Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's a common claim of libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that religious conservatives use the public schools to promote creationism. I believe that claim is incorrect. The truth is that libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics use the public schools to promote atheism. Public schools are bad of course, and all schools should be private. But if there are going to be public schools anyway, they should be for all people, for evolutionists and creationists, for atheists and theists. Public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and students should be given the choice which of those courses they want to take. It's the libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that want to take away people's free choice, in the name of religious freedom, so as to make sure that everybody is forced to learn scientific truth and nobody gets exposed to pseudo-scientific heresy. That idea is based on a mistaken view of what separation between Church and State means.

Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other. Or religion over nonreligion. Or nonreligion over religion. Forbidding creationism in public schools is itself an attack on the separation between Church and State. It means the the State promotes education the way atheists want it and hampers eduction the way theists want it. My opponents will counter that public schools do not promote atheism. They're supposedly neutral and teach only science, while they teach neither atheism nor theism. Nonsense. What a school teaches is never neutral and can never be neutral. Every choice a school makes on what courses to give and how is a value jugdement on what is good. Therefore, the conflicts public schools create about what to teach can never be solved. They're inherent in the very idea of a public school and can only be solved by privatizing all public schools. The best public schools can do for now is cater to as many needs as possible, especially needs carried by large proportions of students. Not doing that, for example by teaching evolution and not creationism, is not a neutral choice.

If one interprets the Separation between Church and State more strictly, so as to mean government must not even have any indirect connection to religion, then one might indeed argue that public schools should not teach creationism. (One might then even be able to argue that people on welfare should be forbidden to spend their welfare money on religious goods or services.) But such a strict interpretation would be unfair as long as there is no Separation between School and State. For if there is this kind of a separation between Church and State, while there is no general separation between School and State, religious education is put at a severe disadvantage to any kind of other education. Why should all schools of thought about what kind of education is appropriate get a say in the public school system, except if there is a religious connection? Separation between School and State is a great idea, which would depolitisize education, via privatization. But a very strictly interpreted separation between Church and State is simply not possible or desirable, as long as government controls public schools. If they control public schools they should try to cater equally to all education needs and education philosophies, whether they be scientific, atheist, religious, or whatever.

In this regard it's the religious right that stands on the side of freedom of religion and free scientific inquiry. They fully respect the rights of atheists to teach evolution in public schools, even though they think it incorrect. Their opponents, on the other hand, do no respect the rights of theist to teach creationism in public schools, because they think it incorrect. It may be that strictly speaking evolution is not atheism while creationism is theism. That doesn't remove the unfairness of the public schools in that they do teach what many atheist want taught (evolution) while they do not teach what many theist want taught (creationism). One might argue that the principle involved is that public schools should teach science and that therefore evolution is an appropriate subject to teach while creationism is not. There are two problems with that view:

1. Many creationists believe creationism is scientific.
2. It's not true that public schools only teach science.

As to 1, I agree that creationism is bad science, or nonscience, while evolution is good science. But it's not appropriate for government to make judgements about what is science or not science. For government to do that is a violation of well established principes of free scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is true and creationism is false is besides the point. Government shouldn't decide what scientific truth is and tell people what to do or learn based on that judgement. Using government power against religious scientism is just as bad as when the Church used force against Galileo's secular science, and this is so for the same reasons. Therefore, the most neutral position to take is that everything should be taught in public schools if there is a big enough demand for it being taught.

As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills. Therefore one may not disallow the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it's not science, even putting aside the fact that not everybody agrees creationism isn't science. The same argument would disallow many things that are currently being taught in public schools. If we single out religion as something nonscientific that cannot be taught, while say political correctness can be taught, then we are using the first amendment in a way opposite to how it was intended. Instead of protecting religion now it's being used as a bias against religion.

Creationism is just one of many subjects that could be taught by public schools. And if that's what many people want taught, it should be taught, at least as an optional subject. Allowing creationism taught does not require any law which would respect an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and so there's no first amendment conflict. Quite the opposite. Taxing people to pay for public schools, and then forbidding them to teach religion, limits people's funds and options for exercising religion. Precisely a law forbidding creationism in public schools prohibits to some extent, or at least hampers, the free exercise of religion.

Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.

The state is used to supply education the way atheists want it, while it cannot be used to supply education the way theists want it, but they do pay part of the taxes. The reason this is done is not because atheists value religious freedom. I'm not saying atheists don't value religious freedom. I assume they do, I'm saying that's not the reason they control the public schools in this manner. Atheists do this for the same reason that in Islamic states all education is religious. They do it because they want to force people to live wholesome lives and do and learn what is good for them. Science is good, religion is bad, ergo people must learn science and the teaching of religion must be made difficult. Every group uses state power to enforce their way of life on others. This will be so as long as there is a state. Only the theists are more honest about it. These conflicts can never be solved except by privatization of schools. But as long as there are public schools any special restrictions on any kind of teaching, whether such teachings are defended on religious, scientific, cultural or moral grounds, is inappropriate and in conflict with the spirit of the first amendment. I'm an atheist, by the way.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"And they should teach both the "Islamic whackos flying jetliners" AND "Angry thumb of God" theories behind the collapse of the WTC!"

Don't forget the "A sinister NeoCon/Zionist cabal plotted it on behalf of Halliburton" theory.

[orionblamblam]

Exactly! And the Godzilla theory! Why don't the teach the Godzilla theory? You can't prove that Godzilla *didn't* tear down the WTC. It's a conspiracy!!

[AndrewC]

My [bracketed] comments help to explain my argument.. Except to those, like you, who oppose our religious freedoms. You are your own worse enemy.

Establishment does not mean "teachings/precepts". "Not stealing" is a teaching of Christianity, but no sane person would equate promoting that concept with establishing a religion.

[P_A_I]

"Is separation of church and state prescribed by the United States Constitution or not?"
Yes. 'Separation' is in effect directed [prescribed] in three different places. --
States are directed to have republican forms of governments, [no theocracies allowed].
- No religious tests for office are to be allowed.
Nor are laws to be made that respect any of the establishments [teachings/precepts] of religion.

My [bracketed] comments help to explain my argument..



_____________________________________


Andy:

Establishment does not mean "teachings/precepts".

---

Making laws respecting "an establishment of religion" means exactly that. Teachings, dogma, beliefs, precepts, - all of these are part of 'an establishment'. Any organization has established precepts.

[watchin]

I thought it was defined in the Constitution under "separation of church and state."

This person obviously thinks there is a heading in the Constitution titled "separation of church and state."

In every case I've cited, the implication is there. For the vast majority, the implication is no doubt intentional because they believe the myth themselves.

You're assuming that all of them are constitutional scholars merely referring to the principle stated in the first amendment. You give them too much credit, and you know it - but it fits your agenda.

And as long as we're slinging mud - wasn't it Clinton who perfected the practice of accusing his opponent of his own faults?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My point is that we should not kid ourselves concerning the indirect nature of much of the evidence presented to our reason and senses. If science is unwilling to claim for itself the ability to determine absolute facts or truth, then it must assume the mantle of faith alongside all human observers."

No, it mustn't. To say that one can't prove a scientific theory 100% is not to say that our acceptance of it is based on faith. Or that it's claims are on the same level as any other wild theory. Some theories are far FAR better than others. For instance, the theory that the earth is very old is much better supported by evidence than the idea it is about 6,000 years old based on biblical fiat. One doesn't have to throw up their hands in the air and say, "Well, I can't mathematically prove an old earth, so I must accept as equally valid anything and everything reacting to the age of the earth, or I must shake my head at the impossibility of every knowing anything for certain." They only need to say, "Well, the theory that the earth is very old is backed by a huge amount of evidence, while the idea it is very young is not supported by the evidence, and is in fact contradicted by mounds of other evidence. I can safely conclude that the earth is very old."

[Fester Chugabrew]

To say that one can't prove a scientific theory 100% is not to say that our acceptance of it is based on faith.

Look. If a proposition cannot be accepted as 100% true, then what do we call it when we accept the proposition as true anyway and act accordingly? What do you call the percentage, however great or small, that is subject to rejection, or doubt, or revision, or correction?

Apparently you are so used to equating "faith" with wild-assed guesses you do not realize that faith is, in most cases, based upon solid evidence. Faith and evidence are not exclusive of one another. They compliment one another. Reason, however, is entirely capable of misinterpreting and misapplying the evidence.

[ThinkDifferent]

Evaluating evidence is not the same as direct observation.

It's exactly the same. "Direct observation" only means "my senses are reporting X", and does not guarantee that X is true. It is *evidence* in support of X, often strong evidence, but not conclusive.

[ThinkDifferent]

If a proposition cannot be accepted as 100% true, then what do we call it when we accept the proposition as true anyway and act accordingly?

Bayesian reasoning

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's exactly the same.

I understand why you would say as much. I refer to the manner in which sensory data is processed and acted upon. "My senses are reporting 'X'" already entails interpretation of the evidence insofar as the observer does not assert observation of 'Y'. I believe there is a proper distinction to be made between observing and interpeting what is observed.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

There is nowhere in the Constitution where the government is given the authority to regulate marriage.

Marriage is a religious rite (spelling: r - i - t - e) not a civil right (spelling: r - i - g - h - t).

Making babies is not a right, no matter how you look at it. If you are a believer in Divinity or a Creator, it is a gift, a privilege granted by the grace of God. If you are an atheist, it is a function of human biology and luck.

Rights do not come from the Constitution: read the Declaration of Independence.

Is education a right? No. You cannot find education in the Constitution. Neither will you find marriage...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.

Which one is of no importance to this matter. The fact is you cannot, using formal standards of categorical logic, prove the preceding syllogism false.

If it involves public dollars, then it is my business. You cannot have a private choice and take public money.

You cannot take my money by using the government to point a gun at me to support your perverted fetishes... (Note: a fetish is an object of worship.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Rights do not come from the Constitution: read the Declaration of Independence.

Is education a right? No. You cannot find education in the Constitution. Neither will you find marriage..."

Rights come from our nature as human beings. Saying they come from a Creator doesn't tell us anything about the nature of those rights. I never said they come from the constitution; I said the opposite. The constitution's main aim is to say what the legitimate powers of government are. If a power is not specified in the Constitution, the government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to exercise that power. That doesn't mean that the government is not right now completely ignoring it's constitutional limits; it is on far too many issues.

You are right, education is not a right, in the sense that the government is not authorized at the federal level to intervene in it. In the sense that everybody is entitled to pursue whatever education they want as long as they don't make someone else pay for it, the pursuit of education is a right. If I want to study astrology (I don't), the state should not be permitted to stop me as long as I study it with my own money.

Marriage, by your own admission, is a religious rite. It therefore is outside the bounds of civil authority. The government simply has no constitutional power to regulate it; if it does try to, it is the same as regulating religion, which I am sure no honest person of faith wants. If two men want to get married in some church that accepts that, it is nobody else's business. It doesn't infringe on your life, liberty, or property, therefore you have no moral claim to stop them by threat of force (the state).

" Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.

Which one is of no importance to this matter. The fact is you cannot, using formal standards of categorical logic, prove the preceding syllogism false."

You can't prove it true either. It is a meaningless and useless assertion therefore.


"If it involves public dollars, then it is my business. You cannot have a private choice and take public money"

You mean like having religious institutions getting nice little tax breaks? That kind of racket?


"You cannot take my money by using the government to point a gun at me to support your perverted fetishes... (Note: a fetish is an object of worship.)"

That's ok, because all of my fetishes are non-perverted :).

Seriously, if two people engage in gay sex, unless they do so in your house uninvited, they have not infringed on your life, liberty, or property. If you don't like it, what gives you (or any mob, or any elected official representing said mob) the right to force them to stop such behavior? If they get a disease as a result of their behavior, how is that affecting you anymore than the idiots smoking themselves to death? Or eating themselves into immobile lard-asses? Many, many behaviors have adverse health consequences, yet we for the most part leave it to the individual to decide how to make those choices.

The statists among us though want to make all sorts of welfare programs universal, including health care, just so they can then say, "Well mister, your actions DO have a public effect because if you get sick, the state pays for it." It's not just religious busybodies; it's the food police and the anti-smoking zealots, among others. If the proper role of the state was enforced, the only things it would do is enforce contracts and prevent foreign and domestic violence initiated against any individual or group of individuals.

[AndrewC]

Making laws respecting "an establishment of religion" means exactly that.

Correct. That is why they have prayer in Congress and you are wrong in your additions.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If two men want to get married in some church that accepts that, it is nobody else's business.

Yes it is. It involves the 501(C) tax-exempt corporate status of the church, public benefits, insurance rates, public health, etc., not to mention the other affects on the environment of children...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

If a power is not specified in the Constitution, the government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to exercise that power.

The people do... and who are the people? We elect representatives, we vote...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Marriage, by your own admission, is a religious rite. It therefore is outside the bounds of civil authority.

If Michael Jackson is your pope and molesting children is your religion, we do have the right to regulate the PRACTICE, not the belief...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Morality is the belief that some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.

This axiom is proof of itself. An atheist telling me I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi telling me I am a sinner. I do not bend my knee in acquiescence to the wisdom of men...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

If you don't like it, what gives you (or any mob, or any elected official representing said mob) the right to force them to stop such behavior?

The power to do so comes from the will to. The mechanism is the law, at the present, and the votes and power of enforcement is there to carry out the will of the people.

We are not talking about private behavior here. We are talking about public behavior - - which is marriage (and usually procreation).

We have all the authority to exercise any power on this earth as a function of self-preservation and the peace of our lives. The power to shape the temporal reality in this world is physical force. If you want to make great harrowing public displays of depravity in front of my family, it is my right to protect the peace of their lives and doing so is a function of government, provided it is given by consent of the governed.

Either we have government, or we don't. If we don't, then I just do as I please to enforce my will upon you and society. This would become a monarchy. This is why we vote, have legislators, courts, police and statutory laws.

You miss the entire point of the issue...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes it is. It involves the 501(C) tax-exempt corporate status of the church, public benefits, insurance rates, public health, etc., not to mention the other affects on the environment of children..."

The tax exempt status of every church needs to be overturned; it goes squarely against the idea of equal laws for everybody and the idea of the rule of law.

Insurance rates are between the insurance company and it's customers. And have nothing to do with gay marriage (certainly no more than any other private act you consider physically harmful like smoking or drugging).

Public health is not an issue; unless you plan on having sex with the gay couple too you won't be getting any disease they get.

"If a power is not specified in the Constitution, the government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to exercise that power.

---

The people do... and who are the people? We elect representatives, we vote..."


You really don't understand the idea of rights , do you? What you are saying is that the people can rise up and elect someone to change the private practice of two people; that IS government action. The people, in your example, ARE acting as the government through representatives and are therefore limited in what they can force others to do through the Constitution. Your Mob and the Government are in this case one and the same.



"Morality is the belief that some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.

This axiom is proof of itself. An atheist telling me I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi telling me I am a sinner. I do not bend my knee in acquiescence to the wisdom of men... "

The axiom is only true if you believe it. You believe that there are no rational reasons for your morality, but only the dictates of some higher being. How sad.

"If you don't like it, what gives you (or any mob, or any elected official representing said mob) the right to force them to stop such behavior?

---

The power to do so comes from the will to. The mechanism is the law, at the present, and the votes and power of enforcement is there to carry out the will of the people. "

In other words, might makes right and the Constitution be damned. The *will of the people* is the cry of the collectivist. There is no will of the people, only individual wills. The *people* have no right to force anybody to do anything when that person is not infringing their right to life, liberty, or property. The people could decide that Christianity needs to be banned; would the *will of the people* be rights then? You have no logical retort because you are already worshiping at the feet of the *people* and the mob.



"We are not talking about private behavior here. We are talking about public behavior - - which is marriage"

Marriage is a religious rite between people. There are few things in life we do that are more private and personal. If you want the mob dictating the terms of your religious rites, that's your problem.


"We have all the authority to exercise any power on this earth as a function of self-preservation and the peace of our lives. The power to shape the temporal reality in this world is physical force. If you want to make great harrowing public displays of depravity in front of my family, it is my right to protect the peace of their lives and doing so is a function of government, provided it is given by consent of the governed. "

The Taliban felt the same. A gay marriage is not a *harrowing public display* and it is not in front of your children unless you decide to go to the wedding. That you find it horrifying is not sufficient reason to ban someone from doing something. I am sure many people find you horrifying too, but the public can't make you go away just because they don't like you.

"Either we have government, or we don't. If we don't, then I just do as I please to enforce my will upon you and society"

You already championed your ability to do as you pleased above.

We either have a Constitution which limits the powers of government, or we don't. The more people who think like you, the more the Constitution and the idea of limited government will be lost.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"...the gay couple..."

How does monogamy deserve some exalted status as a matter of secular law? Especially, since homosexuals, by defintion, cannot reproduce? Being monogamous denotes a biological procreation.

Other than your religious fetish for an idolatry of perversion with human anatomy, what other informal fallacies and illogical rationale can you attempt (false cause non-causa, ad hominem to coque', etc., as you have indeed done here) to employ justification that we accept a pervert's lifestyle as some sanctified right?

You don't have a right to force others to accept your esoteric hobgoblins or pantheon of fantasies as some medium of infinitization.

I understand rights perfectly well... and they are not defined by you.

Thou protesteth too much...

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

Equal rules for everybody? Every adult has equal privilege to marry one adult of opposite gender.

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Being monogamous denotes a biological procreation."

No, it denotes having only one sexual partner. From Merriam-Webster:


"1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time "

---

"Other than your religious fetish for an idolatry of perversion with human anatomy, "

You're the one with the obsession over other people's sexual acts. Maybe you need therapy for it.


"what other informal fallacies and illogical rationale can you attempt (false cause non-causa, ad hominem to coque', etc., as you have indeed done here) to employ justification that we accept a pervert's lifestyle as some sanctified right?"

You would know about logical fallacies, as your whole argument is one. Nice list of logical errors btw; I notice you didn't give any examples of where I erred in each case. I never said you had to accept someone's lifestyle, only that you had no right to stop them from engaging in it when it doesn't infringe on your life, liberty, or property. I personally find your religious extremism offensive, but I would not force you to live other than you would choose to live as long as you don't force your bigotry on others.


"I understand rights perfectly well... and they are not defined by you."

You wouldn't understand rights if they bit you on the ass. You think rights are whatever others tell you you can do, be it a deity or mob rule. You can't imagine any rational reason for any right to exist other then the whim of others.

"Equal rules for everybody? Every adult has equal privilege to marry one adult of opposite gender."

So you say. Well, not you, your religious leaders and the people you have let run your life. You don't think for yourself. And gender is a linguistic term.


"You don't have a right to force others to accept your esoteric hobgoblins or pantheon of fantasies as some medium of infinitization."

I am not promoting absolute freedom. That's you; you are promoting the absolute freedom of the mob to dictate what other's can do. There are definite limits on what an individual has a right to do. Nobody has a right to initiate force against anybody. I don't have a right to someone else's money. An individual, or a group of individuals, have no right to the life, liberty, or property of others. I have a right (even if the law disagrees) to do drugs if I choose to. It's my body, not yours. I own myself. That being said, I do not have the right to drive and do drugs. I do not have the right to take your money when I get sick because of the poisons I was taking. I have the right to hurt my body, but I also have to take the responsibility of my actions. Not every action is rational. Because of the nature of the world, irrational acts will have consequences. As long as those consequences don't infringe on your life, liberty, or property, you have no moral claim on how I choose to live. Saying something offends you is not enough.

The example of gay sex doesn't personally affect me, as I am not gay. In fact, I live my life with very few vices; I don't drink, smoke, gamble, do drugs. I could cut back on the calories, but I do need some bad habits :) The idea of the government budding into the private lives of others IS of concern to me though. It's the mentality of people like you who would tell me my bad eating habits are a public concern because it costs you in insurance, affects the *public* health, and my eating of (choose your pick of the most horrible food you can imagine) offends you.


I am not saying you personally want to police food, but there is little difference between doing that and policing any other private behavior. If my eating habits will come to haunt me if they are bad enough. If homosexual actions are sinful to a deity those who engage in them will suffer the consequences, but it will be between them and the deity.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"Being monogamous denotes a biological procreation."

No, it denotes having only one sexual partner.

Sex is only between a male and female, it is defined by biology, not by human beings...

_ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ -

...the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time...

Mating requires procreation... something a homosexual cannot do...

I will ask you for the third time...

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sex is only between a male and female, it is defined by biology, not by human beings... "

Sex is a definition created by people, not nature. Was Bill Clinton having sex with Monica in the White House? They weren't procreating, and there is no way they could have doing what they were doing. There are plenty of acts that are sexual but will not lead to a baby. Are you and people like you going to try and force others to stop doing those acts too? Because you and others don't like the acts? I don't ask you what you do behind closed doors with your wife; you have no right to pry into someone else's bedroom either.

"Mating requires procreation"

No, procreation requires sex. One doesn't have to make a baby in order to have sex. Are we to demand that couples only have sex when they are trying to have a baby? See how well that would go over.

The thing that amazes me is that you acknowledge that marriage is a religious rite, yet you want the state to regulate it. What other rites of your faith do you want the state to regulate? Should the question of the unity or the trinity of God be put up for a vote? If a particular religion sanctions marriage, who are you to say that they can't? As you admit marriage is a religious rite, who do you think you are to tell another religion what they can or can't sanction?

"I will ask you for the third time...

Who is he that is not of woman borne? "

Completely irrelevant. Sex is not just about procreation.
Look, if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, fine. I am not saying you should not be allowed to have that opinion. But when you try to force other people to act as you would like them to, you are crossing the line. If you can't understand that, you don't understand the idea of limited government or individual rights. You think only what you are told by your Holy book, and want to force everybody else to do as you believe it says. Your are a slave to what has been passed down to you, but you want to be the master of others to make up for it. The group of people who most resemble you in spirit and conviction would be the Taliban. We don't need a Christian Taliban here.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Was Bill Clinton having sex with Monica in the White House?

Nope. He was having a perverted relationship with a woman and jerking off into the sink.

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

You think only what you are told by your Holy book...

Pssst... Books are written by men... I do not follow the wisdom of men...

Thou protesteth too much...

Who is he that is not of woman borne?