Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:07:36 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm confused. Say I wanted to protest Proctor and Gambel. Now, would a
>more appropriate place for the protest be in front of the P&G headquarters,
>or the headquarters of Colgate-Palmolive?

That's not what I said and those aren't the issues stated previously.
The issue was war protestors demonstrating in a public place. You
demonstrate where you can draw attention. If you want to protest
P&G, I'd again suggest a public place - protesting at some other
_business_ would obviously make no sense.

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

I believe there was a similar case recently -- a city tried to sell to a
church city property where they had the 10 commandments displayed, as the city
realized it couldn't display them on public property. The sale was not
allowed, if I remember correctly, as it was not for any public good but for
religious purposes.

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

And what would that "agenda" be, other than equality?


> 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.

Perhaps if your side showed some tolerance and compassion...

>
>> >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.

Your own words showed you to be a bigot and a liar.

>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:p0CRa.9004$Bp2.7135@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> : In article <[email protected]>,
>> : "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> : >
>> : >"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> : >news:0koRa.8602$Bp2.2415@fed1read07...
>> : >>
>> : >> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> : >> news:[email protected]...
>> :
>> :
>> : What's "crap" is ONLY teaching abstinence, so teens who engage in sex
>> anyway
>> : have no idea of how to protect themselves.
>>
>> Abstinence is a religious concept, not a scientific one. Bye bye wall of
>> separation.....
>>
>>
>> : >
>> : >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 :)
>>
>> There's no escape hiding behind the boogeyman of religion. If religion
>> didn't ostracize gays, there'd be no reason to "hide."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>It is no suprise that Hillary would be defending homosexuality...she is a
>lesbian after all.
>What about Lloyd?
>
>
Do only Jews defend the right of Jews to practice their religion? Do only
blacks defend civil rights?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
>I still don't see anything about Jeeps here Lloyd..
>

I'm reading and posting to rec.autos.makers.chrysler, as this obviously got
cross-posted to many conferences originally.

>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!
>> >
>> >
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Bigoted? Ignorant? Christrian Reich?
>>
>> If the shoe fits.
>>
>
>That's your problem Lloyd. People who disagree with you are automatically
>bigots.

No, those who post bigotry.


> You never leave room for any approaches to social problems other
>than from the left.

Bashing gays is not a valid approach. And I fail to see how homosexuals
constitute a "social problem" in the first place. You sound like they're some
disease to be eradicated.


> Just because there's some Nazi somewhere to the right
>of your view (which, by the way doesn't make Nazism anywhere near
>conservatism) doesn't invalidate conservative positions. You know how it
>feels don't you? You pinko, socialist, commu....oops!.... I name call.
>Nevermind :- )
>
>>
>> >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]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>
>Now there's the pot calling the kettle black.
>
>>
>> >or take on an heir of superiority and smugly lament the
>> >ignorance of others.
>>
>> You've come across as quite "superior."
>>
>
>Perhaps because I think I'm right and you're wrong and right is superior to
>wrong. But I don't feign superiority to make others look stupid.

You can't be writing that with a straight face (no pun intended).

>
>> >
>> >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]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2003 17:06:30 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>>>>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.
>
>Wait. Misunderstanding. BIG MISUNDERSTANDING.
>
>I took it that you were challenging whether someone actually wrote the
>book. They did indeed. It was all over the national media.
>
>As to whether the content of the book is correct, I have not read it,
>and have no idea what exactly it said, but I doubt that I would agree
>with it based on what I heard it said.
>
>The issue is that someone said "And the poster claiming university
>professors support child abuse wasn't being inflammatory?", and I was
>pointing out that indeed some professors actually do support child
>abuse.
>

And I was pointing out you're a lying scumbag.

>Sorry for the confusion.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2003 17:06:02 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>>> 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?
>
>What I believe is none of your business. Feel free to interpret the
>Bible any way you want, I am not your judge.

You seem mighty willing to judge gays.

>
>>>>>Still, I have had friends and aquamarines who are/were gay. I have
>
>should have been aquaintances...
>
>>>>>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.
>
>It is not bigotry to attempt to use a term to describe how a person
>MIGHT choose to talk. I never said they do say things, I made up some
>examples.

You posted from bigotry. The first step to dealing with it is admitting it.

>
>>>>>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.
>
>Before or after gay and lesbian groups threatened them if they did not
>revise the DSM?

After the scientific evidence, bigot.

>
>>>>> 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.
>
>Gravity and evolution are both theories.

Also both facts. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon. The first day
in most freshman science classes, that is taught.


> Personally I support both
>theories, but there is no such thing as scientific fact when it comes
>to issues like those.

Yes there is. Evolution is as much a fact as, say, atoms.


> Pick up a high school science book if you want
>to understand what theory means as opposed to hypothesis.

Let's see, Ph.D. in chemistry, teaching it at the college level for 30 years.
I'd say it's you who's ignorant.

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

Why not?


>They have no need to consider how other people love each other
>until they are old enough to understand that love in regards to sexual
>attraction. Right now they have enough to learn about caring for
>their siblings and parents and friends of both sexes.
>
>>>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.
>
>Never. That would not be Christian. However, it is Christian for me
>to kill you if I find you harming a child in any way.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2003 17:08:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>What's "crap" is ONLY teaching abstinence, so teens who engage in sex anyway
>>have no idea of how to protect themselves.
>
>Agreed. I have no issue with teaching children about abstinence and
>about how to protect themselves if they don't listen to that message.
>The problem is a lot of schools refuse to teach abstinence, and others
>refuse to teach about protecting the child.
>
>>You should know most child molestors are heterosexuals.
>
>This is not a fact. Most reported child molesters may be
>heterosexuals. However, due to the stigma attached to being molested
>by a homosexual, one can not know how many unreported cases there are.
>It is unreasonable to assume that one group is more or less likely to
>molest children.
You've assume gays are.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2003 17:00:11 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) 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 do not need to pressure school age children to "accept their
>homosexuality" to teach compassion.

How about to accept others for what they are -- different races, different
ethnic groups, different sexual orientations?


> Gay groups are teaching far more
>than that. They are trying to encourage children as young as 5 or 6
>to experiment with same-sex sex.

Lying scumbag.

> Children by law can not engage in
>sex until they are at least 16 in this country, so some gays are
>trying to convert them before they have an opportunity to engage in
>normal, healthy relationships. Not all gays are like this, but the
>militant ones are and must be stopped.

You are not only a bigot, but I suspect you cheered on the people who beat
Matthew Shepherd to death.

>
>>>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.
>
>He is not lying. Groups have gone on TV and proclaimed their views
>and their desires more than once. An interesting expose is found in
>Sean Hannity's book. He includes the opinion of Alan Colmes, a
>dedicated liberal, who also takes issue with the practices of some gay
>and lesbian groups.
>
>It comes down to this - people like you who want to attack normal
>sexual relationships because of something your father did to you, need
>psychological help.

So how did you celebrate Adolf's birthday this year?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>'nuther Bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:02:06 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, 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.
>>>
>>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>
>>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>>
>>
>> That's a good policy for the Catholic church, since most of their
>> priests are gay.
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>So would I, and we might one day get close to that percentage if the
>>>liberals in this country get their way.
>>
>>
>> That's right, "the liberals" are out to destroy religion. If those
>> liberal jerks who wrote the Constitution had just left out that part
>> about "separation of church and state" we could have a nice cosy
>> Christian country.
>
>You are showing your ignorance, Bob. Separation of church and state is
>not in the Constitution.
>
>Matt
>
Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:39:16 GMT, "David Allen"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >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 :)
>>
>> No, you are wrong. This is an attempt to discredit a normal, healthy
>> relationship between man and boy. Gays would never molest a child,
>> only heterosexuals do that.
>>
>> Wait, did I just copy the radical gay agenda? Sorry.
>>
>> And to be clear, I strongly believe the overwhelming majority of gays
>> are sickened by the molestation of any child by any person.
>
>
>Thanks. I'd hate to be misunderstood.
>
>Let me dare say the majority of gays also don't subscribe to the radical
>"homosexual agenda".


How does that differ from the radical heterosexual agenda?


>Which includes "helping" to out youngsters who haven't
>discovered their homosexuality yet. To portray and promote the homosexual
>lifestyle as equal to the heterosexual lifestyle.

Who's to say it isn't? Isn't equality the American way?


> To change the culture of
>marriage and family to the culture of anything goes.

So why does that matter to you?


> To make tolerance of
>the homosexual lifestyle a civil rights issue.

I see. Bigotry, hatred, and physical assault is more your style?


> The list goes on.
>
>The problem is that the reality of the homosexual lifestyle isn't anything
>like the heterosexual family lifestyle. There isn't much of anything
>"family" about it.


Your opinion, which we already know is bigoted.


> So much of it is a life of promiscuity and transient
>relationships.

No more than heterosexuals. But if you let gays marry, or at least have civil
unions, perhaps even that would decrease.


> Some have stable relationships and these days even adopt
>children to have a semblence of a family. But mostly, it just isn't a
>culture that works and never has been.


You've done research, or just your prejudice talking?

>
>I think for the vast majority of homosexuals, it's a tremendous curse to
>have to live with. In fact, I think of all the people on the Earth, God
>will probably be most merciful to homosexuals.

But not to the bigots like you, those who promote hatred and discrimination.


>
>That's how I see it.
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>>'nuther Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:02:06 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>>>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>>>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's a good policy for the Catholic church, since most of their
>>>>priests are gay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>So would I, and we might one day get close to that percentage if the
>>>>>liberals in this country get their way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's right, "the liberals" are out to destroy religion. If those
>>>>liberal jerks who wrote the Constitution had just left out that part
>>>>about "separation of church and state" we could have a nice cosy
>>>>Christian country.
>>>
>>>You are showing your ignorance, Bob. Separation of church and state is
>>>not in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
>>
>> nate
>
>Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention separation of church and
>state? Hint, you won't find it. The only think prohibited was a state
>church as existed in England at the time.

No, what is prohibited is "establishment of religion" by the state.


> Separation of church and
>state was a concept that came many years later in a court decision as
>best I recall.

Nope. Jefferson said it in his writings.


> Been a long time since I studied this in detail though
>so I can't quote the court case, but I believe it was as recent as the
>1900s.
>

Then you're as ignorant about this as science.

>
>Matt
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>>DTJ wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>
>>>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>
>>>That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners, regardless
>>>of the sin.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>>
>> nate
>
>That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you to
>accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
>whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>
>
>Matt
>
How about bigotry?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:OpIRa.9113$Bp2.5649@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> : Nathan Nagel wrote:
>> : >
>> : > The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
>> : >
>> : > nate
>> :
>> : Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention separation of church and
>> : state? Hint, you won't find it. The only think prohibited was a state
>> : church as existed in England at the time. Separation of church and
>> : state was a concept that came many years later in a court decision as
>> : best I recall. Been a long time since I studied this in detail though
>> : so I can't quote the court case, but I believe it was as recent as the
>> : 1900s.
>> :
>>
>> Wrong
>> http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>>
>>
>The case was in 1947 and was pivotal. It's where the establishment clause
>became the separation clause. The Court ruled it unconstitutional for
>government "to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
>they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
>religion".
>

Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state." I doubt he was
writing in 1947.

>The Jefferson letter doesn't argue or support the same thing as the 1947
>case. Even though he used the actual phrase "wall of separation", it was in
>reference to his duties as chief executive that the establishment clause
>forbade him from proclaiming a national day of fasting and thanksgiving. It
>never stopped him nor members of congress from tolerating or engaging in
>religious expression while engaged in official duties or while on public
>property. No such activities were ever considered an act of establishment,
>merely expression.
>
>There's a line somewhere separating two important rights. The right to
>religious expression and the right not to have religion imposed by the
>government. To champion one while dismissing the other is wrong, IMHO of
>course.

Sure, but the state cannot express religion -- that's the point.

>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> :
>> : Straight society forces conditions on gays? The whole of our society,
>> : regardless of race, creed or ethnic background is based on the
>heterosexual
>> : family unit. Inasmuch as people can't fit in to that structure makes it
>a
>> : hardship for them. There is no homosexual family structure. That's
>part of
>> : why there's so much promiscuity in that community and no enduring
>stability.
>> : It's the nature of reality.
>>
>> Of course it does. It denies then the same rights as straights. It treats
>> them worse than second class citizens. And you wonder why there is no
>> stability? There is no family structure because it is not allowed due to
>> fear baiting from reich wing hatemongers who will spread lies and spurious
>> information not backed by any credible source.
>>
>
>Look, there's no doubt that gays have it tough. But no one is stopping gays
>from having enduring family structure. It just can't happen. It hasn't
>happened in the thousands of years of civilization, with or without present
>day "reich wingers" (how cute).

It can't happen because it's illegal.

>
>> :
>> : And the argument isn't about good or bad people (a la cheating spouses),
>> : it's about even having a chance at an enduring and stable society.
>> : Straights are indeed quite capable of screwing that up without the help
>of
>> : gays.
>>
>> No but that tired old bull**** about gays being promiscuous and the
>implied
>> fact that straights are not is complete crap.
>>
>
>Let's be honest here. Promiscuity among straights doesn't even come close
>to that in the gay community.

Provide some evidence. Oh, and why not compare a society in which straights
cannot marry either.

>
>> :
>> : > :
>> : > : I think for the vast majority of homosexuals, it's a tremendous
>curse to
>> : > : have to live with. In fact, I think of all the people on the Earth,
>God
>> : > : will probably be most merciful to homosexuals.
>> : > :
>> : > : That's how I see it.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Fortunately your view doesn't extend past the end of your pointed
>head.
>> : >
>> :
>> : Having a little trouble formulating an intelligent response? Run out of
>> : tolerance? C'mon, I know you can do better than that!
>>
>>
>> There is no response other than what I said for such a ****ing illiterate
>> remark. How about:
>>
>
>No improvement :- (
>
>
>> "I think for the vast majority of Blacks, it's a tremendous curse to have
>> to live with."
>>
>> "I think for the vast majority of Mexicans, it's a tremendous curse to
>> have to live with."
>>
>> "I think for the vast majority of disabled, it's a tremendous curse to
>> have to live with."
>>
>>
>
>Right out of the old "conservatives are rascists" section of the liberal
>playbook.
>
>The fact that there is no enduring homosexual family structure isn't the
>Republicans fault nor is it straights fault. It isn't even political.
>There's no where for gays to go with it. Redefining marriage to include
>pairings or groupings (you fill in the blanks) of various types seems like a
>nice gesture of inclusion to our gay friends and loved ones, but it won't
>change anything for them and it would open the gates of chaos for the
>traditional family and the institutions supporting it. Instead of marriage
>being a family institution, it would become legal and moral playground for
>adults.
>
>
Considering the number of marriages that fail, isn't it now?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> : You presume that people of previous centuries are less enlightened than
>here
>> : in the 21st century. Hardly the case. Science and technology have
>> : advanced, but our enlightenment, intelligence and philosopy have nothing
>on
>> : our forebearers. People believe there is sin because they believe in
>God.
>> : They believe there is right and wrong.
>> :
>> : There's nothing antiquated about that. Funny how religion hasn't gone
>the
>> : way of the flat Earth. There's not enough people who believe that right
>and
>> : wrong are antiquated.
>>
>>
>> 1. Right and wrong are not religious concepts. They are ethical values.
>> 2. No, religion hasn't gone the way of the flat earth because there are
>> always weak minded, addle brained people who believe such crap. However,
>> the U.S. is the most "churched" of the industrialized powers, the most
>> violent and also the most sexually repressed. With these shortcomings, we
>> manage to entertain the rest of the world.
>>
>>
>
>Well, I guess you won't be coming to Sunday School with me this Sunday.
>
>
Will you be burning heretics?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Here's the radical heterosexual agenda
>> http://www.htmlshop.com/java/population.asp Pretty disgusting!
>>
>>
>>
>> :
>> : The problem is that the reality of the homosexual lifestyle isn't
>anything
>> : like the heterosexual family lifestyle. There isn't much of anything
>> : "family" about it. So much of it is a life of promiscuity and transient
>> : relationships. Some have stable relationships and these days even adopt
>> : children to have a semblence of a family. But mostly, it just isn't a
>> : culture that works and never has been.
>>
>> Oh gee let's see. That wouldn't be due to the fact that straight society
>> forces a lot of these conditions onto gays, does it? Promiscuity? The
>> straight culture has taken AIDS, which should have died out since everyone
>> "knows" gays only comprise 5% (HA!) of the population, but no, the
>> straights have made it a pandemic. Promiscuity? Like about 75-80% of those
>> nice straight men getting a quickie from a $10 whore on the way home from
>> work. Nice role model! (Oh and about 50% of straight women are humping the
>> meter reader while their brain-dead husbands are at work).
>>
>
>Straight society forces conditions on gays? The whole of our society,
>regardless of race, creed or ethnic background is based on the heterosexual
>family unit.

Huh? The majority of Americans aren't even married, much less in a family.


> Inasmuch as people can't fit in to that structure makes it a
>hardship for them. There is no homosexual family structure. That's part of
>why there's so much promiscuity in that community and no enduring stability.
>It's the nature of reality.
>
>And the argument isn't about good or bad people (a la cheating spouses),
>it's about even having a chance at an enduring and stable society.
>Straights are indeed quite capable of screwing that up without the help of
>gays.
>
>> :
>> : I think for the vast majority of homosexuals, it's a tremendous curse to
>> : have to live with. In fact, I think of all the people on the Earth, God
>> : will probably be most merciful to homosexuals.
>> :
>> : That's how I see it.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately your view doesn't extend past the end of your pointed head.
>>
>
>Having a little trouble formulating an intelligent response? Run out of
>tolerance? C'mon, I know you can do better than that!
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:bmIRa.9110$Bp2.4013@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> : DTJ wrote:
>> : > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> :
>> :
>> : That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners, regardless
>> : of the sin.
>> :
>>
>> It's difficult to accept that in the 21st century, grown adults still
>> babble about "sin." I'll be these same grown adults don't use a divining
>> rod to find water or see a witchdoctor when they are ill
>>
>>
>
>You presume that people of previous centuries are less enlightened than here
>in the 21st century. Hardly the case. Science and technology have
>advanced, but our enlightenment, intelligence and philosopy have nothing on
>our forebearers. People believe there is sin because they believe in God.
>They believe there is right and wrong.

Christians once believed slavery was right.


>
>There's nothing antiquated about that. Funny how religion hasn't gone the
>way of the flat Earth. There's not enough people who believe that right and
>wrong are antiquated.
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
840
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
769
J_D
J_D
Back
Top