Will the Religious Right become the next terrorists?

[Guerilla poster]

it seems to me both the religious right of this country and the Islamic fundamentalists want the same thing - a return to traditional values.

[Anonymous]

big difference is what the traditional values are.

[Griffin 1]

No, the big difference is what each group is willing to do in order to return to those values.

[Anonymous]

our religious right is dangerous -- no doubt about that...but they aren't so uncivilized as to go have suicide missions to crash airplanes into buildings, even those of the Arabic friend.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Traci on 2001-09-17 22:37 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

The Christian religious right and the Islam are drastically different. So much so that they are more different than similar.

A problem here is that we can not line everything up in neat little boxes or put them in a straight linear orderly line. Such over simplicity leads only to confusion. For example, the Islamic religion (right or left) views preaching Christianity a very, very serious crime. Also Christians view Islam as a cult of nothing more than Satan himself.

Let me remind you that the entire USA legal system of democracy, equality, liberty and freedom is based on biblically based Christian values.

Perhaps it is better to start with the term conservative. Then start asking, what source are we being conservative to.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-18 00:27, Anonymous wrote:
Let me remind you that the entire USA legal system of democracy, equality, liberty and freedom is based on biblically based Christian values.


What are you on Drugs??????? Do not believe what the christian right say about our founding fathers until you read what they wrote.

A great many of our founding fathers where deists.

United States Constitution

The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Article VI, Section 3
“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)



John Adams (the second President of the United States)
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Ethan Allen

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)




Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

I CAN GO ON

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-18 00:27, Anonymous wrote:
The Christian religious right and the Islam are drastically different. So much so that they are more different than similar.


The lunatic fringe of fundamental christians are as far away from the teachings of Jesus as the Taliban is from the teachings of Mohammad.

I suppose you think Falwell, Robertson, .... and many others' inflammatory anti abortion rhetoric had nothing to do with murder of abortion providers and fire bombing of medical clinics and the shameful hounding of anybody who is connected to the abortion services.

I cannot imagine what a country would be like if Falwell was our leader. About the only ting I can say good is that there might not be stoning. Thank god we have a separation between church and state to keep these lunatics as far away from our government.

Believe in things you don't understand you suffer - Steve Wonder (and I never thought I would quote him)

[Guerilla poster]

My belief is that the religious right has as much hatred for feminists/abortion rights and other groups as the Islamic fundamentalists do for people who do not believe in what they believe in.

If you recall, the person who has been blamed for the Olympic bombing and Atlanta gay club bombing is a religious right fanatic. We have not yet found this guy. he could be hiding out somewhere forming a terrorist group for all we know.

isn't it a little scary that we cannot find this guy who disappeared in our own country yet we expect that we can track down Bin Laden?

[Anonymous]

"My belief is that the religious right has as much hatred for feminists/abortion rights and other groups as the Islamic fundamentalists do for people who do not believe in what they believe in. "

All you need to do is look at the crap that Falwell and his followeres have been spewing the last few days to see that this is true.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010916/pl/wtc_falwell010914_1.html

[Anonymous]

It's rather ironic that Falwell, Robertson, and even Newt (captain of the "add religion to government" team, also known as the "contract with America while I'm cheating on my wife" team. Christian guilt can be so ugly. But I'm digressing.) would be against these "religious extremists". Don't they even see that they preach intolerance just as much as the extremist in the middle east. Only difference is, in this country, we are very civilized, and only support mild "religious extremists".

[Anonymous]

"I suppose you think Falwell, Robertson, .... and many others' inflammatory anti abortion rhetoric had nothing to do with murder of abortion providers and fire bombing of medical clinics and the shameful hounding of anybody who is connected to the abortion services."

Of course any Chrsitian against abortion should be more against the murder of doctors. You do not know your sources.

[Anonymous]

The term "lunatic fringe of fundamental Christians" would have to be more clearly defined. It seems here you just want to call names. You seem to imply that every one who believes in the bible is a lunatic.

Perhaps you do not understand the logic behind abortion. Sanctity of life verses quality of life and when does life begin.

Medical research shows that the unborn has it's own separate nervous system, brain waives and even possible sleep patterns. Ever feel a baby kick in the womb? How about asking any mom what it was like being pregnant? Not the uncomfort part, but ask her if she felt if the fetus was alive. There is an undeniable difference between a fetus and a kidney. If that fetus is then a living being then it has a right to life. This right to life takes a higher priority over the woman’s right to her body or the quality of a her life. Her life quality verses the fetus’ life existence.

[Anonymous]

As if there aren't LIBERAL extremists?

On the abortion issue, we have the extremists who oppose ANY limitation on abortions; e.g. Traci. Clinton vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion based on the objection that it did not consider the "health" of the mother, as opposed to the "life" of the mother - in the politics of abortion and maternal health, "emotional distress" can be sufficient reason to justify an abortion. Thus, a doctor who could deliver a healthy and viable baby within a few seconds is instead allowed to suck out the brains and the life of the innocent child! Even where there might be more significant health issues for the mother, it is hard to envision how her health risk is incrementally affected by simply delivering the baby.

At the same time, we have academic "elitists" who have been so bold as to suggest that deformed babies be allowed to die or be killed. In short, it seems clear that there are LIBERAL EXTREMISTS who are trying to push the abortion line beyond the date of birth - in other words, they are looking for "Post-birth abortion." If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

In contrast:

The pro-life crowd sees abortion as a war against the unborn, and one where the unborn person has no legal rights or voice. In their view, innocent people are routinely being slaughtered for the comfort and convenience of woman who can't abide by a combination of abstinence, effective birth control, and acceptance of responsibility if and when they do become pregnant (including the adoption option.) And, at $500 or so per abortion, the 1.4 million abortions per year amount to a $700 million industry.

If an outside force were slaughtering 1.4 million U.S. citizens every year, YOU would probably be willing to fight and kill that enemy, perhaps you would even go on a suicide mission against innocent members of the guilty country - you would probably be a terrorist.

In contrast, the abortion doctors have been targeted directly. I agree that this is wrong, but the rationale and methods of the most extreme pro-lifers are not so evil. They kill one doctor who is guilty of killing thousands of babies, and they prevent or forestall the killing of even more babies; and they put others on warning not to commit the same atrocity.

The founding fathers, religious or otherwise, were clearly concerned about the impact of an established religion - and the quote posted above about the despot and the religious leader working in concert is most on point. I would not want the religious right to run the country with an established religion - but I think the constitutionaly protections are there, and I think they respect those constitutional protections more than the liberals give them credit for.

[Anonymous]

"shameful hounding"

Let me suggest two points:

1. Freedom of speech.

2. Jesse Jackson's extortion game, which is based on shameful hounding.

[Anonymous]

Just my point in previous posts: The extreme right wing "Christians" can not see past there own religious views and have declared war on abortionists, gays, the American way, .... They want to ram their views down the nations throat. Well this is a prime example of why your views taken to an extreme are evil.

Where is your tolerance of others and sinners.

Remember Jesus broke bread with whores, tax collectors, and other dredges of society. He did not hound them, shot at them, fire bomb them, declare a holly ear on them. He even forgave those who persecuted him.

We a secular nation. Remember that seperation between chuch and state thing that keeps getting in the way.

[RTVA]

Scary... I try hard not to 'ram my views down everyone's throats' but OTOH, maybe I am not outspoken enough. Anon says that this is a secular nation, so I suppose you think that pro-lifers should just shut up and mind their own business. That we should just consider abortion a personal issue, and if we feel it's wrong, then just don't get one ourselves, but don't say a word about anyone else getting one.

I wonder about all those good German citizens who just looked the other way when the Nazis were exterminating Jews by the thousands. There is a story about a church that was located close to a railroad that was used to transport Jews and other 'undesirables' in cattle cars to the concentration camps. The church members could hear the people screaming, so they would sing louder to drown out their cries. I pray that I am not as guilty as them, for looking the other way while 40M babies have been exterminated through abortion.

Sorry if that steps on your precious toes, but fortunately we haven't completely lost our freedom of speech in this country yet.

[Guerilla poster]

of course, there are some extremists on all sides of issues. Though, I don't recall them trying to kill anyone. At least since the 70's. There are also some environment wackos that do act violently.

I just do not understand the self-righteousness of the religious right crowd. Do you really think America will be such a better place once abortion is made illegal and all gays are strung up in Times Square as an example? Sorry that is not a country I want to live in.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-19 12:03, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Do you really think America will be such a better place once abortion is made illegal and all gays are strung up in Times Square as an example?
<font size=2>Um, C5gal didn't mention anything about gays, GP. And no, most pro-lifers - indeed, most Christians - *don't* want to hurt gays. Where did you get that idea? American Beauty?

[Guerilla poster]

I got the idea from Jerry Falwell.

and the point is that many Christian Fundamentalists want to see the country move back to a more traditional time when we were less tolerant.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-19 13:51, Guerilla Poster wrote:
I got the idea from Jerry Falwell.
<font size=2>Well, I don't know about you, but I've never heard Falwell say anything about wanting to hurt or kill gays. He just thinks what they do is wrong. I most definitely disagree with his tactics (and a number of his beliefs), but so far I haven't heard him express a wish to inflict pain on anyone.

Point me to a credible source and I might believe you.

(I can't believe I'm defending a televangelist.)

[Guerilla poster]

Ok, you caught me in an exageration (sp?). Something I learned from the Right in their War against Clinton. But if the religious right ran the country what would it look like. What is their wish list? I am just trying to understand.

Possible Wish List

1) Abortion Outlawed
2) Mandatory Church Services
3) Men with Men will be arrested and sent to special anti-gay camps to be taught to be straight
4) ???

[Anonymous]

Ummm...as a member of the "religious right", I can tell you that your list, after #1, is not even close.

What people do re: church attendance is entirely up to them - they will answer to a righteous God someday if they choose to ignore Him. The Bible says that one day "every knee will bow" - why not sooner than later?

What people do in their bedrooms is none of my business - but when they parade it around like some sort of battle emblem and get "special rights and privileges" because of a choice they've made, it suddenly becomes my business. God does not tolerate a homosexual lifestyle (see Romans, chapter 1).

Thanks - soapbox is over!

[The Mister]

<font size=2>And if the radical left ran the country: Non-vegetarian food outlawed. (and as a concession to the vegans, sin tax on dairy products)
Kitchen knives outlawed
Tobacco outlawed (or forced into bankruptcy); simultaneously, marijuana legalized
Free speech amendment repealed - except for those who agree with the radical left, of course.
Pointing one's finger in the shape of a firearm and saying "bang" ruled as "assault" and results in mandatory 10-year sentence.
Christmas celebrations outlawed anywhere outside the home (the holiday shopping spree will still remain traditional).I could think of more, but I don't want to be fired for goofing off @ work. :wink:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Mister on 2001-09-19 15:05 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

just asking:

What is a special right that gay people have?

Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to walk around hand in hand?

[RTVA]

I agree, I'm sure I would be labeled "religious right" (though I do not claim that any more than liberals claim to be liberal) and #1 is the only one that is true. Here is my wish list, since you wanted to know.

1. Abortion on demand illegal. Only legal in case of the life of the mother (not health). Euthanasia also illegal. Also, no research on live human embryoes, or production of embryoes for the purpose of research.

2. No promotion of homosexuality, 'safe sex', or evolution in public policy or in public schools. (Notice I said promotion.)

3. No telemarketers calling during dinner.

That's about it, I think. Freedom of speech and religion for all, and especially the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Anonymous]

People who "declared war on abortionists, gays" in the sense of causing or supporting bodily harm are NOT Christians. Just like David Coresh (spelling?) of the Waco Texas cult was not a Christian.

[RTVA]

To anon (BTW, you anons need to register, it is confusing!)

The special recognition that they are fighting for is for equal treatment/status as married partners. This is already well on its way to being realized. In "our" view (RR), this degrades the estate of marriage, and would signal the end of the family as we know it. If you recognize same sex couples, it would make sense to also recognize live-ins (common law). Why not just dissolve the traditional family, it is so offensive.

[Guerilla poster]

Why should the government be involved in the marriage business? Why do I need to get a license to marry? This is the problem i have. To me, the government should not recognize any marriage.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: guerilla poster on 2001-09-19 15:52 ]</font>

[Dr T Non-Fan]

c5gal, that last one is something everyone can agree on. However, it can be taken care of with free caller-ID. Now there's a feature that allows someone to circumvent caller-ID with some sort of code (in case an emergency call comes from an unknown source). So, again, no government intervention required, except for making it free.

Of the others: the problem with using the word "promotion" is that some of The Right believes that merely discussing such horrible topics constitutes promotion of it. And telling kids not to do something leads some of them to do it.

Any opinion on death penalty? Just checking for consistency.

(sarcastic voice = ON) I'm against public funding for digging up dinosaur bones, or for displaying them in public museums. Kids will just get the wrong impression.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-19 15:51, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Why should the government be involved in the marriage business? Why do I need to get a license to marry? This is the problem i have. To me, the government should not recognize any marriage.<font size=2>Despite being a Christian and a conservative, I actually agree with GP (wow!). (It actually has a bit more to do with my Libertarian leanings, but what the hey.)

[Guerilla poster]

Mister,

I think I am just on a slightly different side of the libertarian party than you. I admit I despise what I think are the views of the religious right conservatives.

On a topical issue, as a libertarian, what is your view of airport security - should it remain privatized, someone suggested a model to me today where security personnel are provided a cash incentive for any weapons they find - I assume to be paid from any fines paid by the perpetrators.

I guess a radical libertarian would allow people to bring guns and knifes on board an airplane. Bombs probably not?

[The Mister]

<font size=2>Well, most libbies believe that national security (both from within and without) is one of the few priorities that the govt should have. So I think a "moderate libertarian" (if you get my drift) would have no problem prohibiting weapons in certain areas (such as airplanes).

Some weapons - bombs and fully automatic weapons, for example - would probably still be outlawed outright.

And, because of the national security issue, during a crisis, a Libertarian government would probably go ahead and put more officially trained security in airports (and perhaps airplanes), whereas they would probably revert back to the lowest bid during peacetime.

Having said that, I did say I have Libertarian *leanings*, and I'm certainly not a radical libbie.

[RTVA]

Hmmm, I see where you are coming from on the marriage thing. Maybe if the govt hadn't ever said anything about it in the first place, it wouldn't be a big deal. But, if they were to stop recognizing 'normal' marriage now, it would have the same effect as recognizing the other lifestyles.

As for the death penalty, I am like most anti-abortionists who support the DP. You notice that I said I would only allow legal abortion in the case of the life of the mother, along the lines of the self-defense argument. (I have a bit of a personal problem with how subjective it is, but I don't think I could legislate that.) Anyway, the DP is for capital offenders. They are no longer innocent lives. By taking someone else's life, they have forfeited the right to their own. (I don't see how you can compare an innocent baby to a cold-blooded murderer.) I would expect them to have their full rights to a fair trial and all the appeals, etc, but if after all of that, they are found guilty, then justice needs to be carried out. I am also not against war. I think it should be avoided as much as possible, and that a country should do their best not to harm innocent civilians, but freedom is worth dying (and killing) for.

<steps down off soapbox>

[RTVA]

Hey, it cut off the end of my post! Oh well, I'll try again, it said...

(steps down off soapbox) :wink:

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Thank you for responding.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-19 15:40, C5gal wrote: In "our" view (RR), this degrades the estate of marriage, and would signal the end of the family as we know it.

I always thought family meant sharing a loving, nurturing environment, picnics at the beach, discussions around the dinner table, etc. Sometimes, this even happens when each parent has a uterus. :grin:

Side note: I think a >50% divorce rate has already degraded the estate of heterosexual marriage. :sad:

[Anonymous]

[sane point]
One point on government intervention in marriage, and marriage licenses: It is broadly considered good public policy to have monogamy, and marriage licenses and the public recording of marriages is good policy. Similarly, inbreeding has its problems, and public policy argues against close blood relatives marrying (arguably, on the "archaic" notion that people marry because they are going to have children!)

Further, there is extensive common law history about the joint property of families, which is a function of marriage. The disposition of property in the event of divorce or death is a non-trivial matter, and a justifiable concern of public policy.

If you wanted to argue in favor of bigamy or polygamy, and say that government should not intervene there - I guess you could make a point that government should not interfere with the formation of the marriage contract between consenting private citizens. Still, sound public policy would argue in favor of public records - for example, a person should know whether they are marrying into a monogamous situation or not; also, if a monogamous marriage is agreed as such, either party should be able to legally enforce the agreement at a later date by preventing a subsequent marriage.
[/sane point]

A surprising amount of the controversy about the religious right could be resolved if the government did not interfere with our lives to such a great extent. Solutions include:

Less taxation; avoid issues of "tax subsidies" for dependents, marriage, home mortgage, a dozen other things.
Eliminate the public school system; conversely, a pure voucher system. Eliminates questions about teaching evolution, religion, prayer in schools, handing out condoms, promoting the gay lifestyle, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
A smaller government would buy less stuff, and have less leverage on government contractors to promote "equal opportunity" and enforce quota systems on U.S. businesses. Equal opportunity has been extended in many cases to "sexual orientation" even though that could conceivably include pedophiles.



The abortion issue is not going to go away. It is a wonder that the ACLU, which is famous for arguing constitutional interpretations in favor of "the little guy," does not see that the "little guy" in the abortion issue is not the pregnant woman but the unborn baby.

It is further frustrating to see liberals, who seem so slow to judge and so eager to admit doubt in any matter of interpretation - that while they acknowledge a "fuzzy logic" concept of human life beginning sometime between conception and birth - that they nonetheless resolve the doubt not in favor of preserving life (the unborn baby) but in favor of the mother!

And yet, these same people get up in arms if people in other countries, or even in the U.S., are using ultrasounds to abort females! Liberal elite "ethicists" have sounded the alarm that amniocentesis could be used to identify fetuses that carry the "gay" gene (which everyone in the GLBT PC world assumes is the sole factor) and that gay fetuses could be aborted - as if THAT would be a horrible genocide, but the routine aborting of 1.4 million per year is somehow not a horrible genocide!!!

[Anonymous]

[really worked up now mode=on]
And another thing.

Does this culture promote the gay lifestyle? Is it "in your face"? I would argue that in the last few years, this has very much been the case.

More to the point, is that promotion adverse to those who don't buy the GLBT party line? Yes! The clearest example is the full court press by the United Way to cut funding to the Boy Scouts because they won't accept gay scout leaders on the basis that the BSA is "intolerant" and discriminatory. Never mind that the vast majority of United Way contributors don't or wouldn't actively support either the gay lifestyle or abortion - those contributors have tolerated (knowingly or not) United Way support of Planned Parenthood and any number of gay-promoting organizations for years.

Who is intolerant?? I say the liberals are intolerant of any notion of morality and of any organization that would suggest that self-restraint and self-discipline are necessary factors for a good life and a good society.

[really worked up now mode=off]
"Who wants pie?"

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-19 13:40, The Mister wrote:

On 2001-09-19 12:03, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Do you really think America will be such a better place once abortion is made illegal and all gays are strung up in Times Square as an example?
<font size=2>Um, C5gal didn't mention anything about gays, GP. And no, most pro-lifers - indeed, most Christians - *don't* want to hurt gays. Where did you get that idea? American Beauty?


Yup, they don't want to "hurt" gay, but just want to "change" gay to straight.(Based on love?)

Could you image to grow up in a society that most people comment that 'straight" is immoral, and that you should change?

Have you been afriad that people in your company know about you are "straight" because you know some straight guys had been fired just because they are straight?

If you had thoses experience, you would have known what "hurt" is.

[Jala]

"Yup, they don't want to "hurt" gay, but just want to "change" gay to straight"

They do?

[Anonymous]

<font size="1">
Let's be clear about the "gay" debate in U.S. society: It is politically incorrect to have any debate about this subject, and anyone who questions the PC position is a hate-mongering homophobe and religious zealot.

Now, let's look at this rationally:

Since the pure genetic basis for sexuality is reproduction, homosexuality is obviously counterintuitive on a prima facie basis. In short, the ball is in your court if you are going to promote it as a normal fact of life.

If you look at it from a traditional moral perspective, virtually all the religions see it as immoral. Also, since homosexual acts can only be gratifying and not procreative, they run counter to the conservative religious notion that man's purpose is to serve God, not himself.

The aforesaid point running counter to every other aspect of U.S. culture, a strong case can be made for "Keep your laws off my body" as found on bumper stickers in the 1970's. "Whatever feels good, do it." Fine. From a libertarian perspective, what transpires between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, indeed, is nobody's business.

With this point, however, we retain our libertarian right to judge homosexual behavior as immoral, according to our own belief systems. The "privacy" concept in the preceeding point serves to keep homosexuals "in the closet" and allows for discrimination against homosexuals. The "free association" clause in the constitution protects this right.

Thus, the gays need to find a way to fight their way out of the closet. How do they go about doing this? First, consider there are three widely held possible reasons for why a person is gay:

Personal choice; free will. This possibility is rejected; because it is within the bounds of society to regulate moral behavior. For example, R-rated postings are not allowed in this forum. Even if this avenue would not result in legal prohibition of homosexual behavior, it might never result in societal acceptace - since over 90% of the public would find this personally repugnant and immoral.
Environment; social upbringing, etc. This, too, is an explanation that must be refuted by the gays. First, there is the Freudian notion that mental illness is driven by the environment; thus, the gays successfully lobby to have various forms of sexual deviancy removed from the list of mental illness diagnoses recognized by the psychiatric association. Second, the environmental explanation exposes gays to the risk that conservative people will argue that they are trying to "convert" straight children into gays - which is obviously an emotionally supercharged situation - You want to put your WHAT in Johnny's WHERE and you want to call it NORMAL???
Genetics; they are "hard-wired" as gay. This is where they have landed. Along with it comes the apology: "No one would choose to be gay." Essentially, they are arguing that gay and lesbian amount to new sexual phenotypes, in addition to the traditional male/female. Of course, we are point where our understanding of human genetics will allow us to validate that point, but it seems to go unquestioned. Further, if this is indeed a sexual phenotype, then wouldn't routine genetic testing seem appropriate to identify who is and isn't? Yet, you can imagine the uproar if anyone was to suggest this approach. Of course, two other things would likely come out of this: the false positives and the false negatives - aka those with the gene who live normal hetersexual lives, and those without the gene who engage in homosexual conduct.

This is where we stand today, and we are asked to accept that (3) is true, and to therefore accept the gay population as practicing homosexuals as normal.

Let's look briefly at the hypocrisies of the liberal and gay agenda over the years:

One of the myths promoted at one point was that "you can't tell someone is gay by looking at them." Fine, maybe you can't. However, we are also asked to accept, without question, that gays are only interested in other gays (and certainly not in little Johnny) (unless he is gay) (which he might be) (and you can't tell by looking.)

The hypocrisy is that anti-gay people are called "homophobic" presumably because they are worried about taking one up the backside - which of course we don't need to worry about because gays are only interested in other gays, even though you can't tell by looking, and since you aren't one, you don't need to worry - unless of course you are one, and you might be and not know it because of our repressive society.

Convoluted, or just too cynical for you? Sorry, let me state it simply - drawing on my experience as a straight guy, I can't tell if a woman is straight or lesbian - but if she's good looking, I find myself playing "follow the leader" with my animal instincts. Why should it be any different for a guy who thinks guys are sexually attractive?

Lest you think gay men are different than straight men, consider that in hetersexual relationships, it is generally always the women who are saying "No" to sex - if it was up to the guys it would be a constant orgy. Guess what happened in the early 80's as the sexual liberation hit the gay population? You guessed it - there weren't any women around to say "No" and it was one big orgy. The sad fact is that AIDS passed through the U.S. gay population like a hot knife through butter sitting on the back porch in July.

(As an aside, it is worth noting that if AIDS had been in the heterosexual population at the same time, and if the women had been willing, we probably would have seen the same orgy and the same spread of AIDS in the straight population. The straights were lucky.)

Another hypocrisy is that all gays are in loving committed relationships; in any event, they aren't evil sodomites trying to recruit young boys. Nonetheless, the GLBT people have done a very poor job of distancing themselves from the Man-Boy Love people. Men having sex with young girls = EVIL. Men having sex with young boys = just a natural expression of their unfortunate genetic makeup. Further, don't even think of denying them their God-given right to be Boy Scout leaders!

Another hypocrisy, this one promoted by the NOW and feminists, is that men in general (but presumably not gays) are evil exploiters of women. Thus, it is repugnant and exploitative for men to seek women to perform certain sexual acts - while those same acts are the lifeblood of homosexual behavior. In other words, it is evil for a man to do it to a woman, but not to another man? At the same time, women are free to choose to engage in this behavior; anyone questioning the morality of all this is obviously a right wing religious zealot.

Another hypocrisy is the myth that has been promoted off and on now for years, is that "we are all a little gay." For example, there was a link posted here or at the prior forum that pointed to a survey that rated you between 0% and 100% gay. Of course, the hypocrisy is that they are simultaneously claiming that genetics determines whether you are gay, and most often they suggest a recessive gene passed through the mother. This would be a single gene - thus, you either you is or you ain't. (Binary, not fuzzy.) The further hypocrisy is, of course, that the maternal thing does nothing to explain how the lesbian gene passes through the population.

Moving beyond the hypocrisies, we can see the full court press of the liberal and GLBT movement to affect public opinion in the past few years, aka the "culture wars":


"In your face" homosexuality, aka PDA's or public-displays-of-affection. Notably, the perversions seen on Saturday Night Live - if they can't be funny, at least they can be openly gay. Also, American Beauty, American Pie 2, and any other number of recent movies. The goal, of course, is to "desensitize" the public, and especially the young public, to think that this is normal, natural, and acceptable.
"Gay is normal." Hence, moving beyond Seinfeld's "not that there's anything wrong with that" to Ellen Degenerate on TV, and the gay couple in American Beauty who seemed to be the only normal and well-adjusted people in the movie (P.S. don't forget that all Marines are repressed closet cases.) And, of course, the mantra of gay in "committed, loving, lifelong relationships" and why can't they get spousal benefits in my group benefit plan?
The Boy Scouts are evil for believing otherwise, and having the nerve to go to the Supreme Court and resort to the "free association" clause of the constitution - even if that is arguably the constitutional basis for why homosexual behavior could not or should not be made illegal!


The list goes on and on. But the argument turns centrally on the point of whether you buy the argument that genetics are the sole and determining cause for homosexual behavior; and, if so, you believe that society has no right to circumscribe genetically determined behavior.

Thus, a person who is genetically a mass-murderer or rapist is nonetheless prohibited from killing or raping. More to the point, my genetic makeup causes me to consider the appearance of a woman in determining her sexual attractiveness; my genetic makeup NEVER causes me to say: "Hey, maybe I ought to check her ID to make sure she's at least 18." But, if I were to act on my genetic makeup alone, I would run the risk of running afoul of the law. Even the GLBT people would complain if I were to approach lesbians? Thus, it is clear that society does limit the behavior that flows as a natural expression of genetic makeup.

Further, it is clear that, if there IS a genetic basis for being gay, that anyone engaging in homosexual behavior who did not have the "gay gene" would be a pervert of some sort? Does society have the right to limit THAT person's behavior??

But, this entire debate has been prohibited and will get you "shouted down" on virtually any college campus in the country.

Sorry about the extent of this rant, hopefully the little font will work to minimize the screen space. Here goes.
</font>

[Anonymous]

Dang, even with the small font, that post is undeniably andy-esque. Sorry, folks, I got carried away.

[Anonymous]

"Why should the government be involved in the marriage business?"

Taxes. The politicians like to pick and chose who gets a good or bad deal on taxes.

"Why not just dissolve the traditional family, it is so offensive."

You have a traditional family, I don't see anyone tryinng to stop you. But, you can't force others to do as you wish. That is going to be a theme throughout this post.

"In "our" view (RR), this degrades the estate of marriage, and would signal the end of the family as we know it"

Such gloom & doom. Any political arguement that contains "will be the end of ... as we know it" can be saved for the soap box, IMO. Again, your opinion on gays is your opinion. Live and let live. You will have much less stress.

"they will answer to a righteous God someday if they choose to ignore Him. The Bible says that one day "every knee will bow" - why not sooner than later?"

No I won't.

"Well, I don't know about you, but I've never heard Falwell say anything about wanting to hurt or kill gays. He just thinks what they do is wrong. I most definitely disagree with his tactics (and a number of his beliefs), but so far I haven't heard him express a wish to inflict pain on anyone"

He said we deserve what we got. Apparently, he knows better than God, about justice and what is right. (PS. My prediction: Falwell would burn in hell, if there is one, which I highly doubt, well before someone who is gay. I don't imagine any God would appreciate his using church for political and business purposes. But that's just speculation.)

"so I suppose you think that pro-lifers should just shut up and mind their own business. That we should just consider abortion a personal issue, and if we feel it's wrong, then just don't get one ourselves"

Yes! Hey, America is a democracy. We voted for the politicains who put those justices there, and they said "you lose" to the christian right. That's that. If you want to live in a state that is run by religion, go elsewhere. The middle east is a shining example of what you'll have as a lifestyle. Not for me though.

[Anonymous]

Boy did Jerry Falwell kiss ass on goodmorning america this morning. Even said it was a stupid remark.

IMO: I still believe he spoke what was in his heart when saying it was partially the faults the feminists, aclu, gays, pagens,...

[Anonymous]

Some of you guys really scare me. Some one above wrote that abortion is wrong, but weeding out the gay gene (through screening) is fine. How about we run the world based on what you're comfortable with. Would that be okay with you?

PS: Gay culture is "in your face"? Hopefully, they'll go hide somewhere, like in the 50's, right? If that makes you feel less insecure, I'm sure all gay people will be fine w/ it.

[Anonymous]

That's a misquote, or out of context. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that says it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion for pretty much any reason she wants to, but then to act concerned if the reason was because the baby might have the gay gene. In other words, the hypocrisy is "pro-choice - you're free to make any choice you like, as long as it's not THAT choice."

I didn't say that abortion was acceptable in either case.

[Oh Yeah]

Hey Anonymous (great name, by the way),

What about option 1(a) Personal choice; free will, and who are you to decide what is moral?

The problem with your diatribe is you are trying to string together arguments and conclusions from different sources. Homosexuals and their beliefs are as varied as those of Christians. We are human beings you nimrod.

This debate will continue and, fortunately, it will not be decided by one-dimensional dullards such as yourself.

[RTVA]

To "sane thought/rant" anon, and to small font anon, I thought your posts were very good and well thought out, and I'm glad to know that I am not the only one on the board who thinks along those lines (even if I may be the only registered one, lol).

""so I suppose you think that pro-lifers should just shut up and mind their own business. That we should just consider abortion a personal issue, and if we feel it's wrong, then just don't get one ourselves"

Yes! Hey, America is a democracy. We voted for the politicains who put those justices there, and they said "you lose" to the christian right. That's that. If you want to live in a state that is run by religion, go elsewhere. The middle east is a shining example of what you'll have as a lifestyle. Not for me though."

You obviously missed my point. Even if politicians have established policy, I believe that policy is allowing murder. I am not going to mind my own business about it. Slavery was once also legal. It is because of people who were not content to mind their own business that slavery was outlawed. The unborn have no voice today just as the slaves had no voice then. I hope that someday abortion is an ugly thing of the past just like slavery is.

[Anonymous]

Your free will argument is congruent with teaching that prostitution is legally and morally acceptable, and doing so in the public schools. (And prohibiting discrimination against prostitutes.) Do you support that? If not, who are you to decide what is moral?

Society has to draw some lines somewhere. Do you draw lines? If so, aren't you being hypocritical? If not, then aren't you just an anarchist?

[Oh Yeah]

Dude, I'm not having this argument with you. I have an exam to study for.

It is irrelevant to me what you think of my life and my morals.

In light of what has happened recently, these petty, endless arguments seem even more ridiculous.

I wish you the best.