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?

"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

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"

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?

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

John Scheldroup wrote:
I am not opposed to same sex marriage.


What about samish sex marriage?
http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/

"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

"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

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)

On 3 Mar 2004 14:50:11 -0800, (Cliff Huprich) wrote:

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?


Cliff... have you been reading those old Jewish books?

I was hoping you woudl come around..

Don't you have some unfinished business?

Cliff's Research Project:
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?

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
==================================================

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?

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?

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

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,............""

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.

----- 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?

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
]

(Cliff Huprich) wrote in message om...

Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical
principles is a good idea?


The Bible is nothing but fables. Same with Qur'an. People are
completely nutty under the surface. They are taught to be nutty. You
can know an otherwise intelligent person for years and years and then
finally discover their outlandish religious and superstitious views.

"Dave" wrote in message
om
| (Cliff Huprich) wrote in message
| om...
||
|| Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical
|| principles is a good idea?
|
|
| The Bible is nothing but fables. Same with Qur'an. People are
| completely nutty under the surface. They are taught to be nutty. You
| can know an otherwise intelligent person for years and years and then
| finally discover their outlandish religious and superstitious views.

Taught to be nutty? I try to look at it more kindly, as they are taught
to accept on faith certain things, and as they get older, they either
stop questioning, or perhaps stop noticing contradicitons between Church
teachings and scientific ones. Or perhaps, as some do, look for
quasi-scientific explanations for justification of their faith.

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.

My point is that even though I've discovered this, I still dont'
consider her to be "nutty" or have "outlandish" views. Her kids will
still watch my daughter, we'll still exchange Xmas cards.

"I'm eating venison stew," he said gamely.

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)

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

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.

On 4 Mar 2004 04:12:44 -0800, (Dave) wrote:

(Cliff Huprich) wrote in message om...

Do you think that codifying marriage entirely on biblical
principles is a good idea?


The Bible is nothing but fables. Same with Qur'an. People are
completely nutty under the surface. They are taught to be nutty. You
can know an otherwise intelligent person for years and years and then
finally discover their outlandish religious and superstitious views.

Your opinion is noted.

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

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)

"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)

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.

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?

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

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.

WOW!
That was really worth the effort.

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?

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)

"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.

"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

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