 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / February 2005Candidate Friedman vows declawing ban
I thought ya'll would enjoy this http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050203/pl_nm/politics_kinky friedman_dc_7 From the article... An animal lover, Friedman vowed to outlaw the declawing of cats and promised to appoint singer and well-known marijuana smoker Willie Nelson as head of the Texas Rangers. If I lived in Texas, he'd get my vote! :) Lauren I am glad I don't live in Texas. I am all for banning declawing but his stance on allowing prayer in the schools is wrong as their needs to be a separation of church and state. I don't know of a lot of Jews that are for that one even though this candidate claims to be Jewish. I would look at the other issues as a whole before voting for a particular candidate. Politicians are notorious for telling people what they want to hear just to get votes. If a candidate tells me they are a cat lover but yet are weak on the issues then I don't think that it would be enough to get my vote.  SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > If I lived in Texas, he'd get my vote! :) > > Lauren > I am glad I don't live in Texas. I am all for banning declawing but his > stance on allowing prayer in the schools is wrong as their needs to be a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > get votes. If a candidate tells me they are a cat lover but yet are weak on > the issues then I don't think that it would be enough to get my vote. WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st Amendment to that document guarantees all of us the Freedom OF Religion, not the freedom FROM religion. There is nothing wrong with prayer in schools, it doesn't cause anybody bodily harm. There is nothing wrong with mentioning Christmas in public, there is nothing wrong with displaying a menorah or a nativity scene in public on public property. It's called PUBLIC property for a reason. I hope you're not a member of the jihad against Christianity or religion in general! <SNIP>> >WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? >That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >property. It's called PUBLIC property for a reason. I hope you're not >a member of the jihad against Christianity or religion in general! I'm sure such a staunch supporter of religious freedom would side with the faithful in this case, then: http://www.isgm.net/NH_Muslims_make_try.htm NH Muslims make try for Manchester mosque By MARK HAYWARD Union Leader Staff Three years after they first sought city permits, New Hampshire Muslims tonight bring plans for a mosque in east Manchester to the Manchester Planning Board. Muslims hope to prevail this time. After the city denied their first attempt, they took the matter to court, and eventually the city conceded the case, said Dr. Salman Malik, head of the Islamic Society of Greater Manchester. The planning board application includes three letters of support ? one from a Concord peace activist, one from a Meredith teacher and another from a former Manchester rabbi. It would be the first mosque in New Hampshire. But neighbors of the 13,000-square-foot mosque, which is planned for the corner of Karatzas and Lagrange avenues, have written a letter opposing the mosque. ?The question now is how it?s going to be received in terms of the neighbors,? Malik said. ?I know there are some people who don?t want to have the mosque built.? The Islamic Society owns 2.9 acres in a sparsely developed area near the top of Bald Hill in the Wellington Road area. Malik said the society purchased the land for its views and its proximity to Interstate 93. Muslims, he said, have suffered some prejudice in New Hampshire since the Iraq war. He attributes it to a lack of exposure to Islam in New Hampshire. ?This is one of the reasons we want to build a mosque. This is the institution that represents that part of the world,? Malik said. Malik said it will cost the Islamic Society about $1 million to build the mosque, which he described as modest. It will have a dome, but no minaret or loudspeakers. The society expects that typical Friday afternoon prayers will draw about 100. Sunday school would attract about 50. Muslim feast days would not be celebrated at the mosque, but in a larger location such as the gymnasium at Southern New Hampshire University, said Maria Butt, public relations director of the Islamic Society. Butt said there are about 5,000 Muslims in New Hampshire. Six neighbors have signed a letter to the planning board opposing the mosque. Karatzas Avenue is in bad shape and cannot handle the additional traffic, the neighbors said. They worried about impacts to drinking water wells and septic systems. The city?s tax base would suffer from the loss of developable property, and their property values could fall. Also, they fear the mosque will eventually expand. Trustees of the Islamic Society own adjacent lots, which could be used for future parking, the letter reads. ?We think that it would be foolish to believe a 13,085-square-foot building will not eventually be filled to capacity, expansion necessary and additional parking required,? the letter reads. The land is located in a residential zone. Houses of worship are allowed in the zone, but only with a conditional use permit. Butt said the mosque will be a benefit to the neighborhood. It is now used as a dumping ground. And some have used an old Greek Orthodox chapel on the property for Satanic worships, she said. In 1999, the city rejected plans for the mosque, claiming Karatzas Avenue was not a city street. But the society took the matter to court and eventually the city agreed it should be considered a street. The Islamic Society is an outgrowth of a Muslim students association at Southern New Hampshire University, Malik said. The students graduated, found homes in the area and started raising families. The university no longer has room for Friday prayer services, Malik said. Prayers are now said at office space on Maple Street across from Gill Stadium. ?The (Muslim) community is feeling very excited,? Butt said. ?We really need this place of prayer.? The Planning Board public hearing begins at 7 p.m. The board will also hear redevelopment plans for the Manchester shopping center on Valley Street. > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? > That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > property. It's called PUBLIC property for a reason. I hope you're not > a member of the jihad against Christianity or religion in general! Not everyone in the US is Christian, or even has a religion. I have no problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids can silently pray, meditate, collect their thoughts, or do nothing. I have a BIG problem with an out-loud prayer or the teacher saying "let's pray". Back to CP's post, sometimes you have to take the good with the bad in a candidate. I haven't read this particular politician's platform, so I don't know where he stands on everything. You have to decide which issues are most important to you, and base your vote on those. Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? > > That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st > > Amendment to that document guarantees all of us the Freedom OF > > Religion, not the freedom FROM religion. There is nothing wrong with > > prayer in schools, it doesn't cause anybody bodily harm. What? You have to physically harm a person in order for any harm to be done?? There is > > nothing wrong with mentioning Christmas in public, there is nothing > > wrong with displaying a menorah or a nativity scene in public on public > > property. It's called PUBLIC property for a reason. I hope you're not > > a member of the jihad against Christianity or religion in general! > > Not everyone in the US is Christian, or even has a religion. Correct. I have no > problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids can silently > pray, meditate, collect their thoughts, or do nothing. I have a BIG problem > with an out-loud prayer or the teacher saying "let's pray". Yep & yep. Cathy > > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? > > > That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What? You have to physically harm a person in order for any harm to be > done?? What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights? > I have no > > problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids can silently [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cathy Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. > Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. Just because something isnt inherently dangerous does NOT mean that it is appropriate. Pam > > > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, > again? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights? You think the only way to harm a person is via physical harm? (Hint: you used the word "bodily".) You don't think there's anything wrong w/ promoting prayer in the public schools because it would coincide with *your* personal beliefs. Nevermind the fact that it wouldn't coincide with many *other* people's beliefs. If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for all? (That's a rhetorical question, & the answer is nope.) It appears that you aren't considering the fact that the public is extremely diverse in its beliefs, & their tax dollars are funding the public schools. Not only is not everyone religious, but of those who are religious, not everyone is Christian (gasp!). Nevermind the fact that public schools are secular places, not religious ones. If you want prayer in school, & if you prefer that prayer to be Christian oriented, then feel free to support private Christian schools. No problem there. > > I have no > > > problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. See above. The public schools are secular. Secular, not religious. Separation of Church & State, you know?? Cathy > > What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights? > > You think the only way to harm a person is via physical harm? (Hint: you > used the word "bodily".) You still haven't answer my question. Typical. > You don't think there's anything wrong w/ promoting prayer in the public > schools because it would coincide with *your* personal beliefs. Nevermind > the fact that it wouldn't coincide with many *other* people's beliefs. If > it's good enough for you, it's good enough for all? (That's a rhetorical > question, & the answer is nope.) I never said that you should PROMOTE prayer in schools. I just don't think it should be BANNED. We're going in circles here and a number of you think you have me pegged and you don't. I don't neccessarily disagree with you. > It appears that you aren't considering the fact that the public is extremely > diverse in its beliefs, & their tax dollars are funding the public schools. > Not only is not everyone religious, but of those who are religious, not > everyone is Christian (gasp!). I'll go you one further. I think we should shut down the Dept. of Education because the government school system is an abject failure. Then nobody can complain that we're wasting their tax dollars teaching kids something that the parents don't believe in. > Nevermind the fact that public schools are secular places, not religious > ones. If you want prayer in school, & if you prefer that prayer to be > Christian oriented, then feel free to support private Christian schools. No > problem there. You and I don't disagree on that point. However, I don't believe that schools should neccessarily be secular. Where's the benefit to that? > > > I have no > > > > problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > See above. The public schools are secular. Secular, not religious. > Separation of Church & State, you know?? Here's where you and others step in it. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I DEFY you or anybody to show me where in the Constitution it states that. Once again, we have freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. You can practice your life as paganistic or as secularistic as you want. And others can live their lives the way they want. You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Why is everybody afraid of God anyway? > > > What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights? > > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > they want. You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Why is > everybody afraid of God anyway? The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution either, so according to your logic, if the phrase itself is not in the constitution, then the principle is invalid. That logic rules out freedom of religion, doesn't it? I DEFY you to show me where the phrase "freedom OF religion" is found in the constitution. I want the exact phrase, please, just as you stated it above, verbatim. If the phrase is not in the constitution, then per your logic the principle it states doesn't exist either. You don't have the right to NOT be offended so if the secularists predominate the schools, tough. Your own words: YOU don't have the right NOT to be offended so let's go homosexual marriages, porn-TV, and all the other little goodies! Anyway, here is an earlier post... David The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution. There are limits to the practice of religion. For example, bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it. Parents who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for their actions. In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a show of faith are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enforcement officials. There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of religion in this country and there is nothing in the constitution that even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There are those who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibits them from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe all Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are rendered powerless by the government from imposing that belief on others. Still others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws that keep them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is no such thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constitution and since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitution any inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid. The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same category as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the press and speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that prohibit certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly "freedom of the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean we are NOT free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means we are NOT free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if we so desire and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to listen to any speech we deem offensive. Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one was guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be allowed to enter churches and speak out during the services without legal liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion. Since the phrase is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences and there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MUST have a religion. Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that denies us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion cannot be had if we must choose a religion, even one that denies our basic beliefs or principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of religion from the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of freedom of religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief is mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally those who don't care about the feelings of others will complain if they are opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that is okay. It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream "persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it. The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one from seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any laws of the land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all have the freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom of religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as freedom to choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will is a basic tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred from the constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion. The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religion" has become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obviously wrong and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to destroy the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedom - freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religion is inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers were well acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the right to practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refuse religion. Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we are not free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if we do not have the basic human right to choose according to our conscience. Even pure Christianity gives you that much. In summary: Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase "freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or what is allowed. Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing certain things. Fallacious Argument A: If the constitution doesn't specifically say we have freedom FROM X (where X can be anything of importance) than we don't have freedom FROM X. Examples.. The constitution doesn't guarantee us freedom FROM porn, therefore we don't have freedom FROM porn. The constitution doesn't gurantee us freedom FROM speech so we don't have freedom FROM speech (athiests could enter churches and exercise their free speech rights without fear of legal penalties). **JMHO, But what is reeeally dangerous is when the balance in ones own personal beliefs becomes too far left, or too far right. Unfortunately, this skewed thinking is becoming more common, especially with those individuals who are mentally unbalanced to begin with. I am a Christian and try to not to judge others and It's not easy. But if a mother/father want to enroll their child in a private or public school, then that is their business and their right. I wouldn't protest their decision and I wouldn't hurled abusive language at them because they don't dance my* dance. Demanding for them to do so because *I* believe it is the right thing to do, is wrong. What the world need now is.. more living life by quiet example. ML > > > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, > again? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. > **JMHO, But what is reeeally dangerous is when the balance in ones own > personal beliefs becomes too far left, or too far right. Unfortunately, this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ML I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. No one is saying that it isn't a parent's right to enroll their child in whatever school they choose. However, if a parent wants a child to be able to openly pray as a group in school...that parent must opt for a PRIVATE school as organized prayer has no place in our public school system. I do agree that fanatical thinking (i.e. TOO far left or TOO far right) is a problem. Pam > **JMHO, But what is reeeally dangerous is when the balance in ones own > personal beliefs becomes too far left, or too far right. Unfortunately, this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ML I am not understanding how this follows, re: the thread. I haven't noticed anyone saying that a person doesn't have the right to choose between public or private education. The disagreement is over group prayer being conducted in public schools. Cathy > > > > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, > > again? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. > > **JMHO, But what is reeeally dangerous is when the balance in ones own > > personal beliefs becomes too far left, or too far right. Unfortunately, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > ML > I am not understanding how this follows, re: the thread. I haven't noticed > anyone saying that a person doesn't have the right to choose between public > or private education. The disagreement is over group prayer being conducted > in public schools. > > Cathy *** Well, I don't know where everyone else lives, but it's -(praying during or before class) is not allowed at the mainstream public schools where I live. Unless, one has their kid enrolled in a 'religious' private school. It's gotten so 'PC' to be against Christianity that if a teacher had a cross displayed on her classroom wall then it would cause quite a commotion. How things change! I remember well at my old private school before each class we would cross our hands over our heart and say the pledge of allegence (to the flag)... "One nation under *God*, with liberty and justice for all". Gee, now days you could be cited and penalized for such 'discriminatory' talk. What hogwash, IMO. The ACLU would have a field day, I'm sure. Honestly, I believe young, under-developed minds, need to be more pointed, focused and reverent on how blessed we are in this country. How truth, justice and having a *higher power* known as God, are important, pure and necessary for living a successful life. ML- ( getting off her podum now :-) > > > > > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, > > > again? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > > > Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. > *** Well, I don't know where everyone else lives, but it's -(praying during > or before class) is not allowed at the mainstream public schools where I > live. Unless, one has their kid enrolled in a 'religious' private school. > It's gotten so 'PC' to be against Christianity that if a teacher had a cross > displayed on her classroom wall then it would cause quite a commotion. How > things change! Yeah. Things do change. And IMO for the better. If a teacher wants to express his or her devotion to a given religion, he or she should get a job in a private school. By having a cross on the wall in a classroom, IMO there is an implication that it is representative OF the classroom not specifically the teacher. As a Jew, it wouldn't even OCCUR to me to put up a star of david in my room. However, if I wanted to wear one around my neck...more power to me, right? Then at least, the symbol is directly connected to ME and not making the implication that all the students in that room are of that particular faith. I think the reason that Christians are feeling the heat now is because for SO long they really HAVE tried to make the world a Christian only place and now that people have said enough is enough...it is suddenly considered "against Christianity" when that isn't really the case. I said this last night and I'll say it again. I have much LESS of a problem with the Christian religion itself than I have with those who purport to be devout followers. Generalization? Yes. But hopefully you get my drift. > I remember well at my old private school before each class we would cross > our hands over our heart and say the pledge of allegence (to the flag)... > "One nation under *God*, with liberty and justice for all". Gee, now days > you could be cited and penalized for such 'discriminatory' talk. What > hogwash, IMO. The ACLU would have a field day, I'm sure. Slim, we say the pledge at my public school every single day...one nation under GOD, blah blah blah. At any rate, what you are describing above is perfectly lovely...especially as you say it was at your old PRIVATE school. This is an honest question...what would you prefer of the following options re: the pledge of allegiance in school: 1. eliminate it all together 2. allow those kids who dont believe in the judeo-christian notion of god to say something like "one nation, under allah" or "one nation, under buddha" but continue on. > Honestly, I believe young, under-developed minds, need to be more pointed, > focused and reverent on how blessed we are in this country. How truth, > justice and having a *higher power* known as God, are important, pure and > necessary for living a successful life. All that you say has merit..except demanding that the higher power be known as "god". I also believe we can teach the young, under-developed minds to be more pointed, focused and reverent of how blessed we are in this WORLD (forget about the USA..it really isnt ALL about us!) and how truth, justice and having a "higher power"...whatever that is...are important, pure and necessary for living a sucessful life. In addition to that, how do you explain the many atheists and agnostics even, who live their life happily AND successfully without the notion of a god or of ANY higher power. I realize this is a cat group and we are way OT, but this conversation fascinates me as a public school teacher. Pam > > *** Well, I don't know where everyone else lives, but it's -(praying during > > or before class) is not allowed at the mainstream public schools where I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yeah. Things do change. And IMO for the better. If a teacher wants to > express his or her devotion to a given religion, he or she should get a > job in a private school. By having a cross on the wall in a classroom, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people have said enough is enough...it is suddenly considered "against > Christianity" when that isn't really the case. I said this last night > and I'll say it again. I have much LESS of a problem with the Christian > religion itself than I have with those who purport to be devout > followers. Generalization? Yes. But hopefully you get my >drift. All very well said. > > I remember well at my old private school before each class we would cross > > our hands over our heart and say the pledge of allegence (to the flag)... > > "One nation under *God*, with liberty and justice for all". Gee, now days > > you could be cited and penalized for such 'discriminatory' talk. What > > hogwash, IMO. The ACLU would have a field day, I'm sure. The ACLU protects everyone. Even unpopular groups, like the Klan. IMO that isn't a bad thing. > Slim, we say the pledge at my public school every single day...one > nation under GOD, blah blah blah. At any rate, what you are describing > above is perfectly lovely...especially as you say it was at your old > PRIVATE school. This is an honest question...what would you prefer of > the following options re: the pledge of allegiance in school: > > 1. eliminate it all together This wasn't directed at me, per se, but I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if they "did away" with it. I don't want anyone forcing my child to pledge allegiance to anything. > 2. allow those kids who dont believe in the judeo-christian notion of > god to say something like "one nation, under allah" or "one nation, > under buddha" but continue on. What's wrong with just "One nation, indivisible..."? <snip> I think young "minds" have enough on their plates without having religion of any kind shoved down their throats on a daily basis at school. If people want to do that to their kids at home, fine. -L. > *** Well, I don't know where everyone else lives, but it's -(praying > during [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How > things change! Unless that cross was in a display of other religious symbols for a "Religions of the World" unit, then it has no business being there. > I remember well at my old private school before each class we would cross > our hands over our heart and say the pledge of allegence (to the flag)... > "One nation under *God*, with liberty and justice for all". Gee, now days > you could be cited and penalized for such 'discriminatory' talk. What > hogwash, IMO. The ACLU would have a field day, I'm sure. Unfortunately, "under God" is still in the Pledge. It was only added in the 1950's, you know. I wish it would be taken out. I don't feel like this nation should be "under God" unless the gov't is a theocracy. > Honestly, I believe young, under-developed minds, need to be more pointed, > focused and reverent on how blessed we are in this country. How truth, > justice and having a *higher power* known as God, are important, pure and > necessary for living a successful life. I'm living a successful life without a higher power known as God, thank you very much. I do believe in some type of supernatural power we can't explain, but I don't believe in naming it or feel it necessary to belong to a particular religion. Please, don't feel you need to "educate" me either. I went to a fundamentalist Christian middle and high school and probably know more about church history than the average person. I fell for it while I was an impressionable youth, but once I really started to learn about Christianity, I decided that it was not for me. Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG > Unfortunately, "under God" is still in the Pledge. It was only added in the > 1950's, you know. I wish it would be taken out. I don't feel like this > nation should be "under God" unless the gov't is a theocracy. Kelly, what HARM is there in that?? You sound as if you are one of the extremeists in this country that an absolute abolition of *any* religious reference of *any* kind, anywhere. There is no harm in saying the pledge "under God" unless you are an atheist who wants to force your way of life on everyone else. Again, the majority of this country are Christians, and you are in a very small minority. Why force your minority beliefs on the public at large? Hmm? > I'm living a successful life without a higher power known as God, thank you > very much. I do believe in some type of supernatural power we can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fundamentalist Christian middle and high school and probably know more about > church history than the average person. I fell for it while I was an > impressionable youth, but once I really started to learn about Christianity, > I decided that it was not for me. Oh boy, yeah, you sure sound happy. Nobody here is trying to "educate" you. Why are you so paranoid? Since you have rebelled against your upbrining, what exactly is it about Christianity that you "aren't falling for" any longer? Is there something that the rest of need to know? > Kelly, what HARM is there in that?? You sound as if you are one of the > extremeists in this country that an absolute abolition of *any* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > country are Christians, and you are in a very small minority. Why > force your minority beliefs on the public at large? Hmm? I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an Atheist. It doesn't matter if the phrase "under God" harms anyone or not, it doesn't belong there. Last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Just because Christians are the majority, doesn't mean they get to make the rules for everyone. > Oh boy, yeah, you sure sound happy. Nobody here is trying to "educate" > you. Why are you so paranoid? Since you have rebelled against your > upbrining, what exactly is it about Christianity that you "aren't > falling for" any longer? Is there something that the rest of need to > know? I'm a lot happier now that I don't have the threat of going to hell hanging over me. Just a few examples of some of the things I'm "not falling for" any longer: the universe was created in 7 days, if you don't accept Jesus into your heart, you're going to hell, even if you are an upstanding citizen, but happen to be a Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., all the numerous inconsistencies in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin, need I go on? Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG Kelly, it is pointless to argue with Gaubster. He seems to think his beliefs are right and that everyone should be following and agreeing with him or you are considered a bad person. I think we should just end this thread and stop posting so he can live in his delusional world where he eventually proclaims himself king. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an > Atheist. It doesn't matter if the phrase "under God" harms anyone or not, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > numerous inconsistencies in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin, need I > go on? > Kelly, it is pointless to argue with Gaubster. He seems to think his beliefs > are right and that everyone should be following and agreeing with him or you > are considered a bad person. I think we should just end this thread and stop > posting so he can live in his delusional world where he eventually proclaims > himself king. Oy vey. CP, if you really think this, then you need some help. Everyone who has posted here (including you) must think that your beliefs are right or you wouldn't hold them? No? Good grief! If you want to stop posting here, then go for it...nobody is stopping you. In fact, you could probably also killfile me if you wish to partake in censorship. ;) You really want that assclown award don't you? SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > Oy vey. CP, if you really think this, then you need some help. > Everyone who has posted here (including you) must think that your > beliefs are right or you wouldn't hold them? No? Good grief! If you > want to stop posting here, then go for it...nobody is stopping you. In > fact, you could probably also killfile me if you wish to partake in > censorship. ;) > I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an > Atheist. It doesn't matter if the phrase "under God" harms anyone or not, > it doesn't belong there. Last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. > Just because Christians are the majority, doesn't mean they get to make the > rules for everyone. Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? Let's say that I think I pay too much in taxes (which I do). But I am compelled to go along with the plan or else I go to jail. Nobody is compelling you to say the Pledge of Allegience. See the difference? > > Oh boy, yeah, you sure sound happy. Nobody here is trying to "educate" > > you. Why are you so paranoid? Since you have rebelled against your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm a lot happier now that I don't have the threat of going to hell hanging > over me. I'm glad I could help! ;) Just a few examples of some of the things I'm "not falling for" > any longer: the universe was created in 7 days, if you don't accept Jesus > into your heart, you're going to hell, even if you are an upstanding > citizen, but happen to be a Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., all the numerous > inconsistencies in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin, need I go on? Interesting. Let's say for one second that you believe in a Divine Creator. Just go w/ me for a moment on this one...why couldn't the universe be created in 6 days? God rested on the seventh, you know! ;) FWIW, the *practice* of homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you don't see the difference, though? > > I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > FWIW, the *practice* of homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you don't see > the difference, though? I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be a bit on the frustrated side. ;-P Cathy >>>I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be a bit on > the frustrated side. ;-P LOL. If he were, he'd never be spewing the spew! I often wonder how heterosexuals would behave if it happened to be the other way around in the bible...you know...if hetero sex were the sin and homosexual sex considered legit. All of a sudden, it would be like "hey...this isnt a CHOICE. i know its weird...but i *like* members of the opposite sex...I just cant help it!" Or wait. Maybe heterosexuals are simply choosing to be heterosexual after all. :::eye roll::: Pam -keeping busy > >>>I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an > >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > just cant help it!" Or wait. Maybe heterosexuals are simply choosing to > be heterosexual after all. :::eye roll::: My eyes are rolling right along with yours! ;-P Cathy > Pam > -keeping busy Good idea. > > I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be a bit on > > the frustrated side. ;-P [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Pam > -keeping busy Ah, the veneer is coming off now, isn't it Pam? Nobody is spewing anything. Apparently you can't debate here nicely? I don't judge anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors. The problem w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you are arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better than that? > > > I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be > a bit on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ah, the veneer is coming off now, isn't it Pam? ?? Any veneer you were trying to hold onto, IMO, came flying off with that comment of yours, which indicated that you hold no truck with others' life styles if they differ from your own, & your own set of beliefs. Nobody is spewing > anything. To each their own opinion, n'est-ce pas? > Apparently you can't debate here nicely? She put forth an argument couched in a scenario, which made a point. I didn't *choose* to be heterosexual, I just _am_. And I came to the conclusion umpteen years ago that homosexuals don't *choose* to be attracted to the same sex, they just _are_. > I don't judge > anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors. Oh, yeah, right. For cryin' out loud, you just pronounced homosexuals who act on their orientation to be sinful, in a recent post. Can you say "180?"? The problem > w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you are > arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better than > that? Is this a non sequitur or am I not following? (I'll bet on the non sequitur.) Then... following your apparent line of logic, what about heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Where does that leave them?? Cathy > She put forth an argument couched in a scenario, which made a point. I > didn't *choose* to be heterosexual, I just _am_. And I came to the > conclusion umpteen years ago that homosexuals don't *choose* to be attracted > to the same sex, they just _are_. What about the people who practiced homosexuality and then "chose" (if those are the words you want to use) chose heterosexuality--including marriage and having their own children? > > I don't judge > > anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors. > > Oh, yeah, right. For cryin' out loud, you just pronounced homosexuals who > act on their orientation to be sinful, in a recent post. Can you say > "180º"? Uh, no. I said that I don't CARE. Again, I've had friends that were gay and I didn't hold it against them. But since you don't know me, you didn't know that. > The problem > > w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Where does that leave > them?? Boy this thread is waaay OT! Again, I don't care. To each their own. Cathy Friedmann wrote: > She put forth an argument couched in a scenario, which made a point. I > didn't *choose* to be heterosexual, I just _am_. And I came to the > conclusion umpteen years ago that homosexuals don't *choose* to be attracted > to the same sex, they just _are_. What about the people who practiced homosexuality and then "chose" (if those are the words you want to use) chose heterosexuality--including marriage and having their own children? Search me... Either they were experimenting, are bisexual, or decided to play the straight game for whatever reason(s). Any other possibilities? Probably. > > I don't judge > > anybody. I don't care what people do behind closed doors. > > Oh, yeah, right. For cryin' out loud, you just pronounced homosexuals who > act on their orientation to be sinful, in a recent post. Can you say > "180?"? Uh, no. I said that I don't CARE. Again, I've had friends that were gay and I didn't hold it against them. But since you don't know me, you didn't know that. Do those friends know that you think they are sinful? > The problem > > w/ your premise is that you can't procreate with gay sex. So you are > > arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better than > > that? > > Is this a non sequitur or am I not following? (I'll bet on the non > sequitur.) Then... following your apparent line of logic, what about > heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate? Where does that leave > them?? Boy this thread is waaay OT! Again, I don't care. To each their own. Now that was definitely a non sequitur! Cathy >>>I hope you're not gay, then. Else, given your beliefs, you may be > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > arguing a false premise. Surely, as a teacher, you know better than > that? So...sex is only for procreation? > Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, > nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? > Let's say that I think I pay too much in taxes (which I do). But I am > compelled to go along with the plan or else I go to jail. Nobody is > compelling you to say the Pledge of Allegience. See the difference? Paying taxes and saying the Pledge are completely different. Don't you have to say the Pledge in public school? I did when I went. Granted, you could just mumble along, but you are still expected to say it. "under God" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on money isn't on the top of my priority list, and honestly, I'm not doing anything about it, but it does irritate me. > Interesting. Let's say for one second that you believe in a Divine > Creator. Just go w/ me for a moment on this one...why couldn't the > universe be created in 6 days? God rested on the seventh, you know! > ;) There's all that pesky scientific evidence that says otherwise. > FWIW, the *practice* of homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you don't see > the difference, though? Woo hoo.. got me there. OK then, I don't think the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Oh wait, isn't a sin to even think of things like adultery and "lying with a man"? Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG > > Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, > > nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to say the Pledge in public school? I did when I went. Granted, you could > just mumble along, but you are still expected to say it. In reality, you don't *have* to say it, though virtually everyone does. And thinking back, in 33 years of teaching, I can't actually think of a single kid who opted out. Its main function, IMO, is a way to bring a class together at the start of a day, along w/ a statement of patriotism. > "under God" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on money isn't on the top of > my priority list, and honestly, I'm not doing anything about it, but it does > irritate me. Personally, as an adult, I'd just as soon "under God" had never been injected into the Pledge, but otoh (as an agnostic, who was brought up as a Protestant), I can live with it in there... For some reason, the money deal doesn't bother me as much. Maybe because it's more of a passive thing?? Not something I think about a lot. > > Interesting. Let's say for one second that you believe in a Divine > > Creator. Just go w/ me for a moment on this one...why couldn't the > > universe be created in 6 days? God rested on the seventh, you know! > > ;) > > There's all that pesky scientific evidence that says otherwise. Ah, but the people who want creationism to be taught in schools, now seem to consider it to be another scientific theory. ;-P Cathy > > > Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, > > > nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > kid who opted out. Its main function, IMO, is a way to bring a class > together at the start of a day, along w/ a statement of patriotism. I have managed to make it to almost 52 years of age without once reciting the Pledge of Alliegance. And, yes, I live in the US. I went to private school, where we didn't have to say it, but I very young decided that I would never say it until it was true. Until we have liberty and justice for all, no pledge for this one! Priscilla Signature"And what's this crap about Sodomites? It's always Sodomites this and Sodomites that. What about us Gomorrahians? We were there too; we deserve some mention. Sodom always gets the credit, and Gomorrah always does the work." - JohnN in alt.religion.christian.episcopal > > > > Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, > > > > nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Priscilla Well, there's always one in the crowd! ;-P Cathy > > > > Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, > > > > nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > decided that I would never say it until it was true. Until we have > liberty and justice for all, no pledge for this one! You rock, Priscilla. :) Stay you. > I have managed to make it to almost 52 years of age without once > reciting the Pledge of Alliegance. And, yes, I live in the US. I went [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Priscilla Good for you!~ I quit reciting it in first grade. I thought it was BS then. -L. > > Right, and you don't have to say it if you don't want to--in fact, > > nobody does. The fact that it is said that way seems to bother you?? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > my priority list, and honestly, I'm not doing anything about it, but it does > irritate me. You don't have to say the Pledge if you don't want to. A friend of mine in 6th grade (1982) was a Jehovah's Witness and was allowed to refrain from it. It was no big deal. > > Interesting. Let's say for one second that you believe in a Divine > > Creator. Just go w/ me for a moment on this one...why couldn't the > > universe be created in 6 days? God rested on the seventh, you know! > > ;) > > There's all that pesky scientific evidence that says otherwise. You sure didn't follow my example. You're looking at it from a purely secular view. That's not to mention that there is a lot of "pesky scientific evidence" that proves much of the Bible's literal accounts. Things like the parting of the Red Sea, the burning bush, etc. There is "pesky evidence"? Such as? Why not share with us this scientific evidence of the parting of the Red Sea? the burning bush? and a couple of the etc's. >Interesting. Let's say for one second that you believe in a Divine >Creator. Just go w/ me for a moment on this one...why couldn't the >universe be created in 6 days? God rested on the seventh, you know! >;) Doesn't it say somewhere that our lives are like a blink of an eye to God? If so, couldn't it be possible that the 7 days mentioned were 7 days to God, and thus thousands of years to us? Also, there are some peopel who believe in the Bible literally, and others who believe that much of it is in the form of parables, stories told in a form familiar to the audience. So, you can be Christian and not believe in the Genesis story. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > > > **JMHO, But what is reeeally dangerous is when the balance in ones own > > > personal beliefs becomes too far left, or too far right. Unfortunately, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > displayed on her classroom wall then it would cause quite a commotion. How > things change! Yes, I imagine it *would* create quite a stir, & rightly so. Has nothing to do with anyone being against Christianity, & that teacher practicing their religion in his/her private life, but everything to do w/ her/him promoting it in a public classroom. > I remember well at my old private school before each class we would cross > our hands over our heart and say the pledge of allegence (to the flag)... > "One nation under *God*, with liberty and justice for all". Gee, now days > you could be cited and penalized for such 'discriminatory' talk. Since the Pledge has "under God" in there, people generally seem to take it for granted & don't bat an eyelash. Although others want it back out of there - "under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. What > hogwash, IMO. The ACLU would have a field day, I'm sure. > Honestly, I believe young, under-developed minds, need to be more pointed, > focused and reverent on how blessed we are in this country. How truth, > justice and having a *higher power* known as God, are important, pure and > necessary for living a successful life. Then let their parents do this part of their education, if they believe in God. Cahty > ML- ( getting off her podum now :-) > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > > > > > Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not. Not everyone is Christian and I find forcing the views of a religion on someone else offensive. Prayer in public schools does not belong. By your post I have to wonder how you would feel if someone pushed their culture or religious beliefs upon you? I know I feel very uncomfortable when people push their religious beliefs on me. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? > That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > property. It's called PUBLIC property for a reason. I hope you're not > a member of the jihad against Christianity or religion in general! > Not everyone is Christian and I find forcing the views of a religion on > someone else offensive. Prayer in public schools does not belong. By your > post I have to wonder how you would feel if someone pushed their culture or > religious beliefs upon you? I know I feel very uncomfortable when people > push their religious beliefs on me. Damn, CP, this thread went from declawing to Religion. Either one is hot enough. Both are too hot to handle. > > WHY does there "need" to be a separation of church and state, again? > > That is found nowhere in the Constitution and in fact, the 1st [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > property. It's called PUBLIC property for a reason. I hope you're not > > a member of the jihad against Christianity or religion in general! > Not everyone is Christian and I find forcing the views of a religion on > someone else offensive. Prayer in public schools does not belong. By your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Nobody is *pushing* religion on you if you don't want that to happen. BUT, by banning all reference to religion, etc. in the public discourse, then you are pushing your anti-religion views on me. Stupid people offend me all the time, but that doesn't mean there should be a law against stupidity. Or should there be? ;) For example, gay marriage is something that is being foisted on the general public at large in many states (and especially here in the Portland area). Interestingly enough, it's okay for the socialists and the left-wing to push their agenda on the public at large, but as soon as their is push-back from the public....well, then it becomes a matter of "unconstitutionality". It's a double-standard from the left and hyprocrisy at large. For whatever reason, the left likes to discriminate against Christianity, but not any other religion. Your post above makes it clear that you have a problem with Christianity, specifically. Do you have a problem with people of other faiths, or are you just intolerant in that one area? > For whatever reason, the left likes to > discriminate against Christianity, but not any other religion. Your > post above makes it clear that you have a problem with Christianity, > specifically. Do you have a problem with people of other faiths, or > are you just intolerant in that one area? my 2 cents? if more christians practiced true christianity as JC envisioned it...the world would be a much better place. of course, the same goes for a fanatic of any religion. but really, IMO, i have much less of a problem with the actual religion than I do with those who claim to practice it. pam > > For whatever reason, the left likes to > > discriminate against Christianity, but not any other religion. Your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > envisioned it...the world would be a much better place. of course, the > same goes for a fanatic of any religion. but really, IMO, i have much > less of a problem with the actual religion than I do with those who > claim to practice it. > > pam I can't disagree with you there. People are fallable, for sure. My mother is one of those people who pushes her religious views on everybody and it turns people off...me, included. That being said, I don't have a problem with religion in general and I just can't get all up in arms if somebody gives a brief benediction at a football game or a high school graduation. I really don't see the harm, other than the intolerant ones among us think that they shouldn't be offended, ever. Those people need to grow up! >>> For whatever reason, the left likes to >>>discriminate against Christianity, but not any other religion. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > intolerant ones among us think that they shouldn't be offended, ever. > Those people need to grow up! I'll just add this: I am a school teacher and I feel that a "benediction" has no place at a football game or a graduation. It has nothing to do with what is happening and is likely to make some of our young people uncomfortable. I would not be ANY more comfortable if a rabbi came to my school and we prayed in hebrew. (I am Jewish.) It has nothing to do with a specific religion...it just has no place in our schools. You say those people need to grow up...and you are right...at least in terms of schools. Those *are* KIDS we are teaching...and they are very impressionable...and religion should be saved for homelife. And if homelife dictates religion should be part of school life...then that school should be a parochial one. I do not think I am intolerant. I think I am respectful of the MANY kinds of people I am surrounded by on a given day. Pam Well kit, Jews would not push their religion on others so the rabbi scenario wouldn't happen. I myself am Jewish and too feel religion is best left for the home life. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > I'll just add this: I am a school teacher and I feel that a "benediction" > has no place at a football game or a graduation. It has nothing to do with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pam > > For whatever reason, the left likes to > > discriminate against Christianity, but not any other religion. Your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > envisioned it...the world would be a much better place. of course, the > same goes for a fanatic of any religion. but really, IMO, i have much > less of a problem with the actual religion than I do with those who > claim to practice it. > > pam ITA. -L. > ITA. > > -L. Ooh! A net acronym that I don't know. What is "ITA"? :) > Ooh! A net acronym that I don't know. What is "ITA"? > > :) I totally agree! -L. > > Ooh! A net acronym that I don't know. What is "ITA"? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -L. It's supposed to be a hip way of saying "Me too." 8) >>>Ooh! A net acronym that I don't know. What is "ITA"? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's supposed to be a hip way of saying "Me too." 8) ITI! (it totally is!) p.s. Jasper ate some turkey meat just now! Yay! Gaubster. I guess I can expect this kind of post from you. You obviously have a big chip on your shoulder. Not everyone has to share your views but it seems you feel everyone should be the same religion, faith or culture. I have nothing against Christianity but I also don't want it shoved down my throat. I would truly get over your mightier than thou attitude. Just because I am not Christian does not mean I am against people that are. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Nobody is *pushing* > religion on you if you don't want that to happen. BUT, by banning all [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > specifically. Do you have a problem with people of other faiths, or > are you just intolerant in that one area? > Gaubster. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > truly get over your mightier than thou attitude. Just because I am not > Christian does not mean I am against people that are. CP, this is the sentiment that has been expressed in several posts and this is where you and others are making an erroneous ASSumption: Please show me where I have said that everybody should think and believe like me. You won't be able to, because I've never said that and I don't believe that. You shouldn't be so quick to judge others whom you nothing about. You seem to think that everybody who doesn't agree with you is a fundamentalist Christian that is just waiting to convert you. I am a Christian (Catholic) and I don't spend my time trying to convery anybody. I also do not agree with the sentiment that if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is your Savior that you will go to hell. I don't profess to know what God thinks about each individual. That up to Him and the individual. I wish you and others would open your minds about some people and quit ASSuming that they are all alike. :) You have inferred that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is stupid as well as other choice putdowns. You are the one who is judging others so stop trying to play the victim. You seem to do nothing but talk down to others. I guess you are doing your best to get the group's Assclown Award. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > CP, this is the sentiment that has been expressed in several posts and > this is where you and others are making an erroneous ASSumption: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > would open your minds about some people and quit ASSuming that they are > all alike. :) > You have inferred that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is stupid as > well as other choice putdowns. You are the one who is judging others so stop > trying to play the victim. You seem to do nothing but talk down to others. I > guess you are doing your best to get the group's Assclown Award. You're selectively remembering here. I don't talk down to others (well, I do to Lauren, but she reaps what she sows!), but since you worked in a Chris Jericho reference, I'll forgive you! ;) No. I have read every one of your posts and all you seem to do is name call and pick on people when they don't share your views. It is pointless to talk to someone who doesn't want to listen to what others have to say. I guess with you, ignorance is bliss. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > You're selectively remembering here. I don't talk down to others > (well, I do to Lauren, but she reaps what she sows!), but since you > worked in a Chris Jericho reference, I'll forgive you! ;) > No. I have read every one of your posts and all you seem to do is name call > and pick on people when they don't share your views. It is pointless to talk > to someone who doesn't want to listen to what others have to say. I guess > with you, ignorance is bliss. Sorry, CP, you're wrong. The person who calls people names around here is Lauren. And just because I disagree w/ somebody and ask them to back up their opinions doesn't mean that I'm "picking" on them. Interestingly enough, you have no problem when others "pick on" me! Don't you think you're being hypocritical? It seems to me that you've haven't given your positions much serious thought, or perhaps you would be able to defend them better? > > You're selectively remembering here. I don't talk down to others > > (well, I do to Lauren, but she reaps what she sows!), but since you > > worked in a Chris Jericho reference, I'll forgive you! ;) Stop playing the innocent victim here Gaubster. You decided to resort to name calling with me because I don't agree with you. SignatureCat Galaxy: All Cats! All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of Your Computer Needs! www.panthertekit.com > Sorry, CP, you're wrong. The person who calls people names around here > is Lauren. And just because I disagree w/ somebody and ask them to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > haven't given your positions much serious thought, or perhaps you would > be able to defend them better? > You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Nobody is *pushing* > religion on you if you don't want that to happen. BUT, by banning all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > general public at large in many states (and especially here in the > Portland area). Oh Good God - he lives by me! Yikes!!! It must suck to be you in Portland, Gauby. Land of the Liberal Activist. >Interestingly enough, it's okay for the socialists and > the left-wing to push their agenda Nobody is pushing any agenda. I don't care who sleeps with whom. I don't care who gets married to whom. I just feel that any two consenting adults should be allowed to do both, and have the same rights as I do. What exactly is a "homosexual agend" anyway? Are you afraid someone might try to "make" you gay or something? >on the public at large, but as soon > as their is push-back from the public....well, then it becomes a matter > of "unconstitutionality". It's a double-standard from the left and > hyprocrisy at large. For whatever reason, the left likes to > discriminate against Christianity, but not any other >religion. Nope. Christianity is the only religion that steadfastly tries to change federal law into religious (biblical) law. the Jews don't dso it, the Muslims don't do it, the Buddhists don't do it, the Hindus don't do it, etc. etc...If any one of the other religions tried to do the same, I would be against them doing so, as well. -L. > > For example, gay marriage is something that is being foisted on the > > general public at large in many states (and especially here in the > > Portland area). > > Oh Good God - he lives by me! Yikes!!! It must suck to be you in > Portland, Gauby. Land of the Liberal Activist. Yeah, I've got you confused w/ somebody who lives in Brazil! ;) > >Interestingly enough, it's okay for the socialists and > > the left-wing to push their agenda [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consenting adults should be allowed to do both, and have the same > rights as I do. Oh really? Then why did the "sisters of multnomah" go against state law and not consult with the other member of the board and decide to "legalize" gay marriage? That is an agenda that is PUSHED onto the ciitizens at large. It was never put to a public vote and why was that? Because it would've gone down in flames! The concept that marriage can be 2 people of the same-sex was voted down in 12 states out of 12 states. Does that offend you? ;) > What exactly is a "homosexual agend" anyway? Are you afraid someone > might try to "make" you gay or something? See above! You don't like prayer being "pushed" on kids, I don't like perversion being displayed for my child to see. I also don't like seeing a man and a woman "sucking face" or pawing at each other in public. Get a room, you know. There's a time and place and this isn't it, right now. > >on the public at large, but as soon > > as their is push-back from the public....well, then it becomes a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't do it, etc. etc...If any one of the other religions tried to do > the same, I would be against them doing so, as well. Not true. How about in middle east where you HAVE to practice Islam? The majority of this country is Christian, yet we don't have a state-mandated religion (the 1st Amendment in action!). Federal law is based on biblical law. Murder is not allowed in this country. Ever heard of, "Thou shalt not murder"? Lieing is prosecuted in certain circumstances...."Thou shalt not lie". See what I mean? > > Nobody is pushing any agenda. I don't care who sleeps with whom. I > > don't care who gets married to whom. I just feel that any two [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > law and not consult with the other member of the board and decide to > "legalize" gay marriage? I don't know you would have to ask them. >That is an agenda that is PUSHED onto the > ciitizens at large. It was never put to a public vote and why was > that? Because it would've gone down in flames! IIRC when "gay marriage" did go to vote in OR, it wasn't that big of a margin for loss. Well, at the time I finally went to bed on election day, that is. Karl Rove made sure the "gay marriage" issue was put on the ballots in order to bring out a "certain" type of voter in support of his candidate. He succeeded. > The concept that marriage can be 2 people of the same-sex was voted > down in 12 states out of 12 states. Does that offend you? Doesn't ofend me. It makes me sad. It shows we are a nation of bigots. > > What exactly is a "homosexual agend" anyway? Are you afraid someone > > might try to "make" you gay or something? > > > See above! You don't like prayer being "pushed" on kids, I don't like > perversion being displayed for my child to see. I'm sorry you see two people who love each other as "perversion". That's a really sad ideology, IMO. You know, in the '40's and '50's my husband and I would have been prohibited from marrying as well - interracial marriage was banned and labeled "perverse" by many. <snip> > For whatever reason, the left likes to > > > discriminate against Christianity, but not any other >religion. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not true. How about in middle east where you HAVE to >practice Islam? We are talking about the US, dear. US politics. Christians are the only ones trying to turn this government into a theocracy. Many of the signers of the declaration of independence were Unitarian. I think they might have a hard time with Christians trying to create a theocracy out of this country... > The majority of this country is Christian, yet we don't have >a > state-mandated religion (the 1st Amendment in action!). >Federal law is > based on biblical law. Nope. Federal law is based on morals and ethics. > Murder is not allowed in this country. Ever > heard of, "Thou shalt not murder"? Lieing is prosecuted in certain > circumstances...."Thou shalt not lie". See what I mean? I didn't know that Christians had a monolpoly on morality. Silly me, I thought all religions espoused morality. Not to mention those of us who have moral values because of culture, upbringing, etc. Sorry, but I don't think you and your Fundie friends can take all the credit for developing morals in this country, Gauby. It's been fun, Gauby, but I have to go. My kitties need some loving... -L. > > > Nobody is pushing any agenda. I don't care who sleeps with whom. > > Oh really? Then why did the "sisters of multnomah" go against state > > law and not consult with the other member of the board and decide to > > "legalize" gay marriage? > > I don't know you would have to ask them. That's exactly it. I CAN'T ASK THEM BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT/HAVE NOT OPENED THE SUBJECT UP TO DEBATE. This is a perfect example of somebody pushing their homosexual agenda on the public. > >That is an agen |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message