History tends to hide the ufortunate and unmentionable facts relating to people that become heroic or famous. Fortunately, it is usually possible to find the odd bit here and there – and that is what this list is about. Below are ten people who are either famous or infamous with obscure or scandalous facts about them. This is our ten little known (and often scandalous) facts about historic figures.
Fact: Hitler was a tax evader
Recent research into papers relating to Hitler has uncovered the fact that when he became chancellor of Germany in 1934 he had evaded paying 405,500 million Reichsmarks in tax (6.3 million USD in today’s currency). Fortunately for Hitler, he was forgiven his tax debts when he was elected. It is believed that he earned 1.2 million Reichsmarks for sales of Mein Kampf alone, and avoided paying 600,000 Reichsmarks in tax on it. The official who forgave Hitler’s tax debt was “rewarded” with a 2,000 Reichsmarks per month tax free allowance (a huge amount considering teachers at the time were paid 4,800 per annum).
Fact: Churchill was racist
Sir Winston Churchill is so highly regarded for his skills as an orator and statesman that he was voted Britain’s greatest individual by the BBC in 2002. There is no doubt that his speech writing is a class above virtually every other modern writer of English speeches, and we are all familiar with at least one or two of his famous quotations, but what many people don’t know is that he also had a dark side. The best way to illustrate that is to let the man speak for himself:
“I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.” -Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937
“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” – Writing as president of the Air Council.
“First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them…In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their fathers…This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation…has steadily growing” — Writing on ‘Zionism versus Bolshevism’ in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920
Fact: Gandhi was a dirty old man
At the age of 36, whilst married, Gandhi decided to become celibate in order to achieve a state of enlightenment (through the Hindu religion). As he got older, he became more and more fascinated with sex to the point that, second only to non-violence, it was the subject he most talked about. In order to “perfect” his celibate state, Gandhi would sleep naked with young naked women. One of the women was the 16 year old wife of his grand-nephew Kanu Gandhi. When he wanted to share his bed with his 19 year old grandniece Manu Gandhi, he wrote to her father and told him that they were sharing a bed so that he could “correct her sleeping posture”. When his stenographer R. P. Parasuram found him sleeping naked with Manu, he resigned in disgust.
Fact: Washington cleverly tricked congress into paying him obscene amounts of money
First of all, this is what elementary schools teach about Washington: “Later, in 1775, at age 43, Washington was appointed military advisor for New York, defending it from British attack. A few weeks later he was appointed Commander-and-Chief of the entire American army. He did not ask for this position, and did not even ask to be paid for it. [...] The most important reason George was asked to be president was that he was very honest, and people both trusted and admired him. He was the most trusted, admired, and respected man in the whole country.”
Unfortunately what they miss entirely is the fact that he turned down a salary of what would have amounted to a little over 1,000 per month, but said: “Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.”
And then the shopping began:
- To cash paid for Sadlery, a Letter Case, Maps, Glasses, &c &c &c. for the use of my Command… $831.45
- To sundry Exp.’s paid by myself at different times and places… on the Retreat of the Army thro’ the Jerseys into Pennsylvania & while there… $3,776
- From September 1775 to March 1776, Washington spent over six thousand dollars on liquor
In eight years, by turning down a salary and taking an expense account, instead of being paid around $12,000, he was paid $449,261.51 in 1780 dollars (around $4,250,000.00 in today’s money).
Washington, being a clever man, tried the same ploy when he was elected President but he was turned down and given a set salary of $25,000 per year. You can view scans of Washington’s expense account at the Library of Congress.
Fact: Martin Luther was an anti-semite
Martin Luther, the famous Monk who started the protestant reformation, is often touted as a hero for standing up against excesses in the Catholic Church at the time, but what most people don’t know is that he was violently anti-Jewish and he made no secret of it. In 1543, he wrote “On The Jews And Their Lies”, in which he recommends that Jews be deprived of money, civil rights, religious teaching, and education, and that they be forced to labor on the land, or else be expelled from Germany and possibly killed (sound like someone familiar from more recent times?) He referred to the Jews as a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.” He said that Jews were “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,” and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut …” [Source]
He also put together an eight point plan to get rid of the Jews:
- “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”
- “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. …”
- “Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. …”
- “Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. …”
- “Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. …”
- “Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. … Such money should now be used in … the following [way]… Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]…”
- “Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
- “If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.” [Source: Luther, On the Jews, 47:268-288, 292.]
Fact: Jefferson preached against whites having children with blacks, whilst doing that very thing and denying his offspring
Jefferson said “the amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of the excellence in the human character, can innocently consent.” Whilst preaching this rubbish, he had several children with his slave Sally Hemings who happened to be the illegitimate half-sister sister of his wife. While the rumours were around during their lifetime (which Jefferson implicitly denied), it was not until recent times that DNA testing proved that at least one of Hemings’ children was indeed fathered by Jefferson. In a letter to Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith dated July 1, 1805, Jefferson also admitted to having tried to seduce his married neighbor Betsey Walker.
Fact: Einstein was a philanderer
Einstein is perhaps the greatest mind of the 20th century and he and his most famous formular E=MC^2 are known by virtually everyone. Most people know he had a passion for the violin and that he started out life as a clerk in a patent office; but what most people don’t know, is that he cheated on both of his wives repeatedly. After splitting up with his first wife (because of his infidelity), he married his cousin Elsa. Shortly after that he had an affair with his secretary Betty Neumann. In a new volume of letters held by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Einstein described about six women with whom he spent time and from whom he received gifts while being married to Elsa. [Source]
Fact: Elvis was unhealthily obsessed with James Dean
Elvis exhibited many compulsive/obsessive qualities throughout his life which both helped and hindered his personal and public life. One of the areas that Elvis wanted to excel in was acting. He wanted to be the next James Dean and as a result was obsessed with Dean. He anguished over the fact that the roles he was given in movies were not (in his mind) substantial. Elvis knew all the words to “Rebel Without A Cause” that featured James Dean and Natalie Wood. Elvis sought out Wood because of her connection to James Dean. That relationship ended when Natalie came to visit Graceland and Elvis’ mother Gladys (who was domineering and jealous) drove Natalie away. Natalie confided to her sister Lana that “he can sing, but he can’t do much else”. The obsession with Dean led Elvis to intentionally befriend Nick Adams – a very close friend of Dean’s before he died and since his death rumors abound that Adams had a sexual relationship with both Dean and Elvis. [Source]
Fact: Vice-President Andrew Johnson took his presidential oath whilst completely drunk
Andrew Johnson was the Vice-President during Lincoln’s reign. He had a strong disliking for the aristocracy whom he thought were there by the labor of the poor such as his own family. “Glassy-eyed and smelling of whiskey, he reminded Congress, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, and pretty much everyone within hearing distance that they owed their positions to “plebeians” such as himself, then kissed the Bible and staggered away”. In response, the New York Times said “To think that one frail life stands between this insolent, clownish creature and the presidency! May God bless and spare Abraham Lincoln!” History shows us that God didn’t spare Lincoln and Johnson eventually became president. His presidency was such a disaster that congress tried to impeach him twice – successfully on the second attempt! He avoided being fired by just one vote.
Fact: Pope Pius IX Kidnapped a Jewish child and had him raised as a Catholic
On the evening of 23 June 1858, in Bologna, then part of the Papal States, police arrived at the home of a Jewish couple, Salomone (“Momolo”) and Marianna Padovani Mortara, to seize one of their eight children, six-year-old Edgardo, and transport him to Rome to be raised as a ward of the state. The police had orders from Holy Office authorities in Rome, authorized by Pope Pius IX. Church officials had been told that a 14-year-old Catholic servant girl of the Mortaras, Anna Morisi, had baptized Edgardo while he was ill because she feared that he would otherwise die and go to Hell. Acorrding to Catholic Church doctrine, Edgardo’s baptism, even if illegal under canon law, was valid and made him a Christian. Under the canon law, non-Christians could not raise a Christian child, even their own. Edgardo was taken to a house for Catholic converts in Rome, maintained at state expense. His parents were not allowed to see him for several weeks, and then not alone. Pius IX took a personal interest in the case, and all appeals to the Church were rebuffed. Church authorities told the Mortaras that they could have Edgardo back if they abandoned their faith and converted to Catholicism, but they refused.
Despite international protests (including those from the United States government), Pope Pius IX did not relinquish Edgardo who eventually went on to become a priest. He was also a vehement supporter of the Vatican taking the first steps towards making Pius IX a saint. You can read his testimony here and you can see the incorrupt corpse of Blessed Pius IX here (his face has a protective mask of silver on which is removed for veneration).






















May 27th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Most of these people represent a better time in society. a time when there was mutual respect for another being. when it was normal to care for someone else. Now, we seem to be a lost & confused society & species. It is truly sad
May 27th, 2009 at 1:40 am
plum13sec has to be a troll. Seriously, this list is basically showing how royally screwed up things were back then.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:44 am
“Ghandi was a dirty old man”…i laughed at that
)) but reading what Martin Luther said about Jews looks an awfull lot alike what Hitler later did….very interesting list JFrater
May 27th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Gandhi was a dirty old man… I like that.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I really don’t care for faults related to affairs of the heart. Unless one is a child molester, who cares. I don’t. Let the tabloids deal with those. Surely you can find matters of more substance to list, eh?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Hitler was a tax evader?! Tut, what a cheeky scamp he was…
May 27th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Elvis was unhealthily obsessed with James Dean, I’m unhealthily obsessed with Listverse, so what?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Weird…. I was just reading how Churchill’s grandson is disgusted and offended by the BNP (British National Party) using his grandfather’s name and image for their own propaganda. He said that if his grandfather was still alive he would be outraged but reading this it seems like that might not be the case.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:51 am
@joe mama: i can subcribe to that as well
) when i first discovered this site, i spent a day i think…reading all the lists here
) so my friend, you are not alone
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 am
very shocking for me..
May 27th, 2009 at 2:01 am
interesting.
Another one is that abraham lincoln was racist (by todays standards.)
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
ps you’re missing an n in the introduction
May 27th, 2009 at 2:02 am
This is a great list.. Never knew about Churchill! And I just had to laugh at the Ghandi story
“Dirty Old Man”.
Nice one JFrater!
May 27th, 2009 at 2:05 am
@sam sung
Yet you see Martin Luther King Jr standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial delivering his I have a Dream speech.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 am
#2 Andrew Johnson was drunk at inauguration?
Not surprising if you go by the picture provided. That guy looks like a drunk angry old man who will throw down at the drop of a hat.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:37 am
@ jordan g… as far as i am aware i am not a troll. I seem to fit the mold of a human being. but maybe my perception of reality is just my mind stroking my extremely fragile ego so im not faced with the horrible realization that i am a dungeons & dragons creature. and have no friends.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:37 am
only human
May 27th, 2009 at 2:41 am
History teacher once told us about Gandhi’s weird dirty ways. Thats the only thing I remember from Indian history…
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Maybe the list should be re-named “list of controversial subjects that will create a large comment count”
Many people believe that Hitler was a vegetarian, this is ridiculous given that his personal cook conducted an interview stating that one of Hitlers favourite meals included wurst. Which i’m sure as many know is a German sausage.
JF I love this site, more often than not it is an in depth site showing fantastic facts that many dont realise or indeed believe.
However this one, just seems to “beg” comments due to contoversy.
I love to read the lists here and have done so for a long time.
I was also slightly saddened by your anti “first post” message yesterday. Surely as the owner of a site that recieves so many hits you should be flattered by this? I saw a list the other day that had (at the time) 800 or so comments.
Dont get me wrong, I enjoy the site immensely but just because someone is happy to have a first post on one of the most excellent sites online I think it is unfair to persecute them.
No doubt I shall be “troll” labeled but at least I have spoken my mind
keep up the good work
Z
May 27th, 2009 at 2:52 am
the problem is, comments like “first” are usually made my people who don’t even read the lists and dont at all add to the conversation.
if you read the list and make a decent point about it, then add “first” at the start or end of your comment, im sure jfrater wouldnt mind.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Great list. Made me chuckle. Although I don’t think that Hitler evading taxes is much of a scandal compared to, well, almost everything else he did during his political life.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:07 am
A scandalous or obscure fact about jfrater, please? Tax evasion, sleeping with teenaged girls, swearing while drunk? Huh, huh, huh?? ‘Fess up!!!!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Now that was a cool list! Interesting to know what they don’t teach us at school.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:08 am
I’m sorry, but what is with the recent trend of ‘let’s be trashy for attention tabloid-ism’? Listverse can do better than this.
A lot of the factoids here are taken totally out of context- the Gandhi mention is extremely insulting and completely misrepresents the entire point of what he was doing. Gandhi wasn’t a ‘dirty old man’ any more than ‘HEY DID YOU KNOW JESUS CHRIST LIKED TO SPEND TIME WITH WHORES’ because of Mary Magdelane.
The point on Martin Luther, as well, is misrepresented bcause it lacks a larger context. His anti-semitism was not a particular focus on the Jews but rather an example of the state of Christian demonization of ‘any’ non Christian religion- the fact of the matter is that Jews comprised the next major demographic in the populace and thus became the main group to demonize. Martin Luther would have targetted the Muslims, or Buddhists, if they had been more prevalent than the Jews in his society, with just the same ferocity. Look up his writings on pagans and you will see.
That means he is not by-and-by a true anti-semite, but an expression of his organized religion’s complete intolerance of ANY non-believer or outside religious group. Jews just happened to be the demographic target- if there were more Muslims than Jews, he would not have ignored the Muslims and still focused all of his xenophobia towards the Jews- and if he did, that would have made him an actual anti-semite. He was simply persecuting whever happened to be in the firing line- and would do the same to pagans, Hindus, or any others.
Gandhi had no sexual congress with the young women he slept in the same bed with, and this is in a culture where much younger women were commonly married off in arranged marriages to older men. Gandhi’s actions were an example of the exact OPPOSITE of being a dirty old man- he was showing he was living proof that a man could restrain himself- even in the face of immediate temptation. He did what he did to show men that they could control theselves as well. It’s insulting to have someone go and try to twist that into the exact opposite and you are either misinformed or should be ashamed of yourself.
It’s sad to see listverse is heading towards the ‘controversy tabloids for ratings’ mentality. I hope it gets curtailed before the only viewers you have left are visiting the site in between shows on Fox News and waiting for their copy of the Weekly World News to arrive.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:09 am
My thoughts on the list:
#10- Hitler was a tax evader? OHOH.. Now I *really* hate him!!
#9- Churchill was racist? Yeah just like all colonial british were… dah!
#8- Gahndi was a dirty old man? He was a middle aged man who lived dirt poor and had no sex… all of them are! Hobos!
#7- George Washington tricked congress? Yeah… he was the only one!! Sigh!!
#6- Martin Luther was an anti-semite? He lived in the 16th century… all non jewish were anti-semite at the time! In-qui-si-tion?
#5- Thomas Jefferson? He was an american president of course he was shady!! dah!
#4- Einstein was like a rock star… its obvious he was unfaithful! Imagine being the most famous brain in the world and humping only 1 vaj? Come on the man was a genius!
#3- Elvis was the reincarnation of James Dean… everyone knows that!
#2- Andrew Johnson wasnt the only one to take the oath while drunk… remember Nixon, Reagan, BUSH!! Its part of the protocol for the president to be drunk!
#1- Yeah lets all act surprised that a catholic priest or pope kidnapped a young boy!! Sigh!!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:12 am
24. Travis – May 27th, 2009 at 3:09 am “humping only 1 vaj” ?!?!?
lmao oh god you are now my favourite person for the day.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Awesome list.
I hope there’s more to come. I really enjoy reading your lists!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:22 am
what is the source of so called Mahatma Gandhi scandal
May 27th, 2009 at 3:29 am
it just shows that even the most respected and admired people have a dark side to them and we just keep getting worse as the years go by
May 27th, 2009 at 3:42 am
@risingfalls:
unless you were being sarcastic, Martin Luther King Jr. never said anything about Jews. it was Martin Luther, a protestant priest that lived during the middle ages the preached about the Jews.
plus, it wouldn’t make any sense for someone that is fighting for their own peoples freedom to be racist to another group of people. that would be hypocracy. (sp?)
May 27th, 2009 at 3:50 am
magicman:
* Birkett, Dea; Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Lloyd I Rudolph (1987). Gandhi: The Traditional Roots of Charisma. Orient Longman. p. 56. ISBN 0002160056.
* Caplan, Pat; Patricia Caplan (1987). The Cultural construction of sexuality. Routledge. p. 278. ISBN 0415040132.
* Tidrick, Kathryn (2007). Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life. I.B.Tauris. pp. 302–304. ISBN 1845111664.
Mr Graves: It does not state anywhere in the Bible or early Christian writing that Margy Magdalene was a prostitute. You can read more about that myth here: Top 10 Misconceptions About The Bible.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:51 am
wasn’t really surprised about any but gandhi
May 27th, 2009 at 3:54 am
wow.
the first great list in ages.
MORE LIKE THIS
May 27th, 2009 at 4:04 am
ZedroZ – Hitler wasn’t a veggie but he avoided meat because it gave him stomach problems, so it’s not ridiculous that some people think he was a vegetarian.
Mr Graves – yeah but surely Gandhi could’ve shown he could restrain himself even better by not having naked women in his bed at all?? And put yourself in the position of a 16yr old girl having to share a bed with a naked old man…
May 27th, 2009 at 4:07 am
Interesting stuff. Adding to the Gandhi information, he was also well known to give and receive enemas… on a daily basis. I believe there is footage of him doing so to a young nun (although I could be wrong about that). More information when I find it.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:11 am
I alway knew Hitler was an arsehole, but i could never quite prove it….until now!!
May 27th, 2009 at 4:19 am
This is the best I could find about Gandhi:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Who does the Gandhi story remind u of? A famous guy who claims to have shared is bed with little boys but did nothing wrong, yep Michael Jackson of course.
To prove his point Gandhi could have simply stayed away from women/girls, what point is he proving by sleeping right next to girls? Why does he have to be naked? He is a dirty old man.
I think celibacy should be banned from all religions. It leads to nothing but paedophilia, homosexuality and what Mr. Gandhi is alleged to have done.
Why do so many people hate the Jews, I wonder…
May 27th, 2009 at 4:32 am
I agree with Tomo, celibacy in religion is just wrong. There is nothing in the Bible (for example) to suggest that celibacy is at all necessary.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Great list!
Its really disappointing to know that ghandi was a pervert
May 27th, 2009 at 4:43 am
You need a correction: Andrew Johnson was Lincoln’s veep for only a matter of months. Hanibal Hamlin was his veep the first four years.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:46 am
23. Mr.Graves–It’s sad to see listverse is heading towards the ‘controversy tabloids for ratings’ mentality.
I check Listverse daily, for the pleasure of a new list, and to see what has been submitted for perusal.
Check the comments count–on a week-by-week selection of lists there are actually very few lists that bring on the type of comments count that you accuse the site of.
Now about the lists that do bring on the high comment count that you seem to be contemptive of, you’re right the controversy does become heated and high volumed. Consider this result a reflection of the intelligence and desire to be heard of the vast ListVerse regulars and visitors of the site.
Frolic and bask in the debate of so many well read and outspoken folk.
Appreciate and cherish a site that enables people of so many different and diverse cultures a place to go to exchange viewpoints and help to educate or at least share new trains of thought.
I speak in cliche’s often, (as amatter of fact, I have a LARGE book of international gems of thought and cliche’) but…..
VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE.
Take into consideration another fact about ListVerse. Lists may be submitted by ANYBODY, (Although the final publication is determined by Jamie), and if you feel that the lists are entirely devoted to “tabloid interests”, get off your ass, and submit to the site lists that you feel will more fulfill the lofty, pedantic interests that you feel the site is worthy of. (That is still no guaranty that the comments list will bend to your will.)
Overall–Isn’t a heated “tabloid style” comment debate still more productive than an entire slice of the population spending their time masturbating to the porn sites of the internet? (Even tho that’s fun too?)
May 27th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Ghandi did a lot worse in his life. He let his wife die of pneumonia preventing english medics to inject her a shot of peniciline (Ghandi considered it to be an “alien” medicine. Of course, not much time later, when he contracted malaria, the wise dirty old man accepted the same medicine!
May 27th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Tomo: how can you possibly place pedophilia and homosexuality on the same level?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:52 am
JFrater: You usually love to quote & refer to Wikipedia. Do the same on Gandhi’s celibacy. I am not against Gandhi on this list nor am i hurt by his inclusion.
His peculiar action (going to lengths to prove celibacy) is a fact. But the way it is written throws a wrong picture. Gandhi wasn’t a DIRTY OLD MAN. Gandhi never had sex with these girls. Your writeup implies the opposite. Request you to re-word it.
AAA – I am sorry that you didn’t pay attention to the detail about Gandhi championing India’s independence. His personal behavior, is his own.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:53 am
P.S. I find that often a list at this site will actually make me research the subject matter of a list, whether controversial or just a subject”I’ve been meaning to look up”.
Subsequently I HAVE become more knowledgeable and able to substantiate a viable opinion on previously hazy subjects. Not only does this increase my self esteem and confidence, but it also allows me to become a more informed mentor to my teen children and their friends who DO have a ot of questions asked of me.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Reproducing the wikipedia content (the article on Mahatma Gandhi is a Featured Article – implies that the article is one of the best works of Wikipedia and has gone through intense peer review):
========================================
Towards the end of his life, it became public knowledge that Gandhi had been sharing his bed for a number of years with young women.[40][41] He explained that he did this for bodily warmth at night and termed his actions as “nature cure”. Later in his life he started experimenting with Brahmacharya in order to test his self control. His letter to Birla in April, 1945 referring to ‘women or girls who have been naked with me’ indicates that several women were part of his experiments.[42] Sex became the most talked about subject matter by Gandhi after ahimsa (non-violence) and increasingly so in his later years. He devoted five full editorials in Harijan discussing the practice of Brahmacharya.[43]
As part of these experiments, he initially slept with his women associates in the same room but at a distance. Afterwards he started to lie in the same bed with his women disciples and later took to sleeping naked alongside them.[42] According to Gandhi active-celibacy meant perfect self control in the presence of opposite sex. Gandhi conducted his experiments with a number of women such as Abha, the sixteen-year-old wife of his grandnephew Kanu Gandhi. Gandhi acknowledged “that this experiment is very dangerous indeed”, but thought “that it was capable of yielding great results”.[44] His nineteen-year-old grandniece, Manu Gandhi, too was part of his experiments. Gandhi had earlier written to her father, Jaisukhlal Gandhi, that Manu had started to share his bed so that he may “correct her sleeping posture”.[44] In Gandhi’s view, the experiment of sleeping naked with Manu in Noakhali would help him in contemplating upon Hindu-Muslim unity in India before partition and ease communal tensions. Gandhi saw himself as a mother to these women and would refer to Abha and Manu as “my walking sticks”.
Gandhi called Sarladevi, a married woman with children and a devout follower, his “spiritual wife”. He later said that he had come close to having sexual relations with her.[45] He had told a correspondent in March, 1945 that “sleeping together came with my taking up of bramhacharya or even before that”; he said he had experimented with his wife “but that was not enough”.[44] Gandhi felt satisfied with his experiments and wrote to Manu that “I have successfully practiced the eleven vows taken by me. This is the culmination of my striving for last thirty six years. In this yajna I got a glimpse of the ideal truth and purity for which I have been striving”.
Gandhi had to take criticism for his experiments by many of his followers and opponents. His stenographer, R. P. Parasuram, resigned when he saw Gandhi sleeping naked with Manu.[46] Gandhi insisted that he never felt aroused while he slept beside her, or with Sushila or Abha. “I am sorry” Gandhi said to Parasuram, “you are at liberty to leave me today.” Nirmal Kumar Bose, another close associate of Gandhi, parted company with him in April 1947, post Gandhi’s tour of Noakhali, where some sort of altercation had taken place between Gandhi and Sushila Nayar in his bedroom at midnight that caused Gandhi to slap his forehead. Bose had stated that the nature of his experiments in Bramhacharya still remained unknown and unstated.[46][47]
N. K. Bose, who stayed close to Gandhi during his Noakhali tour, testified that “there was no immorality on part of Gandhi. Moreover Gandhi tried to conquer the feeling of sex by consciously endeavouring to convert himself into a mother of those who were under his care, whether men or women”. Dattatreya Balkrishna Kalelkar, a revolutionary turned disciple of Gandhi, used to say that Gandhi’s “relationships with women were, from beginning to end, as pure as mother’s milk”.[48]
========================================
Jfrater: I know it is your prerogative as to what goes in your website, but don’t tell me that your para on Gandhi gives the reader the same understanding as the wiki article.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:01 am
If only i can extract a dollar whenever i correct folks that it is GANDHI and not GHANDI, i would be a millionaire …
sigh!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Gandhi also used racial terms to describe the Africans when he was in South Africa. he used the word “kaffir” with reckless abandone. Not a good word to show that you are friendly.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:04 am
I would add MLK to the list in that he was an adulterer.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:17 am
I did a little further math upon the figures listed.
Dividing Mr. Washington’s expenses down by 96 months, gives a sum of $4,680 per month.
And doing the math, according to the inflation rate, as outlined in this list, that figure becomes $44,270 per month.
In that light, George Washington can not only be named the “Father of Our Country” but a shining example of why the EXPENSE ACCOUNT method of salary should definitely be avoided.
I wonder if the CEO’s of U.S. industry used this forefather as a business model.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:18 am
“unless you were being sarcastic, Martin Luther King Jr. never said anything about Jews. it was Martin Luther, a protestant priest that lived during the middle ages the preached about the Jews.
plus, it wouldn’t make any sense for someone that is fighting for their own peoples freedom to be racist to another group of people. that would be hypocracy.”
Just to fix a few things you said. Luther was an ex-priest and he lived after the Middle Ages. Luther also learned about the Bible while being constipated in the outhouse. No kidding there. He spent a lot of time there so he read.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:20 am
bobby: if this list were to include famous politicians who committed adultery, this won’t be Listverse, it will be an encyclopedia …
May 27th, 2009 at 5:31 am
I’d love some sources for some of these.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:36 am
“bobby: if this list were to include famous politicians who committed adultery, this won’t be Listverse, it will be an encyclopedia …”
MLK was not a politician. He was not elected to any office. He claimed to be religious yet repeatedly cheated on his wife.
On a side note about him, it is said by his niece that if he was alive today, he would be pro-life. i bet that would piss off a lot of Liberals today.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Great list!! but a bid shocking
May 27th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Wow, it’s amazing how truly great your lists are, Jamie. Good stuff.
In reference to Churchill, I’m a little less-inclined to brand people from earlier times with our modern mark of racism, as they were people of their own times and not ours. Abraham Lincoln is also well-known to have used the infamous “n” word many times in both written and spoken language, but people don’t usually swarm in to brand The Great Emancipator as a racist.
It’s all about perspective.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:39 am
3. belmondine–”reading what Martin Luther said about Jews looks an awfull lot alike what Hitler later did”
It may seem so… upon the first reading.
But if you read through Martin Luther’s ideology concerning Jews, as listed here, you will NOT find that he calls for the extermination of the followers of the Judaic faith.
Please do not let the coincidence of the mention of Germany, albeit unfortunate, be the decisive factor of comparison of Hitler, a sociopath, ugh, to a founder of a religion that exhibits faith in a deity that can inspire much charity on the part of it’s believers.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Gandhi was really a dirty, perverted, sick man
For all those who are making noise, check this article from Professor Gier from Univ of Idaho.
He described everything in lurid detail.
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gantan5000.htm
May 27th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Jesus also didn’t really spend much time with Mary Magdelene, compared to the amount of time he spent with eg Peter, James and John.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Great list,
love the “Gandhi controversy”
Way to go Listverse! Opinionate or die!
But this is confusing me:
“he had evaded paying 405,500 million Reichsmarks in tax (6.3 million USD in today’s currency). Fortunately for Hitler, he was forgiven his tax debts when he was elected. It is believed that he earned 1.2 million Reichsmarks for sales of Mein Kampf alone, and avoided paying 600,000 Reichsmarks in tax on it.”
Something’s off here. If you drop “million” from the paragraph, then he evaded $405,500 in taxes even thought he clearly made at least $1.20 from Mein Kampf.
Not trying to be a troll, just wondering what the numbers are…
and in typing that I realized the answer…
Google it yourself ya wanker!
Sorry Jfra.
great list.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:53 am
“Wow, it’s amazing how truly great your lists are, Jamie. Good stuff.
In reference to Churchill, I’m a little less-inclined to brand people from earlier times with our modern mark of racism, as they were people of their own times and not ours. Abraham Lincoln is also well-known to have used the infamous “n” word many times in both written and spoken language, but people don’t usually swarm in to brand The Great Emancipator as a racist.
It’s all about perspective.”
I would not really call Lincoln an emancipator. He wanted to preserve the union. When he saw that he needed more support and possible soldiers, THEN he made the Proclaimation. It was very political of him.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Well, I just read through all of the replies to my previous comment twice over to make sure I got them and it seems very sad but no one who replied to what I mentioned seems to have gotten it in the slightest… even jfrater.
You know I have a lot of respect for the site and have been coming here for a long, long time… long before it got popular, and my criticisms have always been first and foremost what I felt in my personal view to be in the best interests of the quality of the site and it’s contents. Of course people can differ on what constitutes ‘quality’, that goes without saying.
Jfrater, I’m not even sure why you felt the need to tell me that Mary magdalene wasn’t a prostitute. Don’t you see how that in one way doesn’t even address the issue is not about Jesus but how I was using him as a metaphorical comparison? And on the other hand, the metaphor itself could be interpereted as if you were actually making the argument in favour of what I was saying… because like MM not being a prostitute and the idea of tossing around accusations that Jesus associated with prostitutes just to get some hits on the site, is the same as accusing Gandhi of having lurid intents in his practice. The common thread being neither are true.
I’m sorry, but the list is simply wrong on this one. The facts are incorrect. Gandhi was not what is being implied. I think it would be a professional act, just as if a professional newspaper editor realized a misprint, to simply retract it. It happens. Admitting that in retrospect something should be changed isn’t a failure- it’s a sign of professionalism and confidence.
The thing is- what really bugs me about it- is that this accusation is old and been refuted long in the past, and bringing it up makes the list look amateurish and uninformed- perpeuating urban myth as truth always looks foolish, even with good intent. The ‘Yeah well he got naked with young girls so he’s a perve’ accusation is something I heard in high school fifteen years ago, and everyone I know who has been told the anecedote knows the refutation and why it is wrong.
This site has always been about facts and trivia- opinion is fine but isn’t there a designated area for commenters to debate opinion? ‘Have your say’?
When you present opinions or untruths as facts, you degrade the quality of the site; it becomes a vehicle for personal agendas, determined by who in particular is submitting which list.
In the end, the site owner can do whatever they damned well please. But the site was built up by a consistent objective quality and followers who knew they could depend upon it for accuracy and unbiased, truthful articles. And while the site owner can do what they want, the site still relies on it’s viewership- but it needs to remember to walk an objective line, otherwise it is no better than Fox News. (Which is not news)
Can I have a ‘Ten reasons why New Zealanders are the worst people in humanity?’ or ‘Five examples why men who listen to opera are secretly gay?’ list?
Of course, no. And of course, they are silly exagerations for effect. But the point remains.
Sadly, for the other commenters who replied to what I wrote, I just don’t see anywhere where what I was commenting on being understood or countered with any real validity or foundation, and I’m not going to delve into bickering trivialities when the overall point I was trying to make is missed.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:01 am
And, to quote: ‘Controversy about the practice continued during the summer of 1947, but Gandhi was pleased when two editors of his journal Harijan, who had resigned in protest about the experiments, confessed that they had misjudged Gandhi.’
May 27th, 2009 at 6:02 am
When you think of Hitler you get a feeling how in such an evil man as himself got to the position he is in. It must have been the fear he instilled in people of his time not to mess with his rise to power or be killed. If only he was taken out by somebody before all the killing he caused. The world lost so many innocent people because of him. I can’t understand how anyone could act that way.
One can only hope that history does not repeat itself with a character of his type.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Ghandi LMAO!!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Another one: Henry Ford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#The_Dearborn_Independent
May 27th, 2009 at 6:25 am
I don’t find this list particularly controversial. Maybe it will be because some people can’t keep their comments in check, but this doesn’t seem like one designed to up the comment counts. I don’t know…I thought it was interesing.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:34 am
36. Baxter In Action
if these things about mother teresa are true, that would stir up some real sh*t
May 27th, 2009 at 6:38 am
I love lists like these. I knew about Gandhi and Johnson. Gandhi “sleeping next to” these women didn’t bother me so much as he was doing it for an experiment, but preception is everything. Still kinda creepy.
Somehow, I knew Presley might swing both ways.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:47 am
62. Mr.Graves
In all fairness, i have re-read your original post that I responded to, and realize that my comment was directed at but a small portion of your post.
You have brought up valid points regarding the listing of Gandhi’s personal moral battles. But regardless, this list is titled “10 Scandalous Facts About Historical Figures”.
Gandhi slept with young women (girls?) who were not his wife.
The matter of how much excellent service Gandhi provided to his land and countrymen is not being held in question.
And perhaps Jamie’s choice of wording regarding the intro to Gandhi’s reference is unfortunate.
Nevertheless Gandhi’s choice to test himself is well documented, and truth be told, we will never actually know his ultimate reasoning behind nor passing of his personal tests, but through the words of those he chose to test himself with.
And on that basis he HAS put himself into the same category as Michael Jackson, an icon of a different caliber.
So I’m sorry if your idolatry of Gandhi doesn’t allow you to question his “entire” moral character, and allow you to keep faith in his passing of his “tests”.
Surely you must recognize that his decision to even put himself into such a position would open his actions to the perusal of the general public.
If nothing else Gandhi DID rely upon the world’s documentation of his actions to ultimately achieve his goals for a free India. And for the man to think that that looking glass would stop at the borders he felt it should not see is most naive.
As is your viewpoint that the questioning of his motives of ALL his actions will be nothing but charitable through the span of time
May 27th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Mr Graves-
I’ve only ever seen you comment on controversy. This list could be about the top ten brands of soda and you’d go on a rant about how it’s bad for you. If you disagree with a portion of the list, you lay your arguments out and source them. Now, you said your piece in your first comment, but I don’t see any source except a quote in comment 63, but don’t know what it’s from. Jamie gave you several of his sources. If they’re wrong, so be it, but you haven’t proved your point. Beyond that, maybe if you don’t like the “tabloid mentality” you shouldn’t be one of it’s top contributors. Your comments about Fox News (twice in the span of just a few comments) are unnecessary to your argument and quite honestly make no sense within it. If you have something well though out and eloquent to say then say it. Since you obviously don’t and seem to just want to stir the pot, then stop complaining about a problem you’re making worse.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:51 am
# 10.Not exactly the WORST thing about Hitler.
# 9. Churchill s/have lived in America today and been a hispanic female. Then he could be nominated for the supreme court.
# 8. Ghandi should also have been female. The they wouldn’t call him “dirty” and “old”….he’d simply be a “cougar.”…(or a teacher in Florida)
# 6. There’s still people out there who don’t KNOW that Luther was anit-semitic?
#5. That’s not so strange. I wish I had a nickel for every black guy I know who’s angry with black women for dating outside her race….while doing the same thing himself.
#4. That doesn’t surprise me. This is a guy who thought Germany deserved an atom bomb attack but Japan didn’t. Simply because Japan wasn’t killing jews in death camps. Never mind Japan was killing Americans in general. Talk about a double standard.
#3. Sounds like Elvis was obsessed with Natalie Wood…..I can’t blame him a bit.
#2. Don’t they all? Justice Roberts and President Obama each made a flub in the most recent oath.
#1. Being a former Catholic I can assure you how most of them think. If the prize is a convert, NOTHING is out of bounds……NOTHING!!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:52 am
I actually find it comforting that even people who accomplish great things suffer the same human frailties and faults as the rest of us. I’m with Warrr when it comes to judging historical figures in today’s context. Doesn’t work; whether we like it or not, we’re a product of our time. The great thing is that we’ve learned better. Or at least most of us……
Tomo: leads to homosexuality and paedophilia? How do you equate the two? leads to homosexuality? have you learned nothing in the last 50 years or so? You are either born homosexual or not – nothing “leads” to it. Geez. And by the way – most paedophiles are heterosexual. Willful ignorance pisses me off.
Mr. Graves: I knew that Gandhi never engaged in hanky-panky with the girls he laid with – but still. It’s odd to me, whether today or 100 years ago to claim bragging rights by sleeping with a myriad of young women and not getting aroused. Sure his experiments were a success – he proved his mind stronger than his body – but it appears there was little concern for the women or the “objects” of his experiments. It’s hinky/weird.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Churchill and Luther were being honest about how they viewed certain people groups. Today we cower and pretend we don’t think those ways. We can’t say what we see. Who has the scandal? It’s obviously us. But of course instead of give any reason Churchill or Luther were wrong, you just slap a PC label and pretend the thinking is done. Good job!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Kudos on a fascinating list!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Is it true Elvis refused to have sex with Priscilla before they got married? I know it was refuted at some point but I didn’t know by whom.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:06 am
61. Bobby, I didn’t call Lincoln an emancipator. I called him by one of his common modern nicknames, The Great Emancipator. Whatever name I chose in reference to Lincoln doesn’t have any effect on the content of my comment.
/waving away the smoke to get to the real point….
May 27th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Bob-somebody-stole-my-name
“But of course instead of give any reason Churchill or Luther were wrong, you just slap a PC label and pretend the thinking is done.”
I think, it’s necessary to destroy the myths about the “good guys” or “great men”. Most of the famous people got rich, powerful or “holy” by having some talent and… a very BIG EGO.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Seriously the Martin Luther thing doesn’t surprise me at all. Everynone hated those of different religions back then, even different Christian sects.
There were some things that shocked me though, like the Hitler one. I didn’t know that. I thought you would have just stated “he was a painter” like everyone else does. Winston Churchill’s one makes me upset though.
Nice list.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:33 am
DeBakey: I read the article of Mr. Gier. I have nothing but sympathies for him. He doesn’t understand a thing about Hinduism.
(1) Tantra isn’t an evil thing. It is one of the ways of achieving one’s spiritual goal (this site talked about one of the extreme tantric sects – Aghoras a few days back)
(2) Mr. Gier thinks Gandhi had affairs with these many ladies. I am more inclined in believing Gandhi than Gier. These women were used by Gandhi in his brahmacharya experiment but if Gandhi says that he didn’t have sex with them, that’s good for me. Why? His principles of Truth. If you read his book, he unashamedly accepts the time when he went after a prostitute when he was young. He also accepts the time when he ate meat. He was true to himself and the world on his behavior & when he said he didn’t have a sexual relation / “affair”, i will take his word.
Also, i want to reiterate – i think he belongs to this list. His brahmacharya experiements were queer (to be charitable), but please don’t insult him by calling it sexual actions and affairs. They weren’t …
May 27th, 2009 at 7:38 am
At #37, Tomo, nothing “leads to” homosexuality–it just is. Get a freakin’ clue.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:40 am
73. Mom424 – I actually find it comforting that even people who accomplish great things suffer the same human frailties and faults as the rest of us. I’m with Warrr when it comes to judging historical figures in today’s context. Doesn’t work; whether we like it or not, we’re a product of our time. The great thing is that we’ve learned better. Or at least most of us
Your words here Mom424 are my same sentiments. I know that I cannot say that all these men have done some of the things other men have done, except in some extreme cases such as Hitler. I agree that if we learn from their mistakes then perhaps we’re better for it.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Gandhi was a racist, too – surprised no one has mentioned all the stuff he said about the blacks in South Africa when he was there:
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm
May 27th, 2009 at 7:51 am
very interesting list. very! i am british and it wouldnt supridse me if churchil was racist, and this is becuase britsh people in that time was racist. and history of britain admits that.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Gandhi was a dirty old man! Ick!
May 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Your Gandhi’s explanation was unbearable.. kindly rewrite with correct material and source.. else you will face consequence.. we are watching this..
May 27th, 2009 at 8:35 am
gandhi was the real shocker for me. if you look at his photos, he always looked serene, almost righteous. yaiks! but sleeping naked with other naked ladies to test his self-control is absurd! he may not have had sexual contact with them, but in his mind… well…
May 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am
WOW!!!!
Einstein was a PLAYA,
Gandhi was a PERV…
May 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am
The good Gandhi did was immense and just how “evil” was his young girl behavior? The Indian guru of his time and even today has young women spend the night with him and it’s not considered scandalous. It’s a normal perk of their position and maybe sometimes exactly what it’s claimed to be: an aid in their spiritual growth and an honor. Also, there are a few female gurus and many of them do it too. A woman friend of mine was invited to a spiritual teacher’s room for the night. She reported it was just ordinary and disappointing screwing. It seems with Gandhi it was neither sort of screwing and more than a little silly, but in his time and place it wasn’t considered scandalous or dirty. If we judge people half the world away and centuries back in time by our own standards, it’s we who are silly.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:50 am
“405,500 million”
…what?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Leave it to JFrater to finally deliver a readable list. I enjoyed these…but I have to check with them to make sure they are true…some seem far fetched.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
if the so-called standards change thru time and differ from place to place, then they are not standards at all.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Mr Graves – what gave Gandhi the right to use these young girls as part of his experimentation? Do you not think that this experience might have had a negative experience on them regardless of how sexual experience it was?
By the way, about Elvis: it’s not all that surprising that he learned the script to Rebel Without a Cause. The man had a tremendous memory. In his movies he was known for learning not only his own lines, but those of his fellow actors. As a child he apparently had the ability to learn entire songs off by heart after hearing them once on the radio.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am
“Gandhi was a racist, too – surprised no one has mentioned all the stuff he said about the blacks in South Africa when he was there:
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm”
Todd, i beat you to it a few hours ago.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am
As Dave said:
“#1. Being a former Catholic I can assure you how most of them think. If the prize is a convert, NOTHING is out of bounds……NOTHING!!”
With over one billion people, you cannto even say that you knwo how most think. Some, but not most. There are more types of opinions in the Catholic church than there are members of most other denominations. If this “most” idea were true, then abortion would not be supported by many Catholics. There are traditionalists, liberals, Eastern Rite, Latin rite, Maronites, married priests, etc. It is not all one spectrum or even being close to being one.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“At #37, Tomo, nothing “leads to” homosexuality–it just is. Get a freakin’ clue.”
I woudl have to disagree. there can be 2 thoughts on it.
One is that it is something you are born with. If you are, then it can be viewed as something that can be changed in a medical sense if it is biological.
If it is a choice, then you are responsible for your actions. It is either one way or another. i go by the choice idea.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Great list!!! Pretty suprised by all of the fickle comments.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
#83 todd it has been mentioned in the above comments already.
# 96 Indian he made his bed he must lay in it.
# 91 JF lists are always 99.9% – spot on.
Nice list Thanks
May 27th, 2009 at 9:33 am
# 86 Indian He made his bed he must lay in it. – sorry should have been 86 and not 96.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Mom424,
“Tomo: leads to homosexuality and paedophilia? How do you equate the two? leads to homosexuality? have you learned nothing in the last 50 years or so? You are either born homosexual or not – nothing “leads” to it. Geez. And by the way – most paedophiles are heterosexual. Willful ignorance pisses me off.”
Like i mentioned before, this can be a dangerous way to look at it. If you are born with it, it is medical like something you are born with like alcoholism or asthma? If it is, then can it be called a disease? If not, then what is it called?
Calling him ignorant is jsut as ignorant because you are putting your opinion just like he is. it is not a fact that you are born with it. It is also not a fact that you are not. It is still an opinion. We do not know 100 percent on what it is. Psychology is not absolute.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Boby, #96 – Do you believe that right now, you could simply choose to find men sexually attractive and women sexually repellant?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Like i mentioned before, this can be a dangerous way to
look at it. If you are born with it, it is medical like something you are born with like alcoholism or asthma?”
Nobody is born with alcoholism.
“If it is, then can it be called a disease? If not, then what is it called?”
It is no more a disease than having a big nose is. It is no more a disease than having a birthmark is. It is no more a disease than liking milk is. If you argue that homosexuality is a disease, would you also argue that heterosexuality is a disease? What you are talking about here is pure eugenics.
“Calling him ignorant is jsut as ignorant because you are putting your opinion just like he is. it is not a fact that you are born with it. It is also not a fact that you are not. It is still an opinion. We do not know 100 percent on what it is. Psychology is not absolute.”
Psychology is not absolute when people want to make a political or religious stance against something. If we look at the evidence, the experiments that have been carried out etc., we find that homosexual tendencies exist from an extremely young age. Homosexuality is not a choice any more than a child can decide to like brocolli or the lay person can ‘decide’ to become an Islamofascist.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
* quick point – my Islamofascist reference was perhaps not well taken, as people can be indoctrinated into Islamofascism.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am
If you believe Gandhi was really celibate AND slept naked with women including relatives then you probably are one of the same people who think Michael Jackson didn’t do anything wrong either, huh?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
So Gandhi would wake in the morning, shake off the morning wood, and draw a sparkling glass of urine to start the day.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Baxter,
“Psychology is not absolute when people want to make a political or religious stance against something. If we look at the evidence, the experiments that have been carried out etc., we find that homosexual tendencies exist from an extremely young age. Homosexuality is not a choice any more than a child can decide to like brocolli or the lay person can ‘decide’ to become an Islamofascist.”
YOu seem to be mixing choice and non choice here in your examples. Which is it?
“Nobody is born with alcoholism.”
It is genetic so yes tehy are born with it. Look it up.
“It is no more a disease than having a big nose is. It is no more a disease than having a birthmark is. It is no more a disease than liking milk is. If you argue that homosexuality is a disease, would you also argue that heterosexuality is a disease? What you are talking about here is pure eugenics.”
i think you mean genetics. Eugenics is picking out thsoe traits for the best outcome. Talking about liking milk is something someone chooses, so hence it will be a preference. Ever heard of sexual preference? Sound like a choice?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“Boby, #96 – Do you believe that right now, you could simply choose to find men sexually attractive and women sexually repellant?”
Isn’t that why they call it sexual preference?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I hate Jews too…
May 27th, 2009 at 10:23 am
104. Tom Wang
Sleeping naked with women does not account to what, perhaps, Michael Jackson did.
That’s victimising someone else’s intent upon reason of yours. Put it simply, your being subjectively swayed by social norms – which actually proves more about your thinking than Gandhi’s.
Anyway, this list is awesome. Even if some people seem to think its ‘tabloidish’, I think its some nice quirky little trivia to know about. =]
May 27th, 2009 at 10:26 am
“Anyway, this list is awesome. Even if some people seem to think its ‘tabloidish’, I think its some nice quirky little trivia to know about. =]”
This is why i try to visit the site a few times a week. Lots of interesting things to read.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
110. Bobby
Yeah. I love deep and meaningful information, but there’s no harm in quirky trivia.
I make it a ritual to visit the site everytime I go online.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Martin Luther was many things including a religious bigot. I read “On the Jews..” a few years ago I was thoroughly disgused by what I read. I have never in my life read anything more obscene or deragatory. Mind you I am not even Jewish but I was seriously offended by what this malcontent, non conformist, arrogant, piece of bigoted trash had the nerve to publish.
In my opinion nothing this man has ever put on paper is worth a damn, even though some of the people he denounced were basically on his level.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“YOu seem to be mixing choice and non choice here in your examples. Which is it?”
It is non-choice. Obviously. In this example I am saying that it is not possible for you to decide right now that you believe in the right of Islam to rule the world.
“It is genetic so yes tehy are born with it. Look it up.”
No, you are wrong. It is not possible for someone to be born with a phyisical craving for alcohol any more than it is possible for them to walk out of the womb. There is evidence of a genetic link in that a child of an alcoholic is more likely to become one themselves, but that doesn’t mean that alcoholism is a genetic illness. It’s the same as saying that if you have red hair then your children are more likely to have red hair. The only difference is that alcoholism is a development, not a genetic disposition.
“i think you mean genetics.”
I don’t, I mean eugenics. Saying that homosexuality is a disease is eugenics.
“Talking about liking milk is something someone chooses, so hence it will be a preference.”
What? Excuse me, but liking milk is NOT something somebody chooses. I personally dislike the taste of whole milk, I did not ‘choose’ this, it is simply a dispositional preference.
“Ever heard of sexual preference? Sound like a choice?”
It sounds to me like you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘preference’. Preference does not imply a choice.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Not surprising that Churchill was an anti-Semite…most of the major players of the early 20th Century were, as well:
Ford, Edison, Charles Lindbergh, etc.
General Patton also expressed anti-Semitic ideas, as well.
The scourge of the Passion plays of the Middle Ages pervaded Europe and created the erroneous thoughts about the “evil Jew” and the Jews as “Christ-killers.”
Many members of various European royal families were also anti-Semites, including and especially the British royals.
Anti-Semitism continues to exist today, unfortunately…just look at Mel Gibson’s father Hutton’s public views, Gibson’s refusal to deny them, and the bulk of “The Passion of the Christ.”
Christians should remember that first and foremost Jesus of Nazareth was born and raised a Jew. As Christ the Messiah, He is the son of the Jewish God and King of the Jewish people and nation.
Just like Father O’Malley said in 1985’s seminal “The Delta Force,”
“You called for the Jews. Well, I’m a Jew. Just like Jesus Christ.”
May 27th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“Isn’t that why they call it sexual preference?”
If you are able to make this choice then I think it is pretty clear what your particular sexual preference is. Unless you are suggesting that everybody in the world is a bisexual?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Mr. Graves,
So Martin Luther is not really anti semitic, his words were just taken out of context??
I really doubt you read “On the Jews” if you had you would realize that the entire work is anti semitic and vile. The words this man used to describe jews, their religion and their culture are some of the the most vile, hateful and disgusting I have ever read period.
Just because he doesn’t use the F word doesn’t mean that he wasn’t obscene.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:43 am
@deeeziner: i was only making a statement based on what this list said about Marthin Luther…i really don’t know anything about his work, except for the major role he had in the Reform…far from me to even try to compare him to Hitler…
thx for the comment though
May 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Baxter,
“It is non-choice. Obviously. In this example I am saying that it is not possible for you to decide right now that you believe in the right of Islam to rule the world”
Again you are posting your opinion. As am I so it is not fact.
Alcoholism is a disease.
http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com/alcoholism-is-a-disease.html
There are many more sites. Look around.
You know what preference means? See a familiar word there?
http://www.dictionary.com
1. the act of preferring.
2. the state of being preferred.
3. that which is preferred; choice: His preference is vanilla, not chocolate.
4. a practical advantage given to one over others.
5. a prior right or claim, as to payment of dividends or to assets upon dissolution.
6. the favoring of one country or group of countries by granting special advantages over others in international trade.
That covers the milk example too.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I was following the above conversation and wanted to throw my 2 cents in here.
I believe that you are born with the capability of becoming a homosexual…but you can choose not to act on it. Many do just that. Drilled into their brain from a young age that it’s wrong or a sin and they go and deny the very basics of themselves.
You can’t choose who you fall in love with…it just happens. It just depends on whether or not you act on it.
As for Martin Luther…I knew that he hated Jews. My best friend follows the Lutheran religion and they preach his works. One of the dumbest things I heard was this past weekend when I visited her. She took me to her church (thankfully I wasn’t struck by lightning when I entered the building!) and I got to hear the sermon. The pastor told everyone that other religions forced you to believe a certain way or you can’t get into heaven. Then he went on to say that “this” way was the best way and it would assure you a place in heaven…what? That was the same thing.
They also believe the pope is the antichrist…that kills me everytime I hear it.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:55 am
hulksmashnow: it isn’t anti-semitical to say that the jews had a hand in killing Jesus. this is fact. the pharisees and saducees, the leading jewish parties, were the ones that had Christ arrested and tried. and it was the predominantly jewish crowd that cried for the release of barabbas in place of Jesus.
to state these things doesn’t make someone anti-jewish. nor does it mean that a person can’t love Christ.
as far as the passion of the Christ movie, gibson cut out the scene he filmed that recreated the biblical account of the jewish crowd saying that they would accept responsibility for the killing of Christ and the blood of Christ would be on their heads as well as their childrens.
it could be argued that in making the movie he attempted to put the jews in a better light than the historical narratives.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Baxter,
“If you are able to make this choice then I think it is pretty clear what your particular sexual preference is. Unless you are suggesting that everybody in the world is a bisexual?”
So it is a choice?
Being bisexual is a choice.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am
If you guys are arguing whether or not sexuality is a choice or preference…
firstly, Baxter is right, preference doesn’t have to mean a choice… “His preference is vanilla, not chocolate” doesn’t HAVE TO MEAN you choose vanilla over chocolate for the sake of choosing, it can just mean you like vanilla over chocolate.
Now, is sexuality a choice, or is it something you are born with?
Why can’t it be both… people can choose to be homo, bi or hetero, but they can also be born homo, bi or hetero…
there.
One can be gay and choose to live a heterosexual life, or one can be heterosexual and choose to engage in homosexuality… isn’t that a more valid way to understand it?
That’s like asking nature vs. nurture… put it simply… it can be both.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am
OOuchan,
“They also believe the pope is the antichrist…that kills me everytime I hear it.”
Not all Lutherans do. Actually some of LCMS are just waiting for RCC to change a bit but not changes dealing with the pope. Luther did not want a schism but a change.
I love the logic ont he anti-christ thing because that woudl mean that many of their ancestors were heretics.
The pope has been recognized as early as the late first century when Clement talks about the bishop of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch also mentions the “catholic church” around 110 AD.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:07 am
“firstly, Baxter is right, preference doesn’t have to mean a choice… “His preference is vanilla, not chocolate” doesn’t HAVE TO MEAN you choose vanilla over chocolate for the sake of choosing, it can just mean you like vanilla over chocolate.”
By definition, it does. The word choice is in the definition. I clearly showed that.
You again pointed out that one chooses one thing over another.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I think I made my point. Have a good day.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
123. Bobby: True. I laugh at it but most of them believe it because that is what they are taught. It just cracks me up.
By definition, it does. The word choice is in the definition. I clearly showed that.
You again pointed out that one chooses one thing over another.
True…but it can still be both. archangel’s post summed it up nicely. You can be born that way and make a choice later in life.
But really…most of what you and Baxter are stating are similar.
Choice vs. Preference…very similar. It’s really semantics.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am
124. Bobby
Not quite. Because liking something can be something you automatically prefer without choosing it. You can prefer something and choose it, but you don’t have to choose something, and prefer it.
I can choose to have milk for, perhaps, health reasons, but prefer coke.
I can also be attracted to brunettes not because I chose to, but because my brain is wired to find brunnettes more attractive (thus personal preference).
Take an extreme example. Some people have feet fetishes… these people didn’t really choose to have a foot fetish… they simply prefer it.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
In my mind, choice means you need to put some thought into what you ultimately pick. Preference requires almost no thinking. If I have a choice between sushi and tacos for dinner, I’ll think about it, because I like both of those things and don’t really have a preference for one over the other. If there is a “choice” between sushi or turkey for dinner, I don’t even think about picking sushi because I know I dislike turkey and don’t want to eat it.
I never sat down and thought out “hmm..men vs. women” it was an instinctual pick. Yes, I supposed it is a choice in the basic sense that I have sex with one and not the other, but it was never something I had to mull over. I’m straight, and I’ve talked it over with several gay friends, who also never had to think it through- no matter how they were raised, or how long hey felt they had to hide it. It was just..there. The choice was made for them.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am
128. callie_ Nice point =]
May 27th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Hey there. Interesting list there JF, and all these are new to me. Took me quite a while to get through the commens today – which can be a good thing. Many theories have been highlighted and debunked already – which
saves me writing about them.
To me, the first thing that came to mind was ‘gosh, these are tabloid stories – Mr Graves is right!’; but then I realised that the LV is a very broad base of (almost random) articles – which insight different things every day. I think the LV would loose some of it’s character if all the lists were high-brow and sagacious. Why? ‘cus I learn something new from every list, and every list brings something to the debate.
Thinking about the list subjects, I could say the list many propagate a scandle-mongering mentality, but I’d love to quote mom424: “I actually find it comforting that even people who accomplish great things suffer the same human frailties and faults as the rest of us.” – and that sums it up for me.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Re homosexuality and “choice” vs “innate trait” – I always thought this argument of distinction was pointless, because either way it fosters the idea that homosexuality is “wrong”. i.e even saying “I didn’t choose to be this way” is being defensive about the perceived (by others) wrongness. My point is – who is to say what someone else does in this regard (whether by choice or by instinct) is either “right” or “wrong”? *That* is the subjective definition.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I don’t exactly find this list scandalous …
Some of the comments, however ????
May 27th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Vote no on prop 8! oh wait, too late.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Re Prop 8, America calls itself the land of the free, but will not give gay couples the FREEDOM to get married? That doesnt sound like land of the free to me…it sounds like land of the marginally homophobic. Frankly, my american cousins, its pathetic. What difference does it make REALLY if homosexual couples can marry? Does it affect your life? Answer: No.
Gay marriage is happily here in Britain. Does this make our country more free than yours? Hmmmm…I wonder…
I’m sure all that will provoke some firey responses!
May 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
this is a great list
shows that no one is perfect and no man should be idolised as they are..point in case Ghandi and churchill
But then again, RELATIVELY speaking (no pun intended =p )
these men were good as every one is, quite frankly, alot worst.
mucho louv
-N
May 27th, 2009 at 11:43 am
134. cymraegbachgen87: I agree with you! We are hypocrites of our own words.
marginally homophobic?
Try really homophobic!
It doesn’t effect me in the slightest. In fact, if my daughter were to turn around and tell me she likes girls…I would be fine with it.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I say marginally because it was my knowledge that prop 8 was beaten by a majority of only about 52%? Or is that wrong. Sorry but we don’t get much of this on our news. We have given up trying to understand you guys
It doesnt bother me either. In fact, sometimes I wish I was a lesbian
(remember, bachgen=boy)
May 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
131. Maggot
Very nice philosophical point Maggot. I guess we weren’t arguing about right or wrong. That is definitely subjective… but whether, by nature, sexuality is innate or a choice.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
cymarae: Nobody cares about your anti-american views. You just had to throw in another “I hate America” comment.
Although I agree with you in the fact that who cares who marries who, gay couples are allowed to have civil unions with many benfits but not “marriage”. This is also because of the religious aspect that god says man cannot marry man or woman or woman which I think is dumb to begin with.
But like you keep stating on all your comments.. Britain is a utopia where nothing is wrong and everyone is happy?
Get a life.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
#114 “Christians should remember that first and foremost Jesus of Nazareth was born and raised a Jew.”
perhaps he was of roman origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Carotta
May 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Just because in our language someone along the way decided to use the term “sexual preferance,” that doesn’t mean it’s carved in stone that homosexuality is or isn’t a “preferance”. It just means that the term was coined by a person to talk or write about homosexuality. Just calling it a “preferance” doesn’t mean it is or isn’t a preferance.
As far as it being a choice, I happen to be straight, I can’t imagine choising to be gay. Nor can I imagine a gay person choising to be straight.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:55 am
134 cym: I agree with your comment 100%, but I wish to clarify one point – “Prop 8” was a state proposition (California). It did not govern the entire country. Some states individually do allow it. I’ve talked about this in other list threads and I hate to “hijack” this one, but I think it’s an embarrassment that the majority of Ca voters voted in favor of the restriction. But I find it even more appalling that the Ca Supreme Court ruled just yesterday to uphold that vote. IMO they failed miserably in their responsibility to correct a gross injustice and basically created more problems.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:55 am
139. YouAreInferiorToUS
Perhaps you are being overly defensive, nothing about Cym’s comment suggested that Britain was a utopia, nor was he/she anti-American. To think in such black and white terms is quite a fallacy.
140. maxearnest
I believe, from my hazy historical knowledge, he was both Jew and a person living in the Roman Empire (I dunno if that counts as a citizen).
May 27th, 2009 at 11:56 am
137. cymraegbachgen87: It was only 52% for that state…Most states its a lot higher. Still…even half is too much.
hehe…you a lesbian. Which is funny because I wanted to be a gay man!
(yaoi fan girl here)
139. YouAreInferiorToUS: Not sure where you think he was anti-American….I have talked with cym several times and never got that impression. Other countries have superior concepts than the USA…just as the USA has their own superior concepts.
In my mind, if the Welsch (which is what cym is) believe 2 men or 2 women can get married and support that with their governments help…then yes, they are better than us.
How sad that it’s like that.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I have a life, sir. I do not merely trawl this site trying to get a rise out of anyone who will listen. I have been excessively patient with you over a number of lists but it is obvious you are too ignorant to deal with. I name thee troll.
But as a parting blow, I have never said Britain is a utopia. My digs at the US are tongue in cheek in many instances. You, however see ANY criticism of the US as a personal attack on YOU and your country.
I don’t hate america; I DO thoroughly dislike americans like yourself.
cymrae means nothing. If you are going to shorten my name, shorten it to cym, or cymraeg. At least they mean something. Fool
Quick show of hands. Who here thinks I hate america, or have been posting constant anti american posts on this site? I’m looking to some of the regs here for some honest opinions…
May 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
138 archangel: whether, by nature, sexuality is innate or a choice.
My feeling on it is – “orientation” is innate, how one physically acts upon that innate orientation is by choice.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
146. Maggot
I have to applaud you for that phrase, it is a good way of understanding sexuality indeed.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
# “I believe, from my hazy historical knowledge, he was both Jew and a person living in the Roman Empire (I dunno if that counts as a citizen).”
i meant something else (take a look at the link). just wanted to throw in a quiet unique and “scandalous” theory about a historical figure
May 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
143, 144, thank-you. I do try hard to keep this casual but it winds me up when people accuse me of racism.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
well…not racism…perhaps xenophobia is a better description.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
#143. archangel
sorry, forgot something…
May 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Regarding comment #29 from darkrose: the comment (#13) from Rising Falls seems to have caused some confusion.
First sam sung mentioned (in comment #11) that Lincoln said, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,…”
Rising Falls responded with, “Yet you see Martin Luther King Jr. standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial delivering his I have a Dream speech.”
I don’t mean to speak for Rising Falls, but this was my understanding of what transpired. When Rising Falls mentions Martin Luther King Jr. speaking in front of the Lincoln memorial, I believe he/she was responding to san sung. I don’t think R.F was saying MLK Jr. was anti-Semitic.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
148. Ah sorry, i should have checked the link.
That is quite an interesting and controversial proposition to suggest Jesus was Caesar. My thoughts on that are: its very unlikely for a bunch of Jews to have ’spread the good word about Caesar’. But interesting nonetheless.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
144. “137. cymraegbachgen87: It was only 52% for that state…Most states its a lot higher. Still…even half is too much. ”
Oops…my bad. I dont quite understand the whole federal, state, county law things…I thought it was a more universal vote. It only got the briefest of mentions on the beeb and I wasnt really paying attention! My bad!
How many states allow gay marriage? And are the anti gay lobby-ists going after them next, or are they safer states?
I agree that just 50% is too much. Intolerance shouldnt be tolerated…is it just me or does that statement contradict itself? Irony
May 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
okay well, thats outrageious, about hitler. at the time germany was in the depression. paper bills were litearlly worth more to use as toilet paper or burning for fire than the value they had given the immense depreication.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
154. cym: Only 5 so far. 45 more to go!
Don’t take it to heart. WE don’t get enough good newscasts either so…
Intolerance shouldnt be tolerated
True irony…but it fits perfectly!
May 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
It is ok for Einsten and Presley to do bad stuff, as anyway we dont remember them as great leaders or the righteous ones. But for all other people, especially Gandhi, G Washington and the Pope, I am shocked.
PS : Lol, Gandhi was a dirty old man
May 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
There is also a pretty strong theory that Christ was a mythological carry-over for Confucious, with the story of his life being very similiar and the ‘three wise men from the east’ being Buddhists following a dream quest (star) to locate a new Llama/Bodhisattva incarnation. Confucious, while not a Llama, had many life story similiarities with Christ, and could have been an archetypal figure (like Mithra) that inspired the mythology of Christ, so the story of Confucious became re-adapted as a non-asian to suit the particular cultures of the middle east.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
153. archangel
“My thoughts on that are: its very unlikely for a bunch of Jews to have ’spread the good word about Caesar’.”
according to this theory it were the veterans of the roman legion who spread the gospel first (as far as i remember). i read the book a few years ago and it was quiet convincing. here’s some more information on it:
http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html
May 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Also, I dont understand what Gandhi meant when he said he is sleeping with naked women to perfect his celibacy. Isn’t the whole point of celibacy not sleeping with women ?
And also 600 000 tax on 1.2 millions. Isn’t that 50% ?!
May 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I guess the following is tabloid stuff – sorry! But # 76 callie asked, “Is it true Elvis refused to have sex with Priscilla before they got married?” – Although I’m not sure that would be scandalous!
When they first met I believe Priscilla was only 14. Then when her stepfather agreed to let her move to the US, and being that she was under age at that time (17), she was supposed to stay with Elvis’ family.
You may be thinking of something Pricilla wrote later; that Elvis stopped sexual relations with her after their daughter was born.
Tabloid stuff, I know, I know! I apologize all to hell.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
i’m not really sure where i land on the gay marriage issue. i guess part of the problem is that i don’t know why this is so sought after by the gay community. what is the great benefit of being “married” versus being in a “civil union”.
marriage has been a religious institution since man and woman began looking at each other. you have to understand the presuppositions of the “no gay marriage” people. if a non-religious person engaging in what they believe to be “sinful” behavior is attempting to take a religious ceremony and “corrupt” it, i can understand their reluctance.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Interesting…that picture of Hitler doesn’t look like him very much…he kinda has the same head shape as Christian Bale…weird.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
162. DiscHuker: But it’s not a corruption. They want the same rights. The word “marriage” was taken by the religious community and set forth as something between a man and woman. But that is not how everyone views it. I see it as a ceremony between 2 consenting adult individuals who love each other.
I am not trying to change your view, but using the word “corrupt” is a little much….because I know the gay community doesn’t feel that way.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
G. Washington’s expense account was also to support his command; do you seriously believe he drank that much booze!
The DNA test with respect to Jefferson indicated only that a Jefferson male fathered a child with a black woman. Jefferson’s uncle, who lived at his estate, was known to have relations with slave women.
As usual, the list is interesting, but don’t place too much weight on it with respect to its “tabloid” accuracy.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Gandhi used to be my hero, after today he´s reached the heights of a demigod!
May 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
162 discHusker: if a non-religious person engaging in what they believe to be “sinful” behavior is attempting to take a religious ceremony and “corrupt” it, i can understand their reluctance.
Does divorce not “corrupt” marriage? Ever wonder how many of these so-called reluctant religious people have been divorced, or committed adultery, or engaged in premarital sex? Should those things also be outlawed? People use religion to mask their homophobia IMO.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
oouchan: i see your point, but it is a “corruption” of the religious ideal of marriage.
the tradition of listverse is that a list is posted and then we comment. if a person came along and said that listverse should be a site where the days sports scores are posted and then we all comment that would be a “corruption” of the tradition of listverse.
the “old timers”, myself included, would have a problem with that.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
maggot: you bring up an excellent point. the church has always been against divorce, adultery and premarital sex. just because some of the so-called followers do these things, does not mean that they are condoned by the Church as a whole.
and let’s get our terms straight, homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. to say that someone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe is a misnomer. i do not like lima beans and i do not want them anywhere near my plate. does this mean that i am afraid of them?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
167. Maggot: Excellent point. Not only are they using it as a mask, but as a shield as well.
168. DiscHuker: But marriage wasn’t defined that way. Religion “corrupted” it’s meaning. You see, many who believe in god and his teaching will say, he made marriage. But others will see that marriage came before religion. That is my point.
As for Maggot’s post…he said it was a “mask” for it. Not that they all are that way. Just a majority.
Even if I don’t like lima beans I can still fear them. I don’t want to come in contact with them because they are gross. I fear that contact. So when you scrape away the surface, many religious folks don’t want to come in contact with gays for the fear of them trying to push their views or habits on the religious person. In many discussions I have had with the religious community…this has been the case the majority of the time.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
People who claim to be Judeo-Christians and followers of the Abrahamic covenent and then go about and decry homosexuality only show that they have extremely limited knowledge of the Holy Bible, and almost certainly don’t engage in reading it themselves- they call themselves Christians and get someone else to tell them what to think. If they did read the Bible, it would be quite clear that there is no basis for persecuting homosexuals- and denying them the right to marry is a form of persecution. Not only did marriage exist long before Christianity and the Abrahamic Tradition, thus nullifying any ridiculous claim that Christianity has the right to define it and deny it to others, but the passages used to justify persecuting homosexuals are taken completely out of context and fed to flocks by judgemental preachers who seem to feel they have the right to interperet the bible for humanity. The irony would be hilarious if it weren’t so saddening.
There is literally nothing in the Bible, once the ‘lie with man’ passages are put back into their proper context and the Advent in Galatians and Corinthians is clarified, that justifies persecuting homosexuals. To start, the misrepresented and improperly translated passages make no mention of actual loving relationships between same sex couples- the term and concept of loving homosexuality has no Aramaic translation. Following this, the -improperly interpereted- statements on ‘men lying with men’ are completely misconstrued and twisted to follow the Church’s- not Christs, but the organized religion of men- party line, which was developed to service land ownership- just as women were burned at the stake so the Church could claim their land, or priests not allowed to marry so if they died their holdings could go to their family- instead any possessions and wealth went to the Church- the Christian theocratic authority persecuted homosexuality in order to create as many prevalent avenues of retaining all wealth of it’s subjects. The context of ‘lying with man as if with a woman’ has nothing to do with a homosexual partnership; it’s pretty obvious if you study the Bible yourself.
As well, Galatians and Corinthians clearly explain why Leviticus is not in any way applicable to Christian beliefs and creed after the Advent of the Messiah, if you were to actually read the Bible, it would be quite easily laid out and explained.
For those who claim that homophobia doesn’t apply to them because ‘they are not afraid, just repulsed’ they clearly don’t understand that the revulsion is a subconcious psychological tactic their ego uses in order to gain a dominant sense rather than fearful state in the face of the concept of homosexuality. If they were truly unafraid of it, they would have no negative feelings towards it- it would be a non issue. The fear that comprises homophobia is the same xenophobic fear that drives the primitive and tribal mind that spurs racism or sexism.
Finally, if anyone wants to try to show that the Bible advocates the persecution of homosexuals, or that Jesus would approve of the loathsome views so-called ‘Christians’ espouse on the topic, I am more than happy to take the time to explain and expose exactly why they obviously don’t read the Bible themselves, relevantly direct them to understanding the actual context, and settle the lies and misconceptions they are spewing.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I believe i found a typo
“405,500 million Reichsmarks” that cant be right lol
May 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
this is a test. i want to know if the site is rejecting all links.
http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/another-10-fascinating-facts-that-are-wrong/#comment-176688
May 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The comments on this list today are excellent – 170 and nothing particularly vicious or personal! I am impressed
And for the record, I wasn’t trying to make this a controversial list – though in hindsight I can see how some of it may appear that way.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
so it’s not. only rejecting links to a little site called “Science-Based Medicine”
a wordpress science research blog edited by Steven Novella, MD (Founder and Executive Editor) and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD (Managing Editor) two highly respected medical doctors.
why on earth is that happening?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hitler was homosexual and had Jewish ascendency, he basically went against everything he was. He hated himself, and his way of getting over his personal suffering was the cause of the Holocaust.
Besides that, Einstein didn’t actually discover a single thing, all the work was done by his wife Mileva, she is really the great mind who the world should praise. He stole her work and that was the reason they divorced.
History is written by a group of ignorants, don’t believe everything you read.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
mr graves: wow. if i’m reading right, and i like to think that i am, you just called me homophobic, lacking in Biblical understanding, a false Christian, and possibly on the way, if not already there, to sexism and racism.
that’s quite a laundry list from someone is espousing a “non-judgmental” attitude.
i can tell that you have your guns loaded for bear with the galatian and corinthian texts so i will go a different route with you. good thing for my argument that the Bible denounces homosexuality in so many different places.
Romans 1:26-27 – “For this reason (that is, exchanging the truth of God for a lie) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
i am not sure how you can get around the idea of this passage that a man being consumed with passion for another man is a “shameless act”.
now let me be very clear on this issue, from a Biblical perspective homosexuality is a sin. this is not to say that it is any worse than any sin that i am prone to. all of the sins that we manifest are evidence of our need for salvation; homosexuality, adultery, murder, lying, stealing, un-loving actions and attitudes, etc.
all of these things, and many more, are billboards along the road that we are fallen and in need.
this is why Christ says “Come to me, all you who are weary and heaven laden, and i will give you rest”.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
The drunk vice president. way to go. The hitler tax evasion makes alot of sense…he then found a blame.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
clairvoyant: so does that mean, since you comments are in writing, that we shoudn’t believe what you wrote either?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
lo: you have a post with a link to quackwatch on the facts that are wrong list – is that what you are referring to? I don’t see any comments from you in the moderation queue at present…
May 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Bobby: “By definition, it does. The word choice is in the definition. I clearly showed that”
You didn’t demonstrate that in the slightest. You’re using semantics to try and back up some ridiculous redneck point, and I’m sorry to say it doesn’t work with me. One cannot choose to become a homosexual. One cannot choose to like the taste of something. Preference requires no decision on the part of the subject. Choice does. Can you honestly not see the difference?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
176: I some how doubt that he was a homosexual. and of course he is of Jewish descent, almost everyone in Western Europe had a Jewish ancestor some where within their past two generations.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
jfrater-
on the other “wrong facts” list i tried repeatedly to submit comments with this link
“sciencebasedmedicine” .org
and they all disappeared into thin air. i’ve taken the “http://www.” off and added the quotes to see if it will post this comment…..
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
i tried to submit one just before the 183 here that went through, it also vanished.
it contained “http://www.”
“sciencebasedmedicine”
“.org/?”
and “p=14″
in one line, sans quotation marks
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Tax evasion? You know, I think I’m starting to not like this “Hitler” fellow.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
171. Mr.Graves: I have to say most of the time, I disagree with a bunch of what you post, but this last one was the best post so far. It was perfect. Thank you.
177. DiscHuker:
all of these things, and many more, are billboards along the road that we are fallen and in need.
Only if you believe in that stuff.
I think we fell a long time ago and are trying to pull ourselves out of the mess we find ourselves in now. To persecute, ignore or leave out a particular group because of who they love is wrong. Homosexuality is not in the same class as murder or rape. Why is that type of love a sin? I can never see it that way and I am teaching my daughter the same thing. Many of her friends also feel like I do and I hope it spreads even further. We can’t continue to hurt people just because a book tells us to. Just sayin….
May 27th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
@ 11 (sam sung)—you truly can’t tell from that excerpt whether Lincoln was racist or not. Back in the 1960s the country (i.e., the government) was pretty divided as to whether racial equality was a good concept. Now imagine back in the 1860s, when there were people dying over the idea of black people being just free: advocating total equality would have been political suicide, especially for a person like Lincoln who wanted to get things accomplished.
I’m not saying Lincoln was a saint or that his reason to live was to achieve equality. I’m just saying, just the fact that he **said** he didn’t believe in equality doesn’t mean he **thought** so.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I LOVE lists like these, I wish they were like this everyday!!! I have to agree with your description about Gandhi though. Having sex or not, if any other old man had slept naked with young girls, well, I’m thinking they’d lock him up LOL
May 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
169 DiscHusker: homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. to say that someone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe is a misnomer.
Ok point taken, but it doesn’t change the gist of what I’m saying. I could’ve just as easily included “and/or bigotry” to my statement.
just because some of the so-called followers do these things, does not mean that they are condoned by the Church as a whole.
Sure but my point is that those other things are at least tolerated. So then why isn’t homosexuality likewise tolerated by those same people? Fear and/or hatred.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
sorry disc, I keep misspelling your nic.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
lo: I found them – they were in the moderation queue but they were delayed – hence not seeing them before. I approved the two that seemed to be the ones you wanted to post orginally.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Technically, Gandhi wasn’t celibate. Celibate means to refrain from marriage. Gandhi was married. You meant to use the word “chaste,” which means to refrain from sex. If I were famous and on this list, my scandalous fault would be being an irritating nit-picker.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
It’s unfortunate that the term for being biased against homosexuals and homosexuality is “homophobic”. I’ve heard people use the, “I’m not afraid of them” line, all the while being biased against gay people. “Racist” works for racism, “Sexist” works, “anti-Semitic” works, and so on. To me when I hear the term “homophobic, I don’t necessarily connect the word to fear, but to bias.
Although Mr. Graves (#171)has the best explanation of the term that I’ve read when he says, “For those who claim that homophobia doesn’t apply to them because ‘they are not afraid, just repulsed’ they clearly don’t understand that the revulsion is a subconcious psychological tactic their ego uses in order to gain a dominant sense rather than fearful state in the face of the concept of homosexuality.”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
This was a great list! There has to be enough material for another list…(wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
May 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
It’s a shame that religion has to come into the argument about gay marriage at all. If a particular faith doesn’t want to bless same sex couples, then don’t do it. Let churches like the Unitarian Universalists and others who don’t look at homosexuality as sinful bless their marriages.
I heard someone announce that he was getting divorced after many, many years together because gay marriage undermined the sanctity of his marriage. He of course was joking, but look how ridiculous that sounds.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
191. jfrater -
thank you jamie!
do you know what sent them to moderation? sorry there were so many, i was experimenting with phrasing to try and avoid them “vanishing” as i wasn’t seeing the “awaiting moderation” tag myself.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
192 John Sherman: apparently the term has evolved to mean both things these days:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=celibate
May 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
195 Moonbeam: It’s a shame that religion has to come into the argument about gay marriage at all.
I don’t particularly care about the religious beliefs of others on this topic. People can believe what they want. What bothers me is people using those beliefs to tell others how to live. Even worse, using those beliefs as the basis for making laws that affect everyone.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
lo: I am not sure actually – they shouldn’t have as far as I can tell.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Theres nothing wrong with being a dirty old man I am, in fact, married to one >:) Oh yeah back to the comment, sorry. Great list brings to light that not every “great” person in the world was free of “sin”.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
People fall in love with other people, and it really doesn’t matter to me which gender they choose. I think people should be able to freely marry who they like too; male or female.
It’s funny really isn’t it? If one person says to another person: ‘I make you, a priest!’, does that necessarily make him or her a priest? Not really, nothing changes except the perception of the second guy, and a new label to add to his/her other labels. If a person then goes to this ‘priest’ with a partner and the ‘priest’ says ‘I make you, married!’ – does that necessarily change anything? No, not really, only the perceptions of the two partners, and perhaps a shared label; ‘married’. Now it gets really funny. After a while, one of those guys in the partnership above decides to call it quits and leave the other. Now this person has to go to another guy; labelled a ‘lawyer’; a huge exchange of paper is pushed into the ‘lawyers’ hands until eventually he tells this person ‘I make you, unmarried!’.
I put it to you that marriage only exists as a concept.
When I got ‘married’, I did it purely as a declairation of loyalty to my partner. She also wanted to be ‘married’ because that was what she thought partners did. She grew up believing that. One of my friends knew a lot about shamanism and had labelled HIMSELF a priest. So we all got together and went out to a field by a river and he said to us: ‘You are married now’. That same guy said ‘You are not married now’ about 4 years later. It was easy, natural, and we both enjoyed it.
Does that mean we were not ‘married’ in Gods eyes – YES! – because God doesn’t see labels. God never created ‘marriage’ – Man did – ages ago!
So what did God create then?? The Law of Free Will…
May 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
re: no.6
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews”
…well Luther was a visionary on this one and not only for the Jews. I mean, it really ain’t safe to drive on the highways these days!
.. and did he actually used the word “farting”? ;P
May 27th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
200 post already?!
Well here is what you didn’t say:
Elvis and John Wayne were racist. Elvis once said “The only thing a Negro can do for me is shine my shoes.” Wayne hated Native Americans (Indians) and Blacks.
Martin Luther King cheated on his wife.
John F. Kennedy cheated on his wife and his family became rich by bootlegging during prohibition.
This is a tip of the iceberg list. The people we know and admire throughout history are more screwed up than we could ever now. And nothing has changed in todays world.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
back to the homosexual thing, so if you just are gay, a preference not a choice, you were born that way, but never act on it, never engage in homosexual behavior, but rather live a total heterosexual life, then you are still homosexual and not heterosexual?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I didn’t realize that listverse had become a gossip magazine… What a rubbish list.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
204 heyyooo: why does it matter?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I’d love to take the time to tear apart some previous posts but I’m having a crazy video game jones for Mount And Blade right now so I will cut straight to chase and say I’m always more than happy to further discussion off the main list site if anyone is actually interested in an exchange of learning. For now though, I’ll simply stick with deconstructing this choice little tidbit of BS:
‘Romans 1:26-27 – “For this reason (that is, exchanging the truth of God for a lie) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
1- who imputes (aka claims to know and interperet for all of humanity the word and meaning of God): ‘that is, exchanging the truth of God for a lie’
Is that word for word literal Aramaic translation from the Bible? Or is that the interperetation that just so happens to fit a predtermined bias you need to serve?
Can you swear as a good Christian on your eternal soul that those words are the exact and perfect translation of God’s intent from the original Aramaic and Greek? Are you willing to wager that… not to me but to the God you believe in? That you know God so well that you are the middle man between him and humanity, and you know what the original Aramaic texts mean in English?
Because it seems to me that the ENTIRE passage could be a warning against LUST altogether, every word, word for word, a warning that acting out of LUST- one of the seven deadly sins (hint: homosexuality is NOT one of the seven deadly sins- dwell on that while you are so sure you know what God is thinking).
Every statement and sentence in that passage can be easily understood to be an example of the most extreme forms of disregarding why your body produces pleasure from certain acts and succumbing to the overwhelming desire to have pleasure no matter where it comes from- the ‘unnatural’ being the starkest example because it is the clearest, most incontrivertable example of coupling purely for pleasure and not for the act of procreation alone. It cannot be misconstrued as an act of procreation, first and foremost, and secondly, any real hisytorical scholar will confirm for you that homosexual relationships as we know them in modern day did NOT exist- what did exist was conquering societies of men capturing and enslaving other cultures of men as sex objects- basically tools of lust, just like women were said to be (you DO know where the word ‘Husband’ comes from, right? Hint: Animal ‘Husbandry’ is the ownership and care of your livestock property)
It is not an issue of homosexuality but an issue of Church control over sexuality so that any method of pleasure becomes the domain of men: human, fallible men- to rule over others and control them with. Any instance where a person can feel pleasure on their own is shunned and attacked so that only the Church can allow pleasure, only the old white men in the Church can decide if you are allowed to feel good.
How…. convenient.
If you read the Bible there is one irrefutable truth, one law, one rule above all others, that transcends all other passages, that counters any hate, and it is Jesus’ decree: ‘I give you but one commandment: to love each other as I have loved you…’
Jesus loved without lust controlling his heart. He also forgave, and cared, and showed mercy to any and all, and compassion and withheld condemnation, and danced with thieves and drank with outcasts. You can pick and choose any single passage you want, you can try to twist God and Christs words and intent all you want to make them serve YOUR agenda- but Christ was forgiveness and acceptance and love- and if you look in your heart, it is clear and plain to see that persecuting homosexuals just doesn’t fit in any way with who Christ was.
He felt sick at the idea of self righteous, self appointed magnates of God telling everyone how they were unworthy and failures, and preached acceptance and love. Christ preached how men should not be using others as tools for lust- over and over- just as men would lay with their wives- or how they would lay with conquered slaves ‘as a man lies with a woman’. As a piece of their own property- useful only for sexual pleasure.
And all of this doesn’t even take into context that Aramaic society did not even have a word or concept linguistically that addressed the concept of mature, caring homosexual relationships and love- their only way of even coming close to the topic was to address how men would treat their conquered sex boys slaves- the way they treated women- as pieces of property they could rape anytime they wanted. So who are you to tell the world that the Bible condemns homosexuality when the culture that wrote the Bible didn’t even have experience with homosexuals living in peaceful, loving relationships together? They didn’t even have words for it. But you sure have words to put in God’s mouth.
And that, not the idea of two people of the same sex loving and sharing unlimited compassion for each other- but the idea that a man should NOT lie with another man the way he lies with a woman- IE- as though the target he chooses to defile is nothing more than his livestock, his slave, his sexual object, his property. Because to lie with a woman was to lie with a piece of property that was lesser than you, that was owned by you, that had no rights to refuse you and was a lesser human.
Go ahead, deny it because your ego needs to be babied and coddled… But you know in your heart, right now, God is telling you that’s the truth.
That, is the true meaning of Christ’s words, and those who twist it to feed their hate filled agenda- twist Christ’s decree not to use other humans as sex slaves and property into hatred for two people of the same sex loving and caring for each other…
Well… you can answer to God on that one. Because if you read the Bible, if you actually read it and don’t just sit in a pew shouting ‘Hallelujah’ when you are told to, you know your hate is helping to bring Hell on Earth, not Heaven.
You don’t get to twist God to fit your pet agenda and claim to be the good Christian.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I find a few of these difficult to believe, especially #8 since Gandhi wanted the Khajuraho Temple (the “Kama Sutra” temples) to be demolished.
Well, never trust information from the internet.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
heroism, its a bitch
May 27th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Fantastic list, JFrater. Most of these were new information for me. I, like most of the commenters, was quite surprised by Gandhi. I’m going to have to do more research on a lot of these.
I’m not getting into the homosexuality debate… it is too frustrating, since, in my view the answer is quite obvious: gay marriage should be allowed; you love who you love. I honestly cannot comprehend how and why people want to deny others the right to be married. So, I am not going to try to convince anyone, since, in my experience, people against gay marriage do not wish to be convinced. But, then again, I don’t wish to be convinced of the opposing side’s view, either.
Also, for those of you talking about how Lincoln was a racist, I wrote a detailed term paper on this very subject in high school. Lincoln did not sign the Emancipation Proclamation out of any sympathy for the slaves. He did it primarily in order to disrupt the Southern economy and social structure. Also, by freeing slaves, he gained the help/neutrality of England and France, which were considering sending aid to the South. Had this happened, it would have been disastrous for the Union. Finally, a lot of people do not know that very few slaves were actually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. It freed only the slaves in Southern-held territories. Meaning that slaves in the neutral states and formerly Southern territory (southern territory the North had conquered) retained its slaves. Essentially, Lincoln passed a law that applied only to an area of the country that he had no influence over. However, I am not saying that the Emancipation Proclamation was completely useless in the long term; it did set a wonderful precedent that other laws followed when the Union finally won.
Lincoln was definitely a racist by today’s standards, though it is important to keep him in his own historical context and to recognize that he accomplished a great thing by holding the US together. However, it is equally important (in my humble opinion) to remember that he was not the perfect image of equality that many history books like to remember him as.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Also, did I mention, FANTASTIC list. We should have more like it…
May 27th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
The Gandhi entry is pushing it a little bit. I am a little confused is this article implying that both Elvis and James Dean were gay with Nick Adams or did I read it wrong?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
to everyone freaking out about how this list “slanders” gandhi-
at comment #30 jfrater cited his info to 3 different, published, real books. real, non-fiction books get fact-checked.
so unless all 3 books and their respective fact-checkers all made the same error, it appears that this information -gandhi slept nude with young girls- is accurate and is more than “some stuff on the internet.” i loved the person who tried to refute it solely using wiki, after comment #30, too funny.
how we interpret this fact about gandhi will remain a matter of our personal opinions of course.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
He cheated on his taxes? THAT’S the most scandalous fact you could come up with about Hitler? In comparison to the rest of his life that was an act of pristine virtue.
Speaking of drunks and womanizers. Churchill was also a bit of a drinker, Martin Luther King made it with a whole bunch of roadies while his wife was home in Atlanta and then there was always JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe. But I guess those are a little too well known to make the list.
Good list though. The Washington one was the biggest surprise.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
213: Try reading the list.
The assertation was ‘Gandhi was a dirty old man’
Show me where those books assert that.
The accusation was wrong, not factual, slanderous, and based in was can pretty much be summed up as cultural anthromorphism and abject ignorance.
You can list all the books you want that say ‘Gandhi slept in the same bed as young girls’
But when you skew the context, leave it devoid of cultural relevance, rape it of meaning and twist it to be something it isn’t- then you are just a hack- nothing more. Might I suggest joining your peers, Bill OReilly and Anne Coulter? They are very fair and honest reporters with no bias, the kind you must like.
Because hey, if we can’t filter it through our western seive of reality first and foremost, let’s insult and attack it and completely make it into something it isn’t.
It disgusts me that people are even trying to attempt to defend this garbage. it’s racist, xenophobic and ignorant.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
mr. graves-
have you ever left a non-angry comment here?
i said in closing: “how we interpret this fact about gandhi will remain a matter of our personal opinions of course.”
it is possible that the line “gandhi was a dirty old man” could, rather than being “racist, xenophobic and ignorant,” be something called a “joke.”
do they have those on your planet?
and it’s also totally possible that the mere fact that an aged gandhi choose to sleep nude with his teen-aged female relatives -regardless of his true spiritual intent- could be seen as fitting the stereotype of a “dirty” (i.e sex-obsessed) “old” (he was both an older person and much older than these girls) “man” (he was undisputedly male).
besides, as you are not yourself gandhi, you cannot truly know his intent, you only know what he stated it to be. so, anyone’s judgment of his behavior remains a matter or their personal opinion.
oh, and he was absolutely racist against black africans. he was human. he had flaws. deal with it.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
p.s.
graves my dear, the fact that you think i’m a social conservative or, like bill and ann, a crazy liar utterly divorced from reality, is very funny! (perhaps you do know of this “joke” idea.)
i personally think you are breaking poe’s law yourself, but it’s always so hard to tell real crazy outrage from fake crazy outrage, the “crazy” gets in the way every time.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
this is why I love this site – keep lists like this coming
May 27th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
215. Mr.Graves : Calm down, I doubt that it was meant to be taken literally – knowing Jamie – so just chill. He’s not calling Gandhi “evil”, why are you getting so worked up?
Just something completely irrelevant and off-topic here. Does anyone here on LV play fantasy baseball, or is anyone interested in it? Because I know it’s a bit late to be starting, but I’ve been meaning to do it. Anyone at all?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
If Gandhi were still alive, Mr. Graves would be all up on his scrotum…
May 27th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
This list only goes to prove to myself that people suck. There’s no such thing as an honest selfless human. Anyway, great list!
May 27th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
10. What about his affair with his niece? Can’t mention the details in public. Truly shameful.
8. Drank his own pee also and was unhealthily interested in everybody’s bowel movements.
4. What about the hair? More scandalous than a little philandering which he never hid anyway.
3. Must be lots more juicy stuff about him. Now, if you had something on rock hudson and james dean while they were filming Giant, that would be juicy.
2. How did you miss the other Andrew, Jackson that is. He practically nearly wiped off whole tribes from the face of this earth.
1. Only one Pope. There are about a dozen I know of who had bastard children while espousing the benefits of celibacy, blackmailed their congregations to build palaces filled with gold and jewellry, and some who were very sweet on little boys.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:24 am
i suggest u remove racist comments published, or this site would get fcked……hacked.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:07 am
223. Gh0st-
instead of vaguely threatening cyber vandalism, why don’t you just click “report abuse” on the comments that bother you, then follow through with the offer to email the details of your complaint to the site owner?
if you’ve found a truly very out-of-line comment i’m sure the moderators/owner will remove it.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:22 am
therealnick: I don’t think it was Gandhi who drank his urine and talked bout bowel movements. That was Moraji Desai (served 2 years as India’s PM). I was actually surprised that he didn’t make the list on his urine drinking habit …
May 28th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Not sure why you picked on Pius as “Arsehole No.1″ – unless, of course you happen to be anti-Catholic – a few of your lists have hinted at the probability that Catholics, the Church and – Popes in particular – are not your favourite people.
Personally, I’d have voted Churchill at #1 – since his remarks tend to be a great deal worse and long-lasting (not to mention affecting a far great many more people), than what Pius did.
Besides which – there were a great many Popes who were a LOT worse than Pius – The Borgia/de Medici Popes for one.
Lastly – Hitler was also a coprophile.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Big news, guys. The Jews didn’t kill Jesus. The Romans did.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Shagrat: on the contrary – I was raised as a Catholic and have no animosity towards the Catholic faith. I added Pius IX, who I think was, generally speaking, one of the best Popes in recent history, because the story is interesting and would certainly appear scandalous in this day and age
Oh – and the list wasn’t really in order of scandal – it was in order of writing. Normally I mention that at the outset but I forgot to. I have done a list of wicked popes which you can read here. You will find Pius IX is definitely not on it.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:19 am
pasttime (212): Did it read like I was implying that? If so – my mistake. I thought I was bluntly saying that they were gay
It is certain that James Dean was either gay or bisexual – and Nick Adams was one of his lovers. There were also rumors that when Elvis hung out with him, he became his lover as well.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Just to the people saying homophobia is just an irrational fear of homosexuals (which is what it literally is). Many definitions and its use in common lexicon also describe it as a prejudice against homosexuals. One definition:
“Literally an uncontrollable fear of homosexuals and of homosexuality, but the term is generally used for a negative and contemptuous attitude to same-sex sexual relationships and to those who participate in them.”
Just google Define:homophobia and you will see what I mean.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:36 am
230. cymraegbachgen87 : Well said, the correct Queen’s English definition may only be “an irrational fear of homosexuals (homosexuality?)”. However, like all words, they take meaning from what they are used to mean and what people conceive it to mean.
For example, retard has the connotation of animosity and hatred towards a mentally impaired person. Its proper English meaning however, is “a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.”
Words take the meaning we impart upon them.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:41 am
“God never created ‘marriage’ – Man did – ages ago”
Finally a sensible post! Yes Marriage is accredited to the ancient Egyptians or perhaps even earlier!
I’m quoting from wiki here (shoot me!) so accuracy not guarenteed but “Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent…As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses.”
So marriage wasn’t even religious in the early days of the christian church. It was a private matter between two people who loved each other. Should it not return, at least in part, to that?
May 28th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Mark I completely agree. On another list cricket is described as gay by a very angry american who describes me as anti american
– (see further up for details)
Now. Does he mean that cricket is homosexual (he could) or is he using the words ever changing meaning to imply that cricket is siht?
That word started (and still carries the connotation) of happy.
The wonderful thing (ok that could be debated) about english is its constantly changing nature.
“Words take the meaning we impart upon them.”
Couldn’t have said it any better myself
May 28th, 2009 at 3:51 am
233. cymraegbachgen87 : “…On another list cricket is described as gay by a very angry american who describes me as anti american…”
Pretty typical, most of my friends – correction, all of them – don’t like baseball in the least. I however don’t mind it at all, so I always get a little frustrated when North American’s act so America-centric about their sports
“…That word started (and still carries the connotation) of happy…”
That is one thing that really annoys me about my English teacher, if I say gay she invariably replies with “Oh, *blank* is happy is he/she/it?” One day, I swear to god, I’m going to give her a mouthful. So when I get suspended y’all know why
“…The wonderful thing (ok that could be debated) about english is its constantly changing nature…”
IMO the English language is prolly the most interesting in the world, it takes inspiration from everywhere. And as you said, it’s still changing, just look at txtspeek
“…“Words take the meaning we impart upon them.”
Couldn’t have said it any better myself”
Yes you could have and probably would have if you had a post like your 230 to refer to. But thanks
May 28th, 2009 at 5:56 am
@ 185 : Tax evasion is not that bad. Hitler should be forgiven for that. Its not like he killed a million people trying to take over the world.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:25 am
169. DiscHuker–My lima bean is called liver-eww. LOL
May 28th, 2009 at 10:38 am
What? No MLK Jr?
May 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
why wasnt my comment published? Seems lke talking a lot against Mr. Gandhi is penalised.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
7raul7
Did you include profanities or a number of links? If you put links in your post then it sometimes takes a while for them to be verified by one of the moderators.
Just be patient. Jfrater and the rest of his team are extremely tolerant and allow almost any comment, so I cant see as your comment would be disallowed unless it breached the terms of the site.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
OK, so lets see more about the half-naked fakir (begging mystic):-
-Gandhi’s pretty teenage girl followers used to fight “hysterically” for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was “testing” his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.) When told there was a man named Freud who said that, despite his declared intention, Gandhi might actually be *enjoying* the caresses of the naked girls, Gandhi continued, unperturbed.
-his daily greeting was, “Have you had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?” And he used to participate in giving all the girls in his ashram enemas and they gave him enemas in return
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm
http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-mountain200306.htm
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
http://www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q11.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/singh_12_3.htm
http://cultureforall.blogspot.com/2008/02/real-gandhi.html
http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=blog/real-gandhi-schizophrenic-and-sadist
http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/13408-gandhi-real-gandhi-exposed.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_Behind_the_Mask_of_Divinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_Under_Cross_Examination
http://www.indiarightsonline.com/Sabrang/relipolcom6.nsf/5e7647d942f529c9e5256c3100376e2e/e9a876ad56d16d0165256ccd0034fe6a/$FILE/bac04734.pdf
ALSO, PLZ READ :-
‘Indian critiques of Gandhi’
By Harold G. Coward
Published by SUNY Press, 2003
ISBN 0791459101, 9780791459102
287 pages
May 28th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Excellent list with food for thought and controversial comments, that inspire research and evaluation. Many thanks.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
what is anti sematic?
May 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
242. pinkbiscuit: I looked it up and it’s basically (in a nutshell) ‘Jew Phobia’. Prejudice/hate/anger/fear towards jews and what they stand for and believe.
Ignorant crap is what it is.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
#207: “You don’t get to twist God to fit your pet agenda and claim to be the good Christian.”
Ironically, it seems that you are the one twisting God to fit your own outlook on life.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Which Gandhi was the dirty old man? was it the same one who led the salt march?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Wow, I was just a bit surprised when I read that James Dean and maybe Elvis were gay because I had never heard that before. In doing a little research it is clear that Dean was atleast bi-sexual. I do think it is a bit of a stretch to imply that Elvis was so infactuated with Dean that he sought out Nick in order to fullfill his sexual fantasy, even if you didn’t put it exactly like that. There is nothing wrong with being gay and my fiance has a PhD in clinical psychology and has done research that claims that 8% of the world population is gay.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
246 pasttime: I would bet that it’s a higher percentage!
May 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Sorry I meant to say the male population, who knows about those females.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Probably been said, but EVERYONE was an anti-semite in Luther’s time. There are more worthwhile things to have lists about, if someone’s image of these characters hinges upon whether they were perfect angels or not then they’ll have more problems than just a tarnished image of their heroes at the end of this list.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I agree, being racist and kidnapping children wouldn’t be seen as scandalous during their time, but its a good read all the same
May 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
1 thing i think so far for Jfrater:
on the pope article, got a spelling mistake; according – acorrding ; 1st spelling is right
.
.
“-Acorrding- to Catholic Church doctrine, Edgardo’s baptism, even if illegal under canon law, was valid and made him a Christian.”
just being awkward
good list anyway.
and lol i nearly corrected you for the martin luther article, till i realised that martin luther and martin luther KING are different people XD, lol ex-blonde moment there
.
May 31st, 2009 at 2:27 am
Convienently left out of Andrew Johnson’s blurb was the fact that he had taken a drink at a doctor’s suggestion to offset the pain of typhoid and his weakened condition along with his normally sober lifestyle lead to the appearance of drunkeness. Secondly, although he did escape conviction by one vote, there were at least four other Republican senators that said they would have voted for acquittal if it meant the difference between him being convicted or not.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
hitler was a tax evader? oh god i never thought he could sink that low
May 31st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
god i love scandals… XD
May 31st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
After reading the thing about Martin Luther it makes me wonder whether Hitler was inspired by him or not.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:53 am
@ Dark787 (#43) I’m not placing anything at any level. I’m just trying to say that celibacy leads to these things.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:32 am
If anyone actually thinks these are “facts”, well….
To follow one of the 1st rules of logic, the OP/Source must (not should – must) give quantifiable references. Cutting & pasting (a really poor job @ the Churchill piece, BTW)to create “facts” just isn’t.
The unfortunate part is that these bits of fail will be tossed around until some believe them to be true.
Feh.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
Regarding #5, it is not proven that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hennings child. The Foster paper written in 1998 has been proven a fraud. It evidence only showed that any one of 25 Jeffersons living at Monticello was the father of one of Hennings’ children.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:20 am
The Jefferson-Hemings connection has NOT been conclusive and shouldnt be sold that it is.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“DNA evidence proved that at least one of Hemings’ children was fathered by Jefferson?”
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
DNA evidence proved that all but one of Hemings’ children were definitely not fathered by Jefferson. The DNA evidence proved that the remaining child was fathered by A Jefferson, not necessarily Tom Jefferson, as a number of Jefferson men frequented Monticello.
So put this down as a possibly could have. A definite maybe.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Is there any proof about the Gandhi story? Seems like extreme misinformation without any supporting data.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I think Jfrater gave sources further up, around post number 30
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The Jefferson-Hemings story is, at the least, far from proven. The original DNA study was mishandled by the author and by Nature Magazine which led to a sort of urban legend that science had at last proved Jefferson fathered Hemings’ children. Once this became conventional wisdom you could find it stated as fact in the press and on the web, but it’s really not proven and there are reasons for believing that the story is false. Jefferson’s brother Randolph was known to socialize with the slaves; he and his five sons are all more likely candidates.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 am
@ Bobby (comment 96 & 100). I agree with you brother. Homosexuality, in my opinion is a choice unless there are some congenital biological issues.
Are criminals born with a disposition to break the law? No. How convenient would it be if said that I’m an alcoholic because I was born that way.
Anyways, this discussion is taking this thread into a direction that is not relevant to the topic of the list, which is against the rules of posting here, so maybe we can take this up in the forums or elsewhere.
Jfay, I should brownie points for this!
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
264 Tomo : Why am I turned on by different things to you? (We don’t need to go into them, I’m not admitting anything
) I think that it is a predisposition that you are born with. I also believe that there are some compelling studies pointing towards congenital causes of alcoholism – don’t quote me there. Just my two cents…
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
interesting…
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Todd- Read the articles you linked on Gandhi and views about Apartheid. I must say it is very eye-opening. It sickens me to know that a stature of him stands is in the courtyard of the church that Martin Luther King, Jr.(I am not confusing the Martin Luthers, btw) called home in Atlanta, GA.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Hey Mark (265); Congential causes for alcoholism??!! come onnn, gimme a break buddy. Look, I could buy it if you said that lifestyles are passed on to generations, hence, if a father was alcoholic, the children could turn out the same way because of what they saw their father do. Even then it is a choice for the child to either be like the father or not. But it cannot be congenital, no way.
Getting turned on by different things is again dependent on our conditioning. The reason we may find different things sexy is because of our conditioning, the different thing we’ve been exposed to, our experiences vary and hence our choices vary. But bottom line is, it’s choices we make that make us who we are. I am whatever I am because I choose to be it, not because this is how I was born. I’m talking about personality here, not physical problems that may be congenital.
Once again, let’s get back to the topic of the list before we get thrown out of the site. JFray, where are my brownie points?!
Jfray, I think we need to do an opinions list on whether people think homosexuality is a choice or inborn.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
268 Tomo : You’re wrong mate, pure and simple
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/genetics/a/aa990517.htm
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Mark, well if it’s on the internet, it must be true!!
Jokes aside, I’m sure a lot of work went into that study but if you read it, you will see how inconclusive it is. Let me quote the first couple of paragraphs (which to me sound more like disclaimers) and I assure you they are not out of context (go to the link Mark posted if you’re not convinced):
“There is a growing body of scientific evidence that alcoholism has a genetic component, but the actual gene that may cause it has yet to be identified.” No gene identified. Speculative.
“Children of alcoholics are four times more likely than other children to become alcoholics, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, but environmental factors could be a factor in many of those cases.”
Sounds exactly like someone mentioned in their comments (see comment # 268). It’s beahvioral, u see your dad doing something habitually as a child and you are more likely to do the same when you grow up. Hence, we all need to be good role models for kids etc…
Dr. Enoch Gordis says that “the research could help in identifying youngsters at risk of becoming alcoholics and could lead to early prevention efforts.” Sounds like the ‘Precrime’ program from Minority Report, doesn’t it?
In any case Mark, alocoholism was just one example we were using while discussing homosexuality. So, you got any studies that say there’s a homosexuality gene?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:17 am
268 Tomo : I just re-read your comment, you’re a bigot mate.
“…Even then it is a choice for the child to either be like the father or not…”
Have you ever dealt with a alcoholic parent? Don’t bother answering that, it isn’t necessary. What you get exposed to as an infant, child and adolescent is what makes you the adult you become. Even without congenital or genetic causes, it’s not as easy as you make it out to be.
270 Tomo : “Mark, well if it’s on the internet, it must be true!!…”
Did you even *glance* at their medical review team? If you had you’d know that the article is very well sourced. Just type “alcoholism inherited” or “alcoholism genetic” into Google, you’ll find a lot more concurring than dissenting opinions.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
The Gandhi thing really should be re-phrased…fair enough it happened but it was apart of a ritual no-one here is educated about. just because its different doesn’t mean its wrong. strict hindus would find eating cheeseburgers a complete disgust, it just shows the vast diversity in this world. and whom are we to say what is right or wrong in other cultures and societies. great list (Y) but the gandhi thing can be really offensive to a lot of people!!
June 10th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’d like to add to Hmmm (272).
If a person wants to check his/her strength of giving up eating meat by eating vegan food with meat in the same plate, how is that bad? Yes, it might be odd, and something different, but that’s in the perception of the individual.
What would be wrong is that if the girls were forced into it against their wishes. If that’s the case, then he can and must be condemned.
However, there are a few thousand books on Gandhi (yes, a few thousand), and yet, only a fringe few talk about this. Most (including critiques) refute it as exagerration.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Gandhi was really racist against Africans, too.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:43 am
lust always with gandhi
June 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Jefferson’s descendants share DNA with Hemmings’ because Sally Hemmings was Mrs. (Martha Wayles) Jefferson’s half-sister, and they were raised as sisters. The Jeffersons inherited from old man Wayles his debts and his slaves. Jefferson, over many years, repaid the debts and provided that the slaves be freed upon his death. Martha made Jefferson vow that if she preceded him in death he would look after Sally as her sister. Scandalous, ain’t it?
Read Dumas Malone’s excellent bio – abridged version on line.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
The Parts about Martin Luther King are completly wrong and not true at all…
The book youre quoting is written by martin luther in the 16th century..
Check the facts before you post on listverse
July 5th, 2009 at 10:35 am
im surprised that it didn’t list the fact that martin luther king jr. was a plagarising butthole
July 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Dirty Gandhy .. good title for a porn movie
July 8th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
BaxterinAction- Alcoholism is genetic: alcoholics are born with a genetic susceptibility to addiction to alcohol. If they never drink alcohol it isn’t a problem, but most people with this genetic susceptibility will run into addiction problems if they drink alcohol. Also, alcoholism runs in families, indicating that it is a genetic trait.
———————————————————-
Also, homosexuality runs in families, too. BTW, why do so many people care that certain people are gay? Nobody is forcing straight people to watch or engage in homosexual acts, so get over it.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Wow. Ghandi came as a suprise to me, never in a million years would I believe him to be a “dirty old man”. ;]
July 12th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
As a Native American Cherokee I am annoyed by the Churchill thing. The idea of saying we were a weaker race I mean really who wants to tangle with any indigenous people one on one in their land? Be it Native American, Aborigine, Zulu, Maory, Vietnamese, or Russian, you will always have trouble taking people on their ancestors land.unless you have the numbers.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Its easy to say things(bad more than good) about people who are dead and gone…fascinating as they seem…what a load of rubbish! I’d rather spend time watching some porn..
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Dude your list are so f*&%ing biased (pardon the french but just couldn’t help using it) and full of mis-information…any information provided without a credible source is mis-information…quote the source which says Gandhi was a dirty old man….QUOTE IT!
July 30th, 2009 at 11:53 am
You can see where the British MP’s got their influence from. Although, I’m a pretty sure none of them claimed for quite as much as $4,250,000.00 on expenses.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Tomo – Homosexuality is something you’re born with. You don’t choose or become one. It has been proven to be associated/caused by fluctuating testosterone levels in the mother before the child is even born. The first study I read was years and years ago; Women who were pregnant during the blitz of London were identified and their children studied. Raised stress levels effect female’s testosterone levels – and the time of the stress was proven to be the determining factor. 1st trimester had a much higher proportion of homosexuals while 2nd trimester had hetero males that were more effeminate than what is expected in the general population…I might have that backwards, it was a long time ago.
There have been further studies – here’s a couple but feel free to do a google search – there are many more.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Low-In-Utero-Testosterone-Levels-Determine-Homosexual-Behavior-in-Males-52005.shtml
http://www.mombu.com/medicine/psychology/t-same-mechanism-involved-in-male-and-female-homosexuality-2363449.html
July 31st, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Remove the Gandhi’s profile description from this site rightnow..You should feel shame doing it , these are the great people of history and you are just a Shit of today who has no rights to do all these craps.
I will file a case against you very soon if it does not happen.
Thanks,
YK
August 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
i was disgusted when i read about Martin Luther. and honestly was angry about the Pope. it disgusts me endlessly hearing about discrimination and poor treatment of Jews. that should be long over with.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
NICE ONE GANDHI :L:L
October 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Martin Luthor may have felt that Judaism was an insult to an individual access to God but he was not a racist/Anti-Semite as can be seen by his objecting to the segregated lives Christians lived . Racial/Blood Anti-semitism came from Spain after the Moors.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I hated it when I read the stupidest things you wrote about Gandhi. I’ve been following this site closely & had started to like it. I will believe what you wrote only if you can support it with evidence.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
where is the source on Ghandi?