Re: re: Disurbing article

February 14, 2004

Idol wrote:

> This is a classic example of a conclusion depending entirely on the

> definitions used in an argument.

>

> Say for the sake of illustration that you have a society of two

> species, rabbits and wolves. For simplicity's sake, say each species

> requires and can only eat one food, carrots for the rabbits and sheep

> for the

> wolves. Since plant-eaters tend to outnumber animal-eaters, the

> rabbits might try to democratically establish a law sanctifying the

> consumption of carrots and banning the killing and eating of sheep,

> and they could use exactly your logic, saying to the wolves, " You

> have as much right as any other citizen of our society to eat,

> subject to exactly the same

> restriction as anyone else, including all of us rabbits -- namely

> that you eat only carrots, and never sheep " . The rabbits might

> further argue that " This isn't about the right of wolves to do what

> any citizen can do -- rather, it's about whether they have the right

> to do what no citizen can do " .

And I would agree with the rabbits in their analysis, if not in their

policies. I don't think it would be accurate to call the wolves

" second-class citizens " when the exact same laws are equally applied to

everyone.

Let's try another example. Apparently some people think that Social

Security is a good idea. If participation were optional, they would

choose to participate. I disagree. I would rather take a portion of my

income and invest it. The same laws are applied to everybody. Would you

consider me to be a second-class citizen because I'm not allowed to

participate in the retirement program of my choice when others are?

February 14, 2004

>> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

that states so. <<

The Constitution was not written by Christians.

>> I don't always like majority rule but it works better than minority rule

which is the one thing going in this issue that I don't like. <<

That's why in the United States we (supposedly) don't really have either. We are

SUPPOSED TO have the rule of law instead of the tyranny of either the minority

OR the majority.

>> Marraige has for 1000's of years represented the permanent joining of a man

and woman with the intent of producing offspring. <<

That's fine. If you will agree that infertile people cannot marry, I'll stop

demanding gay marriage. But last time I looked, menopausal women, and men who'd

had vasectomies, were still allowed to marry in this country and have a legally

identical marriage to one entered into by the most fecund bimbo and her horny

boyfriend.

>> What gives anyone - especially a minority group of people - the right to

change that definition and make it applicable to other different situations that

suit only them? <<

Because I WANT IT. You have it, I want it too. It's really that simple.

I'm sure you realize that this same argument not only could be but WAS made

about recognizing black people and women as citizens? The whole argument. The

majority vs minority part, the bible part, the whole thing.

Christie

February 14, 2004

> This whole issue is about what is best for the society as a whole.

And society as a whole is not 100% Christian. Never was, never will be.

We can debate the founding fathers' intent til the cows come home (and

get eaten); there is ambiguity in the record they left behind, except

for the bill of rights (eek! that word) and its ban on **state

establishment of religion.**

> <Anyone who would bear the deep social condemnation of the rest of

> society should be allowed to marry if there is also no chance of

> offspring.

>

> But this is discrimination you are advocating. And I think not

> allowing offspring is about the most extreme right to deny someone and

> most gays certainly do not want that right denied them.

You misunderstand. First cousins are allowed to marry in many

jurisdictions if, for example, the female member of the couple is

beyond the age of procreation. That's what I mean about possibility of

offspring. I would never advocate taking anyone's right to reproduce

away from them. And just because something's legal doesn't mean people

have to like it. The KKK are legal, and yet many people despise them.

> Well allowing the daughter or niece to have say is denying " rights " of

> the male to 1. marry who he wants to and 2. determine the mate he

> thinks most appropriate for his daughter or niece. This is what rights

> are about. One's right at the expense of someone elses.

No, that is absolutely not what " rights " are about. A man has a right

to marry whoever he wishes who also wishes to marry him, because that

person has rights NOT to marry.

You seem to have this idea that rights are something that someone takes

away from someone else--if one person has a right to something, someone

else loses somehow. I don't understand how you reach that conclusion.

It's not like you'd be forced to marry a woman if same-sex marriage

became legal. You wouldn't even have to invite same-sex married people

to dinner. Or speak to them. In fact, I doubt your contact with gay

people would change at all, except you'd be hanging around with some

here, and whatever gay people you do know will keep themselves

studiously closeted around you.

> So why is sex with them forbidden?

Actually, I don't know if there are laws against bestiality per se. I

imagine it depends on the jurisdiction. I'm not even that offended by

it. I don't honestly care what other people do with their pets. I just

don't care for it and don't intend to do it myself. (And that's

excellent advice for anyone offended by homosexuality--don't like it?

Don't do it.)

> No I am not equating homosexual relationships with bestiality

Then why did you bring it up?

> Marraige has for 1000's of years represented the permanent joining of

> a man and woman with the intent of producing offspring.

By that logic postmenopausal women should not be allowed to marry, and

everyone should have to pass fertility tests to get marriage licenses;

the infertile should not be allowed to marry, and married couples who

subsequently don't produce children should be forcibly divorced. Taken

to its far extreme it would mean that nonprocreative sex between

married people could be declared illegal and married people could be

arrested if, as has happened to gay couples, the police interrupt them

having sex in some way that might not produce children--like, say, the

woman's not ovulating.

Marriage has evolved greatly over the span of human history, and has

taken many forms and many shapes, including same sex unions, multiple

partner unions, love matches and forced matches. For most of human

history marriage has been about family and tribal alliances, not love,

or even children. This whole " history of marriage is being profaned "

thing is inaccurate.

And I'm done.

February 14, 2004

>> No it's not. You can already drink out of the same water fountain as

everyone else. You just want a different fountain because you don't like

the water. That's not necessarily an unreasonable demand, but it's not the

same thing, and to suggest that it is is just inaccurate. <<

I can only drink out of the same fountain your sister can. I can't drink out of

the same fountain YOU can.

>> That has nothing to do with " the ick factor. " Many people, for religious or

philosophical reasons, have strong objections to homosexuality that are

much deeper than that. I don't think it's fair to trivialize this by

calling it " the ick factor. " <<

I distinguished those people from those who say they DO support gay unions and

gay civil rights but just can't bring themselves to call it marriage.

Dean and Arnold Schwartenegger say they support civil unions but not gay

marriage, and I believe it's because of their own personal discomfort with

having the word " Gay " and the word " marriage " next to each other.

Like I said, I don't think that's what's motivating the pope.

>> Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with opposing gay " marriage " but

supporting " civil unions. " Given that a total separation of state and

marriage is unlikely in the near future, this seems like a pretty good

compromise. <<

You see, I DO see something wrong with it. That compromise is what makes me a

second class citizen.

Christie

February 14, 2004

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:27:44 EST

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> In a message dated 2/13/04 12:14:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> lierrekeith@... writes:

>

>> While adult heterosexual men want your girls, openly,

>> publically lusting after teen girls (Brittany Spears

>> et al) and no one says a word. 90% of teen pregnancies

>> are caused by adult men in their twenties--by

>> definition rape.

>

> Lierre,

>

> How on earth could you possibly say that sex between someone in their 20s and

> someone in their teens is " by definition rape " ? I find that absolutely

> preposterous.

>

> Does a teenager have no capacity for consenting to any act? Is there some

> magical change in brain physiology that occurs exactly at one's 20th birthday

> that causes one to go from complete incapacity to reason or consent to

> complete

> impeccability in regard to decision-making?

>

> Chris

>

Oh, no...agreeing with again. Yeah - there is no hard and fast rule.

One must sometimes consider legality and ethics separately. As far as

teenagers engaging in sex with adults, it really should be considered on a

case by case basis. There is no magical cutoff point.

February 14, 2004

> From: Kayte Sisler <kayte@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:36:10 -0800

> " ' ' " < >

> Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>

> Hardly a club. NAMBLA is actually quite active in pushing their agenda.

> The American Popular Culture is how you live and what you give to society.

> I happen to know a lot of great families that don't allow their girls to

> idolize Brittany and didn't watch the half time show for the recent football

> game. There is quite a conservative movement.

>

> The problem is heterosexuals aren't trying to make sexual acts with young

> children acceptable...NAMBLA would like to change that. The APC does not

> condone sexual abuse unless you are in the white house I suppose. NAMBLA

> says it is not sexual abuse to have a relationship with a consenting child.

> SCARRY.

>

No, the problem is that you take a group that represents a small percentage

of homosexuals, and you use it to draw a comparison between heterosexuals

and homosexuals. I find attitudes like yours more scary than NAMBLA.

February 14, 2004

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:50:03 EST

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> In a message dated 2/13/04 3:38:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> jaltak@... writes:

>

>> Maybe not at the 20th birthday, but definitely between the 16th and 17th

>> birthdays.

>

> No, quite definitely not. Even if this change were punctuated rather than

> gradual, it is not even possible to occur within the same year for every

> individual.

>

>>

>> I work at the Job Corps Center in Grand Rapids, MI for nearly seven years.

>> The youngest a teenager was allowed in was 16. It was too young. But we had

>> to take them as that is the age they are allowed to drop out of school.

>>

>> The mental difference between a 16 year old and a 17 year old is

>> unbelievable! In that one year they gain a tremendous amount of maturity.

>

> Since it is established and accepted that such a thing as an intelligence

> quotient exists, it is simply impossible that every 16 year old has equivalent

> mental capacity.

>

Totally false statement. people do not 'have' IQ's. The IQ test was

developed in the early 1900's I think. Before that time people did not have

IQ's. The only sense in which people have an intelligence quotient is that

it is a number that is fairly predictive of how that person will do on

another IQ test.

> A 16 year old with an IQ of 150 clearly has a higher mental capacity than a

> 17 year old with an IQ of 100, or a 20 year old with an IQ of 100, for that

> matter.

>

> Chris

February 14, 2004

>

> From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:03:17 -0500

> < >

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> Its Massachusetts law. Anyone over 21 having sex with anyone under 17 is

> statutory rape. 18-21 to 17 down to 14 is considered less. Child under 14 is

> child rape and will get biggest jail time if over 21, less if 14-21. Reasons

> for this is it may be consenting with older children but the emotional

> maturity of the different ages comes into play. The bigger the age

> difference the bigger the difference between understanding any of it and the

> responsibility. In other words by 21 the state expects that this should be

> known and if its done anyway its taking advantage of immaturity and

> naieveness.

>

Again, we should conceptually differentiate between the law and ethicality.

It seems to me that the debate here is over ethicality, and not what the law

may be in actuality. Surely most people agree that there are some laws that

may draw their dividing line in ways that do not exactly map to what is

ethical and what is not, unless you are considering the simple fact of

disobeying the law as unethical by definition.

February 14, 2004

>

> From: Kayte Sisler <kayte@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:18:19 -0800

> " ' ' " < >

> Subject: RE: re: Disurbing article

>

> As far as I know you can get married...only we are all limited on who we can

> marry. I can only marry a non-relative man. Like you I am limited.

>

Well, as far as I know, no one is allowed to marry a close relative.

However, you are allowed to marry the person of your choice who is not

either too young, or a close relative, and a gay person is not. Can you

really not see that?

> But this issue won't be settled here or anywhere else to all our

> satisfaction. /

>

Unfortunately, it is not very common for a bigot to see the illogic of their

arguments.

February 14, 2004

>> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

that states so. Those that are attacking Christians for their disagreement on

this issue should not ever forget that. <<

Let me tell you what you've forgotten, or were never taught in the first place.

Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States Constitution, said,

" Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies. " The

Constitution specifically prohibited Congress from creating or in any way

providing for an establishment of religion. In 1802 Jefferson made the Founders'

concept of the First Amendment separation of church and state even more

explicit, writing that its intent was to build " a wall of separation between

church and state, " adding that " I do not find in orthodox Christianity one

redeeming feature. "

During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a

Thanksgiving proclamation, writing, " I consider the Government of the United

States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling

with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. "

Jefferson was sickened by the antics of the dominant Anglican church that used

its " bully pulpit " to push forward civil laws to punish protestants and other

non-believers who would not conform to their narrow mandate. (Sound

familiar?) Jefferson declared, " The Christian God...is cruel, vindictive,

capricious and unjust. " He then proceeded to compose his own Bible... a " kinder

and gentler " version with less fire and brimstone - he began to rip the pages

out of his own Holy Bible, and pasted the paragraphs he agreed with into a

notebook. In between he penned in his own remarks for future generations to see.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray

collectively was voted down. lin noted that there were only two or

three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers.

Ironically lin himself, during his time in England, had been a member of

Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by Mannix as

" an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and political

conspiracies. " Adds Mannix: " lin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club on its

own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben announced that

he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he considered evil

permissible, since God had created things and so had presumably created evil

also. Even when he was an old man of 84, lin wrote to Ezra Stiles, the

president of Yale, saying he doubted the divinity of Christ although he believed

in his moral teachings. "

Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to

kneel in church. Pictures that show him kneeling at Valley Forge have nothing

more than an artist's imagination behind them. (Deists believe that a God

created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent

evolution of those laws.)

" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity, " said

, a very anti-dogmatic Unitarian, the second president of the United

States, and another one of the Founding Fathers. He once speculated, " This would

be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it. "

Then there was our fourth president, Madison, another Founding Father. He

said, " During almost fifteen

centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has

been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy;

ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and

persecution. " Madison added, " In no instance have... the churches been guardians

of the liberties of the people. "

The Founding Fathers did NOT put " under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance or " In

God We Trust " on U.S. currency. " Under God " was added to the Pledge by an act of

Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy " communist witch hunt " hysteria. " In God

We Trust " began to appear on coins in 1864 and became the official motto of the

United States only in 1956.

The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was " E Pluribus Unum " (Out of Many,

One).

Christie

February 14, 2004

>

> From: Berg <bberg@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:51:27 -0800

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

> marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much right

> as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same restrictions as

> anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one person, and that that

> person must be of the opposite sex.

>

LOL! And when women were denied the vote, they were also granted the same

rights as men. Anyone could vote IF they were male. I cannot believe how

depraved some of this logic is.

> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

> heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the right

> to do what no heterosexual person can do.

Absolutely false. You have framed the issue in a totally bigoted way.

February 14, 2004

>

> From: " dkemnitz2000 " <dkemnitz2000@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:12:54 -0000

>

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

> --- < Re: re: Disurbing article

>>

>>>> NAMBLA is political that's why you hear about them. <<

>>

>>> For the Bible Tells Me So

>>

>> <><>><><><><><>><Homosexuality is just a sin. We're all sinners.

> Turn away from the sin, ask God's forgiveness, believe in Christ's

> birth, death and resurrection and know Jesus as saviour. Live in

> eternity forever. It isn't necessarily easy on planet earth, But with

> God all things are possible. Dennis>

>

Like maybe it's possible for religious fanatics to realize that any loving

God would not tolerate hatred? Nah, that's too much to ask.

>

February 14, 2004

Christie,

A huge THANK YOU!

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Christie [mailto:christiekeith@...]

>> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

that states so. Those that are attacking Christians for their disagreement

on this issue should not ever forget that. <<

Let me tell you what you've forgotten, or were never taught in the first

place.

Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States Constitution, said,

" Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies. " The

Constitution specifically prohibited Congress from creating or in any way

providing for an establishment of religion. In 1802 Jefferson made the

Founders' concept of the First Amendment separation of church and state even

more explicit, writing that its intent was to build " a wall of separation

between church and state, " adding that " I do not find in orthodox

Christianity one redeeming feature. "

During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a

Thanksgiving proclamation, writing, " I consider the Government of the United

States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling

with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. "

Jefferson was sickened by the antics of the dominant Anglican church that

used its " bully pulpit " to push forward civil laws to punish protestants and

other non-believers who would not conform to their narrow mandate. (Sound

familiar?) Jefferson declared, " The Christian God...is cruel, vindictive,

capricious and unjust. " He then proceeded to compose his own Bible... a

" kinder and gentler " version with less fire and brimstone - he began to rip

the pages out of his own Holy Bible, and pasted the paragraphs he agreed

with into a notebook. In between he penned in his own remarks for future

generations to see.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray

collectively was voted down. lin noted that there were only

two or three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers.

Ironically lin himself, during his time in England, had been a member

of Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by

Mannix as " an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and

political

conspiracies. " Adds Mannix: " lin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club on

its own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben

announced that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he

considered evil permissible, since God had created things and so had

presumably created evil also. Even when he was an old man of 84, lin

wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying he doubted the divinity

of Christ although he believed in his moral teachings. "

Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to

kneel in church. Pictures that show him kneeling at Valley Forge have

nothing more than an artist's imagination behind them. (Deists believe that

a God

created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent

evolution of those laws.)

" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity, " said

, a very anti-dogmatic Unitarian, the second president of the United

States, and another one of the Founding Fathers. He once speculated, " This

would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it. "

Then there was our fourth president, Madison, another Founding Father.

He said, " During almost fifteen

centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What

has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the

clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,

bigotry, and persecution. " Madison added, " In no instance have... the

churches been guardians of the liberties of the people. "

The Founding Fathers did NOT put " under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance or

" In God We Trust " on U.S. currency. " Under God " was added to the Pledge by

an act of Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy " communist witch hunt "

hysteria. " In God We Trust " began to appear on coins in 1864 and became the

official motto of the United States only in 1956.

The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was " E Pluribus Unum " (Out of

Many, One).

Christie

February 14, 2004

so, christie...are you busy friday night?

cause like, wow.

-katja (hee!)

At 10:21 PM 2/14/2004, you wrote:

> >> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

> Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian

> ideology that states so. Those that are attacking Christians for their

> disagreement on this issue should not ever forget that. <<

>

>Let me tell you what you've forgotten, or were never taught in the first

>place.

>

> Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States Constitution,

>said, " Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies. " The

>Constitution specifically prohibited Congress from creating or in any way

>providing for an establishment of religion. In 1802 Jefferson made the

>Founders' concept of the First Amendment separation of church and state

>even more explicit, writing that its intent was to build " a wall of

>separation between church and state, " adding that " I do not find in

>orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. "

>

>During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a

>Thanksgiving proclamation, writing, " I consider the Government of the

>United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from

>meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or

>exercises. "

>

>Jefferson was sickened by the antics of the dominant Anglican church that

>used its " bully pulpit " to push forward civil laws to punish protestants

>and other non-believers who would not conform to their narrow mandate. (Sound

>familiar?) Jefferson declared, " The Christian God...is cruel, vindictive,

>capricious and unjust. " He then proceeded to compose his own Bible... a

> " kinder and gentler " version with less fire and brimstone - he began to

>rip the pages out of his own Holy Bible, and pasted the paragraphs he

>agreed with into a notebook. In between he penned in his own remarks for

>future generations to see.

>

>During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to

>pray collectively was voted down. lin noted that there were

>only two or three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers.

>

>Ironically lin himself, during his time in England, had been a member

>of Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by

>Mannix as " an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and

>political

>conspiracies. " Adds Mannix: " lin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club

>on its own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben

>announced that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he

>considered evil permissible, since God had created things and so had

>presumably created evil also. Even when he was an old man of 84, lin

>wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying he doubted the

>divinity of Christ although he believed in his moral teachings. "

>

> Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or

>to kneel in church. Pictures that show him kneeling at Valley Forge have

>nothing more than an artist's imagination behind them. (Deists believe

>that a God

>created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent

>evolution of those laws.)

>

> " The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity, " said

> , a very anti-dogmatic Unitarian, the second president of the

>United States, and another one of the Founding Fathers. He once

>speculated, " This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were

>no religion in it. "

>

>Then there was our fourth president, Madison, another Founding

>Father. He said, " During almost fifteen

>centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What

>has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in

>the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,

>bigotry, and persecution. " Madison added, " In no instance have... the

>churches been guardians of the liberties of the people. "

>

>The Founding Fathers did NOT put " under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance

>or " In God We Trust " on U.S. currency. " Under God " was added to the Pledge

>by an act of Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy " communist witch hunt "

>hysteria. " In God We Trust " began to appear on coins in 1864 and became

>the official motto of the United States only in 1956.

>

>The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was " E Pluribus Unum " (Out of

>Many, One).

>

>Christie

>

February 14, 2004

Christie wrote:

> Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States

> Constitution, said, " Religions are all alike - founded upon fables

> and mythologies. " The Constitution specifically prohibited Congress

> from creating or in any way providing for an establishment of

> religion. In 1802 Jefferson made the Founders' concept of the First

> Amendment separation of church and state even more explicit, writing

> that its intent was to build " a wall of separation between church and

> state, " adding that " I do not find in orthodox Christianity one

> redeeming feature. "

The Constitution was written primarily by Madison, and I do not

believe that Jefferson was even present at the Constitutional

Convention. Furthermore, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

applied only to the Federal Government ( " *Congress* shall make no

law... " ). At the time, several of the Colonies had state churches, and

these were not abolished with the adoption of the Constitution. While

Jefferson might have believed personally (and with good cause) that a

wall of separation between church and state was desirable, the

Constitution was not intended to establish such a wall, at least not at

the state level.

February 14, 2004

Wow is right! This whole argument is very interesting, and completely

unneccessary by my set of morals which are basically... " Be kind. Don't

hurt anyone " . Since me marrying my girlfriend(although due to a recent spat

over why Angel and Smallville weren't taped this could be a far fetched

hypothesis) isn't hurting anyone, it's fine. Preventing us from getting

married is very unkind, and is hurtful on a variety of levels. Watch If

These Walls Could Talk 2, the first segment, about two sweet old ladies, a

couple, one of whom dies. Since they were not married, the surviving lady

gets her life ripped apart and her heart torn out. It is fiction, but it

perfectly illustrates the meat of this issue.

Love is right.

I'm distinguishing between real love and lust, such as has been mentioned in

posts regarding pedophiles and sexy house pets.

best wishes

Michele

>From: katja <katja@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:31:29 -0500

>

>so, christie...are you busy friday night?

>cause like, wow.

>

>-katja (hee!)

>

>At 10:21 PM 2/14/2004, you wrote:

> > >> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

> > Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian

> > ideology that states so. Those that are attacking Christians for their

> > disagreement on this issue should not ever forget that. <<

> >

> >Let me tell you what you've forgotten, or were never taught in the first

> >place.

> >

> > Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States Constitution,

> >said, " Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies. "

>The

> >Constitution specifically prohibited Congress from creating or in any way

> >providing for an establishment of religion. In 1802 Jefferson made the

> >Founders' concept of the First Amendment separation of church and state

> >even more explicit, writing that its intent was to build " a wall of

> >separation between church and state, " adding that " I do not find in

> >orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. "

> >

> >During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a

> >Thanksgiving proclamation, writing, " I consider the Government of the

> >United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States

>from

> >meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or

> >exercises. "

> >

> >Jefferson was sickened by the antics of the dominant Anglican church that

> >used its " bully pulpit " to push forward civil laws to punish protestants

> >and other non-believers who would not conform to their narrow mandate.

>(Sound

> >familiar?) Jefferson declared, " The Christian God...is cruel, vindictive,

> >capricious and unjust. " He then proceeded to compose his own Bible... a

> > " kinder and gentler " version with less fire and brimstone - he began to

> >rip the pages out of his own Holy Bible, and pasted the paragraphs he

> >agreed with into a notebook. In between he penned in his own remarks for

> >future generations to see.

> >

> >During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to

> >pray collectively was voted down. lin noted that there were

> >only two or three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers.

> >

> >Ironically lin himself, during his time in England, had been a

>member

> >of Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by

> >Mannix as " an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and

> >political

> >conspiracies. " Adds Mannix: " lin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club

> >on its own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben

> >announced that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he

> >considered evil permissible, since God had created things and so had

> >presumably created evil also. Even when he was an old man of 84, lin

> >wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying he doubted the

> >divinity of Christ although he believed in his moral teachings. "

> >

> > Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or

> >to kneel in church. Pictures that show him kneeling at Valley Forge have

> >nothing more than an artist's imagination behind them. (Deists believe

> >that a God

> >created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent

> >evolution of those laws.)

> >

> > " The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity, " said

> > , a very anti-dogmatic Unitarian, the second president of the

> >United States, and another one of the Founding Fathers. He once

> >speculated, " This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were

> >no religion in it. "

> >

> >Then there was our fourth president, Madison, another Founding

> >Father. He said, " During almost fifteen

> >centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What

> >has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in

> >the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,

> >bigotry, and persecution. " Madison added, " In no instance have... the

> >churches been guardians of the liberties of the people. "

> >

> >The Founding Fathers did NOT put " under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance

> >or " In God We Trust " on U.S. currency. " Under God " was added to the

>Pledge

> >by an act of Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy " communist witch hunt "

> >hysteria. " In God We Trust " began to appear on coins in 1864 and became

> >the official motto of the United States only in 1956.

> >

> >The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was " E Pluribus Unum " (Out of

> >Many, One).

> >

> >Christie

> >

February 14, 2004

>

> From: " Christie " <christiekeith@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:21:25 -0800

> < >

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>>> We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

>>> Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

>>> that states so. Those that are attacking Christians for their disagreement

>>> on this issue should not ever forget that. <<

>

> Let me tell you what you've forgotten, or were never taught in the first

> place.

>

> Jefferson, the man who drafted the United States Constitution, said,

> " Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies. " The

> Constitution specifically prohibited Congress from creating or in any way

> providing for an establishment of religion. In 1802 Jefferson made the

> Founders' concept of the First Amendment separation of church and state even

> more explicit, writing that its intent was to build " a wall of separation

> between church and state, " adding that " I do not find in orthodox Christianity

> one redeeming feature. "

>

> During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a

> Thanksgiving proclamation, writing, " I consider the Government of the United

> States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling

> with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises. "

>

> Jefferson was sickened by the antics of the dominant Anglican church that used

> its " bully pulpit " to push forward civil laws to punish protestants and other

> non-believers who would not conform to their narrow mandate. (Sound

> familiar?) Jefferson declared, " The Christian God...is cruel, vindictive,

> capricious and unjust. " He then proceeded to compose his own Bible... a

> " kinder and gentler " version with less fire and brimstone - he began to rip

> the pages out of his own Holy Bible, and pasted the paragraphs he agreed with

> into a notebook. In between he penned in his own remarks for future

> generations to see.

>

> During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray

> collectively was voted down. lin noted that there were only two

> or three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers.

>

> Ironically lin himself, during his time in England, had been a member of

> Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by Mannix as

> " an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and political

> conspiracies. " Adds Mannix: " lin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club on

> its own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben announced

> that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he considered evil

> permissible, since God had created things and so had presumably created evil

> also. Even when he was an old man of 84, lin wrote to Ezra Stiles, the

> president of Yale, saying he doubted the divinity of Christ although he

> believed in his moral teachings. "

>

> Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to

> kneel in church. Pictures that show him kneeling at Valley Forge have nothing

> more than an artist's imagination behind them. (Deists believe that a God

> created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent

> evolution of those laws.)

>

> " The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity, " said

> , a very anti-dogmatic Unitarian, the second president of the United

> States, and another one of the Founding Fathers. He once speculated, " This

> would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it. "

>

> Then there was our fourth president, Madison, another Founding Father.

> He said, " During almost fifteen

> centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has

> been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the

> clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry,

> and persecution. " Madison added, " In no instance have... the churches been

> guardians of the liberties of the people. "

>

> The Founding Fathers did NOT put " under God " in the Pledge of Allegiance or

> " In God We Trust " on U.S. currency. " Under God " was added to the Pledge by an

> act of Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy " communist witch hunt " hysteria.

> " In God We Trust " began to appear on coins in 1864 and became the official

> motto of the United States only in 1956.

>

> The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was " E Pluribus Unum " (Out of

> Many, One).

>

> Christie

Personally, I wouldn't care if the constitution was written by Christians.

And I wouldn't care if the constitution stated explicitly that homosexuality

is evil.

To the degree that the constitution is wrong, we must endeavor to change it,

and certainly we must not consider what it says if it conflicts with our

basic determination of what constitutes discrimination and what does not.

This holds true of any text.

I really don't care if homosexuality is biologically based or not. That's a

false issue. It is simply a GOOD thing that a human being can find love and

solace in another, and no one should care one iota about what sex that

person is. Anyone who is threatened by this has problems, and any law, or

foundation of any law that is based on this is discriminatory.

February 14, 2004

>> The Constitution was written primarily by Madison, <<

You're absolutely right, I was typing too fast... of course I meant the

Declaration of Independence. Thanks.

Madison wasn't a Christian either, though. <G>

" Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every

noble enterprise.... During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment

of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all

places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity,

in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. " ( Madison)

Christie

February 14, 2004

>> Personally, I wouldn't care if the constitution was written by Christians.

And I wouldn't care if the constitution stated explicitly that homosexuality

is evil. <<

Well, I actually agree with you on both counts. I was simply correcting a bald

assertion that the country was founded as a Christian nation and that the

Founding Fathers were Christians.

Christie

February 14, 2004

>We've been raised to believe rights are God given only because that

Constitution was written by Christians and based on Judeo/Christian ideology

that states so.

Actually, the Constitution was not written mostly by Christians. They were a

bunch of intellectual radicals, for the most part. That's one reason they were

big on the separation of Church and State. There is a great article on this in

the LA Weekly:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=51033

This conflict has marked the American experience from the beginning, with the

New World originally settled by Puritans who had a theocratic social vision,

which gave way to an idea of “America” invented 150 years later by secularists

who were products of the Enlightenment. Of all the Founding Fathers who had

varying degrees of religious interest only was distinctly devout.

The two presidents most responsible for authoring the American Idea,

Jefferson and, later, Abraham Lincoln, were not Christians in any sense of the

word that they or anyone else understood it then or now.

This always has been a nation caught between Cotton Mather and Tom Paine. As the

New World’s pre-eminent theologian, Mather wrote Memorable Providences and

Wonders of the Invisible World, which marshaled passionate arguments in support

of the mass executions of women for witchcraft. Paine, raised in England, where

he watched starving children his own age hanged for stealing food, disavowed his

Quaker religion; employing the language of the Old Testament (which he preferred

to the New) in the writing of Common Sense, Paine chortled to that he

had done so for reasons as perverse as they were strategic. Among others,

Jefferson was impressed. Similarly impressed by Paine’s later book The Age of

Reason, which included an outright attack on religion, was a young Lincoln, who

as a congressional candidate in 1846 was hounded by rumors regarding his lack of

religious affiliation until finally he issued a statement assuring voters that,

while he didn’t belong to any church, he was nothing but respectful of those who

did.

-- Heidi

February 14, 2004

>> so, christie...are you busy friday night?

cause like, wow. <<

LOL, katja..... yeah, I find that knowing arcane bits of United States history

is a great way to pick up women. <G>

Christie

February 14, 2004

>

> From: " Christie " <christiekeith@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:23:34 -0800

> < >

> Subject: Re: re: Disurbing article

>

>>> Personally, I wouldn't care if the constitution was written by Christians.

> And I wouldn't care if the constitution stated explicitly that homosexuality

> is evil. <<

>

> Well, I actually agree with you on both counts. I was simply correcting a bald

> assertion that the country was founded as a Christian nation and that the

> Founding Fathers were Christians.

>

> Christie

>

I didn't mean to imply that your posts were remiss in any way. They were, in

fact, very eloquent and inspirational.

February 14, 2004

A Homosexual person has the freedom to have sex with anyone who is of legal

age and willing.

A homosexual can live and work where they want.

A homosexual person can adopt children.

A homosexual person has no suffering that compares to the black person of today

or in past history. If I were black I would be outraged with the attempt

to

equalize this uncommon behavior with the many decades of sweat, work, and

blood shed that the black man has battled for, in order to gain what is

referred to as " civil rights. "

Homosexuality should not be considered a civil right.

The purpose of this minority is to cheapen and then ultimately destroy the

institution of marriage. Why form this bond of marriage, this bond of legal

constraints? Ultimately the goal is to destroy the very institution of marriage

itself.

In Kinsley's article in the Washington Post, entitled " Abolish Marriage;

Let's Really Get the Government Out of Our Bedrooms. " He states, " The solution

is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the

institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to

get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to

conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let'em. If you and your government

aren't implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private

affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant. " July 3,

2003.

gay marriage is only another step toward prohibiting any restrictions on

marriage.

This great institution of marriage between a man and a woman must remain and be

defended. Every nation in the world and history recognizes this sacred bond.

It is a firm foundation of any great nation.