One Million Moms Upset About Two Women Kissing in Urban Outfitters Catalog: Totally Fine or 'Inappropriate'?

Rewriting history is not "learning the lessons of history." To state that Mohammed was a strong supporter of equality for women, is simply reading, "rewritten history" and ignoring the available documentation which was written by Mohammed himself.

Koran 4:34
"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

But examine the teachings and practices of Mohammed and you will get a clear understanding of what is in store for American women, as a homosexist culture gradually takes over her life and limb.

You seem to believe that misogyny has been "irradicated" like Small Pox. This is simply not the truth. Misogyny is alive and well, and the misogyny of homosexist cultures have always knocked women off of their feet. You simply haven't gotten a taste of it yet, because most men in the west still are influenced by the teachings of Christ. Those kinds of men are not going to last forever.

You will be stunned by how many men are able to take male lovers, and still take a wife. The male lover will be the favored partner, and the wife will be for progeny. And there is plenty of literature left over from the Roman women as to how they suffered through this.

Christianity made women drunk with elation and liberty, when the gospel was first preached on the earth. But men are leaving all of that behind. What they will keep is a strong dose of old-fashioned, brutal misogyny.

No, almost all religions allow for homosexuality. The only two that do not are based on the God in the Old and New testament. Pagans have always been homosexual in nature, including homosexual rites. Islam nation, for all of their protests, are homosexual. The Arab pagans that Islam came from was homosexual.

Buddhism is all over the place on this one, but this is the wrods of the current Dalai Lama

Wikipedia:
A monk since childhood, the Dalai Lama has said that sex offers fleeting satisfaction and leads to trouble later, while chastity offers a better life and "more independence, more freedom".[72] He has observed that problems arising from conjugal life sometimes even lead to suicide or murder.[73] He has asserted that all religions have the same view about adultery.[74]

In his discussions of the traditional Buddhist view on appropriate sexual behavior, he explains the concept of "right organ in the right object at the right time," which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists, yet he also says that in modern times all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable and that society should not discriminate against gays and lesbians and should accept and respect them from a secular point of view.[75] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say, 'If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'"[76]

In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."[77] He elaborated in 1997, explaining that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him and acknowledging that "some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context," while clarifying the historical Buddhist position (in contrast with his personal opinion) by saying, "Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand... From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct". Nonetheless, he reiterated, Buddhism calls for respect, compassion, and equal treatment for all, including homosexuals.[78]


And the same can be said about Hinduism. There are no definite rules against homosexuality in any of these religions, and so they are more apt to allow for it.

I'm not talking about general compassion. I don't want you to get confused about the compassion I am discussing. I am talking about compassion for wives and women. I'm talking about this:


1 Peter 3:7
7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.


The ancient Egyptians came close to this. The Muslims not at all. The Hindus to this day are involved with bride-burnings. (not to mention their caste system, which is another story)

And you are basing your expectations of being taken care of with your experiences in a westernized society that has always valued Judeo-Christian behavior. But Americans are moving away from that. When that happens, there is nothing in the history of these religions that indicate that taking care of you is going to be a priority outside of the "Christian" world-view."

Take a look at the cultures where Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam prevail? China is chosing abortion or infanticide of baby girls. India is killing off their girls, and Islam is killing off their women. Which of these countries would you chose to live in?

I thought it was you that said other religions didn't allow it...but it was probably someone else. However, the infanticide of baby girls in China is actually not related to Buddhism; the Chinese government no longer accepts Buddhism as it is not worship of the dictator. It is because of the child limit that baby girls are aborted or sometimes even killed after being born. The idea that girls aren't as valuable as boys was a traditional Confucian belief, yes. However, Confucianism is seen by most people not as a religion, but as a philosophy. Also, in your discussion of religions lacking compassion for women you forget one (or lack of one): atheism. Although there are male and female feminists of all religions, most are atheists. Compassion for women is a moral choice, not just a religious choice. Religion is powerful. If a boy grows up with a religion that tells him to beat his wife, he'll grow up to do so. However, if someone isn't religious they'll usually be as good as they chose to be...that could be either bad or good. As I've stated, atheists are the most likely to be feminists as WELL as stand up for gay rights. America is becoming more multicultural, but atheism is probably the fastest growing religion right now. Also, I've forgotten to prove one of the most important things here. By trying to take the bias off of one group of people based on your own predictions, you're forcing the bias on another group of people. The prejudice against gays isn't something that "might" happen based on your point of view, it MUST happen. Women being discriminated against again is something that you see will otherwise PROBABLY happen (despite the fact that the course of history is completely unpredictable and can be altered by countless factors that anyone may or may not be aware of).

Economic and physical brutality is going to happen based on statistics. In 100% of the cultures in which homosexuality became prevalent, misgyny became brutal. That is how statistical analysis is performed and statistical predictions are made. That is what polls do. The world has been a "poll" in regard to the treatment of women in homosexist cultures.

First of all Buddhism is practiced in China. I have a friend in China who is Buddhist. But more to the point, China is officially atheist!!!! So neither atheism or Buddhism is saving the lives of infant girls in China.

In fact Atheism will hold no restraints on females, because Atheism does not have values. Ted Bundy spoke the best when it comes to the nilism of values.
-----------------------------...
Ted Bundy, via Harry V. Jaffa, on Nihilism

Homosexuality and the Natural Law (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3-4.

Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself: that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring — the strength of character — to throw off its shackles. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable "value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others a "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

Atheism didn't save the baby girls in China because the government has a child limit, and NO religion can save them because Confucian beliefs are the original influence and the government stops them from being able to have children until they have a boy. Also, "atheist has no values". Seriously? Here we go again with giving an example of ONE atheist and using it as a basis for every single one. "Atheists have no values"? Argh, of course you would think homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry. Morality and religion are two separate things that converge. For example, some people don't believe in drinking caffeine. Unless that's for health reasons, that's for religious reasons...is there any moral reason for not drinking coffee? Are you hurting people by not drinking coffee? No. However, there are also moral things that have nothing to do with religion. If you think all atheists would be happy to murder someone's entire family to get one hundred dollars then you don't know any atheists and you don't understand human morality at all. Morality exists as a function in almost every human. Those that don't have morals are sociopaths, not atheists. It is a disease, not a religion. Even some higher animals have morals. What about dogs who risk their lives to save their owners? I'm pretty sure they don't read a Bible every day. As I have stated earlier, I am a Christian and have some EXTREMELY Christian friends...and yet everyone I know knows that atheists have morals. Besides, every human, religious or nonreligious, has a certain degree of morality. Have you ever lied? Than you're not morally perfect. However, if you think atheist parents teach their children that lying is okay when they're little, I don't even know how I can help you.

Hitler was not a Christian. In fact, the latest research demonstrates that he was a homosexual. And the evidence lies with the fact that the Nazi party was the result of paganism and homosexuality

The Nazi party began with the teachings of Lanz von Liebenfels, who was kicked out of a monastery for homosexual acts, and who began a following of occult members interested in the Aryan race. He also few the Swastika over his castle, and published a journal to his occult with such titles as

Wikipedia:
Adolf Josef Lanz aka Jörg Lanz, who called himself Lanz von Liebenfels (July 19, 1874 – April 22, 1954) was an Austrian publicist and journalist. He was a former monk and the founder of the magazine Ostara, in which he published anti-semitic and völkisch theories.

Lanz became a monk in the Cistercian order in 1893, assuming the name Georg and living in the Heiligenkreuz monastery. In 1894, he claimed to have been "enlightened" after finding the tombstone of a Knight Templar, and began developing his theories of "blue-blond aryanism" and "lower races". He left the monastery in 1899; although Lanz claimed that this was due to "growing nervousness", the official documents recorded "carnal love" as the reason.

[edit] Work with Theozoology

In 1904, he published his book Theozoologie ("Theozoology") in which he advocated sterilization of the sick and the "lower races" as well as forced labour for "castrated chandals", and glorified the "Aryan race" as "Gottmenschen" ("god-men"). Theozoology could also be classified as a work encompassing what has now come to be called cryptozoology. Lanz justified his neognostic racial ideology by attempting to give it a Biblical foundation; according to him, Eve, whom he described as initially being divine, involved herself with a demon and gave birth to the "lower races" in the process. Furthermore, he claimed that this led to blonde women being attracted primarily to "dark men", something that only could be stopped by "racial demixing" so that the "Aryan-Christian master humans" could "once again rule the dark-skinned beastmen" and ultimately achieve "divinity". A copy of this book was sent to Swedish poet August Strindberg, from whom Lanz received an enthusiastic reply in which he was described as a "prophetic voice".

One year later, in 1905, he founded the magazine Ostara, Briefbücherei der Blonden und Mannesrechtler, of which he became the sole author and editor in 1908. Lanz himself claimed to have up to 100,000 subscribers, but it is generally agreed that this figure is grossly exaggerated. Readers of this publication included Adolf Hitler and Dietrich Eckart, among others. Lanz claimed he was once visited by the young Hitler, whom he supplied with two missing issues of the magazine.

As a student of Guido von List, Lanz further expanded his theories; other influences included Otto Weininger, of whom Lanz was a fervent follower.

[edit] Interactions with Aryan societies

In 1905 Lanz and some 50 other supporters of List signed a declaration endorsing the proposed Guido-von

Wikipedia:

Ostara or Ostara, Briefbücherei der Blonden und Mannesrechtler (English 'Ostara, newsletter of the blonde and masculists') was a German nationalist magazine founded in 1905 by the occultist Lanz von Liebenfels in Vienna, Austria.

Lanz derived the name of the publication from the reconstructed Old High German goddess name *Ôstarâ. Lanz claimed that the Ostrogoths and the nation of Austria (German: Österreich) were matronymically named after this goddess.[1] In his study of Lanz von Liebenfels, the Austrian psychologist Wilfried Daim states that this claim by von Liebenfels is "most likely this is even greater nonsense."[1]

Reexamine the records of history: The Greeks made young boys homosexual so that they preferred men over wives, and only used women for progeny. This happened to all young men. Converting boys to homosexuality was mandatory education by the state:

Plato Symposium:: (Quoted by Kobrad Heiden's Der Furhrer 1944:741)

"For I know not any greater blessing to a young man who is beginning in life than a virtuous lover, or to a lover than a beloved youth. For the principle, I say, neither kindred, nor honor, nor wealth, nor any motive is able to implant so well as love. Of what am I speaking? Of the sense of honor and dishonor, without which neither states nor individuals ever do any good or great work… And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor and emulating one another in honor; and it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world."

Plato Symposium:
"Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them, and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.

Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,--if at all, they do so only in obedience to custom; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded;"

Of course there is a cure for homosexuality. Many men and women have recovered from homosexuality. How would you explain that, with the proposition that "once you're gay, you're gay."

The internet is filled with people who left homosexuality, and are leading joyful and fulfilled lives. Here are two examples:

Testimony of Charlene Cothran
"Over the past 29 years of my life I have been an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues. I’ve organized and participated in countless marches and various lobbying efforts in the fight for equal treatment of gay men and lesbians. I have kept current on the issues and made financial contributions to those organizations doing work about which I was most passionate.
As the publisher of a 13 year old periodical which targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.

But now, I must come out of the closet again. I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ. As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us."



Darryl L. Foster,
We can step out and advocate for our beliefs (which is our right as taxpaying citizens) or we can remain silent and hidden, thereby giving credence to a false idea that there are no former homosexuals. The problem with the last option is our spiritual mandate to share our faith and our experience of change to the glory of God. In the church, we have yet to adopt a unified expression which identifies us in a non threatening way.