# Politics



## Hanz29 (Mar 17, 2004)

I'm just curious- who here is voting for bush or against bush...

I love arguing politics and I've always been curious where most bodybuilders stand on the political issues

My guess- Conservative


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Hanz29 *_ I've always been curious where most bodybuilders stand on the political issues
> 
> My guess- Conservative



You're absolutely correct in my case.  I'll go out on a limb and say it applies to DG806 too.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 17, 2004)

What in the hell makes you think that?


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> What in the hell makes you think that?



Hmmm..........maybe it's that "Rush Limbaugh for President" bumper sticker you've got on your truck.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Mar 17, 2004)

I am undecided for the 04 election.

Some issues I am more liberal (abortion, gay rights), and other issues I am more conservative (the economy, gun ownership, international affairs, Patriot Act).  The latter are more important to me, but I have yet to decide for 04.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 17, 2004)

I got a Rush sticker? ALRIGHT! 
Don't forget Charlton Heston sticking up for my guns!


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_Some issues I am more liberal (abortion, gay rights), and other issues I am more conservative (the economy, gun ownership, international affairs, Patriot Act).  The latter are more important to me, but I have yet to decide for 04.



I have to agree with the examples you cited (except I'd need clarification on "gay rights".)  What I usually do is see how the candidate's stance will affect me in the long run.   The economy, gun ownership, international affairs, and the Patriot Act will have a huge affect on me for a very long time.  Abortion and gay rights have absolutely no affect on me now, and never will.

(I know I shouldn't use absolutes but you get the point I'm trying to make, right?)


----------



## I Are Baboon (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> I have to agree with the examples you cited (except I'd need clarification on "gay rights".)



My "gay rights" reference pertains to civil unions, joining the military, etc.  I don't think sexual preference should omit you from that stuff (that's just my opinion and I have no desire to debate it).  I also don't like the right wing's insistence on shoving religion in my face.

I agree that those issues will not affect me in the long run, but they are still issues for which I have an opinion.  I voted Bush in '00, but his spending habits have me worried.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_
> My "gay rights" reference pertains to civil unions, joining the military, etc.  I don't think sexual preference should omit you from that stuff (that's just my opinion and I have no desire to debate it).



Fair enough. 



> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_ I also don't like the right wing's insistence on shoving religion in my face.



Another area where we agree.  I don't like that from ANYBODY.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

While I don't think people should have religion forced on them, nor do we have to continue to allow the left's current persecution of anything christian.

I'm voting for Bush, and yes...I'm conservative.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 17, 2004)

I dont believe gays should be allowed to marry
but i do think they should be allowed into the military if they so choose...


----------



## Vieope (Mar 17, 2004)

_ Don´t take my PH _


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

So.....

You want to grant them the right to die for their country, but not marry correct?  I don't understand the logic here, sorry.

For the record:
I don't think they should be allowed to marry, or serve in the military.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> 
> I don't think they should be allowed to marry, or serve in the military.



_ Why ? _


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

Fair question.

1.  To allow them to marry violates God's Law.  (See my other post in the homosexual thread by John H. to see why it violates it).

2.  To allow them to join the military, undermines the discipline required to serve as a COHESIVE unit.  That, simply, is not possible, if others in the unit resent the homosexual.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 17, 2004)

_ The marriage thing I will not argue about. 
About the military I need to say that you are wrong because in every work place you have ppl that you may not like. Maybe they are from a different culture, arrogant, dependent, tall, short, rich, poor... doesn´t matter what characteristic. I think that the person in the military job need to be professional enough to not let their emotions/feelings interfere in their actions. 

Don´t you agree with me ? _


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Vieope *_
> _ The marriage thing I will not argue about.
> About the military I need to say that you are wrong because in every work place you have ppl that you may not like. Maybe they are from a different culture, arrogant, dependent, tall, short, rich, poor... doesn´t matter what characteristic. I think that the person in the military job need to be professional enough to not let their emotions/feelings interfere in their actions.
> 
> Don´t you agree with me ? _



not everyones work place is out on the battle field...
not stereotyping by saying tahts all the armed forces do

but thats the example im using


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 17, 2004)

most peoples jobs are not life or death situations either...


----------



## Vieope (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by myCATpowerlifts *_
> most peoples jobs are not life or death situations either...



_You can kill someone if you are:
bad pharmacist, doctor, engineer... almost any job that you can think of is involved in high risk for someone else. _


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Vieope *_
> _You can kill someone if you are:
> bad pharmacist, doctor, engineer... almost any job that you can think of is involved in high risk for someone else. _



but that is indirectly...
if you are going to look at it that way

you could say every job involved high risk for some body


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

if Bush is re-elected I swear to god I am out of this fuckin' country. Bush is a lying piece of shit, and him and his administration are leading teh charge in taking away our freedoms one case by one. open your eyes..


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

You said it, but will you really do it?  Alec Baldwin said as much in the last election.  He hasn't moved, as he said he would, and I doubt you will.

Where would you go?  

Would you really do it?

I doubt it.


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> So.....
> 
> You want to grant them the right to die for their country, but not marry correct?  I don't understand the logic here, sorry.
> ...



Denying any rights because of race, creed, gender, or anything else for that matter is a civil rights violation.  Eventually gay people will be granted the same rights as every other US citizen but it will take time and martyrs to bring the issue to fruition.  Personally I don't care what anybody else does as they don't hurt anybody in the process.  We have to keep in mind that separation of church and state was instituted for a reason.


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> You said it, but will you really do it?  Alec Baldwin said as much in the last election.  He hasn't moved, as he said he would, and I doubt you will.
> 
> Where would you go?
> ...




First off, you don't know me, so that is pretty presumptious of you now isn't it? I am not Alec Baldwin, nor do I have what he has to lose by leaving the country. I know you are probably bitter that not everyone is a Bush supporter and all, but he has done nothing positive for this country. Things are in shamble, we have problems everywhere and what does he have to say about it? He focuses on steroids in baseball! Please. He is no leader and right now, maybe more than ever, this country needs a leader. One who is going to represent how real people feel about real issues. He is not doing that now is he. How do I benefit by staying here and having people tell me what I can and can't do when they aren't going to provide us with basic needs? I don't


----------



## Arnold (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> if Bush is re-elected I swear to god I am out of this fuckin' country. Bush is a lying piece of shit, and him and his administration are leading teh charge in taking away our freedoms one case by one. open your eyes..



I agree, but we can pretty much sum up the entire american goverment with that.


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> How do I benefit by staying here and having people tell me what I can and can't do when they aren't going to provide us with basic needs? I don't



Good point.  Although America was an early innovator of the modern democratic age our puritan roots run deep and have caused this country to grow lethargic and apathetic regarding matters of freedom, social equality, and the distribution of justice (to name a few).  An exodus to a socially progressive country may not be a bad idea, however the countries that will accept an American citizen are becoming few a far between.  (Mostly due to our perpetually arrogant and selfish foreign policy)


----------



## Arnold (Mar 17, 2004)

Mexico, that is where I may be headed soon!


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

Jezziah,

Lets look at the Bill of Rights, specifically the admendment you are talking about:


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

What does it actually say?

1.  The Government cannot establish, endorse, or prevent the      exercise of a religion.
2.  The Government cannot "censor" the press, or stop people from speaking their minds.
3.  The Government cannot restrict people from assembling.
4.  The Government must allow people people to petition for a redress of grievances (I couldn't think of anything that said this in a manner that would make it clear).

Nothing in there that would allow gays full access.  It doesn't say that in any manner of thinking.  Use another admendment to support your claim.


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

well in this country decisions are not made based on what is true factually or what is good for the majority of its people, not by long shot. Its based instead on how the specific political or wealthy party involved could benefit financially. You call that a democracy? Hey Canada provides free medical coverage for its citizens. sounds good to me.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

gr81,



> First off, you don't know me, so that is pretty presumptious of you now isn't it? I am not Alec Baldwin, nor do I have what he has to lose by leaving the country. I know you are probably bitter that not everyone is a Bush supporter and all, but he has done nothing positive for this country. Things are in shamble, we have problems everywhere and what does he have to say about it? He focuses on steroids in baseball! Please. He is no leader and right now, maybe more than ever, this country needs a leader. One who is going to represent how real people feel about real issues. He is not doing that now is he. How do I benefit by staying here and having people tell me what I can and can't do when they aren't going to provide us with basic needs? I don't



You are correct, I don't know you.

I'm merely calling you on your "leave the country" bit.  Will you actually do it, or are you just blowing sunshine up our collective asses?

I actually don't care who you vote for.  If Kerry wins, and you helped put him there, so be it.  Note that I didn't state I'd leave the country if that happened.

You "know I am probably bitter"?  Isn't this a hypocritical statement?  You just said I didn't know you, but now you know me well enough to make this statement?  

I don't think I need to go on.


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Jezziah,
> 
> Lets look at the Bill of Rights, specifically the admendment you are talking about:
> ...




Honestly, who fuckin cares about Gays and whether or not they can marry? I am so god damm sick of hearing about that shit. I believe they should be able to, but there are SOOOO MANY more important issues that we NEED to be focusing on before who gets married or not. That pisses me off more than anything else, is our priorities are so out of wack, no wonder its hopeless for gods sake.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

Good answer.

I present the first admendment to the Bill of Rights, and the first thing out of of your mouth is a "who fuckin cares" comment.

You brought up the church/state issue.  I tried to clarify it.  As a typical leftist, you change the subject. (I am basing this tag on your comments so far).  Fire a shot, get called on it, and change the direction instead of answering the question.

If you move (and you won't) may I suggest you restrain yourself enough to understand what (country) laws are?


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

I understand the laws pal, and I didn't bring up anything. I just said I was gonna move and you tried to call me on it like you know me. I said who cares regarding all the drama over gays being able to marry, b/c I believe it that there are a million other issues that are more pertenant to societies well being then if a gay person can marry. I didn't bring up church and state at all! go back and read, that was someone else. By the way, labeling someone is a dangerous tactic. you haven;t even begun to hear what my stances on anything are, and yet you begin to assume that if I side with one group on one issue, I must be a left winger, and in turn you have already discredited whatever else I may say by having preconceptions pf what I believe. This is a foolish thing  to do, and that is not how change happens. Change occurs with debate and discussion, listening to what each person has to say, not assuming you already know! I understand the laws very well, I understand them enough to realize they are racist, baised, and unjust. Is that how things should be?


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

PS. If you can't have a civil debate without immediately typecasting me then I suggest you try not to debate at all. That is not having an open mind, which is necessary to debating.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 17, 2004)

Huh?

Didn't you typecast me by saying "I know you are probably bitter that not everyone is a Bush supporter and all"?  Doesn't that statement accuse me of being a right-winger?

I am debating.  This in unemotional.  I am merely calling you on your statements.  The fact that many are hypocritical just adds to the debate, does it not?

An old saying comes to mind "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house".

PS.  If you cannot make your point without being a hypocrite in following statments - don't debate.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> well in this country decisions are not made based on what is true factually or what is good for the majority of its people, not by long shot. Its based instead on how the specific political or wealthy party involved could benefit financially.



Amen!




> You call that a democracy?



Hell No.


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Huh?
> 
> Didn't you typecast me by saying "I know you are probably bitter that not everyone is a Bush supporter and all"?  Doesn't that statement accuse me of being a right-winger?




No not at all, you are assuming that. I NEVER said you were a right winger, I said you were a bush supporter b/c YOU said teh post previous that you were a Bush supporter. thats it. Don't put words into my mouth


----------



## gr81 (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> An old saying comes to mind "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house".




Sometimes you need to break some windows here and there when necessary.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 17, 2004)

Interesting discussion, since I started the forum  Here are my thoughts:

Gays have always had the right to marry  By living an "alternative" lifestyle- society sets our standards, and does not have to accept their lifestyle, which is really what their plight is.  Equality would be provided by civil unions and not by re-defining an institution-whether based on religion or not

Society does not have to accept the homosexual lifestyle!! and the majority does not support it.

By the way, anyone who calls Bush a liar instantly lets their true colors show- he has not lied- prove it, quote it- on the other hand kerry has, continuously- moreover- lying presidents piss you off-

C'mon- we just got past 8 years of one of the most dishonext presidents

Bush has done more for this country, and the world than any other president has done since Reagan

Peace loving beat-nicks never have a full understanding of world politics, and when confronted, they often blow up at those who argue the facts-----

suck my balls


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 17, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Jezziah,
> 
> Lets look at the Bill of Rights, specifically the admendment you are talking about:
> ...




For the record I never cited the first amendment...and I was merely offering my perspective on the history of civil rights in this country and the process by which they were attained.  Under your argument African Americans shouldn't be allowed to get married or serve in the military either.  Dude, its just an opinion and the first amendment grants the right to express it.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 17, 2004)

I forgot to mention:   I do think they should be able to get married and serve-   So long as their sexuality doesn't become everything they are.  but many choose to define themselves that way, and I don't agree with that- ----keep your sex life in your bedroom, and everything will be fine-----

whateveer my opinion on that- I still think conservatives have the right philosophy to keep our country going foward----

Modern liberalism likes to discredit a moral rule of law on which our country was founded and claims morality should be up to each person's own definition----I simply believe there are good and bad, right and wrong----and we are headed in the right direction with Bush

Also, as for the constitution-  good points- a lot of times the constitution is taken out of context and called a living document to adjust with the times----yeah, it can adjust....w/ amendments, not with what judges think shoule be the law------liberal activtivists judges have redefines secitons of the constittution to support a liberal viewpoint which gives far left liberals out of context so-called arguments about the constitution- I'm glad someone brought it up.........people sometimes argue it without knowing what it actually states...............

I'm not trying to pick on anyone specifically so don't start bashing me......keep it civil


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 17, 2004)

The problem is that political & social issues are viewed in terms of good vs. bad, liberals vs. conservatives, republican vs. democrats, etc. instead of working towards the greater good of humanity.  Often it seems that either side becomes obsessed with winning instead of examining (from an objective viewpoint) the solution that better serves humanity.  There is no distinct line between black & white only infinite shades of gray.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 17, 2004)

I vote Libertarian.

Americans in Iraq are setting the stage for American corporations.

The U.S. government is eroding liberties with the Patriot Act I and II, and the Total Information Awareness Act.

If higher U.S. casualties will hurt baby Bush in the next eletion, I say, let's keep the bodies bags coming home.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> 
> 1.  To allow them to marry violates God's Law.



 

I read this and completely lost interest in this thread.  Once again, we can't discuss politics without dragging religion into it.

Enjoy your discussion.

I think I will vote for whoever does not mention God or Christ in their campaign speeches.  That eliminates Bush.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_ If higher U.S. casualties will hurt baby Bush in the next eletion, I say, let's keep the bodies bags coming home.



This is the most irresponsible, selfish, disgusting statement I've ever read in this forum.   I just finished a 22 year career in the U.S. Air Force and for you to say something like this about me and my fellow soldiers, sailors, and airmen is beyond my comprehension.  You sir, are a disgusting piece of shit!


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 18, 2004)

^wow


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Mar 18, 2004)

> I forgot to mention: I do think they should be able to get married and serve- So long as their sexuality doesn't become everything they are. but many choose to define themselves that way, and I don't agree with that- ----keep your sex life in your bedroom, and everything will be fine



THANK YOU!!!
You dont see me in a bunch of damned parades yelling
"im straight and proud of it!!!"

if they would just go on with their lives and not try to make their gayness publicized, then maybe....


----------



## ZECH (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> I vote Libertarian.
> 
> Americans in Iraq are setting the stage for American corporations.
> ...


Albob said it all. If it wasn't for people like him, you couldn't sleep at night. You wouldn't have the freedoms you do today. All of these men and women choose to stand for what America stands for and die for people like you because they love it. You on the other hand deserve nothing. Calling you a disgusting piece of shit, does not even begin to describe how I feel. You are self centered and cold hearted. I just had a close buddy I work with come back to work after 2 years in the middle east. I have heard his stories and seen how he missed his children growing up for 2 years. But you know what, if he had it to do over again, there is no doubt in my mind that he would do it! That is the kind of person he is. If you want out of this country, I'll glady pay to get you out!


----------



## Smokey (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> This is the most irresponsible, selfish, disgusting statement I've ever read in this forum.   I just finished a 22 year career in the U.S. Air Force and for you to say something like this about me and my fellow soldiers, sailors, and airmen is beyond my comprehension.  You sir, are a disgusting piece of shit!


Don't worry, I've sent out the Militia!


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 18, 2004)

I found the comment offensive as well, and like Albob was, I am very close to finishing 20 years of duty in the military.  When I first saw it, I was not inclined to post on it - instead deciding that it was not worthy of a response.

For those that insist that religion has no part of politics, I would have to disagree.  I will try to avoid bring it up in any further discussions.  As in much of America, everything goes - except religion.  I personally don't see how anyone can honestly say that an individuals religion (whatever it may be) doesn't affect their decision when it's time to vote, which is why it keeps coming up.  I mean, why would I vote for someone that is for things that I hold as wrong, based on my religious convictions?  Apparently I'm the only one that thinks moral character is important in the candidates.  

If Bush wins, I suggest we take up a collection to help Mr_Snafu cover expenses for his immigration to the country of his choice.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_
> 
> 
> I read this and completely lost interest in this thread.  Once again, we can't discuss politics without dragging religion into it.
> ...




I don't understand how you can discuss politics WITHOUT religion. If you are Christian, that effects your world view. I can't imagine why you'd expect people to set that down.

I came in here to read Mr_Snafu's ABSURD remark and just thought I'd comment on this.

Mr. Snafu, that is the most moronic statement i've seen on this board. I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> if Bush is re-elected I swear to god I am out of this fuckin' country. Bush is a lying piece of shit, and him and his administration are leading teh charge in taking away our freedoms one case by one. open your eyes..



He's going to win, so you better start you travel plans. 

I truly don't understand why you guys hate him so much.

He spends like a liberal democrat. He regulates like a liberal democrat. 

Funny, after eight years of NOTHING BUT LIES, dems call Bush a liar. That is about as ironic as it gets.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 18, 2004)

Ironic would put it mildly.  Let's put the Clinton era in check.  HE WAS IMPEACHED.


----------



## gr81 (Mar 18, 2004)

no he wasn't, check the record


----------



## Flex (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> Mexico, that is where I may be headed soon!



HELL YA, can i come 

we'll move to Cancun and be bodybuilders by day  adn rockstars by night


----------



## gr81 (Mar 18, 2004)

I ma done trying to debate you you people, obviously none of you are capable of debating something with maturity or an openmind. have fun


----------



## Flex (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> our priorities are so out of wack, no wonder its hopeless for gods sake.



Can i get an Amen? AMEN


----------



## gr81 (Mar 18, 2004)

Amen


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 18, 2004)

Gr81,

Check the record here: (it's 275 pages, so I am merely posting the link).

Clinton Impeachment


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 18, 2004)

On this one- gr81 is right

Impeachment proceedings happened, but to be impeached you must be subsequently removed from office....


----------



## gr81 (Mar 18, 2004)

exactly, he was never actually impeached. By the way you Bush supporters, since everytime someone brings up something against him, the first thing that you come back with is something to the effect of, "well Clinton got a BJ while in office and lied about it" which never has anything to do with the matter at hand, read this article and tell me Bush isn't a liar. god damn idiots

Bush administration pawns off fake 'news' in medicare propaganda blitz


----------



## oaktownboy (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> I vote Libertarian.
> 
> Americans in Iraq are setting the stage for American corporations.
> ...


i just ran through this thread and found this....comments like this make me sick...i sure hope you are fucking kidding..


----------



## oaktownboy (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> This is the most irresponsible, selfish, disgusting statement I've ever read in this forum.   I just finished a 22 year career in the U.S. Air Force and for you to say something like this about me and my fellow soldiers, sailors, and airmen is beyond my comprehension.  You sir, are a disgusting piece of shit!


amen brother...there is such a lack of respect for our soldiers in this country


----------



## oaktownboy (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> He's going to win, so you better start you travel plans.
> 
> I truly don't understand why you guys hate him so much.
> ...


i must be one of the only conservatives in california...i think if i said this where i live i would get beaten over the head with a bat


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 18, 2004)

gr81,

Not true.  You can be impeached, and remain in office:  Here's the process:

The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry. 

The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote. 

The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee. 

The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate. 

The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal. 

If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 18, 2004)

You know, I'm always amazed about how much the American political process is misunderstood by thier populace.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 18, 2004)

Personally, I think health coverage is a private issue and has never actually been fixed by reagan, bush sr. or clinton...........look at the reporting, and you'll notice that it only comes up during election years (from both sides) to get the older people vote-which are more likely to vote


----------



## gr81 (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> You know, I'm always amazed about how much the American political process is misunderstood by thier populace.




I know exactly how the process works man. you better refer that to someone else. thats the problem, is I see how things are going down. why the fuck you think I am so pissed about it.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 18, 2004)

> no he wasn't, check the record



I provided a link to the official record.  I referred the nutshell account to you simply because you have already stated publically that he wasn't impeached, which isn't fact.

The fact is that he was impeached, but wasn't removed from office.  No malice implied, but you evidently do NOT know what the process is, or if you do, you simply decided to ingnore that process and it's possible outcomes.

Sorry if this sounds harsh.  I'm merely presenting facts.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 18, 2004)

For one thing, gays have been in the military since the Revolutionary War, and probably beforehand...there's a big difference between pretending they aren't there and recognizing reality. Of course, they pay a price for that service to their country...in order to make the straight boys feel comfortable about their phobias, the gay soldiers don't receive much mail from their partners, their partners aren't included in military support groups and they aren't entitled to emergency assistance from the military. But they do get to watch their British counterparts access all of those perks, since the Brit military gave up that service ban several years ago. 

For another thing, I believe marriage is a civil license, not a religious one. The Bible doesn't provide a list of 1,049 benefits that government provide married persons (only)...and doesn't have any say in how a state constructs public policy in that matter. But if we don't want them to be "married" we better figure something out about each one of those laws governing other benefits, which largely could be easily expanded for individuals. The Bush Administration had a chance to tackle that issue on three of those bills, and didn't...IMO, it was a very stupid move. They could have quietly changed the wording on bills to reflect an individual's right and it wouldn't have created any problem. Of course, that might have meant the President actually uphold the Constitution and recognize that he's not just the president of those whose faith he subscribes to. . . 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that First Amendment, backed up by most court cases and state constitutions, is the biggest reason I'm not going to cast a vote for anyone who represents their church or religion more than the good of all the people they are supposed to serve.


----------



## gr81 (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Of course, that might have meant the President actually uphold the Constitution and recognize that he's not just the president of those whose faith he subscribes to. . .




beautifully said .... what a ridiculous notion huh!!


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> exactly, he was never actually impeached. By the way you Bush supporters, since everytime someone brings up something against him, the first thing that you come back with is something to the effect of, "well Clinton got a BJ while in office and lied about it" which never has anything to do with the matter at hand, read this article and tell me Bush isn't a liar. god damn idiots
> 
> Bush administration pawns off fake 'news' in medicare propaganda blitz



Heck, that's nothin', gr81....you should have seen his official biographical pages at the State Department web site. . .he had several more years flying experience in the military, etc. . .it was quite a piece of work. The White House is supposed to remove that . . .hmm..I should see if it's still around. It was exaggerated there for the past three years.


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 18, 2004)

On the matter of impeachment (as much as it pains me to agree) Stickboy is correct.  But  for some good news click on this link so we can get a new trial going...

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 18, 2004)

Don't feel badly, Jezziah...why,  the 700 Club wants to have the whole Supreme Court impeached.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Albob said it all. If it wasn't for people like him, you couldn't sleep at night. You wouldn't have the freedoms you do today. All of these men and women choose to stand for what America stands for and die for people like you because they love it. You on the other hand deserve nothing.



First, let me say this.  I love my country, and I am very lucky to be an American citizen.  I've been to many countries, and I live in communist Vietnam right now.  I meet people who would literally chop their fingers off to get the opportunity to come to America and have the freedom and opportunities that exist in the USA.  

Here is my point about what my post was referring to: The American troops in Iraq right now.  They are doing their job.  The danger they are in, I respect.  

These troops in Iraq are not fighting for America.  They are not fighting for freedom.  They are not attempting to establish a democracy in Iraq - not by the caucus system that the Amerian government attempted to draft that would dimish the Shiites participation, even though they are 62% of the population.

Think about this for a moment:

Why are they there?

Not for the War on Terrorism.  Not to promote democracy.  

The money that will be made in Iraq by U.S. corporation will be in the trillions.  The money made in the energy/oil industries goes on 24/7 based on volume of crude oil production.  Long after we are dead, this oligarchy will be making money.

Americans should stop watching CNN, msnbc, Fox, and C-span.

People are missing the boat.

Patriotism and "supporting the troops" have absolutely nothing to day with Iraq.

America has lost major credibility because of Iraq.  The operation in Afghanistan, and the Phillipines was done wel..

Iraq is a disaster, and it will probably get worse.

We are the laughing stocks of the world right now.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> This is the most irresponsible, selfish, disgusting statement I've ever read in this forum.   I just finished a 22 year career in the U.S. Air Force and for you to say something like this about me and my fellow soldiers, sailors, and airmen is beyond my comprehension.  You sir, are a disgusting piece of shit!




I don't want any of my countrymen and women serving in the armed forces to be harmed.

But if they are going to die:

Do you want them to die for 

1. American corporations, or

2. Getting Bush-Ashcroft-Wolfawitz out of office.

Whatever it takes to get Bush ousted I will support.

I stand by my statments.

The troops are just small, expendable pawns in a big chess game.

The troops are doing the work, risking their lives--but they will not receive the dividends.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 19, 2004)

double post


----------



## ZECH (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> First, let me say this.  I love my country, and I am very lucky to be an American citizen.  I've been to many countries, and I live in communist Vietnam right now.  I meet people who would literally chop their fingers off to get the opportunity to come to America and have the freedom and opportunities that exist in the USA.
> 
> Here is my point about what my post was referring to: The American troops in Iraq right now.  They are doing their job.  The danger they are in, I respect.
> ...


My mistake I guess.............I just assumed you lived in the US. But this explains the statement. Why should you care living half way around the world, right? And yes you are right. America may not be perfect, but IMO it's the best place in the world to be. And as far as the troops go, they are there to diminish the threats of terroism across the world. Same in Afghanistan. People will argue that all day, but if left unchecked, there would be more attacks like 9/11, and in other countries also. Look what just happened in Spain. Result of Al-quaida. The US is trying to let Iraq set up its own government. No it's not going smoothly, but it's just like we have in this thread. People disagree. But in time it will get worked out.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 19, 2004)

I hope Iraq does succeed.  But there are a lot of problems that exist and they will not change..  

The demographics could lead to 2 or 3 separate nation states comprised of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.  More localized tribalism exist as well. 

How much this will cost is anyone's guess.  Power will not be handed over to the Iraqis next Summer, as the Bush administration says.  

Saddam didn't like Al-Qaeda and Osama didn't like Saddam.  Now with Hussein gone, Al-Qaeda is now operating in Iraq.  

Military victory and supremacy does not always automatically lead to political legitimacy.  

Vietnam is a perfect example.  I have many Vets who are friends of mine, here.  If the military-industrial bureacracts in the Pentagon had read just one good history book, the 'Nam disaster could have been avoided...but their motives were propelled by ulterior motives....but that's in the past now....I see the same miscalculations and ignorance in Iraq by the upper echelons of the military, current political leaders, and the American public in general....the American media has done a terrible job.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by oaktownboy *_
> i just ran through this thread and found this....comments like this make me sick...i sure hope you are fucking kidding..



No I am not kidding.  I am damn serious.  Whatever it takes to get Bush out.  Deficits, Media control, the erosion of our Constitution, manipulation of the electronic and print information sources, the Patriot Acts I & II, the Total Information Awareness Acts....

If I told you what else I believe in to get Bush out of power I'd probably be banned from this board....

Every other day, more body bags will come home....this year, next year, and the year after that.....


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Smokey *_
> Don't worry, I've sent out the Militia!



Try debating me on this board, and you'll realize what a bellicose ignorant fool you are.

I'm waiting.....


----------



## ZECH (Mar 19, 2004)

You are a damn Troll!


----------



## gr81 (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> The money that will be made in Iraq by U.S. corporation will be in the trillions.  The money made in the energy/oil industries goes on 24/7 based on volume of crude oil production.  Long after we are dead, this oligarchy will be making money.
> 
> Americans should stop watching CNN, msnbc, Fox, and C-span.
> ...




I absolutely agree with you snafu, couldn't have said it better myself.  You know you have at least one person on here who is on the same page as you are man.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 19, 2004)

Yea, al qaeda is in Iraq, and yes we are fighting them there- but they have been in non-arab countries as well, and the main point is that we ARE fighting them- not by political jargon, but with a gun- Do you think any of those crazy sons a bitches care for any human life- they don't even care for their own-  I say fuck it, go find them and kill them before they kill more of us-----do whatever it takes but do it now......Appeasement in the early years is what let this problem get so big in the first place

-my opinion


----------



## Pepper (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> Try debating me on this board, and you'll realize what a bellicose ignorant fool you are.
> 
> I'm waiting.....




Again, more irony. You calling someone else an ignorant fool.


----------



## John H. (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Fair question.
> 
> 1.  To allow them to marry violates God's Law.  (See my other post in the homosexual thread by John H. to see why it violates it).
> ...


 Hi Stickboy. On number 1,  I disagree with you. I do not believe God said anything and neither did Christ THEMSELVES. On number 2,  I have served in the military and I knew of men who happened to be BiSexual or Homosexual - in all honesty they were probably some of the best men I have met and known. Having said that I also said "no" but on a personal basis and not because of any bigotry or hatred. 

Here is the thing about the military issue. Homosexuals DO SERVE and have in other militaries in the world and there are no problems. Also, consider this: I am a man and I am in the military to serve my country and protect it. WHY would I be afraid of a man who happens to be Homosexual or BiSexual? I am there to serve my country; if I can protect my country why can I not also protect myself if necessary? The fear that is projected into any discussion about men in the military no matter their sexuality is radiculous! Any man can defend himself or he has no business defending this country. All a person has to do is say "no" where and when appropriate and that is the end of it. The having been asked DOES NOT MAKE anyone more or less of WHO THEY ARE AS BORN EVER!  Take Care, John H.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> I do not believe God said anything ...




Just keep saying it, maybe that will make it true. If you actually read the Bible, however, you'd know you were wrong on this point.

I obviously have religious objection to gay marriage, but I have plenty of other problems with it. If marriage is opened to gays, what's next? What if the next group wants marriage for man and dog? Or man and child? Where does it stop?

Gay marriage will cheapen the institution of marriage and should not happen. Civil Unions are fine, marriage...HELL NO.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 19, 2004)

Heh, are we not already talking about this in the other thread? 

John H.  I am well aware that homosexuals are serving.  They are also still removed from the military, yes?

I don't hate gays, I just don't agree with the life style for a number of reasons.  As for them in the military, it's not that I think they are going to cause others harm by raping them or whatever.....more a concern of what's going to happen to them IF others do.  Meaning, they will be the butt of jokes, or given administrative punishment, or possible court martialed under the militaries sodomy laws.  (In my opinion, that doesn't make for a cohesive unit if they unit is dealing with that stuff.  It takes the direction of the unit into an area that can be detrimental).


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Heh, are we not already talking about this in the other thread?
> 
> John H.  I am well aware that homosexuals are serving.  They are also still removed from the military, yes?
> ...



Since sodomy laws are an invasion of privacy, I'm not sure how long it will be until the military is going to have to look at it's policy again. Several leading conservatives, including the late Barry Goldwater and our current Vice President, have spoken out against the current policy. I think it's more about protecting someone else's uncomfortability, which is rather strange to expect someone to give up benefits and a position because someone else gets worried about their peepee in the shower room. 
That being said, it brings back a joke I heard quite awhile ago about that subject...seems to me that on the battlefield, you'd know someone who thinks you have a cute butt would make damned sure it doesn't get blown off. . .


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> 
> 
> Gay marriage will cheapen the institution of marriage and should not happen. Civil Unions are fine, marriage...HELL NO.



Well, if civil unions are fine, then those proposals should be making their way through the federal government at the same time as this federal amendment - but they aren't. And the three laws (a domestic partners health law, a domestic partners immigration bill and a equal employment law) are vehemently opposed by most Republicans as ...well, the usual "it weakens the family." For whatever reason you think gay marriage might weaken someone else's concept of marriage (as if we all haven't done quite a good job ourselves without blaming it on gays), worrying about banning it without providing something else at the same time is going to create more problems. They have no reason to trust the groups who are filing suit in courts around the country "protecting marriage"...every one of those groups not only oppose civil unions, but any single tiny law that might recognize these people as existing. That is one reason they seem so demanding about this - they don't have any reason to trust that the federal government, especially the President, is going to do anything to address their concerns. Some of those laws could have easily been rewritten to indicate that something like inheritance or funeral arrangements or hospital visitation are individual rights without requiring a mire of expensive legal work to partially secure any of them.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 19, 2004)

LOL, kbm......  I guess I never considered that aspect.

As far as the military doing away with it, well......yes, I guess that could happen.  On the other hand, people in the military are under a different judicial system entirely, and they volunteer to be bound by those rules when they sign up.

I mean, we do have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but it doesn't protect anyone who gets "caught" in a uncompromising posistion.

Civil Unions.  Won't happen (IMHO).  Here's why:

If you allow it for one group, you have to allow it for another.  So, we would end up bantering about various other couplings such as poligamy.  If you allow it for one fringe group, under the equal treatment clause, you'd have to allow it for all.  Think about it.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> LOL, kbm......  I guess I never considered that aspect.
> 
> As far as the military doing away with it, well......yes, I guess that could happen.  On the other hand, people in the military are under a different judicial system entirely, and they volunteer to be bound by those rules when they sign up.
> ...



Not necessarily. Although a case has been made for poligamy in the past (and not surprisingly, this was a religious doctrine created by Mormon interpretation) the federal government made a strong case against those relationships as a condition for statehood for Utah. While I don't have any old notes about those decisions close at hand, I think the summation has been that there are problems with equality in those kinds of relationships and complications in legal designations by the state in multiple or group relationships. The two situations aren't even closely related. 
When I saw television film clips of same-sex couples with small children, waiting out in the rain all night for a wedding in San Francisco, I started reading some accounts from some children about their experiences in those families. I think we have some kind of responsibility to make sure those children have ironclad protection of inheritance, etc., the right to stay with the other parent if one dies, some clear policies involving state position in a "divorce" situation, etc. From what I've read, these children love their parents just like any other family situations - some were so proud to be able to go back to school and announce that their parents were really married now. So whatever we create, it needs to be something that carries dignity and protection for those families, whether we really understand them or not. 

I read a very uneasy story this week - perhaps you heard about it. . .a county in Tennessee voted to ask state lawmakers to amend the criminal code to charge gay people with "crimes against nature." Worse, they tried to find a way to enact a local law banning gay Americans from living in their county. 

Two days later, they rescinded their proposals, mostly because they were obviously illegal. The unfortunate thing is that, according to a source quoted in a Chattanooga organization, there are gay people already living in that county. Even though they had to rescind their proposals, can you imagine how those people must feel living there? That's not the kind of America we should ever respect.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 19, 2004)

Unfortunately, some branches of the military have a history of conducting "witch hunts"...which "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was supposed to eliminate, but reports indicate that hasn't been the case. Usually these are started by some officer who is dealing with his own phobia by trying to sniff out someone - over the years it was a terrible practice of baiting one soldier, and then interrogating them to rat on others. 

They don't always get discharged because of any specific activity - there are cases where they are dumped out because someone just claimed they did something. Strangely enough, there are also many cases where gay soldiers are known and completely overlooked for discharge, mostly because their position is needed at the time. The policy, while discharging some 10,000 soldiers in the past decade, has also been enforced rather selectively. 
Since we have a shortage of manpower in the military as it is, probably the most ridiculous case of discharge involved six Arabic language experts - who would be rather useful right now in the Middle East. 
It also sets a dangerous precedent - in fact, something that we've run across before during major wars. You can't suddenly come back to these people and say "Damn, we need men badly, so you have to defend your country," if we have delegated them to second class citizenship via a constitutional amendment. As it is, if we pass a federal amendment like that, there is a possibility that these people could claim political or religious persecution and ask for asylum in other countries and make a good case based on actual written constitutional law.  Not a very good statement for the "land of the free" to make to the world or our own citizens.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 19, 2004)

I agree, to a point.

I would like to point out though, that you are MORE likely to get a fair trail in the military, than you are in the regular courts.

Why do I say this?  The military almost NEVER brings charges, or brings them to court, UNLESS they are sure they are going to win.

The unfortunate side for individuals convicted, is that most military prison sentences include hard labor.  You might only get 15 years for murder, but you will be paying every day for the offense - big time.  (You might be 35 when you get out, but you will feel like 60).

If more civillian type offenses included hard labor, I have a feeling that the "threat" of prison would lower the crime rate.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 20, 2004)

By Andrea Mitchell
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:43 p.m. ET March  19, 2004The challenge for President Bush: how to create democracy out of chaos. 

In the streets of Baghdad on Friday, America seemed to be losing the battle for hearts and minds. Even rival Shiites and Sunni Muslims united to protest the United States.  ???We want the immediate removal of all the occupation power,??? shouted one protester.

The U.S. agenda:

Hand over power to Iraqis by June 30. 
Bring in NATO to help provide security. 
Hold elections, supervised by the United Nations, by next January.
But before U.S. administrator Paul Bremer can leave at the end of June, the United States and Iraqis have to decide who takes over.

On Friday in Baghdad, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said they still don???t know. ???We have not yet resolved with the Iraqis or the governing council or with the U.N its shape,??? Powell said.

The risk is in a power vacuum.  Iraq could dissolve into civil war among three religious groups:

The majority Shiites, led by the powerful Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who could veto any political arrangement. 
The Kurds, in the oil-rich north, who want more autonomy.
The Sunnis, including many Saddam Hussein loyalists ??? a potentially violent minority. 


-------------------------------
**Sounds just like what I've been saying.....


----------



## ZECH (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Unfortunately, some branches of the military have a history of conducting "witch hunts"...


Ethnic clensing....................


----------



## Burner02 (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> I vote Libertarian.
> 
> Americans in Iraq are setting the stage for American corporations.
> ...


hey! That's great!  Maybe one of those body bags will contain one of your family members? How abot one of your buddies?
Great post....


----------



## Burner02 (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jezziah *_
> Denying any rights because of race, creed, gender, or anything else for that matter is a civil rights violation.  Eventually gay people will be granted the same rights as every other US citizen but it will take time and martyrs to bring the issue to fruition.  Personally I don't care what anybody else does as they don't hurt anybody in the process.  We have to keep in mind that separation of church and state was instituted for a reason.


Sorry, not buying the civil rights violation angle. 
As you mentioned, race, creed, gender..those could be civil rights violations. A certain lifestyle? Sorry. Nope.
I'm not even going to get into the whole, born that way, make a decision argument. You can get all the data from 'experts' saying oen is born that way, the opposition can and will get as many 'experts' saying that it isn't. 

personally, I could give two shits if a guy is gay or not. Hey, if he's gay...that just ups my chances of landing the hot woman..

What I am tired of is all the friggin attention gay/lesbiens want. Gay rights parades? Who the fuq cares? As was stated by someone else, go about your business as everyone else does..and would be less out cry.

Why shove that lifestyle (which also has been stated) goes against the norm of what the majority of the population believes in? If you're gay, you're gay. So be it. You shove it in the face of heterosexulas, we are going to resist. 

As GR81 stated. We have serious issues to fix in this country. Allowing gays to marry is minute and igsgnificant. Aspecial interest. If / once we, as a nation get the real problems worked out, then we can look more into the 'special interest' issues.

As far as who I am going to vote for: Bush.
I don't like Kerry. No one can ever appease all persons. 
Bush is the best choice for me. I hope he is listening to the People and also works on domestic issues as well as his forgein policy.


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Burner02 *_
> Sorry, not buying the civil rights violation angle.
> As you mentioned, race, creed, gender..those could be civil rights violations. A certain lifestyle? Sorry. Nope.
> I'm not even going to get into the whole, born that way, make a decision argument. You can get all the data from 'experts' saying oen is born that way, the opposition can and will get as many 'experts' saying that it isn't.



The fact is that the persons involved in this "lifestyle choice"  constitute families with children (an issue raised by kbm8795 in earlier post)  So whether or not they are born with it becomes a non issue when they are raising some of  the future citizens of the United States.  As a nation we have an obligation to grant  equal rights, opportunity, and legal protection to these children and subsequently to their parents.  Whether it is through marriage or civil unions I really don't give a shit. 



> _*Originally posted by Burner02 *_
> personally, I could give two shits if a guy is gay or not. Hey, if he's gay...that just ups my chances of landing the hot woman..



I'm right there with you bro'



> _*Originally posted by Burner02 *_
> As GR81 stated. We have serious issues to fix in this country. Allowing gays to marry is minute and igsgnificant. Aspecial interest. If / once we, as a nation get the real problems worked out, then we can look more into the 'special interest' issues.



There are numerous problems to fix in this country...the number one problem is apathy, then greed, then selfishness.  The violent acts committed across the nation are but symptoms of a deeper rooted problem one that stems from a stagnating social psychology.  The United States at one time led the world in innovative thinking and progress.  We have grown lethargic with money and power often losing sight of the important issues.  For example banning prohormones when we can't even control the flow of heroin, cocaine, or any other drug through US borders.  Doesn't really seem like agood idea to add more substances to the list but it definetly creates job security for those in law enforcement.  Whats the answer?  Who fucking knows...I  do know that nothing changes if nothing changes and things definetly need to change.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 20, 2004)

good take on enforcement-

That's the biggest problem in government today-----what? the money put towards eductation isn't getting the job done- answer, lets add more money, after all it belongs to everyone else and who's gonna come out and say they stands against education.

Politician's problem fixing skills are horrible, more money is not the answer- controlling how OUR money gets spent is.  They never worry about taxing or spending- our tax money is like a huge wallet, with no bottom line.

Politicians have forgotten that they work for us----they keep shy of enforcing, b/c the people who get rich of our money contribute generously to their campaign- and why would a politician want to limit that

Unfortunately, most people or so disconnected from reality in politics that they'll blindly support "their" party, and subsequently get them elected w/o actually changing things------maybe the policy will change, but the efficiency never will because the government doesn't have to answer to anybody, and government policies have no minimum requirements or enforcement of.


----------



## iron jock (Mar 20, 2004)

I'm Canadian don't have a say either way, though my friend in the United States wishes to vote against him.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Ethnic clensing....................



I wonder if the Charlotte Observer has checked into any of that going on in local law enforcement.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Burner02 *_
> Sorry, not buying the civil rights violation angle.
> As you mentioned, race, creed, gender..those could be civil rights violations. A certain lifestyle? Sorry. Nope.
> I'm not even going to get into the whole, born that way, make a decision argument. You can get all the data from 'experts' saying oen is born that way, the opposition can and will get as many 'experts' saying that it isn't.
> ...





Well, I agree that there are a large number of problem that need some attention in this country. But one thing I've seen in this whole debate around the country is the LACK of "experts" on the opposition side - 
I don't think these people would want so much attention if there weren't some really damaging issues involved. One of the problems we've ignored for years is that we turned our heads when they faced problems with hospital visitations, property rights and distribution, and a whole list of other issues. Again, we could have pretty easily looked at individual situations and bent the rules, but chose not to do that. We didn't leave them much choice. 

As far as "shoving" that "lifestyle," you can't expect people to disappear or pretend to fit your personal fantasies of how the world is supposed to be just because it might make you uncomfortable. I haven't seen any of them suggest that heterosexuals give up anything, especially materially. Of course, another answer to that whole 1049 benefits thing is to either just turn some of them into individual rights and remove the rest of them from everyone. Obviously, no one has suggested doing that. 

I've witnessed the grief and pain of seeing one of those partner's have all of their years with someone ignored by both the courts and blood relatives - and the material and emotional cost associated with that. There's no excuse for any free nation to visit that kind of pain on any citizen. especially when they contribute to protect the families of others. 

As a note to that, the Alliance Defense Fund is financing a lawsuit against a simple domestic partnership registry in Cleveland Heights, Ohio - the only benefits people who register can get is certified recognition for hospital visitations and possibly to show proof of relationship for some companies that provide health benefits. 

Even though voters in the city overwhelmingly approved the referendum providing that registry last November...one council member, who filed the lawsuit, indicated at the time (according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer) that he would let voters decide and "voted to put it on the November ballot." Since it passed, now he wants to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. The city claims it might cost $100,000 to defend the measure. That's a nice example of having to waste taxpayer's money and a great respect for democracy. So now who is shoving their views down the public's throat? 

We might be a little more concerned here about the continuing infiltration of our governmental system by fundamentalist religious organizations. Even state legislatures, which often have a clergy member come to offer a simple invocation before a legislative session, have become increasingly subjected to ministers who go into a political ranting at the invocation. If we waste too much time worrying about a few thousand same-sex couples who are asking for security and benefits, we might wake up after November and see ourselves all wondering why we suddenly have an "official" religion. That separation of church and state issue is much more likely to affect all our lives in the next four years than giving funeral arrangement rights to same-sex couples.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 20, 2004)

Personally speaking, I think the Dems picked the worst choice they could.  As these campaigns go on, I think Kerry is going to lose a lot of steam.  For me, he has a credibility problem. 

If John Edwards would have won the nod, I would have seriously considered voting for him.  I still probably would vote for Bush, but it would have given me more to think about if Edwards had gotten the nod instead.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 20, 2004)

Well, KBM, the church and state issue can be argued.  If you do research on the subject, the current stand on the seperation clause, by judges, has preverted  the intentions of the founding fathers.

Our money says in "In God we Trust", with the current climate in the US on this subject, it might as well say "In God we Thrust".


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Well, KBM, the church and state issue can be argued.  If you do research on the subject, the current stand on the seperation clause, by judges, has preverted  the intentions of the founding fathers.
> 
> Our money says in "In God we Trust", with the current climate in the US on this subject, it might as well say "In God we Thrust".




I believe the intention in reference to God wasn't related to a fundamentalist stand that they are a semi-branch of the government. That being said, if you do some research into clauses in state constitutions dating during the first 50 years of the federal one, you'll see many with clearly written phrases that man is born free and independent and that includes the freedom to worship God according to his own conscience without being required to support any particular religious viewpoint. That means that no church or religious organization has a copyright on biblical accuracy or interpretation, and instructions are clear both about electing public officials on those merits and in how laws are supposed to be structured. American citizenship does not require membership in certain "acceptable" religious beliefs as listed and directed by the 700 Club. 

Our Bill of Rights wasn't written as the Ten Commandments, although even if it had, the restrictions in marriage rights would be applied to adulterers. Somehow I don't see that issue coming up much in this debate, although if we pass a constitutional amendment, it could certainly follow that laws forbidding any heterosexual adultery in all cases could potentially pass federal constitutional muster based on the federal government's establishment of interest in putting marriage rights into the constitution. The government could order those marriages dissolved whether a wife or husband wanted the relationship to end. . .

Sometimes when we jump too fast, we end up finding out that we bite ourselves in the butt later. And I would just as soon the government not have to waste time and money interceding between denominational fights over appropriate religious interpretation.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 20, 2004)

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

That separation statue simply meant that the government cannot make laws that force people to a religion.

I was talking about the fact that almost every reference to God is being systematically removed from our society, which was founded on judeo-christian principles.

When you swear in court, the bible is presented (at the start of your testimony).
Our money says "In God we trust"

As other examples:

The New York Department of Education prohibited Nativity scenes and crosses in New York City Schools, but allowed displays of the Jewish menorah, and the Islamic Star and cresent, for reasons stated as "diversity".

In another state, the school board demanded Christmas tree be renamed a "giving tree".

In another school, the "Easter Can Drive" that students had set up to help the less fortunate was forced by school officials to be called the "Spring Can Drive".

There's hundreds of examples, but you get the point.  

One  could actually argue the point that Christians are being selectively persecuted, and in fact, author David Limbaugh did in 
his book "Persecution".  He presented evidence of such (400+ pages) in examples such as above (which is where I culled them from) of various court cases, school board decisions, etc.

So while I stand by what our founding fathers set in place, that the government can not establish laws to promote on religion over the other - the seperation statute doesn't mean we have to banish a select religion from sight and promote others on the basis of diversity (which is what many school boards have engaged in).  

The majority of people in the U.S. consider themselves christians.  

You can point to Everson vs. Board of Education as the precedent, which all other courts have generally followed.  (Meaning, common sense is out the window because one judge misunderstood the concept).


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> I think you misunderstood what I meant.
> 
> That separation statue simply meant that the government cannot make laws that force people to a religion.
> ...



Well, in that area I am in agreement with you. If a public school displays things about one religion, then they should feel an obligation to present all others. And since holidays are very well established and their students celebrate them (most of them) at home, there's certainly nothing wrong with a "Christmas" tree. . .or an Easter can drive. There are plenty of other symbols for those holidays that preclude a school having to feel like they are endorsing some religious belief...i.e., Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny...and those symbols are also used passively in a lot of churches. 

While I can relate to the concept of religious persecution, it's no reason for them to single out gays to persecute themselves. It makes no sense to me from a christian standpoint, especially if there is material harm. 

As for religious symbols in public areas, I have mixed feelings about them. Putting up a manger scene in a public park has never bothered or affected me, since it is a symbol of a christian holiday - by the same token, I wouldn't care if they put up some other kind of symbol for another holiday for a different religion. 

I'm not sure how our judeo-christian principles were really applied, since the framers of our Constitution came from a wide range of religious backgrounds, some of which fundamentalists claim are not "christian" now. But if we look at the colonists who came to this country (and not all of them were fleeing religious persecution) there was a generally strong belief in freedom to worship. The worst colonies, if I recall, were Virginia and Massachusetts, which tried to establish dominant religious symbols and government at the beginning and were later changed as new religious groups broke off from the "official" ones. That act alone is a symbol of differences in interpretation. 

Since I teach at the college level, and have religious students in my own classes, I make sure they feel as if they can incorporate their beliefs into their projects, papers and speeches if they choose to do so. And while that includes a couple of Muslims I've had (one Palestinian this semester) I don't see it as an issue in my classroom at all. I've had one student already deliver a good speech about praise dancing, something I knew little about and have never seen. To me, that's what diversity is all about. The Palestinian delivered a speech about what he considered the history of the problems in Israel. 

But if some christians feel persecuted because of symbolic issues, then I'd be more apt to be supportive of their cause - instead of wondering why they'd persecute a group of people who have never done anything to them. 
At the same time, that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable seeing a public school constantly teaching someone's religious dogma - no matter whose they would choose. 

That being said, I hardly doubt christianity will be disappearing from sight - one of my local stations broadcasts fundamentalist dogma 24/7...and another includes nine hours of programming a week devoted to the most political religious groups. A shut-in who wants to watch services here doesn't really GET a church service - they get a minister spending the whole hour railing about a political belief and trashing opponents. Furthermore, there were people living on this continent when Europeans arrived, and since they weren't Christians, they were slaughtered. The Puritans directed that any Indian groups which did not convert to christianity would be annihilated, following the rather quaint custom brought over from the religious wars in Europe at the time. 

I don't view the Emerson decision as a bad one - and I don't think christians are persecuted simply because they can't dominate all public spaces - but there are cases, like the holiday symbols you've mentioned, where they have a good argument if they have been singled out. One must remember that in making the Emerson argument, Justice Black referred to previous court cases, cited the reasons for preventing one religion from becoming too powerful and influential in government, and pointed to Thomas Jefferson's original statement that the First Amendment was designed to put up a wall of separation between church and state. Fundamentalists hate that reference, and rather enjoy trashing Jefferson over that. 

Most established major religions have a very spotty history of supporting democratic ideals. For a couple of thousand years, they fought each other, created political marriages with corrupt governments and did a good job defining persecution with malice. 
The established colonial governments soon found strong challenges from religious groups that wished to dominate - with ministers raging from the pulpit about the sins of other religous groups. Doesn't sound too much different than what we are hearing today.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_ The troops are just small, expendable pawns in a big chess game.



No, they're PEOPLE!!!  This is what gets me so fired up.  You can have any political position you want.  As a matter of fact, I agree with some of your statements but do NOT wish harm to those PEOPLE that fight to give you that freedom.


----------



## John H. (Mar 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> Just keep saying it, maybe that will make it true. If you actually read the Bible, however, you'd know you were wrong on this point.
> 
> I obviously have religious objection to gay marriage, but I have plenty of other problems with it. If marriage is opened to gays, what's next? What if the next group wants marriage for man and dog? Or man and child? Where does it stop?
> ...


 Hi Pepper. I actually do not care WHAT you "call it" anyway. As long as everyone HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AND BENEFITS. "Marriage" is a man-made insitution anyway. And as for reading the Bible, I have. It is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. written by over 40 different people and over a long period of time. Some things said are nice some not so nice. It is a religious and political store... 

How you or anyone figures that being Gay and being married "cheapens" is beyond me - PEOPLE cheapen. If those involved are not marrying because THEY HONESTLY AND SINCERELY CARE about each other I do not care what you call their "joining" THEY CHEAPEN the "insitution" THEMSELVES. The "sanctity" of marriage CAN NOT BE legislated. It IS IN THE HEARTS OF EACH PERSON. Politics and religion have NO BUSINESS in what two people who are or age and ability of consent and agree to, consent  to. It is a PRIVATE MATTER period! Your agrument I believe is outrageous since I am speaking of two people who CARE about each other and are of age and ability of consent NOT an animal or a child. And remember probably 60% now of all marriages between Heterosexual people end up in divorce. Is that a mark of "sanctity" and honest caring?

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> The "sanctity" of marriage CAN NOT BE legislated. It IS IN THE HEARTS OF EACH PERSON. Politics and religion have NO BUSINESS in what two people who are or age and ability of consent and agree to, consent  to. It is a PRIVATE MATTER period! Your agrument I believe is outrageous since I am speaking of two people who CARE about each other and are of age and ability of consent NOT an animal or a child. And remember probably 60% now of all marriages between Heterosexual people end up in divorce. Is that a mark of "sanctity" and honest caring?
> 
> Take Care, John H.



I think you are about to find out that it can be legislated, esp. if they amend the constitution.

You know, really, the gay movement would really be better of by not trying to shove it down the rest of the populations throat. 

What's happening now is that lines are being drawn, and there's only two outcomes.  1) Gays are granted the privilge of civil unions or marriage and the legal protections it offers, or 2) The gay movement is set back for decades, if not forever.

Politicians are going to listen to the majority of  people that vote for them on this one.  Right now, that majority is saying no, and the longer it goes on, I believe those that don't really care one way or the other are going to side with the majority just to get the damn topic done with.

If that means amending the Constitution, then it is indeed over.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> I think you are about to find out that it can be legislated, esp. if they amend the constitution.
> 
> You know, really, the gay movement would really be better of by not trying to shove it down the rest of the populations throat.
> ...



Well, if you think that amending the Constitution is something that would only apply to those people, then you are very mistaken. When the federal government grants itself the right to regulate marriage, it isn't going to be solely for the purpose of preventing those people from participation in their constitutional right to freedom of association.

I've seen this argument before - the one about how they are "shoving" themselves down everyone else's throat, and yet no one has provided a single argument why, for example, providing the right to a hospital visitation or making a funeral arrangement for a partner is somehow removing some kind of special privilege from the rest of the population. 

In that respect, our attitudes get down to nothing more than "I'm not one of them and so I don't like them and they aren't really Americans," a curious argument when it obviously involves perceptions and projections of someone else's individual intimate behavior and an invasion of their right to privacy. 

It isn't like these people are demanding that you become one of them, or that you adapt your life to greatly accommodate theirs, so I'm not sure where this "shoving" attitude comes from except in the minds of those who are somehow threatened by the existence of other people. But it is a good example of tyranny by a majority on no other basis than perceptions of superiority based on nothing but instinctive sexual reactions. Again, those 1049 benefits are provided by government, not by biblical decree. Government's interest in establishing marriage was to promote monogamy, social stability for families and to keep accurate records for the purpose of establishing property rights. Those are usually outlined very clearly in many state constitutions, NOT as a marriage right, but as a basic human right. 

Since so many seem to try to link one class of their fellow citizens to associations with animals or children, it obviously indicates that there is a mindset of cultural superiority out there. Legislating that is nothing more than a willingness to establish another means in which government can take more rights away from all of us. 

If that kind of amendment ever passes and goes into our Constitution, thus wiping out even those states which might have established civil unions or domestic partnerships, it won't "settle" the matter at all. It will, however, set a standard for interference in everyone's lives in ways we can't begin to predict. And it's doubtful those citizens affected are going to go away or go back into the "closet." Some with families could very likely walk into an Embassy and ask for political asylum based on political and religious persecution, and the law would be in place for them to prove their case. 

Since the Constitution would no longer hold no meaning for them, they could (and should) mount their own tax revolt, make funeral and burial arrangements across the border in Canada, and resist any effort to be drafted for military service in the future. 

It is amazing to me that any group of Americans who show material damage by policies are supposed to be denied their right to seek redress for those grievances and their fellow citizens would advocate they be punished for doing so.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> I think you are about to find out that it can be legislated, esp. if they amend the constitution.
> 
> You know, really, the gay movement would really be better of by not trying to shove it down the rest of the populations throat.
> ...


I vote #2!


----------



## craig777 (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Pepper. I actually do not care WHAT you "call it" anyway. As long as everyone HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AND BENEFITS. "Marriage" is a man-made insitution anyway. And as for reading the Bible, I have. It is a collection of literature - essays, poems, prose, etc. written by over 40 different people and over a long period of time. Some things said are nice some not so nice. It is a religious and political store...
> 
> How you or anyone figures that being Gay and being married "cheapens" is beyond me - PEOPLE cheapen. If those involved are not marrying because THEY HONESTLY AND SINCERELY CARE about each other I do not care what you call their "joining" THEY CHEAPEN the "insitution" THEMSELVES. The "sanctity" of marriage CAN NOT BE legislated. It IS IN THE HEARTS OF EACH PERSON. Politics and religion have NO BUSINESS in what two people who are or age and ability of consent and agree to, consent  to. It is a PRIVATE MATTER period! Your agrument I believe is outrageous since I am speaking of two people who CARE about each other and are of age and ability of consent NOT an animal or a child. And remember probably 60% now of all marriages between Heterosexual people end up in divorce. Is that a mark of "sanctity" and honest caring?
> ...




Marriage is not a man made institution. It was created by the Lord, unfortunately man has tied marriage in with tax benefits so the gay population wants those tax benefits. If it held no monetary benefit, do you think we would be having all these issues. Absolutely not.

John, I believe your argument is outrageous. If, as you say, it is not about the money then go get married and be done with it. You don't have to tell anyone because it is a PRIVATE MATTER and in the HEARTS OF EACH PERSON. Why do you need everyone to know and/or approve. Why is that so important John. Why, tell me why it is so so very important that everyone approve. Because it is very very very important to you.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> I think you are about to find out that it can be legislated, esp. if they amend the constitution.
> 
> You know, really, the gay movement would really be better of by not trying to shove it down the rest of the populations throat.
> ...


 Hi Stickboy. Like I said "sanctity" and "honorableness" and "caring" and "loving" another CAN NOT BE LEGISLATED. Try all you want and if a person does not honestly care about another you are just collecting a fee to record a marriage but there is NO honesty or sanctity in that exercise. But then the government - and religion - are in the BUSINESS of COLLECTING MONEY so maybe this is what we REALLY ought to call it! At least >BE HONEST! 

As for "shoving" I think you have it backwards - it IS religion and politics that ARE DOING THE SHOVING. If people were allowed to DO what IS natural between each other as long as they are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely then it is >NOT the business of anyone else or the government or religion. It is the ESTABLISHMENT that is doing the shoving without any regard to honesty or accuracy but just as a MEANS OF CONTROLLING OTHERS and COLLECTING MONEY from others. The Gay movement you mention is people who are tryng to have the very same rights as most others are able to enjoy and nothing else. It is pure and simple discrimination on the part of some towards others.

This topic will end up in the courts and it will be decided there for sure. And the courts will have to decide AGAINST discrimination IF they are honest but if they bend to the political and the religious they will save their hides and side with being dishonest and two-faced - but then this country does have a history of doing that for sure. 

A THOROUGH EXAMINATION of religion and its origins, history, people associated with it ESPECIALLY in the early days will reveal that God and Christ have NOTHING to do with them at all only that  They are BEING USED and DISRESPECTED. But then if Christ can be crucified and put to death I guess anything STILLL goes. 

Watch out! If the same situation comes to pass in the U. S. as exists in Irag (for example) this country is in grave trouble. It IS RELIGION that is tearing apart that country and it will do the same here too. While I certainly do NOT advocate that at all I will have no ability to prevent that if it comes to this country and the way things are going IT WILL. LOOK CLOSELY at the problem areas of the world and you WILL SEE religion is behind it all. And you will see the misery that is forthcoming.

Rememeber there IS A BIG DIFFERENCE between religion(s) and God/Christ - a BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!

Take Care, John H.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 23, 2004)

Hey Craig, welcome back buddy.  You sure picked a hell of a thread to break back into the fun with.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Well, if you think that amending the Constitution is something that would only apply to those people, then you are very mistaken. When the federal government grants itself the right to regulate marriage, it isn't going to be solely for the purpose of preventing those people from participation in their constitutional right to freedom of association.
> 
> I've seen this argument before - the one about how they are "shoving" themselves down everyone else's throat, and yet no one has provided a single argument why, for example, providing the right to a hospital visitation or making a funeral arrangement for a partner is somehow removing some kind of special privilege from the rest of the population.
> ...


 Hi Kbm. EXACTLY! Take >Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I vote #2!


 Hi Dg. When it is YOUR rights that are violated and denied I am SURE you will be upset too. Perhaps your time (meaning anyone with the same attitute) just may be on the horizon too.  

Here is a statement I found years ago that applies eternally: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilence which condition if he break servitute is the consequence of his crime and the punishment for his guilt" - John Philpot Curran (Speech upon the right of election, 1790).

Take Care, John H.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Dg. When it is YOUR rights that are violated and denied I am SURE you will be upset too. Perhaps your time (meaning anyone with the same attitute) just may be on the horizon too.
> 
> Here is a statement I found years ago that applies eternally: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilence which condition if he break servitute is the consequence of his crime and the punishment for his guilt" - John Philpot Curran (Speech upon the right of election, 1790).
> ...


What rights? Gay marriage has no rights. If and when the majority of the country decide differently, then fine. But it ain't happening yet!


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> Marriage is not a man made institution. It was created by the Lord, unfortunately man has tied marriage in with tax benefits so the gay population wants those tax benefits. If it held no monetary benefit, do you think we would be having all these issues. Absolutely not.
> 
> John, I believe your argument is outrageous. If, as you say, it is not about the money then go get married and be done with it. You don't have to tell anyone because it is a PRIVATE MATTER and in the HEARTS OF EACH PERSON. Why do you need everyone to know and/or approve. Why is that so important John. Why, tell me why it is so so very important that everyone approve. Because it is very very very important to you.


  Hi Craig. First of all I am not Gay. I am speaking with a broad outlook and open mind on this subject because it is a topic of discussion today. Talking about things from ALL perspectives is how we begin to understand ANYTHING. 

Marriage IS most definitely a MAN MADE institution. Respectfully,  Read and learn from history. You will find that out. Mariage has NOT always existed. All the rest, tax benefits, etc., are add-ons and certainly money IS involved... 

I do not really believe that anyone is necessarily ASKING for applause or agreement or whatever when people get "married" but that they can HAVE the same benefits associated with that "marriage" as many others NOW HAVE and some are not allowed to have. THAT is the issue actually. Here´s how to `prove that: let´s take away FROM YOU your right to visit your wife (partner) who may be sick in the hospital (someone you CARE about) because a certain segiment of society SAYS you do not have that right - let´s take away from you your ability to inherit, let´s take away from you your ability to care for someone you care about with regard to insurances, etc. THINK ABOUT THAT HAPPPENING TO YOU. And these are just some of the over 1,000 benefits that are NOT "permitted" currently under the "law" as now exists. THAT is what all the fuss is all about. Let´s see how outrageous you think MY TAKING AWAY OR PREVENTING YOU FROM HAVING YOUR RIGHTS is when it HAPPENS TO YOU! THINK REAL HARD ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY. See what I am saying?
Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> What rights? Gay marriage has no rights. If and when the majority of the country decide differently, then fine. But it ain't happening yet!


 Hi Dg. That is my point and theirs - right now they have almost no rights and all they are asking for is the same rights others now can enjoy. Nothing more. See what I am saying? Take Care, John H.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 23, 2004)

Yeah I understand your point. I could care less about someone's sexuality. I don't agree with it, thus my stand on not receiving benefits from it.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Well, KBM, the church and state issue can be argued.  If you do research on the subject, the current stand on the seperation clause, by judges, has preverted  the intentions of the founding fathers.
> 
> Our money says in "In God we Trust", with the current climate in the US on this subject, it might as well say "In God we Thrust".


 Hi Stickboy. That statement (In God we trust)  was added later on and not a part of what existed originally. This country was founded on freedom of religion - without any interference of either religion or government. This is BECAUSE of the past abuses of religion and religious powers. This country was not founded on Christianity but on freedom to practice whatever religion one chooses without any interference. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Yeah I understand your point. I could care less about someone's sexuality. I don't agree with it, thus my stand on not receiving benefits from it.


 Hi Dg. Are you then saying you wouldn´t mind being in the same position then of people who happen to be Gay or BiSexual? Are you then saying that you would not mind YOUR rights being denied you? It COULD happen to you as well as anyone else actually depending on the "directions of the winds of politics and who happens to be in control at the time"....  I believe in EVERYONE having the same rights - EQUAL rights. Otherwise we are living a lie. Maybe the constitution should be ammened to state: ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS ALL OTHERS HAVE NONE. At least we would not as a country be hypocritical. And then what right would this country have to tell other countries they should not be denying their citizens their rights if we here deny our citizens.... Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

We could make this all universal in this country and deny ALL people ANY RIGHTS of ANY KIND - at least we all then wound be in the same boat and be equally miserable. At least we would have no infighting between each other because no one would have any rights at all. 

IF I had it in my power I would eliminate three things from the face of this earth: 1) Child abuse in ANY FORM by ANY one. 2) Religion(s) (look at their histories and leaders and see why I feel this way. 3) Politics.  THINK about how much better this world would be WITHOUT these.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Craig. First of all I am not Gay. I am speaking with a broad outlook and open mind on this subject because it is a topic of discussion today. Talking about things from ALL perspectives is how we begin to understand ANYTHING.
> 
> Marriage IS most definitely a MAN MADE institution. Respectfully,  Read and learn from history. You will find that out. Mariage has NOT always existed. All the rest, tax benefits, etc., are add-ons and certainly money IS involved...
> ...



John,

This is your view and not mine, so don't say it as if it is a fact. The Lord made marriage with Adam and Eve.  To me this is undisputable, but apparently not to you.  You need to say this is your opinion, not that it is a undisputable fact, because it is not.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 23, 2004)

Why do you insist on turning this around. I'm not gay and I'm not being denied anything and never will be. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country, as it was founded in the constitution. The forefathers did not intend on giving gay marriage rights. I don't understand why everyone in this country keeps wanting something for nothing?


----------



## craig777 (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Why do you insist on turning this around. I'm not gay and I'm not being denied anything and never will be. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country, as it was founded in the constitution. The forefathers did not intend on giving gay marriage rights. I don't understand why everyone in this country keeps wanting something for nothing?




I agree dg, and John what rights are you being denied, a tax break am I correct.  Like I said go get married and be done with it.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_ This country was not founded on Christianity



Excuse me?  You might want to check the record on that.  Now, I'll agree that the government can NOT interfere with your practice of a different religion if you choose but the United States WAS founded on the principals of Christian philosophy.  Take a look at our major laws and where they came from and you'll see that undeniable fact.

Murder is illegal:  Thou shalt not kill
Adultry is illegal:  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
Theft is illegal:  Thou shalt not steal
etc. etc. etc.

Now understand, I'm NOT a deeply religious person so don't assume I'm thumping a Bible while I'm stating my views in this thread.  I simply have my own views as to what is right and what is wrong.  My view is that homosexuality goes against nature and therefore should NOT be treated the same way as heterosexuality.  It's been stated before that people are tired of the government shoving it's own beliefs down their throats.  Well, I'm tired of fanatic fringe groups trying to shove their beliefs down MY throat.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Excuse me?  You might want to check the record on that.  Now, I'll agree that the government can NOT interfere with your practice of a different religion if you choose but the United States WAS founded on the principals of Christian philosophy.  Take a look at our major laws and where they came from and you'll see that undeniable fact.
> 
> Murder is illegal:  Thou shalt not kill
> ...



Albob,

I knew you would come out of the closet.  It is OK to be a Bible thumper.


----------



## Jezziah (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Murder is illegal:  Thou shalt not kill
> Adultry is illegal:  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
> Theft is illegal:  Thou shalt not steal
> etc. etc. etc.



You can find these basic principles in almost any religion or country in the world.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Why do you insist on turning this around. I'm not gay and I'm not being denied anything and never will be. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country, as it was founded in the constitution. The forefathers did not intend on giving gay marriage rights. I don't understand why everyone in this country keeps wanting something for nothing?


 Hi Dg. I am actually trying to have you see that what you (meaning anyone here) would place ON others YOU (meaning anyone here) must be willing to also place on YOURSELF - or deny. That is how we understand the other person's situation. That is what I am talking about. The LACK of some in our country to benefit from having the rights ONLY SOME HAVE and NOT ALL with respect to any relationship they may have on a personal level. I never meant for you to think I was saying you were Gay (NOT that that matters to me because I do not have anything against anyone regardless of their Sexuality because it is as you - meaning anyone -  are born, a gift from God).  People who happen to be BiSexual or Homosexual DO NOT have the same rights in this country as those that are Heterosexual with regard to relationships they may foster with another who consents and is able and of age and willing to consent to. See what I am saying? You take your rights for granted because you are not being denied them being Heterosexual yourself. It is kinda like if a person has a bad back - no one KNOWS what that is like unless they have suffered the very same...  Our forefathers intended that ALL people have the same rights actually. They wanted NO discrimination for any reason ever. Take Care Buddy, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Excuse me?  You might want to check the record on that.  Now, I'll agree that the government can NOT interfere with your practice of a different religion if you choose but the United States WAS founded on the principals of Christian philosophy.  Take a look at our major laws and where they came from and you'll see that undeniable fact.
> 
> Murder is illegal:  Thou shalt not kill
> ...


 Hi ALBOB. Our country was NOT founded on Christianity or on Christian principles at all. The laws should and must never reflect ANY religion actually in order that there BE the separation of Church and State our Founding Fathers wanted and wrote into the Constitution. They KNEW the dangers of religion because they LIVED through those dangers themselves and knew people who likewise experienced them. And they learned from history and DID NOT WANT it repeated in this country. I agree with them. Anyone is entirely free to practice whatever religion they wish - or not. But there MUST BE a separation totally of church and state in order for anything to survive otherwise you end up with an Iraq (or some other country in that region for example) in this country and all the war and killing that IS associated with that area of the world. It is ALL about each faction fighting each other over who is right and who is wrong religiously speaking. LOOK at the MESS that exists in this area of the world now and look how long it has existed and STILL NO RESOLVE. I surely do NOT want that in this country and it could happen here too. That WILL be the end of this country as we know it if that is allowed to happen.  

To understand that BiSexuality and Homosexuality ARE NOT AGAINST NATURE please read, for example this book: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press). EACH of the Sexualities- Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality DO EXIST in nature and the natural world of which Man is a part whether he likes it or not and always has... They EACH are a part of the variety - variation - that EXISTS in ALL things in life. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> Albob,
> 
> I knew you would come out of the closet.  It is OK to be a Bible thumper.


 Hi Craig. I do not think anyone is out to "thump the Bible" really. I certainly am not.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 23, 2004)

did anyone ever think what if the green party is part of the GOP

Nader came in just when bush dropped in the polls against kerry
and last time he got bush elected

hmm...i smell something fishy


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi ALBOB. Our country was NOT founded on Christianity or on Christian principles at all.



Wow!!!   John H., you are obviously a person that knows how to have an intelligent discussion without constantly throwing  insults and profanities at your opponent.  For that you have my utmost respect.    BUT, for you to come out and state that the United States was not founded on Christian principles is so utterly false I don't wish to continue this conversation.  You and I will forever be in disagreement over this so I think it's best for us to just go our seperate ways and leave it at a polite gentleman's disagreement.  I respect your ability to voice your opinions intelligently and I hope we can have similar, intelligent discussions on other subjects.  Later,  AL


----------



## craig777 (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Wow!!!   John H., you are obviously a person that knows how to have an intelligent discussion without constantly throwing  insults and profanities at your opponent.  For that you have my utmost respect.    BUT, for you to come out and state that the United States was not founded on Christian principles is so utterly false I don't wish to continue this conversation.  You and I will forever be in disagreement over this so I think it's best for us to just go our seperate ways and leave it at a polite gentleman's disagreement.  I respect your ability to voice your opinions intelligently and I hope we can have similar, intelligent discussions on other subjects.  Later,  AL




  That is all for me also, have fun John.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Wow!!!   John H., you are obviously a person that knows how to have an intelligent discussion without constantly throwing  insults and profanities at your opponent.  For that you have my utmost respect.    BUT, for you to come out and state that the United States was not founded on Christian principles is so utterly false I don't wish to continue this conversation.  You and I will forever be in disagreement over this so I think it's best for us to just go our seperate ways and leave it at a polite gentleman's disagreement.  I respect your ability to voice your opinions intelligently and I hope we can have similar, intelligent discussions on other subjects.  Later,  AL


I must agree that he does conduct himself in a very positive manner. Not seen much on the internet.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 23, 2004)

I agree as well.  Then again, being polite and well spoken doesn't mean he is correct.

I too, have tired of this topic.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 24, 2004)

Christianity has been diluted by the United States in the first place.  Want to make your own rule (interpret something to conveniently fit your desires)?  Start a new denomination.  There are literally thousands of different denominations of Christianity in America.  The most common comprise about 120.  When you have Unitarians, Jehova's Witness, Baptists, Seventh Day adventists, Scientologists, Pentacostals, Methodists, among others, it time to wipe the slate clean.   Mormonism is a separate religion altogether.  Catholism is not considered by many Christians to even be a Christian religion. 

America is not a religious nation now, and it never has been.  Thank god (no pun).


----------



## ZECH (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> America is not a religious nation now, and it never has been.  Thank god (no pun).


You don't live in the south....................We have churches on every corner.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> You don't live in the south....................We have churches on every corner.



Based on his last statement I doubt that he lives in reality.  

Come on Mr. Snafu, how can you possibly say that the United States has NEVER been a religious nation?  We were FOUNDED on religion.  Why do you think we emmigrated from Europe?  It was so we could practice RELIGION.  All kinds of religions.  I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the views of people who don't acknowledge our religious past.  For you and John H. to completely deny that this country was formed using religious principals is completely baffling.  I said I wasn't going to continue this argument but I just can't contain my disbelief at the false statements that are flying so freely in this thread.  My only recourse is to say; you believe whatever you want, I'll stick to the facts.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Based on his last statement I doubt that he lives in reality.
> 
> Come on Mr. Snafu, how can you possibly say that the United States has NEVER been a religious nation?  We were FOUNDED on religion.  Why do you think we emmigrated from Europe?  It was so we could practice RELIGION.  All kinds of religions.  I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the views of people who don't acknowledge our religious past.  For you and John H. to completely deny that this country was formed using religious principals is completely baffling.  I said I wasn't going to continue this argument but I just can't contain my disbelief at the false statements that are flying so freely in this thread.  My only recourse is to say; you believe whatever you want, I'll stick to the facts.



I think part of sticking with the "facts" would be to acknowledge that both Sweden and The Netherlands started early colonies on the American mainland (NYC was actually Dutch first) - these settlers didn't emigrate to North America seeking religious freedom. Likewise, the state of Georgia's earliest settlers were people with sentences from British debtor's prisons - the same kind of motivating factor that was part of early settlement in Australia. In Virginia and North Carolina, the first settlements were not people necessarily seeking religious freedom - this led to problems later with Virginia, for example, which tried to establish a "state" religion and taxed residents to support it. You couldn't be a voting citizen of Virginia then unless you were a member of the Anglican Church. 

Religious persecution was duplicated in this country up to the founding of the nation and the establishment of the Constitution. In some of the new southern states, early state constitutions attempted to established at least a semi-official religion. So while it is true that some settlers first sought refuge from religious persecution, it certainly wasn't the only reason colonists came to this country. 

When the Constitution was framed, the writers came from a wide variety of religious beliefs, and because of competing religions in various states, care was taken to ensure that we would not become a duplication of many of the European countries most had emigrated from. . .

This doesn't mean that general religious beliefs aren't part of the foundation of this country - but it isn't the ONLY one, and many state constitutions dating from the first 50 years of nationhood define that separation more clearly. For example, the Ohio state constitution declared that religion, morality and knowledge are foundational principles - note that religion does NOT mean morality because of the various denominations and interpretations present. 

It is interesting, though, since you brought up the Ten Commandments in an earlier post as a basis for our criminal justice system, that no one advocates the State unilaterally order the dissolution of a marriage in which one party commits adultery. In fact, even if the offender has uttered his/her vows before God and established a contract with the State, there are no jail sentences imposed and the parties involved are not forced to have their marriage unrecognized, along with all of the benefits and rights. If the individuals choose to divorce, the State may have established adultery as a reason to allow the dissolution, but it doesn't prevent the offender from establishing a new contract and marrying again. 

There seem to be two reasons for this lax approach to breaking that commandment: 1) the courts historically have viewed marriage as a primary contract between two people to promote family stability and establish an order of property rights and 2) since it is seen as a basic human right, the State's power has historically been limited in terms of interfering with the right of freedom of intimate association. A government must make a case of inherent, compelling harm to prevent a man and woman from marrying. Simple disapproval of the relationship by your neighbors is not considered a compelling reason.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

While I'm certainly not a legal expert, I think there are lots of reasons not to support a constitutional amendment "protecting" marriage or defining it in the manner proposed. Besides establishing a governmental precedent to interfere in heterosexual relationships, it seems to me that any number of things could happen down the road. 

For example, with an amendment like that present, could..like one of those transexuals sue taxpayers to finance a sex change operation in order to secure marriage rights? Could a person who "lives" as a woman but may be anatomically still a man qualify as a woman and bring in every study that indicates they believe this in their minds? This could get very messy. . .


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church. 

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "inforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations. 

Puritans were English Protestants who wished to reform and purify the Church of England of what they considered to be unacceptable residues of Roman Catholicism. In the 1620s leaders of the English state and church grew increasingly unsympathetic to Puritan demands. They insisted that the Puritans conform to religious practices that they abhorred, removing their ministers from office and threatening them with "extirpation from the earth" if they did not fall in line. Zealous Puritan laymen received savage punishments. For example, in 1630 a man was sentenced to life imprisonment, had his property confiscated, his nose slit, an ear cut off, and his forehead branded "S.S." (sower of sedition). 
Beginning in 1630 as many as 20,000 Puritans emigrated to America from England to gain the liberty to worship God as they chose. Most settled in New England, but some went as far as the West Indies. Theologically, the Puritans were "non-separating Congregationalists." Unlike the Pilgrims, who came to Massachusetts in 1620, the Puritans believed that the Church of England was a true church, though in need of major reforms. Every New England Congregational church was considered an independent entity, beholden to no hierarchy. The membership was composed, at least initially, of men and women who had undergone a conversion experience and could prove it to other members. Puritan leaders hoped (futilely, as it turned out) that, once their experiment was successful, England would imitate it by instituting a church order modeled after the New England Way. 

The New England colonies have often been called "Bible Commonwealths" because they sought the guidance of the scriptures in regulating all aspects of the lives of their citizens. Scripture was cited as authority for many criminal statutes. Shown here are the two Bibles used in seventeenth-century New England and a seventeenth-century law code from Massachusetts that cites scripture.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

I don't understand how people can just rewrite history and then believe it to be real.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Religious persecution was duplicated in this country up to the founding of the nation and the establishment of the Constitution.



True, true, true...............but this only goes to further prove my point.  Our nation was founded with the drafting and implimentation of the Constitution which was a written contract guaranteeing the right to practice religion.  It was NOT a contract guranteeing freedom FROM religion.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> I don't understand how people can just rewrite history and then believe it to be real.



Oh boy do we see eye to eye on that one.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Oh boy do we see eye to eye on that one.




Arrrgghhhh, Albob and I agree


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> I don't understand how people can just rewrite history and then believe it to be real.



I think part of that perception stems from the reactions of the colonies and how they changed policies as they became states. For example, in 1777 Virginia established a provision that limited the amount of property a church could own - at the time, since property was considered power (and usually a condition for voting rights) it was a tool used to limit the ability of one religious group from controlling the State. 

Interestingly, that law was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal court - and the suit was filed by a fundamentalist religious group that wanted to expand their property holdings in the state.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> True, true, true...............but this only goes to further prove my point.  Our nation was founded with the drafting and implimentation of the Constitution which was a written contract guaranteeing the right to practice religion.  It was NOT a contract guranteeing freedom FROM religion.




Actually, I think many state constitutions wrote specific clauses that ensured that no man could be forced to support or attend any house of worship. We have clues of that intent in parts of the federal constitution - for example, qualifications for American citizenship do not include requirements to belong to any religious order; there are no religious litmus tests for people to be elected to public office. 

It reminds me of something an acquaintance told me yesterday - she was watching an interview with the atheist who had filed that lawsuit over the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. There was also a religious representative there, so she said it was a rather heated exchange. She told me that one caller to the program asked how the show could have an atheist on television, because since he wasn't a christian, he couldn't be an American. 

Makes me wonder where she picked up that definition of citizenship.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I think part of that perception stems from the reactions of the colonies and how they changed policies as they became states.



That's a good possibility but what confuses me (and I'll assume Craig) is how people can blatantly say we have NEVER been a religious nation as though it were fact.  This is one example of what I mean when I refer to "re-writing history".


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Actually, I think many state constitutions wrote specific clauses that ensured that no man could be forced to support or attend any house of worship. We have clues of that intent in parts of the federal constitution - for example, qualifications for American citizenship do not include requirements to belong to any religious order; there are no religious litmus tests for people to be elected to public office.



You and I are using different words to say exactly the same thing.




> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_one caller to the program asked how the show could have an atheist on television, because since he wasn't a christian, he couldn't be an American.



That caller's just a freakin' idiot.    You don't have to practice religion to be an American but, since you are an American, you CAN practice religion if you want to.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> That's a good possibility but what confuses me (and I'll assume Craig) is how people can blatantly say we have NEVER been a religious nation as though it were fact.  This is one example of what I mean when I refer to "re-writing history".



Yep, confuses me too.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

I can't speak for John H. in this matter at all - I assumed his intention was to explain that religious membership was not supposed to be a requirement for civil rights or equal protection nor the source of interpretation of civil law. If it was, there would be constant fighting among religious denominations over how civil laws should reflect only their religious beliefs. I think this was one of the problems in Utah, since the territory's government was controlled pretty much exclusively by the Mormon Church.The danger was that adherence to a particular religious interpretation would amount to government endorsement of that religion and thus persecution of other beliefs and non-believers.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I can't speak for John H. in this matter at all - I assumed his intention was to explain that religious membership was not supposed to be a requirement for civil rights or equal protection nor the source of interpretation of civil law. If it was, there would be constant fighting among religious denominations over how civil laws should reflect only their religious beliefs. I think this was one of the problems in Utah, since the territory's government was controlled pretty much exclusively by the Mormon Church.The danger was that adherence to a particular religious interpretation would amount to government endorsement of that religion and thus persecution of other beliefs and non-believers.



I agree with you on this.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I can't speak for John H. in this matter at all - I assumed his intention was to explain that religious membership was not supposed to be a requirement for civil rights or equal protection nor the source of interpretation of civil law. If it was, there would be constant fighting among religious denominations over how civil laws should reflect only their religious beliefs. I think this was one of the problems in Utah, since the territory's government was controlled pretty much exclusively by the Mormon Church.The danger was that adherence to a particular religious interpretation would amount to government endorsement of that religion and thus persecution of other beliefs and non-believers.



I agree with this also but, what John H. said was, we've never even acknowledged religion, OF ANY KIND.  That's absurd.  As I've already stated, we are deeply rooted in Christian principals and those principals shaped our country from the very beginning.  (Before someone tries to remind me of the Dutch and the Swedes and the Brits and the whatevers, I'm talking about the beginning of the actuall United States.  That didn't exist until the signing of the Constitution.)


----------



## Pepper (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I can't speak for John H. in this matter at all - I assumed his intention was to explain that religious membership was not supposed to be a requirement for civil rights or equal protection nor the source of interpretation of civil law. If it was, there would be constant fighting among religious denominations over how civil laws should reflect only their religious beliefs. I think this was one of the problems in Utah, since the territory's government was controlled pretty much exclusively by the Mormon Church.The danger was that adherence to a particular religious interpretation would amount to government endorsement of that religion and thus persecution of other beliefs and non-believers.



I agree with this statement except I don't believe this was John H's point at all.

John H is about two things:
1) promoting bi/homosexuality and
2) distorting God's word.

When tax season is over, I am going to come back and re-read each of your posts more thoroughly, KBM. They seem well-thought out and reasonable so I should give them more effort. If only damn clients would stop calling me!


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> I agree with this statement except I don't believe this was John H's point at all.
> 
> John H is about two things:
> ...



  Aww don't feel bad, Pepper - I'm supposed to be grading papers and nursing a sore lower back - I screwed up doing squats last night and am paying dearly for it today. . .and have to give a mid-term exam tomorrow...


----------



## Burner02 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> and have to give a mid-term exam tomorrow...


Give yourself and the students a break..make all the answers: 'C'..


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

Don't know what you are all quabbling about, but I am voting Bush out, it seems that he and his cabinet are wanting too much control, I can't have that.  This will be my first time voting, too.

What I find retarded is that a couple of years ago, there was bitching about having God in the Pledge and having the 10 commandments on a courthouse.  Now all of a sudden, it seems religion is running the country.  Why can we not find a happy middle ground.  While I believe there needs to be a separation of church and state, I would not feel we needed to waste taxpayer money on whether or not the pledge needs the word God in it.  If you don't want to say it then don't, if you want to omit the word then fine.  People have far too much time on their hands if they can find time in the day to bitch about this.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> Don't know what you are all quabbling about, but I am voting Bush out, it seems that he and his cabinet are wanting too much control, I can't have that.  This will be my first time voting, too.
> 
> What I find retarded is that a couple of years ago, there was bitching about having God in the Pledge and having the 10 commandments on a courthouse.  Now all of a sudden, it seems religion is running the country.  Why can we not find a happy middle ground.  While I believe there needs to be a separation of church and state, I would not feel we needed to waste taxpayer money on whether or not the pledge needs the word God in it.  If you don't want to say it then don't, if you want to omit the word then fine.  People have far too much time on their hands if they can find time in the day to bitch about this.




Dale,

The things you are talking about have been there for many many years.  It isn't religion running the country that you are hearing about, it is the ALCU trying to remove every trace of religion from the country. Above the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a portrait of Moses holding the ten commandments. It has been there for a couple hundred years. Why does President Bush get the blame for this and Christianity. The Christians are not the ones wasting tax payers money. Why isn't the blame for this put on the people who are actually doing it, just baffles me.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

You know, I have been reading news reports about this "under God" thing in the Pledge of Allegiance - and while I understand the atheist father's point of view, it's hard to believe this is an issue that has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. While his contention is that it makes the state "endorse" religion, I see it as the same thing as..well, like having on a coin "In God We Trust"..there's no specific interpretation of God involved...

It seems to me that a public school shouldn't have any problem if a student said "under Allah," or "under E.T." or...skip the words entirely when they personally say the pledge. My interpretation of that pledge was never that saying "under God" meant we all were one kind of religion, or even an indication that the entire nation pledge belief in a Supreme Being - I always thought it was rather optional and individual. 

While I know it was added during the Cold War at the urging of religious leaders as a statement of difference to "godless communism" I don't ever remember saying the pledge in school as a prelude to an hour of religious indoctrination. It was said and that was it. . .I'm not sure what that atheist's case should be unless his daughter, for example, was actually punished for refusing to say "under God." And I can't see that a school would care if a student didn't say those two words. Heck - I could have skipped saying those two words and the teacher would have never known. 
Seems to me that "under God" could be meant to anyone on an individual basis...like "under love"..."under grace,"...."under the stars"..."under heaven" and still mean the same thing. 

If I was an atheist and had a child and that child asked me why she had to say those words in school, I would have explained it simply as an acknowledgement of the world and the universe around us and that different people use "God" as a statement of those things.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> Dale,
> 
> The things you are talking about have been there for many many years.  It isn't religion running the country that you are hearing about, it is the ALCU trying to remove every trace of religion from the country. Above the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a portrait of Moses holding the ten commandments. It has been there for a couple hundred years. Why does President Bush get the blame for this and Christianity. The Christians are not the ones wasting tax payers money. Why isn't the blame for this put on the people who are actually doing it, just baffles me.




I am not saying that this is the fault of the religious folk, my post was 2 different statements.  I agree, it is an idiot who is wasting the taxpayers money, but it is ridiculous that it even needs to go to a vote.  

My other comment was just that I think it is quite obvious that religion is playing quite a role in Bush's political decisions.  Totally separate from the "Under God" thing.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> I am not saying that this is the fault of the religious folk, my post was 2 different statements.  I agree, it is an idiot who is wasting the taxpayers money, but it is ridiculous that it even needs to go to a vote.
> 
> My other comment was just that I think it is quite obvious that religion is playing quite a role in Bush's political decisions.  Totally separate from the "Under God" thing.



Sorry   

I will vote for Bush again though.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

I hear ya, it is a hard decision, but for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Burner02 *_
> Give yourself and the students a break..make all the answers: 'C'..




But that wouldn't be much fun for me....a good teacher gets his entertainment out of watching tiny beads of sweat rise up on the worried brows of students....the sight of panic in their eyes....the sweating palms bleeding the ink from the hastily scribbled answers in their hands....


----------



## Burner02 (Mar 24, 2004)

ok..make them all 'B'..

That will work!


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_My other comment was just that I think it is quite obvious that religion is playing quite a role in Bush's political decisions.  Totally separate from the "Under God" thing.



My question to you then is, do you think his religious beliefs are causing him to make BAD decisions?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

I think the gay marriage thing is a bad decision.  The war in Iraq had to be done, no doubt about it, although I feel the pretext was totally construed.  All in all it is irrelevant, separation of church and state pretty much dictates that they don't play a role in each other but they currently are.  Do I think Kerry will be any different, I have no idea.  Prolly not, but I am willing to find out.

Jesse The Body in 2008


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> My question to you then is, do you think his religious beliefs are causing him to make BAD decisions?




I'm just tired of every one of them having scandal problems - I think that makes us more vulnerable as a nation and more cynical about the validity of our leaders. 

Does Bush's religious beliefs cause him to make bad decisions? In many ways, I say yes - but generally in the way in which they are influenced by other religious interest groups. For example, he once referred to the gay rights situation by cautioning religious fundamentalists about the 'log in their own eyes"...then seemed to take a definite stand by endorsing that amendment. 

I know I posted this elsewhere, but he would have seemed more "presidential" to me if, while taking his stand, he would have acknowledged singular pieces of legislation in Congress that would have provided them some rights (like employment, domestic partner health benefits, immigration). If he would have endorsed those or even just asked Congress to look at the grievances, he probably wouldn't have looked as beholden to the Pat Robertson gang. Instead, he looked like he was crucifying one group of Americans to buy a few more fundamentalist votes. 

I also think if a President frames all of his decisions in religious terms, he ignores those Americans who don't necessarily believe in his interpretation, and that makes his actions look more suspicious to them, whether they actually are or not. Not a good public relations decision, in my opinion. When that is lumped together with a surprisingly small number of press conferences and a propensity to contradict his own "compassionate conservative" image by preaching consensus and then playing the "my way or the highway" route, it doesn't enhance his image. 

I've seen a few reports that claim that neither Bush or his wife really believe in passing that constitutional amendment - but that ends up meaning nothing if he doesn't endorse or explore alternatives. In those cases, he ends up beholden to the fundamentalist lobby, which also increasingly controls his political party and has an agenda that may not necessarily reflect his own. Especially in an election year, it becomes a balancing act between being President of the whole diverse nation and handling the interests of those groups - and naturally, he doesn't want to be getting them angry with him.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

Hmmmmm...........I haven't noticed the same religious references by Bush that you have but, I'll admit to not being entirely objective because I like him.  I certainly can't argue with what you've said except to ask another question.  You stated that he frames all his responses in religious terms, do you disagree with the responses themselves or just the fact that they're framed in religious terms?


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_ Jesse The Body in 2008



NOW we're getting back to an area we can agree on.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

Well, his whole thing with gay marriages is basically that the bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman whereas the constitution makes no such distinction.  He may not have said it in so many words, but his definition of marriage is based off of the bible.  I do actually believe he did say it in so many words, but I can't remember where.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> Well, his whole thing with gay marriages is basically that the bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman whereas the constitution makes no such distinction.  He may not have said it in so many words, but his definition of marriage is based off of the bible.  I do actually believe he did say it in so many words, but I can't remember where.




What should define a marriage,  two people that love each other should be allowed to get married.  Well then I could marry my sister because I love her and I will get the tax break.  Then people will say no you can't marry your sister. My answer will be why not, I love her. Well you have to be lovers, and my answer will be why.  What defines a marriage.  I know God already did when he created them male and female, but that is my opinion. Let me hear what all of you define to be a marriage.

Oh and I don't have a sister, I was making a point.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Hmmmmm...........I haven't noticed the same religious references by Bush that you have but, I'll admit to not being entirely objective because I like him.  I certainly can't argue with what you've said except to ask another question.  You stated that he frames all his responses in religious terms, do you disagree with the responses themselves or just the fact that they're framed in religious terms?




I think anytime a public official votes or tries to form public policy based on religious interpretation, he/she risks creating a conflict of interest. We went through that with President Kennedy and the concerns about him forming public policy based on direction from the Pope rather than what is in the best interests of the whole nation.  I wasn't particularly supportive of things like "faith-based charities" getting taxpayer help, even with provisions that were supposed to prevent them from recruiting for their particular church. Besides, if the 700 Club can own diamond mine interests, they certainly don't need taxpayer support to do humanitarian work. 
Even though I agreed with him when he made his public "log in the eye" statement, I thought it was inappropriate for the a standing President to feel the need to use biblical scripture to remind one group that other Americans have rights. Upholding the Constitution is his paramount responsibility. 

There have been any number of religious based bills before Congress that have gained support from the President, including one that would allow churches to directly endorse candidates for office and openly campaign for them. If you look at other countries that have allowed that, it's too common for them to end up in a religious struggle for power and democracy gets tossed aside. 

Unfortunately, religion doesn't have a history of being friendly toward democracy. It took 1800 years after Christ to establish ONE in the world, even though religions battled each other and aligned themselves with sympathetic governments in order to secure power. Now that doesn't mean they didn't do some good - obviously, most early scholarly work was helped along by priests and monks - it helped lead us out of the Dark Ages. At the same time, biblical scripture doesn't refer to democratic ideals - rather terminology that refers to heirarchy and "kingdoms" instead of the concept of representative government. 

On the other hand, I have a real problem with fundamentalist candidates for office - not because they don't have a right to run, but because often deception is used to make the public believe they aren't associated with an extreme group. Although I'm not saying that is the case with Bush, I think his increasing pandering to that wing of the Party, and the number of moderate Republicans who are becoming disillusioned with that religious political agenda, puts him in a compromising position with his responsibilities to the rest of the country. It can be construed as encouraging religious warfare, or...that dubious "culture war" which was declared NOT by a political party, but right wing fundamentalists. The same goes for referring to judiciary as "activist" judges, terminology coined by those same groups to trash any decision as "unchristian" that they didn't endorse. 

Just as in any debate, like the marriage amendment the President encouraged, it becomes a divisive method of generating more mistrust. You have one side quoting bible verses and another side claiming material damage - in essence, there IS no debate. A good president (which doesn't mean I'm saying Kerry is incredible) wouldn't encourage a nothing debate over one group seeking redress for material damages. He would either support it or encourage discussion on those actual damages - not promote religious policymaking, especially when it is divisive within the religious community itself.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

Wouldn't you like to be the Judge presiding over two homosexual women going through a divorce.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

Love can mean many things, but the love between "you and your sister" would be different than the love between "you and your wife".  Personally, if someone wants to marry their sister, I don't care, go raise your mongoloids in the backwoods and leave me alone.  There are already state laws barring marrying kin.  What they are trying to do is reinterpret the constitution with this gay marriage thing, though.  I would say the government should have the right, providing one of the members was there when it was drafted, to change it.  Unfortunately from them, I would bet a ton of money none of them were there when the constitution was drafted.   Your point is a very good one, though.  It will be hard to draw the line somewhere.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> Love can mean many things, but the love between "you and your sister" would be different than the love between "you and your wife".  Personally, if someone wants to marry their sister, I don't care, go raise your mongoloids in the backwoods and leave me alone.  There are already state laws barring marrying kin.  What they are trying to do is reinterpret the constitution with this gay marriage thing, though.  I would say the government should have the right, providing one of the members was there when it was drafted, to change it.  Unfortunately from them, I would bet a ton of money none of them were there when the constitution was drafted.   Your point is a very good one, though.  It will be hard to draw the line somewhere.



And what I am saying is that my sister and I would not procreate, and a homosexual couple could not procreate either (Adopting is not procreating). So what defines a marriage. Is it just love, and who is going to judge what kind of love it has to be in order to get married.  I wish they would just take the stupid tax break and give it to everyone.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> What should define a marriage,  two people that love each other should be allowed to get married.  Well then I could marry my sister because I love her and I will get the tax break.  Then people will say no you can't marry your sister. My answer will be why not, I love her. Well you have to be lovers, and my answer will be why.  What defines a marriage.  I know God already did when he created them male and female, but that is my opinion. Let me hear what all of you define to be a marriage.
> 
> Oh and I don't have a sister, I was making a point.



That example doesn't work - the State has a compelling interest in preventing birth defects even if a couple swears they will never attempt to have a child. That is one area in which the State is able to assert the right of marriage regulation - when the union might produce a child who could be severely damaged. Actually, that is the one area where every religion and denomination I know of agrees - about incest. 

I don't think married people get such a great tax break, actually - it's more about the right to hospital visitation, the right to inherit if there isn't a will, the right to arrange funerals for a partner. Again, I think if we had been smart about this whole thing to begin with, we would have just recognized these couples existed and learned how to bend the laws out of respect. Instead, we ended up with administrators and states that said "No, you can't visit them - you aren't legally married and you have to be a family member," and "No, you aren't legally recognized as married - you can't make healthcare decisions for them." How hard could it have been to just say "look - we don't let these people get married, but they've obviously been together for 20 years - this rule is rather ridiculous in this case." 

In that respect, I fully support their desire to marry, if that is the ONLY way to get those rights. There have been too many cases where a surviving partner has lost their home, been stripped of their possessions, had the State take over property because there is no legally recognized surviving relative. And cases where the partner is ostracized by the deceased person's family, and is not allowed to participate in a funeral or have imput into health decisions. These seem like such basic, simple things - one would think human beings would just acknowledge the reality of the situation and let them participate. But death can often bring out greed, for example. . .and the worst behavior in people.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> That example doesn't work - the State has a compelling interest in preventing birth defects even if a couple swears they will never attempt to have a child. That is one area in which the State is able to assert the right of marriage regulation - when the union might produce a child who could be severely damaged. Actually, that is the one area where every religion and denomination I know of agrees - about incest.



I was just trying to make a point, we will live in different states, and only talk on the phone. Is that better


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> Wouldn't you like to be the Judge presiding over two homosexual women going through a divorce.




Oh, I think it would be even more dramatic if it was too...like crossdressers. That would be one for Divorce Court on television, and probably get the biggest ratings of the year.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> I was just trying to make a point, we will live in different states, and only talk on the phone. Is that better




You wouldn't even be allowed to have phone sex....


----------



## craig777 (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> You wouldn't even be allowed to have phone sex....



Ok, that's a deal.  With my sister would be nasty.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_ Well, his whole thing with gay marriages is basically that the bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman whereas the constitution makes no such distinction.



So, if the Constitution stated that a marriage is only between a man and a woman you'd be OK with it, right? 



> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_  What they are trying to do is reinterpret the constitution with this gay marriage thing



But you just stated that it's not in the Constitution.  How can something be RE-interpreted if it doesn't even exist?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

If the constitution said that it needed to be between a man and a woman then it would be up to the gays to petition.  Since there is no distinction, you cannot infer one, you would need an amendment.

Now, for your second statement, the constitution does not define a marriage as between a man and a woman, politicians are now trying to interpret that it is to be between a man and a woman, which is not in the constitution.


Hey, on  a side note, who here thinks that when the forefathers where drafting this they could have envisioned what was going on today.  We all know they meant between a man and a woman, that is obvious.  That doesn't make it right, hell, we used to burn women who were thought of as witches and that was perfectly moral.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_ hell, we used to burn women who were thought of as witches and that was perfectly moral.



Why do you say it *WAS* perfectly moral???


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2004)

In their eyes, not literally.  Although the case can be made that without the witch hunts, we would not have had such marvelous Monty Python skits.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> Catholism is not considered by many Christians to even be a Christian religion.



Really?  I didn't know that.  

I do know that Christ FOUNDED the Catholic church.  

How much more Christian could it be?


----------



## oaktownboy (Mar 24, 2004)

whoa..how did this turn into a gay marriage thread???


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Based on his last statement I doubt that he lives in reality.
> 
> Come on Mr. Snafu, how can you possibly say that the United States has NEVER been a religious nation?  We were FOUNDED on religion.  Why do you think we emmigrated from Europe?  It was so we could practice RELIGION.  All kinds of religions.  I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the views of people who don't acknowledge our religious past.  For you and John H. to completely deny that this country was formed using religious principals is completely baffling.




ALBOB, I do agree that the Puritans and other came in order to flee religious persecution.  But the majority of people did not, as a whole.

The immigrants that came, immigrated for a variety of reasons.

After most arrived, they focused on making a living, and supporting families.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> You don't live in the south....................We have churches on every corner.



dg806: I am aware that religion plays a more pertinent role in the South.  The South is an important part of our nation.  But as a whole America and Americans are not religious.  

The upper echelons of society are comprised of some reps. from certain denominations.

For example, The Bushes are Episcapalions.  

A lot of the people who go to church every Sunday, do so, for cultural reasons, family upbringing, and ulterior motives....I know many of them.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> Based on his last statement I doubt that he lives in reality.
> 
> Come on Mr. Snafu, how can you possibly say that the United States has NEVER been a religious nation?  We were FOUNDED on religion.  Why do you think we emmigrated from Europe?  It was so we could practice RELIGION.  All kinds of religions.  I'm absolutely dumbfounded at the views of people who don't acknowledge our religious past.  For you and John H. to completely deny that this country was formed using religious principals is completely baffling.  I said I wasn't going to continue this argument but I just can't contain my disbelief at the false statements that are flying so freely in this thread.  My only recourse is to say; you believe whatever you want, I'll stick to the facts.


 Hi ALBOB. There is a old saying (all have EARNED their "old saying" status for good reason): "Those that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it". In fact, this country was not founded on Christianity or on religion but on FREEDOM - a place all people could live and hopefully get along because it had not been done successfully before in the world and religion was a real part of not being able to live happy and freely. This country was founded on all people being able - OR NOT -  to practice whatever religion they wished. Without ANY interference especially from government or from others or religion. Relgion had a very poor history up to that time with regard to how people were treated.  Remember there are thousands of religions each with their own particular beliefs. If they are allowed to get out of hand we very well could have an Iraq here in this country because it is about religious fighting and hatred that is destroying Iraq - in fact that entire region of the world. Study history and see for yourself. But please do that with an open mind and objectively. You will see exactly what I am talking about and why. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> dg806: I am aware that religion plays a more pertinent role in the South.  The South is an important part of our nation.  But as a whole America and Americans are not religious.
> 
> The upper echelons of society are comprised of some reps. from certain denominations.
> ...


 Hi Mr. I think speaking honestly too that they go to church for socialization with each other, seeing who wears what, keeping up with the "Jones's", and to relieve their consciences, but the minute they leave they forget for the rest of the week... (Wish I did not have to say that but unfortunately it is true about many)....  Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> I agree as well.  Then again, being polite and well spoken doesn't mean he is correct.
> 
> I too, have tired of this topic.


 Hi Stickboy. If you do not agree with anything I have to say you or anyone else is entirely free to check out what I say for its accuracy. But I can tell you I am not going to say something that is not accurate and not true. To do so has the possibility of eliminating my credibility. Why then would someone read what I have to say if I could not be credible and honest and accurate? I'd be waisting my time and yours. To understand what I say, look objectively and with an open mind from all aspects and all sources - you will see what I say is accurate and true. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> John,
> 
> This is your view and not mine, so don't say it as if it is a fact. The Lord made marriage with Adam and Eve.  To me this is undisputable, but apparently not to you.  You need to say this is your opinion, not that it is a undisputable fact, because it is not.



Hi Craig. If you believe entirely what the Bible (which was written by over 40 different Men) has to say I can see why you would say this. But if you honestly and accurately want to know about the history of marriage you must look at all sources for all information. Marriage was and is man-made. Religion has told us it is created by God. Remember there are thousands of religions each with their own beliefs. 

As an aside, God did create "Adam AND Steve" TOO. He created all of us. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_ In fact, this country was not founded on Christianity or on religion but on FREEDOM



I think this is a fundamental point that you and I will forever disagree on.  You say it was founded on freedom alone, I say it was founded on freedom yes, but predominantly religious freedom.  The other freedoms were added on as riders to the bill.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I can't speak for John H. in this matter at all - I assumed his intention was to explain that religious membership was not supposed to be a requirement for civil rights or equal protection nor the source of interpretation of civil law. If it was, there would be constant fighting among religious denominations over how civil laws should reflect only their religious beliefs. I think this was one of the problems in Utah, since the territory's government was controlled pretty much exclusively by the Mormon Church.The danger was that adherence to a particular religious interpretation would amount to government endorsement of that religion and thus persecution of other beliefs and non-believers.


 Hi Kbm. EXACTLY - and RIGHT ON!!  Take Care, John H.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 25, 2004)

John,

You would do much better in your mission of enlightening the world to your view point, if you didn't come off telling everyone how stupid and misquided we all are for not seeing it you way, and that if we would just read the books you have read we would be enlightened.


----------



## craig777 (Mar 25, 2004)

Let me add one final thing


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> John,
> 
> You would do much better in your mission of enlightening the world to your view point, if you didn't come off telling everyone how stupid and misquided we all are for not seeing it you way, and that if we would just read the books you have read we would be enlightened.


 Hi Craig. Please do not think I am saying people are stupid necessarily or that they should agree all the time with what I say but I do think all should and must consider all information from all sources all the time and see what they "come up with".... The books I suggested are suggestions and anyone is entirely free to read others as well. But reading what I suggested will allow you to see another side to the whole picture. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by craig777 *_
> Let me add one final thing



Hi Craig! Hi Buddy!!! I am NOT your enemy - EVER!!!!!! (KEEP working out - achieve what you are after - BE HAPPY!) TDGC, John H.


----------



## Stickboy (Mar 25, 2004)

John H.  

We are going to have to disagree on certain things.  It's not that I am closed minded, it's more a case that you are.

You keep saying things about books you have read, and hey, that's great.  Then again, just because it's in a book doesn't mean much.  For every book you reference, I'm sure someone has written a book with the exact OPPOSITE view as the book you are quoting.  Since authors normally write books to express their views on the subject of their choice (talking non fiction here),
I doesn't surprise me that you are using examples in books that SUPPORT your point of view, instead of reading a number of books that both oppose  or support your views.

In a nutshell, you are not getting the full story.  You are selectively choosing only sources that support your posistion.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 25, 2004)

Religion has done more damage than the help it has caused.

Inquisitions, crusades, throwing acid in the faces of women, and the killing of millions in the name of a particular "god."  

Nothing is more laughable than a "religious" person who places themself on a self-roughtious pedastool.  

Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and others.  All equally hypocritical and many, intolerant.


----------



## John H. (Mar 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> John H.
> 
> We are going to have to disagree on certain things.  It's not that I am closed minded, it's more a case that you are.
> ...


 Hi Stickboy. I look at all aspects of a subject and I look at the sources of that information too I do not just accept anything without checking - at least spot checking (no one has the time to check out all sources all the time about everything unless it is a subject that requires more intense scrutiny - religion(s) do require intense scrutiny especially when it involves the lives of others and the damning of someone religious-based which  religion(s) can be and are guilty of doing). 

Here's the thing. I wondered WHY religion(s) were taking so much time and effort in the damning of just one group of people and one subject - it is like an obsession with religion(s) to damn those who happen to be born (and they are) BiSexual and/or Homosexual. How about the myriad of other topics and needs in this world! So I wanted to KNOW what the basis was for that damning and the authority. Firsthand. I found it incredible that religion(s) damn these people but that God and Christ THEMSELVES NEVER DID in fact They each NEVER said one word about these people. Christ for example had 32 years of opportunity to do so and He NEVER DID. So I have to ask myself by what authority does religion(s) then have for this? In that search for accurate and honest and complete information I look at ALL things from ALL sources on this subject. And continue to do. 

Here's some things I found in my research: religions have always been fighting each other over who's religion is the "right" religion and who's God is the "right" or "true" God. This has been done and in some areas of the world is still going on even to the point of waring and killing those that oppose some other religion. The prohibition of people engaging in a loving relationship of the same sex stems from religion(s) needing "replacements" for those that have been killed in this effort to "validate" their "religion" and to have the strength in numbers to succeed - people have fought in religious wars and died  - religious wars since the invention of religion. In order for more people to replace those lost in these wars it was necessary that a male and a female procreate - bring new life into this world and "more soldiers",  it was encouraged that people have male children since it was felt male children were more useful. Females were considered "excess baggage" and not really helpful overall. And not necessarily "able"... That attitude even entered into this country up to about the 1960's generally unfortunately. Even with children - children were supposed to be "seen and not heard". I can tell you I remember myself witnessing these attitudes. And in some areas this still exists. 

These are things I do NOT want to have to say but find have existed - and in some cases still exist. It is NOT something I enjoy finding out about and I certainly questioned this bigtime since I did not believe this myself until I actually saw this and heard about this myself. 

If someone is going to damn or have others believe that a segment of humanity is "less than" or " a sinner" or whatever I believe it is necessarily and even required that people question that judgement against others and see the basis and validity and accuracy for that. That is my desire. To see WHERE this is all coming from and by what authority this happens. I can tell you I have found it to be baseless and cruel and without any real, accurate, honest authority. Certainly God and Christ NEVER had anything to do with this at all.

In Nature and the Natural World as with everything in life and living there is variety - variation. For good reason(s). Sex is no different and is another aspect of that life and living and equally has its variety and variation. 

 Just because it's "...in a book..." does not mean I will automatically accept it. I look for the authority, validation, sources, etc. everywhere.  I go beyond ONLY or JUST books. FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press) and BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press) are just a couple of books that address this subject but by no means are the only ones. They do list their sources and prove their points. See for yourself. Your statement itself "...just because it's in a book..." could equally apply to the Bible too. It being a "book" as well. Written by Men - over 40 and over a long period of time.

Here's something I found interesting in this book written by a religious scholar Dr. Elton Trueblood in his book THE HUMOR OF CHRIST (Harper and Row, cl964): "...modern scholarship has made us see that the purpose of our Gospels is evangelical rather than historical... men preached ABOUT Christ before they knew, in any detail, either what He said or what He did... If there is any conclusion on which contemporary New Testament scholars are agreed, it is that men preached about the resurrected Christ before there was the demand for knowledge of Christ's earthly life which led to the production of the Gosepls as we know them." 

To me this is astounding! And knowing that the New Testament was not written until about 250 years AFTER the death of Christ and given the ability or lack thereof of people to remember as human beings accurately anything especially over time leaves many questions at the very least. Verbal telling of stories always results in the story changing. When people mix religious beliefs into relating stories many times they are changed and / or are related to others with alterior motives. I know this from experience and actual living experiences myself as does anyone else. 

I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with anyone wanting answers to the most pressing and important questions of life and living. I DO KNOW that people can and sometimes search for those answers and will "settle" on things that can "feel good" or "seem right" but do not necessarily have any accuracy or honesty to them. We ALL have a NEED to KNOW about the mysteries of life and living and life hereafter. Some care to know that more than others. Some just exist. Some do not even care really. We each live our lives in certain "comfort zones" and rely on just about anything to validate our questions and feelings and fears. 

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Lack of knowledge from all sources can most certainly foster fears in anyone. The more someone learns from all sources on all subjects the better they will feel about themselves and their lives. And being open minded and very objective is extremely important to that end. I strive for that open-mindedness all the time. I work at it real hard. I find that I am apparently more successful at that then even I sometimes realize - NOT bragging just saying because I have been able to realize I do succeed at that open-mindedness and objectivity. 

I do consider all viewpoints about all things. That is how any accuracy and truthfulness ever is discovered.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mr_Snafu *_
> Religion has done more damage than the help it has caused.
> 
> Inquisitions, crusades, throwing acid in the faces of women, and the killing of millions in the name of a particular "god."
> ...



Holy shit Batman, here's a statement that Mr. Snafu and I can agree on!!! .............................................Well, almost. 

My only bone of contention is that these are extreme examples of a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch.  I don't think the statement that "religion has caused MORE damage than help" is accurate.  You could find many, MANY more examples of people actually doing good in the name of a particular religion.  As I stated earlier, I'm not an overly religious person, so I'm not going to thump any bibles here.  My point is that the United States was founded on the principles of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.  If you want to be an Atheist and renounce any and all dieties, that's your business and it's fine with me.  But don't use that right to infringe on my right to worsh a diety if I choose.    There was a great philosopher that once asked, "Can't we all just get along?"


----------



## ZECH (Mar 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> You know, I have been reading news reports about this "under God" thing in the Pledge of Allegiance - and while I understand the atheist father's point of view, it's hard to believe this is an issue that has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.


What gets me is the mother is a born again Christian and does not agree with what the father is doing. The poor girl is being pulled in two different directions and doesn't know what to think.


----------



## John H. (Mar 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> What gets me is the mother is a born again Christian and does not agree with what the father is doing. The poor girl is being pulled in two different directions and doesn't know what to think.


 Hi Dg. I hope they considered what will be the end result of all this with regard to their child first. I hope they at least had open and total discussion about this from all viewpoints first and are not trying to hammer their child over the head with all this from either the Christian viewpoint or the viewpoint of the athiest. 

I can see the why of both sides of this with the "under God" argument. I feel government and politics and religion NEED to be separate because of the abuses of the past with regard to them. I believe the Founding Fathers most definitely wanted REAL separation of church and state and had damn good reasons for wanting that. I agree with them completely. That is NOT saying people can not practice - or not - whatever religion they wish but that the government MUST stay COMPLETELY out of it and religion stay COMPLETELY out of government. I see the REAL NEED for this. History prooves this to be so. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_ I hope they considered what will be the end result of all this with regard to their child first.



From what I understand the father is persuing this law suit over the very loud objections of the daughter.  Doesn't sound like he's putting his child's welfare first.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> From what I understand the father is persuing this law suit over the very loud objections of the daughter.  Doesn't sound like he's putting his child's welfare first.




If that is the case, he obviously isn't, though I wonder if the mother truly is, too. I can't see why any parent would put their own child through the embarassment with her peers, especially over two words that the child could easily choose to say or not say according to her own beliefs. If I thought the school was demanding that every child recite it exactly, or punishing someone for substituting two other words, or indoctrinating her in some particular religious interpretation for the rest of the day, I'd be more understanding about the point. I am a strong believer in separation of church and state, mostly because those "bad apples" are constantly interested in accumulating power and imposing their dominion over everyone else to the point, apparently, where some ministers teach their flock that you aren't an American citizen unless you are a member of a religion. 

I do disagree with you about "freedom FROM religion"...nothing in our Constitution indicates that citizens are required to worship- otherwise there would have been laws forcing people to attend services each week and make their public policy decisions based on their denominational beliefs. 

That being said, right now I'd just about vote for a constitutional amendment that would question the Catholic Church's right to be recognized as a "religious" institution given it's propensity to cover up sexual abuse and then claim the "high ground" about others' morality. It would seem to me that they should practice political celibacy rather than advocate a marriage between the Church and State.


----------



## Hanz29 (Mar 26, 2004)

they don't have to say the words under god if they don't want to....I agree with your statement about the church-  the higher clergy think they are exempt from law and just move criminals around so they get no heat- absolute B.S.


----------



## John H. (Mar 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> If that is the case, he obviously isn't, though I wonder if the mother truly is, too. I can't see why any parent would put their own child through the embarassment with her peers, especially over two words that the child could easily choose to say or not say according to her own beliefs. If I thought the school was demanding that every child recite it exactly, or punishing someone for substituting two other words, or indoctrinating her in some particular religious interpretation for the rest of the day, I'd be more understanding about the point. I am a strong believer in separation of church and state, mostly because those "bad apples" are constantly interested in accumulating power and imposing their dominion over everyone else to the point, apparently, where some ministers teach their flock that you aren't an American citizen unless you are a member of a religion.
> 
> I do disagree with you about "freedom FROM religion"...nothing in our Constitution indicates that citizens are required to worship- otherwise there would have been laws forcing people to attend services each week and make their public policy decisions based on their denominational beliefs.
> ...



Hi Kbm. I agree!

And, how is it that an individual can be prosecuted for the abuse of a child but an institution such as the Catholic Church can do this and get away with it for centuries? The Pope and all those who are responsible for making the rules within the Church should have been held personally accountable and prosecuted. That a religion or a church was involved or an individual(s) does not change the fact about the abuse. Michael Jackson (I personally do not like him but I have nothing against him necessarily I just do not like him myself) is being prosecuted as an individual for allegedly doing the same thing that individuals  within the  Catholic Church had been doing for centuries. And then there is the cover-up. How is it any different? If both are guilty they both should be prosecuted - the church and/or Michael Jackson. I think in Michael Jackson's case - so far - that someone is actually just out for his money and that he is not actually guilty of anything but he sure is being "fried" - why should the Catholic Church be any different?  Take Care, John H.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 27, 2004)

Which God are we to be "under?"

This is what I don't like....Gives the Muslims, Jews, and other religious minorities more chance to inject their religious ways....and I am not a Xtian, either....


----------



## austinite (Mar 28, 2004)

There is only one.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Apr 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Stickboy *_
> Really?  I didn't know that.
> 
> I do know that Christ FOUNDED the Catholic church.
> ...



Actually stickboy, Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew.  There was no Christian church formed until well after his death.

Even Christ said that he did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

As for some Christians believing that Catholics are not christians, he's right.  Just like there are some catholics that do not believe baptist/methodist/etc are not christian either.  It holds true for all denominations.  But as a Christian, I do not believe that way.  I may have some difference of opinons, but doesn't everyone? lol  So long as the Bible is adhered to as the word of God, and NO man/woman is placed higher than Him or His Son.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Apr 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Mr. I think speaking honestly too that they go to church for socialization with each other, seeing who wears what, keeping up with the "Jones's", and to relieve their consciences, but the minute they leave they forget for the rest of the week... (Wish I did not have to say that but unfortunately it is true about many)....  Take Care, John H.



Again, you have no clue for the reason Christians gether together.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Apr 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> I think this is a fundamental point that you and I will forever disagree on.  You say it was founded on freedom alone, I say it was founded on freedom yes, but predominantly religious freedom.  The other freedoms were added on as riders to the bill.



Amen.  Founding fathers were far from perfect, but the Constitution is a work of art and they were Godly men.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Apr 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Mr. I think speaking honestly too that they go to church for socialization with each other, seeing who wears what, keeping up with the "Jones's", and to relieve their consciences, but the minute they leave they forget for the rest of the week... (Wish I did not have to say that but unfortunately it is true about many)....  Take Care, John H.


Again, you have no clue for the reason Christians gather together.  I mean the TRUE reason, not just your perception.


----------



## John H. (Apr 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BUSTINOUT *_
> Again, you have no clue for the reason Christians gather together.  I mean the TRUE reason, not just your perception.



Hi Bustinout. I would not be saying what I have said if I did not see this for myself. I am not the only person to have observed this in "christians" either (I am sure this is not limited to "christians" either). Sure there are some who are seriously and honestly gathering but there are those many who are just there for the socialization, etc. I am very aware of what the TRUE reason is SUPPOSED to be but you will find many just show up to relieve there consciences, feel as if they are "meeting their obligations, see who is wearing what, socializing with others, etc. The rest of the week they live their lives like they always do and forget what they learned as soon as they walk out of their church. And as for bigotry and hatred, they continue because they feel they are allowed to conduct themselves so because they feel their religion says this is the right thing to do. I do not enjoy saying these things but I know this to be true of some - perhaps too many...  I am sure God knows who is honestly praying to him and those that are not.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Apr 19, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by ALBOB *_
> I think this is a fundamental point that you and I will forever disagree on.  You say it was founded on freedom alone, I say it was founded on freedom yes, but predominantly religious freedom.  The other freedoms were added on as riders to the bill.



Hi ALBOB. All of the freedoms were considered equally. I am sure the Founding Fathers where VERY aware of the dangers of religion(s) also which was one of the reasons they wanted people to be able to practice their religious beliefs - or not - as they wanted free from interference from government and hopefully others as well or to practice no religion at all. Take Care, John H.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Apr 20, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Bustinout. I would not be saying what I have said if I did not see this for myself. I am not the only person to have observed this in "christians" either (I am sure this is not limited to "christians" either). Sure there are some who are seriously and honestly gathering but there are those many who are just there for the socialization, etc. I am very aware of what the TRUE reason is SUPPOSED to be but you will find many just show up to relieve there consciences, feel as if they are "meeting their obligations, see who is wearing what, socializing with others, etc. The rest of the week they live their lives like they always do and forget what they learned as soon as they walk out of their church. And as for bigotry and hatred, they continue because they feel they are allowed to conduct themselves so because they feel their religion says this is the right thing to do. I do not enjoy saying these things but I know this to be true of some - perhaps too many...  I am sure God knows who is honestly praying to him and those that are not.  Take Care, John H.



I'd have to agree with most of what you said John.  Sad but true.  As for the bigotry and hatred, that is far from the rule and is not a christian teaching.  Crap, I've heard ppl in the Klan claim to be christian...pathetic and disgusting.  But be sure of one thing, simply claiming christianity, does not make it so.


----------

