Jeep thing or sheep thing?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:11 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Although I am an 'outsider' here and haven't even been near Salt Lake City
>(though I might get there later this year) I find these arguments
>fascinating (Jeep-related or not).
>
>Perhaps I have missed some of the posts and ths point has already been made,
>but it seems to me that most people know that
>Salt Lake City = Mormon Church.

Yes, you missed that point. The influence of the Mormon church over
the state of UT has already been debated.

>If you don't like the church nobody says you have to live in Salt Lake City?
>The USA is still a mighty big place.

That's not the way it work in the USA. We have certain rights. Those
rights are not suspended because a lot of people in a particular
area happen to be of a certain sort.

>From what I have been able to gather, there is a small area of the city
>where the church has an admin building and a major temple. If temple-goers
>can't go to pray there in peace and quiet where can they go?

The issue is that the city sold the Mormons a public street so that
they could make their area "private" and keep out hecklers. The
public was apparently under the impression that the area was to
remain publicly accessible with normal rights. The Mormons were
under the impression that they could do what they want(ed) with
the land.

>How would
>Roman Catholics feel if they were heckled & booed every time they went into
>or came out of St Peter's?

Well, they do get a bit of heckling in the areas where the priests,
bishops, and cardinals are criminals guilty of molesting children
and/or criminal conspiracy to cover it up.

But, if the Mormons are entitled to a "no hecklng" zone, then so
is every other organization. BTW - if hecklers are preventing
people (churchgoers) from doing what they want to do, they can
seek an injunction to keep hecklers away. Everyone has the
right to do what they want in the country. Such a premise is
the basic reason that "buffer zones" were established around
medical facilities where abortions are done.

Bob

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:44:00 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's like the stupid (in my city) anti-war protestors that were running
>around blocking traffic on the city streets during the Iraq war. None of these
>morons were within even 10,000 feet of a military recruting station, nor were they
>even near the Federal courthouse or any other major government building. Instead
>they were down in the oldtown area which is one of these "retail botique"
>areas, and they weren't even confining themselves to the sidewalks. To me
>that isn't protesting, it's a bunch of street kids using the pretext of
>protesting to bother people who had nothing whatsover to do with the war in
>Iraq, just for the sake of being able to be an asshole to people.

I neither support or deny the anti-war folks. But, the idea of a
protest is to draw public attention. You do it in public places.
This is "non-harrasing" protest. When you do it at the "place of
business" you are stepping across that line that separates
protesting from heckling.

>The Constitution was written during a period that people felt there was
>unlimited land, if you didn't like your neighbors, you could just leave and
>go to new territory. As a result they did not envision what would happen
>when the land ran out, and how crowding people together into cities would
>eat into personal rights. This was after all a nation of farmers.

I disagree with that premise. Many of the Founding Fathers were city
men, business men, merchants. That's why they were so infuriated about
England's impact on their wallets.

>If the Founding Fathers had any inkling of the kinds of technological
>spying and privacy violations that can occur today between individuals, they would have
>probably changed the preamble to include personal privacy among the other
>listings dealing with promoting the general welfare, etc.

There I agree. However, the Bill of Rights was written rather well.
There are specific section on "due process". Everyone knows what that
means - a court order before spying. The neo-conservatives (not
the real conservatives) would have us believe that the gov't has the
right to spy on us in the interest of "National Security" or
even local security. Seems to me that the Founding Fathers gave a
higher priority to our rights...having just come through the same
problem with the King.

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves seeing what Bush,
Ashkroft, and their friends are doing and trying to do to our
Constitutional rights.

Bob

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message


> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Protest isn't the problem. It's where they protest (or heckle). The
church
> > respects peoples right to protest, but it's reasonable for the church to
not
> > want the protesting right there in that area close to where visitors and
> > temple goers are.
> >
>
> No, it isn't reasonable, as long as the protestors are sticking to
protesting
> the organization, and not making personal attacks. There is no point to
> protesting an organization if your not able to be near it.
>
It may not be reasonable to protestors. They'd be happy if they could stand
on the Temple doorstep and plaster it with signs, handing out leaflets to
everyone and making each patron run a gauntlet entering and leaving the
temple building. Heck, they already do that outside of Temple Square at the
gates

It is eminently reasonable for the church to want a homogenous area with a
reverent atmostphere that guests and patrons can enjoy, free from
molestation. That's exactly what the purchase of the street was about. The
church has no obligation to protestors and protestors don't have such
extensive rights as to overcome the property rights of the church nor the
rights of the church to transact business in its interest.

>
> >
> > I agree. But even with protest, one can't protest anywhere. There
isn't an
> > unlimited right to protest.
> >
>
> There is on publically owned land.
>

Which is why the church wanted to make that street private.

> > Also, I'll disagree on a lesser point. I don't think protesting against
an
> > individual is a privacy issue. Right to privacy is a limit on
government
> > from encroaching on an individual's privacy rights. Harrassment is an
issue
> > for local police to deal with, not the feds.
> >
>
> Yes, now it is because of the Constitution authors deciding that. But I
wasn't
> talking current law, I was pointing out that this is one of the glaring
problems
> with the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights
> for example should never have been separated from the original
Constitution, it
> should have been written right into the Constitution.
>
> The Constitution was written during a period that people felt there was
unlimited
> land, if you didn't like your neighbors, you could just leave and
> go to new territory. As a result they did not envision what would happen
when
> the land ran out, and how crowding people together
> into cities would eat into personal rights. This was after all a nation
of farmers.
> If the Founding Fathers had any inkling of the kinds of technological
spying and
> privacy violations that can occur today between individuals, they would
have
> probably changed the preamble to include personal privacy among the other
> listings dealing with promoting the general welfare, etc.
>
>

I don't know how integrating the Bill of Rights in to the Constitution would
change anything. I view the Bill of Rights as just as much a part of the
Constitution as the preamble. As such, I think the founders understood
changing times and that's why there's an amendment process.

They also weren't trying to make the protection of every right a federal
responsibility. It recognized that individual states had different
interests based on their unique cultural make up.

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:44:00 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
: <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >It's like the stupid (in my city) anti-war protestors that were running
: >around blocking traffic on the city streets during the Iraq war. None
of these
: >morons were within even 10,000 feet of a military recruting station, nor
were they
: >even near the Federal courthouse or any other major government building.
Instead
: >they were down in the oldtown area which is one of these "retail
botique"
: >areas, and they weren't even confining themselves to the sidewalks. To
me
: >that isn't protesting, it's a bunch of street kids using the pretext of
: >protesting to bother people who had nothing whatsover to do with the war
in
: >Iraq, just for the sake of being able to be an asshole to people.
:
: I neither support or deny the anti-war folks. But, the idea of a
: protest is to draw public attention. You do it in public places.
: This is "non-harrasing" protest. When you do it at the "place of
: business" you are stepping across that line that separates
: protesting from heckling.

Maybe you missed the "free speech zones" established to stifle protests

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

No, scientific research showed biological differences.

>
>Studies of homosexuals have proved there is no genetic link.

Bzzt. Lie #1


> 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.

Perhaps it is repressed.

>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.

That's low compared to what studies actually show.


> This percentage does not increase in families with gays.
>
>Lastly, if homosexuality were genetic, then it would have been wiped
>out centuries ago.

Lie #2


> See, it is impossible for gays to have children
>with other gays.

Not all genes are dominant. Take a biology course.


> 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.

So you'd discriminate against people with, say, Down's syndrome because it's
not 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.

How about your teaching them hatred?


> 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.

You've spent a post denying 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"> :
>> : 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.
>

Yes, heaven forbid we teach children tolerance and compassion. Why, they
might grow up to be adults who don't hate gays, or blacks, or women, or
Hispanics! Where would we be then?

>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.
>
>
There's no doubt you're a bigot and a liar.

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

She didn't say she hates Christians, but that some Christians sure show a lot
of hatred.

>
>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.

You can't be a Christian and hate others. You can't be a Christian and be a
bigot.

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

Not you and the so-called "Christians" here who are bigots.

>
>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! =-----

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"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?

If the shoe fits.


>I think the name calling is the
>sign of ignorance. Name calling is pretty much about elevating yourself by
>putting down those around you.
>
>
Except when it's accurate.

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2003 17:00:35 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>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 will not have gay sex. I will not hurt anyone except in self
>defense. Being anti-gay does not mean pro-discrimination.
>
>>> I believe God does not approve of homosexuality.
>>
>>I think God would be highly offended that you presume to know His mind.
>
>I believe God would appreciate my reading the bible. Something you
>obviously don't do, nor have any direct knowledge of.

But the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. Do you think people who grow 2
crops in the same field are going to hell? That you should stone adulters?
That the earth was created in 6 days?

>
>>>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?
>
>No. However, not being gay I don't know what they would use to
>describe their partners other than partner. I had to come up with
>some example, and chose to use extreme ones.

Which shows your true bigotry. Not very Christian.

>
>>>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.
>
>Incorrect. There is no data from any reputable study that even
>remotely could be interpreted as you suggest.

Read what the American Psychological Association says.

>
>>> Children should
>>>not be taught things like this.
>>
>>Or evolution?
>
>Evolution theory, and it is just that - a theory,

Wrong. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.


>is an accepted
>scientific theory with plenty of evidentiary support. There is the
>fossil record, there is evidence even in man of how we evolved from
>amphibians. I understand some wackos in Kansas got control, but your
>radical liberal attempt to discredit science by placing all scientific
>thought that shows you are an idiot into a radical box is pretty
>funny.
>
>>> 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.
>
>No evidence says that.

You won't find it in the writings of Pat Robertson, that's for sure.

>
>>>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.
>
>Gays are abnormal.

So are left-handed people. So are Jews.


> Being gay is acceptable to gays, but not to
>straight people.

"Being Jewish is acceptable to Jews but not to Christians."


> I do not teach my children anything about sex other
>than facts. They are learning about their bodies as various subjects
>arise in an age appropriate manner. Teaching them that two guys
>having anal sex is normal is simply a radical liberal viewpoint that
>will continue to minimalize the democratic party going forward.

What about that 2 adults of the same sex can love and care about each other
and be committed to each other?

>
>I'll bet you are part of that group that tried to teach 12 to 14 year
>old girls in NY that fisting is a normal way to show love for your
>female friends. Good thing the parents of those girls stood up to
>idiots like you.

I bet you tie up little girls and torture them.

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2003 17:00:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Well loyd, if you had enough intelligence to pay attention to the
>national media, you could remember this story. EVERY channel,
>including cnn, msnbc and Fox had this on for weeks earlier this year.

If you think that constitutes "proof" you're dumber than you look.

>
>Oh, and thanks for calling me a fool. That really warms my heart.

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:dloRa.8604$Bp2.1841@fed1read07...
>>
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> : 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.
>> :
>
>>
>> Read some of your own comments and self-proclaimed "judgments" about
>things
>> which you are obviously very ill informed.
>>
>>
>
>I have my opinions, you have yours. But I don't sit there and call people I
>disagree with Nazis,

Just abnormal, immoral, and pejorative terms.


>or take on an heir of superiority and smugly lament the
>ignorance of others.

You've come across as quite "superior."

>
>You know, these discussions are nothing but a tempest in a teapot. But,
>they are enjoyable when the debate has an air of mutal respect, even with
>jabs here and there. The gratuituous proclamations of stupidity or
>ignorance based only on disagreement about things that are by nature
>debatable is..... well..... (okay, I'll step in the pile).... ignorant!
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:0koRa.8602$Bp2.2415@fed1read07...
>>
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> :
>> : 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.
>>
>> Talk about an "agenda?" The xtian right has caused more damage with their
>> abstinence crap and war against science aka evolution. I don't know where
>> you are, but I'd be more worried about a child be molested by the local
>> priest.
>>
>
>Extreme kooks on any side are dangerous. But to call abstinence "crap" is
>pretty extreme. Many faithful Christians (Jews, etc.) abstain until
>marriage. They tend to be very happy and have successful family lives.
>Hardly "crap" and hardly dangerous. Primarily good and anything but
>dangerous (no VD, no children out of wedlock, no betrayal).

What's "crap" is ONLY teaching abstinence, so teens who engage in sex anyway
have no idea of how to protect themselves.

>
>The religion I've grown up with has always respected science and doesn't
>presumes there's a conflict between science and faith. No need to go to war
>against science. Just as there's no need for a scientist to go to war
>against religion. I think those who teach one as a tool against the other
>are wrong.
>
>Be careful using that priest analogy. The guilty priests are typically
>homosexuals who joined the priesthood to escape their homosexuality. Brings
>us back to that topic

You should know most child molestors are heterosexuals.

>
>> :
>> : 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.
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:11 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >If you don't like the church nobody says you have to live in Salt Lake
City?
> >The USA is still a mighty big place.
>
> That's not the way it work in the USA. We have certain rights. Those
> rights are not suspended because a lot of people in a particular
> area happen to be of a certain sort.
>

But that's not what's happening here. No rights are being suspended. Had
the church no respect for rights protected by the constitution they wouldn't
have bothered paying $8 million to make the area private. And private
property is a right as well as speech.

> >From what I have been able to gather, there is a small area of the city
> >where the church has an admin building and a major temple. If
temple-goers
> >can't go to pray there in peace and quiet where can they go?
>
> The issue is that the city sold the Mormons a public street so that
> they could make their area "private" and keep out hecklers. The
> public was apparently under the impression that the area was to
> remain publicly accessible with normal rights. The Mormons were
> under the impression that they could do what they want(ed) with
> the land.
>

The church bought the property IN ORDER TO be able to regulate the behavior
of visitors. There was no misunderstanding about this. The city and the
church agreed beforehand the area would be private with a limited easement
allowing pubic access but not allowing bad behavior. There were lots of
public announcements and forums before the deal was done.

Those who fought it understood the deal. They always intended to fight it
when it went through. The issue the courts ruled on was speech rights on
private property with limited easements. The first ruling was in favor of
the church, the appeals court overturned and it was headed for the supreme
court. Both rights are important; private property and speech. But there
is boundary between the two.

It became moot when the city gave up the easements in return for some
property on the other side of town and a promise by the church to allow
public access. Everyone is happy except the enemies of the church, who have
no moral ground to stand on in this case.

> >How would
> >Roman Catholics feel if they were heckled & booed every time they went
into
> >or came out of St Peter's?
>
> Well, they do get a bit of heckling in the areas where the priests,
> bishops, and cardinals are criminals guilty of molesting children
> and/or criminal conspiracy to cover it up.
>

The issue isn't about whether heckling is good or bad, deserved or
undeserved. It's about where heckling and protest rights and private
property rights meet. You can't just dispense with private property rights.

> But, if the Mormons are entitled to a "no hecklng" zone, then so
> is every other organization.

This isn't about the church being "entitled" to a "no heckling" zone. In
fact the church didn't take that tac at all. They purchased the property
making it private property with the rights that come with it. All
organizations have the same private property rights.

Do they drive Jeeps?

Mike

David Allen wrote:
>
> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:11 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >If you don't like the church nobody says you have to live in Salt Lake
> City?
> > >The USA is still a mighty big place.
> >
> > That's not the way it work in the USA. We have certain rights. Those
> > rights are not suspended because a lot of people in a particular
> > area happen to be of a certain sort.
> >
>
> But that's not what's happening here. No rights are being suspended. Had
> the church no respect for rights protected by the constitution they wouldn't
> have bothered paying $8 million to make the area private. And private
> property is a right as well as speech.
>
> > >From what I have been able to gather, there is a small area of the city
> > >where the church has an admin building and a major temple. If
> temple-goers
> > >can't go to pray there in peace and quiet where can they go?
> >
> > The issue is that the city sold the Mormons a public street so that
> > they could make their area "private" and keep out hecklers. The
> > public was apparently under the impression that the area was to
> > remain publicly accessible with normal rights. The Mormons were
> > under the impression that they could do what they want(ed) with
> > the land.
> >
>
> The church bought the property IN ORDER TO be able to regulate the behavior
> of visitors. There was no misunderstanding about this. The city and the
> church agreed beforehand the area would be private with a limited easement
> allowing pubic access but not allowing bad behavior. There were lots of
> public announcements and forums before the deal was done.
>
> Those who fought it understood the deal. They always intended to fight it
> when it went through. The issue the courts ruled on was speech rights on
> private property with limited easements. The first ruling was in favor of
> the church, the appeals court overturned and it was headed for the supreme
> court. Both rights are important; private property and speech. But there
> is boundary between the two.
>
> It became moot when the city gave up the easements in return for some
> property on the other side of town and a promise by the church to allow
> public access. Everyone is happy except the enemies of the church, who have
> no moral ground to stand on in this case.
>
> > >How would
> > >Roman Catholics feel if they were heckled & booed every time they went
> into
> > >or came out of St Peter's?
> >
> > Well, they do get a bit of heckling in the areas where the priests,
> > bishops, and cardinals are criminals guilty of molesting children
> > and/or criminal conspiracy to cover it up.
> >
>
> The issue isn't about whether heckling is good or bad, deserved or
> undeserved. It's about where heckling and protest rights and private
> property rights meet. You can't just dispense with private property rights.
>
> > But, if the Mormons are entitled to a "no hecklng" zone, then so
> > is every other organization.
>
> This isn't about the church being "entitled" to a "no heckling" zone. In
> fact the church didn't take that tac at all. They purchased the property
> making it private property with the rights that come with it. All
> organizations have the same private property rights.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >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.
> >
>
> Yes, heaven forbid we teach children tolerance and compassion. Why, they
> might grow up to be adults who don't hate gays, or blacks, or women, or
> Hispanics! Where would we be then?
>

You don't have to believe in the homosexual agenda to be tolerant and
compassionate. You accuse conservatives of wrapping themselves in the flag,
yet liberals wrap themselves in "tolerance and compassion" to defend the
redefinition of marriage and family.

> >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.
> >
> >
> There's no doubt you're a bigot and a liar.

Huh? An insult and a name? Lloyd, you punted. You must know what I said
is true.

Ya but do any of these crazies drive Jeeps?

Mike

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:0koRa.8602$Bp2.2415@fed1read07...
> >>
> >> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> :
> >> : 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.
> >>
> >> Talk about an "agenda?" The xtian right has caused more damage with their
> >> abstinence crap and war against science aka evolution. I don't know where
> >> you are, but I'd be more worried about a child be molested by the local
> >> priest.
> >>
> >
> >Extreme kooks on any side are dangerous. But to call abstinence "crap" is
> >pretty extreme. Many faithful Christians (Jews, etc.) abstain until
> >marriage. They tend to be very happy and have successful family lives.
> >Hardly "crap" and hardly dangerous. Primarily good and anything but
> >dangerous (no VD, no children out of wedlock, no betrayal).
>
> What's "crap" is ONLY teaching abstinence, so teens who engage in sex anyway
> have no idea of how to protect themselves.
>
> >
> >The religion I've grown up with has always respected science and doesn't
> >presumes there's a conflict between science and faith. No need to go to war
> >against science. Just as there's no need for a scientist to go to war
> >against religion. I think those who teach one as a tool against the other
> >are wrong.
> >
> >Be careful using that priest analogy. The guilty priests are typically
> >homosexuals who joined the priesthood to escape their homosexuality. Brings
> >us back to that topic
>
> You should know most child molestors are heterosexuals.
>
> >
> >> :
> >> : 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.
> >> :
> >> :
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

I still don't see anything about Jeeps here Lloyd..

Mike

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:dloRa.8604$Bp2.1841@fed1read07...
> >>
> >> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >> : 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.
> >> :
> >
> >>
> >> Read some of your own comments and self-proclaimed "judgments" about
> >things
> >> which you are obviously very ill informed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have my opinions, you have yours. But I don't sit there and call people I
> >disagree with Nazis,
>
> Just abnormal, immoral, and pejorative terms.
>
> >or take on an heir of superiority and smugly lament the
> >ignorance of others.
>
> You've come across as quite "superior."
>
> >
> >You know, these discussions are nothing but a tempest in a teapot. But,
> >they are enjoyable when the debate has an air of mutal respect, even with
> >jabs here and there. The gratuituous proclamations of stupidity or
> >ignorance based only on disagreement about things that are by nature
> >debatable is..... well..... (okay, I'll step in the pile).... ignorant!
> >
> >

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:35:24 -0400, Mike Romain <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Do they drive Jeeps?
>
>Mike


No, jeeps are not allowed on the property that the Mormons
purchased from the city. That's the major reason that the
Jeep owners are involved in this thread.

Bob

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>,
: "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
: >
: >"> :
: >> : 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
: >>
: >>

Actually the chances are greater that everone is born bisexual and operant
conditioning takes over from there. Looking at the crass displays of
heterosexual sex that are plastered everywhere, it would seem the straight
people have a problem with their sexual identity.




: >
: >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.
: >
:
: Yes, heaven forbid we teach children tolerance and compassion. Why, they
: might grow up to be adults who don't hate gays, or blacks, or women, or
: Hispanics! Where would we be then?

Probably a world without Republicans

:
: >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.
: >
: >
: There's no doubt you're a bigot and a liar.


Yes and that hatred lives in the right end of the spectrum. And it always
seems that those who hate the most actually live in the closet themselves

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: > In article <[email protected]>,
: > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

:
: You don't have to believe in the homosexual agenda to be tolerant and
: compassionate. You accuse conservatives of wrapping themselves in the
flag,
: yet liberals wrap themselves in "tolerance and compassion" to defend the
: redefinition of marriage and family.
:

Your credibility fell into the toilet at warp nine with that "homosexual
agenda" crap. It's like "liberal media" and it's a buzz word created by the
intolerant bigots from the religious reich. At least we know where you are
coming from!