Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Institute on Religion and Democracy ^ | Mark Tooley

Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-378 next last
To: Paul Atreides
"I quoted Biblical scripture against homosexuality."

Don't look now, but I predict it will be against the law to even preach the book of Romans in churches in America concerning the damnation of homosexuality.

It is already against the law to preach against homosexuality in Canada!!!!

Fact.

101 posted on 08/30/2003 7:46:25 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (LIBERTY has arrived in Iraq - Now we can concentrate on HOLLYWEED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: xzins
They'll have to start a new religion. Christianity is already 100% anti-homosexuality and will never change.
102 posted on 08/30/2003 7:46:41 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
see #95
103 posted on 08/30/2003 7:47:44 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: unspun
An enemy planted weeds amongst the wheat.
104 posted on 08/30/2003 7:49:05 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan
Libertarian free will used to justify autonomous human behavior. The Creator of the universe finds their behavior to be an abomination. Do they care? No. They create an idol in their own image instead of submitting to the revelation of God.

I think the word you're looking for is libertine, not libertarian. While some libertarians are libertine, and some libertines are libertarians, libertarians are not necessarily libertine or condone immoral behavior. I know what you're trying to say, though, and agree with you. These people are disgusting.
105 posted on 08/30/2003 7:49:09 PM PDT by mugsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
They did, but there was not really a hierarchy.

Consider the Paul/James rift over the status of gentile converts.
106 posted on 08/30/2003 7:53:28 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (TOM McCLINTOCK is my choice for governor. He should be yours too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
None is saying anything about Jail:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Is this quote wrong? Have not the Homosexuals now that they have normalized their behavior (look at TV, like the MTV awards) began pushing multi partner relationship, and any other relationships not just on society but also on our churches?

Most christians dont care what they do in their own bedroom (aside from feeling sorry they live in sin) but most homosexuals care what we do in our churches..

107 posted on 08/30/2003 7:53:54 PM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins; scripter; *Homosexual Agenda; GrandMoM; backhoe; pram; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; ...
Bump and ping

Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links
Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search
All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.

108 posted on 08/30/2003 7:54:37 PM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
We're in post-moral America ... one that can't last long without a national revival that will return to us, as a people, our moral compass

The official state line is that "God" can only be legitimately viewed in the public square as an historic or ficticious character.

One Day He's Coming.

109 posted on 08/30/2003 7:55:20 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Libertarian Christian is an extremely difficult balance. It's virtually impossible to be consistent, imho.

Which New Testament teaching is inconsistent with libertarian political philosophy? I'm assuming that like many folks, you equate a lack of government coercion with the condoning of a particular behavior. If so, that does not compute.
110 posted on 08/30/2003 7:58:39 PM PDT by mugsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Was it Chap 15 Acts where they came together and issued a joint resolution to the churches?
111 posted on 08/30/2003 7:59:44 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: xzins
What about the poor quadro-sexuals? I mean, don't these good church goers care about the feelings of those that love men, women, animals, plants and their Vita-Mix? Oh, the crosses some must bear...
112 posted on 08/30/2003 8:01:20 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"The Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches..."


Sex, torture and erotic electrification in America's 'gay' churches - The Metropolitan Community Church

113 posted on 08/30/2003 8:01:57 PM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mugsy
Drugs is an extremely difficult balance.

We can't just say that everyone should be allowed to do what they want.
114 posted on 08/30/2003 8:02:04 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
:>)

Vita-mix..... LOL.
115 posted on 08/30/2003 8:03:14 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Amen.
116 posted on 08/30/2003 8:03:41 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Personally, I do believe in the state legislatures having authority to establish quarantine laws and behavior laws when the issue is individual or public health.
It is a good thing to outlaw prostitution. There's really no significant difference between that and outlawing male to male and female to female sex.

Only problem is that "female to female sex" has a lower incidence of AIDS and other STDs than most other forms of sexual conduct.

So that blows the argument that the legislature has the right to outlaw homosexuality for public health risks.

Let's face it. Americans are not going to put up with a Govt that decides it is going to become the sex police and regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

117 posted on 08/30/2003 8:05:46 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds; Cathryn Crawford
Okay, so now what are we going to do?

Grease up and enjoy it?

Seriously, if we let the pecksniffs make the determination they will make everything but straight sex (no foreplay) in the missionary position in the dark with your clothes on with your legal spouse during a time when conception is likely a sin and preferably a crime.

Face it, most people don't really care. They go to church, or say they do, because they say they believe, but actually, they go because their family always did, or because they are lawyers or doctors or salesmen and want to make business contacts, or want to meet young girls and boys while pretending to teach Sunday School.
If there were more than 10% actual believers in churches today y'all wouldn't have these problems. They would just simply never come up.

SO9

118 posted on 08/30/2003 8:06:02 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Average age of death for those who practice female-to-female sex is 48.

Something is terribly wrong.

However, you miss the point. I didn't say the legislature MUST control these things. I said the legislature SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION of controlling these things WHEN they become a danger.

Just because two adults are behind closed doors doesn't mean there aren't potential problems. Again, prostitution is an excellent example.
119 posted on 08/30/2003 8:12:53 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: xzins
That proclivity for behavior that infects partners and spreads disease who knows where is just the reason for controlling sodomy.

While I agree that sodomy is evil, how can we control this deviant behavior? Are we going to send the sodomizers to prison? How are we going to enforce the sodomy laws? Are we going to send out people in black shirts to peep through bedroom windows?

You can't control sodomy. You can only do what we're doing here: remind people that it's a sick, destructive and unnatural behavior.

Sodomizers hurt each other and in rare cases those who have normal sex with them. This is almost always a crime people commit against their own bodies, and therefore the government shouldn't waste its time trying to eradicate this behavior. Government has no business promoting it either. The only time sodomy should be a public issue is when there's coercion involved (e.g. a boy gets anally raped by a priest).
120 posted on 08/30/2003 8:15:39 PM PDT by mugsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Jorge
Average age of death for those who practice female-to-female sex is 48.

If they die, they die.

Think of it as Evolution in Action.

People have a right to do dangerous things.

So9

121 posted on 08/30/2003 8:16:48 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Lawrence v Texas is only the beginning....only the beginning.

The New American, Vol. 19, No. 17 August 25, 2003

Lawrence’s Immoral Consequences

In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas decision overturning a Texas anti-sodomy law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia presciently warned that the reasoning applied in that decision imperils all state laws against obscenity, incest, adultery, and other evils. The ink was hardly dry on the decision before Scalia’s warning was vindicated.

In late July, attorney H. Louis Sirkin, who often represents pornographer Larry Flynt, demanded that a Cincinnati judge overturn a city anti-pornography law. "The case involves the sale of a video so explicit that some members of the jury had to avert their eyes," reports Focus on the Family’s Family News in Focus. Sirkin told the publication that the Lawrence decision brings "into question obscenity laws, prostitution laws and such things as that.... Legislative bodies are not to legislate morality."

Lawrence has also been invoked by polygamist Rodney Holm of Hilldale, Utah. Holm has had 21 children with three wives and has been charged with bigamy and two counts of unlawful sex with a 16-year-old girl whom he claims as a "spiritual" wife. In the motion to dismiss, Holm’s attorney, Rodney Parker, cites the Lawrence opinion to buttress the claim that "the national social order in the United States does not compel a conclusion that plural marriage [e.g., polygamy] is against public policy, especially when considered in light of emerging lifestyles."

The legitimate issue is whether states and local governments will continue to exercise their reserved constitutional powers to legislate on moral issues.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/08-25-2003/insider/vo19no17_texas.htm

122 posted on 08/30/2003 8:17:15 PM PDT by streetpreacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Drugs is an extremely difficult balance.

We can't just say that everyone should be allowed to do what they want.


Trust me, I don't refrain from drug abuse because certain drugs are illegal, nor would I start using them if they were legalized. Social opprobrium, a love for my family and my own body are what keep me from abusing myself with drugs. It has nothing to do with the laws passed by corrupted legislators.
123 posted on 08/30/2003 8:21:09 PM PDT by mugsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: mugsy
As with other quarantine laws, you mustn't bind the hands of the legislature relative to any behavior that has the potential to endanger the entire community.

With some diseases you might want vigorous enforcement. With others you can wait for self-identification.
124 posted on 08/30/2003 8:21:26 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Average age of death for those who practice female-to-female sex is 48.

I think this is the statistic for homosexual male life expectancy.
Not for lesbians.

125 posted on 08/30/2003 8:21:32 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
May I then suggest Orthodox Church, unwavering and unchanging for 2000 years.
126 posted on 08/30/2003 8:22:05 PM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
People have no right to endanger others.
127 posted on 08/30/2003 8:22:28 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan; xzins
Isn't this amazing? We are living in Biblical times! The arguments for this debaughery are laughable. History does repeat itself, we are Rome.
128 posted on 08/30/2003 8:22:45 PM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Thanks for the post. I will add it to the ever growing complaint I have with the modern American Religion and her Arminian/Pelagian/Free Will soteriology.

That's not a fair argument, brother... guilt by association. So can we assume that those who hold that homosexuality is determined are reflecting the antinomianism thrusted upon us by Calvinism that makes men deny their responsibility before God? Of course that is fallacious, and I don't believe it either.

I happen to love my Calvinist and Reformed brethren who take a stand for truth, especially Lordship and Perseverance (particularly men like John MacArthur and Ray Comfort).

129 posted on 08/30/2003 8:24:23 PM PDT by streetpreacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mugsy
Exactly. If a libertarian legalization of drugs were to take place, there would be significant social problems until certain types of controls were imposed.

You can't just say that people should do what they want and then walk away. They become walking time bombs.
130 posted on 08/30/2003 8:25:29 PM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning was the Word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: xzins
She argued that having multiple sexual partners can be “holy.”

Sure. And why wouldn't she so argue? If people can pretend to embrace homosexuality and remain Christian, what behavior can they NOT accept? The greatest sin is to be "judgmental," don't you know?

131 posted on 08/30/2003 8:27:32 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine; xzins
"Average age of death for those who practice female-to-female sex is 48. "

If they die, they die.
Think of it as Evolution in Action.
People have a right to do dangerous things.

Hey xzins....is the above an example of a libertarian view in your opinion?

I disagree with it. I think it is heartless.

I might not agree with throwing people in jail for adultery and homosexuality.
But I also don't agree the "natural selection" approach to social problems...in that we should just let people die, if we can help it.

132 posted on 08/30/2003 8:29:45 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Let me add to your statement, something which these kooks failed to acknowledge, is that there is a tremendous difference between free will- and doing what *you* think is right, and surrendering your will to *GOD* and letting Him guide your life.

The Bible has become the equivalent of the Constitution- every damn liberal on the face of this planet will twist and interpret it to mean something it doesn't.

133 posted on 08/30/2003 8:34:29 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
They don't have a right to encroach upon other parties and destroy their families.

For every predestined marriage, there is a right man and right woman to fulfill that union. Those who seek to lure others into homosexuality will seek to entice one of the members of that union into adultery, fornication, and homosexuality. In each of these instances the focus is in worshipping the flesh and exalting self, rather than exalting the union as created by God.

God has already created a holy form of union, and in so fulfilling that union the joys of body, soul and spirit may be concurrently fulfilled, while remaining in felowship with Him.

This is not the case in adultery, fornication or homosexuality or sexual immorality in general. Such acts not only harm the individual, they cast future disgrace upon the immediate and even remote family of such sinners.

Too bad the press doesn't give equal time to divorced family members of recent homosexuals and how that activity has destroyed families for generations, simply by the irresponsible selfish behavior of the homosexual.

The biological ramifications are corollary, but also possible genetic cursings upon such a lineage.

Condoning or ignoring such behavior merely lowers the standard of living and potential for future American generations and any generation of freedom loving people who seek to live lives in obedience to both the laws of God and laws of man.
134 posted on 08/30/2003 8:35:54 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Oceanus
The leadership brought gay and lesbian individuals in to "teach" us how our long held belief that homosexuality is sinful was not Biblical. I got out of that place fast!

Un freaking real.

I, who may well be the sorriest excuse for a Christian who ever lived, know what Romans 1 says. How do these "leadership" people manage to skip over that chapter?

135 posted on 08/30/2003 8:39:01 PM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins
We can't just say that everyone should be allowed to do what they want.

But this is the crux of every argument made, from drugs to sex, etc. Too many people think they have the right to do *anything they want*. They use the first amendment as a crutch to legitimize their actions. It's folks who think like this that make me wonder if sometimes too much freedom is a bad thing.

136 posted on 08/30/2003 8:39:43 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! Just the other day I predicted in a thread that the bisexuals would be encouraged by the gay "marriage" issue to demand polygamy. I predicted that the bisexuals would demand "marriages" of foursomes since everyone swung both ways. I was wrong in that I predicted that bisexual polygamous "marriage" would take a few years to become an issue. I'm afraid the pedophiles will be the next champions of "diversity," once the gays and bi's get most of what they want.

Next, I again predict that Muslim men will argue that it is "discrimination" if they cannot have many wives. The liberals will be backed into a corner and will accept all sorts of reactionary, backwards things since they think all standards are relative.

Eventually, there won't be much of America worth saving and we might as well let the Chicoms nuke us and start over.

137 posted on 08/30/2003 8:40:36 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“We have all learned to challenge Romans,” said the Rev. Mari Castellanos, referring to St. Paul’s letter that, among other Scriptures, is critical of homosexual behavior. Castellanos leads the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ. “We must do likewise with all texts that go against our brothers and sisters that are being claimed as the unerring Word of God.”

Then, Mari ( I will not address her as reverent of anything except of her own fleshly desires ), you have decided to war against God and I assure you that He will be the victor.

This article is a sickening example of what happens when morality is booted out of a nation. It is also a visual of what Sodom must have been like when God decided to destroy it.

138 posted on 08/30/2003 8:41:31 PM PDT by PleaseNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glory; Nachum; Alouette; Yehuda
Blessed Bi? What the hell is that? One of y'all may want to take a stab at this: It is beyond my understanding (thankfully)
139 posted on 08/30/2003 8:43:09 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Exactly. If a libertarian legalization of drugs were to take place, there would be significant social problems until certain types of controls were imposed.

You can't just say that people should do what they want and then walk away. They become walking time bombs.


Those controls were already in place before drugs were made illegal in this country. Did you even read my post? I said, "Trust me, I don't refrain from drug abuse because certain drugs are illegal, nor would I start using them if they were legalized. Social opprobrium, a love for my family and my own body are what keep me from abusing myself with drugs. It has nothing to do with the laws passed by corrupted legislators."
140 posted on 08/30/2003 8:43:45 PM PDT by mugsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
God gave us free will

Now you think you know better than him and want to take it away to make things nicve like God wants.

You are a lunatic.

So9

141 posted on 08/30/2003 8:43:47 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: xzins; At _War_With_Liberals; Dr. Eckleburg; snerkel
I forgot that too. It is more than a coincidence though.
142 posted on 08/30/2003 8:44:19 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
"She argued that having multiple sexual partners can be 'holy.'Ó

And monkeys can fly out of my butt.

There will probably soon be a new "church" just for that sort of thing.

143 posted on 08/30/2003 8:46:48 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: xzins
A ludicrous fringe group.
144 posted on 08/30/2003 8:47:48 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
LOL--Great posting! I couldn't have put it better, myself.
145 posted on 08/30/2003 8:49:54 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It was just a matter of time.

Agreed. But it didn't start with homosexuality. It started when we loosened our morals and accepted lust, fornication, cohabitation, pornogratphy, adultery, etc.

All of the above are in direct contrast to what the Bible teaches. The best way to eliminate homosexuality from society is to stick with the ban on ALL immoral behaviours. When you allow one, you open the door to the rest. When will it all (or the society that condones it) end? It's only a matter of time.

146 posted on 08/30/2003 9:02:11 PM PDT by wai-ming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
They'll have to start a new religion. Christianity is already 100% anti-homosexuality and will never change.

I think we are witnessing the start of the Anti-Christ's "church." Soon this will be the official religion.

147 posted on 08/30/2003 9:10:43 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
"I think we are witnessing the start of the Anti-Christ's "church." Soon this will be the official religion."

Liberals intend to create the greatest religion- in their own image, of course. The state will replace God when they can pull off the final deception.


148 posted on 08/30/2003 9:45:17 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (If Hillary ever takes the oath of office, she will be the last President the US will ever have. -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“I disagree with the queer movement [when it claims] that sexual orientation is predetermined,” Kolodny said, asserting that the existence of bisexuality “challenges all that.”

“I know a lot of women who chose to become lesbian,” Kolodny said.

“I’m not sure we can make the case for genetic predetermination,” Kolodny stressed...

Kolodny lamented that the “queer” movement insists on the “party line” of genetic predetermination as part of a “political strategy.”

“The queer movement relies on, ‘We can’t help it. We’re born this way,’ Kolodny said. “It feels so safe. If you don’t say it you’re thrown to the lions and you’re evil.”

She charged that denying free choice in sex preference was “perpetuating the hetero-patriarchy,” helping the “radical right,” ignoring bisexuality, and making it easier for “hate” to continue.

I felt that these statements bore repeating. They are very revealing. More and more homo-activists are admitting that homosexuality (or in this case, anything goes) is a choice.

I wish that Christians who adhere to Biblical principles would be more vocal about the kind of sick degeneracy and subversion described in the above article. Maybe giving up allegiance to "their" sect when it abandons God's teachings, and going to a church that hasn't gone over to the dark side.

149 posted on 08/30/2003 10:02:48 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
So perhaps we should have taken consenting adults who commit adultery or homosexuality in the privacy of their homes and thrown them all in jail, and we would have prevented this sort of sexual permissiveness?

Santorum looks like an idiot.

If you had done any reading on Santorum's statement and what he subsequently said (I can' believe you haven't) you would know that he - and others who agree with him - do not want police banging on doors to see what people are doing in the privacy of their houses. The whole intent and purpose of anti-sodomy laws are to keep deviant sexual behavior PRIVATE - where it belongs. To keep deviant sexual behavior from becoming public and mainstream, thereby destroying the moral fabric and foundation of civilization.

Santorum got it right.

150 posted on 08/30/2003 10:12:46 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-378 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson