|
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Here is a proposed Constitutional
Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
"Cliff Huprich" wrote in message
m... Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: Far be it for me to enter in a political-jabbing thread but: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) Them Hebrews knew how to have fun. ;) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) Somewhere else in the Bible it says that Moses had to create a law for divorce anyways, "because humans are too stubborn" (or something like that). Plus all the other stuff that you skipped over in the New Testament, which corrects a lot of things in the Old. And, of course, since you're trying to make a point by using a well-accepted text, I wouldn't be suprised if the above (some snipped) are all you could find, no matter how out of context. Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Obviously your post is one of extremism that can never happen, for instance one of the founding principles for instance is against descrimination by race or religion. Tim -- "I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting and Games: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live
in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? Nope and nope to both ?'s. BTW what is marriage and why do we need it? "Get a taste of religion, lick a witch" |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
I don't know what Bible you're looking at but the King James version has
virtually no connection to the passages you cite, or, your citings are so completely out of context that they are meaningless. For example, your point C seems to state that virgins shall be executed. If you actually took the time to look this up you would see that the woman was getting stoned for *LYING* about being a virgin. The next verse talks about stoning the man if he cheats on his wife. Etc... I'm not advocating either side of this issue other than to point out that your particular post is nothing but a bunch of contrived crap, which I'm sure is designed to specifically to take a cheap shot at religious principles in general. Robert "Cliff Huprich" wrote in message m... Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Bernd wrote:
Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? Nope and nope to both ?'s. BTW what is marriage A piece of paper which gives privileges and preferences to a special interest group defined by people who have the piece of paper. It also used to be a way of claiming that certain types of sexual conduct are illegal. In fact it was illegal to HAVE sex without the piece of paper. It was even illegal to rent a house or stay in a hotel room with a person of the opposite sex, without the piece of paper. and why do we need it? We don't need it for anything. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
I am not opposed to same sex marriage.
John Scheldroup "Cliff Huprich" wrote in message m... Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Siggy wrote:
I don't know what Bible you're looking at but the King James version has virtually no connection to the passages you cite, or, your citings are so completely out of context that they are meaningless. For example, your point C seems to state that virgins shall be executed. If you actually took the time to look this up you would see that the woman was getting stoned for *LYING* about being a virgin. The next verse talks about stoning the man if he cheats on his wife. Etc... I'm not advocating either side of this issue other than to point out that your particular post is nothing but a bunch of contrived crap, which I'm sure is designed to specifically to take a cheap shot at religious principles in general. You are kidding, right? All of those "religious principles" are being enforced on hundreds of millions of people all over the world, right now. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Hang on hoss...
No one is debating the fact that religious principles are being enforced on hundreds of millions of people worldwide. If you read the post you would see that I am debating and criticizing the original poster's attempted use of Bible verses to back up his point, when in fact the cited Bible verses have absolutely no relevance to his argument, other than attempting to make it appear like his argument has some merit. Robert "Gary" wrote in message ... Siggy wrote: I don't know what Bible you're looking at but the King James version has virtually no connection to the passages you cite, or, your citings are so completely out of context that they are meaningless. For example, your point C seems to state that virgins shall be executed. If you actually took the time to look this up you would see that the woman was getting stoned for *LYING* about being a virgin. The next verse talks about stoning the man if he cheats on his wife. Etc... I'm not advocating either side of this issue other than to point out that your particular post is nothing but a bunch of contrived crap, which I'm sure is designed to specifically to take a cheap shot at religious principles in general. You are kidding, right? All of those "religious principles" are being enforced on hundreds of millions of people all over the world, right now. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
John Scheldroup wrote:
I am not opposed to same sex marriage. I am not opposed to same person marriage. Why should I be denied marriage to myself? I love me. I'm capable of having sex with me. I could easily raise a family. Most importantly, unlike half the multi-person marriages I WILL STAY WITH MYSELF UNTIL DEATH DO ME PART! I would never have a second marriage, not even if my spouse dies. There will never be any 'cheating' in my marriage because any extramarital sex will HAVE to have the approval of all parties in the marriage. Hmmm, the only downside is that married people will no longer be getting special treatment and preferences if everyone were able to be married. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
John Scheldroup wrote:
I am not opposed to same sex marriage. What about samish sex marriage? http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/ |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
"Cliff Huprich" wrote in message m... Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? Nope! Plus I've already written to my senator and expressed my views. He wrote back saying he agreed with me and would do everything he can to make sure the President doesn't get his new amendment. In part he said: "In modern times, with few exceptions, we have taken the remarkable step of changing the Constitution to expand the right to participate in our democratic system and to make structural changes to our system of representative government. It would be unprecedented to use this mechanism to restrict the rights of any Americans." Lane |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
"Guido" wrote in message ... John Scheldroup wrote: I am not opposed to same sex marriage. What about samish sex marriage? http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/ So what's the problem "If this trend continues, before long our towns and cities will be full of people like K, S, L, H, T, and O, people "asserting their rights" by dating, falling in love with, marrying, and spending the rest of their lives with whomever they please." "I, for one, am not about to stand by and let that happen." The author of the letter is creating an illusion of her own, in that which she does not understand. Her current wife being suddenly female when she was male has gotten to play both parts as the female role and now male role, lifting weights. She is fascinated by another friends wife whom is female. She is married to a gay man whom is male. This friend she knows will divorce her gay husband. The lesbian neighbor want's to get to know and explain herself to this femine person, maybe later to become equinted. John |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Siggy wrote:
Hang on hoss... No one is debating the fact that religious principles are being enforced on hundreds of millions of people worldwide. If you read the post you would see that I am debating and criticizing the original poster's attempted use of Bible verses to back up his point, when in fact the cited Bible verses have absolutely no relevance to his argument, Wrong. In fact the cited Bible verses have absolutely no relevance to his argument under YOUR interpretation of them. Are you one of them middle eastern souperstitious fundies who claims to have the only "TRUE" interpretation of the ignorant middle eastern superstitions? other than attempting to make it appear like his argument has some merit. Wrong. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
|
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
In article , Cliff Huprich
says... Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles is a good idea? Well, it's better than living one step away from retribution, if ya screw up: http://www.minuend.com/writers/nora.htm Ms. mulligan says 'jim better not screw up, or else!' Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:07:59 -0600, "Tim Williams"
wrote: "Cliff Huprich" wrote in message om... Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: Far be it for me to enter in a political-jabbing thread but: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) Them Hebrews knew how to have fun. ;) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) Somewhere else in the Bible it says that Moses had to create a law for divorce anyways, "because humans are too stubborn" (or something like that). Plus all the other stuff that you skipped over in the New Testament, which corrects a lot of things in the Old. And, of course, since you're trying to make a point by using a well-accepted text, I wouldn't be suprised if the above (some snipped) are all you could find, no matter how out of context. Think about it! Does this sound like the America that you want to live in? Obviously your post is one of extremism that can never happen, for instance one of the founding principles for instance is against descrimination by race or religion. Tim LOL... Tim, It's good that Cliff has this new interest in the Book... it will be so entertaining to see what he come up with.... after a stupid attempt to imply the Jews teach that PI equals 3.000 several months ago.. you have to wonder: What is Sneaky Cliff up to now? Doesn't it mention somewhere in that old book.. that Fags where to be stoned.. or something like that.. Cliff could you fetch that quote for us? Mike Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a ..005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:36:07 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote: I don't know what Bible you're looking at but the King James version has virtually no connection to the passages you cite, or, your citings are so completely out of context that they are meaningless. For example, your point C seems to state that virgins shall be executed. If you actually took the time to look this up you would see that the woman was getting stoned for *LYING* about being a virgin. The next verse talks about stoning the man if he cheats on his wife. Etc... I'm not advocating either side of this issue other than to point out that your particular post is nothing but a bunch of contrived crap, which I'm sure is designed to specifically to take a cheap shot at religious principles in general. Robert Robert.. Robert... Don't mind Cliff. He is avoiding answering old questions by trying to create new ones! Mike Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a ..005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? Prove that God does not exist. Which version of SmartCAm did you use to know so much about it's abilities? What Smartcam template files have you created or edited to understand the code generation possibilities of Smart Cam? What CAD/CAM system do you use on a daily, or weekly, ok monthly basis to program with? What is AIDS? Why is considered an AIDS death? What causes AIDS? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:50:58 -0700, Gary wrote:
Siggy wrote: Hang on hoss... No one is debating the fact that religious principles are being enforced on hundreds of millions of people worldwide. If you read the post you would see that I am debating and criticizing the original poster's attempted use of Bible verses to back up his point, when in fact the cited Bible verses have absolutely no relevance to his argument, Wrong. Got Foorp? Mike "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." Virginia Constitution 1776 |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:50:58 -0700, Gary wrote:
Siggy wrote: Hang on hoss... No one is debating the fact that religious principles are being enforced on hundreds of millions of people worldwide. If you read the post you would see that I am debating and criticizing the original poster's attempted use of Bible verses to back up his point, when in fact the cited Bible verses have absolutely no relevance to his argument, Wrong. In fact the cited Bible verses have absolutely no relevance to his argument under YOUR interpretation of them. Are you one of them middle eastern souperstitious fundies who claims to have the only "TRUE" interpretation of the ignorant middle eastern superstitions? Harvey... angry at God too!! Thanks haven't gone your way? Life hard? Bitterness working on you? You and Gary have a little spat? Mike The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643 "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended,............"" |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:50:58 -0700, Gary wrote:
Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects. 1776 State Constitution N.J. |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
----- Original Message ----- From: "Siggy" (clip) If you actually took the time to look this up you would see that the woman was getting stoned for *LYING* about being a virgin. The next verse talks about stoning the man if he cheats on his wife. Etc...(clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^ So, Siggy, is it your position that stoning, when seen in context, would be an appropriate form of capital punishment? Is it your position that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty for lying or adultery? Or, can you agree with me, that the Bible is not the place to look for modern law? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
A modest analogy .....
[ 12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married: 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control. 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children. 3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal. 6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities. 7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America. 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans. 12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will. Alice Alice H. Kennedy President Kennedy Management Resources, Inc. "Home of Diversity Theatre" (phone) 616-698-0065 (fax) 616-698-0558 www.kmr-inc.com www.diversitytheatre.com ] |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
|
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
|
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Tom Accuosti wrote:
Or perhaps, as some do, look for quasi-scientific explanations for justification of their faith. "christian science"? Devout Catholic. And until last week, still believing in Adam & Eve. She's devastated, No kidding? Yet somehow, up to the moment that they realize their superstition is the same as santa clause or the easter bunny, they devote themselves to destroying other people's lives by constantly forcing their ignorance on the entire society. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Tom Accuosti wrote in message k.net... And look, it's not just the Fundies, either. THe other day, our babysitter's mother mentioned to my wife that she just found out last week that the story of Adam & Eve and the Garden was just that: a story. She had always beleived in the literal explanation, so much so that she never bothered to try to reconcile in her mind anything she'd heard about evolution, Big Bang, etc. This woman is 45 years old, has a responsible job, and has raised several kids - nice kids, too. Devout Catholic. And until last week, still believing in Adam & Eve. She's devastated, BTW, so much so that she made an appt with her priest to sit down and talk about this. She must have gone to a backward church. Most Catholic schools have taught evolution as fact since 1950 when Pope Pius XII pronounced it to not be in conflict with Catholic dogma. It certainly should have come to her attention in '96 when JPII restated it. Paul K. Dickman |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
In ,
Gary informed us: || Devout || Catholic. And until last week, still believing in Adam & Eve. She's || devastated, | | No kidding? Yet somehow, up to the moment that they realize their | superstition is the same as santa clause or the easter bunny, they | devote themselves to destroying other people's lives by constantly | forcing their ignorance on the entire society. Well, I think that you're making a sweeping generalization (are there any other kind?). This woman certainly isn't out to burn books or change the educational programs in her school district. In fact, I can't imagine too many circumstances that would make someone do what you just suggested. That is, unless you mean that when confronted with what someone else beleives is evidence to the contrary, they get defensive. I believe that most fundies (of whatever stripe) aren't so much "forcing their ignorance" as trying to convert people to the "right" way of thinking. Some of them do it out of hate or disgust (think "Inquisition" or "Crusades" or "Jihaad"), but others do it out of love (e.g., Mother Theresa in India or Father Damien with the leper colonies). It's important to meet them on their terms sometimes, but others will not or can not develop the capacity for understanding. Seamless and unified ring a bell? "I have to replace my CPU," Gary chipped in. |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
|
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Tom Accuosti wrote:
In , Gary informed us: || Devout || Catholic. And until last week, still believing in Adam & Eve. She's || devastated, | | No kidding? Yet somehow, up to the moment that they realize their | superstition is the same as santa clause or the easter bunny, they | devote themselves to destroying other people's lives by constantly | forcing their ignorance on the entire society. I believe that most fundies (of whatever stripe) aren't so much "forcing their ignorance" as trying to convert people to the "right" way of thinking. Exact same thing when they make it law, or force their imaginary friend's will on people who are not ignorant superstitious idiots. Some of them do it out of hate or disgust (think "Inquisition" or "Crusades" or "Jihaad"), but others do it out of love (e.g., Mother Theresa in India or Father Damien with the leper colonies). There is a difference in the result? I don't care about their internal justification for their abusive actions. It's important to meet them on their terms sometimes, but others will not or can not develop the capacity for understanding. Seamless and unified ring a bell? Poor banquer boy, so confused. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:
She must have gone to a backward church. Are you suggesting there is another type of church? Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Gary wrote:
BTW what is marriage A piece of paper which gives privileges and preferences to a special interest group defined by people who have the piece of paper. It also used to be a way of claiming that certain types of sexual conduct are illegal. In fact it was illegal to HAVE sex without the piece of paper. It was even illegal to rent a house or stay in a hotel room with a person of the opposite sex, without the piece of paper. and why do we need it? We don't need it for anything. Divorcees need it to collect alimony. |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:43:10 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: And where do atheists, agnostics etc stand in all of this? It sort of allows for Muslims "no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another" As written it's hardly religious freedom by Law. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects. 1776 State Constitution N.J. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Gary wrote in message ... "Paul K. Dickman" wrote: She must have gone to a backward church. Are you suggesting there is another type of church? Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) Well, you got me there. However, her's seems to behind the others of that sect. Paul K. Dickman |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:05:44 -0700, Gary wrote:
Tom Accuosti wrote: In , Gary informed us: || Devout || Catholic. And until last week, still believing in Adam & Eve. She's || devastated, | | No kidding? Yet somehow, up to the moment that they realize their | superstition is the same as santa clause or the easter bunny, they | devote themselves to destroying other people's lives by constantly | forcing their ignorance on the entire society. I believe that most fundies (of whatever stripe) aren't so much "forcing their ignorance" as trying to convert people to the "right" way of thinking. Exact same thing when they make it law, or force their imaginary friend's will on people who are not ignorant superstitious idiots. Harvey... did they force all those homosexual seducers of teenage boys to be priests?? Did the catholics force you to be an asshole? Did the catholics force you to do anything? Or are you limited by your on fear, mental unstablity, or genetic mistakes? MIke The Lord created all things. Then on His day of rest, from the mouth of an ass he made Gary. And He sent Gary out of the Garden saying: Go forth and prove your heritage with many words and much noise. |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
WOW!
That was really worth the effort. |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:09:23 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: Harvey... did they force all those homosexual seducers of teenage boys to be priests?? Probably not, and no, not all of them. They provided an envorinment that allowed and ecouraged it. They coerced their "flock" into believing that it was not happening, and certainly forced many people who complained to "put up _and_ shut up", along with their families and carers. Did the catholics force you to be an asshole? Unfortunate choice of words. Did the catholics force you to do anything? By enforcing childbirth or abstinence, they, among others, have forced me to live in a world that has many more people than there should be. They use their political clout to force me to pay taxes to educate children in a belief that I disagree with, while making profit from that education. If I _was_ a Roman catholic, they would have certainly have had a good go at infusing me with fear, by way of "belief". Or are you limited by your on fear, mental unstablity, or genetic mistakes? You say "Or are you..". The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ************************************************** ** sorry ..........no I'm not! remove ns from my header address to reply via email Spike....Spike? Hello? |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
Old Nick wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:09:23 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: Harvey... did they force all those homosexual seducers of teenage boys to be priests?? Probably not, and no, not all of them. They provided an envorinment that allowed and ecouraged it. They coerced their "flock" into believing that it was not happening, and certainly forced many people who complained to "put up _and_ shut up", along with their families and carers. Hey Fundie Moron Mike are you catching on yet? It is a fact that a great many people in the world are not as dumb as you. It is a fact that a great many people in the world are not dumb enough to fall for the superstitious joke of middle eastern imaginary friends. Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD) |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote: (clip) did they force all those homosexual seducers of teenage boys to be priests?? (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, "seducers" is too kind a work. They are rapists. Secuction involves persuasion and consent. These teen-age boys were frightened, helpless victims. In many cases, threats were made against them and their families to keep them compliant and silent. |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
"ff" wrote in message
... Divorcees need it to collect alimony. What? Should David Webb get a divorce to collect more antimony for his lead alloying? :^)... Tim -- "I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting and Games: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
OT - In Defense of Religious Marriage
In article , Old Nick
writes: Did the catholics force you to do anything? By enforcing childbirth or abstinence It is sort of amusing. Their health care plans must now pay for contraceptives (in California). -- Cliff |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter