Jeep thing or sheep thing?

On 18 Jul 2003 14:55:47 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>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?

There is nothing wrong with teaching children that hurting others
because they are different is wrong.

>> 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.

Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong.

>> 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.

Never. Why would I? By the way, was he gay or something - is that
you point?

>>>>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?

I don't know? When was it?

On 18 Jul 2003 14:58:25 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>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.

No, I am judging homosexuality. I should not be able to judge gays,
because I have no reason to know who is gay and who isn't.

>After the scientific evidence, bigot.

There is no evidence to support the assumption that homosexuality is
based on genetics. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

>>>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.

No, they are not facts. Personally I treat them as facts also, but a
theory is not a fact. If you could open up a science book, you could
find information of what a hypothesis is and how it becomes a theory.
At one point the theory was the Earth is round. That is no longer the
theory. Another theory was that the Earth was the center of the
universe. No longer accepted theory. I could go on, but hopefully
you understand by now that a theory is the working model of what we
have observed, but that all theories are open to change as we learn
more.

>> 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.

No, they are both theories.

>> 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.

Well we all know are kids are in trouble in schools, now we know why.
What college employs people like you to teach science without any
ability to understand it?

On 18 Jul 2003 14:58:56 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>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.

Are you an idiot, or just stupid?

On 18 Jul 2003 14:59:15 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>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.

Ah, you are a moron. I never said gays were more likely. I simply
said there was no evidence that heterosexuals are more likely.

Logic escapes you.

DTJ wrote:


>>You are not only a bigot, but I suspect you cheered on the people who beat
>>Matthew Shepherd to death.
>
> Never. Why would I? By the way, was he gay or something - is that
> you point?

I'm sick and tired of people telling me I need to accept gays. I don't. I
won't. Therefore, anyone insisting otherwise can go to hell! It's not like
they're a different race or a handicap or something. I believe that only a
very few are genetically prone to homosexuality and that most choose to be
so as a personal choice. Therefore, I don't accept it and never will. I
don't condone beating someone because they are, however. But, don't blast
people because they won't accept them.

What interests me about the school prayer debate and the larger issue of
religion in the public square is that the arguments tend to center on the
establishment clause of the 1st amendment. To me, that seems wrong.

I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
(a state right?).

The real bone of contention, it would seem, is not the 1st amendment with
it's establishment clause, but the 14th amendment that identifies certain
rights of individuals that states can't abrogate. State religions existed
for a long time, but disappeared eventually. But they existed legally under
the original bill of rights.

The argrument would seem to more correctly be the issue of whether a state
or local law violates an individuals right to freely exercise their
religious rights protected by the free exercise clause. Not whether a state
or local law violates the establishment clause, which is a prohibition on
congress and the federal government from establishing a national religious
obligation on states and/or people. That places a barrier between the feds
and the states/people. Just a reminder that rights not held by the federal
government are reserved to the states and to the people (10th amendment).

Another reminder, I'm not arguing for prayer in school here, just the basis
of the arguments I always read on the subject.

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >'nuther Bob wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:45:03 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
> >>> You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
> >> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
> >> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ? The government
> >> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".
> >>
> >> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools when
> >> by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
> >> one or more as the source of that prayer.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> >If you don't know the difference between establish, separate and mingle,
> >then you'll never understand the 1st amendment. I've never established
> >a restaurant, gas station or any other business yet I don't separate
> >myself from them. I go into and make use of many businesses, all
> >without ever having established one.
>
> Then lets make it more simple. The federal government illegally respects
> establishments of religion. The federal government defines what
> constitutes an established religion. The federal government (and most
> state and local governments) subsidize these religious organizations that
> have their establishment respected by the laws of the federal government.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Tue 08 Jul 2003 11:05:43p, "Barry White" <[email protected]>
wrote in news:mFLOa.124493$MJ5.97583@fed1read03:

> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Barry White wrote:
>>
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> in light of the recent supreme court decision,
>>>>> can't we all just love one another?
>>>
>>> Well Americans are so good at hating, killing and blowing things up I
>>> see no reason to change
>>
>> Name one nation that is more generous or tolerant than the U.S. But
>> don't worry - after 9/11, that is all changing.
>>
>> You obviously don't have a clue.
>
> generous or tolerant of what? I saw an outpouring of support which was
> quickly destroyed by the brutally cold tactics of an infant pResident.
> My point still stands: this is a violent nation and the American people
> are a violent lot. Clueless? Step away from the mirror

Perhaps you are right. Maybe we should just tell the terrorists they won
and hope they never attack us again. Better yet, maybe we could throw a
big party for all the terrorists and Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat
can be the honored guests.

The only way to defeat terrorists is with violence. They will not stop
until they are totally destroyed. They cannot be negotiated with. Not
willing to back up your what you say with force will ultimately lead to a
country's downfall. Just look at the spineless Western European countries.
They refuse to help out their allies and now most of Western Europe has
taken a back seat when it comes to world politics.

The UN is more interested in imposing its will on the United States than
taking action to protect it. Hell, they won't even enforce their own
resolutions.

"Omphalos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue 08 Jul 2003 11:05:43p, "Barry White" <[email protected]>
> wrote in news:mFLOa.124493$MJ5.97583@fed1read03:
>
> > "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Barry White wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>>> in light of the recent supreme court decision,
> >>>>> can't we all just love one another?
> >>>
> >>> Well Americans are so good at hating, killing and blowing things up I
> >>> see no reason to change
> >>
> >> Name one nation that is more generous or tolerant than the U.S. But
> >> don't worry - after 9/11, that is all changing.
> >>
> >> You obviously don't have a clue.
> >
> > generous or tolerant of what? I saw an outpouring of support which was
> > quickly destroyed by the brutally cold tactics of an infant pResident.
> > My point still stands: this is a violent nation and the American people
> > are a violent lot. Clueless? Step away from the mirror
>
> Perhaps you are right. Maybe we should just tell the terrorists they won
> and hope they never attack us again. Better yet, maybe we could throw a
> big party for all the terrorists and Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat
> can be the honored guests.
>
> The only way to defeat terrorists is with violence. They will not stop
> until they are totally destroyed. They cannot be negotiated with. Not
> willing to back up your what you say with force will ultimately lead to a
> country's downfall. Just look at the spineless Western European countries.
> They refuse to help out their allies and now most of Western Europe has
> taken a back seat when it comes to world politics.
>
> The UN is more interested in imposing its will on the United States than
> taking action to protect it. Hell, they won't even enforce their own
> resolutions.

Absolutely right on. This thread has nothing at all to do with 4X4, but I'm
gonna add my 2 cents worth anyway. Omphalos is totally correct in that the
only way to defeat terrorists is with violence. You have speak their
language to make a point. Western Europe (esp France and Germany) doesn't
get it. I'm an old SAC guy (Strategic Air Command, the Nukes R Us gang),
and I have a T-shirt that puts it all into perspective: A pic of a B-52
unloading a bomb bay full of cluster bombs, with the caption: Peace Through
Strength. Victory Through Devastation. Of course, it doesn't have to be
cluster bombs. There are options, and sooner or later, the terriorists and
those countries which harbor and aid them, are going to find out, the hard
way.

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
>government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
>(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
>(a state right?).

Then leave it as that.

The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"

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

Marc <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the federal
> >government. It can't abrogate the right to the free practice of religion
> >(an individual right) nor can it pass law establishing a national religion
> >(a state right?).
>
> Then leave it as that.
>
> The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is recognized by
> the federal government. After recognized by the federal government, they
> receive subsidies from federal, and often state and local governments as
> well. Wouldn't you say that may tend to be "an establishment of religion?"
>
> Marc


All of which is so relevant to jeeps and off-roading.

Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Lately, I hear many people who own Jeeps spouting out this phrase:
>
> "You wouldn't understand man....it's a Jeep thing!"
>
> Ok. I guess I don't really get it. But I am starting to understand
> something about " the Jeep thing".
>
> It seems many(not all) Jeepers want to belong to a group of rugged
> individualists. They feel that having a rugged Jeep sets them apart
> from the rest of society and makes them "different" somehow.
> What is this? Words like "belong" and "group" and "individualists"
> really seem to contradict each other don't they? It seems many
> Jeepers want to be different, just like all the different people.
>
> Here comes Barbi Anne, driving her new pink Jeep onto the gravel
> national forest road. Ken is heading her way in his new blue Jeep,
> and he waves the "jeep wave" to Barbi. Barbi waves back, smiling and
> giggling. "I really belong" , thinks Barbi. " I really belong to
> a group of people that like me for my automobile purchase. I feel
> really good about that." Barbi Anne smiles a faint smile and
> continues down the road. A few seconds later, Outback Johnny passes
> Barbi Anne in his new green Jeep, and waves. Barbi Anne waves back.
> Continuing down the road, Barbi Anne responds to 34 waves from
> Jeepers.
> " It's a Jeep thing!" they all yell at her. " It's a Jeep thing!"
> Further down the road, Barbi Anne's progress is temporarily halted by
> a herd of sheep crossing the road to greener pastures. She listens to
> their bleating and babbling, and observes how they all huddle
> together.
> "baaaaa.....baaaaaaaaa...bleeeeeeeet.......baaaaaaaaa". The sheep
> huddle even closer across the road. " baaaaaaaa...its a jeep
> thing.....
> baaaaaaa.....it's a jeep thing...........be like
> us....baaaaaaaaa..........wave....belong.....chew......ba........baaaaa
> a ......bleeeeeettttt." The sheep babble even louder, then slowly
> pass over a low hill on the horizon. Barbi Anne drives her Jeep down
> the road, glad that she was pressured by friends to belong to the
> "Jeep Thing".
>
> Meanwhile, Jimmy is on a nearby forest road, about to park at a
> turnoff near a fishing stream. Jimmy drives a Chevy 4x4 full size.
> He parks his rig and takes his 6 foot fly rod case out of the bed, and
> unloads his gear. A man in a toyota 4runner drives by and waves.
> The man in the 4runner turns around to talk to the man about the
> fishing. " How do you like the full size chevy?" asks the 4runner
> driver. " I like it just fine". Jimmy responds.
> " how do you like your 4runner?" asks jimmy. " I like it just
> fine",
> says the 4runner driver.
>
> " What thing is it?" asks Jimmy. " It's not ANYTHING," says the
> 4runner driver. "it's just a damn car."

**** that. The Jeep is just another car. There is no, "It's a Jeep
thing." Anyone who says otherwise wants to be in an elite club and is
still living in fairytale land.

On Thu 17 Jul 2003 09:47:35p, "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]>
wrote in 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,

What about the 21st century makes it so special and different from all the
other centuries?

> 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

Of course. Morality is relative. After all, the Nazis did a good job of
proving that.

On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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.
>
> How about bigotry?

Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia', is
an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it has
been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
bestiality, incest, or bigamy.

On Thu 17 Jul 2003 08:09:57p, "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]>
wrote in newsWGRa.9079$Bp2.3056@fed1read07:

>
> "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>: 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.
>:
>: >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.
>
> oh spare me that clap trap. You mean the LIBERALS who were the founding
> fathers" You guys all parrot the same crap. Take your theocratic wet
> dreams and go start another Jones-like christian colony on some
> forgotten island

There is a newsgroup called alt.revisionism that was created for types
like you. If the founding fathers were so 'liberal', then why are the
liberals today always trying to get the Constitution (written by the
'liberal' founding fathers) changed by judges?

Liberals almost never get their agenda passed using the democratic
process. They have to use liberal judges to legislate from the bench.

On Sat 19 Jul 2003 04:28:03a, Marc <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:17:06 GMT, 'nuther Bob
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> That's right, "the liberals" are out to destroy religion. If those
>>> liberal jerks who wrote the Constitution had just left out that part
>>
>> Liberals did not write the constitution.
>
> They certainly did.

If 'liberals' (HAHAHAHAHA, oh, excuse me) wrote the Constitution, then why
are they always trying to get judges to illegally change it?

Must not have been written by the lying libs after all.

On Fri 18 Jul 2003 10:31:25p, 'nuther Bob <[email protected]>
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:45:03 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
>> You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.
>
> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ? The government
> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".
>
> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools

Yes they can. They just can't legalize mandatory prayer.

On Fri 18 Jul 2003 03:03:35p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> 'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 18 Jul 2003 15:03:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
>>> establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.
>>
>>
>> No, no, no! You miss the point Lloyd. They don't want to establish
>> a law establishing a religion, they just want to put prayer in the
>> schools, prayer with the dominant religion in that area, you know,
>> like, say, a Christian prayer. And, maybe a cross on the wall. But
>> that's it, no "religion".
>>
>> Now why would anyone be opposed to Christian prayers in the
>> schools ? I mean, after all, aren't we a Christian country ?
>>
>> Bob
>
> Perhaps they've never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, in the early
> 1800s, signed by Pres. Adams, which said we are not a Christian country.

Unfortunately for your position, the United States was not in any sense
founded on the Treaty of Tripoli. The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli was
John Barlow's, not any elected representative's certainly not any elected
Founding Father. No one knows who invented Article 11, or when, except
that it was created after the Treaty was signed in Tripoli and Algiers; it
does not appear in the original version of the Treaty. Humanists and other
God-haters have latched onto the spurious phrase as if it represented the
belief or opinion of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Even if
those who ratified the Treaty in the United States saw the wording (and
there is no certain evidence they did there is absolute silence from that
period on the matter), it still would not mean that any of them agreed
with every phrase including that one that appeared in the Treaty. Rather
than send the Treaty back to Tripoli (a 2- or 3-month trip at that time,
plus the diplomatic difficulty of getting the Moslems to re-sign a treaty
they didn't like and soon broke) for a single insignificant phrase, it
would have been signed. Finally, the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli that
the Humanists have attached to it is simply factually incorrect; no matter
what the authenticity of the Article 11 might have been, it would have
been factually incorrect for it to have denied the Christian foundations
of the United States. Indeed, this Treaty with Tripoli and other
correspondence from that period and location contained several references
to the US being a Christian nation; one of the legal witnesses of the
Treaty even signed it,

"We Don Gerardo Joseph de Souza Knight of the order of Christ, Consul
General and Charge des Affaires of his Catholic Majesty in this City and
Kingdom of Tripoli of Barbary. Certify That the foregoing signatures and
seals are those of the persons who sign all treaties of peace which are
concluded with Christian Nations."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/bar1796n.htm

So, the idea that the Treaty of Tripoli demonstrates that the US was not a
Christian nation is absurd. The straightforward, simple logic of these
statements has, for some reason (probably spite) eluded the grasp of the
Humanists.

That piece of paper probably wasn't even in North America when Washington
left office. It was signed in Algiers on January 3, 1797. It was then
hand-copied (at least 3 copies were made) and translated into English,
before eventually being sent half-way around the world to the United
States and it could not have been copied and translated along the way to
the United States, because at least one copy (the Cathcart Copy) remained
in the Mediterranean area. The trip itself must have taken months it took
2 or 3 months just to sail that distance, besides any delays along the
way. It would have been quite difficult for the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797
to have arrived in the United States before Washington retired to Mount
Vernon.

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> >That's not what I'm talking about. If homosexuality had the potiential
>for
>> >having an enduring and stable family structure, it would exist somewhere
>on
>> >Earth...laws be damned and bigotry be damned. It doesn't.
>>
>> How did marriage exist before the church and state teamed up to have it?
>>
>
>Proves my point. Before they "teamed up", they certainly weren't there to
>prohibit it. Yet it never emerged.
>
>
>
>> >I remember reading about the issue back when AIDS hit the gay community.
>> >*One* of the reasons it spread so quickly was the rampant promiscuity in
>the
>> >community.
>>
>> And why is that? Because society will not recognize stable relationships.
>>
>
>In San Francisco? Uh, no.
>
>
>> >Oh please. It's not bigotry to believe that it's a tough thing to be
>> >homosexual. Nor does believing it create it. It doesn't mean much to
>wake
>> >up in the morning and think "I'm heterosexual". Much more so for
>> >homosexuals. All the world's cultures have roots in the traditional
>family
>> >structure.
>>
>>
>> Sure, Nazism, Marxism, etc. Jim Jones' "Kool-Aid" cult. The KKK was a
>very
>> traditional family group.
>>
>
>Your point?

That traditional family groups aren't all good.

>
>
>> > To be homosexual is to be outside that "norm".
>>
>> So is to be Jewish, left-handed, or red-headed.
>
>read the sentence Lloyd.

I did. You said homosexuality was not "normal," meaning, I presume, not what
most people are. I gave 3 other examples.

>
>>
>>
>> >Over the
>> >milennia of human existence, no homosexual based culture or "family" unit
>> >has emerged.
>>
>> Perhaps because society kept killing those who dared try?
>>
>> >
>> >> > it won't change anything for them
>> >>
>> >> Don't you think *they're* the ones who should decide that? Or do you
>think
>> >> they're helpless and brainless and unable to determine their own needs?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Biology determines it.
>> >
>> >> > and it would open the gates of chaos for the traditional family and
>the
>> >> > institutions supporting it.
>> >>
>> >> Still waiting for your answer on exactly how two homosexuals getting
>> >> married would affect, in *any* concrete way, your marriage and your
>> >> family.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The problem isn't how me and my wife are hurt if Frank and Sam accross
>the
>> >way are "married". The absurdity of that is obvious.
>> >
>> >Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't
>about
>> >money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns.
>>
>> Then why are those benefits accorded married couples? And are you saying
>> people who are too old to raise a family should be barred from marrying?
>Or
>> if one of the couple is infertile?
>>
>
>Enhances welfare of family. No. No.

So you were lying when you claimed marriage was "about creating a stable place
to raise a a family."

>
>>
>> > To legally redefine marriage
>> >to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground for
>> >imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
>> >believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.
>> >
>> >I'm all for gays being able to solve practical problems such as hospital
>> >visitation or pick their partners children up from school and so on. But
>we
>> >don't need to redefine marriage to get there.
>>
>> Then I take it you support civil unions?
>>
>
>Did I say that?
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>'nuther Bob wrote:
>>
>> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
>> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
>> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ?
>
>Ah - but you changed the words and the meaning to twist it to your
>purpose. "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
>is not the same thing as "shall [may?] not make any law establishing any
>religion". Nice try, but a little too transparent.
>
> The government
>> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".
>
>That's much closer to the meaning of the original wording than your
>earlier paraphrase.
>
>There's two sides to that coin. If they can't make a law respecting the
>establishment of a religion, then neither can they forbid nor demand
>it. If prayer happens it happens, if it doesn't then it doesn't. They
>can't make it happen and they can't forbid it from happening. The most
>they can do is remain silent on it.

True, but the state cannot do anything promoting religion, including promoting
prayer.

>
>> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools...
>
>Nor forbid it if it happens - read the original words (not your
>paraphrase that has a totally different meaning).

It isn't forbidden. It's only forbidden if the state promotes it.

>
>> ...when
>> by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
>> one or more as the source of that prayer.
>>
>> Bob
>
>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]>,
Big Daddy <[email protected]> wrote:
>DTJ wrote:
>
>
>>>You are not only a bigot, but I suspect you cheered on the people who beat
>>>Matthew Shepherd to death.
>>
>> Never. Why would I? By the way, was he gay or something - is that
>> you point?
>
>I'm sick and tired of people telling me I need to accept gays. I don't. I
>won't.

Or blacks either, I bet.


> Therefore, anyone insisting otherwise can go to hell! It's not like
>they're a different race or a handicap or something. I believe that only a
>very few are genetically prone to homosexuality and that most choose to be
>so as a personal choice.

Then when did you choose heterosexuality as a conscious choice?


>Therefore, I don't accept it and never will. I
>don't condone beating someone because they are, however. But, don't blast
>people because they won't accept them.

How about those who don't accept Jews? Religion is sure a personal choice.