Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>
>>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>target of hatred
>>>>
>>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>
>>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>
>>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>
>>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>>right now, today.
>>>>
>>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>
>>>>-DS
>>>
>>>There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>on TV - the white male.
>>>All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>to anyone who watches.
>>>But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>
>>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>
>>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.
>
> So you don't think what I say is right?
> Have you watched TV lately?

Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.

Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>
>>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>target of hatred
>>>>
>>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>
>>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>
>>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>
>>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>>right now, today.
>>>>
>>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>
>>>>-DS
>>>
>>>There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>on TV - the white male.
>>>All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>to anyone who watches.
>>>But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>
>>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>
>>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.
>
> So you don't think what I say is right?
> Have you watched TV lately?

Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.

Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>> out the window.
>>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
>>> this just the perfect unions?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>
>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>
> Matt
>
Actually, being the the scientific field, myself, working for an
biopharm company (maybe not a Fortune 1000 company yet!), i can site
many instances where there is a biological process. Matt, stick to your
computers... three times is a charm, didn't your mother tell you that...

Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 8;271(1554):2217-21.
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality
and promoting female fecundity.
Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C.
Department of General Psychology, Universita di Padova, via Venezia 8,
35100 Padova, Italy.
Arch Sex Behav. 1995 Apr;24(2):109-34. Related Articles, Links


Homosexuality, type 1: an Xq28 phenomenon.
Turner WJ.
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook,
New York 11794, USA.

Biol Reprod. 1996 Jul;55(1):120-6. Related Articles, Links


Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams.
Resko JA, Perkins A, Roselli CE, Fitzgerald JA, Choate JV, Stormshak F.
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Oregon
Health Sciences University, Portland 97201-3098, USA.



Now, Show me real scientific evidence that it is NOT genetic/biological.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>> out the window.
>>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
>>> this just the perfect unions?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>
>
> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
> an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
> often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
> real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
> I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.
>
> Matt
>
Actually, being the the scientific field, myself, working for an
biopharm company (maybe not a Fortune 1000 company yet!), i can site
many instances where there is a biological process. Matt, stick to your
computers... three times is a charm, didn't your mother tell you that...

Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 8;271(1554):2217-21.
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality
and promoting female fecundity.
Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C.
Department of General Psychology, Universita di Padova, via Venezia 8,
35100 Padova, Italy.
Arch Sex Behav. 1995 Apr;24(2):109-34. Related Articles, Links


Homosexuality, type 1: an Xq28 phenomenon.
Turner WJ.
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook,
New York 11794, USA.

Biol Reprod. 1996 Jul;55(1):120-6. Related Articles, Links


Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams.
Resko JA, Perkins A, Roselli CE, Fitzgerald JA, Choate JV, Stormshak F.
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Oregon
Health Sciences University, Portland 97201-3098, USA.



Now, Show me real scientific evidence that it is NOT genetic/biological.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff wrote:
>
> >
> > Just to disabuse you of the notion that all right-leaning voters are
> > Christian activists, let me offer myself up as an example. In my

I don't agree that all right-leaning voters are Christian activists.

> > agnostic view of the world (true agnosticism, by the way -- I'm not
> > someone who "just doesn't know" about God's existence, I have an
> > opinion...) the Alabama judge who wanted his biblical sculpture in the
> > courtroom ought to have been vilified. I voted for Bush, proudly, and

Bush is a Christian activist. While you may certainly be conservative and
not
wanting to be a Christian activist, your voting for Bush is voting contrary
to
what you are stating you believe in.

> > will probably vote for conservative candidates well into the foreseeable
> > future, but I'll part company with 'em every time when it comes to
> > matters regarding the separation of church in state.

If you voted for them you aren't "parting company" with them.

Have you ever bothered writing a letter to your conservative politicians who
you are electing, telling them to knock it off with the Church State thing?
Or
is the extent of your parting company merely grumbling about it, while still
supplying them with your vote?

> > In a secular
> > government, the 10Cs have no place in the courtroom, or in the
> > public schools.
> >
> > Period.
>
> Baloney. You show a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution
> and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Separation of church and state
> is NOT found in the Constitution.

Of course it is. Read the 1st amendment. And in case you are going to
argue that just because something in an amendment is not part of the
Constitution, you are wrong. Not to mention the 1st amendment was
written the same time the Constitution was so it is hardly the product
of activist judges.

> If you can find it, please provide a
> paragraph reference as I've read it several times and can't find it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

> The only thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a state
> religion/state church as existed in England.

Wrong. The founding fathers wanted ALL mention of religion in federal law
to
be struck out, except what was necessary (such as tax law exemptions
for religion) to emphasize that religion was hands off. Keep in mind that
the founding fathers came from many different religious sects.

> The separation concept
> came from the bench the same as the activism regarding homosexual
marriage.
>
> Look at the government buildings in DC, they contain many Christian
> artifacts, even the Supreme Court isn't "sanitary" in this regard.

The sayings that are carved into the buildings aren't there to promote
Christianity or any religion. They are there because they are good sayings.

Do Unto Others as you would have Others Do Unto You is a good,
strong saying, and would be just as valid even if Jesus didn't say it.
Same with Thou Shall Not Kill, a commandment, that our commander
in chief seems to have forgotten.

> The
> reality is that our government was established against a backdrop of
> Christian and Biblical principles.

Burning witches at the stake is a Christian principle? Screwing your slaves
is a Christian principle?

The founding fathers were just as sinful as the Christians claim the unsaved
are today. The difference is that the funding fathers were humble and
understood
that they were flawed, something that few of the Christians out there voting
against the homosexuals seem to remember about themselves.

The major biblical passage always cited by so-called Christians as
justification
for opposing gay marriage is Genesis 2:24. What they forget is that Genesis
wasn't written by Christ and there are many, many things in the Old
Testament,
(such as Abraham's wife sending her slave to screw Abraham) that are nowhere
near anything close to Christian principles.

Ted

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff wrote:
>
> >
> > Just to disabuse you of the notion that all right-leaning voters are
> > Christian activists, let me offer myself up as an example. In my

I don't agree that all right-leaning voters are Christian activists.

> > agnostic view of the world (true agnosticism, by the way -- I'm not
> > someone who "just doesn't know" about God's existence, I have an
> > opinion...) the Alabama judge who wanted his biblical sculpture in the
> > courtroom ought to have been vilified. I voted for Bush, proudly, and

Bush is a Christian activist. While you may certainly be conservative and
not
wanting to be a Christian activist, your voting for Bush is voting contrary
to
what you are stating you believe in.

> > will probably vote for conservative candidates well into the foreseeable
> > future, but I'll part company with 'em every time when it comes to
> > matters regarding the separation of church in state.

If you voted for them you aren't "parting company" with them.

Have you ever bothered writing a letter to your conservative politicians who
you are electing, telling them to knock it off with the Church State thing?
Or
is the extent of your parting company merely grumbling about it, while still
supplying them with your vote?

> > In a secular
> > government, the 10Cs have no place in the courtroom, or in the
> > public schools.
> >
> > Period.
>
> Baloney. You show a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution
> and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Separation of church and state
> is NOT found in the Constitution.

Of course it is. Read the 1st amendment. And in case you are going to
argue that just because something in an amendment is not part of the
Constitution, you are wrong. Not to mention the 1st amendment was
written the same time the Constitution was so it is hardly the product
of activist judges.

> If you can find it, please provide a
> paragraph reference as I've read it several times and can't find it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

> The only thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a state
> religion/state church as existed in England.

Wrong. The founding fathers wanted ALL mention of religion in federal law
to
be struck out, except what was necessary (such as tax law exemptions
for religion) to emphasize that religion was hands off. Keep in mind that
the founding fathers came from many different religious sects.

> The separation concept
> came from the bench the same as the activism regarding homosexual
marriage.
>
> Look at the government buildings in DC, they contain many Christian
> artifacts, even the Supreme Court isn't "sanitary" in this regard.

The sayings that are carved into the buildings aren't there to promote
Christianity or any religion. They are there because they are good sayings.

Do Unto Others as you would have Others Do Unto You is a good,
strong saying, and would be just as valid even if Jesus didn't say it.
Same with Thou Shall Not Kill, a commandment, that our commander
in chief seems to have forgotten.

> The
> reality is that our government was established against a backdrop of
> Christian and Biblical principles.

Burning witches at the stake is a Christian principle? Screwing your slaves
is a Christian principle?

The founding fathers were just as sinful as the Christians claim the unsaved
are today. The difference is that the funding fathers were humble and
understood
that they were flawed, something that few of the Christians out there voting
against the homosexuals seem to remember about themselves.

The major biblical passage always cited by so-called Christians as
justification
for opposing gay marriage is Genesis 2:24. What they forget is that Genesis
wasn't written by Christ and there are many, many things in the Old
Testament,
(such as Abraham's wife sending her slave to screw Abraham) that are nowhere
near anything close to Christian principles.

Ted

Sparky wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>> target of hatred
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>> sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded
>>>>> innuendo
>>>>> or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>> cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>> series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>> Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt
>>>>> when
>>>>> they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for
>>>>> their
>>>>> part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black
>>>>> stereotypes,
>>>>> but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with
>>>>> gays
>>>>> right now, today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they
>>>>> ridicule
>>>>> and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>>
>>>>> -DS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>> on TV - the white male.
>>>> All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>> The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>> to anyone who watches.
>>>> But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>>
>>> Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.
>>
>>
>> So you don't think what I say is right?
>> Have you watched TV lately?
>
>
> Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>
> Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

You know, I love men. i love one man in particular (no, not you Matt!!!
i know it breaks your heart!!!)... and i have no scientific proof -; ,
but l think you misspelled a word.. instead of "running" you should have
said "ruining"....

lw

Sparky wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>> target of hatred
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>> sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded
>>>>> innuendo
>>>>> or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>> cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>> series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>> Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt
>>>>> when
>>>>> they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for
>>>>> their
>>>>> part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black
>>>>> stereotypes,
>>>>> but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with
>>>>> gays
>>>>> right now, today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they
>>>>> ridicule
>>>>> and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>>
>>>>> -DS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>> on TV - the white male.
>>>> All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>> The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>> to anyone who watches.
>>>> But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>>
>>> Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.
>>
>>
>> So you don't think what I say is right?
>> Have you watched TV lately?
>
>
> Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>
> Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?

You know, I love men. i love one man in particular (no, not you Matt!!!
i know it breaks your heart!!!)... and i have no scientific proof -; ,
but l think you misspelled a word.. instead of "running" you should have
said "ruining"....

lw

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Geoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just to disabuse you of the notion that all right-leaning voters are
>>>Christian activists, let me offer myself up as an example. In my
>
>
> I don't agree that all right-leaning voters are Christian activists.
>
>
>>>agnostic view of the world (true agnosticism, by the way -- I'm not
>>>someone who "just doesn't know" about God's existence, I have an
>>>opinion...) the Alabama judge who wanted his biblical sculpture in the
>>>courtroom ought to have been vilified. I voted for Bush, proudly, and
>
>
> Bush is a Christian activist. While you may certainly be conservative and
> not
> wanting to be a Christian activist, your voting for Bush is voting contrary
> to
> what you are stating you believe in.
>
>
>>>will probably vote for conservative candidates well into the foreseeable
>>>future, but I'll part company with 'em every time when it comes to
>>>matters regarding the separation of church in state.
>
>
> If you voted for them you aren't "parting company" with them.
>
> Have you ever bothered writing a letter to your conservative politicians who
> you are electing, telling them to knock it off with the Church State thing?
> Or
> is the extent of your parting company merely grumbling about it, while still
> supplying them with your vote?
>
>
>>> In a secular
>>>government, the 10Cs have no place in the courtroom, or in the
>>>public schools.
>>>
>>>Period.
>>
>>Baloney. You show a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution
>>and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Separation of church and state
>>is NOT found in the Constitution.
>
>
> Of course it is. Read the 1st amendment. And in case you are going to
> argue that just because something in an amendment is not part of the
> Constitution, you are wrong. Not to mention the 1st amendment was
> written the same time the Constitution was so it is hardly the product
> of activist judges.
>
>
>>If you can find it, please provide a
>>paragraph reference as I've read it several times and can't find it.
>
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
>
>
>>The only thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a state
>>religion/state church as existed in England.
>
>
> Wrong. The founding fathers wanted ALL mention of religion in federal law
> to
> be struck out, except what was necessary (such as tax law exemptions
> for religion) to emphasize that religion was hands off. Keep in mind that
> the founding fathers came from many different religious sects.
>
>
>> The separation concept
>>came from the bench the same as the activism regarding homosexual
>
> marriage.
>
>>Look at the government buildings in DC, they contain many Christian
>>artifacts, even the Supreme Court isn't "sanitary" in this regard.
>
>
> The sayings that are carved into the buildings aren't there to promote
> Christianity or any religion. They are there because they are good sayings.
>
> Do Unto Others as you would have Others Do Unto You is a good,
> strong saying, and would be just as valid even if Jesus didn't say it.
> Same with Thou Shall Not Kill, a commandment, that our commander
> in chief seems to have forgotten.
>
>
>>The
>>reality is that our government was established against a backdrop of
>>Christian and Biblical principles.
>
>
> Burning witches at the stake is a Christian principle? Screwing your slaves
> is a Christian principle?
>
> The founding fathers were just as sinful as the Christians claim the unsaved
> are today. The difference is that the funding fathers were humble and
> understood
> that they were flawed, something that few of the Christians out there voting
> against the homosexuals seem to remember about themselves.
>
> The major biblical passage always cited by so-called Christians as
> justification
> for opposing gay marriage is Genesis 2:24. What they forget is that Genesis
> wasn't written by Christ and there are many, many things in the Old
> Testament,
> (such as Abraham's wife sending her slave to screw Abraham) that are nowhere
> near anything close to Christian principles.
>
> Ted
>
>


In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative
elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the
king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements
of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of
slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative
elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God
made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative
elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted
to keep the races separate.

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the
church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates
homosexuality.

When our children and grandchildren look back at how we dealt with these,
will they be ashamed or proud?
lw

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Geoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just to disabuse you of the notion that all right-leaning voters are
>>>Christian activists, let me offer myself up as an example. In my
>
>
> I don't agree that all right-leaning voters are Christian activists.
>
>
>>>agnostic view of the world (true agnosticism, by the way -- I'm not
>>>someone who "just doesn't know" about God's existence, I have an
>>>opinion...) the Alabama judge who wanted his biblical sculpture in the
>>>courtroom ought to have been vilified. I voted for Bush, proudly, and
>
>
> Bush is a Christian activist. While you may certainly be conservative and
> not
> wanting to be a Christian activist, your voting for Bush is voting contrary
> to
> what you are stating you believe in.
>
>
>>>will probably vote for conservative candidates well into the foreseeable
>>>future, but I'll part company with 'em every time when it comes to
>>>matters regarding the separation of church in state.
>
>
> If you voted for them you aren't "parting company" with them.
>
> Have you ever bothered writing a letter to your conservative politicians who
> you are electing, telling them to knock it off with the Church State thing?
> Or
> is the extent of your parting company merely grumbling about it, while still
> supplying them with your vote?
>
>
>>> In a secular
>>>government, the 10Cs have no place in the courtroom, or in the
>>>public schools.
>>>
>>>Period.
>>
>>Baloney. You show a profound lack of understanding of our Constitution
>>and the beliefs of the founding fathers. Separation of church and state
>>is NOT found in the Constitution.
>
>
> Of course it is. Read the 1st amendment. And in case you are going to
> argue that just because something in an amendment is not part of the
> Constitution, you are wrong. Not to mention the 1st amendment was
> written the same time the Constitution was so it is hardly the product
> of activist judges.
>
>
>>If you can find it, please provide a
>>paragraph reference as I've read it several times and can't find it.
>
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
>
>
>>The only thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a state
>>religion/state church as existed in England.
>
>
> Wrong. The founding fathers wanted ALL mention of religion in federal law
> to
> be struck out, except what was necessary (such as tax law exemptions
> for religion) to emphasize that religion was hands off. Keep in mind that
> the founding fathers came from many different religious sects.
>
>
>> The separation concept
>>came from the bench the same as the activism regarding homosexual
>
> marriage.
>
>>Look at the government buildings in DC, they contain many Christian
>>artifacts, even the Supreme Court isn't "sanitary" in this regard.
>
>
> The sayings that are carved into the buildings aren't there to promote
> Christianity or any religion. They are there because they are good sayings.
>
> Do Unto Others as you would have Others Do Unto You is a good,
> strong saying, and would be just as valid even if Jesus didn't say it.
> Same with Thou Shall Not Kill, a commandment, that our commander
> in chief seems to have forgotten.
>
>
>>The
>>reality is that our government was established against a backdrop of
>>Christian and Biblical principles.
>
>
> Burning witches at the stake is a Christian principle? Screwing your slaves
> is a Christian principle?
>
> The founding fathers were just as sinful as the Christians claim the unsaved
> are today. The difference is that the funding fathers were humble and
> understood
> that they were flawed, something that few of the Christians out there voting
> against the homosexuals seem to remember about themselves.
>
> The major biblical passage always cited by so-called Christians as
> justification
> for opposing gay marriage is Genesis 2:24. What they forget is that Genesis
> wasn't written by Christ and there are many, many things in the Old
> Testament,
> (such as Abraham's wife sending her slave to screw Abraham) that are nowhere
> near anything close to Christian principles.
>
> Ted
>
>


In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative
elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the
king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements
of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of
slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative
elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God
made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative
elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted
to keep the races separate.

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the
church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates
homosexuality.

When our children and grandchildren look back at how we dealt with these,
will they be ashamed or proud?
lw