Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Has Warren Jeffs turned his trial into a sermon on polygamy?
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | July 30, 2011 | Mark Sappenfield

Posted on 07/30/2011 3:22:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

In a single dramatic hour Friday, the course of the San Angelo, Texas, trial against polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs might have changed course.

With a rambling outburst that included a malediction against the prosecutors, a defense of polygamy, and direct quotes from "the Lord God," Jeffs broke his prolonged silence in the trial, then continued to interrupt proceedings throughout the rest of the day.

The outbursts could merely be a continuation of Mr. Jeffs's apparent legal tactic: delay. But they also have also effectively turned the courtroom into a pulpit for the leader of the breakaway Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is now representing himself in the proceedings.

"No longer is it really a trial. He just wanted an occasion to give a sermon," Laurie Levenson, professor at the Loyola Law School, told CBS News.

Jeffs is charged with sexually assaulting two underage girls. If convicted, he could receive life in prison. He has claimed that, as the head of his church, he has the constitutional right to practice his own religion, which includes polygamy. The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, repudiated polygamy more than a century ago.....

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Other Christian; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: flds; homosexualagenda; jeffs; lds; mittromney; mormonism; mormons; polygamy; polygyny; romney; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last
Comments?
1 posted on 07/30/2011 3:22:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think we are denying him his lifestyle choice. I mean, we need to enact marriage equality. Without marriage equality, we can see this poor inter-generational polygamist family being split up by discrimination against their lifestyle. I mean, isn’t it time we recognize all lifestyle choices as equal? If you don’t, you’re worse than Hitler.

Yes, that was sarcasm.


2 posted on 07/30/2011 3:27:41 PM PDT by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

ping


3 posted on 07/30/2011 3:35:35 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The judge should have kicked his ass out of the courtroom for Contempt of Court.


4 posted on 07/30/2011 3:38:15 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

That would be polygamy & pedophilia wouldn’t it?


5 posted on 07/30/2011 3:38:21 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Colofornian; Elsie; FastCoyote; svcw; Zakeet; SkyPilot; rightazrain; ...

From the article: The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, repudiated polygamy more than a century ago. “

- - - - - - -
If it gets legalized, they will bring it back, guaranteed.

They have never repudiated or removed the doctrine from their Scriptures and many still defend the doctrine, even though they say it is no longer practiced.

OTOH, I do know a couple of Mainstream Mormon families who do practice it, quietly.


6 posted on 07/30/2011 3:41:33 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

You expressed their (non) logic perfectly.

This “scene” is all about marketing of worldview—marriage between man and woman is obsolete and bigoted.

It is all explained very well in the following book-—just how in just a few decades people’s worldview has been totally corrupted to believe “evil is good” and fall for this line of “tolerance” (of evil) as being a virtue. It is well worth reading to understand the psychology they use—because they are using it 24/7 to create your children’s and grandchildren’s worldview. It is very successful—but realize—you are allowing a few perverted elites to determine the ideology of your children. They, through their total control on curricula in schools and MSM media, have more influence on your children’s minds than you. That is why their has been a “shift” in acceptance of deviant behaviors...the deviants control the information portals to the minds of your children.

http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312064311&sr=8-1


7 posted on 07/30/2011 3:45:28 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

It may be sarcasm, but it’s the obvious and probably inevitable result of Texas vs. Lawrence — as Justice Scalia noted in his biting dissent of that decision.


8 posted on 07/30/2011 3:45:39 PM PDT by Ronin (Obamanation has replaced Bizarroworld as the most twisted place in the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If you had to choose between the two, which is the least harmful arrangement for society?

1. Polygamy
2. Same sex marriages.

We have a society which has outlawed one and is beginning to leagalize the other.


9 posted on 07/30/2011 3:47:58 PM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

Evil is evil.


10 posted on 07/30/2011 3:49:33 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Just as Hitler used his trial for the Beer Hall Putsch to launch the Nazis campaign to take over Germany.


11 posted on 07/30/2011 3:53:14 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; reaganaut

Wish I could link a certain other news site that has the full text of the “sickness and death” proclamation. Or that someone else is posting transcripts. If anyone wonders just what this guy is about, they need to see that!


12 posted on 07/30/2011 3:56:58 PM PDT by MizSterious (Apparently, there's no honor when it comes to someone else's retirement funds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

I’m a young guy. I graduated from the public schools recently. I know this all too well. That is one reason I think this 2012 election is so important. It might be the last chance to get people in office who are conservatives and change the countries direction from the Oval Office’s bully pulpit. The education system turns these people over to the media to tow the liberal line, and it has succeeded. An articulate, principled conservative is needed now more than ever in government, and our churches need to redouble evangelism and educational efforts.


13 posted on 07/30/2011 4:11:23 PM PDT by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Living with 5 women is one thing. The guy can say he’s simply has an open marriage with one of them.

But molesting a 12 year old in the “Temple” while others watch should be punishable by death. They have an audio of Jeffs doing this and people can be heard talking. A former FLDS says this is common practice.

As for the mainstream LDS, the articles always point out that these people are fringe. I get a little sick of hearing it.


14 posted on 07/30/2011 4:52:42 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I will only vote for a SECOND party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I don’t think this court will let Jeffs turn the trial into a sermon.

The judge said she let him go on this time because he hadn’t presented an opening statement. She also dismissed the jury from the room and later turned off Jeff’s microphone.

I really don’t this she is going to let him get away with much from here on.


15 posted on 07/30/2011 4:58:09 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

“2. Same sex marriages.”

I wonder why we have begun using this terminology instead of homosexual marriage. But I suppose the statutes that legalize the practice can’t discriminate against heterosexuals of the same sex getting married either. There might be some actual health insurance or retirement benefits or something else at stake, so maybe two BFFs of the same-sex just get married to each other and have their man-friends or lady-friends just for physical satisfaction purposes. No, that would be too weird.


16 posted on 07/30/2011 5:00:23 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

There are many young people who are not fooled by the propaganda....how they survive the 24/7 enslaught of indoctrination and misinformation amazes me! It gives me hope.

An ex-KGB Yuri Bremenov defected in the 70’s and said how our schools were overrun by Marxist ideology for several generations already....(John Dewey (he revamped “American” educational system in the 30’s and was a Fabian socialist) and they were forcing cognitive dissonance into the curricula, intentionally to destroy reasoning and logic and to teach history in disjointed manner to destroy knowledge of past and destroy the “fixed beliefs” of children.

The Prussian design of schools is for mass indoctrination and mass conformity—they use humiliation and peer pressure to condition children into thinking properly—social manipulation-—homosexuality is good, up is down. It is evil to judge and no lifestyle is better than another and no country is better than others. (All lies, but children will believe it because of lack of experience and the TV glorifies deviance.) Dumbing down of America-—many books document the intentional destruction of the public school system (Eakman and John Taylor Gatto)


17 posted on 07/30/2011 5:11:06 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

Just more proof that Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. You legitimize things by officially recognizing them - so don’t recognize any of them.


18 posted on 07/30/2011 5:32:19 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

They both destroy societies. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron—it creates the Marxist “logic” that men and women are exactly the same—interchangeable....it is a Marxist Lie to destroy the family structure....create the worldview that children do not need biological parents. Then the detached children will have no biological connections—it destroys their idea that there is a God who had a teleological design for nature.

It destroys logic and reason since children are taught that there is no design to the sex organs...it is stupid and creates a non-logical way to look at nature—an atheist, evolutionary—life is random sort of idiocy with no design. Children grow up with no common sense which only exists when understanding how nature works-—cause and effect. Homosexuality is a complete denial of cause and effect. It elevates emotion above intellect.

Homosexuality also divides the sexes—heterosexual marriage is the only true method of uniting the sexes and making sure biological children have parents that won’t be apt to molest or harm them. The genetic interest has a “nurturing” aspect to it—and although much less in man—marriage is the only way to attach men to their biological offspring. At least, in all cultures, the one man, one woman paradigm has been the most successful at raising emotionally and physically healthy children who can relate to all people, not just one sex.

It also is an illogical, unnatural use of the body which commodifies it. Homosexual acts are demeaning and disease-causing and reduces sex to a self-pleasuring artificial nihilism. It dead ends society into oblivion and meaninglessness.

Polygamy makes women into breeding cattle with less importance than the male. It is creating unequal worth of male to female, that will damage the perception of equality of the sexes especially in children. One man to one woman equalizes the sexes at the same time it acknowledges the biological differences which biology and science prove. Homosexual marriage denies reality and science and raises “urges” and “feelings” above science and reason. If a society gives rights to “urges” no matter how bizarre, then they will get everything including pederasty...because there will be always someone with the urge to sodomize boys.


19 posted on 07/30/2011 5:35:48 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; 2ndDivisionVet

One of these articles, I don’t remember which one, quoted the judge as saying (when Jeffs asked for a delay to prepare) “We are not going to delay this trial while you go to Law School!”


20 posted on 07/30/2011 5:36:00 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

You really don’t know what you are talking about. Every legal system in history has recognized marriage. There are serious negative consequences to not legally recognizing marriage at all.


21 posted on 07/30/2011 5:47:56 PM PDT by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

Most legal systems in history have recognized slavery and polygamy, too...

I’d be interested to hear the negative consequences of not legally recognizing marriage at all. Is it the breakdown of the family? Fatherless households? Out-of-wedlock children? All those things we have now - with our legally recognized marriage?


22 posted on 07/30/2011 5:55:06 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

Government needs to legitimize one woman for one man for the general welfare—the only form of family that leads to equality of the sexes and the model that most guarantees that children will be raised by their biological parents (inalienable right to life in the natural design—biological)—the safest for children, both emotionally and physically.

Government of the US is designed on the ideas of property rights and children being the property rights of their biological parents. Parents have the “duty” to raise any children they bring into the world. Marriage of one man, one woman promotes equality of the sexes and unifies them for the purpose of doing their duty, which if people do their “duty” creates responsible, flourishing societies.

Also for property rights, inheritance, etc. there needs to be a structure to form societies...and anthropology and science has proven that the most successful one is the Christian model. Black’s dictionary defines marriage as one man and one woman which is the understood definition for thousands of years...so it should never be changed.

Marriage is understood to be the fundamental unit of a culture because children need 18 years to mature and be protected and nurtured.

If you destroy the family unit, you destroy the children and then you destroy the culture. That is what Dalrymple is documenting in England right now—the destruction of the family—the complete destruction of the offspring who are being abuse, killed, neglected like in no other generation in the history of man. If they do make it to adulthood they are drug addicts, ignorant, and useless to society—in fact, the cost of their dysfunction is mind boggling. They had no loving parents, so they can’t love anything....especially themselves and are incapable of having any lasting relationships so they create children who are usually taken away because they neglect them.

It is that simple, the cultural Marxist started targeting the family in the 1930’s to destroy it and Christianity—to destroy America. Read up on Marcuse and Gramsci...they explained their plans and implimented it in the curricula of American schools through the socialist John Dewey.

All anthropology has shown the importance of biology and kinship in the formation of societies...that is why Marxist try to destroy that biological connection which is what creates security and happiness in children and their best best for a flourishing future. Prisons are filled with psychologically damaged people who were abandoned by one or both parents which creates dysfunction from addictions to Charles Manson type behavior (he never knew his dad and was sodomized as a boy). Fathers are crucial to healthy sexual identities in males children and also determine if girls grow up to hate or love men and can relate to them.

There is an emotional side to human beings. You are neglecting the emotional health of children by saying govenments should not support marriage of one man and one woman—the best proven method of raising children. Societies can not afford to have emotionally unstable people which is usually caused by no loving mother and father. It is documented.


23 posted on 07/30/2011 6:06:16 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

No, not that. Those are the negative consequences of not properly recognizing marriage as a lifelong covenant with rare instances of divorce.

The negative consequences are the fact that man and woman will not be recognized as one. Divorce will be difficult to deal with. Shared assets will be difficult to deal with. With marriage law, in cases of divorce assets can be split up properly. Those are just the most practical implications of not protecting the lifelong covenant between man and woman.


24 posted on 07/30/2011 6:12:44 PM PDT by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

So tell me how Government recognition of marriage as one man/one woman is working out with the family today, in the US. Or in the UK. Or in any Western society.

Family units are breaking down, and have been breaking down for generations. Government recognition of marriage isn’t helping to stop that, as far as I can tell.

If anything, there is a Biblical basis for polygamy - consider Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Or Deuteronomy 21:15–17.

I’m not a supporter of polygamy. I am a supporter of getting Government out of the marriage business, since we’re at the situation where Government either recognizes - and thus legitimizes - gay marriage, or just drops recognition altogether. I see lots of potential damage from the former (it’s a foundation for a much stronger push for gay rights in all aspects of society) and - at this point - really no damage from the latter.


25 posted on 07/30/2011 6:16:54 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RecoveringPaulisto

I’m pretty sure we had out-of-wedlock children before divorce was common. It was societal pressure as “not acceptable” that kept it to a minimum, not the legal difficulty of obtaining a divorce.

I lived in Chile in the early 2000s - divorce was illegal at that time. Yet there were still plenty of single-parent households where a child was conceived out of wedlock. It happened anyway.

As far as assets, I think it’s simple - register names, like on cars. If one name is listed, then it’s owned by that individual. If two names are listed, they jointly own it 50/50 unless other documented ratios are presented. For household goods - well, just like roommates divvying up stuff, it can get messy - but any severance of a relationship is messy, and not just from a financial standpoint.

I’m just looking at the pragmatic reality of today - Government recognition of marriage is NOT preventing the societal ills that marriage is supposed to prevent, and is in fact leading to a path of greater acceptance and legalization of the gay agenda. So do away with Government-recognized marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between any consenting parties and be done with it.


26 posted on 07/30/2011 6:22:50 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Has Warren Jeffs turned his trial into a sermon on polygamy?

He's trying for the Insanity Plea Defense

27 posted on 07/30/2011 6:26:10 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
 
You are DESPICABLE!


28 posted on 07/30/2011 6:27:27 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
From the article: The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, repudiated polygamy more than a century ago. “

Evidently the writer never looked up the history of it all:

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...
I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."

~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President

The spineless 'leaders' of MORMONism rolled over and exposed their collective bellies to the US Gov't like a litter of fearful puppies!

29 posted on 07/30/2011 6:31:13 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Which is why Official Declaration #3 will be counter to OD #1.


30 posted on 07/30/2011 6:50:06 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; 2ndDivisionVet

He’s trying for the Insanity Plea Defense

- - - - -
I would think so to but IIRC he has already been evaluated and found fit to stand trial.


31 posted on 07/30/2011 7:27:45 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

On the contrary, marriage was working in America as perfect as any system ever devised, in the history of the world—for freedom, creativity, equality—no other government was as successful for creating such wealth and freedom for such a diverse group of people....why? Tocqueville said it best and I don’t have the time to retell his conclusions to why America was so great but this is partly why:

It was because of the devotion of women to raising their children (unlike the French, whom Tocqueville said that French men would never discuss their women with other men because those men might know their spouse better than them-—in other words...women in America were more faithful and it was entirely because of the Christian paradigm and a Bible in most every house hold.

Tocqueville: America was great because America is good. He was referring to the Christian paradigm and design of the family and extended family...such a support system which gave men the freedom to do great things and think up great things. Division of labor.....the thing Communist feminists have been trying to destroy since the seventies. Family. Why—because the division of labor and the family being responsible for the education of the young-—teaching them to read with the Bible—like Lincoln.
It created individualism, self-sufficiency, a support structure other than government. It was freedom to raise your children with your own worldview—an ideology where sacrifice was important and immediate gratification could be delayed for more important things. There was meaning to life, since, of course, God put you on earth for a reason.

So why is it not working????? Because of the insertion of the Prussian design of mass forced schooling to destroy the morality of the children—create mass conformity, destroy individualism and the “thinkers outside the box” by taking kids away from the family unit, and sticking them into mass indoctrination factories, which are designed to destroy their “fixed beliefs”. (BK Eakman)

This is intentional....Dewey was a socialist and he wanted forced schooling for younger kids (they want to be god and design human beings to do what the state wants (J.S. Mills)-Take away young children from loving parents so they can “resocialized” and conditioned them to be slaves—just do what they are told....is exactly what schools condition them to do....raise your hand and wait to be called on..... (Dewey threw out the God-centered McGuffey Readers...killing the Christian paradigm of moral absolutes....a value system where there is Absolute Truth, which Allan Bloom writes about extensively in The Closing of the American Mind.

The Pope also writes about this “Age of Relativism” —the Marxist ideology posited into the school system and controlling media, esp. Hollywood starting in the 30’s with few exceptions.

Undgerground History of American Education by Gatto is another good book that tells of the stealth destruction of morality in people so that Marxist ideology could redesign the “family” to destroy all biological connections—because Marcuse et al. knew to take control over America they had to destroy the family unit and Christianity...the two things which created individualism and a support system which defies intrusive government.

What did they do first...inject Kinseyian ideas, The Beats, etc—Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations and others paid to elevate trash into culture and the university—and kick out the Classical Education—that which taught Honor and Truth—all the virtues which led to the most successful relationships (and happiness).

They elevated evil—The Beats—whose books were vulgar and vile—Burroughs had hanging boys with erections being sodomized —ideas as vulgar as that and worse being given “prizes” with Marxist professors glorifying it and demoting Milton and Dickens and those “evil” white men. Ayn Rand commented at the time....there is such dedication to the destruction of values. It was everywhere (Germany’s Weimar Republic in 1919—same thing) in America by the 60’s and by the 70’s standards continued to elevate things which divide people and destroy relationships.

Then they created no-fault divorce to destroy marriages which destroys the ability of children to form long term relationships. Children of divorce are far more likely to divorce—so it became exponential. Divorce was very low until after the 60’s and the promotion through hollywood of divorcees as being glamorous and beautiful and ideal. Hollywood constantly glamourizes dysfunctional behaviors as being good and fathers as being bigots and dummies—starting with Archie Bunker.

Marketing of Evil tells also of the deliberate destruction of worldview to the atheist German Postmodernism one. It is intentional, been going on for a hundred years, actually, and is designed to destroy the family unit, so that children are easily manipulated and people have no support structure to oppose the state. People need emotional support of family—it is where all happiness originates....take that away and you have no design in human nature—no God—no meaning to life...except the immediate physical sensations—feel good do it which always destroys societies.

Theodore Dalrymple writes extensively about the destruction of the family unit in England (intentional by welfare system and elite theories (marxism) that has ruined the support system of the children and if the children manage to live....they are addicts, gang members or some other drain on society.

Charles Manson is someone who never knew his father and was not protected in childhood. He was abused and sodomized....which happens when there are not two parents to help each other out in the caring for children—strangers are employed to watch over the precious human beings that need to learn empathy, compassion and trust by parents consistently being there for years.

Easy divorce is how Lenin ruined Russia...he took women out of the house and invented day care for his mass indoctrination of toddlers to have total control designed by Pavlov of there worldview. The emotion damage still exists, because of this separation....there is absolutely no trust between the people. The ability of mass exterminations is because of the lack of compassion that children receive in early childhood. Mansions are created in early childhood.

Trust is formed in the formative years of a child. If they have no stable relationships or a mother that flakes out they will be unable to trust. (Piaget, Erikson, Freud).

Study the effect of Romanian orphanages. Humans need a loving, caring adults—preferably a man and a woman so they can learn to relate to all people and model a healthy relationship where it is easiest to flourish.


32 posted on 07/30/2011 7:30:24 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Hmmm....

So the moral fiber of individuals is what made marriage work. And the Government intrusion into education is what is breaking down the family, destroying that fiber.

And you don’t see a problem with Government intruding into marriage? If it’s destroyed the moral fiber of America, and the educational system, what makes you think it won’t destroy the concept of marriage - just like it’s doing now?


33 posted on 07/30/2011 7:46:21 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; 50mm; darkwing104; Religion Moderator

Welcome to FR, n00b. Good advice would not be quite so vocal about doing away with marriage on a PRO-FAMILY site.

It doesn’t bode well for your future.


34 posted on 07/30/2011 8:03:14 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; 50mm; darkwing104; Religion Moderator
Welcome to FR, n00b.

Heh - I guess when all else fails, it's time to call out the seniority card, gramps? Thankfully conservatism is about reason and logic and morality, not age of presence. Unless of course you consider Daniel Inouye and Patrick Leahy as "better" Senators than Jim DeMint because they've served much longer than him?

Is a seniority-based society what you envision for FR, rather than a meritocracy? No? Then I'd suggest cutting out the slurs like "n00b"...

Good advice would not be quite so vocal about doing away with marriage on a PRO-FAMILY site.

Please tell me ANYWHERE where I said we should do away with marriage - PLEASE! Your inability to accurately read and comprehend English as written is no excuse to accuse me of doing what you think I'm doing.

Go ahead, tell me where I said we should eliminate marriage, and I'll cheerfully leave FR. Would you like to make the same offer - tell me where I said we should eliminate marriage or you will leave FR? No?

Since you obviously could not follow it, let me lay it out for you again: I said the Government should get out of the marriage business; not that the marriage business should end. For most people it's an obvious difference; others don't quite have the cognitive ability to discern the two.

If you take offense at this - so be it. That's your issue, not mine, but I do recognize that for some people, being schooled by a "n00b" can be an embarrassment.

35 posted on 07/30/2011 8:20:08 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Elsie; ejonesie22; Godzilla; greyfoxx39; MHGinTN; Tennessee Nana; svcw

Hey, I’ve been here 10 years, you less than a month. And you are the one in need of schooling.

Why don’t you head back to DU where you belong. Or better yet, start a vanity thread about your views to dissolve the legal entity of marriage. That would be fun.

You have shown no logic, no morality and therefore the joke is on you.

If you are so thin-skinned as to be offended by ‘noob’ then the Religion Forum isn’t for you at all.

Post #25 and #26 for starters. Doing away with government sanctioned marriage is doing away with marriage. But I don’t expect much from lib trolls trying to pretend to be conservative.

LOL. You are not off to a good start here. I will bet money I will be here long after you get the zot.

Hey, Inmans, some fresh meat on the Plygy threads.


36 posted on 07/30/2011 8:28:03 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

The purpose of government is to provide a Rule of Law—a system to protect the Natural Rights of all citizens which includes their posterity. In Natural Law Theory—duties always come before any “rights” and that was the philosophy of our Founders who adopted Natural Law Theory and where the term “Natural Rights” comes from, which presupposes a Supreme Being. (why the laws of nature and nature’s God exists in Declaration and our Rights come from the Creator).

You can’t get much clearer than that.

Just Law which is defined by Cicero as “Right Reason according to Nature”. That is where our government’s idea of Justice comes from—right reason assumes there is a “wrong” reason.

All Just Law has to be based in Right Reason which is governed by the laws of nature....(God’s design)....which is the foundation of reason and logic and science (Newtonian). Cause and effect in nature assumes there was a Creator since all of nature points to a cause. This is the philosophy that was incorporated into the Constitution and as such guarantees our “Natural Rights”. There is a teleological design to man..proven by nature....that is easily knowable to all human beings....and the best, most equal system for human beings to flourish and be productive in the emotionally safest and most flourishing model is marriage which promotes the long term nurturing of their own posterity—the connectivity of the past with the future which gives genetic interest to both and a reason to sacrifice for others. Marriage assures selflessness since there has to be sacrifices made because of the possibility of children. Selfish societies are always destructive societies. Christianity teaches selflessness....and sacrifice...it is why it was so perfect for flourishing, creative, productive societies....and science...it teaches delayed gratification—perseverance which is crucial to intellectual development.

In Natural Law Theory which is the underlying principle of our Constitution, human beings have duties of caring for their biological offspring....which is where the right to personal property originates. It is necessary to ensure the survival of self and offspring. It is the basis of Natural Rights and as such the government has the “duty” to provide a system where human beings will be able to flourish and care for their biological offspring...it is the purpose of government. Marriage is essential to the emotional and physical survival of children....the importance of a mother and father to all children has never been in dispute until marxist studies similar to the global warming ones...to manipulate “feelings” and worldview and promote agendas..... I’ve studied child development and worked with children for decades.

It only started to become “controversial” because of the feminist movement which was developed to remove the mother from her children and destroy patriarchy—destroy the trust that children have in parents. It used to be considered extremely evil to have strangers watch young children up until the Feminist movement—than all the agitprop made “daycare” a good, AFTER they renamed it “preschool” so mothers would fall for the ruse and abandon their young (primates would never do it) to strangers to form the children’s worldview. BK Eakman writes and documents decades of intentional destruction of “fixed beliefs” of children so children will believe up is down etc....there will be no logic—the laws of nature won’t exist. Marx’s design of utopia....where no biological relationships exist so that loyalty and dependence is only for the state.


37 posted on 07/30/2011 8:37:39 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; Elsie; ejonesie22; Godzilla; greyfoxx39; MHGinTN; Tennessee Nana; svcw; ...
First off, why the "call out" to a crew? Is it to drum-up support for your error?

Why don’t you head back to DU where you belong.

Because I'm not a liberal or Democrat. I'm a conservative. Apparently one that can read as well...

Or better yet, start a vanity thread about your views to dissolve the legal entity of marriage. That would be fun.

Because that's not what I've ever advocated here. It's what you want to believe I wrote, but nowhere near the truth.

You have shown no logic, no morality and therefore the joke is on you.

Really? Can you point out where? You came in here, busting my chops, and added nothing to the argument. Did not address my comments at all in terms of logic or morality, just your own ignorance and example of lack of reading comprehension.

So, how about doing the conservative thing and showing me where my logic is in error?

If you are so thin-skinned as to be offended by ‘noob’ then the Religion Forum isn’t for you at all.

It's not the term "n00b" that's the problem - I was called that much earlier here at FR. It's that you said it in a clearly mocking, condescending manner. It wasn't said in the love of Christ now, was it? And isn't that what the Religion forum is about?

Doing away with government sanctioned marriage is doing away with marriage.

Really? Explain that. How is it we need a State to recognize a religious ceremony? How is my commitment to another - in front of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and the Lord God Himself - only valid if the Government sanctions it?

I'd be VERY curious to see what you say about that...

LOL. You are not off to a good start here. I will bet money I will be here long after you get the zot.

I'll do you one better - I've pinged the Religion Moderator on this post as well. If he can find that I've called for elimination of marriage - and not just elimination of State-recognition of marriage - I'll ask that he immediately "zot" me.

Failing that, if I'm still here in a day, I think the Christian thing for you to do would be to apologize, and consider how you behave in front of your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Lastly, it is 100% Biblical to confront and correct a brother in Christ when they are going astray in there walk with Christ, and attacking and condemning others without cause.

38 posted on 07/30/2011 8:46:55 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

LOL. Don’t need support, just thought they would be amused by you.

And I’m thinking you might be a retread.


39 posted on 07/30/2011 8:51:34 PM PDT by reaganaut ( "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

First off, I want to THANK YOU for the polite, open, and informative exchanges! I wish others in this thread would take your example and learn from it...

I do understand the issues with Natural Law, and the Rule of Law. However, my concern is that we - as a nation - are turning away from the source of our Rights (the Creator, as identified in our foundational documents) and towards Man. So rather Natural (which is to say, God-based) Law, we are moving toward Man’s Law. And so we see the legalization of things like gay marriage.

I contend that society is going to be more damaged by a legalization of gay marriage - which, at this point, I believe is not only inevitable but required as one of the signs of the future return of Christ - than the elimination of State-sanctioned marriage. A marriage commitment at this point, from a legal/Government standard, is no more than a simplified contract with implied clauses of property divisions.

I believe that if we are to maintain the sanctity of marriage as God intended it, we need to take it back from the State. Make it a Christ-centered thing only. Let the Government offer its civil ceremonies to man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and man and woman, man and phone, whathaveyou. Let it descend to the level of what the Government functionally considers it to be today - a simplified contract between parties with some implied conditions.

Take marriage back from the State, and keep it holy in the Church. What two people pledge to each other before God and their fellow believers has no less import because the State does not recognize it. Much of the early life of America saw such religious marriages lasting for years before they could be “legally” registered, yet it made those marriages no less valid in the eyes of God.

If the gays want to get “married”, and the Government and legal system has sunk to the level where such an abomination is their right, then remove the entire religious aspect from the act. Do not let it be defiled by such deviant applications. Strip Government out of the marriage business, let it deal with the secular and legal ramifications of a union of people.

Put marriage back in the hands of the church and God.

Anyway, that’s my opinion, and thank you again for your kind, courteous, and expressive posts!


40 posted on 07/30/2011 8:55:25 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

You can always make a good point by quoting de Tocqueville. I have been kicking around the idea of writing a book on the worldwide cultural effect of ancient French religion (Caesar to Mao), and at the base is the hatred that the French have toward marriage: the ancient goddesses were Arduinna and Rosemerta. Arduinna was called Diana by Caesar, and Rosemerta was Venus. However, Rosemerta was a goddess who hated her husband and every marriage (a proto-NOW member?); thus, the Gauls worshiped virgins and whores.

The relation to the France of de Tocqueville’s day and today is fairly obvious. I also agree that the loosening of marriage legally has led to a rapid change in American morality generally. Tightening the laws may not make us more religious, but at least it will help keep from disaster those who have trouble controlling themselves.


41 posted on 07/30/2011 8:59:29 PM PDT by mrreaganaut (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Excellent post. Unfortunately ‘Tocqueville: America was great because America is good’ is a hoax quotation dating to 1941.


42 posted on 07/30/2011 9:00:32 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable -- Daniel Webster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All
2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.
2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.
1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1).
1610 Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord's words it still carries traces of man's "hardness of heart" which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.
1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection." Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.
 

43 posted on 07/30/2011 9:06:44 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; Religion Moderator; reaganaut
Well since you decided to ping me I'll answer you.

I'll do you one better - I've pinged the Religion Moderator on this post as well. If he can find that I've called for elimination of marriage - and not just elimination of State-recognition of marriage - I'll ask that he immediately "zot" me.

In your post #26 you stated So do away with Government-recognized marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between any consenting parties and be done with it..

You have called for the replacement of marriage with civil contracts - with no definition of "marriage". Therefore to the observer - you have called for the elimination of marriage via replacement with "civil contracts". It is not missed that you stated any consenting parties you've opened the door to gay marriage as well as polygamy, polyamorism, etc.

You further expressed "interest" in not legalizing marriage at all (post 22).

Finally in post 18 you stated Just more proof that Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. You legitimize things by officially recognizing them - so don’t recognize any of them.

So you are advocating ceasing to recognize any marriage. Civil unions are not marriages - thus you are advocating an elimination of marriage. You see, your arguments above do not recognize the Christian definition in favor of a 'civil union'.

reaganaut:Or better yet, start a vanity thread about your views to dissolve the legal entity of marriage. That would be fun.
FTSL : Because that's not what I've ever advocated here. It's what you want to believe I wrote, but nowhere near the truth.

I have pointed out three citations from you where you have done exactly that - advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage. For all your bluster, the challenge is correct, not in error. You have shown that not only have you advocated the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage, you advocated a non-Christian basis of marriage.

44 posted on 07/30/2011 9:19:54 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

I didn’t put that in quotes because I didn’t know what the exact quote was....but his meaning was exactly that....it was deduced from his entire writings...which this is only a part:

Democracy in America (Alexis de Tocqueville)

“The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfortunately the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion.”

To me, I will repeat....Tocqueville is stating that America is great because America is good. He could have said that exact statement...it is what he observed.


45 posted on 07/30/2011 9:27:57 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; reaganaut
Well since you decided to ping me I'll answer you.

I pinged you because reaganaut chose to ping you first; it is common courtesy, correct?

You have called for the replacement of marriage with civil contracts - with no definition of "marriage".

On the contrary, as you quoted I called for doing away with Government-recognized marriage. There is a difference - marriage still exists, it is recognized by the Church - not the Government.

And in fact, our Government already recognizes such - there is no need to have a religious ceremony to be married, in the eyes of the Government it is merely a set of signatures on a purchased piece of paper, and entry into a Government registry that creates a union that was intended to only happen with the blessing of God.

Therefore to the observer - you have called for the elimination of marriage via replacement with "civil contracts".

To those who wish to drop the adjective phrase "Government-recognized" used to describe "marriage", sure. To those who read the words as written wholly and entirely, I would say no.

It is not missed that you stated any consenting parties you've opened the door to gay marriage as well as polygamy, polyamorism, etc.

For a civil contract - which I stated, and you claimed, absolutely. Such right to a civil contract exists TODAY. There is nothing that states it is illegal - or even immoral - to draw up a contract of responsibilities and sharing of assets with any other person or entity, is there?

So you are advocating ceasing to recognize any marriage. Civil unions are not marriages - thus you are advocating an elimination of marriage. You see, your arguments above do not recognize the Christian definition in favor of a 'civil union'.

Legitimize is to make legal; if you eliminate Government from recognizing marriage, then by definition it is no longer legitimate - it is not legal. That does not mean the marriage does not exist, nor does it imply anything about the religious aspect of marriage - which is the sacrament being defiled with legitimate gay marriages.

In an ever-increasing number of States, legitimate marriage IS heretical and an abomination in the eyes of God, because it allows for gays to marry. That is what legitimate - legal - marriage brings us today.

So remove the power of the State to even interfere with marriage. Give it back to the Church.

I have pointed out three citations from you where you have done exactly that - advocating the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage.

Dissolve the legal entity of marriage, yes. Dissolve the religious entity of marriage? Of course not

You have shown that not only have you advocated the dissolution of the legal entity of marriage, you advocated a non-Christian basis of marriage.

Now, to reach THAT conclusion you're going through some pretty interesting gyrations! How is removing the corruption of the sacrament by the Government, advocating a non-Christian basis for the sacrament?

Is gay marriage legal in some jurisdictions of the US? How does that square with a Christian-basis for marriage? Better to pluck the offending eye out than let the entire body be lost to sin. So remove the offending part - Government involvement in marriage - as to preserve the sacrament as a whole.

46 posted on 07/30/2011 9:35:12 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; reaganaut

I certainly agree that there is a greater Biblical acceptance of polygamy than of same-sex unions - but that’s not saying much, considering that homosexual acts are called an abomination before the Lord. There’s greater Biblical authority against eating pork than the pig farmers want to admit, too.

The evils of family breakdown have little to do with doctrinal differences of opinion, but much to do with governmental imposition of opinion. The mere fact of recognizing marriage does not corrode; the idea that government grants marriage does. What the government grants, it may modify or take away. Such is the state of marriage today.

Removing recognition throws out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, general restrictions such as monogamy may indeed originate in sectarian views, but the positive social effects generated flow even to atheists. Easy outs such as no-fault incontestable divorce not only interfere with religious practice (for example, a Catholic woman who believes she is still married to the man who divorced her, because her Church teaches her so, is generally regarded as crazy), but also redound to the detriment of society as a whole. Uncertainty in intimate relations is not the fault of recognition of marriage, but of redefinition of marriage.

In short, bad drivers would not become better by banning the Department of Motor Vehicles.


47 posted on 07/30/2011 9:41:27 PM PDT by mrreaganaut (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; reaganaut
On the contrary, as you quoted I called for doing away with Government-recognized marriage.

thank you for confessing that reaganaut's assertion from the original post is correct then - perhaps you can apologize to her now.

There is a difference - marriage still exists, it is recognized by the Church - not the Government.

As clearly cited - you advocate a 'civil union' between ANY PARTNERS - No church definition or association.

To those who read the words as written wholly and entirely, I would say no.

That is your story and you are sticking to it - other observers discern otherwise.

For a civil contract - which I stated, and you claimed, absolutely. Such right to a civil contract exists TODAY.

And you have liberally broadened the definitions and allowances to who can be in those 'unions' - except those contracts are still limited - contrary to your ANY partner definition.

<>Legitimize is to make legal; if you eliminate Government from recognizing marriage, then by definition it is no longer legitimate - it is not legal. That does not mean the marriage does not exist, nor does it imply anything about the religious aspect of marriage - which is the sacrament being defiled with legitimate gay marriages.

So your's becomes an anything goes proposition - as not everyone is under the Church.

How is removing the corruption of the sacrament by the Government, advocating a non-Christian basis for the sacrament?

Once again, yours is flawed - you replace the church with 'civil unions' .

48 posted on 07/30/2011 9:49:17 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mrreaganaut; reaganaut
I do agree fully on this point:

The mere fact of recognizing marriage does not corrode; the idea that government grants marriage does. What the government grants, it may modify or take away. Such is the state of marriage today.

Because we've given Government dominion over marriage, it can make of marriage what it wants. And right now, it's making it an abomination.

So, we have the option of trying to take Government back in the right direction, or simply taking marriage back. Of the two, I believe the latter is easier to do, as it uses Government's own avarice to keep the secular union under its grasp, and eliminates much of what it sees as "opposition" to its position.

We know the "Defense of Marriage" approaches are failing in State after State, and most likely will fail ultimately at the Federal level. The Christian foundation for such unions is no longer considered; it is only the secular, across-all-societal-groups that is of import to our Government. Thus we will never win the battle over keeping marriage pure when it is controlled by Government.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Caesar can have his secular union; God gets marriage.

In short, bad drivers would not become better by banning the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is an interesting analogy, but perhaps not fully on-point. I would say that bad drivers can still get their license, but only drivers that commit to good driving habits can get insurance (those who marry in a Church receive the sacrament of marriage).

Interesting thoughts, however!

49 posted on 07/30/2011 9:52:54 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; reaganaut
thank you for confessing that reaganaut's assertion from the original post is correct then - perhaps you can apologize to her now.

Huh? What is with some folks here - can't you see the words "GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED"? Doesn't that work? Right now, we have PARALLEL marriage ceremonies - one of the Government, one of the Church. Eliminate the Government one - it does not imply elimination of the one in the Church - the REAL marriage.

As clearly cited - you advocate a 'civil union' between ANY PARTNERS - No church definition or association.

Sure. They exist today. Is that at odds? How is that any different than what any group of parties can do THIS VERY DAY? It is not. Thus your insistence that somehow this is "wrong" is not just moot, it is irrelevant.

You can get married, and you can also have a civil union. In fact, we call those 'civil marriages' where the Church is not involved at all. And many times prenuptial agreements are used - legal contracts to spell out the civil union arrangements between the parties.

This is a non-issue to the central point - get the Government out of the business of marriage.

So your's becomes an anything goes proposition - as not everyone is under the Church.

On the contrary! I am saying the ONLY people who can get married are those who will do it under the Church! If you choose to not do it under the church, then get yourself a civil union - because it is NOT a marriage.

Once again, yours is flawed - you replace the church with 'civil unions' .

Not even close. If you get married today in a Church, are you married?

What if you choose to not get a marriage license? Are you still married?

I contend it is those who insist that Government recognize a union of man and woman, before the Church and with God's blessing, who are placing the Church and the sacrament of marriage as subservient to the Government. For you are telling all that a marriage is not valid unless the Government blesses and condones it.

That is, IMHO, heretical.

Marriage is the union of man and woman, becoming one flesh in the eyes of God and their fellow believers. Two people becoming one legal entity is a civil union. That is the matter for the Government - not the Church - to decide.

The distinction is quite clear and obvious for those willing to read my words plainly, without preconceived notions.

As far as an apology for reaganaut, if my words were hateful, I apologize. They were not meant as such, but as correction in a manner which I deemed she would understand, as it was the manner in which I was addressed and my words taken out of context and abused.

50 posted on 07/30/2011 10:02:01 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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