Against Religious Propaganda: A Rebuttal to MissionAmerica.com and Linda Harvey Part II

Part 2) The So Called Gay Agenda; why are Christians afraid of the LGBTQ community?


In the first part of my set of posts on this I debunked a good portion of Linda Harvey's "Basics" section.
Today I'll be delving into her second section "The Gay Agenda Targeting Youth" debunking her posts one by one 
in an effort to make sure that her bigotry is countered.

Her first article A Safe Place for Kids to Learn Homosexual Sex: THE REAL STORY ABOUT COMMUNITY 'GLBT' YOUTH CENTERS (http://missionamerica.com/articletext.php?artnum=146)

Oh where to start, this long article has way too many problems that I can't fathom the stupid mind that wrote it. The introduction builds a fear based argument right from the get go. She talks about how LGBTQ youth centers that exist in cities across the country are a "no parents" platform to indoctrinate kids into homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. She references Hope's Voice a group of teens and adults who go to different LGBTQ centers to teach about safe sex and the use of condoms. 

"“No parents” plus homosexual approval is the reason these centers call themselves “safe” places. There is a homosexual youth center now in virtually every medium or large city in the U.S. Many are funded by private foundations or connected to a local adult center for “GLBT” (“gay, lesbian bisexual and transgendered”) people. Some are even funded by United Way.

And this summer, a traveling group of HIV positive young adults called “Hope’s Voice” will be visiting these centers all over the country, giving speeches, interacting with local kids, talking about “safe sex” and condom use -— and affirming the homosexual lifestyle. As a part of this tour and other contacts with local AIDS groups, your sixth grader could get a free HIV test right then and there, without your consent or knowledge."

This of course ignores a few important facts about why youth centers, be it LGBTQ or otherwise exist. Most youth groups cater to kids who are at risk for abuse by families. With kids having sex earlier and earlier than in the past (actually most statistics show that kids have been having sex in the US as early as twelve as far back as 1930 when records on the subject began to be kept. It is just that the public is more aware of it now than back then) the need for more concrete safe sex education is all to clear. Further studies show that kids at risk of abuse are also more likely to have sex earlier. In communities that advocate abstinence only sex education, many teens are not informed on safe sex practices gay or straight.

Youth centers provide a safe space to discuss one's sexual development as well as other issues like familiar abuse, bullying, etc as well as a place to get help with homework and to socialize with other people who may be experiencing the same problems. So if we take Nick and Joel the two sixth graders that are hypothesized about who are lying about homework to their parents to go to a gay youth center, one should be asking why?  If they fall into the same statistics on bullied kids or kids abused by parents, it might just explain why they're hiding their attendance to the youth center. But hypothesized kids aren't a valuable argument base, as they're not real.

But abuse is, by both peers and parent's alike. Violence Prevention Works is a great resource for statistics on bullying.
http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/bullying_sexual_orientation.page (Replicated below)

 "Bullying Based on Perceptions about Sexual Orientation

As many as 93 percent of teenagers hear derogatory words about sexual orientation at least once in a while, with more than half of teens surveyed hearing such words every day at school and in the community.¹

Negative name-calling and harassment about sexual orientation can be harmful to all students. Three out of four students who are bullied with such remarks are not identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (GLBTQ).² These derogatory comments are often used broadly to inflict harm in a school setting.

Seventy-eight percent of gay (or believed to be gay) teens are teased or bullied in their schools and communities, a percentage significantly higher than for heterosexual youth.³

According to findings from the Indicators of School Crime and Safety report, in 2003, 12 percent of students ages twelve to eighteen reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and 36 percent of students saw hate-related graffiti at school during the previous six months. One percent reported that the hate-related words concerned their sexual orientation.⁴

A national survey of 760 students, ages twelve to seventeen, indicates that the most likely group to be bullied are "kids who are gay or thought to be gay." Most teens (78 percent) said that they disapproved of anti-gay teasing or bullying.⁵

In a nationally representative sample of nearly 3,500 students ages thirteen to eighteen, one-third reported that students in their school are frequently harassed because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation.^6"

"Negative Impact of Bullying

• Bullying and harassment can have negative effects on the development and mental health of GLBTQ students, such as extreme anxiety and depression, relationship problems, low self-esteem, substance abuse, and thoughts of suicide. These students are also at much greater risk of physical assault than other children and youth.⁷
• Students who had experienced anti-gay harassment are four times more likely than non-harassed youth to be threatened with or injured by a weapon.⁸
• Twenty-two percent of GLBTQ students had skipped school in the last month for safety concerns and are three times more likely to drop out of school.⁹
• GLBTQ students are also at risk for not getting the support they need when they are being bullied due to their perceptions that adults at school may have intolerant attitudes or may not provide confidential help in which to deal with their situation.¹⁰ Four out of five GLBTQ students say they know of no supportive adult at school.⁹
• GLBTQ students are two to three times as likely to commit suicide as heterosexual students and may account for a startling 30 percent of all completed youth suicides.¹¹ These students are also more likely to experience suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts than other students.^12"

 About Sexual Orientation

• It is estimated that approximately 5 to 9 percent of youth are gay or lesbian, bisexual, or uncertain about their sexual orientation.¹³
• The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association changed their stance on homosexuality in the 1970s, stating that it is not a disorder and that sexual orientation is not a person's individual choice, nor can mental health professionals "change" the sexual orientation of their clients.¹⁴

Adult Responses Are Important!

These are things adults can do:

• No child or adolescent deserves to be bullied. Do not tolerate any anti-homosexual slurs.
• Work with student government and other school clubs to hold programs on respect, school safety, and anti-bullying.
• Be alert to signs of youth who may be in distress.
• Encourage any young person who is bullied to tell a teacher, counselor, or parent.
• Provide confidential help-consult with a school counselor or other mental health professional if you feel uncertain about how best to support a student.
• Support training and education for staff about these issues.¹⁵

References

American Psychological Association. 1998. Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

D'Augelli, A. R., and L. J. Dark. 1994. "Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youths." In Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence and Youth, ed. L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, and P. Schlegel, 177-96. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

DeVoe, J. F., K. Peter, P. Kaufman, A. Miller, M. Noonan, T. D. Snyder, and K. Baum. 2004. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2004 (NCES 2005-002/NCJ 205290). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov.

Harris Interactive, Inc. and GLSEN. 2005. From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America, A Survey of Students and Teachers. New York: GLSEN. This report can be accessed at www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/585-1.pdf.

National Mental Health Association. 2002a. "Bullying in Schools: Harassment Puts Gay Youth at Risk." This article can be accessed at www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental- health/bullying-and-gay-youth.

---. 2002b. "National Survey of Teens Shows Anti-Gay Bullying Common in Schools." This article can be accessed at www1.nmha.org/newsroom/system/news.vw.cfm?do=vw&rid=474.

Russell, S. T. 2001. "Adolescent Sexual Orientation and Suicide Risk: Evidence from a National Study." American Journal of Public Health, 91:1276-81.

Safe Schools Coalition of Washington. 1999. Eighty-Three Thousand Youth: Selected Findings of Eight Population-Based Studies. Seattle,WA: Safe Schools Coalition. This article can be accessed at www.safeschoolscoalition.org/83000youth.pdf.

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). 2001. "Fact Sheet: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Youth Issues." SIECUS Report, 29, no. 4 (April/May).

Tomsho, Robert. 2003. "Schools' Efforts to Protect Gays Encounter Opposition." Wall Street Journal. (February 20). Available at www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1312.html."

For more stats please check out http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-statistics.html
http://www.nyaamerica.org/2010/11/07/gay-bullyin/ The National Youth Association of America
tells us this:
"LGBT Bullying Statistics:

• 9 out of 10 LGBT students have experienced harassment at school.
• LGBT teens are bullied 2 to 3 times as much as straight teens.
• More than 1/3 of LGBT kids have attempted suicide.
• LGBT kids are 4 times as likely to attempt suicide then our straight peers.
• LGBT youth with “highly rejecting” families are 8 times more likely to attempt suicide than those whose families accept them."

The fact is that gay kids are far more likely to be abused or bullied, and parental reaction is crucial. It is also crucial to provide safe spaces where issues including one's sexual orientation can be discussed without prejudice or bias. That is why the next section of this article by Linda Harvey is quite sickening.

"Preying on vulnerable teens and pre-teens, these centers provide instant access by homosexual adults to kids who have the unfounded notion they are “gay.” These misguided youth can adopt this high-risk identity and become sexually involved with peers and/or older homosexuals, all without a parent’s or guardian’s knowledge or even an objective bystander to watch over them." (Linda Harvey) 

Harvey suggests that these places allow gays to influence kids into "adopting this high-risk identity and become sexually involved with peers and/or older homosexuals" without any proof, and with extreme bias. She makes the false equivocation that gays are pedophiles (indirectly) and that adult gays would actively seek sexual relations with the hypothesized sixth graders Nick and Joel from her introduction.

The problem here is that Linda Harvey's perception of gays is based on fallacy and unsupported facts. This is exemplified by the rest of her article. She asserts that "The centers often provide training in “gay” activism, infusing impressionable youth with hard-core hostility toward traditional values and faith. The kids also get recruited for local demonstrations, and are usually welcome at the city-wide “gay” pride parade, its accompanying parties and events." "Staff and adult volunteers frequently teach workshops with questionable content. BAGLY, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth features ongoing courses called “Queer College.” One of these courses is called “HIV.” Conducted by a male staff member and “peer leaders,” the course content is described on the BAGLY web site as follows:

SEX! Yeah, we know you’re doing it. But how safe are you? We could all use info on sexy new ways to use condoms and barriers. We’ll have open, honest, judgment-free conversations about sex toys, oral sex, bare-backing, mixing sex and drugs, how to keep it safe and advocate for yourself during group sex, anonymous sex, and sex on the go! We’ll have something for everyone!

This course was held in April 2006 at the BAGLY meeting site, which is St. John the Evangelist church in Boston."

Oh no, they're talking about safe sex and common sex practices with adults...oo scary. Meanwhile the assertion that it is kids that are going to these talks is far from the truth. On their website (http://www.bagly.org/) the particular quote that Linda presented isn't even available, and the programs they have are supported by parents and teachers.

Throughout the rest of the article Harvey attacks Gay-Straight Alliances, teachers and community leaders who promote GSAs and Community Centers, claiming ostensibly inaccurate facts and otherwise showing an extreme bias. Nothing she says is true and most things that might be true are taken out of context and exaggerated.

In her latest article Ally or Two-Face Friend Linda makes some pretty awkward claims.
"Ally Week started a few years ago and it's another project of the controversial Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, GLSEN, a radical pro-homosexual and pro-transgender group. GLSEN advocates homosexual behavior among youth, and they are doing everything possible to silence parents, teachers, or other students who don't agree. They convince kids some people are born homosexual or born in the "wrong sex body," so gender change is justified and no big deal."

Her long ranting exemplifies her claims here and the radical christian delusion she has about Ally Week.
Ally Week started as a means to teach kids about bullying in schools, and except for a handful of people across the country, most teachers agree that bullying needs to be stopped and is harmful to kids. GLSEN advocates that kids be allowed to be who they are, gay or straight or transgender, and they're doing everything in their power to bring to light the many problems that surround the anti-gay ideology that seems rampant in our schools.

If you are follower of Mission America or Linda Harvey and are a Christian, I really do suggest you reconsider your position on homosexuality. I've already debunked that the bible claims homosexuality is bad, and her continued avarice is disturbing.

In yet another blurb by Linda called Boy Assault is a crime, not sexual debut she states;
"When teenagers reveal that they had sexual experiences before age 13, shouldn't every effort be made to find out something about their sex partners?

That concern is missing from recent reports about the "risky behavior" of teens who call themselves homosexual, where these students report much higher pre-teen sexual experience than their heterosexual peers.

The good news is that America as a whole is still horrified by child sexual abuse." She has a longer version here http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/boy_assault_is_a_crime_not_a_sexual_debut.html

The problem again with her understanding of what is happening here is that most of these kids who are having sex at young ages are having sex with other kids of their own accord. Not because they were abused, or because they were coerced. Yes, in some cases kids are being abused in this sense and if any evidence arises that shows this to be the case it should be investigated, but the report on first sexual encounters was to get an idea of the shift in sexual initiation and by what age it was occurring not as to whether the kid was sexually abused.

In  Brave Teachers Challenge Left-Wing National Education Association: RADICAL "TRANSGENDERED" AGENDA SURFACES
Linda again gives no citation or sources. However the discussion is interesting, a small group of a super conservative christian teachers at the National Education Association meeting tried to get several topics prohibited, including; abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and a few other issues. All of which were defeated motions by the rest of the comity. The reason why they were defeated, according to Linda, a transgender and gay agenda within the ranks of the comity.

Let's think about this for a moment; either there is a massive conspiracy against the conservative right among some 9000 members of the NEA or maybe, just maybe, the majority of the NEA members aren't homophobic idiots.

The sheer number of articles on this page prevent me from writing and debunking every single one of the articles. However, after skimming most of the other articles in this section, the vast majority come down to the same argument. Homosexuality bad, supporters of homosexuality are "corrupting our youth" be it through the boy scouts, the government, the NEA, and we must stop it to protect our kids.

The facts, however, disprove all of her claims. Nothing she has stated in her list of anti-gay homosexualitymisia, homophobic BS is supported by facts.

***
So what exactly is the "gay agenda"? Well, honestly, there isn't one. The so called gay agenda is really the same agenda as any other disenfranchised group of people. The only difference is that the gay agenda is harder to associate with any one group of people. Homosexuality and Transgenderism are not a racial or gender specific thing. So traditionally defined limits like the Black Rights Movement or the Women's Right's Movement don't perfectly fit the Gay Rights Movement.

Some of the key aspects of the Gay Rights Movement or so called Gay Agenda are as follows:
Equal treatment under the law (like the ability to marry and all the tied to benefits of marriage)
Recognition of homosexuality as a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, with a diverse group of people with their own personal preferences.
Non-discrimination based on sexual orientation or alternate gender~ this includes bullying, religious discrimination, etc.

Why are Christians afraid of gays and transgenderism?
This is probably the hardest question to answer. I think that the first and foremost reason is fear in general. Fear of god, of change, of different things. Fear is a motivator, as more things change and move towards a secular world the more threatened the extremist christian feels. Their world is built around their religion and the bible and when that religion and belief system is challenged it is seen a challenge to their beliefs and ultimately their assumed social authority.

Beyond this it is deep seeded prejudice. I'd argue that the current avarice stems from early prejudice in the church of people who opposed certain concepts and broke off from the Catholic Church or the other major church of the time. This separation of people based on belief that people who leave the church are outside of the grace of god. But as always those radical christian voices violate the rules of god and teachings of christ to scare people into coming back to the church or to scare people from leaving.

Both issues derive from a belief in sin and a need for salvation and perpetuated by the teachings of the bible to convince people through the spreading of the gospel that they need to be saved. The first sin which through the religion all people share, is one of the flesh. So things that are inherently natural, like sex, kissing, lust, greed, sloth, anger, are all sins. Even sexuality, both homosexuality and heterosexuality is seen as bad. Only married people should have sex and for the sole purpose of procreation.

While all of these are the foundation of fear, the rational is secular. While the bible and early religious books actually advocate early childhood sex (to the chagrin of christians and others) modern concerns of pedophilia and gays are hyperbole and not supported facts. Yet it is probably the single most derisive assumptions and charges made against gays.

All in all the christian view of gays is based on factless blind faith. It is a position not held by all christians but it is one that seems most prevalent among the radical right.

That's pretty much it.
Next post will be part III

Till then thanks for reading,
Lord Kristoffer Martin

A Real Balanced Budget...Retardicans Take Note

Dear Readers
Before I post my next section rebutting the BS that is MissionAmerica.com and it's proprietor Linda Harvey I thought I'd comment on one of the biggest issues the US is facing today. One that few people realize is a problem and is very ironic to me and others who realize it is.

Time and again we hear GOP members arguing for a balanced budget. We must cut the discretionary spending in the US so we can get a balanced budget. So we aren't taxing people to death, etc, etc. We also hear from the same party that we need to expand our military while removing power from our government and president.

Heck here's a link to a March 13 2013 article from CNN exhibiting the push for a balanced budget covering Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/23/republicans-continue-push-for-balanced-budget/

Here's a Huffpost article that shows how the GOP budget plans expand military spending while cutting discretionary spending for public works. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/house-gop-budget-cuts_n_1495426.html

Even if we were to include the billions of dollars spent in stimulus for the economy, the extra costs, claimed by the GOP, that Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) would add to our spending, we'd barely breech 1% of the military spending in the current budget for 2014.

The graphic shows the President's budget for next year (2014) and what I consider a properly balanced budget would look like.

If you're looking at this image, the President's budget seems pretty lopsided. When you see this budget pie-graph you should be going "What the Fuck" or "No wonder public education has gone down hill."

Compare the 2014 budget to my budget on the right and this 1950's budget chart and you might see why we haven't seen a balanced budget in decades.

What you should be asking is, why is our military such a fund's hog? How has our fiscal Federal budget gone from $108 billion dollars in today's money (taking into account inflation) to 16 times that to today's budget of $1.8 trillion dollars? The answer is that we've spent more and more money on the military industrial complex which includes energy subsidies for oil and gas companies. We've spent so much on excessive military expenditures and failed projects that we're hemorrhaging funds to maintain bad contracts. Meanwhile, the GOP, are pushing for less taxation, more cuts to an already weak section of our budget all to expand our military spending.

This is bullshit. This is why the GOP and specifically the loud mouth Retardicans among them, you know the Tea Party people...the ones who are in support of bringing back slavery potentially, yeah those people need to shut the fuck up.

In fact all GOP members and all Democratic members need to stop and thinking about what a real balanced budget looks like. It doesn't look like putting the hurt on millions of people in need so we can expand a military budget that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

Look for my next post debunking Linda Harvey coming soon.
Lord Kristoffer Martin 

Against Religious Propaganda: A Rebuttal to MissionAmerica.com and Linda Harvey

Against Religious Propaganda: A Rebuttal to MissionAmerica.com
By Lord Kristoffer J. Martin
Introduction
Part 1) Religion, Christianity, the Bible; these are not Authoritative Sources.
Part 2) The So Called Gay Agenda; why are Christians afraid of the LGBTQ community?
Part 3) Hate Crimes, Bullying, and Free Speech; what you need to know.
Part 4) Cultural Health, Marriage, Law and Homosexuality.
Part 5) Homosexuality and the Christian Religious; Why the US doesn't allow laws to be based on religion.
Part 6) Secularism, Paganism, and opposition to Christianity.
Part 7) Questions about Homosexuality a general FAQ.
Conclusion

Introduction:
I struggle to start this introduction mainly because of the anger I feel towards the people who are perpetuating the lies, avarice, angst, homosexualitymisia (homophobia), discrimination, prejudice, and hate of people who are no different than anyone else other than their sexual orientation. I'm disgusted by their use of religion, faith, and philosophical ideology to teach these social ills. If you've been reading my blog you'd know I'm gay. I am sexually attracted to the same sex (men). I've explained that my personal experience reflects many of the same prejudice and hatred that other homosexuals have experienced. From that experience I've learned a good deal of tolerance and actively sought an explanation for the existence of avarice towards gays that does exist.

So when I heard that a [so called] Christian Pastor by the name of Linda Harvey discusses on her radio show aired on AM 880 WRFD Life Changing Radio why homosexuality is wrong, I had to listen. What I discovered is a message that is contrary to her faith, to the teachings of Christ as found in the Bible, and a person who is infatuated with the righteousness of her faith and the demonic nature of the gay community.

So here I plan to debunk and rebut her website's message in a seven part post. I will examine each section and argument made discuss any merits they may hold and also discuss what is wrong with the resources she provides.

Part 1) Religion, Christianity, the Bible; these are not Authoritative Sources.
In her first set of articles, available on the left side of her page she presents As Christians, we are to be warriors....for the truth of God. which she wrote her self. The first issue I take with this article is that no sources beside the bible are referenced. No other person's ministry or interpretation of the bible and the teachings of Christ are presented to support her claims. This sets the tone for all of the other articles she writes and for the lens I will view her webpage.

The article's text can be found here (http://www.missionamerica.com/articletext.php?artnum=304)

Linda's essential argument is

"As Christians, we, like those who serve on the front lines, are also called to be warriors at times. Our approach is not to be warlike, since we are told to put on the shoes of the gospel of peace as part of the "full armor of God" described in the Ephesians 6.

But why "armor" in the first place? Why the analogy of a helmet of salvation, a breastplate of righteousness, a shield of faith, a sword of the Spirit and a belt of truth? It says, "Take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Apparently, being willing to take a stand against temptation, against spiritual and material enemies, is something believers must be ready for....The church is the body of all believers, not just buildings or congregations, so if you are a believer, you are a member of the church, the body of Christ, and so am I. As we look around at America, it's pretty obvious that the church has mostly dropped the ball and that believers frequently avoid anything that resembles "contending for the faith."

One of the biggest challenges of our age is self-indulgence, the sins of the flesh. How can we be warriors about this? Of course, living in a personally responsible way is the best place to start. But we also must be ready to explain our faith and the reason for the hope we have, as Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15.

In today's world, that means knowing Scripture well enough and being willing to share the truth about sexual immorality, about why homosexuality is a sin, about Christ-ordained man/woman marriage, and about many other things, even about financial gluttony, because these may all be related.

Friends, let's pledge to be warriors every day for our Lord and Savior."

If we break this down a bit, the essential thesis to her site, the reason she believes she is arguing what she is arguing, is that she is fighting a battle against a perceived evil, the so called "sins of the flesh" which she directly associated with homosexuality. To her sexuality is a choice and anything that is different than her subscribed to normalcy is immoral. To her marriage is an ordained pact with god through Christ and must be between a man and a woman. She then asserts that many other sins exist including "financial gluttony" because in her mind sexuality is some how connected to other sins that must also be choices.

She argues that we must be armored against the sinful world, argue and rebuke churches that do not prostrate and convert people. That it is the Christian's godly duty to teach the gospel, pray for people, and bare the "sword of [the] spirit".

This tells me that she has chosen to cherry pick a very specific passage from the bible, taken it out of context, and then also ignored the other teachings of Christ. She asks a very good question though, how can christians be warriors when it comes to combating sin? I ask this question here again as a rhetorical remark, mainly because the very act of proselytizing and judging others, what she is doing here, is a sin.

This beginning article articulates an already existing bias towards cherry picking scripture rather than upholding context. An existing avarice towards anything that is in her view abnormal, and a willingness to tell her audience to fight for their beliefs through the condemnation of others.

Her next article entitled  Bible Passages about Homosexuality and Gender Confusion is attributed to "staff" with no defined author. This in and unto itself calls any credibility into question. None the less let us examine what this article states. The full article can be found here: (http://www.missionamerica.com/articletext.php?artnum=262)

The opening to the article states:
"Passages in both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual behavior and gender confusion, and affirm marriage as being one man and one woman."
This should really cause you pause and alarm. Few passages in the new testament seem to be relevant to homosexuality and most old testament passages used as the basis for homosexualitymisia (homophobia) have been discredited by many church officials and biblical scholars.

The first passage she cites is probably the most famous of all supposedly anti-gay biblical quotes. That of Genesis 19:1-21 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Genesis 19: 4- 13 -- 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."

9 And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city-take them out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

 Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks of Buenos Aires in 2011 debunked the myth that this biblical passage actually pertains to homosexuality in his paper  40 Myths in the Seven “Clobber” Texts Unmasked with Exegetical Studies (doc download: http://tinyurl.com/kk7ph29).

He states: "Myth #1“The story of Sodom’s destruction in Genesis 19:1-29 demonstrates that homosexuality is a grave sin that God condemns.”  Virtually all biblicists now recognize that the story in Genesis 19 does not condemn “homosexuality” (which refers to a sexual orientation of certain persons and includes lesbians) but rather describes the intent by Sodom’s males to rape the two visiting angels, instead of offering them hospitality as Abraham had done in Genesis 18, in accordance with fundamental ancient norms.i  Thus even Richard Hays, who seeks to establish a biblical basis for condemning homosexuality, admits: “The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah – often cited in connection with homosexuality – is actually irrelevant to the topic.”ii  As in the case of  Romans, where interpreters traditionally have ignored the fact that the context concludes with a rhetorical trap in 2:1-16, in the case of Sodom, traditionally we begin with Genesis 19 and ignore the previous context that recounts Abraham’s hospitality (thus Genesis 18 + 19 constitutes a diptych like two twin paintings).  Thus, we misinterpret Gen. 19:1-29 as a condemnation of “homosexuality” when actually it describes a refusal to offer hospitality and an attempt to rape the visitors."

In many respects the interpretation that the men called out to lot to give up the two "men" is also in question. Translation contradictions exist between original texts and their modern English translations. Throughout the bible angels are depicted as androgynous, having no definitive gender, and often with astounding beauty and an effeminate facade. Because angels were not originally even physical beings, but spiritual, the light of god in interpretation from the earliest books and only took on more physical form later on in the Old Testament, the interpretation of what they looked like and gender is suspect. In the original versions of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah they're simply referred to as Elohim (’ĕlōhîm) or The messengers of God. It isn't until much later that names are given to the Elohim in the same span of time that they are demoted from their status as the beloved children of god to the angels we know of today.

None the less many anti-gay arguers use this passage out of context and some even argue that the interpretations that Genesis 19:1-21 has  nothing to do with homosexuality is wrong. (See this well thought out discussion http://www.choosinghats.com/2010/04/is-homosexuality-condemned-in-genesis-19/ by C.L. Bolt vaguely titled Is Homosexuality Condemned In Genesis 19?)

The problem with these interpretations, including Bolt's interpretation, as spelled out Rev. Dr. Hanks, is that it still takes the passage out of context. And as I've explained there is a problem with language translation. Helminiak is quoted by Bolt in a very decisive statement "The point of the story is not sexual ethics. The story of Sodom is no more about sex than it is about pounding on someone’s front door. The point of the story is abuse and assault, in whatever form they take. To use this text to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text"(Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says, page 39).

Much like Genesis 19:1-21, Linda Harvey's site cites several other passages out of context.

Leviticus 18:22 -- You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23: 17-18 -- 17 "There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. 18 You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

1 Kings 15:9-13 - 9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa became king over Judah. 10 And he reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem. His grandmother's name was Maachah the granddaughter of Abishalom. 11 Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did his father David. 12 And he banished the perverted persons from the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13 Also he removed Maachah his grandmother from being queen mother, because she had made an obscene image of Asherah. And Asa cut down her obscene image and burned it by the Brook Kidron.

Matthew 19:4-6 -- 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Romans 1:24-27 -- 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 -- 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 -- 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.


2 Peter 2:6-10 -- 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority.

And each of these is also addressed by Rev. Doc. Tom Hanks:

 Myth #2  “In addition to Genesis 19, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, the law condemning sodomites, makes clear that sodomy is a sin.”  However, older versions had mistranslated qadesh as “sodomite” (Deut. 23:17-18, KJV):

17There shall be no whore (qedeshah) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qadesh) of the sons of Israel.  18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore (zonah), or the price of a dog (keleb), into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

This same translation error of qadesh as “sodomite” was repeated in 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7 and Job 36:14 (cf. the feminine qadeshah in Hosea 4:14).  Thus, for centuries, persons who read the older translations concluded that the Hebrew Scriptures contain six condemnations of “sodomites”, which were used to bolster their misinterpretation of Genesis 19. However, the Hebrew word qadesh/ah literally means “holy, consecrated, set aside for God”:

17None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute (qedeshah); none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute (qadesh).  18You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a male prostitute (keleb, literally “dog”) into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God (Deut. 23:17-18, NRSV; similarly NIV, ESV and NLT).

The NJB in its note “f” on Deut. 23:18 [19 in the NJB] explains: “’Dog’ is an opprobatious term for male prostitute” – without importing the modern concept of sexual orientation (cf. “homosexual men” in NLT note 23:18).  The Hebrew Scriptures often warn Israelite males to abstain from sexual relations with female prostitutes ( Proverbs).  However, no one is so perverse as to interpret such texts as a condemnation of “heterosexuality” – although this is precisely the error of those who seek to condemn “homosexuality” on the basis of the six texts that refer to (cultic?) prostitutes (mistranslated as “sodomites”).  We can be grateful to God that virtually all modern translations correct this grave error and make clear that the texts speak specifically of prostitutes – not of “sodomites,” “homosexuals,” or “heterosexuals” (“temple prostitute,” NRSV, NIV, NLT; “cult prostitute,” ESV; “sacred prostitute,” NJB).  Modern studies do frequently question whether the prostitution referred to was cultic or rather seculari (Joshua, Rahab).

Deuteronomy 22:5 is taken out of context as well, and more importantly is operating on a non-sequitur argument. It is presumed by Linda that a man wearing women's clothing and vice versa asserts homosexuality. In reality this shouldn't be applied to the argument either. Few gay men wear women's clothes and few lesbians wear men's clothes. Moreover in our current culture the concept of unisex design and clothing design as art clouds the precepts of what exactly constitutes women's and men's clothes anyways. While yes there is such a thing as DRAB Kings and DRAG Queens this is no more an affront to our society now than eating hotdogs.

In fact every single one of the biblical passages quoted above have been debunked by reverends, pastors, and other biblical scholars as a biblical basis for condemning homosexuality. If you'd like to read more on the debunking of these quotes above, please read the whole of Rev. Dr. Tom Hank's essay which I linked to above via a tiny url.

As to keep this section short I'll summarize and react to the remainder of her initial articles.
The next section she discusses politics and if christians should be involved, she says "And my answer is always the same: the fight against homosexuality is not "politics" It may have a political manifestation here and there, but it's far greater. We are talking about people's lives, the well-being of children, and frankly, the very future of civilization. If we can't apply God's Word and our faith to that, where do we apply it?"

In the article after that she asserts the creation affirms her belief that god doesn't like homosexuality and it's wrong, because god created Adam and Eve. The next article after that she argues that homosexuals are changing the church to create an exception to the rules of god and that their influence is bad. But the next article is most interesting. In the article If you support "Gay Marriage", you also support..." she asserts several ideas without citation or evidence that the claims are true.

The aggressive promotion of homosexuality and gender change as good and worthy to our children, and any opposing views in schools, community groups, and children's media falsely portrayed as evil and eventually banned by law. 

The continued rise in the numbers of people living with HIV as 25,000 or more people are infected each year (the current trend) through male/male homosexual sex, with a particular spike among younger males, because our politically-correct public health system won't take aggressive action to discourage it, since it will be part of "dating." 

An immediate increase in incidents where Christians or conservatives are threatened or sued for expressing any disagreement with homosexuality or "gay marriage" in the workplace, in schools, in the press, or eventually, in churches. 

Younger and greater numbers of youth claiming a "gay" identity, and then acting on that identity. 

Churches silencing themselves on the sin of homosexuality, then the opposite: being encouraged to sell their congregations, including youth, on the idea. 

Resisters who continue to speak out will eventually be prosecuted, perhaps serve jail terms. 

Let's examine these for a moment: She asserts that if you support gay marriage, that is the marriage between two consenting adults that are of the same gender you also support gender change and the banning of any opposed viewpoints on this matter of gender change.

What isn't clear is what does she mean by gender change? Is she talking about gender role changes, is she talking about transgenderism? Consequentially her message is from the beginning muddled here, but more importantly there is an inherent problem if either intended connotation is what she is expressing. If she is expressing that gender roles are changing and that is a bad thing (likened to gay marriage in her opinion) she is ignoring that gender roles have already changed and were changing long before she was born. If it is the later, transgenderism, unfortunately transgenderism is an psychologically accepted mental state support by scientific study. People who are transgendered have brain chemistry and brain density that is different from other people of their biological gender. Biological shifts happen all the time and in a modern secular society we need to learn to accept those shifts.

She argues then that if you're in favor of a monogamous marriage between two consenting adults you're also in favor of the spread of HIV. Ignoring the fact that monogamy reduces STI transmission (that is all STIs) drastically. By denying gay marriage you are actually only reinforcing the lifestyle that allows for the transmission of HIV. Let us also not forget that in the previous objectionable claim of support she clearly is making a case that homosexuality shouldn't be taught to kids along with gender role shifts or transgenderism (which ever she actually intended I don't know). The number one cause of the spread of HIV and other STIs (that's sexually transmitted infections) is unsafe sex and poor or no education on safe sex.

HIV affects both gay and straight couples. AS do ALL STIs.

The third one is interesting, she says that if you support gay marriage you support the increase likelihood of christians and conservatives being sued or threatened for the expression of their opinions in regards to homosexuality. This is a big statement with a great deal of things attached to it and I'll have to come back to in a later part. But to summarize my rebuttal; the issue here is the fact that the opinions of the conservatives and so called christians are in fact disingenuous and discriminatory. It is no different than the statements made about African Americans a hundred years ago, sixty years ago, forty years ago, and even as of this year that are made by hard right conservative christians that are still racist. Hate speech is not protected speech.

The forth one is also interesting but has a simple rebuttal. The claim is that by support gay marriage and by extension homosexuality as a lifestyle (rather than a non-choice that is biologically determined based on several uncontrollable factors~which FYI that is what it is) you'll have more kids at an earlier age becoming gay. In reality most kids who are gay know they're gay and come out now, but in the past under the thumb of christian propriety such a thing was frowned upon. Attempts at correcting kids often created any number of psychological problems and it's clear that throughout history in the US and Europe there was a thriving underground of homosexuality ignored by or condemned by the greater christian community. Gay kids would be married off as dictated by social standards, all the while harboring their homosexuality and seeking sexual congress with like minded people behind closed doors and away from prying eyes. There is a reason why the euphemism "The love that dare not speak it's name" was used for nearly three hundred years.

Further still, historically speak homosexuality was quite vibrant and accepted any many cultures around the world. Native American tribes saw homosexuality and transgenderism as a third sexuality and in some cases a third gender. They accepted the natural state of the sexual orientation. In Greece it was common for warriors to have what was essentially a squire or servant that would also be a sexual partner. In Japan and China and many parts of Asia homosexuality was very common. Most prostitutes and the early Japanese Geisha were in fact men and boys. Even today homosexuality and heterosexuality isn't even a concept in some rural tribes. In one instance an African tribe, carrying a several thousand year old tradition, have the older men and boys have sex with young boys both anal and oral as to pass on the masculinity carried in their seed. Once a young boy is full of the seed and balanced again with the femininity gained from the mother's womb they then can have a female partner.

Churches having to "silence themselves" on the matter of homosexuality, hardly. Freedom of speech is not abridged just because we as a culture are evolving past the limitations of christianity and other religions. You're free to speak what you want to speak, but also remember hate speech isn't protected speech. It is one thing to claim homosexuality is a sin, it is another to judge people because you believe them to be sinners.

Again, hate speech and discrimination are illegal. You may "resist" the cultural change of accepting homosexuality all you want, but if you do so by trying to cause harm to others, by way of: slander, misinformation, hate speech, discrimination and denial of service based on sexual orientation, denial of employment because of sexual orientation, you do so with the understanding that your religion and your beliefs are protected as much as the person you're discriminating against.

But this is the kicker "Is this what you want? Most people can see how harmful and unjust all these outcomes would be if they happened. Yet these trends are already starting. So isn't it time to start trusting God and believing His word, that homosexual behavior is never beneficial but always a sin?"

Most of these outcomes are incongruous with reality, they're also loaded statements that ignore facts and disregard both the teachings of Christ and the changes in the church since the writing of the bible.

In the next article I'll discuss here, Harvey discusses The FIB of Homosexuality. To summarize she first assumes once again that homosexuality is a choice that one makes, ignoring all current research that shows a causal effect between a predisposition of genetic traits and hormonal levels in the womb that most biologists studying homosexuality believe to be the cause of the sexual orientation. She argues that the realization of same sex attraction come vary in intensity and can be confusing without the guidance of scripture in a secular world filled with sexual idolatry. While interesting, it is false. One's sexuality is conclusively related to genetics and is neither a taught trait nor is it a choice.

Sexuality in general may suffer from an instant gratification issue caused by over sexualization in our culture, but that is neither relative to the discussion of homosexuality and it's origins, or whether or not it is sin.
Further still, she asserts that "we are told that refraining from one's urges is 'denying who you are'". I'd argue that this position is very true. If you deny the animal side of your being you are denying who you are. Sex and sexuality are fundamental parts of one's psyche and if denied can cause many problems throughout life. She argues then that it's important that kids be taught that god never intended for them to pursue these feelings and sexual desires, ignoring a basic premise of christianity that god created everyone in his image and that includes homosexuality. She then claims further that if they don't push back or withstand the temptation they'll move towards the next step of realizing one's gayness and that is the acceptance of the "gay lifestyle". She asserts a bit of stereotypical BS ignoring that most gay people life the same essential lifestyle as everyone else. And then lastly she delves into the actual sex part. The whole anal sex seems to gross her out, the claim that somehow ALL gays have HIV and having sex even once is so dangerous that it's the most serious part of the homosexual transition and that it all should be condemned.

Frankly the so called FIB is the whole license she takes when telling people about the gay lifestyle, when she herself hasn't lived in said lifestyle and doesn't know anything about it. She cites no sources or people she's interviewed who are gay to gain the information she presents, to me she is worse than the African preacher who was talking about gays eating poo-poo...at least he "researched" the act of tossing a person's salad. Though exactly what site he was on I'm not sure...

 

So after reading all of this, my rebuttal, my points, my complaints over her initial representation of gays on her page (excluding some extraneous pages that try to assert things that just aren't true about paganism and the like) I'd like to at least give you a better conclusion to part one of this series of posts.

Conclusion to Part 1

Religion is baseless, it has no foundation in reality. To assert the bible condemns X or Y it requires a good deal of interpretation and cherry picking. Most of her so called "basics" on the discussion have no supporting evidence, she has no citations to studies that support her claims. She relies solely on the bible and as I've demonstrated other reverends and pastors have debunked the usage of the passages she uses. She uses her indignation and hatred for homosexuality to make extremist claims, most of which are straw man and non-sequitur arguments not even supported by the bible she claims to know and understand.

Because of the intrinsic nature of religion, which is blind faith in a thing thought to exist and to hold divinity, and a blind faith in a book, in the case of Christianity, that was formed into a unified version 1800 years ago from old stories handed down word of mouth for centuries prior still, we now have to listen to a person drone on about how homosexuality is bad. In fact we have to listen to a host of people who hate gays and hate cultural changes and shifts away from their very religious views drone on about how the secular world, secular laws, and secular governments are discriminating against them.

In my next post I'll discuss part two of this seven part discussion and debunk more of the insanity that is Linda Harvey and her webpage.

Until next time, Sincerely and with all hopes of enlightenment 

Lord Kristoffer Jay Martin

PS: And remember the great thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it to be true or not. 

Hacktivism a case for the new Activist

Hacktivism: a case for the New Activism. 
By Lord Kristoffer Martin
Introduction
Part 1) History of Activism
Part 2) Vox populi 
Part 3) Hacktivism the new wave of activism
Part 4) Internet as an absolute voice, why hacktivism are now so mainstream. 
Conclusion


Without grandiose statements over cultural despotism, government failings, or the pinning of blame on any one group for the many problems we're facing; I can say that there is a need for free information exchange, free voice, and a need for action to correct problems that aren't being addressed.

The biggest resource for information exchange on the planet right now is the internet. It connects communities, countries, and people instantly that are otherwise worlds apart and isolated. The internet changed the world and how we as a global community communicate. This change allows greater liberty and freedom for some, while greater restrictions for others. With this expansion of communication, the shrinking of the global communication gap, the rules for information exchange also changed.

Within the internet are the many secrets that our governments, radical groups, and others don't want to be found out. It is also the home for many websites, thousands, if not tense of thousands of websites attributed to different topics, cultural ideals, social orders, and conspiracy. Enter, Hacktivism. Hacktivism is the act of hacking sites to obtain specific information or to shut down that site as a communication node for a group of people, done by a group in opposition to those opponent voices.

Hacktivism is the new protest. Denial of Service Attacks are the digital version of a picket line, only more effective. This version of activism, acting against groups out of either negative or positive reasoning is a means of disrupting a message. It also allows for anonymity of those activists who oppose certain messages.

Disconnected group headers like Anonymous exist to protect hacker activists (hacktivists) who attack and shut down sites that are vulnerable but also represent a negative use of power.

Part 1)  History of Activism
This is by no means intended to be a comprehensive history of activism. Rather, it is intended to be a brief conceptualization of the history of activism occurring as of late. Zeitgeist or "the state and atmosphere of a body of people in relation to it's governing body; ie the state of the country" is in a state of flux.

With political strife and the assault on reality and facts by many proponent ideologues who're trying to shape reality into what they see fit, the activists in the US are poignantly fighting a losing battle. The classic style protest and occupation of public space is becoming less effective as the media focuses more on the minute details of the protesters and not the subjects of protest. This is exemplified by the many protesters arrested under false charges and those protesters attacked by police officers stepping beyond the boundaries of the law.

While historically the publicization of such events focused more on issues being protested (as in the case of the First Wave of  the Women's Rights Movement, the Black Rights movement), it isn't until much later when more radical means of protesting became popular that we see the extremist actions the authorities take to curtail protesters.

However, with the internet, the voice of the people is drowned out by the voices of everyone. Modern protests do not hold the same cultural weight the past protests did. The dissemination of information is instant, people can pick and choose their news sources, and they can choose to only hear the message and information they want disregarding facts in favor of their now reinforced view points.

In the past information went through filters, the media, each news source available, while possibly whitewashed with some political, cultural, religious, or monetary bias, remained more or less truthful and presented the facts. Today, any news source or media page can say what they wish without any regard for facts. Fox News embodies this very concept of virtual-news, where it is no longer facts or reality but sensationalism and opinion that is presented to their audience.

Therein, the voices of the protesters are no longer their own. Their intended message, their complaint, is overshadowed by the opaque filter of mainstream media. When it comes to the internet, their message is again lost, though if searched for available, as again mainstream media overshadows the basic facts as they perpetuate their version of events.

Part 2) Vox Populi
Unfortunately historically, where the physical protest could affect and change media sources, affect and change governmental departments, affect and change public policy, this is no longer the case. The physical protest has lost it's meaning, as media coverage of their message is inundated with political, cultural, and religious bias which twists reality to meet the message the media source is wanting to portray.

A great example of this is the dichotomous representation of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The media sources in favor showed the protesters standing strong, discussed their anger, their ideals, their reasons for the protest. While those in opposition ignored these people, called them bums, degenerates, showcased their being attacked by cops and presented a  narrative that they were violent.

Unfortunately rarely did either side of the debate discuss the moral and constitutional implications of the protest and the way the police and authorities were handling the protest.

The vox populi or voice of the people is drowned out by ideologues and media personalities, either unwilling personally or unwilling because of contractual obligation, who present a fictional narrative rather than facts.
The internet then takes up the slack. It presents a medium that can present the truth as well as fallacy in regards to media. The internet is filled with the voice of the people but with the distinct disadvantage of there being no central media source, no central fact checking source, no central regulation of what is said.

We have gone from a fairly well regulated media machine that would present the facts with only small degrees of bias being presented (ignoring off shoots and extremist publications) and we have shifted to two very big extremes. One that is highly biased but well organized and another that is highly unorganized and exhibits both facts and opinion equally.

Part 3) Hacktivism the new wave of activism
Hacktivism is the new wave of activism. From my perspective it is in fact protected under the constitution. The internet is a public forum, virtual in nature, but none the less a public forum. There is no presumed privacy on the internet. The only way to change the way that the vox populi is presented on the web is to fight against poor expression, unfactual beliefs, and fictional narrative that is presented by any site. There is of course two means of doing this, either presenting your own site to counter the arguments of another, or remove the other site altogether.

For me there are two types of hacktivism; one that is done with purpose (regardless of if that purpose is malevolent or benevolent). The other is when there is personal gain involved without any active purpose. A great example of the later is of the 12-year-old in Canada who hacked government sites to earn video games (see http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/27/twelve-year-old-anonymous-hacker-pleads-guilty-to-breaking-into-government-sites/). This young hacker, unaware of the implications and legal issues that surrounded the hacking of sites, let alone government sites, did so due to a material incentive. His hacking falls under hacktivism as his hacking was used by another non-organized group who acts under the header of online protesters; Anonymous.

Anonymous is now a household name. Their famous attacks on the CIA, FBI, Microsoft and dozens of other pages, that the various unconnected hackers operating under the header, targeted, seem to represent the biggest evil and the foundational upset that initiated Occupy Wall Street. Hacktivism seems to be the next step in the act of protestation of businesses and government alike. Instead of risking physical harm, these activists take to the web to attack and shut out the voices of the pages that they wish to protest. Their actions disrupt the protested as any other protest would. Unlike physical protests however, the virtual presence of both the protester and the protested are all that are in harms way. It is an attack on the voice and opinion of the hacked website by the hacktivist.

Part 4) Internet as an absolute voice, why hacktivism are now so mainstream. 
As I've stated already the internet is the most open resource available in the US. It is a medium in which anyone can voice their opinion, and anyone can voice opinion in opposition of others. This makes the internet the ultimate vox populi. It is an expression of both a national and international audience who are watching events unfold. It allows for the instantaneous sharing of information giving us glimpses into the actions of people that would otherwise seem inconsequential. The internet gave us glimpses into the practices of dozens of public servants and figures, allowing for a critical examination of how authorities act towards protesters and other minority groups. This is one of the internet's biggest strengths and flaws. As the vast amount of information becomes available the myopic aspects of various topics are focused on while the bigger picture is ignored. This factor of how the internet as a media form works now influences other media which also fail to examine the big picture in their efforts to assert a bias representation of reality.

In return more and more people are turning to hacktivism, knowing full well that mainstream media is turning more and more into the cacophonous disorganized form that the internet is. Truth and facts are lost and this is exemplified by Fox News once again. Fox News' "News Deck" bypasses the editorial team, the filters that traditional media use to insure factuality, and now give us news via Twitter feeds, facebook posts, and trending topics. (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/07/shepard-smith-tours-revolutionary-fox-news-deck)
News now is about opinion, not facts. And to combat illicit bullshit the hacktivists now protest at a far. Proving that the government, the media sources, and other groups, are not safe from being criticized. They use their hacking skills to target and protest in front of the eyes of the audiences of websites the problems that exist with the hacked source.

Unfortunately hacktivism isn't protected like physical activism. One's right to safely and civilly protest by marching, by picketing, and so on cannot be infringed in the US. But the virtual public space of the internet does not exist in the physical world. It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the US constitution, but is by it's nature a global community. That said, I'd argue that as a global community, a global space, it falls under the purview and jurisdiction of the UN and not any one country.

Conclusion: Hacktivists and hacking is now the new means of protesting because traditional forms of protestation are failing and are being criminalized. While the act of protestation is protected under the constitution, more and more traditional protesters are being attacked, harmed, and their messages twisted, leaving little chance of influence. Without reliable unbiased objective media sources representing the facts and reasoning behind traditional activism, the only way to effectively disseminate a message and protest of a group or government group is to hack and take down their sites. The message sent to users of their sites is that these groups being attacked are doing something wrong. In a period where internet traffic outshines physical traffic, where one's virtual presence at times is more legitimate than one's physical presence, where views of a webpage can consist of millions of hits, it is far more effective to present a message of protest by disrupting a website than it is to occupy a physical space.

Right now Anon is hacking dozens of sites in protest, some it is for good reasons, for others it is for personal gains or personal bias. This is no different than any other protest that exists. The hacked page is the new virtual picket-line, it is the new voice of the activist and like the old voice of the activist, it to is being legally targeted by people who oppose the expression of opinion and the protesting of groups. Especially authoritative groups (such as governments, large corporations, and media outlets) that are likely to suffer from such attacks.

I'll conclude by saying that hacktivism is like any other activism. It is plagued with people wanting to affect change for the better and by people who want to hack as a sign of dominion and power. There are those hacktivists who wish to steal secrets and those who only wish to protest the opinions of people who are presenting fallacy.

We must be careful as we move forward into a new era of activism. We must not cross the border of criminal intent as we protest through hacking. We must use hacking responsibly so that the right of free speech is not infringed upon nor restricted because of poor choices.

I encourage Anonymous's message and believe that one day the mask of Anon will not be needed.

Meta-Conclusion: I wrote this post as a response to something that isn't actually clear here. Hacktivism isn't just disrupting pages or taking down sites, but actively circumventing censorship online. With countries like China preventing connections to sites outside of their internet resources, like Google.com, Facebook, Youtube, etc and countries like the UK attempting to force content filters on everyone, both free speech and fair free exchange of information on the internet is threatened.

Further still, the dissemination of fallacious information, misinformation, and disinformation on many sites attempting to push a specific message must also be confronted as they're doing a great disservice to their audience and via their audience a great disservice to everyone else. Fallacy isn't protected speech, nor is hate speech, and such sites as: American Family Association's website, Abiding Truth Ministries' website, or Linda Harvey's site (http://www.missionamerica.com/) which presents fallacious papers and arguments against homosexuality and promotes homosexualitymisia and homophobia and hate against the LGBTQ community.

The presentation of these opinions and factless arguments as fact is detrimental to the site's audience.
I believe that hacktivism should be used to combat such fallacious information and it's dissemination so as to curtail the consequences of teaching people these beliefs.

Thanks again for reading,
Lord Kristoffer Jay Martin

Russel Brand I Love You: A real alternative to the current oligarchy

Dear Readers

First thank you so very much for those of you who are reading my blog. I am a small voice in a very big pond.

Oh Russel Brand your long curly hair, your scruffy patchy beard, your weird awesome British accent, and wild demure satire, what would we be without you.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/24/actor-russell-brand-reduces-bbc-newsman-to-stunned-silence-with-diatribe-against-corporate-oligarchy/

Russel Brand's diatribe on the social mess that we call our political systems says it all. The disparaging difference between the upper and lower class in the US and across the pond in Europe and in the UK is the result of a hierarchical social system that establishes a political, social, cultural elite.

So to answer Russel's question, the indirect question that while he himself isn't the expert, isn't the person to ask about what would be the best alternative to what we have and there are better ones out there, I have an answer. I have a clear, decisive answer.


If you watched his interview Russel Brand touches on the cornerstone issues of our society right now. He states clearly what is already well known to many that our political system is broken. It focuses on supporting an elite few, be it political elites, corporate elites, and the supper rich, while ignoring to a great degree and even harming the poorest of our society. All the while we vote within a system that drives poor kinship, poor laws, and partisanship. The biparty system in the US is disruptive to our country and is ruled by two parties not interested in protecting the best interests of this country and it's people.

The truth hurts but we can fix this. We can fix it without loss of our democratic system, without the loss of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and we can do it while boosting our economy, our ability to fix our environment, and ultimately to solve many of the problems our country is facing.

We need to change the dichotomy of the political race. Remove the opponent aspect of running for a senatorial race and you remove the antagonism. Give each state three guaranteed senatorial seats. One for Dems, one for Republicans, and one for the Independent (subsets of either the Democratic or GOP can't run for the independent seat). No one party would have a majority in the senate and to get any law passed the parties would have to work together. A similar effort would be done for the house. The current electoral structure for the house of reps is based on population. Because of gerrymandering many states have lopsided districts making it easier for one party or the other to elect representatives. Instead of allowing this to be done. All states would be put into grids of four mile by four mile squares. Each square would be given a rep. Rural areas would be joined  into singular groups. These sections would then represent equally each district and prevent gerrymandering. Any section of a state that has no population would not be given a rep.

Requirements for running for office would then be lowered. Making it so that no senator or rep can spend more than fifty thousand dollars on their campaigns. Limiting this amount you discourage attack ads, illicit spending, and influences from elites.

Denounce the Citizens United ruling and make it so that corporations aren't people under the eyes of the law. And change how, when, where, and why lobbyists can speak to elected officials.

Start a flat tax with a tiered deductions rather than a tiered tax with complex deductions.
The tax would sit at 51% of income. Deductions would be based on income range, availability of health care through your employer, dependents, cost of living in the area, and industry. The same tax would apply to businesses. Non-profits would have a 90% reduction so long as a minimum of 80% of all earnings went to their non-profit cause. Non-profit causes would be limited to social causes. Not-for-profit organizations would be given a 50% deduction with a similar limitation to the non-profit orgs but their causes wouldn't necessarily be limited to social causes.

Remove the exemption of churches from paying taxes unless they claim non-profit or not-for-profit status in which case they have to prove any "earnings" goes to either a social cause or a cause that helps others.

Mandate that all people in the US must have a job if they're able workers (excluding obviously teenagers and children and those who are retired). This also would mandate that all US businesses must hire US citizens before they ship jobs over seas with a 10% cushion. This would ease any issues with immigration and would allow us to have an open border policy for foreign workers.

Insurance; while we would maintain the private insurance industry we'd extend and offer medicare to all people in the US. Making it much like the NHS in the UK or Canada's health care service. By making everyone pay an equal portion of their taxes into paying for health care, everyone would also be equally covered. This would leave private insurance companies to cover any gaps or to provide extended insurance for other forms of medical care not covered by medicare. This means that people can just get the care they need at any doctor anywhere in the US. Preventative care would be easy, and emergency care wouldn't be held up by insurance coverage issues. No one would go bankrupt due to high doctor bills and, medical costs overall can be reduced. It would also mean that we can remove the profit motive out of curing people and focus on real cures and real medicine instead of allowing pharmaceutical companies from pushing drugs that cause problems.

We'd need to mandate fair housing, making sure that no one is every homeless again. States under this mandate would purchase abandoned or empty houses that have sat on the market for more than a year and turn around and rent or sell the houses to people looking for a home. People who are homeless would be placed in these homes on low or no pay rent until such time that they care hired or trained or educated to be hired in a position which would allow them to pay for rent or purchase of the home. Movement out of these homes we be up to the person placed in them. If the don't wish to purchase the home or rent but to move, they can. Because of the mandate for guaranteed work and health insurance the many problems that occur that cause people to be homeless would in fact be fixed.

Because everyone would be working we could then raise minimum wage to meet everyone's base needs. while making it so that upward mobility is easier to access. I'd personally raise minimum wage to at least $15/hr. With more money in people's pockets they'll spend more and ultimately buy more powering the economy.

Renewable Energy 

On the matter of securing energy in the US we could power the entire country on solar panels and wind turbines. Germany in 2012 reported a green energy density of 400 megawatts per 1 million people. With that density of green energy density in the US we'd produce three times the amount of energy we'd need in a year.

With new technologies that are making energy storage easier we could stop our dependence on fossil fuels in the US in a matter of half a decade if we were to just implement the available technology.

By stopping all subsidies to oil companies and gas companies and putting that money towards the implementation of green technologies and green energy production the US could be energy independent in the matter of a decade.

And if we can do that we can be the model for other countries to move away from fossil fuels. This in turn would stem the issues of global warming or global climate change.

Food Production

A Singapore company is working on creating highly condensed green houses that produce a volume of food to feed millions of people while producing the food from within the city. The green houses could be built in any city and maintained by volunteers and paid workers and they would produce local fresh food year round that would be cheap and easily transported to local markets. By producing food locally and selling it locally we remove the middlemen of transport which skyrocket food costs. This means fresher healthier foods at a much lower cost.

By implementing what I've laid out here, we could as a country fix many of the social ills we face today. We could wipe out poverty, wipe out homelessness, wipe out hunger, and change the face of our country transforming us back into the leaders of the world we once were.