Posted on 08/30/2006 8:25:05 AM PDT by goldstategop
While much of the world was watching the forced conversions of two kidnapped Fox News journalists in the Gaza Strip, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a huge step toward forcing millions of Californians to convert.
It's not Islam that Schwarzenegger and the state are forcibly pushing through all schools that accept any public form of financial aid for students. It's paganism. It's the worship of Baal. It's a primitive form of religion that is making a comeback. It's a faith that says sacrifice your sons and daughters on this altar – or else.
In case you missed the stunning news, Schwarzenegger has signed a new law that effectively tosses out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other so-called educational facilities across the state.
The law requires all businesses and groups receiving any form of state funding – even if it's a grant for one student – to condone homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and God knows what else.
There are no exceptions – not for other religious beliefs, not for personal moral convictions, not for health reasons, not even for the possession of something increasingly rare in the Golden State, common sense.
Here's more evidence that Republican officeholders are the key to advancing social justice and progress. This is something not even former Gov. Gray Davis could have pulled off.
I don't want to overstate this, but this is the end of religious freedom in the biggest state in the union.
The only alternative left for Christians and Jews and people of other faiths in California is quite literally to drop out. That means homeschooling. It means creating new institutions that won't touch any public funding – even when it is as tenuous as one student accepting a state grant. When you submit yourself or your institution to government regulation in California now, you tacitly accept the official state religion of paganism.
And don't think it will end here. It never does.
When more people choose to drop out, as they inevitably will, the coercive state will find new creative ways to come after them as well.
I saw this coming 15 years ago when I chose to leave California for good. It's over. It really is the late, great state of California.
Remember how it all started.
It started with acceptance of the seemingly benign, libertarian notion that "what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom is none of the government's business." Now, of course, it's everyone's business.
By going to virtually any educational institution in California today you are swearing allegiance to the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and a growing list of other sexual sins and pathologies are just as good, just as normal, just as acceptable, just as healthy as heterosexuality.
Even worse, you are converting to this religious view. You are rejecting your old religious code – if you had one. You are accepting what might be called "the mark of the Terminator."
What's next?
It's unlikely the people who believe in forced conversions will stop after this victory.
They have been trying to force their way into every facet of life in California and across the nation. They want to regulate homeschooling. They want to approve curricula. They want to ensure that no child escapes their efforts at indoctrination and brainwashing.
These are the same people who consider the Boy Scouts of America one of the most subversive organizations in America because of their commitment to the simple non-sectarian principle of monotheism. If you believe in one true God who rules the universe and has established a standard of behavior for all men, these zealots are coming after you.
The war is not over until everyone bows before Baal.
Until we bow down before Baal instead of God.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Is it possible for the rest of the US to vote California OUT of the Union?
Come on... even just a symbolic vote?
This article seems overly-hysterical to me. I'd like to read what the bill actually says. I doubt it's banning religion or forcing paganism which would be easily over-turned in the courts on a First Amendment challenge. There may be some things that are really bad in this bill and I'd like to know what the truth of it is. But the tone of the article to me is a red flag that this isn't the source to give a clear-eyed view of what the bill is really all about.
No, but it is possible for the red region of CA to breakway and form their own state.
I wouldn't put too much stock in this article. I can't honestly say I know what this bill does or says and I'd like to find out, but I really doubt it has anything to do with banning Christianity or forcing paganism. The World Net Daily doesn't have the best track record for getting it right and the hysterical tone of the article should be a giant red flag.
"This article seems overly-hysterical to me."
Of course it does. It's written by Farah, and published in WhirledNutsDaily.
The bill is yet another attempt to try to prevent all sorts of discriminatory activity in schools and other publically funded organizations. It's way inclusive, and included sexual orientation in the list of things you can't discriminate against.
I suspect that nobody's going to be forced to adopt any of those activities at school, though, nor to change their religious beliefs. In fact, I'm sure of it.
Farah does a good job of sensationalizing here.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
I hope religious people in CA vote with their feet, and leave. I left many years ago. My sister and her husband (a deputy sheriff) will be leaving on the day he's eligible to retire (about 5 years from now).
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
"The writing is on the wall and I'm getting out of a state that will not allow me to practice my faith openly.
"
Good idea. I hear that the next step is to close down all churches in California and make owning a Bible a capital offense. They'll close all the schools run by churches, too, and imprison every pastor. I'm sure there's a bill already in the works to do all that.
Move out of California. That's a good idea for lots of reasons. I did it a couple of years ago.
"If you think the gay lifestyle is perfectly normal, then of course you see nothing wrong with what just happened in California"
Normal? No at all. I do recognize, though, that some people are homosexuals. There it is. What am I supposed to do about that? As long as they break no laws, I don't interfere with their lives. I have other things to do.
"If you think the gay lifestyle is perfectly normal, then of course you see nothing wrong with what just happened in California"
Normal? No at all. I do recognize, though, that some people are homosexuals. There it is. What am I supposed to do about that? As long as they break no laws, I don't interfere with their lives. I have other things to do.
Good gosh, take a pill. You REALLY believe any attempt to ban religious worship could withstand a court challenge? Come on. Stop living in a world of paranoid delusion where everyone is out to take your Bible. Yes I understand the hostility in the liberal world to Christianity. I'm a practicing Christian myself. But I really don't see any serious person proposing or trying to force a ban on worship and if they did they'd be given the smack down so fast and hard it would make their dog bleed.
Look, when the day comes anyone tries to ban my faith I'll join you in the hills with a rifle. But this isn't really happening. Come on.
Thank you for providing some light to the heat of this article. I would obviously disagree with such a move. This is another nail in the coffin of my not voting for Arnold in the Fall.
It used to be called "the love that dare not speak its name." Now it's "the love that won't shut up."
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
"It forbids people from having a negative view of homosexuality or other pagan perversions"
I wonder how a law can prevent someone from having a view of anything.
It does stop folks in publically-funded institutions from calling some gay kid a "faggot" and telling him he's on his way to Hell.
You can still do that, though. You can stand on the street and call anyone you like a "faggot." Of course, you'd be doing that at your own risk, of course. You just can't do it at school, if it's a public school or otherwise publically-funded.
From Redgolum's post #11:
"No, it says that if an institution or any of its students accept state aid, they will have to accommodate the new sexual mores of the state of California. So, for instance, if a Lutheran high school had a student who was using any kind of state aid to go to school, then they could not teach that homosexuality is a sin.
The trick is, and the danger is, is what is considered 'state aid'."
While I think this is eggregious and this likely puts me over the top in not voting for Arnold in the Fall, it is not at the same time what you claim it is "Thought Crime" that prevents anyone from BELIEVING homosexuality is wrong. It's about what is allowed to be taught in schools. While I don't care what they ban in the public schools, they have no right in my mind to ban what religious schools choose to teach.
And neither is this as Farah in a shameless piece of hyperbole claims is an attempt to force "everyone to convert." Clearly that is a big bunch of hysterics by a guy who clearly is not fan of the governor's.
While I think this legislation is wrong, it's not what you claim it is either. All that will result in the end is that kids getting any kind of state aid will not be admitted to private schools. Period. Too bad for them. I doubt most if any kids currently in religious schools are getting any such aid anyway. I'm not aware that the state provides school choice grants of any kind.
Oh please, there are few courts if any that would uphold a ban on religious worship, which this bill has nothing to do with in any event. Take your meds.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
I agree we shouldn't overreact, but the fact is, we're just one 8th Circuit Court ruling away from requiring churches to marry homosexuals or be charged with a hate crime. This is not an avalanche, to be sure, but they've been chipping away and chipping away for decades now, to the point that even the Vatican has opined that it's inevitable the Catholic Church will be hauled in front of some criminal court for its stance against abortion and homosexual marriage/activity.
When employers start screening for your personal beliefs because you've suddenly become a legal liability over your views on homosexual marriage, a bill like this won't seem so harmless in retrospect.
The language is: "any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. "
This doesn't just apply to schools or churches. It would apply to all sorts of faith-based programs and businesses. I posted the "fact sheet" from the sponsor of the legislation at the following link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1691946/posts?page=35#35
The idiot who wrote this article and the one who posted it is claiming that the bill bans Christianity EVERYWHERE in California, not just the schools. I know the hostility to religion in the schools. I wasn't referring to the schools.
I never said the bill was harmless. It's clearly eggregious. But it need not be exaggerated as to what it is in order to show its vile nature. This isn't an attempt to force everyone to convert or to ban Christianity.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
"ANY government activity that AFFECTS you is covered by the reach of this law, not just the schools and universities. Now imagine your church on fire. Can the local fire department still go to put out the fire? You can see what I am getting at. "
Rights can be invented by the courts. Look at abortion. It seems they were reading a different constitution when they linked up abortion and "privacy". Don't be so foolish as to assume that can't/won't happen again. The argument on "separation of church and state" is another piece of fiction accepted as an inviolable duty of civic insitutions to remove God from the public square.
I really don't see a day when in order to have your burning house extinguished by the fire department or to have a burglar stopped from breaking into your house that the fire and police depts. will first have to screen you for your views on gays. Come on. That's just silly. It would never withstand any court challenge on a 1st amendment or equal protection basis, not to mention voters even stomaching such a thing. What appears to really be in this bill is bad enough without having to over-state it.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Yet on this very thread, dozens of people, claiming to be conservative, some perhaps paid by the Arnold campaign, will be on here in seconds to tell us we HAVE to vote for Arnold. Vote for the socialist because the communist is so much worse.
I agree with that. But when we're dealing with the liberal left, give them an inch and they'll exploit it until we're equating the cross with the swastika. You have a point, though, that hysterics do us more harm than good.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Godlstategop is just taking it a few steps ahead to when the ACLU goes into a private religious school and forces it to stop discrimination against homosexuals.
It can then have a court declare that the religious school is a hate group. It will not be direct and it will not overnight. But it will give leverage to a number of court decisions that will further persecute heterosexuals, Christians, and white males. Oh no, I mentioned the most despicable people in the whole world all in one sentence. (sarcasm)
Wow! Of course, prohibitions against these sexual perversions aren't specifically religious prohibitions, since the acts listed are simply unnatural. God help us.
So, is this really so farfetched?
You're really losing it dude. You've got a persecution complex a mile wide. Banning school prayer doesn't translate into one day the govt. forcing you at gun point to worship homosexuals. And your bit about a church burning down now actually makes Farah look well-reasoned by comparison. See my post #33 for a rebutal to that nonsense.
By the way, notice people of faith still found a way around the issue of the cross down in San Diego. You seem to lack faith in the power we have to oppose such things. I really doubt even people with no religious sense would stand for the kinds of tyrannical impositions on churches you're imagining.
Boy Scouts?
Yes, it is. So teaching about Islam is one small step from the state govt. forcing people to give up Christianity and worship Baal? Where do you people come up with these looney tune domino theories? I give up. I'm done with the paranoid delusional thread here. You people seriously need to take a deep breath.
Other bills don't allow textbooks in CA classrooms that "reflect adversely" on protected groups.
I've read all my kid's textbooks over the years. The idea that the texts in such a PC state are hotbeds of intolerance is ridiculous beyond belief (you should read what they say about Islam as the ROP). Now, why would a group pass a law to address a nonexistent problem? Could it be a means of curriculum control? You bet it can. This is an attempt to rewrite history to fit the worldview of the legislators, not the actual historical facts.
Secondly, how does one teach history and in some cases science, without "reflecting adversely" on certain groups or parts of the human experience? I don't know about you, but I have the old fashioned notion that history and science should be fact based, not agenda driven.
If the legislature wants schools that are free of harassment, then require a student code of conduct that requires all students to treat each other with "respect and courtesy". Simple. Easy to enforce. And no need to single out certain groups for special treatment.
But of course, that doesn't tie into the agenda to divide this nation into a bunch of warring special interest groups.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Sounds like a good idea to me. If all of the Lib's sacrifice their children to Baal, then we will have no lib's coming of age to vote in 18 years.Arnie is certainly a smart politician to think of this.
So far, I and one other person are the only ones on here saying while what's REALLY in this law is bad, what you people are saying about it crosses into the realm of delusion. And if you'll notice, I said I will likely not be voting for Arnold in the fall because of it. Man, the paranoia of some of you people is boundless. You REALLY think Arnold pays people to come onto Free Republic to convince the 100-200 people who will read this thread they need to vote for him? LMAO!!! Yeah, I'm sure those 100 votes will make all the difference for him, as if he really thinks he could convince anyone to vote for him who thinks he's out to force them to worship Baal and to learn to love mano-a-mano sodomy.
Cuckoooooooooooooo...
I'm off this thread. It's like spending a morning at the nut house. Move on, no intelligent discussion to be found here...
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
You're not good at reading comprehension, are you? When someone says that the government will require Baal worship, he is referring to the fact that government control of what is taught regarding morals, coupled with the government's positions on homosexuality, premarital sex, distribution of condoms, teaching to 3rd graders, and all those other tenets of liberal faith, will be to enshrine the beliefs of that hedonist icon, Baal. They are not saying that students will actually worship Baal because of this law. Keep up here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.