Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

I think the first thing we need to tackle is your simplistic wiggish (well reverse wiggish I would guess but I'm not a historian by trade) analysis of the last century (1)

quote:

---

Behind the movement of the 1880s lay the agitation around the Contagious Diseases Acts aswell as religious ‘revivalism’. The campaign for the repeal of these Acts of the 1860s which allowed compulsory examination of women suspected of working as prostitutes in garrison towns and ports, gave women the experience of thinking and speaking about previously tabooed topics. Women in the Ladies National Association inspired by Josephine Butler, were united in indignation against the double standard of sexual morality, men’s use of prostitutes and the sexual abuse of children.

---

But..but..it was the 1880s! It was better wanna it.. Those women were fighting against something that wasn't a problem until the 1960s! (2)

quote:

---

Hopkins advised the Ladies Associations to set up Vigilance Associations in their towns, where they did not already exist, to concern themselves with indecent printed matter and shows, brothel-visiting, and prosecution of sex offenders.

---

Sheila Jeffreys, 'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880-1914, Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 5, Issue 6, 1982, Pages 629-645.And yes people saw "traditional" marriage as a wonderful thing..oh wait...

quote:

---

Now this may very probably be a survival of the old evil doctrine of the subjection of women and the absolute supremacy of the head of the family over all members of it . In all nations of progressive civilization the history of their progress has consisted in the gradual emancipation of sons, servants, daughters and wives from their former subjection’

---

Fawcett. Millicent. 1892. On the amendments Required in the Criminal law. Amendment Act 1X85. Women’s Printing Society. London.I think you are at the stage where you really need to provide a convincing case why you should be sitting on the top table. Your discourse is weak and limited. I could go on for hours and hours but frankly it's pearls before swine.(1) I say analysis but it's actually just "It was better wanna it"(2) if you want to argue that it's just worse now - I want some figures.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 09:23 AM

quote:

---

Look, I have NOT "analyzed the last century." I am confining my remarks to ONE particular trend, a highly identifiable trend, of explicit ideology-driven Sexual Liberationism which has had a destructive effect on the status of marriage.

---

But it's implicit in your argument, otherwise in what context are you judging the effects of sexual liberation? how can you understand the "now" if you don't understand the past? If you haven't done the analysis and you clearly don't know any of the numbers then your argument is based upon "I fink".

quote:

---

My topic has been specific trends SINCE THE 60s. These are identifiable. They are the result of the specific LIBERATIONISMS that were aggressive, belligerent and vociferous starting in the 60s, all the "RIGHTS" movements -- Sexual "Freedom" in a variety of expressions including militant feminism, gay rights, and abortion. Divorce statistics started growing. People started living together without marriage openly to an extent that had never previously existed. "Blended" families have become just about the norm by now. They were an oddity in the 50s. Promiscuity has escalated, and teenage promiscuity particularly.

---

Do we really want to explode your idea that the "blended" is a new idea? I take it you are suggesting that the "nuclear" family or something similar has been the accepted norm for a significant period of history?

quote:

---

There has always been pre and extramarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies and homosexuals living together, and the whole works, but IT WAS NEVER SANCTIONED BY SOCIETY UNTIL RECENTLY. Now it is all openly flaunted and made the subject of RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACTIVISM. THIS IS BRAND NEW ON PLANET EARTH. IT HAS NEVER BEFORE EXISTED AND IT IS WIDESPREAD, AFFECTS EVERYBODY.

---

The sanctioning of those things has never existed before? you really want to claim that?

quote:

---

One thing I think may have also increased a great deal in this period is child molestations and rapes and sexually inspired murders but I don't know the statistics. Do you?

---

Well you are suggesting it - how about you change the habit of a lifetime and actually do some research. I know you perfer just to talk out of the top of your hat but you may actually enjoy it.

quote:

---

You gave statistics that purport to show no big change from 1957 but that makes no sense. Something is wrong with that picture and I don't know how to track it down. In 1957 unmarried mothers were ostracized. There were a few in every high school, but they were whispered about. They often got married and hid their pregnancies somehow, or went away somewhere to have the baby and give it up.

---

You need to work on your basic reading and understanding skills - I'll have to check but I'm 99% sure that I never said such a thing. I merely noted that your fabled 1950s was a period in which teen pregnancies boomed. The rest of your reply is your normal "I fink". Here let me give you an example, if I did say that there was no big increase (and I don't remember), I was wrong - there was a decrease:

quote:

---

Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United
States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15—19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000. Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s;
they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

---

Boonstra, H. Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under grant FPR00072.So we seem to have teen pregenancy peaking in the 1950s and declining since......

quote:

---

Yet a couple of decades later women were starting to openly SEEK to have babies without benefit of husbands and that's a trend that has been growing since. This is an ENORMOUS SEA CHANGE in the basic moral worldview of our culture.

---

So you wish to claim that this is a position that has only existed in the last 20 years?I would love to dicuss this all day but I suggest you go away and try and find some supporting material for your argument that extends beyond "I fink".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 10:07 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 10:09 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 10:19 AM

So it doesn't get lost:

quote:

---

The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15—19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000. Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s; they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

​

Boonstra, H. Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under grant FPR00072.

---

I don't get it - sexual liberation means those things should be raging out of control! I'm so confused......

Disney Movies | Official Site

quote:

---

That this is all hysteria and not reality

---

see don't get this do you? Holmes can't prove a negative (debating clearly isn't your thing) and it's you who wants to make specific claims about society - so how about you back them up?I think we are getting a little bored with the poor quality of your posts on this matter.How about you piss in the pot or get off it?Give us someone actually worth debating or just leave the thread.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 06:38 PM

quote:

---

What it threatens is not any particular marriages, but the IDEA of marriage, the CONCEPT of marriage, the MEANING of the concept of marriage.

---

what is the idea of marriage?What is the Concept of marriage?What is the meaning of the concept of marriage?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 06-Jul-2005 05:48 AM

Ah at last, something to get my teeth into.Let me examine your claims and I'll get back to you.

Oh I was so hopeful, that you were finally getting the grasp of basic research and the selection of resources. The first thing to do when considering sources is to look at what other material they produce, it gives you a good idea of their bias. In addition it is useful to see who cites their material. All of your references are groups with christian agendas who just reference each other.:Your first source is by an organization called "probe ministries" - they also produce articles such as:

quote:

---

A woman's look at abortion from a biblical position. This essay explores the reason abortion is such an emotionally volatile subject, as well as biblical and medical reasons it is wrong, concluding with some personal stories dealing with handicaps.
Abortion Facts and Feelings
First Things, April 1994
No abstract available for this article
Abortion Facts and Feelings II: An Exchange
First Things, May 1994
No abstract available for this article
Abortion: The Issue That Won't Go Away
John H. Stoll, Ph.D.
Among the issues in today's world that are divisive and inflammatory, none is so great as the battle over abortion. It has increased over the years, and seems it will become even greater in the days ahead. Christians are divided over how to address the issue from a Biblical perspective.

---

it's nice they wear their heart on their arm but it does not add to the credibility of their reports. They have a clear agenda of marriage to push. The section you cite pulls it's stats from an organization called MISH that produces such docs as

quote:

---

"This teen brochure speaks convincingly to sexually active teens and presents them with a strong case for embracing secondary virginity. With a positive message to start making healthier sexual choices beginning today, it's a great companion to our teen videos.

---

Secondary virginity??? I don't know of any serious medical organization pushing such an idea.Another of their reports makes their agenda clear:

quote:

---

With emotional appearances from teens, this gripping video encourages teens to re-think their risky sexual behavior and save sex for marriage.

---

The second source is a book review - do I have to explain why a book review is not worth discussing as a piece of evidence.Have you got any sources that don't have an obvious christian bias or are better at hiding their agenda?Page not found – AbortionFacts.com - take a look at the sections about birthcontrol and the like and the wonky science it promotes. That site is not worth the bandwidth I spent getting there.The second one likes to quote genesis an awful lot and is very similar in tone.It's a nice first stab but you need to work hard on your analysis and selection of sources.you may wish to read the following page:Evaluating Internet Research Sourceshttp://library.fortlewis.edu/reference/evaluate.aspOn a general level, I notice that you, in common, with many christians put great store into testimonial accounts from people (and for a christian I can see how that is attractive). Testimonial evidence is only useful in very specific circumstances, it is mostly worthless in this type of debate.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 06-Jul-2005 06:44 AM

What is the philosophy of the websites I have quoted?