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

Skip to comments.

Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy
World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last
To: P_A_I
You say I'm an enemy of the Constitution, I say you're a subverter of the Republic. That's how this works. If you can't handle getting a dose of your own obnoxiousness dished back into your fat face, then go somewhere else, retread.

You subscribe to the anti-Christian ACLU interpretation of the First Amendment - the communist notion of "Freedom from Religion." You want to substitute your own communist antagonism for religion for the freedom bequeathed to us by the founders of this nation, but Conservatives are not falling for your fictional pinko version of American history any more. You can side with the tyrants who impose their unconstitutional secular theocracy, and I'll side with the Founders and the laws of Nature and Nature's God.

51 posted on 06/01/2005 6:09:34 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Are you kidding?! Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this country, this freedom-loving country. We need to respect freedom, and endorse it; not the opposite!

As for whether or not the earth is hollow, they hide that information in books. Amazing what one can learn when they read a book.

52 posted on 06/01/2005 6:19:33 PM PDT by Constitution1st (Never, never, never quit - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

I've made no "additions" to the Constitution.


53 posted on 06/01/2005 6:37:10 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Great essay...


54 posted on 06/01/2005 6:40:26 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Now now joe, don't get nasty just because you can't refute my arguments.
You have no basis for the silly claim : -- "You'd rather side with the tyrannical judicial oligarchy which has usurped power it should never have had and used it to subvert our republic."
Try to control yourself.

You say I'm an enemy of the Constitution, I say you're a subverter of the Republic. That's how this works. If you can't handle getting a dose of your own obnoxiousness dished back into your fat face, then go somewhere else, retread. You subscribe to the anti-Christian ACLU interpretation of the First Amendment - the communist notion of "Freedom from Religion." You want to substitute your own communist antagonism for religion for the freedom bequeathed to us by the founders of this nation, but Conservatives are not falling for your fictional pinko version of American history any more. You can side with the tyrants who impose their unconstitutional secular theocracy, and I'll side with the Founders and the laws of Nature and Nature's God.

I've never said you were an enemy of the Constitution, joe. - You simply don't understand it; --- and now you've totally lost control..
See ya.

55 posted on 06/01/2005 6:43:40 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

I see you are in spam mode. Good night.


56 posted on 06/01/2005 6:54:50 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Constitution1st
"Are you kidding?! Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this country, this freedom-loving country. We need to respect freedom, and endorse it; not the opposite!"

I agree...

/rant on

Continental Congress


On Sept. 11, 1777 approved the import of 20,000 copies of the Holy Bible, in response to the shortage caused by the Revolutionary War.

"The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible." Link

Our Founding Fathers opened the first Congress in prayer and the first Congress approved importing or printing 20,000 Bibles and now, revisionist and activist judges tell us we cannot let children pray in school or read Bible stories. What a shame. Our first law regarding public education in this country was written to teach our children to read the Bible. It was called Ye Ol Deluder - Satan Law.

I am from Muhlenberg County Kentucky, which is named after Gen. Peter Muhlenberg, seen here in this statue inside the U.S. Capitol!

Click to see wikipedia.org info on Gen. Peter Muhlenberg

Peter Muhlenberg Statue
U.S. Capitol

"In January of 1776, Muhlenberg sent word for his congregation to gather for his farewell sermon. Ascending his familiar pulpit, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. The sermon glowed throughout with devoted patriotism as the man of God told his people of his own resolve to fight and, if need be, to die for his country. He closed his message with these words: "In the language of holy writ, there is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but the time for me to preach has passed away." Then in a voice that re-echoed through the church like a trumpet blast, he exclaimed, "And there is also a time to fight, and that time has now come." After pronouncing the benediction, Muhlenberg threw off his clerical gown and stood before his people in full military uniform. Stepping down the aisle, he ordered the drums at the door to beat for new recruits. The whole village gathered at the church to learn what strange event had turned a quiet church meeting into a scene of bustle and excitement."


Christians should be interested in winning souls for Christ but also preserving our heritage and the political environment that many of our forefathers fought and died for so that our religious institutions could flourish.

/rant off :)
57 posted on 06/01/2005 6:59:55 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
I've made no "additions" to the Constitution.

Is separation of church and state prescribed by the United States Consitution 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.

Your little bracketed additions are precisely additions to the Constitution presented so as to bolster your argument. The fact that you had to add them militates against your argument.

58 posted on 06/01/2005 7:54:22 PM PDT by AndrewC (On vacation in Virginia Beach -- Don't you wish you were?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Nyboe
"The only thing I can easily document is the result of this flawed interpretation of our Constitution.

The Results:

In 1962-63 there was an incredible jump in violent crime, increasing over 650%. There was also a dramatic drop in SAT scores, sending a once steady 965-980 national average through the floor, dropping for over fifteen years, finally ending at 890. Child abuse shot through the roof; from being unknown to involving nearly five percent of the population, and decades later, it is still on its tremendous rise. In `72, less than 2 percent of the 12-25 year old population had tried cocaine. In `82, nearly one third of them had. There are myriad other examples. "

Nonsense. The absence of a few prayers before classes and the restriction of the posting of the Commandments of a particular religious background was not responsibly for the decay of public morality. Are you seriously trying to say that the 650% jump in crime from '62-'63 was from a Supreme Court ruling in '62 about school prayer? All those criminals were students who in one year turned to crime because they didn't recite a prayer in the morning at school?



Most of these social ills can be best attributed to the advancing welfare state. If school prayer (who's prayer, btw? Catholic? Protestant? Muslim? Some watered-down acknowledgment of a Supreme Being?) and the 10 Commandments (I am the Lord Your God, you shall have no other Gods before me... Keep Holy the Sabbath (which Sabbath?)...nah, that wouldn't be religious indoctrination) were reintroduced tomorrow, nobody would notice the difference in any of those stats.

"It is quite clear that when the founders spoke of religion, they meant Christianity. Noah Webster, a founder, said quite bluntly, "No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Many founders made similar statements."

It just means that many founders were also of a theocratic bent.
59 posted on 06/01/2005 8:07:28 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is grandeur in this view...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Oh, I did. Dug all the way to China. Passed Hell along the way and saw the special niche set aside for Behe and Dembski.

Something leads me to receive your report as detached from reality. Do you know what that "something" is?

Now: either use sense, facts and, or believe what I say On Faith.

Why must it be an "either or" situation? I can use sense, facts, and still disbelieve on faith you have not dug a hole to China.

60 posted on 06/01/2005 8:41:11 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Constitution1st
Amazing what one can learn when they read a book.

Amazing what one can learn without reading a book, too. Not only so, but it is amazing how many books misrepresent the facts. Who ever reads a book and accepts its declarative statements as true without verifying the propositions lives by faith that the propositions are true.

A child's story begins with the words "There once was an ugly duckling." Is that statement one of fact, or one of fiction, or both? How do we know for sure which answer is best rooted in reality?

61 posted on 06/01/2005 8:47:59 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"Not only so, but it is amazing how many books misrepresent the facts. Who ever reads a book and accepts its declarative statements as true without verifying the propositions lives by faith that the propositions are true."

So you have personally verified the declarative statements of the Bible, including the creation stories of Genesis, the Ark, Flood, and so on? Please tell us of your personal observations in these matters.

And please give us ANY evidence that the earth is hollow.


62 posted on 06/01/2005 8:59:57 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

> I can use sense

Good! Now, excercise that skill.


63 posted on 06/01/2005 9:09:53 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DocRock
Continental Congress On Sept. 11, 1777 approved the import of 20,000 copies of the Holy Bible, in response to the shortage caused by the Revolutionary War. "The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible." Link Our Founding Fathers opened the first Congress in prayer and the first Congress approved importing or printing 20,000 Bibles and now, revisionist and activist judges tell us we cannot let children pray in school or read Bible stories.

This story's on Christian websites all over the net. It's at best incomplete. Here's a nicely researched piece .(Scroll down to 'TIMELINE').

What actually happened: a three-man committee advanced a resolution to recommend the purchase. Congress voted narrowly (7-6) to approve a resolution directing another Committee to purchase the bibles, but apparently never acted on it, being busy, as the link says, 'prosecuting a war of some sort'.

64 posted on 06/01/2005 9:12:18 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Congress voted narrowly (7-6) to approve a resolution directing another Committee to purchase the bibles, but apparently never acted on it, being busy, as the link says, 'prosecuting a war of some sort'."


Obviously the rebel scum lost the war after this turn away from God and the Bible. It's been moral degeneracy ever since.

lol
65 posted on 06/01/2005 9:23:35 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Well, if you wanted to do away with public schools, forcing them to teach whatever lunacy any freak wants taught would be one way to destroy them.

There are more ways than you might realize I am on your side. Given the general population one may well wonder whether public schools represent the sum of ignorance. I happen to think the things we contend over - between you and me - can be a part of general education without either of us accusing the other of preaching the "lunacy of freaks." At the same time, it is not lost on me that a certain "lunacy of freaks" is out there, among whom are willing participants flying passenger aircraft into populated skyscrapers for their cause.

A tone of civility must attend those occasions where science and theology appear to be at odds. We happen to live in a country where civil contemplation over ideas is welcomed. Although the propositions of the proponents of intelligent design may appear preposterous from your point of view (which point of view I am not not willing to dismiss arbitrarily, even as a young earth creationist who appears to you as one who champions ignorance), they are worth sounding out into the reason and senses of all interested observers in order that they might be evaluated on their own merits.

It pains me to see the force of law brought to bear on what ought, or ought not, be spoken out for individuals to consider for themselves. I do not want the voice of dogmatic evolutionists silenced, but I would certainly hope for an atmosphere in which it could be challenged without the interference of judges and legislatures.

Based on past history, however, I am given to believe that a kind of mob spirit would squelch any serious dialogue between either party. At any rate, despite my own belief, it would be less than charitable of me to blurt out that any and every dogmatic evolutionist is a "lunacy freak." Deception and pride do not advertise themselves as such. Moon Bats are the last to realize they don't quite fit into the scheme of normalcy. That's okay. They have something to say, and it might just be the absolute truth.

66 posted on 06/01/2005 9:32:59 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
So you have personally verified the declarative statements of the Bible . . .

No more than you have personally verified and proven the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being.

67 posted on 06/01/2005 9:37:16 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
And please give us ANY evidence that the earth is hollow.

Ever heard of "caves"? You know, the "cavemen" and all that? That's more evidence for a hollow earth than you'll ever give as evidence that there are neither heavens nor earth, and that either of the above could arise completely apart from intelligence or design. What evidence do you have that you are a product of nothing that entails intelligence or design? I don't see it. You we're able to type an intelligent post to me and I understood it. I even know you are human. How did nature make that happen without the use of any intelligence or design? Evidence, please.

68 posted on 06/01/2005 9:48:39 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"This story's on Christian websites all over the net. It's at best incomplete."

The link to Internet Infidels was well researched. However, my comment is "at best" complete. I will agree that it can be found on numerous Christian websites, but it can also be found in the Library of Congress site HERE. (Scroll about 2/3 down the page.)

Strange coincidence about the Sept 11th date.
69 posted on 06/01/2005 10:43:35 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Nyboe
In 1962-63 there was an incredible jump in violent crime, increasing over 650%.

Do you have a link for that assertion or are you lying and just making stuff up?

Looks like you're lying because here are the crime rates from 1960-2002.

The rates have been trending up prior to 1963 but there is no where near the big jump you describe (Notice murder & rape rates didn't change at all from 1962-1963 )

There was also a dramatic drop in SAT scores, sending a once steady 965-980 national average through the floor, dropping for over fifteen years,

Link please!!!

Here are the average SAT scores from 1966-2002

finally ending at 890.

The lowest ever was in 1980 at 994 so you are just making stats up

Child abuse shot through the roof; from being unknown to involving nearly five percent of the population, and decades later, it is still on its tremendous rise.

Link please!!

Most likely child abuse has always been a problem but in the past it was never reported.

Why such an incredible drop in national morality?

2 Words - Baby Boomers

In the court case Engle v. Vitale(1962), school prayer was removed.......Our nation is in trouble. As Washington said in his presidential speech, "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected upon a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

Then explain the following real (not made up like yours) statistics

From 1991 to 2001, The Number of the non-religious doubled in number while at the same time the number calling themselves Christians declined by 10% this decline in Christianity is especially seen in young people.

Yet the even though the younger generations are the most unchristian violent crime rate has declined through this period, as well as The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has continuously declined through the 1990s and the abortion rate dropped by about 25 percent for both married and unmarried women through the 1990s , The teen Pregnancy Rate Reached a Record Low, More Teenagers are saying no to sex and Drug use by teenagers continues to decline.

Now if being force fed religion had anything to do with being moral, As the country (especially the young) turns more & more secular wouldn't the trends be going in the opposite direction.

Here is two articles for ya' on how the morailty of young people in our country is improving greatly

Rush Limbaugh on the Next Generation and It's the Morning after in America

You will notice 1 thing missing from both articles, Religion.

Sorry but Christianity doesn't equal morals and if it vanishes from America it will have no bearing on the morals of our country.

70 posted on 06/02/2005 12:23:51 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"No more than you have personally verified and proven the heliocentric theory of the solar system."

So you are a COMPLETE irrationalist? Unlike you, I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason. I don't HAVE to personally observe everything in nature in order to be able to evaluate evidence that something is the way it is. I don't HAVE to travel to China to know that a place call China exists. It is not faith that convinces me, it is reason. Copernicus and Galileo did not have to travel into outer space to know that the earth traveled around the sun; there was plenty of evidence for it, and evidence against an earth centered solar system. And the evidence for the sun centered solar system was only grown while the evidence for the earth centered one has been disproved.

YOU were the one who was saying how foolish it was to believe anything from a book unless you had personally witnessed the events.

"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being."

How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. In your own words,

"So you merely believe what those studies have preached to you...It may be inconvenient, but unless you do so (personally observe the events in question--my addition; C.C.) you are only believing what other people have told you."

You have never observed the events in Genesis, therefore, you believe them because you were told to believe them.

"Ever heard of "caves"? You know, the "cavemen" and all that? That's more evidence for a hollow earth than you'll ever give as evidence that there are neither heavens nor earth, and that either of the above could arise completely apart from intelligence or design."

1) You DO realize that caves are only on the earth's crust right? We know from numerous methods that the earth is not hollow. The best evidence comes from seismic readings:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050418/earthcore.html

2) I have never said that there is no Earth or that there is evidence that there is no Earth. The heavens? I haven't been to any yet, though a few Calculus classes in high school did seem like a hell dimension. As for Universe, I never said it didn't exist either. Neither the existence of the Earth or the Universe verifies the stories in Genesis. Certainly the existence of both say nothing about the origins of either. Remember, you weren't there when it happened, and since you don't believe in reason but only direct observation, you are only believing stories that were handed down to you.

"What evidence do you have that you are a product of nothing that entails intelligence or design?"

Evolution IS design. It just doesn't require an intelligent being to drive it. Since I know you already have seen evidence that supports evolution in numerous threads here, you demand for evidence is not sincere. You believe what you were told from a book you can never verify. You are a sheep. I believe what reason demands. Nonetheless, here is some evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
71 posted on 06/02/2005 5:17:33 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
This is a bunch of B.S. First of all this guy isnt articulating our founding fathers he's parroting the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Religion shouldn't be taught in our public schools....Do you want your kids being taught the Koran? While I agree Evolution is a theory it has basis in scientific fact. Creationism is a religious belief. It should be mentioned but if you start teaching creationism in school you open the door wide for every religion. That's what religious schooling, churches and home influences are for. Keep religous teachings out of the school because, God forbid, some Mullah gets his claws into your kids' developing mind. There would be no end to that slippery slope.

72 posted on 06/02/2005 5:31:20 AM PDT by N. Beaujon (http://www.nbeaujon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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... political correctness..."

These are exactly the things that should NOT be taught in our public schools. How about "reading, writing and 'rithmatic", instead? It's when we strayed from these programs that we got ourselves into an objectivist, post-modern nightmare. Today, we turn out functional illiterates because we don't teach things that are grounded in fact. This guys case for teaching religion in school is just mindbogglingly dumb and his arguments are completely lacking in scholarship.

73 posted on 06/02/2005 5:39:54 AM PDT by N. Beaujon (http://www.nbeaujon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; orionblamblam
. . . I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason.

I never claimed that you have come to whatever beliefs you have by apart from either reason or evaluating evidence. Evaluating evidence is not the same as direct observation. How many people claim to know the earth revolves the sun, when in fact they have no evidence except what is written in scholarly books?

"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being." . . . How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. . . .

With respect to the first set of knowlege, I verified these things the same way you verified you were born with a brain that enables you to reason. I didn't have to read about it in a book. Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples. The condition of the center of the earth has never been the subject of direct observation on my part, though I am told orionblamblam has visited the place. My reason tends to reject his report as fictitious.

With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. There are other reasons, but I'd rather be short on the math since, in some intelligent circles, 1 + 1 = 4.

74 posted on 06/02/2005 5:40:22 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Nyboe
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Ironic isn't it?

75 posted on 06/02/2005 5:50:02 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual.

Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age. Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Whatever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? Perhaps homosexual monogamy advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Pope!

Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.

Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.

76 posted on 06/02/2005 5:57:43 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender;"

No, it is a right. There is nowhere in the Constitution where the government is given the authority to regulate marriage. If it isn't in the Constitution, the government does NOT have the authority to do it. We are not granted privileges with the Constitution, the Government is given restrictions on its powers. The bill of rights is just an acknowledgment of a few of our rights, it is not a list of the only rights we have.

"Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right."

No, they are rights. Licenses for driving only are enforced on public roads. I can drive all I want on my own land, with no license from any government. As for legal and medical licenses, they are just an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of lawyers and doctors to practice freely. They were made to protect the established professions (like most professional licensee's) from competition. The Constitution (US or state) does not give the government the authority to regulate who can or can't practice law or medicine.

"Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age."


Which higher power? Yours? Mine? Bin Laden's? It's one thing for you to believe something is wrong; it's another to think you have the right to force someone else to live as you demand when their actions do not infringe on your life, liberty, or property. It's none of your business.
77 posted on 06/02/2005 6:21:03 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples."

What is that is self-evident though? Is it self evident that the stars are light-years away and are suns like ours? (yes, I know that there are many kinds of stars). Self evidence is NOT a good guide to scientific concepts, because what is often taken to be self evident (flat earth, earth centered universe, stars are small and completely different than the sun...) is totally wrong.

"With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. "

The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right. The Iliad is old too, in many parts older than the bible, yet I do not take it as historical (however much it may be based loosely on early Greek historical events). Authority is not advanced through the age of the book. The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them, but when you defend the absurdities of the creations stories in Genesis, you resort to blind faith because the book was what you were told to believe even though parts defy logic (the ark, flood, Cain and Abel's wives, the whole human race coming from 2 people when genetic inbreeding would have quickly killed them off...). If the Bible said 1+1=4, you would have no choice but to accept it.
78 posted on 06/02/2005 6:40:02 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Self evidence is NOT a good guide to scientific concepts . . .

It is certainly not the only guide, but it serves as a foundational one. All science operates with givens, and those givens are, to the observer, self-evident.

The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right.

You are correct. The age of a document is not a singular indication of its veracity, but it may be considered as one of many evidences to consider it worthy of acceptance intellectually.

The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them . . .

I would be remiss if I ridiculed someone just for believing what they read in books. 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.

79 posted on 06/02/2005 8:20:04 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"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.. Except to those, like you, who oppose our religious freedoms. You are your own worse enemy.
80 posted on 06/02/2005 8:48:20 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

"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.


81 posted on 06/02/2005 8:50:46 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

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!!


82 posted on 06/02/2005 8:57:30 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
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.

83 posted on 06/02/2005 9:21:52 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"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.
84 posted on 06/02/2005 10:17:18 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
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?

85 posted on 06/02/2005 10:22:03 AM PDT by watchin (People become leftists as a sort of gesture of infantile rage against their parents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"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."
86 posted on 06/02/2005 1:41:18 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
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.

87 posted on 06/02/2005 2:47:49 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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.

88 posted on 06/02/2005 3:02:14 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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

89 posted on 06/02/2005 3:08:57 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (These pretzels are making me thirsty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
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.

90 posted on 06/02/2005 3:38:17 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
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.)

91 posted on 06/02/2005 8:48:40 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"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.
92 posted on 06/02/2005 10:15:36 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
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.

93 posted on 06/03/2005 12:38:09 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
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...

94 posted on 06/03/2005 4:48:52 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"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.
95 posted on 06/03/2005 5:43:35 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"...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?

96 posted on 06/03/2005 6:22:42 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"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.
97 posted on 06/03/2005 7:51:58 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"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?

98 posted on 06/03/2005 6:40:13 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"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.
99 posted on 06/03/2005 7:15:33 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
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?

100 posted on 06/03/2005 7:42:11 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-253 next last

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

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

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