This time they have the Salvation Army in their crosshairs.
It seems that the ACLU believes that there should be no religion in a church. Since the Salvation Army is a church group, just like the Boy Scouts. They are attacking again.
When will everyone wake up and see that Christianity is under attack in this country? Who is leading this attack? The ACLU
for more information on the ACLU and the Salvation Army click here. Also note that if the ACLU gets its way, the Salvation Army would be gone. Why should a group be allowed to stop Christians from helping the less fortunate?
If you would like to help me stop the ACLU and the attack on Christianity in the country please click here.
Posted by cwilli at February 11, 2004 01:30 PM | TrackBack"The Bush Administration now wants to allow churches and religious groups to receive taxpayer dollars without the strings that historically have been attached"
Just another reason why I will vote Bush in 2004.
Posted by: cwilli at February 11, 2004 01:32 PMACLU needs to go bye bye.
Posted by: muddy at February 11, 2004 07:49 PM"...if the ACLU gets its way, the Salvation Army would be gone."
If the ACLU gets its way, everyone and every organization that doesn't think the way they do would be gone.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 11, 2004 08:08 PMAlso the article you linked states that the NYCLU is calling for an investigation into allegations of possible religious discrimination against employees in state and city funded social services programs. If they are guilty of religious descrimination then a federal crime has been committed.
They are asking for an investigation, if the NYCLU gets 'it's way' the salvation army will not be gone, it will be subject to an investigation/audiit from the New York State Comptroller. If evidence is found of illegal activities then specific charges may be filed later by the state prosecutor.
These are not privately or religiously funded programs. The Salvation Army, which receives over $89 million in government funding from taxpayers of ALL religions, claims an exemption from anti-discrimination hiring laws because it is affiliated with a church. But when the Salvation Army provides social services with government funding, it cannot engage in religious discrimination either in the provision of such services or in the hiring of employees to provide those services. This is the law in the United States
For 136 years, the Salvation Army's mission has been to meet 'human needs without discrimination,’ that should mean no discrimination in who they help AND no discrimination in hiring practices.
Discrimination is not a Christian value.
bennyhill1978
Eagle Scout
Salvation Army donor
ACLU supporter
bennyhill,
I am not at all surprised that you are an ACLU supporter. I am surprised that you would support an organization that is fighting to lower the legal age for consentual sex to thirteen and defends a repeated, registered sex offender when he sodimized a 14 year old boy leaving him DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED.
Read about that here:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/feb/04020410.html
and here:
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1388
I am also surprised that you are were a Boy Scout and are not outraged by the ACLU's attack on them. The ACLU went after the Boy Scouts for 2 reasons. First they do not allow gay's into the Boy Scouts. To do so would open the Boy Scouts to hugh liabilities and possibly shut them down. Second they are a religious organization. They attacked the Boy Scouts in San Diego and stopped the City of San Diego from renewing its lease to Balboa Park. This park that the city had leased to them for the last 25 years. Now instead the ACLU bullied the City of San Diego into canceling the lease (which included a state-of-the-art swimming pool and a 600-seat outdoor amphitheater that the Scouts had built) and of course the ACLU walked away nearly 1 million dollars from the taxpayers of San Diego in legal fee’s. Now Balboa Park is home to the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Festival that was held last summer at the Park.
They were able to do this because they proved that the Boy Scouts was a religious organization. Therefore the city could not lease the park to them.
Read more about that here
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5090/CFI/family/
Now the ACLU wants to stop the Salvation Army because they are a religious organization. They claim that they are discriminating against employees by requiring them to fill out a piece or paper indicating a religious orientation, ANY religious orientation. THE SALVATION ARMY IS A CHURCH. The Salvation Army is also very widely known for being VERY religiously diverse. But since they are a church a belief in religion is necessary. It has been the same way for over a hundred years. Also there has not been one case of discrimination filed against the Salvation Army because people realize that to work at a church you probably need to be religious.
Notice what these storys common? Religion and homosexuality. The ACLU wants to remove religion from our society. Why? Because it is the ACLU’s agenda to remove religion from our society altogether and make sure that in every public place there is some kind of pornography. (Don’t believe me, read it here http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1146) And it happens to be pornography that promotes homosexuality, well that would be a bonus for them.
If the ACLU gets its way the Salvation Army and every other religious organization like it will be gone.
President Bush said that he wants to allow churches and religious groups to receive taxpayer dollars without the strings that historically have been attached. This means that more church groups are going to be getting government contracts and more money. In order to work at a church you have to be religious.
If you have a problem with the churches getting federal money because of that then you don’t have a problem with the church, you have a problem with the government. But we already knew that.
Let it be known that the ACLU also has a problem with the government. In fact they files a complaint against the United States with the United Nations because we deported some people whose visa had run out. Read about that here. (http://www.techcentralstation.com/021004D.html)
Is this the same ACLU that you support?
Correction: The 14 year old boy was already developmentally disabled when he was sodimized by his adult attacker.
Posted by: cwilli at February 12, 2004 03:02 AMI could find no verifiable evidence that the ACLU wants the age of sex consent to be 13.
With regards to Kansas' Matthew Limon, repeated sex offender and statutory rapist: the ACLU never defended him, they do feel his punishment was too harsh and they are helping him appeal his sentence. Matthew Limon is appealing a 206-month prison sentence he received shortly after turning 18 because while he was a resident at a private school for developmentally disabled youth he performed CONSENSUAL oral sex on another teenager. Limon would have served a maximum of 15 months in jail under the Kansas law had the other teenager been female. But because the "Romeo and Juliet" law applies only to heterosexuals, Limon was convicted under the much harsher state sodomy law.
So the ACLU is simply saying that it is wrong for him to do 15 years more in prison than he would have been given if his CONSENTUAL sex partner had been female.
"Contrary to Attorney General Phill Kline’s many efforts to confuse the real issues behind this case, we’re not saying the state shouldn’t protect teens or punish those who break the law. We are only asking that the state treat gay teens the same as it does straight teens," said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "Matthew Limon isn’t asking for a get-out-of-jail free card - he’s saying he should have been convicted and punished - under the Romeo and Juliet law."
again, both the 14 year old boy and the 17 year old boy were students at the developmentally disabled school, they were both consenting to the sex, the 17 year old one who 'gave' the blowjob was put in jail for 15 years. If he had sex with an underage female the punishment is 15 months. The ACLU is not trying to legalize rape, they are trying to remove a loophole that gives 15 years of additional jail time to statutory rapists if they are homosexual. The ACLU believes the punishment should be the same no matter if you are gay or straight.
When i was a scout we never wasted time at city parks, the Boy scouts has plenty of land of it's own.
The city of SD has given the Scouts nearly 70 years of exclusive use of 18 acres of prime park property in city-owned Balboa Park for $1 per year and free use of an aquatic facility on city-owned Fiesta Island in Mission Bay through preferential leases. The Balboa Park lease also contains a provision that terminates the lease if any court issues a final judgment finding the lease illegal. The taxpayers have paid the bill, and the scouts have got 70 years worth of free rent.
"The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways," said ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens of the law firm Stock, Stephens, LLP. "Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and non-believers is essential to their mission, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination."
I believe that the scouts have the right to exclude certain people only as long as they are not getting public money. This 1$ per year lease is a sweetheart of a deal- for 70 years the taxpayers have been picking up the tab - in those 70 years the scouts should have had plenty of time to save up and buy their own land like the scouts do everywhere else.
The ACLU does not want to remove religion from society, they want to remove tax dollars from discriminating religious groups. since taxpayers are made up of all religions, sexes and races, it is unfair for a specific religious group to take tax dollars and use them to its own selfish agenda. That is why it is important to look at the salvation Army in New York and verify that they are not discriminatiing, I hope they are not giulty of this crime but if the NYCLU 'gets its way' then there will be an investigation to find the truth.
The ACLU believes (and the LAW of the US also states) that if taxpayer dollars are given to an organization like the Scouts or Salvation Army, then those organizations must obey the amendments to the constitution and therefore can not discriminate based on religion(1st amendment), race (13th and 14th amendment), or sex (17th amendment).
It seems like Mr Bush would like to see those amendemts sidestepped as he proposes to give tax money to 'faith based' organizations that do not believe in religious, racial or sexual equality. And remove the 'strings that historically have been attached' such as the amendments to the constitution. Somehow, when the ACLU is fighting to enforce the constitution and Bush is fighting to negate the constitution you see it as the ACLU trying to 'bring down' america.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at February 12, 2004 11:43 AMBTW: A bunch of naked people laying down to be briefly photographed in the shape of a peace sign is not homosexual pornography, it is art.
It is a sick world when people find naked bodies more disturbing than war.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at February 12, 2004 11:47 AMI totally disagree. An adult had sex with a minor. There are laws against that in every state. I dont think it was a too harsh punshment because the 13 year obviously didnt have the mental capability to understand what was going on. If it had a member of your family, I am sure you would see it differently.
A bried was filed in Kansas to lower the age:
"According to the Kansas Attorney General, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a brief with a Kansas state appeals court arguing that the state’s sexual age of consent laws should be lowered to thirteen years of age."
Also the ACLU did, and still continue to defend him:
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11169&sd=02/03/04
"Tamara Lange, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Limon, said she is likely to ask the Kansas supreme court to review the decision, though she has not ruled out asking the court of appeals to reconsider. "This decision is not a victory for morality or a victory for Kansas," she said. "It's a victory for prejudice and fear."
You and I live in a different world, bennyhill. What I find funny is that you are the one of the biggest conspiracy theorists that I have ever met. Yet when it comes to the ACLU and the left wing media: 'there could not possibly be an agenda'.
I respect your opinion but I believe that you are being, well, baboozled.
I looked up the ACLU and it's brief history from several web sites, one of them being the one cwilli provided. Both were in a chronological format, but one seemed to be filled with more prejudice and hate.
As far as homosexuality, cwilli, I too hated fags, queers, and dikes. I also used to hate niggers, spics, jungle monkeys, rednecks, and sand niggers. It wasn't until I looked inward and questioned if stereotyping and bigotry was a useful behavior. I have come to believe that it is not.
Such behaviors still flourish in the world regardless of what many people say.
However, let me keep this simple, at least for myself, for I am really trying to understand why you would have a problem with the same organization that fought for the rights of woman, African Americans, and Native Americans. Perhaps your hatred for what the ACLU stands for is selective. This conforms nicely to modern religion. It is interesting that everyone claims to practice and know the word of their god, but yet there are so many versions of that word. If it were the word of god...wouldn't it be absolute truth and devoid of misinterpretations?
Who knows?
This debate was posted by cwilli and has, as it's components, the role of the Gov't and the hatred of either Christians or of homosexuals.
I think we can agree on the following: (I number them, because I anticpate cwilli will totally disagree, and I ask him to refernce to which number he disagrees with and state why).
1.More people have killed in the name of god than in the name of homosexuality.
2.More people will die in the name of god than in the name of homosexuality.
3.Religion is a man made institution and thus – as history shows us – is open to human interpretation, manipulation and fallibility.
4.Homosexuality is something that is found throughout nature, and is thus made by the creator – some call that creator god – those who call it god simultaneously believe that god is infallible – thusly it would be hard to suggest that homosexuality is evil, worthy of punishment, or even wrong.
5.War is a man made phenomon, and many feel war is right, or at least more right than homosexuality. Yet war is one of the few things humans do not share with nature while homosexuality is.
6.The primary purpose of the Gov't SHOULD be to serve and protect it's citizens (this is open to debate since corporations have more rights than living citizens).
7.Citizens are the people who live within the borders of which the Gov't is responsible.
8.The collection of taxes helps the Gov't fulfills it's duties.
9.Citizens pay those taxes.
10.Religious institutions are primarily tax exempt, while most citizens are not.
11.Homosexuals are people.
12.Religious institutions are not.
Thusly, I conclude, that it is the inarguable DUTY of the Gov't to protect the rights of homosexuals over the rights of religious institutions.
You know, it wasn't until last week that I even had the courage to look up homosexuality on the Internet. Partly because I was scared of what someone would think if they ever found out that I was interested in what this whole debate was about, and to find out where my own hatred came from. But the truth is, that so much bigotry would be non-existent if ignorance was stamped out. Perhaps that is why some would rather spend billions on neutron bombs and constitutional amendments banning gays from marrying than on education for everyone.
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEIR POWER IS SO VERY FRAGILE AND THE ONLY WAY TO PERSIST IS TO KEEP THE MASSES IGNORANT, DIVIDED, AND SCARED.
Cwilli, hating fags is nothing new. Perhaps if both of us were born in different lands at different times we might share a debate about how those damn Jews ruin everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany
Would Jesus be as cool if he lived today?
Remember, he was “supposedly” celibate and lived with 12 dudes.
I think one story went that they went to some garden late at night, what if that garden was Balboa Park?
Cwilli, would you call Jesus a fag, or have a problem with the Gov't protecting his rights?
The Boy Scouts may be similar to the Nazi's Youth organizations. What do you think?
Cwilli, perhaps if you spent half the time hating the powerful instititutions that peddle war and bigotry as you do hating those who are victims of those wars and bigotry you'd actually make the world a different place, rather than just (how do you say it?)...bitching about it?
Remember when you said you'd rather have your little girl watch two people try to kill each other on TV than watch two woman kiss? Don't you see something terribly wrong with that?
What would Jesus say? I think he'd rather see two people demonstrate acts of love rather than acts of hate. But who's to say?
Peace out, and keep the hatred alive.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 17, 2004 10:18 PMJust out of curiousity:
The ACLU was one of the groups that supported that Ten Commandments plaque being removed in Alabama (this past summer, I believe...or something like that) because the ACLU were trying to protect the "law of separation of church and state" (which is NOT in our constituion). However, with these gay marriages going on in San Francisco...a move that goes against the state law according to "Proposition 22" - which, by the way, was passed by the PEOPLE (and NOT a judge) of California. Proposition 22 basically reserves marriages to be only between a man and woman. My question is, who is the ACLU protecting there? Gays right to marriage OR are they protecting the rights of the majority who voted in favor of Proposition 22 ?
Whether you (people in general) agree with the law or not is irrelevant and not my point. The point is, it IS the law in California and the rights of the people who voted the law in are being threated.
Like I said, just curious :-)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 19, 2004 01:04 PMGREAT THREAD!
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at February 19, 2004 03:03 PMBamboozled,
I have neither the patience nor the inclination to debate against your incoherent ramblings. Since you like to use bullet points so much here is one for you
1. We disagree on most things. This is one of them
2. I don’t care to try to change your mind. Good luck with your life.
3. When your posts are that long, I don’t read them.
Quick Poll:
Which of these would you rather have to explain to your child between the ages of 5-7?
1. Violence
2. Homosexuality
Bamboozled, cwilli:
I'm going to stick my nose in here for a moment (boy, isn't *that* just like a woman :-P)
"Which of these would you rather have to explain to your child between the ages of 5-7?"
1. Violence
2. Homosexuality
Trust me, cwilli, I completely understand. Not to mention having to explain what a kidnapper and pedophile is and what it means to be touched "inappropriately".
Bamboozled, the way I feel about cwilli's "quick poll" is like someone asking me, "Hey, would you rather have to deal with a migraine or an acute ear infection" (which I'm thinking was cwilli's point - or maybe not but that's how *I* took it).
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 19, 2004 09:19 PMCwilli, hmmm... didn't God, the dude who created the Universe and everthing in it Destroy some cities back in the day because they embraced and welcomed Homosexuality????
(maybe we need to move before it gets hot up in here)
Just thinking out loud.
Posted by: muddy at February 19, 2004 09:20 PMExactly, on both comments.
Posted by: cwilli at February 19, 2004 09:34 PMBamboozled:
Ok, here it goes. I just *know* I'm going to regret asking this but.....
"4.Homosexuality is something that is found throughout nature..."
Where? Actually, what is your definition *of* "nature"
"and is thus made by the creator"
What "proof" do you have to support this theory?
"Would Jesus be as cool if he lived today?"
No...He would be hated by the "top officials" ...just like He was back then. He was only "cool" to His followers and in the end ( right before Jesus was crucified) some of His followers were afriad to admit to knowing Him.
"Remember, he was “supposedly” celibate and lived with 12 dudes. I think one story went that they went to some garden late at night, what if that garden was Balboa Park?"
Gesh, dude, don't be shy, come out and say what your really insinuating.
And, by the way, if you think a little harder, you might remember that it was the garden of Gethsemane. It was also just right before His own crucifixion and He even left the disciples for a time so He could pray to His father - alone.
Believe it or not, I'm not yelling at you nor am I mad. I would just like to know if you would care to elaborate on this?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 19, 2004 10:02 PMHrmm, Balboa Park in San Diego?
Read the Bible a little closer. Remember Lazarus two sisters? I think one of them had a crush on Jesus - but that's just me. Celibate? Depends on your definition of celibacy. The Bible really says zero about Jesus' love life. Most people just assume he was unmarried. (Probably correctly.) But then again most people assume he was poor - but he wasn't. His ministry had enough money that he needed a treasurer (Judas.) His clothes were nice enough that people were gambling to see who could keep them!
Posted by: skywalker at February 19, 2004 11:07 PMI have one (edited part: there is actually many more than one word) word for all of this...EXACTLY!
Bamboozled,
I have neither the patience EXACTLY nor the inclination EXACTLY to debate against your incoherent ramblings ( EXACTLY – why not?). Since you like to use bullet points so much here is one for you
We disagree on most things. This is one of them
2. I don’t care to try to change your mind. Good luck with your life.
3. When your posts are that long, I don’t read them. EXACTLY
Quick Poll:
Which of these would you rather have to explain to your child between the ages of 5-7?
1.Violence
2. Homosexuality
EXACTLY
Posted by cwilli at February 19, 2004 08:36 PM
Bamboozled, cwilli:
"Which of these would you rather have to explain to your child between the ages of 5-7?"
1. Violence
2. Homosexuality
Trust me, cwilli, I completely understand. Not to mention having to explain what a kidnapper and pedophile is and what it means to be touched "inappropriately".
KIDNAPPING AND PEDOPHILIA ARE VERY DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR, JUST AS RAPE IS...REMEMBER SYKWALKER...HA HA HA.. WHEN IT CAME TO OKINAWA (spelling?).
Bamboozled, the way I feel about cwilli's "quick poll" is like someone asking me, "Hey, would you rather have to deal with a migraine or an acute ear infection" (which I'm thinking was cwilli's point - or maybe not but that's how *I* took it).
ACTUALLY THEY ARE BOTH VERY DIFFERENT THINGS MRS. MUDDY, WHAT YOU POSE AS COMPARISONS ARE BOTH BODILY AILMENTS WHICH ARE ONLY INDIRECTLY RELATED TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND DECISION MAKING. WHAT I WAS ASKING CWILI TO COMPARE WERE A DEMONSTRATION OF HATRED VS. A DEMONSTRATION OF LOVE – UNLESS THEY WERE BOTH DEMONSTRATIONS OF DOMINATION – WHICH IS ANOTHER SUBJECT
Posted by mrs. muddy at February 19, 2004 09:19 PM
Cwilli, hmmm... didn't God, the dude who created the Universe and everything in it Destroy some cities back in the day because they embraced and welcomed Homosexuality???? ---- ACCORDING TO A BOOK THAT WAS WRITTEN BY HUMAN HANDS AND MASS PRODUCED BY THE POWERS THAT HAD THE ETHUSIAM AND MEANS TO MASS PRODUCE THEM.
HERE'S A GOOD LINK DEMONSTRATING THE INFALLIBILTY OF “THE” WORD OF GOD: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/TEXT/111/unit2.rtf
(maybe we need to move before it gets hot up in here)
Just thinking out loud. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS. IT'S EASIER THAN PUTTING PLUSES OR ASTERISKS TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT IS SAID AND WHAT I AM SAYING: I AM THINKING OUT LOUD.
Posted by muddy at February 19, 2004 09:20 PM
Exactly, on both comments. HEY CWILLI, WE AGREE...EXACLTY!!!!
Posted by cwilli at February 19, 2004 09:34 PM
Bamboozled:
Ok, here it goes. I just *know* I'm going to regret asking this but.....
"4.Homosexuality is something that is found throughout nature..."
Where? Actually, what is your definition *of* "nature"
JUST GOOGLE IT:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ekerilaz/theran.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm, OF COURSE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU DEFINE AS HOMESEXUALITY. I KNOW MY DEFINITIONS WERE BOTH ARCHAIC AND PREJUDICE
"and is thus made by the creator"
What "proof" do you have to support this theory? --- THEORY. THEORY. THEORY. THEORY. THEORY. THEORY. THEORY. THEORY. THEORY.
"Would Jesus be as cool if he lived today?"
No...He would be hated by the "top officials" ...just like He was back then. He was only "cool" to His followers and in the end ( right before Jesus was crucified) some of His followers were afraid to admit to knowing Him. ------ EXACTLY. EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY
"Remember, he was “supposedly” celibate and lived with 12 dudes. I think one story went that they went to some garden late at night, what if that garden was Balboa Park?"
Gesh, dude, don't be shy, come out and say what your really insinuating. --- I'M INSINUSATING THAT EVERYTHING IS JUST STORY TELLING. WHICH STORIES ARE BELIEVED? WHICH STORIES DO THEY WANT US TO BELIVE.
And, by the way, if you think a little harder, you might remember that it was the garden of Gethsemane. It was also just right before His own crucifixion and He even left the disciples for a time so He could pray to His father – alone.
ACCORDING TO A BOOK, WHICH EVER IS THE CASE AT LEAST IT MADE YOU THINK.
Believe it or not, I'm not yelling at you nor am I mad. I would just like to know if you would care to elaborate on this?
MRS. MUDDY, I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN YOU BUT YOU SEEM LIKE A VERY LOVELY AND BEAUTIFUL WOMAN. I WOULD NEVER THINK YOU WERE MAD AT ME FOR A MOMENT. LET YOUR STRENGTH SHINE AND STOP APOLOGIZING TO ME. I AM A MAN, YOU ARE A WOMAN, I HAVE FAR MORE OPPORTUNITIES IN LIFE THAN YOU BECAUSE OF OUR PATRIARCHIAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE...GIVE ME AND EVERYONE ONE ELSE HELL AS MUCH AS YOU'RE LOVELINESS DESIRES.
Posted by mrs. muddy at February 19, 2004 10:02 PM
Hrmm, Balboa Park in San Diego?
Read the Bible a little closer. Remember Lazarus two sisters? I think one of them had a crush on Jesus - but that's just me. Celibate? Depends on your definition of celibacy. The Bible really says zero about Jesus' love life. - EXACTLY (THOUGH I'M TAKING YORU WORD ON THAT)-Most people just assume he was unmarried. (Probably correctly.) But then again most people assume he was poor - but he wasn't. His ministry had enough money that he needed a treasurer (Judas.) His clothes were nice enough that people were gambling to see who could keep them! - LOOK AT THE DEMONSTRATION OF VARIABLE HISTORY!!!
Posted by skywalker at February 19, 2004 11:07 PM
I'M JUST GOING OFF WHAT I REMEMBER LEARNING, WHICH YOU HAVE THUSLY DEMONSTRATED IS VERY POSSIBLY FLAWED. WHAT I BELIEVED WAS TRUTH YOU DEMONSTRATED AS NOT SO...I THINK THAT IS WORTH THINKING ABOUT...AFTER ALL, IT IS THE WORD OF GOD...OR IS IT?
OK, FOLLOWING IS THE RESPONSE I HAD POSED AT WORK, AND EMAILED TO MYSELF...THIS WAS MEANT FOR AFTER “GOOD THREAD”
IN REGARDS TO GAY MARRIAGES:
YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
- rights of people vs. rights of institutions
- increased rights of people vs. decreased rights of people
- increase the CONTROL over PEOPLE by INSTITUTIONS
Don't forget the following things used to be acceptable and according to the LAW.
- Manifest Destiny and the annihilation of Native Americans
- women unable to vote
- slavery
- Jim Crow laws
These are just a few.
Remember there was a time and place when people agreed that the state had authority over JEWS.
Of course, the majority of people do not vote.
The laws of the US, collectively, protect the rights of the real minority and that is, the elite!!!
This is what you will find throughout history.
There are many laws that are unjust, the question is, do they INCREASE the rights of individuals, or DECREASE them.
I think the issue at hand is one that DECREASES the rights of the
individuals.
PEACE OUT HOMIES, AND KEEP THE HATE ALIVE.
“HONEY, UM...THEY KISS...UM.. BECAUSE THEY ARE HORRIBLE SINNER....AND UM...HONEY...THEY TRY TO KILL EACH OTHER...UM...BECAUSE...UM, ONE IS A SINNER...AND UM...THE OTHER...IS UM...RIGHTEOUS.”
WHICH ONE DADDY?
WELL BOTH THE WOMEN ARE SINNERS...UM...SEE...DEAR... AND UM....THE ONES WITH THE GUNS...YEAH...UM...SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER...WELL...UM....THE GOOD ONES HAVE THOSE COLORS...AND UM....THE BAD ONES HAVE THOSE COLORS...”
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 20, 2004 01:30 AMdamn, that came out like shit...sorry...it didn't look as bad in Open Office Word Editor.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 20, 2004 01:31 AMFolks, if you are able to, please forgive the absolute horrendous manner in which my last post is presented. It was late and I was tired and a little intoxicated.
Lesson to be learned: restraint. I should have restrained and gathered my composure and presented my ideas in a more reasonable fasion.
Sorry.
Skywalker. I have two very good friends who are lesbians and both in Kuwait. One wanted to go, the other went an behalf of the woman she loves...and this was after being volunteered by her love. I talk to both of them for hours and have come to learn that both demonstrate a level of dedication, maturity, tolerance, inteligence, and compassion that made me think alot. It made me realize a few things.
1. Had I not known them personally, I might have never known one was gay/bi-sexual.
Lesson: There are more homosexuals and bi-sexuals than I ever thought existed. Society sets up certain rules that doesn't provide people to be open about who they are often. This society is very cruel in that regard, just as it was cruel to Native Americans, Africans, Irish, Jews, Italians, Japs, and Arabs. Many societies are like this, but this happens to be ours and we are very capable of alleviating the hatred.
2. I call one of them "G." G told me that in their barracks there are either sluts or gays - I am not sure if those labels cover "every" person, but the point is...people are living beings, thus here is an example of homosexuality in nature. If it wasn't an issue...then it wouldn't be an issue.
3. Of the openly homosexual people I've met, they tend to be very inteligent and kind. Now, to say they all are, is just as dangerous as saying they all are sinners. The point being is that I have come to believe that those who are open with who they are demonsrate a level of liberation in a very intolerant world. Blacks, redskins, and yella's can do nothing about the shapes of their eyes, their noses, or the color of their skin. Even though they may personally feel proud of who they are, many societial factors and institutions continue to deny them equal rights and opportunities. Sexuality and gender identity is different because often it is entirely choice. A term used is "right of passage" meaning that not everyone has to be open about their gender or sexual identity (there is a difference).
Lesson: Those who are open should be shown a tremendous amount of respect for the amount of courage they have to be open in such a cruel society. Since their liberation, often, is entirely by choice and since many have lived trying to rationalize the hatred in our society, they tend to be more personable, tolerant, and kind. It seems many of them recongize the futility of bigotry.
4. I went out with G when she came home for a family issue. Though I know that she is a "homo" we got along great and I was highly sexually attracted to her. I would like to think also that her flirting with me suggests she may have been to me as well.
How could I be attracted to a lesbian?
How could she demonstrate bi-sexual behavior?
Lesson: Though three years ago I thought I had the world figured out, I really didn't. 9/11 made me ask "why?" People are very different and diversity is broad. Sexual and gender identity are not was is provided to us by religion or archaic dogmas. Though I believe decisions themselves are binary in nature, the human species as a collective is not. I think that just as the rights of ALL people/individuals should be protected, especially over intitutions that peddle war, racism, bigotry, and fear.
This is essentially my argument. What ever the topic or what ever the situation, I will "want" to argue the rights of individuality and human beings. I say want, because as this thread demonstrates, we don't live in a society where such a taboo and scary subject can be discussed. Over the last 3 years I have learned alot about hate...and all I was doing was trying to figure out what would possess someone to fly planes into buildings.
What would possess someone to want war?
What would possess someone to want poverty?
What would possess someone to want hate?
What would possess someone to hate because of skin color?
What would possess someone to hate because of what they do in their private lives?
What would possess someone to hate and enslave women?
Here are some lyrics from a group called Spearhead. I stumbled upon this group because Playboy had an article about songs that were acutally black listed. The group is all about celebrating diversity. I have realized that the fear to be comfortable with diversity is something that fuels ALOT of this hate.
"Well politicians got lipstick on the collar
the whole media started to holler
but I don't give a fuck who they screwin' in private
I wanna know who they screwin' in public "
Like bennyhill1978 said, it's a scary world where naked bodies and sex is more offensive than war.
Bomb The World
please tell me the reason
behind the colors that you fly
love just one nation
and the whole world we divide
you say you're "sorry"
say, "there is no other choice"
but God bless the people them
who cannot raise their voice
(chorus)
we can chase down all our enemies
bring them to their knees
we can bomb the world to pieces
but we can't bomb it into peace
whoa we me even find a solution
to hunger and disease
we can bomb the world to pieces
but we can't bomb it into peace
violence brings one thing
more more of the same
military madness
the smell of flesh and burning pain
so I sing out to the masses
stand up if you're still sane !
to all of us gone crazy
I sing this one refrain
(chorus)
and I sing power to the peaceful
love to the people y'all
power to the peaceful
love to the people y'all
(chorus)
Oh-my, oh-my God!
out here mama they got us livin' suicide
singin' oh-my, oh-my God!
out here mama they got us livin' genocide
Oh My God
Slam bam I come unseen
but like gasoline you can tell I'm in the tank
like money in the bank
I smell appealing, but I'm toxic, can send ya reeling
without an inklin', keep ya thinkin'
'cause you gave cash to the feds, left your school district for dead
fucked you up in the head, but still they sayin' nothin's wrong
sellin' firewater but outlawing the bong
still believing the system is workin'
while half of my people are still outta workin'
anonymous notes left in the pockets and coats
of judges and juries from 'Frisco to Jersey
threats and protests politicians mob debts
trumped up charges and phoney arrests
stage a lethal injection, the night before the election
'cause he got donations from the prison guard's union
(chorus)
Listen in to my stethoscope on a rope
international lullabies, human cries
thumps and silence, the language of violence
algorithmic, cataclysmic, seismic, biorhythmic
you can make a life longer, but you can't save it
you can make a clone an then you try to enslave it?
stealin' DNA samples from the onborn
and then you comin' after us
'cause we sampled a James Brown horn?
scientists who's God is progress
a four-headed sheep is their latest project
the CIA runnin' like that Jones from Indiana
but they still won't talk about that (Jim) Jones
(People's Temple mass suicide) in Guyana
This ain't no cartoon
no one slips on bananas
do you really think that that car killed Diana
hell I shot Ronald Reagan, I shot JFK,
I slept with Marilyn (Monroe) she sung me happy birthday
singin'
(chorus)
Well politicians got lipstick on the collar
the whole media started to holler
but I don't give a fuck who they screwin' in private
I wanna know who they screwin' in public
robbin', cheatin', stealin'
white collar criminal
McDonald eatin', you deserve a beatin'
send you home a weepin', with a fat bill for your
Caribbean weekend
for just about anything they can bust us
false advertising sayin' "halls of Justice''
you tellin' the youth don't be so violent
then you drop bombs on every single continent
mandatory minimum sentencin'
'cause he got caught with a pocket fulla medicine
do that again another ten up in the pen
I feel so mad I wanna bomb an institution
singin'
(chorus)
Peace out everyone.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 20, 2004 08:26 AMbamboozled: one of my best friends in the world is gay. I would not have known if he had not told me. So what's your point?
Posted by: skywalker at February 20, 2004 08:56 AMSkywalker...ouch. After all that, perhaps everyone is right that I really don't make sense with all my rambling. Sorry about that.
OK. Let's try this - and by no means read this with sarcasm.
Point:
The ACLU, as far as I understand it, is an organization that represents individuals that normally don't get sufficient representation. Historically, this seems to have included women, people of color, and in the case of this debate, the mentally handicapped and homosexuals.
I think it is dangerous to desire the abolition of the ACLU.
If you have not noticed, I call into doubt the qualification and utility of any institution, so I encourage the scrutiny of the ACLU. It seems the ACLU would encourage it as well. At the same time, I think it is important to understand the function of this organization in relation to the rights of individuals. If their function is to represent the rights of individuals and one desires the organization to become non-existent, then the function would become non-existent. I think their function of representing the rights of the underrepresented is just as important now with homosexuals as it was (and still is) with blacks, Asians, and women.
CWilli, I am hard pressed to imagine you would have a problem with this position. Or I should say I am hard pressed to imagine what your argument against it would be.
Skywalker, you say you have a friend who is gay, so in your case, if you friend was ever discriminated for that fact, it is the ACLU and organizations like it that would be the "representative force" that would champion you're friend's rights. So if CWilli get's his way, and another organization does not fill that void, then one day your friend may have a much more difficult life because of lack of representation.
I hope this makes sense.
Lastly, in the headlines today is the issue of gay marriages.
Marriage started as a religious institution, which melded into being a civil institution. Some people who want smaller Gov't don't seem to recognize a contradiction when they want the Gov't to intervene in peoples' personal lives. If two people wish to make a public-religious declaration of their dedication, then it should be entirely up to the rules and regulations of that particular private/religious institution. If two people wish to make a public-civil declaration of their dedication, then civil rules should apply. Many of the civil rules that exist today, as in this case, are religiously bases and bleed over into civil decision making. This seems to be a clear violation of the idea of a separation of church and state. If one were to suggest that the rules against homosexuality and gay marriages were not religiously motivated, then I would pose a question of how homosexuality affects civil functions. Here is where one may suggest that it is immoral. Morality as a function of religion is very open to debate and subjective. However, morality in a civil sense is measured by the protection of the rights of individuals. Two (or more) adult, constenting, gay people getting married or having sex in the privacy of their own homes does not infringe on the rights of anyone.
In the case of gay marriages we can ask ourselves one simple question:
Is the number people with a greater degree of liberty increasing or decreasing?
I think we can all agree that any rule that says "you cannot do that" limits the choice, which is not how I thought a free nation was supposed to function.
We have to ask ourselves who says what is right and wrong, and what purpose does it serve for those to impose their morality on others.
In the case of the retarded guys having oral sex...I don't know the story beyond what was presented in this thread. But here is the beautiful thing about this debate. I think the point that bennyhill and the ACLU makes is that the justice served should not be influenced by the sexual preference of either party. Just as race or gender should not influence similar decision making. We all know that it does happen regardless, just as war happens. But the question is: Do you really want to support something that seems so obviously unfair, unjust, and wrong...just because it happens?
Do you think it is fair to condemn people based on archaic institutionalized dogma which has historically demonstrated itself as a source of hatred and war?
I think that's it. I hope I clarified it.
ACLU = good (so far as it is does not infringe on the well being of others and increases the liberties of indivuals)
Boy Scouts = good (so far as it is does not infringe on the well being of others and increases the liberties of indivuals)
The above was written while at work then emailed to myself. In the mean time I've thought of the following:
I think this is significant and worth thinking about.
Throughout history, ruled and written by men and warriors, there has been war, religion, and misogyny.
We live in a world where aggression is rewarded more than compassion. Those who believe in the after life are often less concerned about this life because they've been taught to consider this life a time to suffer. And, as human nature is, misery loves company.
I think it is time to get another opinion on how this should be done and let others have a go at it. So far things do not look good. I think a more responsible and evolved way to consider our existance as this maybe all we will ever know. And if we consider this our one and only time of consciousness we might appreciate the brevity of it. We may thusly place greater significance and concern for the momentary consciousness of others around the world.
“We promise according to our hopes and perform according to our fears.” - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld (I have no idea who this guy is, he's quoted in this book I'm reading...I'll google it later).
"Time is what we want most, but what alas! we use worst." - William Penn - gotta look him up too.
Thing is folks, this shit aint worth dividing people over. If people want to have fun, let them. There is no sin and there is no after life, we are just apes with a very different social pattern. It is not an insult to us call ourselves apes, rather it is an insult to apes. I mean you have to agree that humans HATE alot and we are messing up this planet.
Peace out, and keep the hatred alive.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED MOVIES:
The Seventh Seal
Ill Gotten Gains
Roots
Blue Velvet
The Wicker Man
Bowling for Columbine
Distorted Morality
Manufacturing Consent
Triump of the Will
Bamboozled:
Actually, I'm going to clarify something *I* mentiond earlier. Of course, after the other comments, my "clarification" will probably be irrelvant but here it goes:
When I responded earlier to "the poll" (what would be easier to explain to my 5-7 yr. old....voilence or homosexuality) by me saying:
"Thats like asking me, 'Hey, would you rather have to deal with a migraine or an acute ear infection'" ...That was my way of saying that both situations would be uncomfortable. Of course, a better comparison would be like asking:
"would you rather sit on a lumpy sofa or a lumpy couch?" Now *that's* a better comparison towards something being just as uncomfortable as explaining voilence and homosexuality to my kids.
Why is uncomfortable for me? Because, as a parent, you walk a fine line on a daily bases. You see, I feel part of my job as a parent is to give my children a good and healthy childhood. One of the ways I do that is in helping them preserve their innocence. Of course, life is harsh...I'm not complaining but it is reality. Life also demands that the older you get, the more innocents you give up. It's a catch 22 for parents in the way that explaining voilence and homosexuality ( I also mentiond kidnapping and pedophilia but I was doing more ranting about those two than trying to make a point with them) means that we have to be the ones to *take* their innocents away by trying to explain to them what is right and wrong. At the same time, teaching them NOT to be judgmental and prejudice towards individuals. Basically, I believe that parents and teachers have the responsibility to *lead* children by teaching them HOW to think and not WHAT to think.
Like I said though, we do have to teach them what is right and wrong and when it comes to homosexuality, I do believe it is wrong. Does that make me prejudiced toward gays? No, because I do not think myself supperior to them nor do I hate them. They are God's creations just the same way that I am and hating is not an option. Actually, I *could* choose to hate them (or anyone for that matter) but choosing to hate would mean choosing to be out of the will of God...for hating is NOT of Him. As a matter of fact, I believe that ANYONE who says they hate gays and also claim to follow Christ are just fooling themselves and are lying.
The bottom line for me is that homosexuality is something that I just personally don't agree with. Of course, I don't agree with the polygamy life style either and I also don't hate them for their choice. Do I care if someone is gay? No. I don't give a rat's ass if someone is gay (of course I don't think they want to receive a rat's ass so I'll leave the rat out of it :-P ). Nor do I care what goes on in the privacy of someone's house and bedroom. As long as they're not hurting anyone and the people are consenting adults...let them do what they want. Whether they be gay, straight or bi. If someone wants to have sex with a person of the same sex - fine. If that same sex couple want to swing with another same sex couple - I don't care. If they all want to swing while *listening* to swing music - fine. That's *their* business and NOT mine.
I'll also go a step further, and this one may even suprise my Muddy. I don't even care if the state(s) makes gay marriages legal. Why? Because I personally believe that even if the state would make it legal...God would not accept the union (as it was He who created marriage and not a religious institution) so it doesn't really matter to me *what* the state thinks it can do in this case.
Oh and by the way....something I just *have* to tease you about:
"Playboy had an article about songs that were acutally black listed"
Playboy, huh? It's so refreshing to hear that the talent of the journalist who wrote the article in playboy did not go undetected by you :-) It's good that you get the whole "well-rounded" experience of what the magizine has to offer....a nice visual with educational articles that make you think :-D
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 20, 2004 08:43 PMMrs Muddy, If you absolutely had to pick between the explaining to your child why someone broke into a house and hurt the occupants or why two girls were kissing and touching each other, which would you pick?
Posted by: cwilli at February 20, 2004 09:05 PMcwilli:
LOL! Sorry, I'm not laughing at you but - are we still on that....of course, I guess I *did* keep the ball rolling.
Uh, in all honesty (not trying to be hard to get along with) - neither one AND both - but I would end up explaining both. Not because I would *want* to but because I know *both* situations happen in the world everyday and I would rather my kids get an explaination from me and/or Muddy than to hear it from someone else. Dude, I'm really not trying to avoid giving you a *direct* response but I've actually been in the situation where I *have* had to explain both circumstances. What I usually do first is to try to keep them from hearing/seeing either instance - usually, I'm pretty successful. However, when that Maddonna/Britany kiss took place, I did not see it live but I saw a replay on the news. My kid happend to be in the room and saw it before I could get to the remote. So before I showed *my* reaction, I asked my kid what their thoughts were on the subject. The response I got was:
"That's gross. Why would two girls want to kiss each other?"
I said something to the extent that that's the way some people live. My kid responded by rolling the eyes and walking away with a simple chuckle and a:
"Whatever. That's still gross."
As far as someone breaking into a house to hurt the occupants. I usually remind them that even though Muddy and I teach that people should respect each others property as if it were their own as well as treating others the way you want to be treated - some people don't respect anything or anyone. Those people don't care what or who they hurt and that it is not the way God wants us to live. I also inform her that in that instance, a person has every right to defend themselves in any way they can....but that last sentence is beside the point.
Sorry cwilli, I know I'm rambling in the way you always accuse Bamboozled of doing all the time but the truth is Bamboozled and I both took a class on rambling 101 so that is why we are both a pro at it :-)
Seriously though, haven't you been in similar situations with your own kid(s)? Did you ignore it or explain it....because you've gotta know (because you're too smart of a guy NoT to know) that kids see and hear more than what we may think they do. Wouldn't you rather explain it to them in the way that is consistant to your beliefs than to have them hear it else where? Then again, I'm sure you do explain things to them....some things are just unavoidable.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 20, 2004 10:14 PMMrs Muddy, you were not rambling the same way Bamoozled does. He fades in and out of topic and may even throw in a song or two. You, as always, were educated and to the point.
I have in fact been in that situation. The reason I ask the question is because I have been flamed for my answer to that same question when it asked of me from Baboozled. I told him that I would rather have to explain violence than homosexuality. He instantly determined that I was ‘sick’ because "how could you possibly teach hate instead of love". The fact of the matter is that violence is not always hate and homosexuality is not always love.
When a child is 5 years old I would rather explain to them that people are violent to each other on this planet. The reason to teach them this is for their safety. I can teach them not to go up to a car when someone is offering candy. I can tell them why. The why part would be the violence part and this is only ONE example. I can teach them that sometimes people will try to trick them to get them away from their parents. Teaching them this can, and does, save lives. Anyone who does not teach his or her kids this PROACTIVELY should not be a parent. How can explaining homosexuality save a child from a bad situation? I am not going to proactively teach my 5 year old about homosexuality until they are ready. They are ready when THEY ask.
Not teaching them violence can cost them their lives. Not teaching them about homosexuality will never cost them their lives.
That is why I would RATHER teach them violence over homosexuality. Now if one of my kids asked about it would I tell them? I both have and would. I tell them that it is not something that I choose for myself and the God does not approve of it. Again 'my God'.
Also there is nothing more hypocritical than someone who does not have kids telling you what you should teach them and someone who does not believe in God telling you what you should believe. That being say, Mrs Muddy, I happen to know you fall into both categories. So let me ask you, Do you find anything wrong with what I have said?
My gay friend doesn't like the ACLU. He's a pretty devout conservative. He doesn't see where homosexual have less rights than heterosexuals. Descriminated against? I've been descriminated against, do you hear me bitching? No.
Posted by: skywalker at February 20, 2004 11:51 PMCwilli:
"Do you find anything wrong with what I have said?"
No. Nothing at all. As a matter of fact, *everything* you just stated makes perfect sence.
As far as explaining the violence of this world to a child - I 100% agree. Personally, that's the one job duty as a parent that sucks doesn't it? I mean, I don't know what I hate more:
a) trying to teach my kids saftey by *educating* them on violece and doing it without scaring them have to death.
OR
b) knowing I have to educate my kids because of some monster who is out there who not only doesn't give a damn about my child (or anyone elses) but who has now had the audacity to leave *me* holding the bag so that now I *have* to explain *their* actions to my children.
Yeah. you know, I think that's the part that pisses me off the most. You?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 21, 2004 12:07 AMMrs Muddy, you hit it right on the head earlier when you said
"I feel part of my job as a parent is to give my children a good and healthy childhood. One of the ways I do that is in helping them preserve their innocence."
That could not have been said any better. You have to really walk the fine line between teaching them enough to keep them safe and too much that makes them grow up too fast. I wish every American felt that exact same way.
This post has really drifted off course. I would like to put it back on course:
I believe that the lines are being drawn as we speak for what is coming. On one side we have illegal gay marriages and the ACLU defending sex offenders and systematically removing morality from our country in the name of civil liberties. On the other side we have The Passion and the raising Christian movement in this country.
Better get your house in order. It wont be long.
Posted by: cwilli at February 21, 2004 01:59 AMMrs. Muddy the reason for not hating someone shouldn't be due to a divine mandate. The reason for not hating someone should be a conscious decision based on whether or not the criteria being used to judge are legitimate enough to cause hate. Notice the contradiction when you suggest homosexuality is wrong, yet it is something created by your god. Is not your god infallible? (Not to be read as an accusatory manner, only a question).
Mrs. Muddy, can you qualify how marriage is not a man made institution? And how god created it? Did god create marriage licenses and marriage taxes? Did he then also create divorce and annulments? How about legal separations? Did god consider battered wives when setting up marriage?
Playboy is nice. Yes, it does encourage the objectification of women and provides a less than realistic stereotype of what beauty is. However, it does have good articles and sometimes I need a break from the reading. Liberalism is sooooo much funner than conservatism.
Cwilli, you totally misrepresented the comparables. “Saddam had weapons ideas written on napkins and the world is safer now that his sons threw themselves under our bombs.” But I'll let it slide, run with it.
Cwilli, I apologize for seeming uneducated and off point. Our conversation consisted of images of two woman kissing each other and two people trying to kill each other. It did not consist of someone's home being robbed, nor a kid getting abducted. Yes, teach your kids that people lie and try to take them away from their parents. But be consistent. How many kids were abducted and taken away from their parents in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and all the other wars. Sure there is no longer a draft, but so far poverty and hi-technology has made the draft unnecessary. So yes, people do like and try to take their kids away from their parents. Does this mean I support kidnapping or teaching your kids common sense? No. I am just looking for consistency.
The use of the word violence I will concede was an inaccurate word to use. How about aggression.
Now, let's set up the scenario, keep it more in line with how our previous conversation went.
Would you rather your kid see two people demonstrating aggression through strangle holds, or witness two women in a loving passionate kiss?
I am not a parent and only an uncle. I give parents much credit because it is one hell-of-a lot of work. I was a kid however, and I do remember what was taught to me and how those teachings seem to be very destructive. Let me give you some examples.
Bryan, the youngest nephew picked up a toy gun, pointed it me, and made a firing noise. Now this is something that should be discussed as early as possible. But telling a kid it's wrong to hurt people but saying it's ok when our military does it lacks consistency. And I would suggest it lacks consistency with the teachings of Christianity as well.
On Thanksgiving (this is long after our conversation), Brady and Kyle got to see each other. They are nephews and love each other very much and have a great deal of fun. They are young and hurt each other and don't know how to share, but over all, they bring much joy to each other's life at least for that brief visit. Brady hugs Kyle and says repeatedly, “I love you Kyle, I love you Kyle.” It was really interesting, because after he said it about 5 times, hugging him, he shifted and said rather, “I like you Kyle. I like you Kyle.”
Now this made me think of a question: What made him actually “scale” down his expression of appreciation for his cousin. Of course he is young, and we adults may say he doesn't know what love is, but I thought maybe it is us adults who actually forgot what love is. So here you have two cousins who feel comfortable hitting each other with swords and pointing guns at each other, but are uncomfortable (at least in this particular case) expressing their appreciation for each other.
Does this mean I support child pornography? No. It means that love is a natural human emotion just as rage is, but for some reason one predominates over the other, and I think this debate demonstrates why that may be.
Maybe I am being defensive, but I can't help but feel that you attack me rather than address the issue being discussed. If calling me dumb and lazy and all that jazz helps you feel better, then that's totally cool with me. I do the same thing. But come on man, keep it consistent and present things accurately.
Cwilli, if you read over our debates I am confident that generally I ask you what your religion says, and I simply asked you how you would interact with your kids in certain situations. Your answers don't make complete sense to me if peace is really your objective, so I ask you. Remember, much of what I type are questions. Questions you have said are irrelevant. I am not telling you what to believe, I simply am asking you to clarify some of the inconsistencies.
For example, you are a Christian, but think asking “What would Jesus do?” is irrelevant?
How so?
Skywalker, I am glad you share this with me. By no means do I intend to make blanket statements. I can only reference my experiences. From this debate and from people I know there is discrimination. If there wasn't, why is it in the headlines? If your friend is comfortable I think that is fantastic. I thought I safely presented my position as referring to the “under-represented,” and Africans, women, Asians, etc. were provided as support to the diversity of this general group. I apologize for not making that clearer.
Also, I cannot hear any bitching. I read and can only imagine it.
Cwilli, the worst thing you can do is say lines are being drawn. We are all so much more alike than we choose to admit. Many issues are issues because they maintain divides among the masses. As long as the masses keep arguing then the elite minority can maintain their supremacy. It's simply a historical and consistent fact. In a totalitarian state the dictator can just mandate order through force. In a democracy you have to “manufacture consent.” This is facilitated when you keep the citizenry in fear of each other. Please, my friend, if there are lines being drawn, do you really want to be on the side of Pontious Pilate?
Or course, maybe we should have a holiday for Pontious Pilate and the Jews, because without the crucifixion Jesus would not be the Christ.
I think we may have to agree to disagree. I maintain my position that the Gov't should not interfere in the private lives of ALL individuals. It's unfortunate that someone with a history of domestic violence can get married all they want, but two women or two men cannot...just because they are two women or two men.
Perhaps the next topic can be abortion and how making it illegal limits rights of individuals and provides more slaves and bullet catchers.
Good night everyone. Peace out, and keep the hate alive.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 21, 2004 03:30 AM++++Does this mean I support kidnapping or teaching your kids common sense? No.++++
I BamB00zLed myself. Ouch, sorry 'bout that.
Bamboozled:
"Mrs. Muddy the reason for not hating someone shouldn't be due to a divine mandate."
Actually, not hating due to "a divine mandate" is sometimes the ONLY way I can personally avoid hate....and I'm not talking about gays on this one at all. I'm talking about people who do evil things...and sometimes even people who treat me like crap though I've done nothing to them. Yes, sometimes I need God to show me how to love them (by reminding me that all though I should hate what they've done wrong....I should love them on the bases only that they have a soul - no matter how lost that soul may be). He does help me especially when all I can do is feel hatred, hurt and resentment towards those person(s).
"Notice the contradiction when you suggest homosexuality is wrong, yet it is something created by your god. Is not your god infallible? (Not to be read as an accusatory manner, only a question)."
No, I didn't take it accusingly...it's a fair question. It is not a contradiction from my standpoint because I feel homosexuality within itself is a sin. Sin does not come from God so He did not create it. Look, I'm more than willing to study this subject more...BUT I will use the word of God to do it. If He shows me I'm wrong in my thinking ( my thinking that I *have* gotten from His word so far that has told me the gay life style is wrong - but that prejudism is also forbidden as well) then I will have no problem in changing my mind.
No, God is not fallible. He is perfect. Which is why He *is* God and NOT man. If He were fallible. ...He would not be worthy or even qualified to *be* God. However, that's how *I* believe :-)
"Mrs. Muddy, can you qualify how marriage is not a man made institution? And how god created it?"
Ah, finally, an easy one :-) However, if you don't believe that the Bible is absolutely true, then your just going to dismiss it as my opinion - which is fine but here it goes. On second thought, Genises chapter 2 explains it better than I could. Particularly in verses 21-25 of Genises chap. 2...it talks about when God made Eve from Adam...because it was..."not good that man should be alone...". So God gave Adam a helper. Like I said, If you wouldn't mind reading it, it explains it better than me :-)
"Did god create marriage licenses and marriage taxes?"
No, no, no. Personally, I don't even believe he "created" a marrage ceremony that requires us to be married by a pastor, prest and so on. In the Bible, it talks of a "wedding fest". It would start off (If memory serves me correctly...I may get a few details wrong so pardon me) with the couple making a covenant to one another....promises that would "bind" them together - you know the "love, honor and charish stuff". Then, they would invite everyone around for a fest that would celebrate their "union" together. Sometimes, the fest would last for days. During this ritual, the groom would then give a dowry to the brides family. Not so the groom could *buy* the bride but so the bride's family could take the dowry and spend it to hire a servant to take their daughters place of whatever work she may have done inside the home ( helping to take care of her younger sibblings, helping out her family in the field...and so on). After ALL of this, the bride and groom would go and consummate their marriage (AHHH...the FUN part :-D Hahaha).
As far as the stuff we do today....it's interresting, but I don't quite believe it's fully needed. It's the covenant that makes two people married and not the words of a pastor...but that's my feeling. Of course, God does want us to abide by the laws of our land...but things are always up for debate and interpretation aren't they.
"Did he then also create divorce and annulments? How about legal separations?"
Dude, life and it's situations are not a "one size fits all" thing. God did, however, create Free Will. Choices. So we need to figure out what is best for us and (hopefully) what God says is best for us (and not *necessarily* listen to the church...for the leaders of the church ARE indeed fallible) and go from there.
"Did god consider battered wives when setting up marriage?"
Don't go there! Battering someone - whether it's husbands beating their wives or wives their husbands - that has NOTHING to do with LOVE. That's anger and being controlling and whichever spouse is being abused needs to run like a bat out of Hell and take the children (if there are any). If God does not want us to abuse "the temple of Christ" (which according to the Bible is our bodies) then why would He want ANYONE to do it for you? Answer? I believe He *wouldn't* want that.
"Liberalism is sooooo much funner than conservatism."
*Mrs. muddy laughs to herself*
I'll bet it is :-D
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 21, 2004 01:54 PMMrs Muddy, I find it nearly impossible to explain reglion to someone who is not ready to accept it. I know before I was ready to accept it I was able to argue against every single facet of religion and I still can. It all boils down to faith. Faith is a hugh leap. It requires someone to believe without proof. Since we live in an age of instant everything and we cannot instanly proof our religion we are seen as incorrect. Thats what frustrates me about explaining religion to someone and why I doubt you will ever satisfy baboozled questions. This is not saying anything bad about baboozled, I am just trying to say that its hard to explain religion to someone who is not ready to accept pure and simple faith as a large part of it.
Posted by: cwilli at February 21, 2004 02:32 PMcwilli:
Trust me, I know, I know. I completely agree and understand what your saying - I just want Bamboozled to understand where *I'm* comming from and how *I* personally feel:-)
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 21, 2004 02:41 PMMrs. Muddy, your definition and understanding of what marriage is about sounds nice. I don't think the states of Massachusetts or California should deny that experience from anyone.
I only brought up battered wives because for so many generations the rules of society, which include marriage, have been written by the powerful, for the most part. Thusly, it tends to be that the rules protect their interests. Throughout history, the interests of most of the rule writers were not the same interests as women's, and that is one reason why domestic violence was and still is such a problem. Many marriages prolong domestic violence because the rules of society don't always protect the rights of the victims. I didn't mean to upset you.
CWilli, I see where you are coming from, and I agree that the ability to accept something without proof is a huge part of accepting religion. However, it seems some people have faith in other institutions other than religion. I think too much faith in any abstract idea is dangerous, especially when the rules of the abstraction are historically provided by the holders of powerr.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 21, 2004 03:27 PMHey, by the way guys, I'm not trying to discredit your beliefs in any way, though I may come off that way. I only suggest it is healthy to scrutinize some of the beliefs and those who teach them.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 21, 2004 03:28 PMBamboozled:
As far as the "battered wife" question went...the thing that got me was that it seemed to come right out of left field somewhere and left me going:
"What the crap was *that* about?"
Don't worry about it, though. Your fine.
"I'm not trying to discredit your beliefs in any way..."
No, I don't take it that way.
"I only suggest it is healthy to scrutinize some of the beliefs and those who teach them."
Hey, it is always good to question beliefs...but in the way (for me anyway) to make sure that one is listening to the actual truth (obviously, for me truth is God...gee you couldn't tell that one huh? :-D ) and not something that man has formed an opinion of and try to pass that opinion off as truth. So it's in that case....questions *can* very well be healthy.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 21, 2004 07:36 PMIs oral sex an aceptable practice as regards to reglion and the bible?
Posted by: Ted at April 21, 2007 11:26 AMIs the practice of Oral Sex acceptable according Christian belief and is there any text in the Bible against it?
Posted by: Ted at April 21, 2007 11:32 AM