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).
Baxter,
“If you are able to make this choice then I think it is pretty clear what your particular *****ual preference is. Unless you are suggesting that everybody in the world is a bi*****ual?”
So it is a choice?
Being bi*****ual is a choice.
If you guys are arguing whether or not *****uality 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 *****uality 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 hetero*****ual life, or one can be hetero*****ual and choose to engage in homo*****uality… isn’t that a more valid way to understand it?
That’s like asking nature vs. nurture… put it simply… it can be both.
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.
“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.
I think I made my point. Have a good day.
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.
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.
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 ***** 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.
128. callie_ Nice point =]
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.
Re homo*****uality and “choice” vs “innate trait” – I always thought this argument of distinction was pointless, because either way it fosters the idea that homo*****uality 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.
I don’t exactly find this list scandalous …
Some of the comments, however ????
Vote no on prop 8! oh wait, too late.
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 homo*****ual 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!
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
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.
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)
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, *****uality is innate or a choice.
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.
#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
or perhaps he never existed
Just because in our language someone along the way decided to use the term “*****ual preferance,” that doesn’t mean it’s carved in stone that homo*****uality is or isn’t a “preferance”. It just means that the term was coined by a person to talk or write about homo*****uality. 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.
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.
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).
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.
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…
138 archangel: whether, by nature, *****uality is innate or a choice.
My feeling on it is – “orientation” is innate, how one physically acts upon that innate orientation is by choice.
146. Maggot
I have to applaud you for that phrase, it is a good way of understanding *****uality indeed.
# “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
143, 144, thank-you. I do try hard to keep this casual but it winds me up when people accuse me of racism.
well…not racism…perhaps xenophobia is a better description.
#143. archangel
sorry, forgot something…
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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% ?!
It’s NOT sleeping with women as this article mentioned, it’s sleeping BESIDE women. If he wanted to sleep WITH women he had no need to continue is celibacy or publicly broadcast what he’s doing inside the four walls and it would not have affected his leadership following. You pin heads from bible beating background will never understand a complex religion.
I guess the following is tabloid stuff – sorry! But # 76 callie asked, “Is it true Elvis refused to have ***** 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 *****ual relations with her after their daughter was born.
Tabloid stuff, I know, I know! I apologize all to hell.
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.
Interesting…that picture of Hitler doesn’t look like him very much…he kinda has the same head shape as Christian Bale…weird.
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.
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.
Gandhi used to be my hero, after today he´s reached the heights of a demigod!
If you are so easily influenced and gullible and do not have your own brain to think and do research then you should not make anyone your hero. You can make some reality star as your hero. Gandhi “tested” his celibacy by sleeping beside them. The more opportunity he had to test his celibacy the more celibate he thought of himself and he “created” that opportunity intentionally.
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 *****? Should those things also be outlawed? People use religion to mask their homophobia IMO.
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.
maggot: you bring up an excellent point. the church has always been against divorce, adultery and premarital *****. 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 homo*****uals. 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?
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.
People who claim to be Judeo-Christians and followers of the Abrahamic covenent and then go about and decry homo*****uality 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 homo*****uals- 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 homo*****uals 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 homo*****uals. To start, the misrepresented and improperly translated passages make no mention of actual loving relationships between same ***** couples- the term and concept of loving homo*****uality 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 homo*****uality 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 homo*****ual 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 homo*****uality. 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 *****ism.
Finally, if anyone wants to try to show that the Bible advocates the persecution of homo*****uals, 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.
I believe i found a typo
“405,500 million Reichsmarks” that cant be right lol
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
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.
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?
Hitler was homo*****ual 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.
He never hated himself moron! I don’t know where people got this propaganda, maybe american media which likes to sensationalize everything. And he was not jewish origin. He was fascinated by the whole Aryan civilization concept because they were the one who started the first (as far as we know now) religion. Read about Maximiani Portas in wiki.
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 *****ism 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 homo*****uality 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 homo*****uality 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; homo*****uality, 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”.
The drunk vice president. way to go. The hitler tax evasion makes alot of sense…he then found a blame.
clairvoyant: so does that mean, since you comments are in writing, that we shoudn’t believe what you wrote either?
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…