Home > debunking MSM, Gay and Lesbian, Homosexuality, morality, Religion > Don’t drink the Kool-Aid (Part 2)

Don’t drink the Kool-Aid (Part 2)

October 18th, 2011

by Marcia Segelstein

Do you ever wonder what the world will be like in 20 or 30 years?  If you’re a parent or a grandparent, chances are you’ve thought a lot about the world the next generation will inhabit.  And if you’re a Christian, no doubt you’ve wondered if Christian values will be part of the mainstream culture, or whether such values will even be tolerated.

Mary Beth Hicks, in her new book, Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid, makes a good case for those concerns, some of which I wrote about in my last column.

Take the issue of homosexuality.  Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs teach that the practice of homosexuality is wrong.  But gay activists and their liberal supporters have done a stunning job of shifting public opinion against those tenets.  They’ve even invented a word for it: homophobia.  We’ve reached the point where bringing morality into a discussion of homosexuality is considered hateful.

“In no area has the radical Left made greater inroads into the values and beliefs of America’s youth than in gaining widespread acceptance of homosexuality,” Hicks writes.  “Should the trend of the past twenty years continue into the next generation, our grandchildren absolutely will accept homosexuality as a natural and normal form of sexual expression without any moral or even religious reservations.”

If you have any doubts about how quickly and easily it’s possible to shift public opinion, consider the study Hicks cites on this issue.  In 2009, the Girl Scout Research Institute, working with Harris Interactive, surveyed approximately 3,000 young people on a variety of topics. The survey was intended for comparison with one conducted in 1989, with virtually identical questions.  The largest shift in attitude was on the subject of homosexuality.  In 1989, 31 percent of the young people surveyed agreed that “gay and lesbian relationships are okay, if that is a person’s choice.”  Twenty years later, 59 percent agreed.

Hicks sums it up this way: “Despite the moral teachings of our religious heritage, it is now considered bigoted to believe that sexual intimacy is not an entitlement for everyone …. The purpose of coupling isn’t to create stability for the individuals or the community, but to satisfy the urges and desires of those in the relationship.”

Another major shift affecting the daily lives of school-aged children has occurred within the education establishment.  The philosophy of teaching — the very definition of teaching — has changed, at least among many educators.  In a survey commissioned by the American Enterprise Institute, history teachers reported that, as Hicks puts it, “it is more important … that students learn to celebrate the diversity among the different ethnic, religious, and immigrant groups living in the U.S.A. than to know the common history that defines our past.”

Hicks pulls no punches when she describes what she believes is behind that multicultural movement: a disdain for the concept of American exceptionalism.  “[T]he multicultural movement, especially as presented in our educational institutions, isn’t really about fostering greater respect among people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.  It’s about building the self-esteem of certain ethnic groups while shaming those who have the audacity to prefer a distinct American culture.”

Keep reading.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Roivas
    October 18th, 2011 at 14:59 | #1

    “A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following:

    1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
    2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
    3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
    4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils of individuals.”

    Does that include teaching about the civil rights movement of the 60s? Cause I can see how that would promote resentment of racist white people, which would be a real problem for Arizona.

    “And in Utah, legislation passed in March of this year mandates that students “undergo ‘thorough study’ of our founding documents, our national motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance.”

    Would that include the fact that the phrase “under God” was only added to the pledge in the 1950s as a slap against communists?

  2. Ken
    October 19th, 2011 at 08:22 | #2

    Here’s the thing religious conservatives just can’t seem to grasp: there are things in the Bible that are wrong and shouldn’t just be blindly accepted by society. You’re free to continue to believe them – go ahead and believe that brides should be stoned to death on their wedding nights if they’re found not to be virgins if you so choose, but don’t claim religious persecution because modern society, and our laws, won’t conform to that belief. The Bible was written by men and is therefore imperfect. It is a reflection of their own misconceptions, prejudices and fears and the world in which they lived – the fact that they were part of the human experience a few thousand years ago is not automatic justification for their perpetuation. Let’s face it, you’re not afraid that you’ll lose your freedom to believe and worship as you choose, you’re afraid that your beliefs will no longer dominate society. You’re also afraid that you’ll be forced to accept the fact that most of the people around you will view your beliefs as immoral, uninformed and misguided. We all know that Christians relish their position as the ones passing judgment on others and they’re positively frightened that they’re going to wind up on the other side. But that’s where we’re heading. So you may want to be mindful of how you treat historically disenfranchised minorities. As we’re seeing, the tables can turn quite rapidly. And we all know what they say about karma…

  3. Rob Tisinai
    October 19th, 2011 at 11:38 | #3

    “We’ve reached the point where bringing morality into a discussion of homosexuality is considered hateful.”

    That’s absolutely untrue. Recognizing the equal dignity and freedom of all individuals, both gay and straight, is a profoundly moral issue. Proponents of marriage equality DO favor bringing morality into the discussion, because it’s key to the issue (and, as it happens, it helps our side).

  4. October 19th, 2011 at 14:36 | #4

    @Rob Tisinai You already have equality in marriage. Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You want the special right to redefine what marriage is so as to get state endorsement, and thereby to get justification for homosexual behavior.

  5. Roivas
    October 19th, 2011 at 15:55 | #5

    “You already have equality in marriage. Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

    You already have equality in marriage. Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the same race. Why are you so full of discontent Mr. Loving?

  6. Rob Tisinai
    October 19th, 2011 at 18:16 | #6

    And Glenn, you could use that logic to shut down freedom of religion, too. According to your logic, you could pass a Constitutional amendment shutting down all the synagogues and say, “You have religious equality. Everyone has the equal right to worship in a Christian Church.”

    Equality is not giving everyone the same right to do what YOU want them to. That’s not equality — that’s just putting you in charge.

  7. Rob Tisinai
    October 19th, 2011 at 18:23 | #7

    Glenn: “…and thereby to get justification for homosexual behavior.”

    I don’t know what that means. First, it’s confusing because you seem to be implying that if the state makes something legal then it’s endorsing it (which is untrue). Second, even if I grant you that, it’s confusing because homosexual behavior is already legal. Third, it’s confusing because “justification” (as I understand the term) doesn’t come from passing laws.

    In fact this whole sentence: “You want the special right to redefine what marriage is so as to get state endorsement, and thereby to get justification for homosexual behavior.” Did you make that up, or do you have some magic psychic ability to look into my head and identify these alleged secret motivations?

  8. Ken
    October 19th, 2011 at 19:41 | #8

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    The Iowa Supreme Court addressed that argument, Glenn. They said: “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
    of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class.”

  9. October 19th, 2011 at 23:58 | #9

    @Roivas
    Five years later, the same Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case argued using the Loving rationale, for want of a substantial Federal question.

    The Constitution forbids racial discrimination. It does not require society to legalize marriage to whatever you are sexually attracted.

  10. October 20th, 2011 at 00:05 | #10

    @Rob Tisinai
    Perhaps you missed this thread where your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters were demanding that churches be forced to perform gay-sex marriages.

    Such a belief would be an affront to freedom, but of course, we understand that gays and lesbians like you don’t really support freedom, Rob; you support suppression and attacks on people because of their religious beliefs.

  11. October 20th, 2011 at 12:59 | #11

    @Ken
    The Iowa Supreme Court is terribly wrong. The “complete context” of marriage includes being allowed and approved to conceive offspring together using the couple’s own genes. There has never been a marriage to a couple that was prohibited from conceiving offspring together. Gay and Lesbian individuals do indeed have a right to marry and procreate with someone of the other sex, and the court is wrong to say that they do not. There is no right to procreate with someone of the same sex and being gay doesn’t justify the risks and expense of creating a child from same-sex parents – it is unethical no matter how much the gay couple is attracted to each other.

  12. Sean
    October 20th, 2011 at 18:20 | #12

    [Piling on Glenn]

    “You already have equality in marriage. Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You want the special right to redefine what marriage is so as to get state endorsement, and thereby to get justification for homosexual behavior.”

    No, Glenn, same-sex couples do not have the right to marry, in a lot of states. Different-sex couples can get married in all 50 states. Therefore, inequality exists. And not discriminating against gay people is hardly an endorsement: the state lets people get divorced; they’re not recommending the practice.

    Remember, equal treatment under the law uses the concept of being “similarly situated,” not identical. A same-sex couple isn’t identical to a different-sex couples, but they are similarly situated. Hence equal treatment must prevail.

  13. Bob Barnes
    October 20th, 2011 at 18:39 | #13

    North Dallas Thirty :
    @Roivas
    Five years later, the same Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case argued using the Loving rationale, for want of a substantial Federal question.
    The Constitution forbids racial discrimination. It does not require society to legalize marriage to whatever you are sexually attracted.

    Wow, what a total spin. The SCOTUS decided not to hear the case, they did not place any judgement on Baker. Try staying factual please

  14. Bob Barnes
    October 20th, 2011 at 18:40 | #14

    John Howard :
    @Ken
    The Iowa Supreme Court is terribly wrong. The “complete context” of marriage includes being allowed and approved to conceive offspring together using the couple’s own genes. There has never been a marriage to a couple that was prohibited from conceiving offspring together. Gay and Lesbian individuals do indeed have a right to marry and procreate with someone of the other sex, and the court is wrong to say that they do not. There is no right to procreate with someone of the same sex and being gay doesn’t justify the risks and expense of creating a child from same-sex parents – it is unethical no matter how much the gay couple is attracted to each other.

    LOL, ken knows better than the entire Iowa SC. Are you your own deity?

  15. John Noe
    October 20th, 2011 at 19:33 | #15

    We have reached the point where talking about morality is considered hatefull. Very well put. We know that homosexuality is wrong, evil, and wicked. It is gross immoral behavior. Yet the advocates of this deathstyle show their hatred to those who speak out against this immorality. The want the immorality to be promoted and glorified to our children.

    As the Bible said it best when the sinfull men called good evil and evil good.

  16. Betsy
    October 20th, 2011 at 19:47 | #16

    John, your language is a little harsh. Please tone it down for future posts. Deathstyle, for one, has to go. Nothing personal. Thanks.

  17. Roivas
    October 20th, 2011 at 19:52 | #17

    “Five years later, the same Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case argued using the Loving rationale, for want of a substantial Federal question.”

    Plessy vs. Ferguson was decided wrongly as well. The court has reversed itself in the past.

  18. October 20th, 2011 at 23:26 | #18

    @Bob Barnes
    What exactly are you disagreeing with, Bob?

  19. bman
    October 21st, 2011 at 00:14 | #19

    Bob Barnes :
    Wow, what a total spin. The SCOTUS decided not to hear the case, they did not place any judgement on Baker. Try staying factual please

    The case Baker v. Nelson came to the U.S. Supreme Court under mandatory appellate review, which means the dismissal must be regarded by lower courts as a decision on the merits.

  20. October 21st, 2011 at 07:52 | #20

    For all those who claim “equality” is the reason, that is a blatant fabrication. And, yes Sean, in every state homophiles have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That, after all, is what marriage is. Just because liberal judges claim marriage is something different that no more changes the intrinsic identity of marriage than if a court said a circle equals a square. You can’t legislate intrinsic identities. However, homophiles still are able to “marry” without state endorsement – they can always pledge fidelity to one another in private ceremonies. But there is no right to have it endorsed by the state or anyone else. You seek special rights for your sexual behavior yet would deny the same “rights” for pedophiles or incestuous relationships, usually on the grounds that those are “harmful.” Yet it is a prove fact that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful. Then again, with no standard of morality, by what right do you have to claim something is harmful? How can you define what is good or bad?

    Roivas, et al, always want to bring in the issue of interracial marriage. However, there is one human race and skin color is morally neutral. There are many former homosexuals but you will never find a former black American. Skin color and gender are not behaviors.

    To compare religious beliefs to sexual behavior as Tisinai and others do defies logic. Unless you want to say that homosexuality is a religious belief!

    Same-sex fake marriage has never been about equal rights or even marriage. It has always been about getting the state’s’ approval and endorsement of homosexuality so as to force everyone else in society to accept it or be punished.

    And for Ken, homophiles are not a class of people. People are males and females – no one is born homosexual or heterosexual – we are born as people. Sexual behavior is always chosen. The Iowa Supreme Court’s argument was convoluted political-correctness gone amok, with a decision which was based solely on personal agendas and not on law.

  21. October 21st, 2011 at 10:54 | #21

    Betsy, thank you for calling John out on his hate speech. We may not agree on many things, but I think we can agree that it is inappropriate to use such rhetoric. (I might say that calling people “wrong, evil, and wicked” is more than a “little” harsh, but still, yay common ground!)

  22. Roivas
    October 21st, 2011 at 11:49 | #22

    “However, there is one human race and skin color is morally neutral.”

    People disagreed in the past. And just like you, they often used God as a justification.

    “To compare religious beliefs to sexual behavior as Tisinai and others do defies logic.”

    Religious beliefs are a choice and yet are protected by the constitution. So we are saying even if it was true orientation is a choice, it still should be protected. Not that hard to understand. Unless your viewpoint depends on not understanding that.

    To push the point home:

    “And for Ken, Christians are not a class of people. People are people – no one is born Christian or Catholic – we are born as people. Religious behavior is always chosen.”

    Would you argue therefore religious beliefs shouldn’t be protected? Of course not.

  23. Paul H
    October 21st, 2011 at 13:52 | #23

    Ken:
    Here’s the thing religious conservatives just can’t seem to grasp: there are things in the Bible that are wrong and shouldn’t just be blindly accepted by society. You’re free to continue to believe them – go ahead and believe that brides should be stoned to death on their wedding nights if they’re found not to be virgins if you so choose, but don’t claim religious persecution because modern society, and our laws, won’t conform to that belief.

    Based on this comment, you seem to interpret the Bible in a more strongly literalistic way than any Fundamentalist Christian I have ever encountered. This is especially surprising since you mentioned elsewhere that you are a former Catholic. If you truly want to engage in discussions with Christians over what they believe (as opposed to just knocking down straw men), then it is important for you to understand that there are virtually no Christians who interpret the Bible in the way that you imply with your comment here.

  24. nerdygirl
    October 21st, 2011 at 19:49 | #24

    @Paul H
    Careful, Glenn’s views show he believes God’s down with slavery.

  25. October 22nd, 2011 at 16:34 | #25

    @Roivas No one ever disagreed with skin color being morally neutral. The disagreement was whether dark skin made one less than human. People can twist the Bible to say anything they want it to say, which is why there are so many cults. But since you don’t believe the Bible, why do you keep resorting to it?

    You again are confusing beliefs with behavior. A religious belief is NOT a sexual behavior. Not all behaviors are protected – if they were then anyone could do anything.

  26. Roivas
    October 22nd, 2011 at 20:39 | #26

    “No one ever disagreed with skin color being morally neutral.”

    “The disagreement was whether dark skin made one less than human.”

    Do you really see no relation between these two notions?

    And even in your absurd parsing, your wrong. It was explicitly advocated that blacks be made into slaves so they could be brought to Christianity to save them from their natural moral barbarism.

  27. Sean
    October 23rd, 2011 at 07:45 | #27

    Oy vey, human sexual orientation is NOT behavior, it is unchosen feelings of attraction to other humans. It is instinctual, in other words. And unchangeable. Sexual orientation is very analogous, therefore, to skin color or more specifically, race.

  28. bman
    October 23rd, 2011 at 14:21 | #28

    Sean->….human sexual orientation is NOT behavior, it is unchosen feelings of attraction to other humans. It is instinctual, in other words. And unchangeable. Sexual orientation is very analogous, therefore, to skin color or more specifically, race.

    Subjective feelings are a private matter beyond the reach of the law.

    Behavior, however, is objective and its properly a matter for law and public policy to address.

    Thus, the merits of a behavior must be the main question. If a behavior is objectively maladaptive or unfit to endorse to everyone, that is all public policy needs to know to not endorse it.

    Those who claim its how they feel have the liberty to engage in the behavior in private, but they do not have the right to public endorsement of their feelings or their behavior.

  29. October 23rd, 2011 at 15:26 | #29

    @Roivas That claim about blacks being made slaves to become Christians cannot apply to any but the very minutest amount, and is a claim I never even heard of and I am a big history buff. Revising history are we? What is your evidence? Nevertheless, it still goes the the problem of abusing Scripture; nowhere in the Bible will you find teaching even remotely compared to this absurdity.

  30. October 23rd, 2011 at 15:28 | #30

    @Sean “Orientation” is feelings. It is desire. NO ONE has to act on desires. Once you act on the desire it is called behavior. No one is looking for fake marriage to endorse desires – they want it to endorse the behavior. No where is any of the demands for teaching about homosexuality in school, the forcing of it as a protected class, etc, based on the desires – it is all based on sanctioning and approving the behavior!!!!!

  31. October 23rd, 2011 at 15:30 | #31

    @Sean I forgot, desires are indeed changeable. You have no evidence anywhere – only speculation – that anyone is born with a particular desire. Skin color is not race – there is only one race and that is the human race. Race is an evolutionist’s construct. Prior to evolution, races had to do with tribes or geographical ethnicity. As evolution came about, races defined where people were in the evolutionary scale, with black people being closer to the ape.

    Desires are changeable – skin color is not.

  32. Roivas
    October 24th, 2011 at 03:12 | #32

    http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/teaching/vclassroom/proslavewsht1.html

    “The people of the South place their trust in a higher power, whose protecting care they expect in time of peril. They believe that an institution of slavery is ordained in Heaven, and that the slaveholder who trusts in the Almighty arm will find that arm a refuge and a fortress.Truth is their shield and buckler, and they are not afraid of the terror by night nor the arrow that flieth by day.–And in any contest that may arise in so righteous a cause will have an abiding confidence that a thousand shall fall at their side and ten thousand at their right hand, until they come off conquerors. ”

    http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/teaching/vclassroom/proslavewsht2.html

    “We have never entertained a doubt that the condition of the Southern slaves is the best and most desirable for the negroes, as a class, that they have ever been found in or are capable of. ”

    “The intelligent, christian slave-holder at the South is the best friend of the negro.”

    “But when the man, whatever his complexion, recognizes the fact that his lot is ordained of God, and cheerfully acquiesces, he becomes a free man in the only true sense. He then chooses to do and to bear what otherwise might be irksome and intolerable. ”

    I can find more if you wish.

  33. October 25th, 2011 at 06:34 | #33

    @Roivas The claims of a few people, claims made in a newspaper, do not demonstrate the feelings of the majority. Nor do they demonstrate what TRUE Christians believed. It was the true Christians who fought for abolition, it was true Christians who helped slaves escape. As previously noted, anyone can abuse the Bible to justify their belief system, but one needs to not take Scripture out of its context and read only what the original authors intended. IF you want to make charges against Christianity, don’t choose fringe elements which do not follow the teachings of Christ.

  34. Roivas
    October 25th, 2011 at 12:18 | #34

    Fringe elements? Did you just declare the entire Southern Baptist a fringe element?

    Yes, that’s right. The entire reason there is a SOUTHERN Baptist church is because they liked slavery and thought it was God mandated, while the ones up north differed. It took until the 1980s for the SBC to apologize for that little “mistake.”

    In southern christianity, the notion of God approved and mandated slavery was the mainstream position, the only position allowed expression after awhile. Was the entire white south not really christian? How about for 100 years after the civil war when Jim Crow was enforced?

    In fact Glenn, given how readily you declare others Not Real christians, I wonder just who the hell is a real christian.

    Well, besides you of course. No doubt you’re a real christian. Nope nope.

  35. October 26th, 2011 at 16:53 | #35

    @Roivas The SBC wasn’t anywhere near the size it is today. The SBC of 170 years ago was indeed fringe in the realm of Christianity. The majority of Christianity was against the slave trade, and it was because of their tireless efforts that the slave trade eventually ceased. Real Christians can be deceived into bad beliefs, but real Christianity is true nevertheless, and when deceived Christians go back to the Book, they leave the deception behind.

  36. John Noe
    October 26th, 2011 at 19:54 | #36

    Betsy: If you do not want me to use deathstyle then so be it. Just remember that BIOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL EVIDENCE proves that homosexuality is unhealty, leads to disease and a shorter life span. It is more dangerous to your health than obesity or tobacco. Go on YOUTUBE and watch the video “Dangers of the Gay Lifestyle” and then go to the government run CDC website for the evidence.

    The threat is real and the fiscal costs to all of us is real. Yet these people would rather lie and try to brainwash everybody that there is nothing wrong. Worst yet, they want the medical evidence to be censored because they consider the medical evidence to be hatefull and homophobic.

    I guess it is just too bad that the tobacco industry did not think of this years ago. Label all speech against smoking to be hate speech and tobaccophobic.

Comments are closed.