Obama's Education Appointee Kevin Jennings: "Screw The Religious Right"

Here is part of the latest tirade that I got in my email box from the nutcases at Worldview Weekend:

President Obama has appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) - which sponsored the conference that produced the notorious "Fistgate" scandal (in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including "fisting") - to head up "Safe Schools" efforts at the Department of Education. Jennings is a vicious, anti-religious bigot who once said "[F–k] 'em" to the "Religious Right." He supports promoting homosexuality and gender confusion as normative to even young students. He made that comment in a New York City church. TAKE ACTION: Urge your U.S. Congressman and Senators to call for the withdrawal of Jennings' appointment at the Education Department. Call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121.

Folks, with President Obama's appointment of homosexual activist and GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) founder Kevin Jennings to head the "Safe Schools" efforts at the Department of Education, we will be rolling out Jennings' long record of radical statements and writings, his personal nastiness toward religious conservatives, and his group's promotion of unsafe behaviors (GLSEN sponsored the Tufts University conference that produced the infamous "Fistgate" scandal in which young teenagers were given how-to instruction on various ).

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality calls for the withdrawal of this divisive nomination - which is an affront to Christians, parents' rights and decent, moral citizens everywhere who oppose the indoctrination of students in a pro-homosexuality, pro-gender confusion agenda. The following comments by Jennings are from a paper I wrote for Concerned Women for America (CWA), titled, "When Silence Would Have Been Golden: Acts of Homosexual Promotion to Youth that We Wish Had Never Happened."

Get ready for a political fight. Appointing Kevin Jennings, a vicious homosexual activist, to head up a "Safe Schools" project for American youth would be like appointing David Duke to head up a national panel on racial reconciliation. If we had anything even close to a fair media in this country, Jennings would have been discredited long ago for GLSEN's role in "Fistgate." Something tells me that Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, hasn't heard of Fistgate. But he will now - and so will many more people. Much more coming on this breaking story. - Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

From the 2002 CWA paper:

GLSEN'S JENNINGS: !&%#! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!
Addressing a church audience on March 20, 2000 in New York City - just days before "Fistgate" - GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings offered a stinging (and quite intolerant) assessment of how to deal with religious conservatives:

"Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we'll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit - I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, '[F-] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!" - Jennings speech to Marble Collegiate Church, March 20, 2000.

(Read the rest: Here).

My Thoughts: First of all, while Mr. Jennings' attitude isn't very nice---his sentiments on the Religious Right are correct. Secondly, Mr. Jennings can't promote homosexuality as it is not a choice to promote as a person is either born a homosexual or not. It is also imperative that the general public be educated about the subject as it is as natural as the ground and will not disappear. Thirdly, this statement: "appointing Kevin Jennings, a vicious homosexual activist, to head up a "Safe Schools" project for American youth would be like appointing David Duke" is absolutely wrong as the Religious Right are the only ones comparable to David Duke---being the true bigots. If it weren't for the Religious Right's idolatry of premillennial dispensationalism heretical views on Israel, they would promote anti-semitism as the bible says:

John 8:39-44 (English Standard Version)

You Are of Your Father the Devil
39They answered him,(A) "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, (B) "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40but now(C) you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth(D) that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing the works your father did." They said to him,(E) "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have(F) one Father—even God." 42Jesus said to them, (G) "If God were your Father, you would love me, for(H) I came from God and(I) I am here.(J) I came not of my own accord, but(K) he sent me. 43(L) Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot(M) bear to hear my word. 44(N) You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.(O) He was a murderer from the beginning, and(P) has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.(Q) When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Lastly, who cares what the Religious Right have to say as they have corrupted Christianity, distort the name of Christ and worship the bible, America, the Republican party as the state, power, etc. as false gods and idols. So what are your thoughts?

Todd Friel Bashes Rick Warren's Ecumenical Inaugural Prayer

Why?



Answer: Because he is Conservative without being a fundamentalist racist/bigotry spouting Spurgeon/John MacArthur/John Piper worshipping Calvinazi nutjob.

Fundamentalist Radio Station Changes Name

Way Of The Master radio changes it's name to Wretched radio. The name change seems to befit the underlying material of the radio show, which is indeed wretched with fundamentalist drivel and ultra-conservative right wing nutcases. Now you can pay $5.95 a month for extra brainwashing.

Fundamentalist Wackiness In Overdrive

FBC-Decatur

First, here's a post from Dr. Jonas' Blog:

Good for Decatur FBC!
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article about FBC Decatur and its pastor, Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell. She was selected as the church's first ever female pastor last year. Furthermore, the church, with 2700 members is the largest Baptist church in the South to be headed by a female pastor.

Her presence as pastor of such a prominent Georgia Baptist church has been a thorn in the flesh to the Fundamentalists who control both the SBC and the Georgia Baptist Convention. So, it remains to be seen what action, if any both entities will take toward FBC Decatur. Knowing Fundamentalists as I do, I suspect both entities will seek some kind of "punitive" action toward the church. After all, they can't possibly be seen cooperating with a church that (in their twisted way of thinking) so violates the letter of scripture!

The article can be found at this link:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/living/stories/2008/11/23/decatur_first_baptist.html

The best quote in the article is this: "If they would like to ask us to leave the Southern Baptist Convention, I think that’s fine,” Roper said. “I think our new minister is wonderful.”

Good for you Ms. Roper! And good for you all FBC Decatur! What a wonderful example to the rest of the Baptist world!

posted by glenn jonas at 1:14 pm

Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell recently became one of my Facebook friend by way of my Blog I guess as I already posted this: TheoPoetic Musings: Georgia Baptist Convention Says No To Female Pastors on the situation. Anyways, I agree with Dr. Jonas' assessment: "Knowing Fundamentalists as I do, I suspect both entities will seek some kind of "punitive" action toward the church. After all, they can't possibly be seen cooperating with a church that (in their twisted way of thinking) so violates the letter of scripture!" It's just like those who say homosexuality just can't be in the church but at the same time hypocritically welcome and accept with full fellowship military personnel who murder for a living and serve the Roman god of war, Mars---otherwise known nowadays as: "collateral damage." The God of the New Testament is not the false god of war, but Jesus Christ who is called: "the Prince of Peace." Now, don't think that I'm bagging on the military as I respect them and the Grace of God found in Jesus Christ is for both the military and homosexuals---I am just making a point about fundamentalist hypocrisy.

Anyways, all you homophobic bible literalist fundamentalists, here are ways in which homosexuality already plays an important role in church life: consider King James who was openly bisexual. Here is what one of your fellow fundamentalists, Gary Bauer, has to say about the subject:

Used too often as a controlling device and not enough as a spiritual compass, the Bible becomes a tool to promulgate moral and political agendas. For example, in 1998, the right-wing Christian groups -the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality- ordered all its members to cease using the King James Version of the Bible because historians had proven that King James I of England, who was also known as James VI of Scotland, was indisputably gay.

Should the King James Version of the Bible, which has been around since 1611 and used worldwide, be discarded solely on the bases of King James' sexual orientation?

Speaking at a press conference about this controversy, Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council said, "I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way."

See also: Queen James and North Carolina Baptists and King James' Homoerotic Letters. Also, consider the heart-wrenching and soul uplifting church music by homosexual composer, Samuel Barber:
---Mister Rogers' favorite composer. And last but not least consider: that was painted by Michelangelo who had numerous homosexual affairs it is believed. In fundamentalists' twisted theology, these things would be considered condoning "unacceptable behavior" and they have the gall to say God doesn't accept females and homosexuals into full inclusive fellowship into the church---but he does accept militarists with all the death and destruction they bring such as:---because voting straight ticket for ultra-conservative Right-Wing nutcases makes one such a "good Christian." I know though that Jesus accepts heterosexual females such as: Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell and heterosexual males such as: Dr. Jonas, Mr. Rogers and myself as well as homosexuals and soldiers and God uses all of them for His/Her purpose, so get use to it.

SBC Calls Roman Catholic Church A Cult

Check out Big Daddy Weave's post on the subject: A Southern Baptist War on the Catholic Church "Cult". Here is a snippet from that post:

Meet Jim Smyrl

Jim Smyrl is the "Executive-Pastor of Education" at the 28,000-member First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida. FBC Jacksonville is the third-largest church in the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest megachurches in America. As Executive -Pastor of Education, Smyrl is no lowly staff member. He's been dubbed "Second in Command" at FBC as Pastor Mac Brunson's "right-hand man."

Over on the Official Blog of FBC Jacksonville, has announced a series of upcoming posts on the "Catholic Cult."

Fundamentalist nutcase John MacArthur would be proud---here are a few of his anti-Catholic statements: PowerBlog!: John MacArthur - Grace to Who?, A GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH DISTINCTIVE and ---go here for the rest of the video series---for example. Also, Joe Blackmon's comment on Big Daddy Weave's post is telling:

joe blackmon said...
Big Daddy Weave

I haven't got the slightest interest in "top down" organization within the SBC as you assert. I worry about only one church--the one I attend. As long as the SBC publically affirms what I believe, I am perfectly happpy to remain in the SBC. Hopefully, the natioanl convention will take a cue from the wise people in Georgia and disfellowship so-called Southern Baptist churches who have unbiblical practices like FBC Decatur.

2nd of all, anyone who associates with a church that affirms homosexuality as moral, abortion as a legal right, and women pastors as godly is NOT a conservative. Furthermore, they are either *a* not a Christian at all or *b* immature and ignorant.

I also notice that you failed to respond to my point that Catholic doctrine is completely without any biblical support. Therefore, since what they teach is unbiblical they are a cult. Their size is completely irrelevant. The Mormon church has a huge number of followers. That doesn't make them Christians.

I wonder why you failed to address that part of my comment in your diatribe. Oh, I know. It's because you can't.

5:12 AM

The only cultists I see are those that worship the false manmade paper and leather god, the bible.

Malaysian Council Bans Yoga for Muslims

John MacArthur surely would agree with this---after all he said that 'all Christians need for meditation is the bible,' so why not the Koran for Muslims. Here is a clip of John MacArthur telling Doug Pagitt that some aspects are dangerous for Christians as they may welcome demons into their life:

John also said why borrow a term from a false pagan religion. Well there goes the idol and false god of John MacArthur, the manmade pages of the bible---after all, the Greek word "biblos" from which the word bible derives was invented by Zeus-worshiping Greeks. The pagan Egyptians invented paper and not to mention the pagan and imperialistic terms which the Gospels themselves are comprised of. What do you expect from people who worship manmade paper and 'golden' calfskin leather instead of the One True Risen and Living God, Jesus Christ. Anyways, sorry for getting sidetracked---here is the full article on the Muslim ban on Yoga:

Malaysian Council Bans Yoga for MuslimsBy VIJAY JOSHI, AP
posted: 1 DAY 22 HOURS AGOcomments: 169filed under: World News

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (Nov. 22) — Malaysia's top Islamic body, fresh from banning tomboys, issued an edict Saturday that prohibits Muslims from practicing yoga, saying that elements of Hinduism in the ancient Indian exercise could corrupt them.
The National Fatwa Council's chairman, Abdul Shukor Husin, said many Muslims fail to understand that yoga's ultimate aim is to be one with a god of a different religion — an explanation disputed by many practitioners who say yoga need not have a religious element.

"We are of the view that yoga, which originates from Hinduism, combines physical exercise, religious elements, chanting and worshipping for the purpose of achieving inner peace and ultimately to be one with god," Abdul Shukor said.
News of the yoga ban prompted activist Marina Mahathir to wonder what the council will ban next: "What next? Gyms? Most gyms have men and women together. Will that not be allowed any more?"
The edict reflects the growing influence of conservative Islam in Malaysia, a multi-ethnic country of 27 million people where the majority Muslim Malays lost seats in March elections and where minority ethnic Chinese and mostly Hindu ethnic Indians have been clamoring for more rights.
Recently, the council said girls who act like boys violate Islam's tenets. The government has also occasionally made similar conservative moves, banning the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslims earlier this year, saying it would confuse Muslims.
Analysts say the fatwa could be the result of insecurity among Malay Muslims after their party — in power since 1957 — saw its parliamentary majority greatly reduced in elections because of gains by multiracial opposition parties.
Malay Muslims make up about two-thirds of the country's 27 million people. About 25 percent of the population is ethnic Chinese and 8 percent is ethnic Indian, most of whom are Hindu.

"They are making a stand. They are saying 'we will not give way,'" said Ooi Kee Beng, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.
Decisions by Malaysia's Fatwa Council are not legally binding on the country's Muslims, however, unless they also become enshrined in national or Shariah laws. But many Muslims abide by the edicts out of deference, but some, like Putri Rahim, plan not to follow the latest fatwa.
"I am mad! Maybe they have it in mind that Islam is under threat. To come out with a fatwa is an insult to intelligent Muslims. It's an insult to my belief," said Putri, a Muslim who has practiced yoga for 10 years.
In recent years, yoga — a collection of spiritual and physical practices, aimed at integrating mind, body and spirit — has been increasingly practiced in gyms and dedicated yoga centers around the world.
There are no figures for how many Muslims practice yoga in Malaysia, but many yoga classes have Muslims attending.
In the United States, where it has become so popular that many public schools began offering it in gym classes, yoga has also come under fire.
Some Christian fundamentalists and even secular parents have argued that yoga's Hindu roots conflict with Christian teachings and that using it in school might violate the separation of church and state. Egypt's highest theological body also banned yoga for Muslims in 2004.

Yoga drew the attention of the Fatwa Council last month when an Islamic scholar said that it was un-Islamic.
A top yoga practitioner in India, Mani Chaitanya, said the Malaysian clerics seem to have "misunderstood the whole thing." Chanting during yoga is to calm the mind and "elevate our consciousness," said Chaitanya, the director of the Sivananda Ashram in New Delhi.
"It is not worship. It's not religious at all. Yoga is universal. All religions can practice yoga. You can practice yoga and still be a good Christian or a good Muslim," he said.
Malaysian yoga teacher Suleiha Merican, 56, who has been practicing yoga for 40 years, also denied there is any Hindu spiritual element to it. "It's a great health science that is scientifically proven and many countries have accepted it" as alternative therapy, said Merican, a Muslim.
Associated Press writer Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur and Muneeza Naqvi in New Delhi contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-11-22 14:33:54

Todd Friel's Absurd Comments About Brian MacLaren

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Commentary:

At 0:54 Brian says that he is a plethora of denominations as truly Jesus is not limited to our denominational identity---I don't see why Todd thinks that's so wacky.

At 1:45 Brian explains that Jesus and truth aren't limited to Christianity as Jesus is truly Lord of all regardless of their beliefs. (See John 4:1-15 and TheoPoetic Musings: Intensive Gospel Study: John 4)--also, see this video:

---apparently Todd doesn't agree that Jesus is Lord of all. Also in 2:19 Brian believes in the orthodox view of holistic truth---apparently Todd heretical-ly rejects holistic truth.

At 2:46 Todd once again fixated on judging others' beliefs brings up hell---though I can agree with Todd that hell is a real theological concept---we still mustn't judge others beliefs just as Jesus didn't tell the Samaritan woman that she was going to hell for not believing as the Judean Jews did.

At 3:33 once again Todd speaks nonsense---dominioninism and Kingdom theology are not one in the same. Kingdom theology is putting the Lord's Prayer in action. Todd and his cohorts at Way Of The Master are dominionists trying to coerce people into buying into their conservative political views such as their anti-evolution/anti-abortion in all cases ideologies by setting guilt traps---see http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/10/14/october-14-2008-hour-2/ for example. Brian is not a dominionist and he is correct Jesus spoke more about life here on earth rather than an afterlife.

Todd at 3:36-4:10 misconstrues the Gospel as being about 3 propositions only, which he says scripture states---but he is wrong of course---scripture states that Jesus alone is the Gospel. Preaching, repentance and faith are means to viewing the Gospel (Jesus) but not the only means---Todd left out love, service, prayer, etc. Also---Luke 4.18-19, quoting from Isaiah 61 states:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

Brian in 4:12-5:56 raises the issue of redemptive violence in the act of crucifixion which is a valid assessment---even if I don't entirely agree with his conclusions as Jesus willing sacrificed Himself in the face of evil and the world's violence. Todd however arrogantly chastises Brian by saying atonement by blood is the only way which eventhough I believe in blood atonement---I believe people are free to question the necessity of such a violent act of forgiveness. However, Todd's beef is not that but Brian's support of the Christus Victor view of the atonement (which is what the Early Church believed and is supported by scripture ie. I Corinthians 15: 53-58) rather than the Penal Substitutionary view of atonement, which Todd idolizes, because John Calvin first formulated the theory in it's present day form (by reading in legal terms into the bible---because Calvin was trained first as a lawyer before becoming a Magisterial Reformer).

In 6:46-7:31, Todd as usual appealing to Charles Spurgeon (who believed in the Calvinist heresy of individual predestination) to try to somehow prove that Brian is a heretic. It's interesting considering Todd's heretical fungelical teachings such as: that all sins are sins of the flesh fighting against the spirit/the flesh is evil, which is nothing short of Neo-Manichaeism and semi-Docetism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are your thoughts?

Israel Considering Saudi Peace Deal

Israel Considering Saudi Peace Deal
By ARON HELLER, AP
posted: 23 HOURS 28 MINUTES AGOcomments: 252filed under: World News(Oct. 19) -

Israeli leaders are seriously considering a dormant Saudi plan offering a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world in exchange for lands captured during the 1967 war, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Sunday.
Barak said it may be time to pursue an overall peace deal for the region because individual negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians have made little progress.

Barak said he has discussed the Saudi plan with Prime Minister-designate Tzipi Livni, who is in the process of forming a new government, and that Israel is considering a response. Barak, who leads the Labor party, is expected to play a senior role in the next government.
Livni's office refused to comment on her talks with Barak.
Saudi Arabia first proposed the peace initiative in 2002, offering pan-Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured in 1967 — the West Bank, Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The 22-member Arab League endorsed the plan last year.
Israel has said the plan is a good basis for discussion, but expressed some reservations.
"There is definitely room to introduce a comprehensive Israeli plan to counter the Saudi plan that would be the basis for a discussion on overall regional peace," Barak told Israel's Army Radio.
He noted the "deep, joint interest" with moderate Arab leaders in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and limiting the influence of the radical Islamic Hezbollah movement in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Analyst Ghassan Khatib, a former minister in the Palestinian Cabinet, said interest in the plan was "a little bit late" but welcome.

"I strongly believe that the Arab initiative is the best approach to peace between the Arabs and the Israelis," he said. "It fulfills all the legitimate objectives of Israel and those of the Palestinians and at the same time it has this regional dimension and it reflects one of the rare issues on which Arabs have consensus."
While Israel's outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has welcomed the Saudi plan, he and other leaders want to keep small parts of the territories captured in 1967. Israel also objects to language that appears to endorse a large-scale return of Palestinian refugees to lands inside Israel. Israel says a massive influx of Palestinians would destroy the country's Jewish character.
Yuval Steinitz, an Israeli lawmaker from the conservative opposition Likud Party and a member of parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that for Israel, the Saudi plan is a nonstarter and called Barak's remarks "an empty political gesture."
"It doesn't recognize Israel's right to defensible borders ... (and) demands Palestinian refugees settle in the Jewish state as well as the Palestinian state, which is totally unacceptable," he said.
Israel's ceremonial president, Shimon Peres, proposed putting Israel's various peace talks on one track last month at the United Nations, calling on Saudi King Abdullah to "further his initiative." He has since been pushing the idea in meetings with Israeli, Arab and Western officials, his office said.
While Peres has no formal role in Israeli foreign policy, he is a Nobel peace laureate and well respected in the international community.

In Sunday's interview, Barak said he was in full agreement with Peres.
"I had the impression that there is indeed an openness to explore any path, including this one," he said of his talks with Livni.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted that pursuing the Saudi peace initiative did not necessarily undermine the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians and he encouraged Israel to pursue this track.
"I think Israel should have done this since 2002. It is the most strategic initiative that came from the Arab world since 1948," he said. "I urge them to revisit this initiative and to go with it because it will shorten the way to peace."
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Sunday that he would meet with Olmert on Oct. 27. The two leaders have been meeting regularly this year, to assess progress in peace talks.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-10-19 13:38:29

Perhaps this will be a step forward for progress in the Middle East. Peace is achievable if both parties are willing to set aside their differences and start pursuing commonalities. I can already hear Fungelical Zionists like Tim LaHaye impede this progress with conspiracy theories about a One World Government/Religion and a literal Anti-Christ figure (instead of figurative anti-christs as the only references to any type of anti-Christ are in I and II John, one of which is in a plural case) though.

See also: Obsession "Stars" Have Lectured at U.S. Military Colleges; U.S. Navy Uses Film, Tim LaHaye says Allah is not God, Fundaresentalism, Did Tim LaHaye Just Call Israelis "Not-To-Be-Trusted Yids?", http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/ivp.html, Christian Zionism---an even handed overview, Professor Mark Chmiel on Christian Zionism and Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism.

Another Shark "Virgin Birth"

A blacktip shark, like the one pictured here, is the second documented case of a female shark becoming pregnant without the aid of a male shark.


So apparently another shark gave birth to a shark pup without the aid of "genetic material from a male." Here is the full article from AOL News:

Aquarium's 'Virgin' Shark Was Pregnant By STEVE SZKOTAK, AP
posted: 5 HOURS 42 MINUTES AGOcomments: 173filed under: Animal News, Science NewsPrintShareText SizeAAARICHMOND, Va. (Oct. 10) - Scientists have confirmed the second case of a "virgin birth" in a shark.
In a study reported Friday in the Journal of Fish Biology, scientists said DNA testing proved that a pup carried by a female Atlantic blacktip shark in the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center contained no genetic material from a male.

The first documented case of asexual reproduction, or parthenogenesis, among sharks involved a pup born to a hammerhead at an Omaha, Neb., zoo.
"This first case was no fluke," Demian Chapman, a shark scientist and lead author of the second study, said in a statement. "It is quite possible that this is something female sharks of many species can do on occasion."
The aquarium sharks that reproduced without mates each carried only one pup, while some shark species can produce litters numbering in the dozen or more. The scientists cautioned that the rare asexual births should not be viewed as a possible solution to declining global shark populations.
"It is very unlikely that a small number of female survivors could build their numbers up very quickly by undergoing virgin birth," Chapman said.
The medical mystery began 16 months ago after the death of the Atlantic blacktip shark named Tidbit at the Virginia Beach aquarium. No male blacktip sharks were present during her eight years at the aquarium.
In May 2007, the 5-foot, 94-pound shark died of stress-related complications related to her unknown pregnancy after undergoing a yearly checkup. The 10-inch shark pup was found during a necropsy of Tidbit, surprising aquarium officials. They initially thought the embryonic pup was either a product of a virgin birth or a cross between the blacktip and a male of another shark species — which has never been documented, Chapman said.
Tidbit's pup was nearly full term, and likely would have been quickly eaten by "really big sand tiger sharks" that were in the tank, Chapman said in a telephone interview from Florida.

That is what happened to the tiny hammerhead pup in the Omaha case.
"By the time they could realize what they were looking at, something munched the baby," he said of aquarium workers. The remains of the pup were used for the DNA testing.
Virgin birth has been proven in some bony fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, and has been suspected among sharks in the wild. The scientists who studied the Virginia and Nebraska sharks said the newly formed pups acquired one set of chromosomes when the mother's chromosomes split during egg development, then united anew.
Absent the chromosomes present in the male sperm, the offspring of an asexual conception have reduced genetic diversity and, the scientists said, may be at a disadvantage for surviving in the wild. A pup, for instance, can be more susceptible to congenital disorders and diseases.
The scientists said their findings offer "intriguing questions" about how frequently automictic parthenogenesis occurs in the wild.
"It is possible that parthenogenesis could become more common in these sharks if population densities become so low that females have trouble finding mates," said Mahmood Shivji, one of the scientists and director of the Guy Harvey Research Institute at Nova Southeastern University in Florida.
The DNA fingerprinting techniques used by the scientists are identical to those used in human paternity testing.
Chapman, who is with the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook, was assisted in the study by Beth Firchau of the Virginia Aquarium.
Chapman and Shivji were on the team that made the first discovery of virgin birth involving the Nebraska shark.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-10-10 00:01:59

Based on these scientific findings, here is my satire of a Fundamentalist/Bible Literalist shark's reaction to the event:

Shark Press: "So Mr. Sharkingswell what are your feelings about Virginia Mary Blacktip's virgin birth?

Sharky Sharkingswell: "It was a literal event, of course, for it was described in Sharkysaiah 7:14. And as we know Joseph Blacktip didn't "know" Mary, so of course we should believe the Holy Shark Bible says what it means and that the only way for Shark Jesus to be born is for Mary to literally be a virgin in the sense of sexual abstinence."

Shark Press: "But isn't the Sharkebrew word in Sharkysaiah used, almah, which literally means "young woman" and isn't the original context of the word virgin---"general purity?"

Sharky Sharkingswell: "I don't care about that or what Shark-bible scholars say. The Shark-bible is clear and says that Joseph was shocked about Virgina Mary's pregnancy and that's what the Institutionalized Shark-church teaches."

Shark Press: "But don't you find it fishy that Joseph and Mary were traveling/living together before marriage which was/is considered sinful?"

Sharky Sharkingswell: "No that's just foolish rebellious teenage talk everyone knows to doubt the Shark-made dogmas of the institutionalized shark-church and expose their origins and the misinterpretations of the shark-bible for what they are is to doubt Great White, our Shark-God. You should read G. K. Sharkerton's Orthosharky or Ravi Sharkarias' Can Sharks Live Without Great White? for they know what they are talking about."

Shark Press: "So there you have it, Mr. Sharky Sharkswell's take on the birth of our Shark-Messiah, Shark-Jesus, Son Of Virginia Mary and Joseph and Son Of Great White, our Shark-God."

Southern Baptist Scholar Links Spouse Abuse to Wives' Refusal to Submit to Their Husbands

Bruce Ware, Professor of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

This news is old, but since I'm late on the Blogging scene, I thought I'd repost this article by way of my friend, Christina Whitehouse-Sugg's Facebook note even if it has been Blogged about several times I wish to offer my response:

You've got to be KIDDING me!!!Share
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 10:34am
I heard about this last week but simply couldn't believe it...I should've known better. For those of you who haven't kept up to date on Southern Baptist theology lately, here's one of their most prominent theologians arguing that husbands beat their wives because the women aren't submissive as the Bible says they should be.

I feel sick to my stomach.

The text is copied below, but here's the link:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Southern Baptist Scholar Links Spouse Abuse to Wives' Refusal to Submit to Their Husbands

Bob Allen
06-27-08

One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar said Sunday in a Texas church.

Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said women desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin.

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches," Ware said from the pulpit of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas.

In North Texas for a series of sermons at the church on "Biblical Manhood & Womanhood," Ware described his "complementarian" view as what "Southern Seminary as a whole represents."

Commenting on selected passages from the first three chapters of Genesis, Ware said Eve's curse in the Garden of Eden meant "her desire will be to have her way" instead of her obeying her husband, "because she's a sinner."

What that means to the man, Ware said, is: "He will have to rule, and because he's a sinner, this can happen in one of two ways. It can happen either through ruling that is abusive and oppressive--and of course we all know the horrors of that and the ugliness of that--but here's the other way in which he can respond when his authority is threatened. He can acquiesce. He can become passive. He can give up any responsibility that he thought he had to the leader in the relationship and just say 'OK dear,' 'Whatever you say dear,' 'Fine dear' and become a passive husband, because of sin."

Ware said God created men and women equally in God's image but for different roles.

"He has primary responsibility for the work and the labor and the toil that will provide for the family, that will sustain their family," he said. "He's the one in charge of leadership in the family, and that will become difficult, because of sin."

Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women "shall be saved in childbearing," by noting that the word translated as "saved" always refers to eternal salvation.

"It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as--for the most part, generally this is true--as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men," Ware said. "Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."

Ware cited gender roles as one example of churches compromising and reforming doctrines to accommodate to culture.

"It really has been happening for about the past 30 years, ever since the force of the feminist movement was felt in our churches," Ware said.

He said one place the "egalitarian" view--the notion that males and females were created equal not only in essence but also in function--crops up is in churches that allow women to be ordained and become pastors.

Ware said gender is not theologically the most important issue facing the church, but it is one where Christians are most likely to compromise, because of pressure from the culture.

"The calling to be biblically faithful will mean upholding some truths in our culture that they despise," he said. "How are we going to respond to that? We are faced with a huge question at that point. Will we fear men and compromise our faith to be men-pleasers, or will we fear God and be faithful to his word--whatever other people think or do?"

Ware offered 10 reasons "for affirming male headship in the created order." They include that man was created first and that woman was created "out of" Adam in order to be his "helper." Even though the woman sinned first, Ware said, God came to Adam and held him primarily responsible for failure to exercise his God-given authority.

Ware also said male/female relationships are modeled in the Trinity, where in the Godhead the Son "eternally submits" to the Father.

"If it's true that in the Trinity itself--in the eternal relationships of Father, Son and Spirit, there is authority and submission, and the Son eternally submits to the will of the Father--if that's true, then this follows: It is as Godlike to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is Godlike to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority."

Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.

Copyright © 2002-2008 EthicsDaily.com

And here were my responses on her note:

Ben Currin wrote
at 1:21am on July 17th, 2008
Yeah, I just saw that on another messageboard---it seems consistent with the fundamentalist calvinazi thinking of today. Check out: http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/only-men-shine-with-the-direct-light-of-god-john-macarthur-on-women/, http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Extraordinary-Women-Shaped-Bible/dp/0785262563/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b or even worse: http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Women-Macarthur-Bible-Studies/dp/0802453082/ref=sr_1_63?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216270239&sr=1-63, http://www.amazon.com/Exemplary-Husband-Biblical-Perspective/dp/1885904312/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216271870&sr=1-10 and http://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Wife-Biblical-Perspective/dp/1885904088/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b .

Ben Currin wrote
at 1:26am on July 17th, 2008
Review of The Excellent Wife: A Biblical Perspective:

77 of 142 people found the following review helpful:
Quotes Scripture Out of Context - Unbiblical, March 6, 2002
By Caralen Haymans - See all my reviews

I'm a 24 year old single Christian woman who has been a Christian for about 9 years. I recently started reading books on a woman's role in the Christian life. I was very emotional throughout the entire book because of the poor women who read this book deserve something better. Most women probably don't read the Bible while they are reading this book, so they probably don't realize that the author is ripping passages out of context. One example: she believes that it is easier for women to sin than men by quoting a passage about Eve being deceived and Adam not.
She instructs women to do everything their husbands say, even in questionable circumstances. The Bible says that we are not supposed to sin against our consciences and that other Christians are not supposed to ask us to do so.
The book puts husbands at such a lofty level - way above friendship and companionship. I am afraid that women will think that they will have to "worship" him and walk on eggshells around him.
The book says that women will have to have sex with their husbands whenever (and however) he wants to whether I want to or not, and to just "grin and bear it" or, as the author puts it, "suffer for righteousness sake".
Ben Currin wrote
at 1:27am on July 17th, 2008

This book, I sincerely believe, elevates husbands too high - and makes him an idol. This book does NOT leave the reader with the idea that marriage is a partnership. It left the impression that the worth of a woman is somewhere in-between a child and a slave. Wives must ask permission to do *anything* (including how to dress and wear their hair) and must do *everything* a husband says unless the Bible specifically says not to. Even in questionable situations - because "the husband always knows best".
If this is what marriage is supposed to be (a union between a master and a slave), I want no part in it. I want my marriage to be a union between friends (who aren't afraid to speak differing opinions) and equals before God.
Also, I don't like to be accused of being a "weak Christian" or in "rebellion" whenever I disagree with the author.

Ben Currin wrote
at 3:26am on July 19th, 2008
http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund204.html

Ben Currin wrote
at 3:33am on July 19th, 2008
I read somewhere about some church that had to have male heads for female sunday school classes......crazy stuff.

Ben Currin wrote
at 3:57am on July 19th, 2008
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:kHnz-7b95jgJ:www.ethicsdaily.com/doclib/upload/Queen-Jimmy_Carter_Was_Not_Alone.doc+Pastor+Mike+Queen,+First+Baptist+Church+Wilmington,+North+Carolina&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30&gl=us

Also, check out this site:

Mary Hollings Whitehouse (Raleigh / Durham, NC) wrote
at 7:53am on July 17th, 2008
http://talibanrising.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-men-married-to-brotherhood.html

We might all end up on with our names on a list for reading this one, but it makes some good points.