[Vision2020] Joan Opyr: Lying hypocrite, or simply blind and schizophrenic?

[keely emerinemix]

Taro, Princess, Camille, Doug, Dale and the rest of you --

Stop it.

You deride Joan Opyr for two errors in her story, which she corrected 
immediately and publicly.  You then accuse her of a double standard, and 
Doug Wilson believes, evidently, that she would have been much more tolerant 
of Steven Sitler's crimes against children had the children all been male -- 
as if Joan were as incapable as you of differentiating between pedophilia 
and homosexuality.

There is not sufficient room in my heart for the disgust I feel for you.  
Joan has already addressed you, and done so eloquently; I only add my 
comments because that disgust spills over onto my keyboard, fully controlled 
and fully uncorked, and you deserve yet another rebuke.  I only hope I 
deliver it strongly enough.

Joan is a lesbian.  She is, by default, a "member" of the larger GLBT 
community only insofar as the common identifier of sexual preference and 
identity.  She doesn't have them over, en masse, for coffee; she doesn't 
have them all in her Rolodex; she doesn't regularly network with the gay man 
in Lima, Peru, and the transgendered woman in Helsinki.  And she sure as 
hell doesn't promote, condone, or participate in the criminal practice of 
pedophilia and, as a mother and a decent human being, would be among the 
loudest voices in the room objecting to it.  I pity the bastard who crows 
about his adventures with kids in front of her, and I pity the buffoons who 
who surround her, mocking her and judging her for the sins of people she 
doesn't know and wouldn't associate with.

You assume that she would be a bit more forgiving of Steven Sitler had his 
victims all been, like him, men.  Perhaps then, in your twisted minds, you 
could change the camera lens off of him, off of his pedophilia, off of your 
pastor, and off of yourselves and your sick, pathetic, impotent worldview.  
You seem to be comfortable with the definition of Sitler's crimes as a 
violation of the 7th commandment, you preeningly declare that a predilection 
for young boys and young boys only would win him a measure of mercy from 
Joan, and you cry "filth and decadence" from the swamp in which you swim.  
Why not just as effectively, just as logically, point out that Sitler 
undoubtedly violated fathers' house rules by -- I don't know, maybe keeping 
toddlers and preschoolers up past their bedtime?  Are you unable to simply 
sit still for even a moment and contemplate the horror of a Christian 
college student and dedicated member of a church engaging in genital contact 
with little children?  Do you really see this and still, unbelievably, 
believe that the public point you want to make is that your "pastor" is 
being persecuted?  And, significant only to you,  by an adult homosexual 
woman?  This is the web you weave from the filthy strands of this situation?

Your worldview bespeaks a juvenile ignorance and mocking arrogance utterly 
opposed to everything my Lord Jesus Christ taught and lived.  Whatever 
gospel you revere, whatever worldview informs you, whatever fellowship 
sustains you, know this:  you have done more, in this situation and in 
others, to defame the Gospel of Jesus Christ than any "pagan" on the Palouse 
ever could.  You've muddied the sanctuary from the inside, and if a man 
speaks from the treasure of his heart, I have nothing but pity for the state 
of yours.

May God have mercy on you, and on me for the contempt I feel for you.

keely




From: "Taro Tanaka" <taro_tanaka at hotmail.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Joan Opyr: Lying hypocrite,or simply blind and 
schizophrenic?
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:22:35 +0000

It comes as no surprise to me, but, just as Dale Courtney predicted, "free 
speech advocate" Joan Opyr did indeed give Camille Saint-Saëns the boot over 
at New Worst magazine. (The first post is still there as of this writing, 
but the follow-up post, which is recapped below, is gone.) Resorting to such 
brute-force tactics when you haven't got an answer is par for the course 
with the far left's intoleristas. The gist of the deleted post -- all 
irrefutable points -- is as follows:

1) By asserting that 95% of pedophiles identify as heterosexual, Joan freely 
admits that homosexuals are just as guilty of pedophilia as heterosexuals 
are, since those rates roughly correspond to the ratio of heterosexual and 
homosexual identification in society at large.

2) The big difference is that GLBTQ advocacy groups embrace "their" pedos as 
heroes and martyrs. This is readily confirmable by searching through the 
online literature.

3) In 2000 a novel that is in part an extended apologia for pederasty (not 
to mention sex between teachers and students), written by an author who 
deals with cross-generational gay sex as a predominant theme in his writing, 
was recipient of a major award given to gay fiction authors.

4) If they mention it (which is frequently), homosexuals have virtually 
universal praise for the ancient Greeks' tolerance for man-boy love. This 
point is common knowledge.

5) No doubt what really set Joan off was the barely veiled charge of 
hypocrisy -- that she has one set of standards for Doug Wilson and Christ 
Church, and another set of standards for herself; one set of words for the 
conservatives of Idaho and another set of words for the queers of 
Christopher St. and Castro. But if she is suddenly such a crusader for 
protecting the community from pedophiles, where are all her writings urging 
the GLBTQ community to clean up their act? Why is she so eager to get 
somebody else's house in order when her own house has its own ceiling-high 
pile of dirty dishes in the sink? "Piled with pride!" Why is she so eager to 
take the splinter out of Christ Church's eye when there is a log in the eye 
of the GLBTQ community on this matter? The fact is, Christ Church vehemently 
rejects all such sin, refuses to tolerate it, and there really is no reason 
to expect that such problems will continue to systemically plague Christ 
Church and its affiliated ministries in the future. However, there is every 
reason to believe that pedophilia will continue to be, as it has always 
been, a major problem for the GLTBQ community. The fact of the matter is, if 
the GLTBQ community would deal as vigorously with its pedophilia problem as 
Opyr and her intolerista allies have been dealing with Christ Church, the 
GLTBQ community as we know it would cease to exist. And that is precisely 
why homosexuals like Opyr will never confront the problem at all.

Joan would like to dismiss all this as "spin" and pure fabrication, but the 
evidence is incontrovertible. That is why she simply pulled Camille 
Saint-Saëns' post. By golly she'll be the Truth Detector of Moscow's far 
left even if she has to use deceit to do so.

Don't take my word for it. Go do a Google search on "pederasty in ancient 
Greece." I get 331 hits for that phrase. Go look at a few and tell me how 
many pro-homosexual websites have anything critical whatsoever to say about 
pederasty in ancient Greece. Perhaps the relativist in you wants to retort, 
"But that was then and this is now. A lot of olive oil has gone under the 
bridge since then. Approval of pederasty in that culture does not 
necessarily imply approval of pedophilia in our culture."

Oh, it doesn't, does it? Well let's check the links themselves. Click on the 
very first link that comes up. That is from truthtree.com, a website that 
has won awards from gay rights advocacy organizations. You can see their 
proud display of their GLBTQ seals of approval here:
http://www.truthtree.com/gay.shtml

Anyway, the most popular link on the Internet, according to Google, for the 
phrase "pederasty in ancient Greece," is this truthtree.com's "Education and 
Pederasty in Ancient Greece" (http://www.truthtree.com/pederasty.shtml). 
Here is a direct quote from the final paragraph of the above essay, where it 
makes a direct application of the ancient Greek paradigm to modern society. 
Note bene:

"All of [the above essay] provides evidence that in modern society, 
intergenerational relationships per se do not necessarily harm a boy: the 
taboos themselves and the resulting investigations and questioning by his 
parents and doctors and lawyers, both prosecuting and defense, and 
psychologists and social workers do the harm. If a pubescent 'victim' 
received honor, prestige and encomia instead of shame, embarrassment and 
guilt for what his culture forbids, then fewer resultant psychoses would 
pester him in his later life, as so often happens now."

In other words, if modern society would only get over its Christian hangover 
prohibitions against homosexuality, then pederasty would be just fine and 
dandy! Not pederasty involving children two years of age, obviously. But if 
the child is a willing participant; i.e., if the child derives pleasure from 
it -- and certainly if the child is consenting after the onset of puberty -- 
then pederasty is indeed a wonderful thing. That is the clear stance set 
forth by the most popular link on the Internet for the subject of "pederasty 
in ancient Greece" (out of 331 hits) and it comes with the GLBTQ stamp of 
approval. Now that particular stance may not be the offical party line at 
every GLBTQ website on the internet, but it isn't far off for all the ones 
that I have checked, and I have checked many. GLBTQ websites critical of 
ancient Greek pederasty are far and few between, if they exist at all. GLBTQ 
websites that touch on the subject and don't draw an abject lesson for 
modern society a la truthtree.com's essay are likewise rare, if they exist 
at all.

The fact of the matter is, given the typical, pervasive modern GLBTQ stance 
on pedophilia, you can't both be anti-pederasty and pro-gay. That would 
involve a contradiction. Adopting the anti-pederasty position kicks the legs 
out from modern homosexuality's ideological underpinnings.

Or at least it kicks out the legs out from modern MALE homosexuality's 
ideological underpinnings. Because there is a very curious thing -- if you 
do a Google search on "lesbianism in ancient Greece," you will see that 
Google returns exactly TWO results, and furthermore, that neither of them 
has any substantive content whatsoever. In other words, "lesbianism in 
ancient Greece" wasn't. Why is that? Well, if you know your history, and you 
probably don't -- sorry, but it's true -- you will know that ancient Greece 
was a very highly oppressive society. The majority of the people were slaves 
(only a small minority of men could exercise the rights of citizenship) and 
women there were anything but liberated. While the men were busy buggering 
the boys, the women were busy bearing baby boys for the next round of 
buggery. Women's liberation had to await the advent of Christianity, which, 
ironically, finally made it possible for women to enjoy homosexuality on a 
scale comparable to that of men.

Despite the many ugly features of ancient Greece, one of the reasons so many 
are loathe to criticize those failures is because it has one major "plus" 
going for it: it isn't Christian. For that one redeeming quality, any number 
of defects can be forgiven. The modern anti-Christian mind, especially the 
modern homosexual anti-Christian mind, is so hostile to God's law-word that 
it will gladly reject the one great stream of Western civilization -- the 
Christian faith -- and embrace the only alternate stream that Western civ. 
has, ancient Greece. And the modern mind hostile to God will embrace that 
even if the embrace is the embrace of death. For ancient Greece IS dead, but 
Christianity yet lives.

Those are the two choices we face: the culture of life reborn in Christ, or 
the culture of death outside of Him. The handling of the Sitler and Wight 
scandals provides us with a good opportunity to reaffirm this crucial point. 
But the fact remains that Joan Opyr is a hypocrite and twisting the truth 
when she bashes Doug Wilson's house on the subject of pedophiiia while 
simultaneously turning a blind eye to the far greater problems in her own 
household. I suppose we could be exceedingly charitable and say Joan has a 
serious case of intellectual schizophrenia. But if we do so, it is incumbent 
upon Joan to think through the implications of her position. Being against 
pedophilia is all good and well; now go the whole nine yards and repent of 
the sin of homesexuality and its empty, utterly worthless ideological 
underpinnings in favor of forgiveness and healing in Jesus Christ.

-- Princess Sushitushi

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

=====================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities 
of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net                
                 mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
====================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/