Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 80

THE HOMINTERN IN POLAND?


lesser 4 | 1,311  
31 Oct 2009 /  #31
massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html
Training video for homosexual activist teachers (from the US)[/url]

Speak for itself...
jonni 16 | 2,482  
31 Oct 2009 /  #32
Jonni, I've got a feeling you know all about forcing something down someone's throat.

So you're calling me a rapist?

Speak for itself...

It doesn't. No kind of brainwashing, no 'forcing down throats'. Nothing.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
31 Oct 2009 /  #33
Obama has signed into law an anti-hate-crime bill

You are absolutely right...All 'Hate Crime' legislation is designed to prevent criticism of:

1) Khazars
2) Blacks
3) Homosexuals and devaints

Now, I have nothing personally against any of the 3 groups (excepting deviants i.e. pedophiles), but they dictate this legislation, contrary to the wishes of Americans, with the support of lap dog politicians who take their money and want their votes.
ShawnH 8 | 1,497  
31 Oct 2009 /  #34
No kind of brainwashing, no 'forcing down throats'. Nothing

The one teacher in the first video asked "If a child comes from a background where this is not so correct, are we supposed to be teaching that this is normal?" (it apparently went against her grain) and the coach said "We are asking kids to believe this is right". This seems like undermining the parents right to teach the children as they see fit.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
31 Oct 2009 /  #35
No kind of brainwashing,

Let everybody watch and think on their own. For me this is obvious indoctrination.
jonni 16 | 2,482  
31 Oct 2009 /  #36
This seems like undermining the parents right to teach the children as they see fit.

This is a kind of reductio ad absurdum. Either allow the teachers to teach, or go for homeschooling, don't let them see tv or newspapers, or book you don't like.

Why not just keep them in the cellar or a compound in your garden?
Seanus 15 | 19,674  
31 Oct 2009 /  #37
It's not indoctrination at all. I only watched the first one where there was open discussion and the kids seemed quite aware of the taboos attached. You first tease out their views and then you make them question them. That encourages cognitive development and circumspection.

Closeting children in that way is not fair, lesser. Please understand that there are those who fight their sexuality based on taboos but end up giving in to it as that's who they are.
ShawnH 8 | 1,497  
31 Oct 2009 /  #38
Either allow the teachers to teach

But in a public school system, it is up to the public to determine what the curriculum is. If the parents don't like it, they can work to have it changed. Should the majority deem that teaching that homosexuality is OK, then so be it. It shouldn't be on the curriculum.

don't let them see tv or newspapers, or book you don't like

Or let the parents discuss the topic in their own context.

School should be focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic. Throw in some History, Geography and science, and that is a full curriculum. Don't detract from the staples to cater to the fringe.
lesser 4 | 1,311  
31 Oct 2009 /  #39
It's not indoctrination at all.

So, why authors demanded to remove this video from You Tube? Apparently only schoolchildren and activists are allowed to watch it, of course without parents permission.

School should be focused on...

I could not agree more.
Seanus 15 | 19,674  
31 Oct 2009 /  #40
Let's not talk at crosshairs here. They demanded the withdrawal of it as they felt it to be unsuitable. Does that necessarily make it unsuitable though? Poor argument, lesser.

Let's not confuse suitability and desirability. Its suitability is a matter for debate. I didn't feel like it transgressed any moral boundaries at all. As for desirability, well, ideally such matters should be discussed more at home.

Lesser, what if the said matters were discussed at home and the parents were of the belief that it was alright for their children to be gay (sth you are and generally don't choose), what then? Where is the harm to you in such a decision?
lesser 4 | 1,311  
31 Oct 2009 /  #41
They demanded the withdrawal of it as they felt it to be unsuitable.

Unsuitable you say? When secrets comes out of the shadow this is always unsuitable! :)

Where is the harm to you in such a decision?

I fully respect home-privacy and the right of parents to bear their children. I oppose state interference.
OP Polonius3 994 | 12,380  
31 Oct 2009 /  #42
Whatever your positon on homosexual equality, rights, promotion, glamourisation, etc., what do you feel about the Komsomol-like tendence to drive a wedge between school children and their parents by enforcing pledges of secrecy? Here is onele of many examples of the secretive approach used by glib homo brain-washers for tax-payers' money:

Washington, D.C. - In a shocking and brazen act of governmental abuse of parental rights, Deerfield High School (DHS) in Deerfield, Illinois, has required fourteen-year-old freshmen to attend a "Straight Gay Alliance Network" (GSA) panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors.

Not only has DHS required that its young and impressionable freshmen be exposed to radical homosexual propaganda, the school has further required that students sign a "confidentiality agreement" promising not to tell anyone - including their own parents - about the discussion.


cwfa.org/articles/12546/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Seanus 15 | 19,674  
31 Oct 2009 /  #43
Lesser, that was the reason for its withdrawal. Well, secrets should be secrets ;0 ;)

As do I, Lesser. Decisions should be made with the knowledge of the parents but that's what PTA meetings are for, right?
Bzibzioh  
31 Oct 2009 /  #44
It's funny how you religious nutters always claim

Fantastic opening shot, MG, automatically classifying any religious person as 'a nutter'. Makes me love those 'open, progressive super-liberals ' like you even more.

Christian bashing? Where in the Western world does this happen? Gay bashing, yes, but Christian bashing? Never heard of that.

Maybe you should go out more? As the saying goes “Don’t insult religion – unless it’s Christianity.” One suspect it’s because Christians can be expected to “turn the other cheek” rather than riot or burn the house down. Newspapers don’t greet major Buddhist festivals with claims Siddhartha Gautama was a cokehead or open Ramadan by saying Mohamed was- (do NOT fill in this blank) but look for any positive press about , let's say, pope's visit somewhere? No way.

Have you forgotten about the Crusades, Witchhunts, the hunt for Heretics, limitation of lots of rights of those who think different, the hostility towards ppl of different religions - a fact where the Christians can learn a lot from the Muslims in fact? Arabs were tolerant towards Christians, a tolerance that wasn't repaid by the Christians.

History belies the notion that religion was primary cause of the most significant causes of human bloodshed, including both world wars, China under Mao-Tsetung, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge (to name but a few).

The immense social advances brought about by the emergence of the Christian church are too easily forgotten. Concepts of equality, mercy and true charity were spread from the teachings of Jesus throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond by the first disciples. Also too easily dismissed are the myriad organizations and charities that bring comfort and aid around the world in the name of God.
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
31 Oct 2009 /  #45
Fantastic opening shot, MG, automatically classifying any religious person as 'a nutter'. Makes me love those 'open, progressive super-liberals ' like you even more.

Then you will want to marry me, as I am the anti-Christ :D :D :D
Simple question for you: do you or do you not agree to the fact that "religion", or at least ppl who claim to represent this, is responsible for many wars, pain and suffering towards and against ppl who chose not to believe in this particular religion throughout history or not?

>^..^<

M-G (is going to dress up as anti-Christ for Hallowe'en tonight)
Bzibzioh  
31 Oct 2009 /  #46
Simple question for you: do you or do you not agree to the fact that "religion", or at least ppl who claim to represent this, is responsible for many wars, pain and suffering towards and against ppl who chose not to believe in this particular religion throughout history or not?

Show me any religion or political structure (fascism, communism, atheism) that do not have any blood on his hands or didn't make any mistake?
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
1 Nov 2009 /  #47
Well, I don't know any atheism that presents a movement - to me atheism is simply a bunch of ppl who don't believe. Besides, religion preaches love and care - bit funny if they go to war then, eh? But you didn't answer the question :)

>^..^<

M-G (obnoxious by default tonight)
Bzibzioh  
1 Nov 2009 /  #48
to me atheism is simply a bunch of ppl who don't believe.

I'm sure uncle Jo would not agree with you. Or Che, or Mao, or ....

But you didn't answer the question :)

I'm saying look at your favorite atheists first. What good exactly did they provided to the human kind? Are human race happier? More prosperous? Less violent?
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
1 Nov 2009 /  #49
I'm sure uncle Jo would not agree with you. Or Che, or Mao, or ....

How about uncle Adolf, Torquemada, Pius XII?

I'm saying look at your favorite atheists first.

I don't have a favourite atheist, they're all so cute, I can't choose. You still haven't answered the question, though :)

>^..^<

M-G (wants a clear "yes" or "no")
Bzibzioh  
1 Nov 2009 /  #50
You still haven't answered the question, though :)

80% of the questions are really a statements in disguise. So is yours. Sure, it was not all kosher. So that should justified the bashing church is getting by liberal nuts like you? No, it should not.
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
1 Nov 2009 /  #51
So is yours.

Heck no, it's just a question and most of those religious nutters never want to answer it. Because answering it would imply admitting that the Church is not at all that peacefull as it always claims to be.

Sure, it was not all kosher.

I take that as a "yes". It must've cost you quite some blood sweat and tears to come to this answer, right? Religion is the main reason (exceptions do the rule) for a lot of hatred and unnecessary killing in the world.

liberal nuts

I do like peanuts, especially in peanut sauce :) But the good thing about being liberal is that you generally don't get stuck up in obsolete patterns of thinking ;) Believe me, sweetie, it's not satanic to be liberal :)

>^..^<

M-G (is a liberal feline)
Bzibzioh  
1 Nov 2009 /  #52
Heck no, it's just a question and most of those religious nutters never want to answer it. Because answering it would imply admitting that the Church is not at all that peacefull as it always claims to be.

Not another contribution to the romantic fabulism of liberal nirvana, please.

It must've cost you quite some blood sweat and tears to come to this answer, right?

Yeah, I'm quietly nursing my deep wounds. NOT. Are you on a gap year?

Religion is the main reason (exceptions do the rule) for a lot of hatred and unnecessary killing in the world.

Chanting typical leftie claptrap much? As atheists are all saints of course!

Believe me, sweetie,

You would do well not to patronize me. Don't make yourself look like even more of a dick than you usually do.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
2 Nov 2009 /  #53
The immense social advances brought about by the emergence of the Christian church are too easily forgotten

Quite correct...Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization, and we have seen what happens when its enemies, the atheists, Communists and liberal humanists get into power.

Many people also do not understand that Christians do not condemn individual homosexuals...We just oppose a 'homosexual agenda' which seeks to create a political wedge or an indoctrination tool for youth...Also, for some who have misconceptions, Christians do support the arts, humanities and sciences: in fact, the greatest works of art and great scientific research were created in a Christian civilization...There are always 'reactionary' elements which oppose anything new, but this is not a Christian position...What may Christians reject is the nihilistic trends in art found in much 20th Century work, and the 'consumerist' trend so prevalent in 21st Century 'artistic endeavors'.
sjam 2 | 541  
2 Nov 2009 /  #54
Concepts of equality, mercy and true charity

Would that apply to the trading of African slaves by the Christian civilisations of which you suggest were based on concepts of equality, mercy and true charity?

When was the slave trade aboloished by the Christian civilisations? 1833 in Great Britain and the last country to ban this slave trade was Brazil in 1831.
Dice 15 | 452  
2 Nov 2009 /  #55
Religions are for the weak and dumb. Jesus is a myth. Religions create wars. Science and religion are two opposites, sort of like apples and... sh!t.
sjam 2 | 541  
2 Nov 2009 /  #56
Fritjof Capra, Ph.D., physicist and systems theorist and author of the Tao of Physics :

"Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science but man needs both."

Capra and other physicists do see God in their science:

The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What is the Question? by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon M. Lederman
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
2 Nov 2009 /  #57
When was the slave trade aboloished by the Christian civilisations? 1833 in Great Britain and the last country to ban this slave trade was Brazil in 1831.

The Slave Trade was conducted by the governments of GB, Portugal and the Netherlands with the Jews as middle men and managers...These Royal Houses or governments were Christian in name only.
sjam 2 | 541  
2 Nov 2009 /  #58
GB, Portugal and the Netherlands

You omit Catholic Spain and the French, and the North Americans?

Italian merchants initially funded and controlled trade between Spain the Indies, but eventually, members of the Castillian throne took over. What other great Christian powers were there at the time?

Christians, Jews and Arabs-and three great religions actively collaborating in the African slave trade. No moral highground of equality, mercy and true charity from the Christian civilisations at all!
MareGaea 29 | 2,751  
2 Nov 2009 /  #59
with the Jews as middle men and managers

I knew it! Those evil Jews again! And I'm sure that some country, which didn't exist at the time suffered. Lemme guess: does its name start with a P and ends with Poland?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

Sure, there were Jews involved, but very few as they were generally prohibited from the trade. It was mainly GOOD CHRISTIANS who took part in it and enriched themselves with it. But I know, Joe, even if only ONE Jew participated, it's an evil Jewish scheme, isn't it?

>^..^<

M-G (gloria in excelsis deo)
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
2 Nov 2009 /  #60
Christians, Jews and Arabs-and three great religions actively collaborating in the African slave trade.

Ok, Sjam, let's build a civilization on the basis of atheism and 'humanism' and 'scientific logic'...You will enjoy it...It is called the Soviet Union...But now, there will be 'i Pods' available, also.

I knew it! Those evil Jews again! And I'm sure that some country, which didn't exist at the time suffered. Lemme guess: does its name start with a P and ends with oland?

Some of the best works on the Atlantic slave trade come from Professor Tony Martin from Wesleyan University...Just 'google' his name...

As I understand, the word 'Slav' is equivalent to slave...I don't know if this word is a translation from the Latin...So Slavs certainly were slaves, the early tribes sold by both the Vikings and the Khazars...And Poles suffered under the slavery of communism...There are different forms of slavery...Some may say we now live under a 'scientific slavery'...

Slavery is basically a pagan practice...No true Christian can practice or engage in the slave trade...In some instances, governments involved in this trade were ostensibly under the 'authority' of either the Roman or Anglican churches...But I have found no endorsement by Church authorities in this regard...Did the Church turn a 'blind eye'?...Quite possibly, as various churches are not above hypocricy...But I often laugh at the White ones who condemn their own for 'slavery'...Why?...Because they are the typical liberals, full of rhetoric, but their social interaction with Blacks is nil...

Italian merchants initially funded and controlled trade between Spain the Indies

Many of these merchants were Jews.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / THE HOMINTERN IN POLAND?Archived