By: Judith Bandsma To: Michael Hardy Re: FOF UPDATE, STAAL MH+gt; Evidence, please. The ne

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Judith Bandsma To: Michael Hardy Re: FOF UPDATE, STAAL MH> Evidence, please. The next few posts should present it to you...**IF** you will bother to read the whole thing and not start justifying everything from the start. One post is from someone who lives in Colorado Springs and deals with FoF every day, on the street...upclose and personal. The other is from Dobson himself. Full of lies, inaccuracies and inflammatory rhetoric. Read it and then tell me that FoF is not a hate group. [Please Note: The opinions below are those of the author, NOT those of the Department or the University.] [Please Note: Portions of this letter are not suitable for children.] August 1995 Dear Friends, I want to talk to you this month about what could be the most important topic I've addressed in many years. This matter has profound implications for the institution of the family and for what we have called "the defense of righteousness," yet it will not be covered adequately by the secular press. Thus, I'm asking that you give particular attention to the words that follow, even if you don't often read my written comments. The events about to unfold on the world scene are almost beyond comprehension. From Aug. 30 to Sept. 15, 1995, delegates from more than 170 sovereign nations will attend the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. It will represent the most radical, atheistic and anti-family crusade in the history of the world, and your own government is pulling the strings and supporting a disproportionate share of the costs. The extremists who are preparing for and promoting this conference are a million miles outside the American mainstream, and yet they will be speaking in Beijing with the authority of the United States government. The more I learn about what these radical feminists want to impose on the human family, the more appalled I am that so few churches, Christian magazines and religious radio stations have chosen to alert our citizens to the implicit danger. It is a mystery, in fact, how such enormous threats to our spiritual and cultural heritage could have slithered into our midst without due notice or alarm. Make no mistake about it: most of what Christianity stands for will be challenged during this atheistic conference. Every good and perfect gift from the hand of the Creator will be mocked and vilified by many of its delegates. That is their agenda. That is their program. And if they have their way, the family as it has been known since antiquity will cease to exist. Let me try to spell out what is about to occur on the other side of the globe. First, consider where this international event will be held. No country on earth has abused and oppressed more women than China, with its forced abortion policy and its "one child per family" law. This is a nation that monitors menstrual cycles so it can identify young women with unapproved pregnancies and drag them into medical clinics to have their babies killed. It is also a country that has murdered tens of millions of female infants. [Interjection by me; this is a blatant lie as regards the Chinese gov't. They don't care what sex the one child is, as long as there is only one. Girls are not monitored and women are not 'dragged into clinics' nor has 'the country' murdered tens of millions of female infants. The Chinese society itself...the people of China, and their ancient customs, have always held females to be of less worth and infanticide of females is a custom that goes back as far as the country itself. While a despicable custom, FoF could, at least, tell the truth about it.] So effective has been its bias against the feminine gender that the sex-ratio in large regions of China favors males by 64 percent.[1] What irony, then, that the people who have annihilated their little girls will host a conference on the betterment of women. What breathtaking wickedness! And to their shame, President Bill Clinton and his First Lady, Hillary, have committed the resources of the United States government to this travesty. Indeed, at the same time of this writing, Hillary was the likely chairperson to lead the American delegation to China. [2] Sending a delegation to China should be unthinkable for two other reasons. First, Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held hearings in May to investigate a deeply disturbing practice occurring inside China. A half-dozen witnesses testified that the Chinese government is satisfying its needs for hard cash by executing young prisoners and then "harvesting" their organs while their bodies are still warm. Sue Lloyd-Roberts, a BBC reporter, and Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in China's forced labor camps, showed the senators a shocking videotape of the actual executions. (I also saw a similar videotape while in Scotland three years ago.) Standing nearby were surgical vans and medical teams waiting to cannibalize the bodies just moments after death. The organs thus extracted are sold at black-market prices to Westerners desperate for kidneys, hearts, livers, corneas, etc. Who knows how this lucrative market for body parts has influenced China's inclination to kill young men and women accused of various minor offenses? Even without this financial incentive, prisoners have been executed historically for simply disagreeing with their government. Mr. Wu reported that he witnessed such an execution of a fellow inmate in 1970 who had merely written "Down with Chairman Mao" on a cigarette pack.[3] (Late information: In early May, Wu was arrested in Northern China and charged with espionage and high treason. If convicted, he will be sentenced to death.)[4] If that isn't enough to turn one's stomach, consider this: According to World (which also reported the practice described above), human fetuses have begun to appear on menus of Chinese restaurants as a delicacy and health tonic. This account was cited: "To investigate widespread rumors that unborn human beings were being sought and eaten to improve complexions and promote general well-being, an Eastern Express reporter on March 1 entered the state-run Shenzhen Health Center for Women and Children and requested a fetus for a feigned illness. A female doctor told the reporter the department had run out of fetuses, but to come back. "The next day, according to the paper, the reporter returned at lunch time. The doctor eventually emerged from the operating theater holding a fist-sized glass bottle stuffed with thumb-sized fetuses. She said, 'There are 10 fetuses here, all aborted this morning. You can take them. We are a state hospital and don't charge anything. Normally we doctors take them home to eat[--]all free. Since you don't look well, you can take them."'[5] [The Eastern Express reporter, if you will note, is not named. EE is a religious based 'newspaper' that, if you will excuse the expression, is so full of shit they stink. The Hague Yearly Meeting reports that their missionaries in China refute this claim in the strongest terms. It is, quite simply, a tactic to stir indignation against both abortion AND the Chinese.] It is incredible that the Clinton administration has not only approved U.S. support for a conference on women's rights in such a country, but it has also granted "most favored nation" trade status to it as well. According to the President, there is no connection between China's abuse of human rights and our economic policies. All that matters, apparently, is that we profit financially from the relationship. Since the issue of whether or not to go to China is no longer debatable, we must ask what the conference organizers hope to accomplish while they are there? What is their agenda? What can we anticipate during those 17 fateful days? To answer these questions, we should look first at who is representing us. The official U.N. Document which will be promoted in Beijing was written by a virtual who's who of radical feminists. Chief among them is that veteran sexist warrior, Bella Abzug. Abzug headed the infamous International Women's Conference in Houston which was designed to destroy the family back in 1977. We can thank President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalyn, for turning that government-sponsored event over to the likes of Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda and Betty Friedan. Watching them on television as they ripped into everything I believed actually motivated me to join the pro-family movement. When President Carter announced his follow-up White House Conferences on the Family two years later, I said to myself, "Not this time, sir. Not this time!" So what a surprise, 18 years later, to see many of the same revolutionaries making even more outrageous plans for the family. Abzug is a strange choice to be in charge of anything these days. The Washington Times referred to her as "a fixture in old left activism." She was an avid supporter of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin during her days at Hunter College, and she led rallies for the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.[7] Referring to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, she said, "God forbid, or Goddess forbid, [that] he should lose."[8] She resigned as a congresswoman to run for the U.S. Senate, and lost.[9] She ran for mayor of New York City and finished third in a primary race.[10] Then she ran again for Congress and lost.[11] Her views are so far off base even the liberal media often ignore them. Nevertheless, this woman, a radical to the core who represents only her leftist cohorts, has become our official spokesperson on morals and the family. She has told us what kind of person in New York Harbor on June 6, 1993.[25] These women had made the long and perilous journey to our shores to escape forced abortion in their homeland. They requested asylum as permitted by an existing U.S. immigration policy which granted shelter to those who had fled from forced abortions, forced sterilization, or other forms of persecution associated with coercive population control programs. These 180 frightened women clearly met the provisions of this long-standing policy, but the Clinton administration was unsympathetic to their plight. After all, the President favors population control efforts around the world, and he had no intention of harboring refugees from its oppression. Thus, he reversed our immigration policy in August 1994 and placed the women in various prisons and jails around the country.[26] They remain there to this day, except for 15, who were scheduled on June 23, 1995, to be granted temporary asylum in Quito, Ecuador. Presumably, the remaining women will soon be returned to China where they will face an angry and embarrassed government. (A late development: Our State Department has denied, at least temporarily, permission for the 15 Chinese women to be sent to Ecuador![27] And... the Immigration and Naturalization Service has just torpedoed Rep. Chris Smith's (R-N.J.) efforts to invite the Chinese women to testify at Congressional hearings.[28] How do you spell C-O-V-E-R U-P?) [RIIIIIGHT! These women left China in a boat, but only ran aground when they hit NEW YORK harbor. Oh well, if you believe that, I guess you can believe the rest of it.] The civil rights organization Voice for Life recently issued the following statement about the immigrants: "While all the Chinese refugees had hoped to live in freedom in the United States, they are all exhausted from their extended period of incarceration, and they are tired of being treated like criminals."[29] Let me see, now[--]what are the words engraved on the Statue of Liberty standing a short distance from where the Golden Venture ran aground? Don't they say, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."? This travesty reminds me of the large contingent of desperate Jews who sailed away from Nazi Germany in 1939, only to be denied immigration in the United States. No country would accept them, and they were eventually shipped back to Germany to face Hitler's gas chambers.[30] It was one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history. The rejection and incarceration of 180 Chinese women today is almost as reprehensible. But... support for world population control is the official policy of this administration, and it has no sympathy for those who flee from it! So onward to Beijing we go! A footnote to the sordid story related above: Can we forget that in 1993, just before the immigration policy was changed to exclude those fleeing forced abortion, the Clinton administration fought hard for HIV-infected patients to be granted admittance to this country. Congress overruled the President by an overwhelming vote. I guess it comes down to this: Contagious HIV patients: "Yes." Oppressed Chinese mothers: "No way!" Despite the distressing news I have shared, I hope you won't get discouraged. This band of left-wing radicals that is heading up our delegation to Beijing does not represent the great American people. The insanity of their agenda is not on the ascent[--]it's on its way out. Our country is becoming increasingly conservative, not more liberal. Indeed, the conference in China may represent the twilight of an outrageous idea that has run its course at home. If we can just keep the ultra-liberals from exporting their failed policies around the world, there may be light at the end of the tunnel. Before resorting to panic, therefore, we must remember Whom we are working for! I was reminded of that good news after a church service Shirley and I attended last Sunday. A man I didn't know came up and shook my hand. Without even introducing himself he said, "I just attended a reunion of my family, and so many of my relatives said they were praying for you." With that, he began to cry and walked away. I was overwhelmed to realize that this man and his family had been on their knees, asking the Lord to bless and protect me and this ministry. I know there are thousands of other wonderful folks who are holding us up in prayer day after day. That is what keeps us going in these times. In conclusion, let me remind you that it is expensive to send a delegation to China and to support all that Focus on the Family is committed to doing. We need your help to get the job done. And we'd like to hear from you when time permits. God's richest blessings to you all. Sincerely, James C. Dobson, Ph.D. President P.S. For the benefit of the skeptical, let me assure you that every word in this letter has been carefully documented. Nothing has been exaggerated or overstated. A quick examination of the official U.N. draft document will confirm the mess our government has created. Endnotes [And, although it says 'endnotes' there...there were no endnotes] By: Judith Bandsma To: Michael Hardy Re: [1/2] Out of Focus Date: 25 August 1993 Subject: What's wrong with the Religious Right From: citizens@cscns.com (David Bruce, PhD; Member, Citizens Project) X-Copyright: Copyright (c) 1993 by David Bruce. This material may be freely copied and distributed for noncommercial purposes provided that this notice remains intact. Commercial use of this material requires prior written permission from the author. X-Disclaimer: THIS MATERIAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITIZENS PROJECT. IT IS PROVIDED SOLELY AS A SERVICE TO OUR PARTICIPANTS. Several months ago, on a bright, sunny Sunday afternoon, a young woman and middle aged man rang my doorbell. When I answered, the young woman somewhat nervously stated that they had come to confirm "the census" and asked if I would be "good enough" to participate. I was a little suspicious: "You mean the official U.S. census?" They both nodded affirmatively, so I asked the young woman "Where are you from?" I looked at her; she looked at the middle aged man and he smiled benevolently and said, "From your local neighborhood church." My suspicion grew; I couldn't help but ask the young woman, why she hadn't responded to my question, didn't she know where she was from? But never mind, confirming the census sounded like a civic-minded thing to do regardless of who was putting in the leg work, so I agreed to participate. "Alright, first question: 'Do you believe in God Almighty?" We had just exceeded my limit of tolerable deviance. As a Unitarian, I've actively encouraged tolerance and have developed a sincere personal appreciation for religious and cultural diversity. But I can't stand being lied to; I lost my temper: "There were no questions about God (Almighty or otherwise) on the census; I know; I filled it out; You're lying to me; Why would you lie? Did 'my local neighborhood church' send you here to lie to me? Does Jesus know what you're doing?" By the time I paused to take a breath, they were already half way down the walkway; she, near tears and he assuring her that I was possessed (or something like that). I had acted badly and I knew it; I was frustrated and disappointed with my own response. Clearly, they were in the wrong but what I had done probably just confirmed all their negative stereotypes of people, like me, who might not choose to attend their "local neighborhood church". Who were these "church" people, and what made them think they had the right to intrude on my Sunday afternoon under false pretenses? Over the next several months, my activities with Citizens Project allowed me a better understanding of what had transpired that afternoon. As you know, Citizens Project is a non profit group concerned about threats to public and private civil liberties posed by certain factions of the religious right. As a member of Citizens Project Board, I've had the opportunity to meet with senior executives from Focus on the Family, attend one of their "Community Impact" seminars and also talk with several other folks involved with "the religious right". Some of what I've discovered might interest you. Most of my information has been drawn from pamphlets and programs provided by one particular group: Focus on the Family. I hasten to point out that Focus is by no means the most extreme group on "the religious right". In fact, they speak very pejoratively of the "loose canons", "Bible-thumpers" and "bomb-throwers" whom they see as having gone "too far". I really think Focus expected those of us from Citizens Project they invited to attend their day-long Community Impact Seminar to return and reassure the rest of you that we had nothing to fear from Focus. They miscalculated. The Community Impact Seminar provided considerable evidence that Focus fully intends to impose their own "Christian solutions" on a wide variety of complex social problems. Claiming the scriptures as the "exclusive", "literal" and "inerrant" word of God, their agenda involves removing barriers between church and state and "re"establishing "Christian rule" in America. Although they've discovered that Christian television and radio programs provide a very effective way to connect "like-minded Christians", the seminar made it clear that social activism in local neighborhood churches is also necessary. Replacing traditional "works of mercy" with "a quest for justice" through locally-coordinated economic and political action transforms their fundamentalist, evangelical beliefs from a source of personal values and spiritual strength to a framework for social, political and judicial change. During the seminar, Focus made a number of theological, philosophical and historical claims concerning the identity of those who shared their views. Before suggesting how we might counter the threat I think they pose, it is important for you to understand who they really are. Spiritual Claims Theologically and spiritually speaking, Focus on the Family claims to represent traditional Christian beliefs and values. They paint themselves as somewhat moderate, mainstream representatives of the faith; however, even the surveys they used during the seminar presentations suggested that only a minority of Americans who "claim" to be Christians really accept the Bible as the exclusive, literal and inerrant word of God. A friend, who heads a Biblical Christian organization (seen by some as being even more conservative than Focus) was very quick to admit that the Bible is full of metaphors (i.e., it is not literal). While there are many who claim to be Christians who insist that the Bible is the only (i.e., exclusive) divine revelation, many others accept the possibility that other great religious works also contain revelation and enlightenment. Many such moderate Christians are embarrassed by the dogmatic and exclusive perspectives put forward by groups such as Focus and are eager to disassociate themselves from such groups. In his book, Evil: the Shadow Side of Reality, author John Sanford recounts the story of the grand inquisitor from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. Basically, Christ has returned to earth and the grand inquisitor has had him thrown in prison. It's not that the grand inquisitor believes Jesus is an imposter; the grand inquisitor accuses Jesus of having come back to disturb and disrupt the work the church has been carrying out in his name. The inquisitor claims that the church has "corrected" Christ's teachings which had placed on mankind the impossible burden of being free but which led to too much misery. The church had lifted this burden of freedom so that people could be happy. Needless to say, Sanford as well as many others who call themselves Christians do not share the grand inquisitors perspective. As Sanford suggests: The greatest ethical value, according to Jesus, is to become a free person, and this means a conscious person... When we are told to conform to a standard of goodness imposed by collective authority, and to repress everything from our consciousness that contradicts this, we have lost our freedom; we are no longer conscious people responsible for ourselves. But in Jesus' ethic man is left with the alternatives life poses, the problem of his own duality and the necessity for psychological honesty. Growth in consciousness is valued more highly by Jesus than conformity to "goodness." Freedom is of the highest psychological value, because this alone makes possible the development of consciousness and love. (p.83) Focus' implicit insistence on accepting a particular interpretation of scripture as the literal and inerrant "truth" obviates individual conscious decision making. The perspective taken by the grand inquisitor and Focus on the Family requires individual cognitive abstinence. However, it is unfair to blame Christianity itself for the imposition of mind-numbing servitude as the price of salvation. There are still grand inquisitors among us but many modern Christians I know are much more comfortable with the perspective Sanford expresses. One last point to be made involves the claim of the "inerrancy" of the scriptures. The belief that a work as extensive and eclectic as the Bible is without error necessarily rests on the assumption that the work itself is without internal contradiction. However, when we read in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers", it is a little disconcerting to read Jesus' words several chapters later (Matthew 10:34) "Think not that I come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace but to send a sword." Similarly there appears to be an inconsistency between the admonition in Matthew (26:52) that "All that take the sword shall perish by it." and the direction in Luke (22:36) that "He who hath no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one". However, it is in Luke (6:27) where Jesus tells his disciples to "Love thine enemies; do good to them that hate you" but John (2:15) tells that in dealing with his own enemies (the money changers in the temple), Jesus "made a scourge of small cords and drove them out of the temple ... and poured out the changer's money and overthrew their tables" (tough love perhaps?). In an attempt to understand Focus on the Family's support of Amendment 2, a friend of mine called and asked for Biblical references for their position. She was referred to the story of Lot and the Sodomites in the book of Genesis. Here's how the story goes: two angels were visiting Lot one afternoon, when a rowdy crowd from nearby Sodom came by and demanded that Lot send out the young men that they (the Sodomites) might know them (in the Biblical sense). Being a man of high virtue who loved God, Lot resisted and said "No; ...take my young daughters instead." Several chapters later, the young daughters exact their revenge by getting Lot drunk and partying with him all night long (in the modern sense of the word). We all know what God did to Sodom (and Gomorrah as well) and I suspect if [...something went wrong here...] obscure letter to a friend. The words of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were offered as being much more representative of the perspective shared by our founding fathers: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for its rulers" (p.19) In an earlier article, Hocus Focus, I present a number of historical quotations which directly contradict this claim. From Franklin's "lighthouses are more useful than churches", to John Adam's dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law which vehemently warns of the danger of intertwining issues of church and state, to Thomas Paine's tirades against the Bible and hierarchically-imposed religious beliefs and Thomas Jefferson's authorship of a his own New Testament which deliberately omits the resurrection and ascension, it is clear that many of "our founding fathers" would have been just as uncomfortable with Focus' current approach as you and I are. In particular, the implication that these men were the kind of Christians who would be attentively tuned to Dr. Dobson every afternoon seems unimaginable. They were certainly men of high moral character, sincerely committed to creating a system which promoted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there were few Focus-style fundamentalists or grand inquisitors among them. The Current Situation So the Focus approach is neither Christian nor Objectivist and is without the historical foundation they assert. Nonetheless, groups like this on the religious right represent a force to be reckoned with, both nationally and locally. Nationally, these groups were featured prominently at the Republican Convention (and some have suggested with disastrous electoral consequences). Television evangelist, Pat Robertson, who already controls two television networks and numerous radio stations, recently offered to purchase United Press International. Our own local Focus on the Family grosses 10's of millions of dollars annually. During a tour of their facilities, they told us they receive 10,000 letters and 2,000 phone calls daily and respond to every one in less than 5 working days. Locally, Focus employs over 900 employees, all of whom have accepted a statement of fundamentalist religious beliefs as a condition of employment. And as I suggested previously, Focus is by no means the most extreme of the groups on the religious right. Over 50 other national, evangelical or fundamentalist "Christian" organizations already have headquarters here in Colorado Springs and reports suggest that more are on their way. Our Response What can we do? We can't ignore them - we and those we care about have too much to lose. We can't fight them - letting our anger and frustration out plays directly into the hands of our adversaries; they strive to be models of good citizenship; they've learned a lot from the likes of Hargis, Swaggert and Baker; it's unlikely they'll get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. We can't even join them - their loyalty oath would exclude most of us. Even dialog with them is problematic; their views and values render them untrustworthy. Their standard of truth is scriptural consistency, not objective, empirical evidence or logical coherence. As our experience with the campaign they waged in support of Amendment 2 attests, they are ready, willing, and able to misrepresent themselves and their beliefs for the purposes of social or political expediency. We are unlikely to change them; we must accept responsibility for changing ourselves. There is little we can do directly to persuade them that sex education does not encourage promiscuity, condoms do not spread Aids, the legal availability of abortions do not increase teenage pregnancies, homosexuals are not out to recruit their children, humanists are not out to destroy their families and tolerance is not really a dirty word. These are their beliefs and we can't change them until they start looking at evidence and listening to reason. As I said, what we can change is ourselves: we must become VITAL. We must renew our commitment to be active participants in a free and constitutional democracy; we must reclaim our roles and responsibilities as "citizens". For me, each of the five letters in the word VITAL serves as a reminder for what I must do to contribute as a citizen: V - Visible; I - Informed; T - Truthful; A - Accountable and L - Liberal. Thomas Jefferson once said all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. The two-to-one margin of victory Amendment 2 received in this community has given license to some to openly express their narrow-minded and hate-filled bigotry in even public settings and over the public airways. When we sit silently; others assume we're condoning or concurring with these opinions. The voice of love and reason are soft but extremely powerful. Living in this town gives each of us many opportunities to exercise or commitment to traditional values such as liberty, tolerance and cultural diversity. Each of us must become more Visible. Some of you may have heard of Ruth Williams, a therapist who was viciously attacked early one Saturday morning in her office. After she had been knocked unconscious, Mace was sprayed in her face, shoes and socks, religious slogans were spray painted on the walls of her office, crosses scratched on her hand and back, a knife stuck the last edition of Freedom Watch to her door and the Celebrate Diversity bumper sticker on her car covered with spray paint. I don't know Ruth, but Doug and Amy were in contact with her to provide Citizens Project's support. At the end of the initial conversation, Amy asked Ruth, "Is there anything at all you need that we might be able to provide?" After a short pause, Ruth replied, "Could I get another bumper sticker?" Being courageous is not enough; we also must be Informed. Without knowledge, we might even find ourselves being persuaded by the simple solutions the religious right proposes. Equally dangerous is the problem of automatically opposing any position simply on the knowledge that it has been proposed by the religious right. We cannot let others do our thinking for us. What kind of God would give us a mind and not expect us to use it? We must learn to cherish our doubts and actively seek answers to our questions by conducting our own research and constructing our own arguments. Some of the material put out by the religious right contains useful data and revealing arguments. Its hard to form our own opinions if we are unfamiliar with alternative arguments and perspectives. It is, however, a mistake to take their publications at face value: they will not hesitate to cite articles that have never been published or ones written by PhDs who've been censored by professional societies for academic fraud; they lift quotations out of context to distort their meaning; and often seek only the most outrageous representatives or spokes-persons to characterize the views of those who oppose them. Isn't it appropriate to fight fire with fire? Shouldn't we put our heads together and create the most compelling counter-arguments to their claims in order to persuade the masses of their infamy? Before you say "yes!", stop for a moment and consider your assumptions about other human beings. If you share the assumptions of these new age grand inquisitors, then such a strategy might make sense. Their religion teaches that humankind is naturally sinful and incapable of thoughtful reflection. Time and again at the Community Impact Seminar we were reminded that most of us can't really think but can "only rearrange our prejudices". On the other hand if you begin with more positive assumptions about humankind, then creating misleading propaganda is inconsistent. As Marshall McLuan suggested: the medium is the message; and we must be consistent; we must be honest; we must be Truthful. We must make every effort to listen objectively to evidence from all sources and fairly represent both sides of arguments and alternative positions. We cannot resist religious tyranny by ourselves becoming narrow-minded bigots. (Besides someone must teach the religious fanatics the importance of ethical behavior to a free society.) We must also be Accountable. Although we may not agree that being human is synonymous with being sinful, we also recognize that it is not the same as being perfect. Making mistakes seems to be one of the most common characteristics of the human condition (at least as I've experienced it). When mistakes occur we must admit them and then work to redress any harm we have done. Unlike, those on the religious right who don't make mistakes because the Bible is the absolute, exclusive and inerrant word of God (and they have many worthy clergy to interpret it for them); we're stuck with having to make decisions under considerable uncertainty. Our knowledge is often incomplete and our principles somewhat fallible. Once we accept responsibility for making our own decisions, we also become responsible for monitoring the social and human consequences of those decisions. Life is complicated and sometimes things don't go as we intended them to; when that happens we can't ignore our responsibility or blame the outcome on metaphysical others. A willingness to be personally accountable for our decisions is another requisite of democratic citizenship. And finally we must become more Liberal. I realize this word has many meanings, some of which have unpleasant or even pejorative connotations for some of you. What I mean by becoming more liberal is loving liberty more fully and completely; recognizing that whatever rights we might claim for ourselves we must gladly bestow on others. It also means accepting diversity and working to create systems where wo [...something strange happened here....] mankind, of course. It contradicts Genesis 1:27, which reads, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." It also ignores the words of Jesus, who said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female...." Then He said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Matthew 19:4-5). In this instance and so many others, the draft document to be promoted in Beijing is utterly disdainful of the King of kings and Lord of lords. But before casting Him aside as irrelevant, our delegates should take a look at the Scripture that warns, "Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked." (Galatians 6:7). 3. The primary objective in Beijing will be the same as a similar event held last year in Cairo, Egypt. That conference was designed to promote safe-sex ideology, condom usage and "reproductive rights"," (i.e., free and unrestricted access to abortion) in every nation of the [Another lie by FoF. 'Reproductive Rights' only briefly touched on abortion, the major thrust was the right of access to birth control, legal sterilization, an end to female circumcision.] world. That was another scary time for the family. It looked as though the Clinton administration and the radical feminists would spread their revolutionary idea around the world. Indeed, there was very little opposition to them. Leaders of most evangelical denominations sat on the sidelines, 6,000 miles away, and ignored the storm clouds gathering in Cairo. Thanks almost entirely to the opposition of Pope John Paul II and many other Roman Catholic leaders, the goals of the radicals were not achieved. Rather than giving up, however, they simply regrouped and began preparing for a final putsch in Beijing. In coercing reluctant countries to adopt feminist ideas about abortion and safe-sex ideology, a carrot-and-stick approach will be used. United States aid programs for underdeveloped nations will be linked to the willingness of foreign governments to implement these "population control" measures. Those that balk, including predominately Islamic and Catholic nations, will be threatened with reduced foreign aid. This coercion is deeply resented in many areas of the world where people perceive the United States as the 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around. They also complain that they can't get help in developing clean water supplies and medical support, but they can get condoms by the millions[--]whether they want them or not.[17] Indeed, President Clinton has requested $635 million in the 1996 budget for international population control and another $400 million at home![18] And, that's your tax money they're using to kill babies and give condoms to kids. [Non-inflammatory rhetoric, eh, Mike?] By the way, President Clinton recently repeated his campaign statement that "abortion should be safe, legal and rare." How can he utter those farcical words at the very moment he is involved to his eyeteeth in the promotion of abortion in every nation on earth? 4. Homosexual and lesbian rights are central to the philosophy driving the conference. The Lesbian Caucus played a prominent role during meetings of the "preparation committee" at the United Nations. The Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission also issued a declaration which reads, in part, "We, the undersigned, call upon the Member States to recognize the right to determine one's sexual identity; the right to control one's own body, particularly in establishing intimate relationships; and the right to choose if, when, and with whom to bear or raise children as fundamental components of all human rights of all women regardless of sexual orientation."[19] Relating again to "the deconstruction of gender" described above, the goal is to give members of the human family five genders from which to choose instead of two. When freed from traditional biases, a person can decide whether to be male, female, homosexual, lesbian, or transgendered. Some may want to try all five in time. Homosexuality is considered the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.[20] For women, however, the preferred love relationship is lesbian in nature. In that way male oppressiveness can be negated. Artificial insemination is the ideal method of producing a pregnancy, and a lesbian partner should have the same parenting rights accorded historically to biological fathers. [21] 5. Finally (and there is much more I can't cover in this letter), the official draft document is extremely hostile to religion[--]especially that which gender feminists have demonized as "fundamentalists." By fundamentalists, they refer to Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and any other persons whose religious views contradict feminist dogma. Nothing, they say, has done more to oppress women or limit their aspirations than these patriarchal religious beliefs and teachings. Unbelievably, the people who are representing our great nation in Beijing are openly antagonistic to what most of you and I believe with all our hearts.[22] Now, some of my readers might ask, "So what? Why does it matter if a group of radical feminists assemble in faraway China to discuss their kooky ideas? What harm can they do?" The danger associated with the conference is linked to the unprecedented influence of the United States in world politics. Remember that 170 nations will be represented there. Imagine the damage that can be done around the globe if the credibility of this wonderful country, with all its resources and power, is used to undermine the family, promote abortion, teach immoral behavior to teenagers, incite anger and competition between men and women, advocate lesbian and homosexual behavior, and vilify those with sincere religious faith. This is Satan's trump card if I have ever seen it. Remember, too, that people from underdeveloped nations don't understand that the Clinton administration does not represent the majority of the American people on these radical positions. They will see Madeline Albright, our representative to the United Nations, Timothy Wirth, our assistant secretary of state, Vice President Al Gore, and perhaps the First Lady herself leading the parade to Beijing. What is the international community to assume but that the most powerful and respected nation on earth has endorsed a new understanding of human relationships. Furthermore, they will quickly recognize that foreign aid is dependent upon going along with the politically correct program. Knowledgeable conservative writers are beginning to recognize the scope of the threat at our door. One of them, Dale O'Leary, has studied gender feminist ideology extensively. She wrote the following: To the average person the Gender Feminist agenda appears as pure nonsense. How could anyone sincerely believe that society could do away with family, impose 50/50 quotas on all activities, eliminate motherhood, and institute polymorphous perversity? Five years ago people laughed at the suggestion, but those who have been exposed to the influence of the Gender Feminist agenda aren't laughing anymore. Many mothers, who sent their lovely daughters off to college to prepare for careers, are weeping, because their daughters have come home with lesbian lovers. An April 26, 1995, article entitled 'Dating Game Today Breaks Traditional Gender Roles,' which appeared in the Wall Street Journal reported on a growing number of young women coming out of U.S. universities where they have been indoctrinated in women's studies programs who are engaging in sexual relations with women and men. Included is a report on Ms. Anji Dickson who can't decide whether to marry her boyfriend or grow old with a woman. ...in Ms. Dickson's generation young women openly enter into intimate relationships with both genders that are more than just experiments. They resist being described as straight or gay[--]or even bisexual, which some think suggests promiscuity and one-night stands.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank