Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:17:41 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But as soon as people started using this to make protests the Church
> > didn't like, the Church started seeking ways to go back on it's promise.
> >
> >Ted
>
> I'm curious : How does one go about purchasing "the easements of what
> used to be the public street between Temple Square and the Church
> office building is an example."
>
> One would think that public streets belong to the public and not be
> able to be purchased by a church. In most states that would not
> happen.
>
> Bob
>

Property is property. It's either owned by private parties or public
entities. There's no law barring public entities from selling land to
private parties (or vica versa). It happens all the time, even outside of
Utah. The church paid the city over $8,000,000 for the property. The
existence of easements is normal and the nature of the easements is unique
to the needs of the public and property owners.

Example: Disneyland is a huge presence in the city of Anaheim and these
types of things are normal transactions. Anaheim works very hard to
accomadate the park while being answerable to the public. Property has
changed hands, access roads built, all sorts of things. It's common sense
that these things go on between public and private entities. There's
nothing sly, devious, tricky, or sinister about it.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:52:23 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>
>>Exactly my point. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals except when
>>they talk about sex or make a big thing about their sexuality. I equally
>>dislike heterosexuals going on about having banged some bird that was
>>gagging for it. If you want to have sex with one of the 3 billion men or the
>>3 billion women on the planet , then go right ahead ; everyone is doing it.
>>Do it, and no need to talk about it. It's like buying petrol for your Jeep -
>>a regular occurrence that to anyone else is entirely unremarkable (only a
>>bit more enjoyable !).
>
>The problem is that if I put a picture of a girlfriend on my desk, there is
>no problem. It demonstrates a "regular" relationship. If a man puts a
>picture of his boyfriend on his desk, he is "flaunting" his sexuality.
>There seems to be a double standard for what is allowed. Implied sexuality
>is fine for heterosexuals and condemned for the gays in the "don't flaunt
>it" hetero world.

That is not true for most of us Marc. I am strongly anti-gay. I
think it is wrong. I believe God does not approve of homosexuality.

Still, I have had friends and aquamarines who are/were gay. I have
worked with gays. I, and nobody I know, would have any issue with any
gay having the same kinds of family pictures on their desk that I do.
This means, of course, that playboy type pictures are not acceptable.

Just as I should not be spending time in the work place talking about
my female lover, gays should not be doing the same. If I walk up and
ask who the picture is of, an appropriate response would be my
"partner", "friend", or other description that the person wishes to
use. If they start describing their sexual preferences, that would be
wrong. It is OK for me to say "girlfriend", but not "lover", I can
use the word "wife", a gay can say "partner" or similar. I would not
introduce my wife as my "anal partner", and a gay should not use the
term "butt buddy" at work.

Where most of us draw the line is with teaching our children that
being gay is acceptable, normal, or anything else. Children should
not be taught things like this. Being gay is not normal. It is not
hereditary. It is a choice, no matter how much the media wants to
portray it otherwise. I will defend a gay person's right to be gay as
much as I will defend a straight person's right to be straight. I
just don't want it brought up as if it were a topic of conversation
that is acceptable in all arenas. It is not, no more than my sexual
preferences are.

On 14 Jul 2003 17:02:45 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>>Bill,
>>
>> You will find that you are wasting your time arguing with Lloyd ; he
>>makes an inflammatory post (or to be fair, responds to one),
>
>And the poster claiming university professors support child abuse wasn't being
>inflammatory?

I didn't see the comment, however what you stated it said is correct.
Recently a professor wrote a book claiming that sexual abuse of
children does no harm.

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even
>a
>>>>>>> democratic government elected by the people...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
>>>>>>absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
>>>>>>cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
>>>>>>to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
>>>>>>gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
>>>>>>Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
>>>>>>abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
>>>>>>us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(I know - picky, picky, picky)
>>>>>
>>>>>And ignorant. We are a democracy as well as a republic. Look up
>>>"democracy"
>>>>>in the dictionary -- you've cited just ONE definition.
>>>>
>>>>When dealing with a specialty, words are generally redefined for one
>>>>specific, unambiguous, definition. Take, for example, the legal
>>>>profession. They define specific words in ways to eliminate confusion and
>>>>ambiguity. The same is true for other professions.
>>>>
>>>>The political science definition of democracy is exclusive of republics
>>>>because there is a word to define republics. There is no reason to have
>>>>the overlap. So you know that, when using the words in the "technical"
>>>>manner that a "democratic republic" is one where some items are voted on
>>>>directly and others are voted on through elected representatives. When you
>>>>further add "constitutional" to the front, you know that there is a set
>>>>document that outlines rules as well.
>>>
>>>Democracy simply means the people are the government.
>>
>>Then we don't have a democracy. I have never voted on a federal law. I
>>have never had the opportunity to do so.
>
>I didn't say the people are the entire government. By our government is "of
>the people and by the people."

By that logic, communism is government of, by, and for the people. After
all, it was the people that overthrew the czars and supported the
revolution. And the people running the country were people.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
: On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:52:23 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:


: That is not true for most of us Marc. I am strongly anti-gay. I
: think it is wrong. I believe God does not approve of homosexuality.

That's real good science

:
: Just as I should not be spending time in the work place talking about
: my female lover, gays should not be doing the same. If I walk up and
: ask who the picture is of, an appropriate response would be my
: "partner", "friend", or other description that the person wishes to
: use. If they start describing their sexual preferences, that would be
: wrong. It is OK for me to say "girlfriend", but not "lover", I can
: use the word "wife", a gay can say "partner" or similar. I would not
: introduce my wife as my "anal partner", and a gay should not use the
: term "butt buddy" at work.

Comforting to know that the gays don't have to put up with pussy picture calendars and
listening to hours of straight boy macho bull**** talk about how they scored with the
bar's $10 whore
:
: Where most of us draw the line is with teaching our children that
: being gay is acceptable, normal, or anything else. Children should
: not be taught things like this. Being gay is not normal. It is not
: hereditary.

Bull****. Are you working for The Family Values Coalition? What's normal about ending your
life at say 30, with a 5 bedroom house full of screaming kids, a mortgage payment and a
wife whose main priorities are shopping and eating? Putting that way, humans are just like
rabbits or quail only higher on the evolutionary scale.


It is a choice, no matter how much the media wants to
: portray it otherwise.

More bull**** and more good science! Sure someone would "choose" to rain down all the crap
that must go with being gay


I will defend a gay person's right to be gay as
: much as I will defend a straight person's right to be straight. I
: just don't want it brought up as if it were a topic of conversation
: that is acceptable in all arenas. It is not, no more than my sexual
: preferences are.

Well the straight boys have the one-up there. No matter where you go, the talk of straight
sex always comes into the conversation ,even if only to check out the fat ass on the
waitress at Dennys.

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> The ACLU came in and sued supporting the protestor's free speech. The
> church was defending property rights. The city was split with the mayor
> siding with the ACLU and the city council with the church. The church won
> the first round in district court, but lost on appeal. Before the case
> could go to the supreme court, a huge group of organizations and cities
> lined up with the church concerned about the effect of the case on current
> limited easements allowing public passage on private property. In an
effort
> to resolve the problem the mayor and church reached an agreement for the
> city to give up it's easements on the property in exchange for some
property
> on the other side of town and obligate the church to respect public
passage
> rights. The behavior standards stand.
>
> There never was an agreement to allow any protests, friendly or otherwise.

This depends on your POV. From the church's perspective, the easement they
negotiated (they thought) would bar all the protesters. From the public's
POV,
they only gave up a public street because they thought the Church would
allow
them to continue to use the area. Naturally a number of folks were hot
under
the collar when they discovered the Church's easement and all it's dress
code and
other such restrictions.

> agreement when unfriendlies showed up. The problem has always been
hecklers
> bothering people people going about their business within a few yards of
the
> temple entrance.
>

The problem is that you (and obviously the Church) regards hecklers
bothering people
as a problem. Or in other words, the attitude of the Church that protesting
against
the Church is a problem.

Now, let me explain myself. For starters, I deplore most of what passes
for "protest" these days. I am very much in favor of unencumbered ability
to protest
as long a what is being protested against is either an institution, belief,
or public figure.
However I deplore the idea of protestors targeting private individuals, and
I frankly feel
that this is one of the glaring holes the Founding Fathers should have
addressed. Further
more, protests against private individuals violate the constitutional rights
of privacy.

To whit, take your Mormon hecklers example. It is one thing if a bunch of
Mormon-haters
gather outside the Temple entrance holding signs saying "The Mormon Church
Lies" etc.
This is constitutionally protected protesting and regardless of your
personal feelings, it must
be allowed. If Mormon Church members are "bothered" by this then screw
them. If they
are not comfortable in their beliefs, then they shouldn't be Mormons.

Now, it is QUITE ANOTHER when those protesters that are carrying signs start
telling
INDIVIDUALS who are Mormons stuff like "Go home spawn of the devil" In my
mind
the second the so-called "protester" says something like this that targets
the individual,
they are NO LONGER a protester. Instead, they are a criminal, guilty of
criminal
harassment. They are no different than the stalker that stalks and rapes
little 4 year old
girls.

It is the exact same thing about the anti-abortionist protesters when they
picket an
abortion clinic. These people aren't protesting, they are criminals,
because they are
there to hit, kick, slap, block and otherwise target women going in and out
of the clinic,
and in many cases, to assault doctors actually doing the abortions. They
don't give a
damn about the actual abortions, they are just there to commit violence
against the
women and doctors.

Now, in SLC I agree that there's a problem when protesters and hecklers do
things
like interfere with someone taking a picture, or newlyweds, or some such.
These
actions are not targeting the Church, they are targeting the individuals.
Calling them
protestors is making a mockery of the word. Clearly, the
proper approach to them is to get cops in the neighborhood to make arrests,
and
get victims of this to press charges for harassment, and libel.

So, you see this is why I feel the Church was very much in the wrong with
it's easement
thing. The Church should have written the easement in such a way as like
the "drug
free" zones are written that are created in many cities. In short, if a
certain individual
within the zone gets arrested for threatening/harassment/whatever against an
individual,
the city will bar them for 30 days from the zone, and if it happens again,
they get
barred permanently. This kind of thing would pass constitutional muster.
But making
criteria for exclusion on such things as dress code is very very wrong. But
you see, this
is just due to the Church's attitude about dissent; it's not allowed. The
people working
on that easement were completely intolerant of any dissent, they wouldn't
have it at all,
even dissent that was reasonable. So as a result of trying to grab too
much, they ended
up losing what control they could have exercised.

Ted

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> One would think that public streets belong to the public and not be
> able to be purchased by a church. In most states that would not
> happen.
>

Bob,

This is something that started up in the 60's and 70's. It is a kind of
urban
fad, you might say.

If you look at the history of streets and cities you will find that up
until the early
20th Century, in most cities the streets were regularly used as public
gathering
places. Even when streetcars came in, it wasn't much different. But then
in
the 50's about the last streetcar track (save tourist attractions) was
ripped up in
the cities and their streets became devoted to automobiles, except when
major
events such as parades and such happened.

This is one of the things blamed by the urban planning set on why inner
cities
are decaying. When you have a street devoted to cars, you can't have the
public walking around on it, interacting with each other and forming a
community. Also, you get the constant din of street noise on busy streets
that
drives people away from the street as a place to congregate and socialize.

So in the 60's when the big inner city revitalization kicks started up, many
of
the urban planning set got into this idea of "let's get rid of the streets
in the
city" and in many cities, certain streets were torn up and turned into
parks, etc.
For example, here in Oregon in PDX it was Harbor Boulevard, torn up and
turned into
Waterfront park. In Eugene, it was main street turned into the Esplanade.
I'm
sure that every city in the country has some example of this.

Of course the problem with this, is that doing this may be great for getting
people
interacting again, but it destroys commerce in the area, because it makes
parking
either expensive (since people are driven into garages) or impossible to
find.
As a result, instead of these mini-parks turning into retail havens, the
retailers
discovered shoppers fleeing to the suburban malls with their free parking.
It also
interferes with office traffic, I know many buildings for example in PDX
where if
I need to go and meet someone, I have to park 3 blocks away because there's
simply no parking in the building, let alone near it. That may be fine when
it nice
and sunny out but in the winter when it's raining hail, it does not do your
company any
good when your customers have to fight their way to your door.

So like many other fads, the business interests in the cities put the kibosh
on this
sort of thing, that is why you don't hear about it much anymore. I was
initially
surprised to see a news article about the Mormons in SLC pulling this stunt
as
recently as they did, I thought they knew better. I'll bet it makes temple
parking
a bitch and a half.

Ted

DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>Where most of us draw the line is with teaching our children that
>being gay is acceptable, normal, or anything else. Children should
>not be taught things like this. Being gay is not normal. It is not
>hereditary. It is a choice, no matter how much the media wants to
>portray it otherwise.

When did you choose to be heterosexual? If you didn't, then how can you
possibly say that gay is a choice when heterosexual isn't?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:52:23 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly my point. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals except
when
>>>they talk about sex or make a big thing about their sexuality. I equally
>>>dislike heterosexuals going on about having banged some bird that was
>>>gagging for it. If you want to have sex with one of the 3 billion men or
the
>>>3 billion women on the planet , then go right ahead ; everyone is doing it.
>>>Do it, and no need to talk about it. It's like buying petrol for your Jeep
-
>>>a regular occurrence that to anyone else is entirely unremarkable (only a
>>>bit more enjoyable !).
>>
>>The problem is that if I put a picture of a girlfriend on my desk, there is
>>no problem. It demonstrates a "regular" relationship. If a man puts a
>>picture of his boyfriend on his desk, he is "flaunting" his sexuality.
>>There seems to be a double standard for what is allowed. Implied sexuality
>>is fine for heterosexuals and condemned for the gays in the "don't flaunt
>>it" hetero world.
>
>That is not true for most of us Marc. I am strongly anti-gay.

Does that mean you just don't want to have gay sex, or you're into
discrimination and physical assault on gays?


> I
>think it is wrong.

I think using cell phones in a restaurant is wrong.


> I believe God does not approve of homosexuality.

I think God would be highly offended that you presume to know His mind.

>
>Still, I have had friends and aquamarines who are/were gay. I have
>worked with gays. I, and nobody I know, would have any issue with any
>gay having the same kinds of family pictures on their desk that I do.
>This means, of course, that playboy type pictures are not acceptable.
>
>Just as I should not be spending time in the work place talking about
>my female lover, gays should not be doing the same. If I walk up and
>ask who the picture is of, an appropriate response would be my
>"partner", "friend", or other description that the person wishes to
>use. If they start describing their sexual preferences, that would be
>wrong. It is OK for me to say "girlfriend", but not "lover", I can
>use the word "wife", a gay can say "partner" or similar. I would not
>introduce my wife as my "anal partner", and a gay should not use the
>term "butt buddy" at work.

Do you seriously believe gays use the bigoted terms you do?


>
>Where most of us draw the line is with teaching our children that
>being gay is acceptable, normal, or anything else.

From a scientific and psycological perspective, all the data says it is as
normal as heterosexual behavior. And acceptable? To whom? Can I decide
tatooing is not acceptable and use that to bash people with tatoos?


> Children should
>not be taught things like this.

Or evolution?


> Being gay is not normal. It is not
>hereditary. It is a choice, no matter how much the media wants to
>portray it otherwise.

Well, you are wrong. All the evidence says otherwise.


>I will defend a gay person's right to be gay as
>much as I will defend a straight person's right to be straight. I
>just don't want it brought up as if it were a topic of conversation
>that is acceptable in all arenas. It is not, no more than my sexual
>preferences are.

Yet you feel fine using bigoted terms and calling gays abnormal and
unacceptable. And I bet you're teaching children your hatred.

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 14 Jul 2003 17:02:45 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>>>Bill,
>>>
>>> You will find that you are wasting your time arguing with Lloyd ; he
>>>makes an inflammatory post (or to be fair, responds to one),
>>
>>And the poster claiming university professors support child abuse wasn't
being
>>inflammatory?
>
>I didn't see the comment, however what you stated it said is correct.
>Recently a professor wrote a book claiming that sexual abuse of
>children does no harm.
Prove it, fool.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:24:27 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Where most of us draw the line is with teaching our children that
>>being gay is acceptable, normal, or anything else. Children should
>>not be taught things like this. Being gay is not normal. It is not
>>hereditary. It is a choice, no matter how much the media wants to
>>portray it otherwise.
>
>When did you choose to be heterosexual? If you didn't, then how can you
>possibly say that gay is a choice when heterosexual isn't?

Nature chooses for us, and we can decide to disagree.

Years ago, the DSM listed homosexuality alongside a bunch of other
mental disorders. Gay and lesbian groups pressured scientists to
remove it, and they complied.

Studies of homosexuals have proved there is no genetic link. In
genetic disorders, such as autism, there is a strong correlation
between siblings and twins. So while the population as a whole has a
small chance of being born with autism, if your sibling has it the
chance increases to something like 25%. If your fraternal twin has it
the correlation is something like 50%, and an identical twin
correlates to 90% or better.

If homosexuality was genetic, there would be similar behavior.
However, there is NO correlation between a gay and their siblings or
twins of any kind. Nationally gays make up less than 5% of the
population. This percentage does not increase in families with gays.

Lastly, if homosexuality were genetic, then it would have been wiped
out centuries ago. See, it is impossible for gays to have children
with other gays. Thus any alleged genetic code would be lost in just
a few generations. However, one could argue that the genetic code is
somehow damaged, like by gamma rays or something. If that is the
case, it would still not be normal.

Now, what is normal? Who knows. It doesn't matter. If you are gay,
so be it. That does not affect me anymore than my orientation affects
you. The only thing that would affect me would you trying to teach my
children, or others, that being gay is acceptable and normal. I would
also be offended if public schools were teaching that being gay is
unacceptable and abnormal. They should simply teach sex education at
appropriate ages, not 5 years old, and teach the facts. Issues like
what we are discussing here, although I believe them to be factual,
should not be taught until college level. Classes that encourage kids
to be compassionate to all people no matter what their differences are
a good idea.

"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:24:27 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
: >

: Nature chooses for us, and we can decide to disagree.
:
: Years ago, the DSM listed homosexuality alongside a bunch of other
: mental disorders. Gay and lesbian groups pressured scientists to
: remove it, and they complied.

No, common sense prevailed


:
: If homosexuality was genetic, there would be similar behavior.
: However, there is NO correlation between a gay and their siblings or
: twins of any kind. Nationally gays make up less than 5% of the
: population. This percentage does not increase in families with gays.

Cite your sources
:
: Lastly, if homosexuality were genetic, then it would have been wiped
: out centuries ago. See, it is impossible for gays to have children
: with other gays. Thus any alleged genetic code would be lost in just
: a few generations. However, one could argue that the genetic code is
: somehow damaged, like by gamma rays or something. If that is the
: case, it would still not be normal.

That's your value judgment. Why is homosexuality found in every species of animal?

:
: Now, what is normal? Who knows. It doesn't matter. If you are gay,
: so be it. That does not affect me anymore than my orientation affects
: you. The only thing that would affect me would you trying to teach my
: children, or others, that being gay is acceptable and normal. I would
: also be offended if public schools were teaching that being gay is
: unacceptable and abnormal. They should simply teach sex education at
: appropriate ages, not 5 years old, and teach the facts. Issues like
: what we are discussing here, although I believe them to be factual,
: should not be taught until college level. Classes that encourage kids
: to be compassionate to all people no matter what their differences are
: a good idea.

As long as the christian reich is allowed to meddle in sex education courses, there will
never be an objective lesson taught. Where do you get this "teach my children" re: being
gay. That's more reich wing propaganda

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>,
: DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
: >On 14 Jul 2003 17:02:45 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
: >
: >>In article <[email protected]>,
: >> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: >>>Bill,
: >>>
: >>> You will find that you are wasting your time arguing with Lloyd ; he
: >>>makes an inflammatory post (or to be fair, responds to one),
: >>
: >>And the poster claiming university professors support child abuse wasn't
: being
: >>inflammatory?
: >
: >I didn't see the comment, however what you stated it said is correct.
: >Recently a professor wrote a book claiming that sexual abuse of
: >children does no harm.
: Prove it, fool.

I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said ignorance is very
widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive opinions rendered
here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:36:38 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's common sense
>that these things go on between public and private entities. There's
>nothing sly, devious, tricky, or sinister about it.


It's not unusual to see undeveloped suburban land such as that you
cite in Anaheim being sold or traded to support a major commercial
business. But, it's most always undeveloped land with little public
"appeal". It's rather unusual to find the city selling part of
a public property to a private organization, particularly to a church
for the purpose of making it private church property. Sometimes
interesting trades are worked out - but an outright sale of land
to a private party, diminishing a scarce resource in a crowded city,
*is* unusual. It's particularly unusual when the organization is
religious and not simply a quai=public group creating a public
resource.

At least, it's unusual where I come from. I don't live in a state
run by a Church.

Bob

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:41:48 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So, you see this is why I feel the Church was very much in the wrong with
>it's easement
>thing. The Church should have written the easement in such a way as like

If public land was sold to a private entity, the *easement* should
have been written by the public entity and publicly reviewed.
Something is very wrong if the private party wrote this "easement"
without public comment before the sale was completed.

Bob

"> :
> : Now, what is normal? Who knows. It doesn't matter. If you are gay,
> : so be it. That does not affect me anymore than my orientation affects
> : you. The only thing that would affect me would you trying to teach my
> : children, or others, that being gay is acceptable and normal. I would
> : also be offended if public schools were teaching that being gay is
> : unacceptable and abnormal. They should simply teach sex education at
> : appropriate ages, not 5 years old, and teach the facts. Issues like
> : what we are discussing here, although I believe them to be factual,
> : should not be taught until college level. Classes that encourage kids
> : to be compassionate to all people no matter what their differences are
> : a good idea.
>
> As long as the christian reich is allowed to meddle in sex education
courses, there will
> never be an objective lesson taught. Where do you get this "teach my
children" re: being
> gay. That's more reich wing propaganda
>
>

What was that book called? Ah yes, "Heather Has Two Mommies" for elementary
aged students. Everyone with an agenda wants to spread their views among
the young. It's an attempt to infuse "values" into the masses using public
education.

There are those who have a hatred for homosexuals, but for the most part
conservatives object to militant gays defining the agenda of public schools
and redefining marriage and family. There's no doubt this is happening.

"Laura's Rancid Bush" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:RqgRa.8475$Bp2.6484@fed1read07...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> : >I didn't see the comment, however what you stated it said is correct.
> : >Recently a professor wrote a book claiming that sexual abuse of
> : >children does no harm.
> : Prove it, fool.
>
> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said ignorance
is very
> widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive
opinions rendered
> here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian
reich
>
>

Bigoted? Ignorant? Christrian Reich? I think the name calling is the
sign of ignorance. Name calling is pretty much about elevating yourself by
putting down those around you.

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:36:38 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It's common sense
> >that these things go on between public and private entities. There's
> >nothing sly, devious, tricky, or sinister about it.
>
>
> It's not unusual to see undeveloped suburban land such as that you
> cite in Anaheim being sold or traded to support a major commercial
> business. But, it's most always undeveloped land with little public
> "appeal". It's rather unusual to find the city selling part of
> a public property to a private organization, particularly to a church
> for the purpose of making it private church property. Sometimes
> interesting trades are worked out - but an outright sale of land
> to a private party, diminishing a scarce resource in a crowded city,
> *is* unusual. It's particularly unusual when the organization is
> religious and not simply a quai=public group creating a public
> resource.
>
> At least, it's unusual where I come from. I don't live in a state
> run by a Church.
>
> Bob

Anaheim is no undeveloped suburban land!! The area around Disneyland is
probably the most developed land in the world. But Disneyland redeveloped
(California Adventure, the Disney shopping mall).

There's just nothing odd about the church wanting to do what it did. The
whole of Temple Square is surrounded by public streets and people can do
whatever is permited in public. The one street they purchased was unique in
it's location inbetween the Temple and the Church office building. I
wouldn't blame any organization, private or otherwise, from wanting to get
protesters and hecklers out of their face. People visiting Temple Square
shouldn't have to be accosted and heckled right in the middle of it all.
Let the hecklers stand outside the gate.

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:41:48 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >So, you see this is why I feel the Church was very much in the wrong with
> >it's easement
> >thing. The Church should have written the easement in such a way as like
>
> If public land was sold to a private entity, the *easement* should
> have been written by the public entity and publicly reviewed.
> Something is very wrong if the private party wrote this "easement"
> without public comment before the sale was completed.
>
> Bob

It was publicaly reviewed, extensively. There were publice announcements
and forums for months and months before the agreement was made and the sale
consumated. As is so often the case, most people don't pay attention. For
whatever reason, the principle parties who opposed the sale and terms of the
easement waited until after the sale to protest it.

Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>
> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said ignorance is very
> widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive opinions rendered
> here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich

And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's not
bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.

You know - if the ratio of God-haters to God-lovers were 99 to 1, I'd be
honored to be included in the 1 per cent, and I'd galdly die for the
privilege.

Man (individually and collectively) would sometimes rather break himself
in the futile effort of proving God wrong. Guess who has the last word.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----