"Barbequed sacred cows"
Excerpt from my column this week....
Chicago is no longer my kind of town. It's a liberal Democrat kind of town. It's a town with a gay and lesbian center – funded by taxpayers. It's a town that aborts over 20,000 of its residents a year. It's Jesse Jackson's home town. It's a town where Republicans meet in catacombs. It's a town where even Catholic priests vote 4-to-1 Democrat.
So imagine my surprise when last week the overpowered Cook County Republican Party issued a press release accusing Democrat tyrants of abusing their most prized possession, African Americans, and also accusing Planned Parenthood of targeting African Americans for abortion....
I blogged on this... linking in my post to an ad by LifeCommercials.com titled, "Why?" This ad exposes the eugenic agenda of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger....
One place I blog is Illinoize, a gathering hole of political bloggers in the Land Formerly of Lincoln. Illinoize is inhabited predominantly by liberals. I didn't quite fathom before I blogged how sacred are the Democrat Party and Planned Parenthood cows to liberals. But here is one sample of 139 mostly furious comments I received: Jill Stanek is an animal. Absolutely an animal....Stanek, you are a misleader, a liar, intellectually dishonest, a queen of the facile analogy, and best of all politically and socially irrelevant. Pathetic....
And you thought I was exaggerating about those sacred cows....
Continue reading my column, "Barbequed sacred cows," on WorldNetDaily.com.
27 comments:
Well, I guess any publicity is good publicity for Illinois.
That being said, the Cook County GOP is not going to attract any more than the about 2% of black voters that they currently have by using Black History Month as an opportunity to shame the black community for its high abortion rate, without even making any attempt in their release to address how to go about lowering this rate (like subsidized access to contraception, which could also help with the troubling AIDS rate).
I don't get this:
...to shame the black community for its high abortion rate
I don't share communal blame for any community. Why should African Americans share communal blame for anything?
Other people don't bear this community thing.
You should take the issue up with the Cook County Republicans who were doing said shaming. I don't think that Blacks as a group are to blame for the abortions that individuals receive, but this is what the Cook County GOP Is saying if this is how they celebrate Black History month, which is intended to highlight the contributions of African Americans to America and the world.
Also, Jill, I honestly don't get the "Land Formerly of Lincoln" reference.
Anonymous commenters do make the best straw men, no?
I'm curious how you feel about the Federal government's appropriations to strengthen marriage. If you support those but oppose the gay and lesbian center, then you're frankly a hypocrite. I personally oppose all these dumb ideas for the government to use taxpayer money to get involved in anything that has to do with the culture, which is none of the government's business, including sexual culture, straight or gay
Many people believe marriage should be between a man and woman.
Many people believe sex outside of marriage is wrong.
Many people believe homosexual sex is wrong.
Many people believe abortion is murder.
Agree or not, it's hardly hypocrital to believe all these things.
And I might add, they're not particularly related and many people believe in some and not others, or will disagree on the extent the gov should enforce or encourage any of them.
...that's not hypocrital either... to agree with some and not others...
Bill-
What I think Lolo was trying to point out was that, in their opinion, Jill support federal efforts (taxpayer funded) measures to support heterosexual marriage while opposing state or local measures (taxpayer funded) to support homosexuals.
The hypocrisy isn't in the supporting or not supporting either. It is the using taxpayer monies.
Jill made an effort to say the gay and lesbian center was 'funded by taxpayers'. There is the hypocrisy.
Gish is right, I was talking about it being hypocritical to support using taxpayer money to support one lifestyle but not another. The government has no business telling people what sexual lifestyle consenting adults they should or should not choose to lead. People are perfectly capable of making those decisions without tax-funded gay and lesbian centers or federal marriage initiatives.
I remember when Lyons closed down the joints on Ogden Ave. The Gov was right to clamp down on the sexual lifestyle there. People were making some bad decisions in sin city over there.
People may disagree with Jill Stanek, but she's pretty consistent and a good example of how one person can get involved and move things.
I don't agree with her 100% and maybe I'd present things differently, but she's a model of how one person can make things happen, and she's no hypocrite....
She's certainly no hypocrite on abortion, and that's admirable, and she may very well oppose Federal Marriage initiatives, but if she doesn't then there is a hypocrisy on the issue of the opposing the government supporting one sexual lifestyle while supporting it when it supports another as the government has no business in the end consenting adults what sexual lifestyle they should or should not lead (other than say, making it illegal to abort a child produced after unprotected consentual sex as this deals with the protection of a human, not with morality).
Barbecued sacred cows? I actually prefer barbecued quail, killed at close range. If that's unavailable, I'll take the skewered vice president.
Again
The Negative Comments that I have made and that others have made have been DELETED AGAIN
Jill Stanek has to have the thinnest skin in the world for someone who throws so much vitrol..
She' can't stand the heat
Jill maybe this not the business for you. Politics is supposed to be a free expression of ideas, not just the ones that you agree with
and again
to state what I said previously
CENSORSHIP IS UNAMERICAN!!!!
Censorship is Unamerican,
You have a problem with the heat in the kitchen and you are reactionary
Which is exactly why this shall be deleted
Do you think gay marriage has something to do with the pro-Life cause? I don't. I'm pro-Life and I also fully support gay marriage (I'm heterosexual but I believe that the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are as fundamentally important as the right to life). Then again, I guess you really don't emphasize your anti-marriage views as much as your pro-life views, so you're not really conflating them, so good for you.
Your last comment explain why you get invited to so many dinner partys
Jill, I totally disagree with you. I don't really see monogamous homosexuals as hedonists any more than monogamous heterosexuals who use condoms. And anyway, people have every right to be a hedonist if they're doing so consentually. I agree with you totally though that hedonism goes too far if you want to kill the child produced by said hedonism (just like you can't shoot someone just for fun).
I'm a Christian, but I'm not pro-Life because I'm a Christian trying to push a Christian agenda on other people. That is, I'd be pro-Life even if I were an atheist, because I see killing humans as wrong as less it's for immediate self-defense. Banning homosexual marriage can only be justified by wanting to impose Christian morals using the government, which I am totally opposed to because I am a limited-government conservative (as opposed to most Christian conservatives who are basically big-government types but just like to use the big government to impose their religion, which is just as bad as big government liberals who want to impose their view of how people should live on the populace). Thus, gay marriage and pro-Life are two totally different issues, and the former involves making sure the right to Life is protected, while the other wants to take away from people the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which if you really believe in America, are just as important as the right to life.
I mixed up former and latter in the last post. Oops
Jill-
I looked up the definition of 'hedonism' in the dictionary to make sure it is what I thought it was and loosely it translates as 'the pursuit of pleasure, specifically pleasure of the senses'.
Your statement which I quoted confuses me.
Yes, abortion and homosexuality are related. In fact, they're flip-sides of the same coin. They both involve a desire for sexual hedonism without consequences.
I understand your reference to abortion as hedonistic. I don't agree with it but I see where you are coming from. However I would whole-heartedly disagree with your definition that homosexuality is hedonistic.
I'll assume that you have very few to no homosexual acquaintances to ask but I'll clue you in to what has been passed on to me by homosexuals I know. Being in a homosexual relationship is not about pleasure any more than being in a heterosexual relationship. True pleasure can be involved and often is such as it might be involved in any heterosexual relationship.
However given the defintion of hedonism, your statement is quite false. Homosexuality just like its counterpart involves quite a bit of struggle, work and pain which according to the defintion of hedonism is not to be involved at all.
I would suggest in the future either purchasing a dictionary to confirm the definitions of your words or invest in some persons of the specific persuasions you intend to reference.
-Gish
P.S. Since dictionary definitions vary by publisher you could always reference your source.
Jill-
Of course homosexuality is all about sex and is hedonistic. The only difference between same sex friendships and homosexuality is the sexual act.
That's what it boils down to for you. I am not a homosexual. Given that and your statement, there is no difference between my same sex friendships and, say, a homosexual couple who have been in a committed relationship for a number of years, except for homosexual sex.
Correct me if I am misinterpreting you.
My only conclusion here can be that you either one: truly do not understand what a committed homosexual relationship involves or two: are willfully ignoring the aspects of said relationship.
I guess ultimately it doesn't matter. Neither of us, I am sure, will make any imapct on the views of the other and this posting is far too old to draw interested readers.
Jill-
I would argue that the likelihood that the percentage of homosexual relationships that are committed is probably fairly equal to the levels found in heterosexual relationships. However I have no numbers at hand and do not know where to find such numbers.
Here is my question:
Since in modern America, marriage is a simple legal contract which is quite often dissolved in heterosexual couples and given the widely-held belief (rightly or wrongly) that homosexuals lack commitment/fidelity more so than heterosexuals, wouldn't it be in our nations best interest to promote fidelity in all couples to allow marriage to all and restrict divorce to a greater degree?
Love thy neighbor...unless they don't agree with you, huh Jill??
There are only two ways that one can justify not allowing gays to marry, in light of the fact that sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry (which blows up the reproduction argument). It would either be justified by one wanting to impose one' Christian morals on a society through the government, which I as an Orthodox Christian vehemently oppose, or it can be justified by saying that the majority of people are currently against gay marriage. However, Jill, you know that a majority of people in Illinois would say that they are in favor of first trimester abortions. That in no way makes them right.
Also, you claim that heterosexual marriage is natural and has been going on for all of history. So did slavery, and slavery is nowhere condemned in the Bible, but rather is taken as a fact. If you use the argument of history to justify not allowing gays to marry, then you also have to admit slavery is morally justified.
Basically, what it comes down to is, why do you care if gays choose to get married? If they're sending themselves to hell, that's their business and not any body else's. The government has no reason to tell two taxpaying homosexuals who come in for a marriage license that they should be denied it. I'm curious why you would care at all if it has no effect on you whatsoever and is something going on between consenting parties?
Please don't conflate the beauty and truth of the pro-life message with the silliness of the anti-marriage message.
Jill-
I agree with you that at this point in time the State of Illinois has better things to spend its money on.
I misconstrued your position to be one of opposition to the specific sexual persuasion in this regard and not to be one of necessity versus resources.
I understand that someone might not want to dilute their focus. However it might have been beneficial. Based on my own personal environment, I find myself often to be at odds with evangelicals and I think it helps me to better refine my thoughts when I can discuss them in a forum where escalation, while possible, is simply a non-issue since one can easily walk away from the discussion if their anger rises too much. I cannot do that at my place of work and socially.
I do sincerely hope that at no point you have taken offense at my words since that is not my intention. My main goal is to elici discussion and find out more about those with whom I often find myself differing.
-Gish
That's fair. I understand that your focus is on life, and I support your efforts by and large (although I'm not always a fan of the rhetoric you employ, I believe in the goals you are aiming for). I just wanted to make clear that the Life issue and the gay marriage issue are as separate issues as the life issue and whether we should use bonding to pay for new roads.
Post a Comment