New information coming forward about Tina Anderson

Ex-Realtor to appear in court on rape charges
Suspect was once community figure
By Trent Spiner / Monitor staff
June 16, 2010

Once a prominent Realtor and member of the Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, Ernest Willis is expected to face a judge today on charges that he raped and impregnated a 15-year-old girl he met through the church.

In criminal complaints filed against Willis, the Concord police said he raped Tina Anderson in a parking lot while teaching her to drive and again at her home, impregnating her in the summer of 1997. According to court records, Anderson became pregnant a month after Willis's wife gave birth to the third of their four children.

According to Anderson, when she alerted her mother and the church's pastor to her pregnancy, Willis financially supported a plan to move her away from Concord to deliver the baby - a move the police said hampered their investigation for 13 years.

Anderson would go on to give the baby up for adoption, while Willis remained a church member for seven years before being expelled over another matter.

Business life
Willis, 51, was well-known within the local real estate industry, working as a Realtor in both Concord and Epsom. State licensing records show he first applied for an associate broker's license with the Larrabee Real Estate Co. When it was bought by Prudential Verani Realty in 2002, Willis was tapped to serve as the temporary branch manager for the Epsom location, according to President Margherita Verani.

"I knew nothing about this," she said.

Willis also served as a director of the Concord Board of Realtors from 2006 to 2007, according to President Rachel Eames.

Michelle Suprey, another former board member, met Willis while showing houses that were for sale. Willis volunteered to help with the organization's annual charity golf tournament and took part in walks to raise money for cancer on behalf of the board, she said.

"He always struck me as a very kind person who was not quick to anger," she said. "He was a very nice person, and I am having a hard time putting the two things together. It just doesn't make sense."

Don Goudreau worked with Willis at Verani, calling him knowledgeable, polite and friendly. Both Suprey and Goudreau said they knew Willis as a religious family man who kept his views private.

"In a nutshell, that's where I saw him, as a family man, and he'd move heaven and earth to help his kids out," Goudreau said.

Willis's license expired in March, state records show. His name was removed from the Board of Realtors website after a reporter's phone call this week.

He faces four felonies - two for each rape and two more for having sex with a minor. Willis is expected to be arraigned this morning at Concord District Court after being released on $100,000 personal recognizance bail following his May 20 arrest.

Messages left at phone numbers listed with Willis's name on court records were not returned this week.

Two apologies
When Anderson, who is now 28, discovered she was pregnant, she told her mother and Trinity's former pastor Chuck Phelps. According to Phelps, Anderson's mother said she could not care for her daughter and asked for his help to find her another place to live. But Anderson said she was kicked out of the church's high school and kept at Phelps's house until she could be whisked from the state.

Anderson said Willis paid for a plane ticket for her to fly to Colorado, where Phelps arranged for her to be home-schooled by another Baptist family he knew from his time as a pastor there.

Before she left, Phelps called on both Anderson and Willis to apologize before the congregation for their actions, Anderson said. According to Anderson's statement to the Concord police, Phelps told parishioners in 1997 that the two apologies were not related.

Anderson said she was forced to apologize for her "immorality" and "allowing a compromising situation to occur."

Willis apologized for cheating on his wife, according to Anderson's statement and witnesses.

The church's current pastor, Brian Fuller, said Willis was disciplined by the church over another matter in 2004 and kicked out. Fuller, who was a youth minister at the time, said he wasn't sure why.

In 2006, Willis's wife of 24 years was awarded a divorce after filing paperwork at the Family Division of Concord District Court, where she claimed irreconcilable differences strained the marriage. Court records do not describe details of what led to the breakdown. Willis was ordered to pay more than $3,500 a month in alimony and child support. He also agreed to relinquish rights to their family's home in Chichester within 30 days of the divorce, court records show.

0

Another NEW article on the

Another NEW article on the Tina Anderson situation!

Here's two details that have never surfaced yet:

1. Ernie Willis PAID for the plane ticket to send Tina to Colorado! So the RAPIST paid for her to be moved out of state at Chuck Phelps' request.

2. Tina was kicked out of the Christian school for being raped. And when she returned to Concord, NH her Senior year, she was not allowed to attend the school again.

See everyone? THIS is what they call "unbiased LOVE"!

And there's STILL MORE coming! Like I said, this is a large onion, with many, many layers.

One key statement: "According to Anderson, when she alerted her mother and the church's pastor to her pregnancy, Willis financially supported a plan to move her away from Concord to deliver the baby - a move the police said hampered their investigation for 13 years."

Another key statement: "Anderson said Willis paid for a plane ticket for her to fly to Colorado, where Phelps arranged for her to be home-schooled by another Baptist family he knew from his time as a pastor there."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So let's see:

1. Tina was molested by another member of the church for years (her step-father) and when she finally got the courage to tell someone she was told by Phelps to not go to the police, but instead to go to the prison to seek his forgiveness...forcing her to confront her child rapist at the age of 13.
2. Tina was then raped at 15 and told she was "at 1% fault" for the rapes and "had she lived in O.T. times she'd have been stoned."
3. Tina was then asked by Mrs. Phelps if she "enjoyed being raped."
4. Tina was then made to apologize for being raped and church disciplined.
5. Tina was kicked out of the Christian school and not allowed back.
6. Tina was held in the prophet's chamber and not allowed contact with friends or others in the church.
7. Tina begged to go live with her grandparents and then was told "no" and that she could not even tell them about the rapes and pregnancy until after the baby was born and adopted out.
8. Tina's aunt wanted to know where she went to and was told by Tina's mom, "I'm not allowed to tell you where she is."
9. Tina's brother did not even get a chance to say "goodbye" to his sister before she was ushered away.
10. Ernie paid for her plane ticket to fly to Colorado.
11. Tina was made by Matt Olson to write a letter of apology to Ernie Willis' wife for "betraying her trust."
12. Tina was not allowed to sing in the choir or play her flute in the orchestra until after the baby was born and adopted out.
13. Tina was MADE to give her baby up for adoption (no choice in the matter) and was given three anonymous surveys in which she was to choose the parents Chuck Phelps' chose for the baby.
14. Tina was forced to homeschool with A.C.E and not allowed to have relationships with kids her own age and was monitored 24/7 by adults.
15. Tina was not allowed to attend the youth group until after the baby was born and adopted out.
16. Tina was not allowed back in school once she returned to NH her senior year.

Circumstantially I think things look pretty bleak for these pastors! And there is still MORE...more things they did! It's a large onion being pealed back one layer at a time.

How many times can one child be betrayed by SO MANY adults?

Tears tonight as I type this!

Tina, you are my hero! You endured so much and no pain is ever wasted! You are going to give so many other victims courage.

Kitty

Sounds familiar

2. Tina was then raped at 15 and told she was "at 1% fault" for the rapes and "had she lived in O.T. times she'd have been stoned."

I remember those days, well. While I was, uh, in the process of getting thrown out of the house, that was repeated, often.....that I should be grateful for what I was getting (the kind of gaybashing people only read about in books and on the internet), since the terrible Hebrews in the OT would have just tied me up and stoned me to death.

It wasn't the best idea, I found out, to tell them I'd prefer that to even their best treatment in public, since that was all for show, anyway.....look what they do behind closed doors.

Conservative christian parenting is a lifetime and childhood of repeated abuse. There is rarely any distinction.

the catholic churches as well

Maria Robbins heard the Pope addressing to the countries involved in these crimes, because this is what they are, and asked them to have the courage to to fight this Plague!it was in may 2009 !who listened to him , I wonder!!!And do not always point the finger at the USA for all wrongs , watch CANADA instead!From Canadian borders , how many children are trafficked?GOD only knows!Inside the trucks of the auto mobile industries, and by other means as well , Fraud Marriage without the victim, s knowledge !What a Big and horrible pitfall CANADA is for so many foreigners who innocently accept the invitation to immigrate to that such "great Country", that lo longer is!The USSR and the UN troops opened the doors to more horror stories , the first by opening the "zoo" , the second by creating the brothels !The USA have a lot to blame for , but they are not alone :the UK cases are also disgusting !More to come!

Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches

I would be interested in knowing more about Orthodox christian views of adoption and child abuse, since afaic all the religions are crap when it comes to this topic (insert you-were-lucky/be-grateful stuff here, telling abused adoptees Islamic countries don't do adoption, etc.) But one thing that distinguishes Catholicism and Protestantism is their notoriously loud proclamations of moral and ethical superiority uber alles.

Of course when it comes to abuse, they shield abusers not just within their churches. Culturally speaking they make excuses for abusers. Typically, those abused are blamed for their own situations.

Ethiopia and Russia, among the countries with the most egregious cases of trafficking and post-placement abuse, are Orthodox countries. I don't think the Orthodox are much better than their Catholic, Protestant, LDS etc cousins.

(Marion) Re: 'Orthodox' & 'SoundsFamiliar' posts

Re: Orthodox: Russia is not "orthodox." Religion was systematically oppressed, punished, & decreased in the Soviet Union for decades & it was mostly - even officially - atheist. Now that Russians r more free to practise religion if they wish to (notice I didn't say completely free) I would think most who consider themselves Christian & attend church would b attending Orthodox churches.

Re: Sounds Familiar: Abuse anywhere is appalling. Nowhere more so than child abuse. And nowhere more so than when it actually distorts the meaning of a role model of integrity & compassion such as Jesus. But we must Always speak out when we see just about ANY Entire Group of people being condemned by someone because of the actions of Some of them. I personally know A LOT of different "conservative christian" families of parents & children (most of whom r grown now) where there was NO abuse of ANY kind - & where the families entirely cherish & love each other - including great love on the part of the kids for the parents. U say "there is rarely any distinction." U do not HEAR of the millions that have No Problem with having been raised by conservative christians - because being happy & well-adjusted & having had a childhood of being loved DOES NOT MAKE THE NEWS.

Marion, u add something Very important & valuable when u share your personal experience for the sake of helping other children. But u had one childhood. Yours. U cannot - & u do not -speak for Everyone who has been raised by 'conservative christian parenting.' & the very word "conservative" doesn't have just one definition. For ex., people who have nothing at all against gay people r very often considered 'conservative' for other reasons. I usually have no problem w/ the negative statements other people make on the subject of 'conservative' christian parenting because most other people would qualify a statement so it doesn't impugn the integrity of innocent individuals. For ex., if u'd said 'In my experience, conservative...repeated abuse' that would b accurate. Or if u'd said 'In my experience & in the experience of many others, conservative...repeated abuse' that would b accurate also. There r extremes that exist in ANY 'group' of people & unfortunately there's an extreme in religion. I have an idea of the kind of people / the kinds of attitudes u have a problem with & I have a problem w/ those ideas myself. But they exist in different forms left & right, conservative & progressive. I think they do exist more on the right-wing side of the political spectrum. Part of the problem is with the word 'conservative' because it doesn't have an exact definition. I think most Americans r a mixture of conservative & progressive. Most r on one side of the political fence or the other, but most r not all one way or the other.

But the biggest problem is w/blanket statements. When u say "conservative chrisitian parenting is a lifetime & childhood of repeated abuse" u r saying "The mother of missy2468 abused her children" which is not only inaccurate, but represents my mother as the exact, precise Opposite of everything she is & stands for - along w/ millions of other 'conservative christian' mothers. One serious positive that often comes from 'conservative christian' parenting, is when it prevents the increased risk of child abuse that comes from a child being born out-of-wedlock. For anyone that has no idea what I'm referring to, u could simply google "mother's boyfriend" & read up on how risky it can b to be a toddler left alone behind closed doors w/ a stepfather or mother's bf who has no emotional attachment to the child of another man. When it comes to the kind of stepfather or mother's bf that would kill, maim, or abuse a child in any way: there is at best no emotional attachment to that particular child (& perhaps little affection for toddlers in general, as w/ many men). At worst - actual intense hatred of another man's child (sometimes combined w/intense desire or joy at inflicting harm upon toddlers in general.)

U will not see me defend ANY 'christian' EVER who has abused a child or who sanctions the abuse of a child. Niether do I fail to speak out against ANY religious leader in the news who is failing children by not taking a strong enough stance to stamp out child abuse. Yes, that includes the pope (in my opinion).

But something else I do not fail to do is speak out against blanket statements against entire groups of people based on the actions of some. Marion, I really think if u & I knew each other (in the 'real world' as opposed to cyberspace) I wouldn't be surprised if we were friends. But I would not fail to call out even my own friends on something that smacks of bigotry to me. None of the friends I've had in my adult life have ever actually been bigoted against any group of people. But I have had a friend who had a bigot friend - & that person knew he couldn't make certain types of blanket statements (or jokes) around me because I would speak up. What puzzles me is that I would think u'd realize how Wrong that is to do since you r black & u r gay. The bigotry against African Americans & against gay people is not ancient history. Blanket negative statements against all black people & against all gay people r still a problem to this day. The mid 1950's & the decade of the 1960's is not ancient history - & black people could not even vote in much of our country even then. Black people in general - & black & white civil-rights workers - were murdered & assasinated left & right down south (with impunity for the murderers) just 4 wanting VOTING rights 4 black Americans. I can't help but wonder if Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr would also disagree w/ such statements against 'conservative christians' if he were alive today. ('Conservative' as in 'Republican' is one thing, but 'conservative' in other senses is something else.)

Bigotry in any form - or an attitude that is very close to it - is wrong. It is not to be taken lightly, & in society in general it is never gone. It is always somewhere in society under the surface, just waiting to become popular  - or popular again - in some form or another. Did you catch that the pseudo-reporter, fake-journalist John Stossel actually called for a return to legalization of racial discrimination? And he did so on national television! (Of course this was on the 'Fox Fake-News Propaganda' channel.) An atmosphere that allows blanket statements against millions of people in any group always ends up somewhere in actions of ugliness that are dangerous. The following link is a reminder to everyone - especially anyone who (like so many Americans) has forgotten - or never knew - our own country's modern history:  http://www.splcenter.org/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs

 

 

Save your lectures on civil rights, bigotry, etc.

It's not bigotry to point out that conservative protestant whackjobbery is behind a lot of abuse in the care cartel. So save your lectures on civil rights, bigotry, etc. Go preach them at your fellow adherents. They need to be taught a lesson or two about it.

First, Russia and much if not most of Eastern Europe is indeed dominated by Orthodox Christianity. This is a historical fact. Russian Orthodoxy was indeed brutally suppressed/went underground during communism, and has emerged strong as ever, fbofw or as a testament, or just as a simple phenomenon. Orthodoxy was/is also not kind to Jews, Catholics or ethnic minorities in their regions. One need only look up the Pale of Settlement, pogroms inflicted by Cossacks, Jasenovac, the Holocaust in Eastern Europe, Srebenica and Kosovo/a for more examples of Christian Shove, only done the Orthodox way. They are every bit as sectarian, xenophobic, and bigoted as their Catholic and Protestant cousins. The Moron Church and the Pentecostals/Charismatics have made some inroads there, but not many.

Second, politically/theologically conservative forms of Protestant Christianity are predominate in the US, and that's also a fact of history. They have a solid voice and political power; that's what happens in a democracy. Now, certainly after 300 violent, bloody, repressive years on this continent they can handle the so-called "bigotry" of one person on the internet who doesn't appreciate their antisocial behavior, and talks about it without asking their permission first. On a more personal level, if the shoe doesn't fit you, if something I say doesn't square with your own limited experience, then don't wear it. It really is that simple, missy.

Finally, as I've already said many times, it would be one thing if only my own childhood were abusive, but nobody needs to point out this is not the case. When I see trends as regards the abuse of children (or anyone vulnerable), I'll speak up about it on my own terms, not yours, or anyone else's. So if my posts are too blanket for you, then I suggest you just skip over my them, because I'm not altering either the content or manner for your personal comfort level.

No conservative Christian of any stripe is oppressed in the US, certainly not by any minority and especially not by any non-Christian minorities.

The only oppression Christians have experienced in this entire hemisphere has come from other Christians. Christian Irish hating Christian Italians hating Christian Serbians, Russians, Polish, Greeks, Spanish, English, French, German, Evangelical Lutheran, Misery Synod Lutheran, Episcopalian, Church of God, Church of God Triumphant, Church of Christ, Church of Christ (Christian), Church of God in Christ, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints;

Southern Baptist Convention against Independent Fundamental Baptist against American Baptist against Institutional Baptist against Primitive Baptist against Colored Primitive Baptist against Two Seed in the Spirit Baptist against Hardshell Baptist against Regular Baptist against Progressive National Baptist against National Baptist Convention USA Inc against National Baptist Convention of America Inc against Missionary Baptist against Alliance of Baptists

Christians with Christian slavemasters, Christians forced by other Christians onto Trails of Tears and into Indian schools to have the crap beat out of them; those Christians being told they are blessed that Christianity came to these shores to kill them off and enslave them; Christians being made by other Christians to sit at the back of the bus, attend inferior schools, be shut out of jobs, be shut out of neighborhoods; the waterhoses the dogs the waterfountains the nightrides the bus burnings the church burnings the cross burnings etc., all from other Christians, all from white conservative bigoted Christians. Not from any other tradition. Not from secular humanism, not from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, atheism, Sikhism, Buddhism, or anyone else.

OTOH today's conservative Christians in particular are dead-set on making and/or keeping us bastards, us non-conservative Blacks, us queers, us nontraditional women 2nd class citizens, even the nice ones. Is it really any surprise that it's the same old white bigot Christians many of which are already at each other's throats, and the ones who, in cahoots with their bigot Catholic brethren especially in the last 30 years, have historically been behind all social repression in the US. Every once in a blue moon someone, like you, or like me, escapes. Doesn't stop the onslaught from the same old perps based on the same irrational, illogical lifestyle patterns.

Mine is lived reality for a lot of people, not just me, so don't expect some interesting abstracted internet discussion from me, just so some Christian can then come along and try to appropriate the entire Civil Rights movement to twist themselves into being victims of nonbelievers and nonconformists. Christians, conservative or otherwise, would do well to learn that people avoid their religion and its practitioners often for very good reasons.

I cannot help it if they do not like the reasons.

Your 1st sentence. Please reply to what I actually wrote.

Marion, I could not read past your first sentence without commenting on it. You say "It's not bigotry to point out that conservative protestant whackjobbery is behind a lot of abuse in the care cartel." Then you'll agree it's good that I did not say any such thing was bigotry or even near-bigotry.  In fact, I would not have seen any need to comment on such a statement at all. The qualifier "a lot of" makes all the difference. It makes it a reasonable statement.

What you did say, instead, was "Conservative christian parenting is a lifetime and childhood of abuse." That statement is the same as saying that all conservative christian parents are child abusers. That's the statement I was commenting on. You may have qualified this statement after the fact in a separate sentence (with a qualifier such as 'a lot of,') but my whole point is you could qualify your words in the first place so that a factually-incorrect, overbroad, Anti-Entire-Group statement doesn't get made in the first place. Believe me, I realize it's not easy for most people to stop themselves when they're about to make an overly-broad statement about something they feel strongly about - including 'groups' of people. I myself learned years ago to be more reasonable in my speech and stop myself when I was about to make any overly-broad statement so I wouldn't have to correct myself afterwards or qualify what I had said afterward.

I've begun to think it's not necessarily a willful type of Anti-Group hatred on your part. It seems to be apparently an actual belief on your part that every single 'conservative' christian parent is a child-abuser - or at least 99.999%. I ran the statement you made (the one I commented to you about) past 7 of my non-religious friends (separate from 1 another) who run the gamut from atheist to agnostic, along with my comment that people should be on guard against overly-broad, absolutist, Anti-Entire-Group statements. To a person, they could honestly not see how anyone could disagree with my precaution since it's both reasonable and important. I'm not asking if this is your reason, so you don't have to comment on it if you don't want to, but I sometimes wonder if you have the idea (which so many people seem to have) that all christians - or all 'conservative' christians - are anti-gay, which is not the case. Since you're gay, I could see where such a mistaken idea might make you Anti-All-'Conservative'-Christians. Maybe the biggest problem is just with the non-precise word 'conservative' which can mean different things to different people and which is rife with political connotations and meanings. When you say 'conservative christian' are you more precisely thinking 'Republican christian' or is it more along the lines of 'fundamentalist, right-wing christian?' That terminology is more precise and less problematic. But, again, although I myself don't fall within that category, I do know many 'fundamentalist, right-wing christian' parents who would fight to end adoption-industry abuses just as soon as anyone else. The many that I know personally do not fall Anywhere Near the category of child-abusers - not Anywhere Near. In fact, they have bent over backwards to help families in crisis to help keep the families together - including stepping in to provide free childcare and car rides to single parents to help the mother's goals in life and keep her child with her. So, even though the 'fundamentalist, right-wing' description is less problematic than 'conservative,' I still would never include everyone under that general description in any overlybroad statement against all of them. To do so would be erroneous and unethical.

I think in the future I might simply refrain from replying to any such overlybroad statements that you might make. My precaution boils down simply to this: keep from impugning the integrity of an entire 'group' of millions of people as if they were a monolith. Something important to note: this was simply a civil discussion and exchange of opinions. Just because part of a topic has to do with religion, that does not make it a "bicker" or a "lecture." If you truly care about deterring, decreasing, addressing, prosecuting - and hopefully eventually ending - the abuses that can occur under the guise of 'religion' - which is a large part of my goal as I believe it is yours - then you could take my sincere precaution into sincere consideration.

People's impromptu speech - the spoken word - is Much harder to reign in than the printed word. The printed word gives people a chance to compose their thoughts and be much more reasonable in what they say. Those of us in this effort to reform adoption laws who happen to be 'conservative' christians (according to some people's definition) are simply asking you to refrain from putting us in the same basket as child abusers. Believe me, to any reasonable person, it's not too much to ask. Please consider what I'm trying to get at. Also, bringing an end to child-abuse & family-rights abuses that can occur under the guise of religion will NOT succeed without the efforts of people Within Those Religious Communities as well. Religion is not going to go away. Fundamental religion will not go away either. Like I said, I think I might refrain from replying to misstatements in the future. What we have in common in this effort is much more important than the differences.

You Are Factually Incorrect.

I've just read a little further on in your comment. I never said Protestant Christianity did not dominate in the U.S. I never implied that Protestant Christianity did not dominate in the U.S.

You are Factually Incorrect to state that Protestant Christianity has a "solid voice" as if they are some monolithic, single organization.

I think the problem is not as much with substance as it is simply with your English not being precise enough oftentimes. I've mentioned it to you a couple times before but you're either incapable or unwilling to reign in your overbroad Anti-Group statements against so many millions of others. I won't lose sleep over it and I'll probably stop from mentioning it anymore when you do it. One doesn't need to be an English Professor, though, to realize how crucial precise language can sometimes be, so it's only natural that a misstatement brought a reply when it did. (Like Mark Twain said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug.") Not that anyone is perfect in their speech. No one is. But you needn't take it personally if someone points out - verifiably, correctly so - that a statement you have made is overbroad and incorrect.

I have come to the conclusion that the reason you are as viciously Anti-Christian as you are has completely as much to do with the fact you're gay as it has to do with any actual belief that Christianity is about murder and abuse. The latter part of that 2-part belief is simply erroneous and ridiculous. I'm truly surprised you don't dedicate as much of your vitriol to the Republican party because you do actually skirt around that without coming out and saying anything against the Republican party and Republicans (unless I missed it). You always put down the "right-wing" & "conservatives," but don't ever seem to bottom-line against Republicans. (Not that I myself am Republican. I'm Independent. But I don't understand that skirting around it unless, like I said, maybe I missed it.) But you are free to live the rest of your life hating scores of millions of your fellow Americans and impuging their integrity at every turn because of your own personal experience with a couple of them. Please don't say it's because you're taking into consideration negative experiences of many others as well as yourself. That would hold weight with me if you acknowledged the positive experience of many others other than yourself as well, but being political requires never acknowledging any positive at all on 'the other side' of things.

I agree. Kindness matters.

You say "orthodoxy was/is also not kind to Jews, Catholics..." (It seems you're sticking up for religious people here - against religious people.) Well, Atheism also was/is not kind to Jews, Catholics. I'm glad you point out unkindness on the part of some people, because it's a reminder that Kindness Matters. Hugely. What if someone were to say "Marion is not kind to All of the hundreds of millions of religious people around the globe." It is true that many people with a religion are not kind to many people who are not of their religion. It is also true that many people with no religion are not kind to many people who have one. Many males are not kind to many females. Many Americans are not kind to others from other countries. The point is it is in human nature to see 'the other' as 'less than.' Many are guilty of this. Many are not. It's something people have to be taught against and have to be on guard against. Any group can have it's own insularity. Most Americans - of all stripes - are too insular. No matter what group, there are the enlightened and the unenlightened. Every type of insularity has its own dangers. People with a religion who are unenlightened have a type of unenlightenment that has its own dangers. The Absolute 'I am rightism' of 'you are either with me or against me' is Never a good thing.

Dont' get me started on the Holocaust. You seem to be implying Adolf Hitler was Christian. You seem to be implying that Christianity took over Germany and waged war on the planet. I've only heard or read this type of idea from about 2 other people in my entire life. (But they were stuck on that idea simply because they were anti-religious.) That's another subject for a different website. Let's don't go there.

I know you will not believe me when I say this, but it needs to be said at least once: your entire outlook on life seems to be entirely colored and guided as a response 'Against.' A response Against one thing you disagreed with or had a bad experience with. I knew someone like that. She had a huge disagreement with the Catholic church - not that she ever was a Catholic herself, but she didn't like 1 or 2 particular beliefs her mother had. Did she simply decide not to be Catholic and move on? No. By choice, she was not Catholic - and her mother did not mind at all. Her family did not mind at all. No pressure was on her to be Catholic or even religious. She wasn't even raised going to church. In fact most of her family went that way - unCatholic and unReligious. But For The Rest Of Her Life her Entire Personality was almost Nothing Except Reaction. She couldn't see that instead of just shaking off something she disagreed with and choosing a different life for herself, she practically allowed it to Clothe her Very Essence and Very Being that she Disagreed with an idea. She seemed to have the actual idea that ALL of life fell into 2 camps: either All-Catholic or All-Anti-Catholic. She actually limited all of life down to being nothing more than a Reaction or a Response to an idea she disagreed with and expected Everyone Else to completely fall in line into one of those 2 neat camps or categories (in her mind). If someone disagrees with an idea, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. If someone wants to argue against or take the opposite side from an idea, or actively advocate for something different, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, if a person suffered because of some aspect of something, they do society a service to let people know about it. But to be 100% skewed to insisting upon trying to put everyone into 1 of 2 'camps' was distorted thinking on her part. It was almost like - in an odd way - she was allowing the 'Catholic Church' to run her life. I consider that the term 'zealot' applies to an anti-religious person like that just as much as to a fanatical partisan with a religion. The point is that it is an extreme of its own kind. Speaking of kind, yes, kindness matters. In a post a little while ago I said that there's an erroneous idea all Christians are anti-gay. It's true that in order to be Christian a person doesn't have to be anti-gay. But too many Christians are anti-gay, though. (It's the kind of thing I address to other Christians from within Christian communities.)

You conveniently blame all of the ills of American history on Christianity because the majority of Americans would have referred to themselves by that label through American history. Following that exact 'logic,' since American history - with all of its violence and repression - happened under white control, then you might as well say it was the fault of whites. And the fault of men. But you seem to carefully avoid blaming all of the ills of American history on whites - although I'm about 100% certain you must think that, knowing how you think. But I guess the reason you don't speak like that about whites is you realize the majority of people on PPL are probably white. It wouldn't be politic. But you seem to feel sometimes that there's no reason to not claim ALL Conservative Christians (CCs) are child-abusers as if you think there's only One of them on all of PPL, which you're mistaken about. (If a speaker makes a statement that accuses ALL CCs of child abuse when s/he is someplace that s/he thinks there are very few around to speak up and defend themselves, some would say that could be seen as a form of minority-bashing of its own, though I'm not saying that.) You have so many incorrect statements mixed in with correct statements that I can't address them all. Jewish people have never been bigotted against blacks. Really? Incorrect. Hindus aren't prejudiced against anyone. Really? They don't have untouchable castes? Really? No other 'tradition' has discriminated against anyone. Not hyper-capitolism-every-man-for-himself-ism-religion-holds-no-sway-here-ism? Really? Incorrect. People who called themselves 'Christians' made others sit at the back of the bus? So did people who called themselves non-Christian, and non-religious, and Jewish. Don't say they didn't - they did. They all had one thing in common: whiteness. But once again, the convenient 'overlooking' of the role that Enlightened Christian Clergy played in the civil rights movement. Including White Christian Clergy. And you'll think the anti-white thing but you won't say it. To hear you speak, Christians are out in the streets in Christian-Church-To-Christian-Church bloody brawls as we speak. Funny thing is I haven't seen any.

TRUE Christians have played a role in many important social movements including slavery abolitionists. There are More slaves Now in the world than there were at any point in human history. And I don't hear you even mentioning it - maybe because you know you cannot try to blame 'The Christian Church' for it so maybe it doesn't seem worth mentioning to you. Jesus Christ did not teach oppression and greed and you know it. He taught the Precise opposite. There's the place that u'll find my agreement with u on the 'conservative' thing: If by 'conservative' you mean 'Republican' then say so. A serious argument can be made that the Republican way of thinking of things promotes greed & oppression. Republican Christians - if that's the topic, say so. You wouldn't find nearly as much disagreement from me there. But that's a different topic. That topic is Politics and Religion - a dangerous mix. (I recommend 'God's Politics: how the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it.' Though in my opinion, in general, Republican Christians are less Christian than Democrat Christians.) There were more class divisions and societal divisions and there was more oppression in General in the world in the past than there is now. That was true throughout most of society. You live in the past. The present has enough of its own ills to attend to. The point was not that your statements are too blanket for Me. I'm just the loyal opposition. In the grand scheme of life, what does it matter what little ole me thinks? My point was I thought you might reconsider, and then they'd be too blanket for You. You're the one whose opinion matters on it. You're the one whose opinion I cared about on it.

Marion, what I think you don't understand about me (which is understandable because I guess I never said this before) is I actually think it's Important that people with something validly negative to say about any churches should speak out about it. I think it's important for valid negatives to be brought up and pointed out and discussed and addressed. It's the only way any positive changes ever happen in this world of ours on any issue or subject. I take special umbrage at anything 'religious' that child abuse tries to hide behind. Like the dangers of the homeschooling movement. I didn't take anything you said personally. I truly hope you don't take anything I said personally either. I definitely didn't mean it that way. I'd be sorry to know if something I said came across that way. I enjoy discussing things and sometimes discussions can seem to take on a life of their own. (Like a lot of people, if I post comments when I'm tired, then when I read them later, they sometimes seem blunter than they were meant to be.) Like I once had to say to my poor little stepson (because of the tugs-of-war he experienced between his parents), "I'm not your enemy." PPL wouldn't be the same without you on it. I enjoy most of your posts. My opinion, though, is I do think your posts could only gain if you were to reconsider the occasional uber-Slur. Anyhow, no hard feelings. And I'm headed for a tall glass of cold orange juice. Keep cool everyone. :)

Please respond to what's written, not imaginary statements

Dont' get me started on the Holocaust. You seem to be implying Adolf Hitler was Christian. You seem to be implying that Christianity took over Germany and waged war on the planet. I've only heard or read this type of idea from about 2 other people in my entire life. (But they were stuck on that idea simply because they were anti-religious.) That's another subject for a different website. Let's don't go there.

Lol well don't try to hammer and saw me into your #3, because I said nothing about Adolph Hitler or Germany. Again the actual statement as opposed to what you evidently would like me to say: "One need only look up the Pale of Settlement, pogroms inflicted by Cossacks, Jasenovac, the Holocaust in Eastern Europe, Srebenica and Kosovo/a for more examples of Christian Shove, only done the Orthodox way."

So yes. Please don't take us there. 

You have so many incorrect statements mixed in with correct statements that I can't address them all.

No, you see what you want to see, not what was actually written. None of my statements about conservative Christianity in this country have been incorrect.

Jewish people have never been bigotted against blacks. Really? Incorrect. Hindus aren't prejudiced against anyone. Really? They don't have untouchable castes? Really? No other 'tradition' has discriminated against anyone. Not hyper-capitolism-every-man-for-himself-ism-religion-holds-no-sway-here-ism? Really? Incorrect. People who called themselves 'Christians' made others sit at the back of the bus? So did people who called themselves non-Christian, and non-religious, and Jewish. Don't say they didn't - they did. They all had one thing in common: whiteness. But once again, the convenient 'overlooking' of the role that Enlightened Christian Clergy played in the civil rights movement. Including White Christian Clergy. And you'll think the anti-white thing but you won't say it. To hear you speak, Christians are out in the streets in Christian-Church-To-Christian-Church bloody brawls as we speak. Funny thing is I haven't seen any.

Again, for your benefit, the actual quote: "The only oppression Christians have experienced in this entire hemisphere has come from other Christians."

I did not say Christians did not play a role in the Civil Rights movement: that movement was made up almost entirely of laypeople, not just the probably thousands of what you call enlightened clergy (of which I am almost certain you cannot name more than 3 if asked to do so. Don't worry. You would not be alone in that.)

I did not say no other tradition has discriminated against anyone. I did not say there are aren't Jews that do not like Blacks (and last I checked, unlike the Catholics, Methodists and Baptists, no Jewish person has EVER forcibly converted Indians and Africans to Judaism...anywhere in the world.) I did not say Hindus do not oppress other Hindus, but if I were to say Hindus don't oppress Christians in this hemisphere, that too would be a factual statement.

I did say, "The only oppression Christians have experienced in this entire hemisphere has come from other Christians." Sorry if you do not like facts, but that is a fact. And if you have a question about what I think about "anti-white" or anything else, you should ask before presuming. This patronizing, overdefensive, you-know-me-better-than-i-know-myself behavior on this topic is as old as the hills. It's foundational to the historical bastard treatment of entire swaths of nonchristian nonstraight nonwhites, and of course the way individual bastards get treated by those who think they are our betters.

I know you will not believe me when I say this, but it needs to be said at least once: your entire outlook on life seems to be entirely colored and guided as a response 'Against.'

Lol uh-huh. And based on a few posts you've read of mine at PPL, you believe you're qualified to comment on my "entire outlook on life", right? Right? I've no doubt you're wholly convinced of your innate rightness about it. That said, you'll understand, then, why I must reject such patronizing nonsense.

The larger point of this entire now-wildly-off-topic thread cannot be avoided: the Tina Anderson case is one of how many hundreds cataloged at PPL that has conservative Protestant Christianity at the front and center of the young woman's vicious treatment. This is why you'll have to find a different way to deal with what you see as "blanket statements" coming from me or perhaps others, which in fact are not blanket statements at all. They're very specific statements about very specific forms of Christianity and the way those people treat the vulnerable in their envioronments.

My main point about the larger social issue is Christian supremacist theocrats such as the Independent Fundamental Baptists are intent on imposing their vicious, repressive lifestyle on everyone else. It's not unique in this country, and it's not unique to Christianity on planet earth, either.

No, I'm factually right

You are Factually Incorrect to state that Protestant Christianity has a "solid voice" as if they are some monolithic, single organization.

I think the problem is not as much with substance as it is simply with your English not being precise enough oftentimes.

I'm speaking in plain, concise English about specific forms of Christianity. There is nothing wrong with my use of the language, though your comprehension of what's actually written may be impaired. You're making the same old predictable mistake textual-literalist Christians often make, which is picking and choosing what you wish to read, then launching a bogus argument against it. In Logic and Persuasion 101, it's called the strawman.

The quote was, "politically/theologically conservative forms of Protestant Christianity are predominate in the US, and that's also a fact of history. They have a solid voice and political power; that's what happens in a democracy." That's a lot different from what you wanted to read, and a lot more specific than you're trying to twist it.

Point remains: conservative Christians in this country are not oppressed by anyone; they do the oppressing. Any (real, not perceived, such as someone commenting on conservative Christian parenting styles) oppression of Christians in the US has come from other Christians against other Christians, no one else. Facts is facts.

I didn't mean u 'oppressed' xtians but lumped all with worst.

I didn't say or mean u 'oppressed' Christians. But it Is becoming too 'fashionable' to lump All Christians together with the worst of them and that's simply unethical. Period. Unfortunately there are people of any group - including different religions - who would support laws to suppress others from being different from them. If the experience with that in religion in the U.S. is mostly with a number of Christians wanting to do that, it is because that happens to be the predominant religion in America. But it's valid to address How people should fight against that. For example, there was a huge - and important - difference between Malcolm X's approach to fighting oppression and Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s approach. For one thing, unlike MLK, Malcolm X did not want to allow the white people who wanted to be in that fight to join the fight. At least for some time, he was definitely guilty of reverse-discrimination. It actually doesn't matter what the specific topic is, casting aspersions on entire groups of people indiscriminately isn't necessary and is wrong. Are many NASCAR enthusiasts rednecks? Maybe. If many of them are, I'd still never agree with someone saying "NASCAR enthusiasts are rednecks." What's wrong with saying "many NASCAR enthusiasts are rednecks"?

If you don't want people to take what you say literally, it would make conversation difficult. I dunno what to do with that. But if I ever take you literally when you didn't mean something that way, I'll listen if you point it out. I'm not someone who likes disagreeing with others about anything or just for the sake of liking to argue something out. We're both here because we're passionate about child-protection. I always remember that Marion. If I simply take you to mean what you say that's not like "textual-literal Christians..." I'm just listening to what you say. No intention of twisting anything. If someone says they didn't mean something a certain way, I listen. We've all said something we didn't mean a certain way.

Anyways, I also took Logic 101 and more advanced Logic also, and it's funny you mention it because I was actually thinking about Logic classes when I had been hoping you'd reconsider the broadness of that one statement you made. I didn't mention it, but I was thinking Logic was the class where the teacher would've most taken issue with a statement like 'being raised conservative Christian is (equals) a childhood and lifetime of abuse.'  Logic classes were all about things like this: "All pencils are writing instruments, but not all writing instruments are pencils" = "All A are B, but not all B are A" in Logic parlance. (Some of the more complex questions on those exams were killers, remember?) If it's true that "many 'children-of-conservative-Christian-parenting' are 'child-abuse-victims'", it doesn't make this valid: "All 'children-of-conservative-Christian-parenting' are 'child-abuse-victims.'" ("Many A = B" does not mean "All A = B.") Another example: 'Most rapists are men' does not mean 'most men are rapists.' ('Most A = B' does not mean 'most B = A.') Anyways, we both deserve dessert - some kind of treat - for having seen this conversation through. There's an ice cream cone with my name on it and it's calling to me. I wish for you whatever treat makes you happiest.   

Restating: Conservative Xians are oppressors not oppressed

If you've read anything I've said in my many posts here, you should have come away with the idea that Christianity is a big universe with many factions, many beliefs, many of which are perpetually, historically at each other's throats, and a few of which, despite their widely disperate histories, I have been a part of myself.

I've noticed that you're not going after the people here who really do lump in all xians with each other. But the one person who differentiates meticulously, ad nauseum, my posts offend. I do find that really interesting.

If you're still smarting about the two-week old slam on conservative christian parenting, and are set to vindicate those feelings by labeling me "racist" against them, and all whites which you've tacitly also accused me of, I can't do anything about that. But you can.

When Christian conservatives/bigots quit making up the bulk of cases at PPL then things will be different. When conservative/bigoted Christians quit writing homo-hate into their political platforms, when they quit trying to argue for the end of "certain parts" of the Civil Rights Acts, when they quit promoting the idea that something as simple as one's own birth certificate is a matter of national security and will lead to more babykilling/abortions of pre-people; when they finally cease trying to get the government to rig the game in their favor just because they choose to live a certain way, nothing changes in what I said.

I'm not taking the statement back. Their entire lifestyle is based on domination and abuse of everyone else around them, not just abuse in child rearing.

I agree - no oppressors are good.

Please remember that I said I understand now what you mean when you use the word 'conservative' & that really does make all the difference.  I do not think of you as racist. I was just trying to make a point that if someone thinks one characteristic of a person puts them in a monolithic group then s/he could start to extend that way of thinking to other 'groups' of people. My comments really were mostly aimed at language. I do honestly believe the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are 2 of the most divisive words in the U.S. despite the fact they don't have exact definitions. It's mostly because they're so associated with politics. But I realize they serve a general purpose in our language & I know now what you mean when you use the term.

Like so many other people in this economy in our country, I don't have nearly as much time as I wish I had for things like volunteer research of child-protection laws/legislation & for discussions about it all with others who care about the same stuff. My time on PoundPupLegacy is limited, so I've been to about 5-10% of the site. If there are others here really lumping all christians w/ each other I probably haven't run across them much at all. The people I'd run across who were talking about negative adoptee experiences w/ 'christian' aparents/organizations always tended to address those particular instances or types of instances. I hadn't noticed anyone make sweeping, absolute statements against all christians or using terminology that encompasses mega-swaths of them. Although we don't see eye-to-eye on the specific type of statement I was commenting on, I have noticed & appreciated when you've differentiated between different types of christians. Ironically, the largest part of the reason I gravitated to your posts (aside from the fact we're drawn to the same subjects) is that I like the general intellectual bent you bring to things. I'm not saying that most other people have an 'unschooled' way of discussing things, or anything like that. But I recognized in you someone who has an intellectual level of interest in the bigger 'picture' of things like I do - for ex., an interest in history & awareness of placing things in a historical context. Also, I recognized a general level of higher education that not everyone brings to discussions. I wasn't surprised you had taken Logic. Not everyone interested in child-protection (or interested in anything for that matter) has that background or likes to bring that level of awareness or approach to things. It's refreshing sometimes when someone does.

Of course that doesn't mean we'd agree on everything, but I've long thought that if we only surround ourselves with people who think everything we ourselves think then we cease to grow or learn anything new because we don't get exposed to new ways of thinking and our ideas are never challenged. I have a deep appreciation for and belief in the benefit that comes from the freedom to vigorously exchange ideas within a democracy. I never mind if my thoughts on something are challenged and I tend not to take it personally if someone does. Sometimes the underlying respect and even affection that I have in discussing things with you hasn't been apparent, I know. Even outside of cyberspace in real, generally-solid relationships, the same thing can happen - an important subject can kind of take on a life of its own for awhile.

Not to continue or re-open a discussion on the word 'conservative,' but I refer to it as a certain type of Republican or Republican attitude. Both political parties have a negative 'end of the spectrum' and they both have their ridiculous positions that they defend. That's politics. But it's definitely the negative end of the Republican spectrum that has the 'domination' thing going on. I unfortunately have personal experience on it. I was the one in my marriage from the mostly-progressive background & I was the christian. He was the one from the opposite-of-christianity, mostly-Republican background. He was all about control & domination - & stepping on whoever you had to step all over to 'get ahead' & be 'the one' in 'control.' The entire 'doves' versus 'hawks' thing. Or the entire human versus cold-calculating-vicious-power-machine-in-control thing. The domination, my-way-or-the-highway, I-don't-really-believe-in-democracy thing. It's also the section of the Republican spectrum (most of their spectrum I think) whose entire overriding ethos in life can be summed up this way: 'I've got mine.' It's all about 'getting' & one's own hyper-materialism & putting all emphasis on one's materialistic public image & on Self. Don't get me wrong. I've known Republicans who are wonderful people who I love. & of course it's great to be able to get the things you need in life & also have some financial security beyond that. But there's something Wrong with someone who defends using all one's 'spending' money on toys for one's self - like a boat & $3,000 tv set, etc. - while not being willing to donate to children living on the streets of our world who don't have the luxury of a toothbrush. (By which I mean donating through a fiscally-responsible, established charity.) There's something wrong w/ the anything-and-everything-for-personal-profit mentality that would like to scrap the school-lunch program for impoverished American children who might not eat all day long otherwise. As an example, Rush Limbaugh recently celebrated the lavish millionaire's wedding for his Fourth 'traditional marriage' by actually Making Fun of hungry American children. (I kid you not.) He actually made a direct jab at the children in America who go hungry - by telling them to go find whatever food they could find in their own house. His exact meaning was that if they couldn't find anything there, well, that's just too bad / who cares: Definition of the word 'Jerk.' My ex was in that mold & he wasn't beyond physical violence. 'I've got mine' & 'control, power, & domination.' Yes, he could be a Jerk.

Terminology. Conformism. People putting human constructs on NT.

I seriously think you just need to say 'Republican' instead of conservative. That defines more of what you mean. There is no exact definition of 'conservative.' That's the problem. Yes, much of what you support would fall under the 'progressive' label, rather than the 'conservative' label if you mean the words as they are used politically. But you certainly must realize there are Christian progressives, right? Plenty of them. There are plenty of Christians in the Democrat party also. One thing Republicans Always Support that Endangers Children in Adoption: Republicans support letting businesses do just about anything they want without regulation. They support taking government functions away and privatizing them into for-profit businesses to make profit off of misery.

I'm glad you mentioned non-conformists. Conformism is part of a problem. But it exists just about Everywhere in every group and every segment of society in its own form. But, definitely, there needs to be more respect for non-conformist thinking and that INCLUDES - even especially, maybe - within churches.

What social repression in the last 30 years are you saying 'white bigot Christians' are behind in cahoots with 'bigot Catholic brethren?' If it's gay rights, it takes more than people who call themselves Christian to defeat ballot measures in the U.S. People are just being their normal, human-nature, unenlightened, bewildered selves when it comes to things that seem foreign to them that they themselves don't understand - whether they belong to a particular church or no church at all. The north is not the Bible belt and niether is the west and I don't notice them doing the right thing and giving gay people their right to marry in those states either. You have to realize churches are not going to get out front on that issue because it's not their place to. But of course it's not their place to stand in the way of it either. I don't see what some people imagine they see in the New Testament that is against gay civil rights because I don't see it there at all. So where some of them get the idea they should oppose gay civil rights because of anything in the NT I'll never agree with. But the NT doesn't say to go and pass laws allowing gay people to marry either - it leaves a lot of things up to people's discretion because we have brains we can use as we progress through history to guide us, too. The NT doesn't say anything about how often to excercise to be healthy either or how often to change the oil in a car. There r things it does not specifically address & it's not a church's place to prevent or promote. Too many people do the human-nature thing & put human constructs on the NT & wind up acting like being Christian means for ex., that you can't support gay civil rights, which is baloney.

Talking loud, saying nothing

I seriously think you just need to say 'Republican' instead of conservative.

Don't correct my language, I know what I'm saying and why I say it, and why I say things the way I do. It's on purpose.

"Republican" isn't specific or accurate enough for me, which is one reason I don't use it. There are conservative Christian groups that don't even believe in participating in politics; as you yourself say, they feel it's not their place. So no, you're not going to get me to alter one thing I've said about them. There are also Republicans who are not bible banging control freak mobilized, politicized Christians and are Republicans for different reasons. Some, like the Cindy McCain types, are embarrassed of the conservative Xian element.

There is nothing magical about the NT any more than anyone else's holy books are magical.

Bigot Protestants/bigot Catholics: no I wasn't talking about "gay", I was talking about broader social issues such as women's rights, abortion, morality in media, things like that.

There are plenty of nonbigot Protestants and nonbigot Catholics. That's your cue that I'm again talking about things that are more specific than you may wish to acknowledge, because that won't allow you to wallow in feeling victimized because one of the bastards has something to say about conservative Christianity and its development in the US and isn't asking anyone's permission first.

As for the gay thing, just let it go and forget I mentioned it. It's only one of a couple things you know about me, only one of a few things I've revealed about myself at PPL. This is another of many examples of why one should never to tell a bible banging Christian anything personal; their narrow way of thinking impedes rational thought. That makes conversation difficult.

As for your now-legendary beef with my statement about conservative Xian parenting, sorry, that stays, and I'm not interested in conservative Xian's hurt feelings over it. If you really think that's on the level of John Stossel wanting to dismantle the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I'd suggest a march on washington.

I only meant. Also, does PPL have action-alerts on legislation?

"That's your cue that I'm again talking about things that are more specific..." Actually, being more specific was all I was after. At least the conversation we've had has us understanding each other's terminology better. I & others have had very similar conversations about "Republican"-vs-"conservative" with other people on totally different topics elsewhere. People sometimes have different terminology for the same thing. They also sometimes use the same word to mean 2 totally different things. I only wanted clarification. U say "Republican" isn't specific or accurate enough for u, which I take to mean it doesn't cover everything you're thinking of, which I do understand. But the Republican party does actually have a national 'platform' - composed of actual individual explicitly-spelled-out 'planks.' It runs its national candidates on that 'platform' of what it supports & what it is opposed to. Compared to that, 'conservative' is very vague. Most Americans are a mixture of conservative & progressive - conservative on some things a& progressive on others.

No One is more concerned about the way 'conservative' Christianity (in your terminology) has gone in our country than me. No One. (& the mixing of politics & religion.) But like the vast majority of Americans, I would b considered 'progressive' on some things & 'conservative' on others. But one thing I would never be considered is 'far-right.' I also don't happen to b 'Republican.' I'm Independent. If I were to have to change parties, let's just say I'd never switch to Republican. I know plenty of decent, wonderful people who are Republican, but I'll never go to that specific party. Their specific platform has planks in it that I could never support. 'Conservative' is more vague.

My only point really was that some words r so broad that when the 'net' of that word is cast, it catches much more than was intended, like when massive fishing nets for tuna used to routinely catch & kill dolphins at the same time unnecessarily. If u see the term 'conservative' differently, of course I understand u using it. People have to use words in the way that has meaning to them. After dialoguing with u on it, at least now I understand what u mean by it when you say it. I only mentioned u being black & gay because historically - & even to this day - black people & gay people Definitely have Personal experience with harmful, overbroad nets cast in their direction unfortunately. I was thinking, for example, that you'd take issue - rightly - if a black person raised without a father were to say "being raised black is being raised without a father." For that one person & maybe many others that might be their personal experience, but the specific wording of that one specific sentence would be overbroad & therefore factually incorrect - & unfair. I was only responding to one specific statement you'd made that was something like 'being raised conservative Christian is having a childhood & lifetime of abuse.' It was only the absolutist nature of that one specific sentence that I was addressing. It really has nothing at all to do with being 'bible-banging.' To anyone who knows me, I'm not someone who wears my religion on my sleeve at all. I did Not go to religous schools but I had many different English teachers whose religion or lack thereof had nothing to do with them crossing out overbroad sentences with a red pen on many different topics on my papers & those of my classmates until we finally learned to clarify & not overstate. I suppose the fact I'm also trained as a reporter to some extent has something to do with it. Reporters always have to be careful not to attribute something negative to someone in a definite way if it's not actually demonstrable - because they know they could be sued for libel if they do - but it's also to be fair to people.

It has nothing At All Whatsoever to do with a "conservative Xian's hurt feelings over it." By your terminology, believe me, I don't even fall into that category - so my feelings aren't hurt. (My mother might fall into that category but she's not in the discussion so I couldn't begin to know if her feelings would be hurt.) Being a true American means I might not agree with another person's opinion on something, but I would defend to the death their right to say it. But that doesn't mean all speech is accurate or fair. I was only addressing overbroad statements against any huge group of people & the general incorrectness - and unethicalness - of that kind of thing. I was raised to be pro-civl-rights & anti-defamation on all topics - & everyone should be. Language is part of it. What the substance of the topic was (religion) actually was besides the point entirely.

As far as being on the level with John Stossel advocating a return to legalized racial discrimination: public advocacy of Anything on national media Always Starts with the Language of Individuals in society. They get used to speaking in those terms with their own friends so they start to say it publicly then nationally. It opens a door to that type of reach. I absolutely stand by vigilance against it. All movements against any group of people started in such ways. It's like a person always making sure to lock their doors & windows at night, but all it takes is one night that they don't bother and the next day they're in the news for having been murdered in the night. Anyhow, I'm truly glad I understand what u mean by that one word now. Even if I think it's an overbroad use of the term, it doesn't matter because at least I know now what u mean by it. The 'brand' or type of Christianity u refer to gives me as much concern as it gives you. Even though our terminology on it differs & our conclusions might be somewhat different. I intend to continue fighting the extremes of religion & anyone who claims religion but actually abuses children. Many politicians are too scared to make laws taking a stand against it & they need constituent organizations to first get behind law-changes before they'll support necessary legislation. I hope poundpuplegacy will consider doing a 'report card' on congressmembers' voting records on child-protection issues if they don't already do that. Politicians most care what their constituents want when there are upcoming elections. A congressional report-card could let us know which congressmembers to target with phone calls and emails in support of specific legislation. I still haven't seen a national tv program address the assumption congressmembers support about the adoption industry (that it is above reproach and angelic). Is there a political-action area of poundpuplegacy? Can a person put themselves on an email list to be sent petitions & be notified of upcoming important votes in congress so we can call our congressmembers, etc.?

Pound Pup Legacy