready for this type of instruction? Who else but the
primary caregivers(usually, but not limited to, mother(s) and/or father(s))
I mentioned that whole Maritime thing where the grade 6 teacher taught her
class how to perform oral sex on men in a chat group on a US BBS network
conference and every response was, "If that's true, it is definitely WRONG!"
Such a ridiculous concept that nobody could believe it was actually TRUE!!!
Your friend,
<+]::-{(} ("Cyberpope")
(email: gap...@vcn.bc.ca)
ICQ UIN: 32617950
homepage: http://citizens.nettaxi.com/Cyberpope
(Please quote with "gapope wrote...")
-=-
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
in all things, charity. -- Baxter quoting Augustine
-=-
The latest: SHE SAID YES!!!!(05/24/2000 is a HAPPY DAY!!!!)
Michael Voytinsky
>I mentioned that whole Maritime thing where the grade 6 teacher taught her
>class how to perform oral sex on men in a chat group on a US BBS network
>conference and every response was, "If that's true, it is definitely
WRONG!"
I still have not seen an account of what exactly was taught in that
classroom.
"Teaching about oral sex" can include everything from
"You can get pregnant from oral sex" (appropriate for 6ths graders) to
"If performing oral sex on your partner after taking it in the ass, you may
want to wash his dick first" (inappropriate for 6ths graders)
Michael Voytinsky
>"You can get pregnant from oral sex" (appropriate for 6ths graders) to
I think you mean "You CAN'T get pregnant from oral sex"
Ken
the next election. The National Post reported this yesterday.
Rockel, Kevin [CAR:AT16:EXCH]
Enough already.
Kevin
Ken
They were raised by straight parents, too. Those who find gays "unnatural"
are not, obviously, familiar with the animal world, where gay is widespread,
nor are they at all tolerant of MINORITIES--who are, by definition--not
"normal" either (left-handed people, very short people, very tall people,
etc.) What these bigots are no longer comfortable doing is pointing to
their RELIGION as the source of their definitions of natural, normal, etc.
and it enrages them that they can no longer do so in this multicultural,
increasingly globablized, increasingly secularized world re governments.
Too bad. They should get a life.
Vern Redel wrote in message ...
>
>happy and normal. Especially those of us who accepted our sexuality. Boys
>were boys and girls were girls and to consider an "alternate" lifestyle was
>not an option. A falling out with a girlfriend did not mean "Oh, I must be
>gay".
>adjusted families, but the outside forces are trying to tell us that that
>way of thinking is passe and we are wrong in our thinking. Homosexuality
has
>emerged from that closet and we are told now that we MUST accept it or at
>least tolerate it to a point that we must
>sit down with our children and explain that we were misled in our
>understanding of right and wrong and it is now okay to be "that way". No
>amount of name calling or purse throwing will convince me that
homosexuality
>is moral or acceptable. Religion asside, we must play the hand we were
>dealt.
>
>> **** WARNING **** All unsolicited bulk e-mail received at this address
>> will be promptly reported to the sender's system administrator, and to
>> law enforcement authorities whenever applicable.
>> (Done through SpamCop. See http://spamcop.net for details.)
>
>
godbuster
John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
[excretia deletia]
http://www.planetout.com/pno/multimedia/television/archive/
"You can either watch a full 30 minute QueerTV programmes
or various segments of shows. One segment that struck my
interest was entitled "Homo Erectus" and it dealt with a
University of Georgia study of latent homosexuality as the
root of homophobia. What they did was to select some violent
homophobes and test them with a "peter meter" to
determine if gay porn turned them on. Turns out it did. So it
seems like we were right all along when some of us said that
the most vehement and violent homophobes were prone to be
latent gays themselves."
godbuster
John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <56Oy5.10384$x6.6...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>,
> "Downtown" <pbat...@home.com> wrote:
> > You say you are doing "God's work"...
>
> No...those that hate me say I'm doing God's work, I'v never said that.
>
So you admit to really doing Satan's work....
godbuster
John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> LIED:
> > This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Catholic church
> > has a rich and colourful history of supporting despots and
> > dictators. They have been on very friendly terms with
> > beloved humanitarians like General Franco and the Duvaliers.
>
> The church is one of the first organizations attacked by despots
> similar to you, when they rise to power, so over the centuries
> they've had to learn how to cope with lying assholes like you who
> want to suppress freedom of speech.
BWAHAHA! The LIE of the Millenium! Just WHO created the INDEX of
fobidden books, LIAR LAUZON! Huh?
You don't have even a trace of concscience, ethics, truth, or morality,
do you, you snivelling hatemonger fer jeezus!
Ken
a cause of gay bashing. One researcher tracked the cases of local gay
bashing in detail and came to the same conclusion as a separate study did in
Georgia.
godbuster wrote in message <8rt831$hdu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8qc6lo$me4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>[excretia deletia]
>
>http://www.planetout.com/pno/multimedia/television/archive/
>
>"You can either watch a full 30 minute QueerTV programmes
> or various segments of shows. One segment that struck my
> interest was entitled "Homo Erectus" and it dealt with a
> University of Georgia study of latent homosexuality as the
> root of homophobia. What they did was to select some violent
> homophobes and test them with a "peter meter" to
>determine if gay porn turned them on. Turns out it did. So it
>seems like we were right all along when some of us said that
> the most vehement and violent homophobes were prone to be
> latent gays themselves."
>
>
>
godbuster
bk...@torfree.net (John Lauzon) wrote:
> Ken (Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca) wrote:
>
> : The books will be available in the library,
> Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they
> graduate to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to
> parade naked in the Gay Pride Day Parade?
>
Even as the Archdiocese of Boston seeks to make amends to
parishioners who were sexually abused by priests, alleged victims say
the church must do more than offer "vague" apologies and healing Masses
to win them back. Indeed, some reacted angrily to the string of five
Masses, the last of which will be held tonight at St. Julia's Church in
Weston, and to this week's apology by Bernard Cardinal Law, who "begged
the forgiveness" of abuse victims in the latest issue of The Pilot,
Boston's Catholic newspaper.
godbuster
John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <39cc0731...@news.aebc.com>,
> elka...@elkab.ong (El Ka-Bong) wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:24:48 GMT, John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Catholic church has a rich
> > and colourful history of supporting despots and dictators. They
> > have been on very friendly terms with beloved humanitarians like
> > General Franco and the Duvaliers.
>
> The church is one of the first organizations attacked by despots
> similar to you, when they rise to power, so over the centuries
> they've had to learn how to cope with lying assholes like you who
> want to suppress freedom of speech.
attempts to muzzle free speech. LYING ASSHOLE!
Who destroyed THE LIBRARY AT ALEXANDRIA?
WHO BURNED THE BOOKS OF THE MAYA?
There isn't a single penitentiary inmate who doesn't have more honesty
and integrity than you and your fellow liars fer the lard.
May your priest give you aids!
Venus Pomeranian
godbuster wrote:
> In article <8qmmbd$dnh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <39cc0731...@news.aebc.com>,
> > elka...@elkab.ong (El Ka-Bong) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:24:48 GMT, John Lauzon <dom...@my-deja.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the Catholic church has a rich
> > > and colourful history of supporting despots and dictators. They
> > > have been on very friendly terms with beloved humanitarians like
> > > General Franco and the Duvaliers.
> >
> > The church is one of the first organizations attacked by despots
> > similar to you, when they rise to power, so over the centuries
> > they've had to learn how to cope with lying assholes like you who
> > want to suppress freedom of speech.
> And just WHO came up with the INDEX of FORBIDDEN BOOKS, in their
> attempts to muzzle free speech. LYING ASSHOLE!
> Who destroyed THE LIBRARY AT ALEXANDRIA?
> WHO BURNED THE BOOKS OF THE MAYA?
>
> There isn't a single penitentiary inmate who doesn't have more honesty
> and integrity than you and your fellow liars fer the lard.
> May your priest give you aids!
>
His priest already did while you were confessing and he was in
the box getting it! godbuster or is it ballbuster!!! :)
godbuster
bk...@torfree.net (John Lauzon) wrote:
> Ken (Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca) wrote:
>
> : The books will be available in the library,
>
>
> : and the teachers may use them in
> : class re reading stories, etc. This was covered in depth last
night on
> : BCTV.
>
> Will the BCTV be covering the progress of the children when they
> graduate to public toilet and bathhouse seductions, and how to parade
> naked in the Gay Pride Day Parade?
Say John - tell us about the "castrata" - you know, the Vatican choir
where they emasculated young boys to keep their voices from changing.
Did "our lady of mudjugorgy entice the boys in? Which priest cut off
their testacles? Was this a papal-approved method of birth control?