Woman to Woman

By Kool Kathy

November 26, 2004 05:24 PM | Link to this

Big Question: Conservative states/higher divorce rates. Why?

Conservative states have higher rates of legally married (the “right” thing to do). A divorce is needed to really separate legally. You have to be married to be divorced.

Liberal states have higher rates of “live-ins”, aka “shacking up”. No divorce needed to walk out the door and leave. Less number of divorces. Who needs ‘em?

See how simple this is. Now, why are there more “live-ins” in liberal states? Surely this will be the next big question.

By JD

November 29, 2004 07:53 AM | Link to this

Conservatives like to justify and rationalize, it’s what there good at. Either that or come up with half-truths to passify the masses…wait a minute by gooly liberals do it to.

By Sharlene

November 29, 2004 07:53 AM | Link to this

A definite no-brainer.
I have lived in the deep south all my life, so I know whereof I speak. In my family, as in many others, you do not have sex before marriage. Period. Therefore, in order to have sex, you marry. Does this increase the divorce rate? Oh my, yes. Sound crazy to you? Maybe so, but that’s just the way it is.

By Chet Thomas

November 29, 2004 08:21 AM | Link to this

Kool kathy hits the nail on the head: there is less divorce in “blue” states because there is less marriage. I discovered when I spent some time in New England that up there marriage is unusual. Typically couples just live together, and when trouble comes, one or the other just moves out, so there is no recorded divorce.

By Brian Curtis

November 29, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this

Somehow I doubt that the most populous blue states, California and New York, would agree that there are no attractive women there.

But again we’re seeing a random statistic tossed out with no supporting evidence or additional factors discussed. And the expectation is that we’ll all speculate wildly about the “real reason” for such a phenomenon, when there’s nowhere near enough information to draw any useful conclusions.

I’m as liberal as they come, but I recognize a random, out-of-context factoid when I see one. This is a non-issue.

By chuck

November 29, 2004 08:51 AM | Link to this

Divorce in any color state is a terrible thing. It causes children to grow up in poverty and without the influence of one of their parents. We need to make divorce rare again. In the so-called Red states, their is definitely a higher rate of marriage among the young. There is a cultural influence there that cannot be denied, especially in the South. It’s been really sad over the past decade or so to see that change. We really need to do away with “no fault” divorce and we ought to make it a little more difficult to get married in the first place.

By Archie

November 29, 2004 08:53 AM | Link to this

I think both ladies are correct because one would think with all the churchs available and religious happenings in the South that you would have less divorce. In my hometown I can’t walk a mile without seeing a church. Shanti does a good job of pointing out youth and I would say she’s right on the money because I know someone that married young and almost 2 years later was divorced. I was surprised to find out that the Bible belt has the highest rate of divorce and the highest rate of spousal abuse. I have questioned the impact of church as far as relationships but conservative states seem to be less educated as Shanti suggested so the title of this topic does not do justice to a complex issue. I lean more to Dianne’s side with this issue because she’s right that being liberal does not mean you can’t or don’t pray and she’s right we can’t go back to ways of the Amish.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 08:58 AM | Link to this

No Brian, it was not a “random statistic tossed out”. This is the work of the little minions who are sifting through statistics on everything from A to Z. And when they find a “statistic” which on face-value; favors the Blue States - they plunge all ahead full: Attacking Conservative values! Pure and simple.

And once they think they have made their case that it is Conservative values that are degrading the institution of marriage, they’ll start once again with the demand for: Gay Marriage. There’s nothing “random” about any of this!

By Ed

November 29, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this

It is humerous to read the conservatives get apoplectic over statistics being manipulated to cast them in a bad light. They seemingly wrote the book on “bad statistics” to demonize and denigrate anyone and anything on their hit list. Pot, meet kettle.

By E. Lewis

November 29, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this

It’s because so many of them are hypocrites. It’s okay to condemn someone who has premarital sex or lives together before marriage, but the “serial married� folks who take their vows before God to are to be praised for supporting family values.

I am personally a very moral person, but I prefer to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this

Ever notice how the Left only attributes “Education” to things that suit them?

Lower divorce rates in the Blue States are said to be because of higher education. Ever hear: Higher crime rates are in the Blue States because of “Higher Education”…? Do we ever hear how we should “closely examine” Liberal values to see why the crime rates are higher - as we do with Conservative values and divorce? And following the “Education” logic, would bringing down the level of education - bring down the level of crime in the Blue States?

Do we ever hear about suicide rates being higher in the Blue States - because of higher education? And should we say that the areas with fewer churches - have a higher suicide rate? I think it is only fair since more teenage pregnancies are linked with areas - which have MORE churches.

And it goes without saying that “Higher Education” means more homelessness. The Blue States have more homelessness and so it has to be because of “Higher Education”. Using Liberal logic of course.

By akeya

November 29, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

Okay, number 1- Neither woman discussed the population of married couples in either “red” or “blue” states, so Kool Kathy, unless you have some tangible evidence of what kinds of couples are most populous and in which states, please refrain from misinforming people by thinking up ways to agree with Shaunti.

I don’t agree with either woman, as a matter of fact. THey both left out a key statistic….the percentage of married couples in red and blue states…(those have to be the stupidest catch words, red and blue states, anyway…)

So all of the hullabaloo regarding Blacks and Hispanics, Younger and Older, conservative or non-conservative really doesn’t matter until that key statistic is factored in.

By randy

November 29, 2004 10:09 AM | Link to this

I agree with KKathy, you can’t get a divorce if you don’t get married in the first place.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 10:12 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

Here is the only statistic that this topic was put out here to reflect:

The Red States are more religious. The more religious - the more Conservative. The more Conservative - the higher the divorce rate. The higher the divorce rate - the more the institution of marriage is damaged.

The Blue States are less religious. The less religious - the more Liberal. The more Liberal - the lower the divorce rate. The lower the divorce rate - the less the instituion of marriage will be damaged.

Gay Marriage should be allowed. And the only reason it is not is because religious Conservatives who are destroying marriage - are hypocritical and will not accept it!

That’s all this topic was designed to do, Akeya.

By Kool Kathy

November 29, 2004 10:24 AM | Link to this

Oh yes, Terry, women of the south appreciate your acute observations on our loveliness. (Applause here!) I hate to suggest that you might be wrong about other regions but it is fun to say “You are absolutely right!”.

In the meantime, perhaps we should solve other great perplexities of the “red”, such as what to do with all those turkey leftovers. Problems! All you turkeys, what are the statistics? Forgive the over-stuffed. Let us continue with the marriage/divorce problem solving. Oley!

By majortom

November 29, 2004 10:24 AM | Link to this

“Kool” Kathy:

So where are YOUR supporting statistics regarding shacking up in the Northeast? Or are we just supposed to believe you?

By Terry

November 29, 2004 10:34 AM | Link to this

Ground Control to Majortom

There weren’t any “statistics” brought forth in the original articles by Diane and Shaunti. The Almanac would be a good place to go for statistics rather than a forum for: opinion.

By Sharon

November 29, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

If anyone is interested, the study was conducted PER MARRIED PEOPLE, meaning, they only counted married couples in saying that the divorce rayes were higher in areas where “CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS” live. Check the study at www.nationalcatholicreporter.org. By the way, I’m from Massachusetts, where most of us
don’t feel the need to constantly tell people we are “of faith” because we let our actions speak for themselves. Saying it and being seen in church does not make one a Christian or of faith

By Terry

November 29, 2004 10:39 AM | Link to this

Kool,

I am an excellent judge of beauty! And if I say the women in the South are far more attractive than the other regions - then they are! Plain and simple.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 10:43 AM | Link to this

I’m from Massachusetts, where most of us don’t feel the need to constantly tell people we are “of faith� because we let our actions speak for themselves

And your actions spoke loud and clear: Gay Marriage.

By Kool Kathy

November 29, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

Oh, my goodness, all these pressing questions. I went to Google and asked “Where are the statistics on shacking-up in the northeast?” They answered: “Due to the Patriot Act, we cannot give you the Marriage Traitors List.” So, no statistics. Sorry, folks. I guess you will have to ask that fountain of knowledge, the AJC.

(And Terry, I believe. I believe.)

By randy

November 29, 2004 10:56 AM | Link to this

Sharon I’m from the south and I let everybody I meet know that I’m a Christian. Why, maybe that will incourage them to seek Christ and have the same peace that I know.

By sharon

November 29, 2004 11:00 AM | Link to this

The problem with people that aren’t open to other opinions and want the world made over in the image they want, is that they do an awful lot of assuming, while discounting all that doesn’t agree with their view of the world. While I prosecuted domestic violence, child and spousal abuse, and neglect cases, all parties were in heterosexual relatiionships. I am not saying that there are no such cases when the parties are gay, I am saying that getting, staying or being married does not stop all problems. ask the people who have been seriously hurt of who have died because of the “good people are heterosexual andshould get and stay married” syndrom.

By sharon

November 29, 2004 11:00 AM | Link to this

The problem with people that aren’t open to other opinions and want the world made over in the image they want, is that they do an awful lot of assuming, while discounting all that doesn’t agree with their view of the world. While I prosecuted domestic violence, child and spousal abuse, and neglect cases, all parties were in heterosexual relatiionships. I am not saying that there are no such cases when the parties are gay, I am saying that getting, staying or being married does not stop all problems. ask the people who have been seriously hurt of who have died because of the “good people are heterosexual andshould get and stay married” syndrom.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 11:14 AM | Link to this

Sharon,

Most shark attacks happen in the water. And most child and spouse - abuse and neglect - are going to occur in the heterosexual environment.

Have we gotten so smart that we now realize that marriage doesn’t solve all problems? And if we have - when was the time that people thought it did…?

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 11:23 AM | Link to this

sigh

Oh please, Terry….come on…

Anyone with half a brain can see that not all of the most important issues were not brought up by either woman.

Also,there are all kinds of opinions and “facts” floating around stating that marriage will do this and that.

Mr. Bush even attempted to convince women on welfare to marry because in some way it was supposed to help women get off of welfare.

There are some that think that marriage solves all societal problems…

By Terry

November 29, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

I have yet to hear of anyone who thinks: marriage solves all societal problems. But then again, I am yet to hear of anyone who thinks anything solves all of anything.

And President Bush never did any such thing.

This thing that is “floating” around is called: Human Civilization. And it is not an “opinion” but rather a fact of life. Have you Libs gone as far as to try and dispute human nature - as a means of trying to impose your convoluted and unrealistic dreams on the rest of us?

By AllaboutMe

November 29, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

…first, those now red states voted Bill Clinton into a second term….he made a landslide victory in the south— it is very difficult to win against an incumbent president…to add some humility he was southern baptist…time fades reality and truth: think Jim & Tammy Bakker, think Jimmie Swaggert, think how many champions of holier than thou…like Osama who declared Afganistan a holy land and wanted its people to serve Allah as the Koran decreed…not unlike how bible-thumpers want to make all us others into christians whether we want to or not…

somebody needs facts, ok — Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination, and are more likely to get a divorce than atheists and agnostics, according to a national survey. The survey conducted by Barna Research Group found that 29 percent of all adult Baptists have been through a divorce. Among Christian groups, only those who attend non-denominational Protestant churches were more likely to be divorced, with a 34 percent divorce rate.

Alabama, with a population of 4.3 million, has more than one million Southern Baptists and a majority of evangelical Protestants. The state ranks fourth nationally in divorce rates, behind Nevada, Tennessee and Arkansas, according to U.S. government statistics. Barna Research Group interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 continental states, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent. The survey found that while just 11 percent of the adult population is currently divorced, 25 percent of all adults have experienced at least one divorce, the survey showed. Twenty seven percent of those describing themselves as born-again Christians are currently or have previously been divorced, compared to 24 percent among other adults. “While it may be alarming to discover that born-again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time,” said George Barna, president of Barna Research Group.

Of major Christian denominations, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest divorce rate at 21 percent, according to Barna. People who attend mainstream Protestant churches have an overall divorce rate of 25 percent.

The levels vary among non-Christian groups, Barna reported. Jews have a divorce rate of 30 percent, while atheists and agnostics have a relatively low rate of 21 percent, according to the survey. The survey found that Mormons, who emphasize strong families, are near the national average at 24 percent. The study found that the South and Midwest had 27-percent divorce rates, while the rates were 19 percent in the Northwest and 26 percent in the West. Whites are more likely to have had a divorce, at 27 percent, than African-Americans (22 percent), Hispanics (20 percent) and Asians (8 percent), Barna found.

so all you more-moral-than-me folks I do enjoy your hypocrisy…do continue telling me about family values…

By Zack

November 29, 2004 11:48 AM | Link to this

AS USUAL, this forum question in itself is a shot at conservatives. This is how it goes at least 95% of the time.

The liberals look for any dirt they can find on conservatives. They have no qualms with their own baby-killing, marriage-attacking, homosexuality-endorsing, liberal-spinning-in-the-classroom, even to the point of lying, agenda, but they sure will attack conservatives for everything they can find.

Divorce is not a good thing. One side of conservatives I haven’t cared for is the staunch emphasis on money. I don’t think women should look to marry a man because of his income, and this happens rather frequently. Perhaps a lot of people marry for this reason, find no true love and fulfillment, and then divorce. This is not good. I’m not saying this is the only reason divorce rates in these states are high, but I’m sure it’s a reason.

Again, I’m tired of seeing questions worded in a way designed to attack conservatives. The liberal spin has reached epic proportions. It’s all over the secular news, secular commercials, secular schools, etc.. We need to return to the unvarnished truth, not the unwelcomed spin. Remember: You’re not the person the liberal agenda would have you believe you are.

By Zack

November 29, 2004 11:51 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme—I don’t appreciate the term “Bible-thumper” and never have. The conservative agenda imposes on no one else’s rights. The liberal agenda imposes on everyone else’s rights. Remember this the next time you feel like typing out your rhetoric.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme

I had to briefly scan all the posts once again. I was unable to find anyone telling you anything about “family values” much less being “hypocritical” about anything.

And since the study you’ve shown is was obviously conducted to compare divorce rates between religious and not, a historical study of mankind would reveal that without religion - there would be no marriage at all. Period. Oh, there would still be men owning women at their leisure, but not the marital relationship that was brought forth by religion.

The study of Mankind seems to be a little more reliable than that of: Barna - I would say.

By AllaboutME

November 29, 2004 11:59 AM | Link to this

sure Zack, I can be polite…bible-thumper is a term I grew up with since infancy from southern-raised parents…southern education…and southern values…and yes the conservatives do want to impose its dogma on others ask any gay person if they do or dont…

By AllaboutMe

November 29, 2004 12:06 PM | Link to this

…gosh Terry…should I have quoted a text over 1000 years old? My quote was in regards to WHO gets the most divorces…which states…not broad based christ bashing..just facts…and I am so sorry the facts disagree with opinions…

By Thunderbird

November 29, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

THis conservative lady has her nerve. She starts off by saying that there is no correlation between conservative states and divorce states then goes on to say that minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics have higher divorce rates. She is a racist who has no basis of her statements. Hispanics typically do not divorce. They hold the family has the core value, even if they are poor.

She has no basis for her statements. BTW, the stats show that the Christian right are hypocritical, wanting to judge everyone else outside their group, but not watching themselves. Look at Gingrinch, wanting to castrate Clinton, but was bumping his secretary while his wife was on her deathbed. Typical conservative judging someone else and not minding there own house.

By Steve

November 29, 2004 12:21 PM | Link to this

I am an evangelical Christian and as conservative as they come. However, I think many of us in the church need to wake up. Divorce really is happening at alarming rates within conservative Christian churches. I do not agree with the way Diane used the statistics to make her points. I think Shaunti did an excellent job in her rebuttal in that regard. However, we cannot put head in the sand and pretend that divorce does not happen in the church.

Now, much is said of “the Bible belt”. I think a better term would be “church belt”. Here in the church belt, the church has become part of the social fabric of our culture but in many ways has lost its effectiveness. Churchianity now exists instead of Christianity. Unfortunately, there are alot of people in pews every Sunday that are not truly growing as disciples of Christ. Not all, but many churches have been “conformed to the patterns of this world”. Why? Because we ignore the rigorous study and application of the Bible. Churches are full of “cultural Christians” who do not want to grow spiritually. If we truly were in the Bible belt, there would be a lot less divorce plain and simple.

By Randy

November 29, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

You all can call me a Bible-thumper or any other name you like. I look at it like you are bragging on me! So keep on bragging. I love it.

By norman

November 29, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this

Having high or low divorce rates is no indication of morality. Many couples in the past and even now remain together despite cruelty, abuse, perversion, and other horrors. Divorce is never a good idea but it can be the best idea in many cases. That evangelicals and conservatives have many divorces does not make them hypocrites. What evangelicals are are people stupid enough to believe ancient nonsense with no rational basis. What conservatives often are are people frightened by change and by clear thinking.

By E. Lewis

November 29, 2004 12:32 PM | Link to this

As a nation, we have gotten much better at telling people what we are versus showing them. Shouting with a bullhorn in the media and from the pulpit that you are a good conservative, pro-family, pro-heterosexual marriage, God-fearing Christian does not make it so. Actions speak louder than rhetoric and this is especially true when it comes to marriage and family values.

By thunderbird

November 29, 2004 12:35 PM | Link to this

Well said Norman, but I would take it a bit further and say that they take certain parts, and really only a small part of the Bible and twist these portions to differientiate themselves from people they don’t like. It has been done throughout history by other groups. Look at Jim Crow, slavery and the inquisition. People were slaughtered over the twisting of the Bible.

By norman

November 29, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this

Thunderbird: Sorry but reading the Bible is part of the problem, not reading it in a certain way. The Bible was written by men over a long period of time for a variety of moral, political, and social reasons. It does not come from God (whoever He is) and it is in no way superior to many other examples of wisdom literature. Reading the Bible tends to weaken the mind. It discourages real thought and scientific rigor. It is a disaster, except for those taught how to appreciate it as literature and not as truth. Look what the Bible is doing to scientific teaching in Biology, in Sex Education. I shudder when I read that Tom Daschle was beaten by a man who believes in Creationism in the schools. I would rather he believed in a Fairy Godmother.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2004 12:49 PM | Link to this

The Great Society of the 1960s gave us welfare programs and there were rules imposed on the poor to obey for entitlements: husbands were not allowed to live in homes where a woman collected welfare payment. Telephones were also NOT allowed. Because welfare served a larger percentage of minority families’ men were effectivly ‘erased’ from these households. Thus began the great government-ruled Welfare program that assisted in raising the divorce rate and male absenteeism in family life. In the self-induced-enlightenment decade of the 70s, we have the first generation of welfare recipients raising a generation of children who discover that having babies means steady money and men need only apply to breed. The more babies, the more money gotten from the government along with housing, education or job training, childcare, food stamps, and health care. The perks of being on public assistance became for many a way of life. You could STILL not be married with a man in the house, so men, being highly resourceful when it comes to women, slipped into beds after the case worker left and another generation was born on welfare. In the 80s we have the first taste of great grandmothers watching their great granddaughters raise children without men. Reganomics made change to the system. Benefits were cut drastically and over the years stricter rules brought about from watching generations of the same family on welfare. In 80s-90s welfare was a great scourge: the welfare recipient was blacklisted as scoundrels…but (I believe…my facts may not be correct because it has been a long time since I worked for ADC) the laws still state a man in the house, or a married couple need not apply. Who is MOST at FAULT for the breakup of minority families? Has to be government entitlements that put zero value on men and families with male and female parents.

To add to the plethora of destroyed family unity, generations of upper & middle-class non-welfare recipients after completing their 1950s based family agendas, men and women abandoned the partner to experience ‘freedom’ to try someone new, or get away from bad situations finally without repercussions in social circles. It became very trendy to move on as well as a new trend that single white women having babies but not marrying became a style�a fashion statement generated by hip movie & TV stars with huge incomes. It took AIDS to p****** caution into the sexually active. By the late 90s more young people 18-26 were getting married to have sex with the same partner both having the understanding the union would not last.

Overall I would say most significant factor to the destruction of the family is the car. The car gave freedoms to generations that were once confined to limited areas. The ability to move-out, move-on, assisted the divorce rate in ways no devil could. Partners could just leave the state, get divorced in another state and never have to see the other person again in their lives. It made freedom a priority�an individual priority�a get out of jail free card on the monopoly board of life.

So when people bash religion as basis for divorce perhaps they should check other facts if they live in America.

By Texas

November 29, 2004 01:03 PM | Link to this

Judgement means a stale state of mind. And the mind always wants judgement, because to be in an unknown process is always hazardous and uncomfortable. Be very, very courageous, don’t stop growing; live in the moment, simply stay in the flow of life.

This story happened in the days of Lao Tzu in China, and Lao Tzu loved it very much:

There was an old man in a village, very poor, but even kings were jealous of him because he had a beautiful white horse. Kings offered fabulous prizes for the horse, but the man would say, “This horse is not a horse to me, he is a person. And how can you sell a person, a friend?” The man was poor, but he never sold the horse.

One morning he found that the horse was not in the stable. The whole village gathered and said, “You foolish old man! We knew that someday the horse would be stolen. It would have been better to sell it. What a misfortune!”

The old man said, “Don’t go so far as to say that. Simply say that the horse is not in the stable. This is the fact; everything else is judgement. Whether it is a misfortune or a blessing I don’t know, because this is just a fragment. Who knows what is going to follow it?”

People laughed at the old man. They had always known he was a little crazy. But after fifteen days, suddenly one night the horse returned. He had not been stolen, he had escaped into the wild. And not only had he return, he brought a dozen wild horses with him.

Again the people gathered and they said, “Old man, you were right. This was not a misfortune, it has indeed proved to be a blessing.”

The old man said, “Again you are going too far. Just say that the horse is back… who knows whether it is a blessing or not?” It is only a fragment. You read a single word in a sentence - how can you judge the whole book?”

This time the people could not say much, but inside they knew that he was wrong. Twelve beautiful horses had come.

The old man had an only son who started to train the horses. Just a week later he fell from a horse and his legs were broken. The people gathered again, and again they judged. They said, “Again you proved right! It was a misfortune. Your only son has lost the use of his legs, and in your old age he was your only support. Now you are poorer than ever.”

The old man said, “You are obsessed with judgement. Don’t go that far. Say only that my son had broken his legs. Life comes in fragments and more is never given to you.”

It happened that after a few weeks the country went to war, and all the young men of the town were forcibly taken for the military. Only the old man’s son was left because he was crippled. The whole town was crying and weeping, because it was a losing fight and they knew that most of the young people would never come back. They came to the old man and they said, ” You were right, old man - this has proved a blessing. Maybe your son is crippled, but he is still with you. Our sons are gone forever.”

The old man said again, “You go on and on judging. Nobody knows! Only say this, that your sons have been forced to enter the army and my son has not been forced. But only God, who sees the total picture, knows whether it is a blessing or a misfortune.”

Judge not, otherwise you will never become one with the total. With fragments you will be obsessed, with small things you will jump to conclusions. Once you judge you have stopped growing. Judgement means a stale state of mind. And the mind always wants judgement, because to be in a process is always hazardous and uncomfortable.

In fact, the journey never ends. One path ends, another begins: one door closes, another opens. You reach a peak; a higher peak is always there. God is an endless journey. Only those who are so courageous that they don’t bother about the goal, but are content with the journey, can be content to just live in the moment and grow into it; only those are able to walk in the total.

By Kool Kathy

November 29, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

And now, dear communicators, this has grown into the usual morass of morals, mud and murky mentality. Could you express yourself in clearer, sympathetic terms and short as possible? Over 300 words gets boring. Yeah, I know. I like things simple ‘cause I am simple. But try it. You’ll like it. You too can be simple.

By Texas

November 29, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this

Sorry Kool Kathy, I posted before I read your post….to Long????

By Terry

November 29, 2004 01:16 PM | Link to this

Higher divorce rates are caused by Cars…?

Is that more of that “clear thinking” that Norman says we’re all afraid of?

By Randy

November 29, 2004 01:30 PM | Link to this

Norman, You have toned down your attack on us Christians. Keep it up and some people may think you are sane. Well not really!

By Kool Kathy

November 29, 2004 01:33 PM | Link to this

Texas, we must have been “posting” about the same time. Your good intentions outweigh other considerations. Keep up the positive perspective. Always helpful.

By Dane

November 29, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this

Reading throught the comments, I noticed how a couple of posters attempted to bring gay marriage into this fray. Gay marriage, same-sex marriage, civil unions or any of the hot-button topics of the past election festivities have absolutely no correlation to hetero-divorce rates in any state, be they blue, red, purple or chartreuse.

And in my opinion, the only reason why conservative values are attacked in this or any other forum stems from the fact that it is conservative values that are always touted as being the only correct ones, and that everyone else is dirty sinners—- all while we see the very ones pointing fingers out doing what it is that they are condemning.

And I know that it isn’t every conservative, or every Christian, but it IS usually the most vocal ones that have the most to hide.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this

It makes sense to me Terry. Its very hard to move one’s posessions on a bus. In a car you can pack up and be gone, new city, new state, new region. That was not possible prior to the 1950s because majority of families did not own them. (Less divorce in 1950s) Get up and go. Just think about it is all I ask. If you find it preposterous fine. Kool Kathy, quick glib opinions may be as valid as long drawn on essays are, or just as invalid. I find Woman to Woman articles silly meaningless fluff pieces. Its two pundits come from total white-middle-upper class families who attended elite colleges and have comfortable lives telling us how the world ought be run.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this

Come on Libs - I’ve been waiting all day!

Don’t you guys know that the first Monday after Thanksgiving is when you’re supposed to start in with the annual nativity scene hysteria? You guys had better get on the ball, if not, the Christian school kids might get brave and start singing those offensisive Christmas Carols again!

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel-

Great points!!

I lost you with the car, though…

By Bob swygert

November 29, 2004 01:53 PM | Link to this

I can’t wait until next week’s debate ” Which is better, chocolate or vanilla ice cream?” Diane will find some way to work in the usual attack on conservatives, Norman and his pals will show the usual liberal tolerance of other viewpoints by calling for the extermination of all Christians, someone will misquote the Bible, others will renew the debate on why “the poor” are automatically entitled to a healthy chunk of my paycheck, some will resort to derogatory name-calling as a substitute for debate ( presumably because they’re not intelligent enough to counter an idea with an opposing idea), and, as usual, Shaunti and Kool Kathy will again show themselves to be probably the two smartest women in Atlanta— other than my wife

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

Oh, Bobby, Bobby….

first of all, I’m extremely liberal and the last thing I want is a bunch of lazy, shiftless Americans who think that they are entitled to portions of my paycheckS simply because they can…

By AllaboutME

November 29, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this

…darn Terry…that retail holiday doesnt have much to do with christ anyway…go put your two jews and a baby on display anywhere you want…I bet christ would be ashamed anyway…

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

Bob, did you read ANYWHERE where I advocated welfare entitlements? Granted it is easy to ASSUME I did, but of all the stupid amoral programs the government welfare entitlement program has to be the most expensive waste of resources, personnel and it destroyed more than it assisted. Kind of like the war on drugs and equally as effective. I enjoy being liberal too. Lets talk environment some day!

By randy

November 29, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Any of you liberals who celebrated Thanksgiving and are about to celebrate Christmas, are hippocrits. You want to attack us conservatives, OK but stop celebrating our holidays. Maybe you could start some of your own holidays, how about, I believe the universe created itself(although things can’t appear out of thin air)day. Or I believe a good one would be, National Gays have made the USA a strong country day. Just imagine if all we had to fight against enemies were girlie-men. Boy would we be in trouble.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 02:35 PM | Link to this

Lyzarel,

Let’s look at what is really responsible for the increases in divorce: Women filing for divorce.

Years ago, many women would not opt for divorce - they’d be left with nothing. Lawyers changed all that. As laws are made by and for lawyers, they created divorce laws so as to appeal to women. The “I’ll take him for everything he’s got” mentality - didn’t happen by accident. And because of this, the lawyers and judges keep the business coming in - at our expense!

I am not opining one way or the other about the validity of the laws (I could - different subject) - but just stating that that is the real reason for the increase in divorce.

By Bob swygert

November 29, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

Ok Lyrazel. Not sure the environment has anything to do with divorce rates. But here’s my take…. like many people, I believe we have to compromise on environmental issues. We could ban all gasoline engines, tree-cutting, oil drilling, factory smokestacks, farming and power plants. We could also throw in a ban on all killing of animals for food and a ban on animal-testing of drugs. The environment would be a lot cleaner. But we would not be able to travel very far to work, we wouldn’t have enough food, we’d have to give up most modern pharmaceuticals, lots of people would lose jobs and we wouldn’t have electricity to power our computers so we could post to this forum. So, we have to compromise somewhere in the middle. Deliberately destroying the environment is criminal. But our modern life requires that we utilize natural resources. Unless someone is a vegetarian hermit living somewhere in the woods with no running water, no car, no electrity, we are all— to some extent— polluting the environment. I’m all for recycling, alternative fuel, snail darters etc. But heck, even the “Native Americans” polluted the environment to some extent just by living. Even our vegetarian hermit friend would be polluting the groundwater every time he took a dump.

By Nancy B.

November 29, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this

Why does no one advocate divorce as being good? I come from a decent/moral Lutheran family that has been through divorce since my great grandfather (1890s). (Scandal! He dumped his arranged-marriage wife in Prussia to wed an American after he came over on the boat. He didnt have a car, Lyrazel.) He produced my grandmother…who oddly married a divorcee who became American by fighting in WWI. Their union produced my mother and they died years apart still very married. My fathers parents both experienced a divorce (1930s) to wed each other and produce him. They stayed loyal until their deaths. My parents divorced and both re-married wonderful and exceptional people and when my father was ill with Parkinsons and Altzhimers I discovered the woman he married was as sinciere and loving as all wifes should want to be. She treated my dad with courage and with dignity until his death. I married a man who married and divorced his first wife twice. Ha,ha I laugh at my mistakes but I divorced to wed a man who is loyal, more sinciere and gentle than my first husband ever could muster. My sisters and brothers have not divorced. My step-brother has remaired twice his two brothers have not divorced their wives. My aunts and cousins have also not divorced…but to us divorce is not a running rampant into vileness, its not a reason to loathe or an excuse to renig on ones responsibilities. Its just a fact of life. We cant all be so perfect as to never fail in relationships. Changing marriage laws does not help anyone because fewer and fewer people will be married and the problems Shaunti describes will be far more common under the new laws than the old. Im a blue woman in a red state…and my husband is from Maine…who comes from a family of zero divorces….this whole argument is preposterous.

By Kool Kathy

November 29, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this

Whew, AllaboutME, I thought you were an American. But, it is a rare thing for Americans, liberal or conservative, to imply anti-Semiticism; spreading hate on everybody and everything at Christmastime or any other season. In what region of the world do you exist? I’d hate to make a guess. It is hard to be tactful about this. But frankly, my dear, you make me sick.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Yes women are to blame Terry. We dont want to get beaten, lied to, cheated on, cursed, and abandoned anymore so we flat out hire the best lawyer we can. Dear me, we should stay on, choose to be beaten, lied to, cheated on, cursed and then be abandoned when he gets his quickie divorce in Vegas.

Bob, thanks. No, we cant abandon the way of life we have created. We can make what we created even more fantastic! And we dont need OPEC to do it/nor do we need to start living in teepees. One needs only to put as much money into alternatives as one does to the same old same old. There are ways to build a house that are far more energy efficient than fuel-oil/gas based homes. There are alternatives to massive tree de-forestation that could save not just fuel but resources. Why stay attached to these ancient fuels? Why because companies need to show profit and capitalism not conscience dominates american policy. Thanks for the visual on the hermit dumping… I must have deserved that!

By AllaboutMe

November 29, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

…o believe me I am american…I am related to the plethora of americans who were sent to internment camps for the betterment of pure white society……my rude remark shows the truth that Joseph and Mary were jews…a fact most like to forget…pity I see zero value in this retail season when all attention is on shopping not sharing…foul and in your face…yeah to me THAT is christmastide…

By Dane

November 29, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

Randy, dear fellow American, I served in Uncle Sam’s military for ten years, was highly decorated, fought in Persian Gulf War I, and I’m gay. My partner of six years was in the Army for five years and served in Bosnia and Kosovo and was wounded in action and has a Purple Heart.

I don’t know what you consider a “girly man” to be, but there are gay men and women serving right now in Iraq and everywhere else our military forces are stationed. It never fails, no matter what the topic, gays invariably get dragged into it.

And to claim that Thanksgiving and Christmas are “conservative” holidays is preposterous. Jesus wasn’t a conservative, and He certainly wasn’t a Republican. Besides, do some research, Christmas was originally a pagan holiday.

By Randy

November 29, 2004 03:26 PM | Link to this

Dane, I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with my life on the line with someone like you. Sorry

By AllaboutME

November 29, 2004 03:30 PM | Link to this

Randy…you really think Dane would let you IN the foxhole even if your life depended on it?…nah…

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

Are we talking about women who were in the home, and for the most part, didn’t have their own bank accounts or funds to deal with? How do lawyers profit from stay-at-home wives?

By Bob swygert

November 29, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

AllaboutME…..

Internment camps for Americans for the betterment of pure white society? Then under the historical circumstances you could only be a Native American. The only other internment camps we’re ever had in this country were for terrorists held down at Gitmo or the regretable internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII— a mistake we have since paid for with reparations (something about being bombed that makes people over-react). That’s funny, because I’ve never known Native Americans to be particularly anti-semetic. By the way, I don’t know any Christians who attempt to hide the Jewish background of either Joseph, Mary and Jesus. All Christians should be proud of and celebrate the Jewish roots of our faith. If you find zero value in the commercialism of Christmas, then feel free to add your own value. Why not spend the holiday helping a homeless person get a hot meal or contribute the money you would spend on gifts to a charity instead. Jesus the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth would be proud of your efforts.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Lyzarel,

So you agree, women are the cause of the increase of divorce and not cars…?

By Kool Kathy

November 29, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

AllaboutME, would you clarify your second sentence since I can’t make heads or tails of it. Maybe you can’t either since you obviously live in a crazy, wacky world. I’m not familiar with that world. Are you sure that you and Mr. Spock are not on the same trip?

By Brian Curtis

November 29, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Randy, this comment was even less coherent than usual: “Any of you liberals who celebrated Thanksgiving and are about to celebrate Christmas, are hippocrits [sic]. You want to attack us conservatives, OK but stop celebrating our holidays.”

You seem to be claiming that 1) There are no liberal Christians and/or 2) Thanksgiving and Christmas are somehow “conservative” holidays.

Both of these claims are bizarre and out of touch with reality.

By Tim

November 29, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

I just find it amazing how Randy gets more and more disrespectful from week to week… I mean you are going to insult a man who put his life on the line for the United States… I find your remarks simply discusting… I for one thank and applaud your’s and your partner’s service in the military Dane!

By Bob swygert

November 29, 2004 03:46 PM | Link to this

Oh… and one more thing because I don’t want to hog this conversation. Dane— thank you for your military service to our country. Let me be honest…. I do not understand your sexual preference, but I don’t need to understand it to recognize that you are a fellow citizen like me and you should have the same basic rights— including the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Yep, I was one of the few Georgians to vote against the gay marriage ban. I respect your service, Dane, and at the risk of really ticking off the atheists, I wish you and your partner a Merry Christmas!

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Better in the line of fire than the foxhole..

Uh-oh!!! I’d better stop before I’m accused of persecution…

By steve

November 29, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this

Randy, As a fellow believer, may I implore you to reconsider how your words come across to others. Stand firm for the truth, but do so respectfully. No one on this board is your enemy. Even those that want to attack Christians deserve our respect because even they are made in the image of God (James 1:9-10).

By Terry

November 29, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this

Are we talking about women who were in the home, and for the most part, didn’t have their own bank accounts or funds to deal with? How do lawyers profit from stay-at-home wives?

In a word - no. We’re talking about Lawyers who will petition the court to have all legal fees paid by the husband because they are able to do so.

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this

laughing at Bob’s comment

How in the world did we get here?

Oh yeah, Randy mentioned some silliness about whether or not Christmas and Thanksgivings are blue holidays or red holidays…

By john

November 29, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this

Congratulation to “ALLaboutMe” for introoducing objective data and verifiable conclusions in response to southern conservative moralizing defensiveness; Plaudits to “Texas” who in scholarly fashion introduces a sound phosophical/factual/objective construct in reponding to simpleminded platatudes of “Falwell” clones unable to ‘think’ but quite capable of attacking a differung opion without blinking Lastly praise to “Terry” who disdains wisdom in favor of inarguable conclusions such as… New Engand woman are “ugly” therefore the lower rate of divoce and spousal abuse as compared to rhe beautiful Southern Belle. Terery can you post your picture to formally prove your point and end this discussion ? I promise to not get too excited Thanks

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 04:10 PM | Link to this

aahhhh…..

By Terry

November 29, 2004 04:16 PM | Link to this

John,

I don’t know that posting my picture would prove a point one way or the other about how women look. And no, I don’t want you getting “excited” about my picture. No thanks.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 04:20 PM | Link to this

BTW John - are you drunk? You make alot typing errors when you’re drunk, right?

By Akeya you are a hypocrit

November 29, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

Akeya

first of all, I’m extremely liberal and the last thing I want is a bunch of lazy, shiftless Americans who think that they are entitled to portions of my paycheckS simply because they can…

If you believe this, then why did you use welfare to have your “planned son”?

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2004 04:41 PM | Link to this

Terry, when I brought up cars it was to show how easy it is to get away—just that. I still believe accepting responsibility for ones actions is necessary in order to build solid relationships and its far to easy to just escape down Highway 66. The car gave us that easy way out. We have coast to coast families where once all families stayed within 20 miles of the other. Thats it. Ive said that twice. You go on to advocate ideas so ludicrous I doubt you even believe them. I respect your personal faith, always have, but our society does not hold with old world traditions that regard women as chattle, nor should we. We know divorce takes two people and in a heterosexual marriage one of those people is male. Do men play no part in divorce except as victims of trial lawyers and judges?

Shaunti, a part of me wonders if spaying and neutering is manditory after divorce with these new laws especially if children are produced.

By Terry

November 29, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

I was only stating the cause of the rise in divorce as I see it - not whether I agree or disagree with it.

It’s really very simple: Women were far more reluctant (generally speaking) to file for divorce many years ago. Now they are not. Result: Increase in divorce.

By Akeya

November 29, 2004 04:47 PM | Link to this

laugh

Number one, I thought this was from last week, but anyway…

I had already paid my insurance company THOUSANDS of dollars before I had my son. I’d had my insurance for 3 years before having my son. At 165.00 per month the first year, 179.00/month the second and third year, and 185.00/month the third year, my insurance company paid for the birth of my child, as did it pay for his first appointment after we left the hospital.

Also, we used Medicaid 3 TIMES IN 1 YEAR!!! I worked full-time and breast fed for 1 1/12 years without ever opening a can of formula to lower the chances of my son getting sick.

With the money I saved by putting him on Medicaid for that one year, I opened a 529 plan for my son’s education, which I’m still adding to…

And, I reiterate, I have been working 2+ jobs since I was in high school.

I graduated with honors and worked full time all throughout college.

I got a job right out of college and have had steady employment since then.

The last thing you can call me is lazy or shiftless…

Try again, Becky:)

By Royal Chic

November 29, 2004 04:55 PM | Link to this

Texas, I enjoyed the parable you used earlier to illustrate that everything comes in fragments and it also goes to prove that if any Christian/Buddhist/Muslim/etc…. is convinced of anything besides God or whatever Higher Power one believes in is absolute and nothing else then you need to reevaluate your spiritual walk……the problem with humans in general is that too often we are convicted that there is one set path that everyone must follow to be in God’s favor….we are all God’s children and he judges the heart and spirit and nothing else….so people with Christian hearts and spirits will be judged as the chosen few……that is not acceptable and completely “unChristian”….

By AllaboutMe

November 29, 2004 05:01 PM | Link to this

…jane you ignorant slut…even this shallow debate has turned into drivel…my grandmother was bought for $12 at a reservation…you think its funny but its the way of life my family has experienced…so pardon if I p** in your buckets of cheery of goodwill…charity…I was at Hosea’s banquet working…where were you…I always fast on the day of gluttony…to show thanks… Akeya…why defend yourself to anyone who cannot even post their own name/handle?

By Matt

November 29, 2004 05:38 PM | Link to this

If you point out that Christian’s marriage success rate is no better then the average person’s, does that mean you hate Christians?

Are you a better person if you break marriage vows, then if you realize you’re too young to hold to them and don’t make them?

Is it possible to point out fallices in an position without it being considered attacking the position and everyone that believes in it?

If you’re a Liberal/Conservative, do you have to agree with everything that “side” says?

I would have thought no on all of these, but it sounds like some here would being saying yes on some of them.

I don’t think either women has proven what does affect divorce rates. But it does seem that religion (much like shoe size) doesn’t seem to matter.

By AllaboutME

November 30, 2004 07:46 AM | Link to this

…sorry…I should stick to the issues….

By Terry

November 30, 2004 08:56 AM | Link to this

Kool,

You are out here every day. You see folks bash Christians left and right, up and down - calling them every name in the book.

I am just curious. AllaboutME comments one time about: Two Jews and a Baby - and that sets you off?

My curiosity has nothing to do with any religion in particular, but rather, why it appears to at least be acceptable when someone bashes Christians, but make any comment about Jews and red flags start going up everywhere!

Why is this?

By Texas

November 30, 2004 10:14 AM | Link to this

Hold on a minute folks. Lets discuss a few statistics before we place blame. First of all, Diane states that conservatives “need to answer honestly.” Why conservatives, and not liberals? Fact, Diane states that Massachusetts is a blue state with a lower divorce rate than a red state. True! However, 37% of Massachusetts voted RED, 62% Voted blue. Now lets use Georgia as the Bible Belt State Diane refers too, Georgia voted 58% Red, and 41% blue. The main ingredient that’s missing is this, where is the percent of divorces coming from. Diane say conservatives, (No Proof) But what if in the Blue state of Massachusetts divorce rate is among the people who voted Blue, after all, they’re more of them and they are more likely to divorce considering their liberal attitudes. And staying with this how about the people in Georgia that voted blue, they might indeed be the people getting divorced and not the people who voted for “Christian Values.” Seems to me, as most of you stated from the very beginning, there is not any substantial statistics to validate Diane’s claim. Therefore, why is it a conservative issue? Maybe the conservatives who voted Red in both Massachusetts and Georgia have a lower divorce rate than the people how voted blue and it is a Liberal issue that needs to be answered honestly!

By Terry

November 30, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this

Texas,

Damn good points! And even as we don’t know the statistics either way - at least someone out here is THINKING about it and not just buying into a bunch of statistics, of which, we all know can be slanted to arrive at any conclusion we want!

Good points!

By Kool Kathy

November 30, 2004 10:23 AM | Link to this

Ah curious Terry, please excuse a short “sermon”.

I feel that some people are misguided about religion. That is their perogative in this country. To me, this is part of the freedom of expression concerning religion that they can claim.

But when citizens start a buildup of prejudice, well—I get bent out of shape. The statement to which I objected smelled so strongly of prejudice against Jews, I reacted. You see, my family is blessed to be in the care of a very kind and professional Jewish doctor. Only recently, he rushed to the hospital at nine o’clock at night. There he gathered the staff and pulled someone dear to me out of a coma. This tired man was there several hours. You see, he is fairly typical of the many Jewish people I have known. I do not like remarks about them which seem suggestive and derogatory.

Prejudice is wrong, wrong, wrong. I try to remember that with all people. Sometimes I am not successful.

By Texas

November 30, 2004 10:25 AM | Link to this

Royal Chic, Sorry folks if this is too long! He placed one scoop of clay upon another until a form lay lifeless on the ground.

All of the Garden’s inhabitants paused to witness the event. Hawks hovered. Giraffes stretched. Trees bowed. Butterflies paused on petals and watched.

“You will love me, nature,” God said. “I made you that way. You will obey me, universe. For you were designed to do so. You will reflect my glory, skies, for that is how you were created. But this one will be like me. This one will be able to choose.”

All were silent as the Creator reached into himself and removed something yet unseen. A seed. “It’s called ‘choice.’ The seed of choice.”

Creation stood in silence and gazed upon the lifeless form.

An angel spoke, “But what if he…”

“What if he chooses not to love?” the Creator finished. “Come, I will show you.” Unbound by today, God and the angel walked into the realm of tomorrow. “There, see the fruit of the seed of choice, both the sweet and the bitter.”

The angel gasped at what he saw. Spontaneous love. Voluntary devotion. Chosen tenderness. Never had he seen anything like these. He felt the love of the Adams. He heard the joy of Eve and her daughters.

He saw the food and the burdens shared. He absorbed the kindness and marveled at the warmth.

“Heaven has never seen such beauty, my Lord. Truly, this is your greatest creation.”

“Ah, but you’ve only seen the sweet. Now witness the bitter.” A stench enveloped the pair. The angel turned in horror and proclaimed,

“What is it?”

The Creator spoke only one word: “Selfishness.”

The angel stood speechless as they passed through centuries of repugnance. Never had he seen such filth. Rotten hearts. Ruptured promises. Forgotten loyalties. Children of the creation wandering blindly in lonely labyrinths.

“This is the result of choice? the angel asked.

“Yes.”

“They will forget you?”

“Yes.”

“They will reject you?”

“Yes.”

They will never come back?

“Some will. Most won’t.”

“What will it take to make them listen?”

The Creator walked on in time, further and further into the future, until he stood by a tree. A tree that would be fashioned into a cradle. Even then he could smell the hay that would surround him.

With another step into the future, he paused before another tree. It stood alone, a stubborn ruler on a bald hill. The trunk was thick, and the wood was strong. Soon it would be cut. Soon it would be trimmed. Soon it would be mounted on the stony brow of another hill. And soon he would be hung on it.

He felt the wood rub against a back he did not yet wear.

“Will you go down there?” the angel asked.

“I will.”

“Is there no other way?”

“There is not.”

“Wouldn’t it be easier to not plant the seed? Wouldn’t it be easier to not give the choice?”

“It would,” the Creator spoke slowly. “But to remove the choice is to remove the love.”

He look around the hill and foresaw a scene. Three figures hung on three crosses. Arms spread. Heads fallen forward. They moaned with the wind. Men clad in soldier’s garb sat on the ground near the trio. They played games in the dirt and laughed.

Men clad in religion stood off to one side. They smiled. Arrogant, cocky. They had protected God, they thought by killing this false one.

Women clad in sorrow huddled at the foot of the hill. Speechless. Faces tear streaked. Eyes downward. One put her arm around another and tried to lead her away. She wouldn’t leave. “I will stay,” she said softly, “I will stay.”

All heaven stood to fight. All nature rose to rescue. All eternity poised to protect. But the Creator gave no command.

“It must be done…,” he said, and withdrew.

But as he stepped in time, he heard the cry that he would someday scream: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” He wrenched at tomorrow’s agony.

The angel spoke again. “It would be less painful……..”

The Creator interrupted softly. “But it wouldn’t be love.”

They stepped into the Garden again. The Maker looked earnestly at the clay creation. A monsoon of love swelled up within him. He had died for the creation before he had made him. God’s form bent over the sculptured face and breathed. Dust stirred on the lips of the new one. The chest rose, cracking the red mud. The cheeks fleshened. A finger moved. And an eye opened.

But more incredible than the moving of the flesh was the stirring of the spirit. Those who could see the unseen gasped. Perhaps it was the wind that said it first. Perhaps what the star saw that moment is what has made it blink ever since. Maybe it was left to an angel to whisper it:

“It looks like … it appears to so much like … it is him!”

The angel wasn’t speaking of the face, the features, or the body. He was looking inside - at the soul.

“It’s eternal!” gasped another.

Within the man, God has placed a divine seed. A seed of his self (A seed of choice). The God of might had created earth’s mightiest… And the One who had chosen to love had created one who could love in return.

Now it’s our choice.

By Terry

November 30, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this

Kool,

I see. I still wonder though - why any mention of Jews: “smells so strongly of prejudice against Jews”…?

And if there was - so what? In your particular case - your reasons are well stated. But overall, why is it a problem if someone has a prejudice against Jews? And I am saying that in the context, that it seems to be perfectly fine if someone has a prejudice against Christians. But to have a similar prejudice agains Jews, well, that is somehow - taboo.

And I do say this out of curiosity not from a religious standpoint. As I am not religious.

By Archie

November 30, 2004 11:36 AM | Link to this

As another indicator of the reality of Christian divorce, Hughes points to the recent public announcement by Ray Mossholder, that he was divorcing is wife of 42 years and has plans to remarry. Mossholder is the founder of Marriage Plus Ministries (MPM) and has been credited with saving 11,000 Christian marriages from divorce. MPM was the first ministry of its kind when Mossholder founded it in 1971.

I got this from doing some web research on the JesusJournal.com. Perhaps Dianne should have phrased the topic of discussion differently, but we all know she did it to get buzz going and it worked.

By Zack

November 30, 2004 11:42 AM | Link to this

Terry—The reason there’s such bigotry toward Christians is because this is the devil’s world and because the devil, who was defeated by Christ, wants to hurt as many Christians as possible. It’s that simple. Christ is the Son of God and will reign forever in Heaven. The devil will burn forever in Hell. It’s truly poetic.

I’m glad you observed that Christians today are so unfairly treated. I’m glad you pointed out the double standard that we face. It’s like that prayer a principle prayed over the intercom (if you don’t know about this, there’s a link to it on the front page of this website). While this prayer points out the hypocrisy of the stance against Christian prayer in schools, it mentions how it’s acceptable to have all kinds of piercings and dress in repulsive ways, among other things. It’s very disappointing that this man would apologize for reciting this poem. He did absolutely nothing wrong.

The liberal agenda would love for us to believe that if you’re against abortion, you’re against women’s rights (of course, we all know that committing murder is not a constitutional right); it also would love for us to believe that a stance against gay marriage is an act of bigotry (no, such a response from liberals is an act of bigotry; opposing homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry); it also would love for us to believe that you should lie to keep from hurting someone, even if the hurt is short-term and would lead to a great result (in other words, liberals want to lie about abortion and say it’s not murder in an attempt to soothe those who face post-abortion guilt, even though facing reality would help lead to repentance).

Yes, Christians face a negative double-standard. While most other world religions might have their positive aspects, there is only one way to Heaven: Christ. The devil knows this as well and therefore spends his time attacking Christians and not non-Christians.

By Joanne M

November 30, 2004 12:00 PM | Link to this

Bill Cosby is correct- vulgar language; crude and violent music; poor English and speaking skills; wearing $200.00 shoes yet complaining they are poor; having babies out of wedlock; thanks Bill for speaking the truth.

Just look at and listen to today’s black musicians and how many of their songs are disgusting, vulgar, disrespectful and degrading

I remember the classy black singers of years gone by: Marvin Gaye; The Stylistics; The Spinners; The Commodores; Earth, Wind and Fire; Ray Charles; Stevie Wonder; The Ronettes; Sly and the Family Stone; Aretha Franklin; The Supremes; The Jackson Five- What has happened to those classy bands when now all we have is disgusting and degrading music with vulgar and violent lyrics.

We as parents need to take action and take responsibility for what we have created and allowed to continue for too long now. Let us stop pointing the finger to always blame other people for what ails us and move on with it and fix this horrible situation.

A concerned parent who, thanks to Bill Cosby, has stopped to smell the roses and they do NOT smell so good after all. Many of us, including myself, have failed as parents and allowed all this to be viewed as acceptable behavior from our children.

Joanne

Stockbridge

By Vincent

November 30, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this

Being born and raised in the south, including all those years in college down in these parts, made for wonderful memories I’ll cherish forever. When my job required I love to NYC, I wasn’t too thrilled, but work is work, and I was blessed to have it. Nine years later, I move back to the south, and I have to say, a fairly large percent of southerners (NOT ALL) are nasty and mean; always looking for gossip, and not interested in truly helping other folks. (unless they can get gossip from it)

Most of the people I met in NYC were married for a long time, some over 60 years. The younger people, regardless of money or race (Shaunti, you ought to know better), were much more honest in everything from what movie to see, to where to have dinner, and so the communication was better. Also, most of the people in the blue states are Catholic, and there is a very long history that goes with that, much of it based around family. In other words, NYC is much more conservative than NYC. They tend to not rush marriage, they tend to think carefully through everything; parents build self esteem into their children helping them to understand that the first person to come along that is serious is only the first person, there will be others.

Seems in the south, there is a reflexive attitude to be married and making babies as soon as you can. College and the military are no excuses, you find a way. There seems to be instilled that as long as everyone follows the word of the bible, everything will always be all right. And, sadly, when things do not turn out all right, there is nowhere to vent frustration. What? you gonna vent at the bible? or the people who preach from it? So, this bitter cycle starts and its tough to break out of. Funny, with all the christian opposition to gay marriage (go ahead and list what is wrong with it) you’d think someone would wake up and realize that divorce is just as harmful to the social fabric of our country. And, someone should also bring up the whole thing about defending the rights of un born babies, and yet the red states have the highest percentages of executions in the USA. Right to life rally? Sure, just as soon as I watch this guy fry in the electric chair.

By Joanne M

November 30, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

Bill Cosby is correct- vulgar language; crude and violent music; poor English and speaking skills; wearing $200.00 shoes yet complaining they are poor; having babies out of wedlock; thanks Bill for speaking the truth.

Just look at and listen to today’s black musicians and how many of their songs are disgusting, vulgar, disrespectful and degrading

I remember the classy black singers of years gone by: Marvin Gaye; The Stylistics; The Spinners; The Commodores; Earth, Wind and Fire; Ray Charles; Stevie Wonder; The Ronettes; Sly and the Family Stone; Aretha Franklin; The Supremes; The Jackson Five- What has happened to those classy bands when now all we have is disgusting and degrading music with vulgar and violent lyrics.

We as parents need to take action and take responsibility for what we have created and allowed to continue for too long now. Let us stop pointing the finger to always blame other people for what ails us and move on with it and fix this horrible situation.

A concerned parent who, thanks to Bill Cosby, has stopped to smell the roses and they do NOT smell so good after all. Many of us, including myself, have failed as parents and allowed all this to be viewed as acceptable behavior from our children.

Joanne

Stockbridge

By Kool Kathy

November 30, 2004 12:28 PM | Link to this

Yes, Terry, I do involve my personal feelings when writing. Don’t you?

Nowadays, when people rail against Christianity, it seems to be in the realm of overall religion, not individuals. Distateful but not illegal. But prejudice seems to begin with words, then to personal individual tragedy and move to multiple atrocities. Christians have experienced all this in history. Currently and historically, Jews always seem to face discrimination to the point of genocide. Today, to point out specifically that Mary and Jesus were Jews in hateful writings about Christmas seems to combine a double spiral downward.

Why did AllaboutME mention that Mary and Joseph were Jews (in a Jewish country) in a diatribe against Christmas? My gut feeling says “Prejudice!” loud and clear. True, he did not write specific words of prejudice. But, like I said, you can smell it.

UH, oh, I’m getting prejudiced. (And Tim Donahue went to all the trouble of letting me know that my arguments are pathetic. I am going and eat a turkey sandwich so I can improve my percipience. How about that!)

By norman

November 30, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this

Lord, lord! It doesn’t matter what the topic is. There are two sorts of people responding. Those who think and those who believe. Those who think are rational and those who believe without any basis for belief (and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have no basis for being believed any more than The Wizard of Oz) are simply superstitious. Nuff said!

By Sarah

November 30, 2004 01:05 PM | Link to this

The fact that divorce rates are higher in “conservative” states is more understandable when we also look at marriage rates. The percentage of residents who choose to marry rather that cohabitate is higher in direct proportion to the divorce rates. In states like Massachusetts, which has one of the lowest per capita marriages rates in the country, divorce is not necessary to bring an end to a relationship.

This is not to say that divorce has not been made rediculously easy in our country - so has living together without commitment.

By Texas

November 30, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this

Joanne, Good on ya, and Good Luck. Making a difference indeed starts at home. Vincent, NY indeed has wonderful people, but to conclude that the Southerners (NO All) are nasty and mean is not a fair comparison. I’m sure that there are as many nasty and mean people in NYC as in Atlanta, just as there are wonderful people in Atlanta, just read most of these Posts. Norman, Norman, A freshman in college started his first day of philosophy class. His professor was clearly an atheist, and started the class by saying the following: “Students, is there anyone here who can see God? If so, raise your hand. If anyone can hear God, raise your hand.” If anyone here can smell God, raise your hand.” After a short pause, with no response from any of the students, he concluded, “Since no one can see, hear, or smell God — there is no God. A student then raised his hand and asked to address the class. The student then asked, “Students, can anyone here see the professor’s brain? Can anyone here hear the professor’s brain? Can anyone here smell the professor’s brain?” After a short pause, he concluded, “Since no one can see, hear, or smell the professor’s brain — it appears he has no brain!”

By Terry

November 30, 2004 01:32 PM | Link to this

Kool,

Where do Jews face discrimination? Besides it being said that they do - where and when, has it really occurred?

By AllaboutME

November 30, 2004 01:33 PM | Link to this

…the state of New York has the most obstacles to divorce. It is one of a handful that does not allow one spouse to unilaterally end a marriage. It is also one of the few without some form of one-step, no-fault divorce for couples…perhaps this is another reason why certain blue states have lower dicvorce rates….

By Zack

November 30, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

Norman—I’ve known of people who were in denial of the truth, but I think you’re the most in-denial person I’ve ever known of.

You don’t like hearing Bible references all the time? God created this world. The Bible is His Word, and it refers to every square inch of His creation. It is always relevant.

As far as divorce goes, it’s another example of how we’re such a spoiled society. People want to have sex and then terminate the consequence of their decision and therefore avoid parenthood; people then want a therapist to try to convince them they’re not experiencing post-abortion guilt; divorce is another attempt to dodge a consequence, in this case the consequence of a failing marriage. The idea of self-sacrifice and hard work to restore a marriage quickly is dismissed, if even considered.

Yes, the Bible is mentioned a lot in here. You say, Norman, that we have two types in here: those who believe and those who think. You know what all our problems in society stem from—and I mean this with no exception? They came from failure to believe and success in thinking.

By J

November 30, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Shaunti’s argument might be believable if it weren’t laughable.

First, a statistics lesson. Of course Texas has a third more “young” people than Massachusetts - it has 3 TIMES THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE!

Second, what do you consider “young” and what do you consider a “senior citizen”, Shaunti? According to the 2000 census, the median age of people in Texas was 32.3 years; the median age of people in Mass. was 36.5 years. This is not really a great difference in age as Shaunti would like you to believe.

It may be true that in Texas (and red states) that people marry younger. Higher educated populations tend to marry at an older age and have fewer children. But, while it could be argued that people in Mass. are marrying older, there is no data anywhere to suggest that everyone else is living together “in sin” instead. (In fact, according to census data, 1.6% of the population in Texas are living as unmarried partners, while only 2.1% in Mass. are living that way. That, of course, would also encompass [oh my goodness!] gay partners).

What isn’t mentioned about the “morals” between red states and blue states are that: abortion rates are typically higher in red states, teen pregnancies and “unwanted” pregnancy rates are typically higher in red states, viewership of trash TV programs such as reality shows, “Jerry Springer”, etc (all which promote good traditional family and marriage values) are typically higher in red states, etc…..

What’s most intriguing is the fact that in the 1990s, under that scoundrel, Bill Clinton, abortion rates nationwide dropped, but since W took office, the rates have been climbing at a fast and furious pace. Here in Michigan alone, we saw a significant 8 year drop under Clinton, but since Georgie-porgie took office, the rate has increased almost 12%. Go figure…..

By Texas

November 30, 2004 01:56 PM | Link to this

Allaboutme In one of my earlier posts, I questioned where the data is obtained to show that among the blue states, which percentage (and I used Massachusetts) of the people who (61%)voted blue got divorced versus the 37% who voted red. If you can advise us of this vital satistic it would go a long way proving your point, however, if you can not, than who’s to say that the majority of people divorced where not indeed blue voters????

By Kool Kathy

November 30, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

Well, Terry, the lynching of Franks (Mary Phagan case) was many years ago in Atlanta. A little more recently, the bombing of the largest synagogue in Atlanta happened. Europe seems to be having a resurgence of anti-Semiticism with a spate of synagogue disfacements. I don’t know any other specific instances. But there always seems to be an undercurrent that surfaces. Maybe I am wrong. I hope so. Please tell me if you disagree with me and why you think there is no prejudice.

By Texas

November 30, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this

JThanks for the statistic lesson, however, can ya explain something to us? Why do ya think the President of the USA has anything to do with the abortion rate? In addition, in your lesson, you state RED State of Texas that people married younger. Texas voted 61% red and 38% blue. Of who voted blue, what age did they marry? and how many divorced? In your blue state of Michigan, 48% voted red and 51% voted blue, how many of you Michigan’s who voted blue got divorced versus the red voter? Once those statistics are obtained, you too, can prove your point!

By AllaboutME

November 30, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this

..why dont you look it up Texas…google divorce rates among states and do your own comparisons state by state…easy way to check my facts or others…I tend to find my quotes from other news sources…you seem to know your way around a search engine…

terry…kruel kathy…sometimes I am my worst enemy…that send button ought not be used as frequently as I do…but if you knew life from my perspective you would see how bias and unforgiving to other faiths the american christmas holdiay is…cant avoid it…cant hide…so I rant…jews is a common term…even what they call themselves…

By Terry

November 30, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

Kool,

I don’t think that Jews experience any more acts of violence, hatred or even discrimination - than anyone else.

The things you have mentioned may be true - but you could point to the same types of violence that have been directed at any other group.

Synagaogue defacements - sure. Just as many and probably more - to churches of Christ.

“Anti-Semitism” IMO - Is a whole lot to do about nothing. I think it’s just the result of society being conditioned like Pavlov’s Dog.

And what do you think about this. If I were a Congressman, I could take to the floor of the House and rant and rave about how Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the Christian-Right are doing this that and the other: Trying to force their religious views down our throats! And my statements could be true, or they could be totally false - but no one would condemn me for having said them. Period.

I am that same Congressman, I make one negative comment about one Jew; however slight, the next day the Newspapers are glowing red - demanding my resignation!

Agree or disagree? And why?

By Dane

November 30, 2004 02:42 PM | Link to this

Kool, you have a valid point.

Interestingly enough, it’s also acceptable to take the floor of Congress and rail on about how gays and gay marriage will unravel the fabric of society.

Just a thought.

By Texas

November 30, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this

allaboutmeThat’s my point. There are comparisons for divorce rates between the states. There are comparisions for divorce rates among religions and atheist. However, you, Diane and others try to use these statistics incorrectly to prove a point. You made a point of saying that “blue states have lower divorce rates”. Now support your point. Of which blue state are you refering too? In your blue state, what percentage voted blue? What percentage of the blue voters remained married? You support your statement or don’t make it!

By Texas

November 30, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this

OOP’s. Allaboutme..sorry, you can make any statment you like.

By Joseph

November 30, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this

Terry,

“Synagaogue defacements - sure. Just as many and probably more - to churches of Christ.”

I don’t see or hear of what you’re talking about. synagaogue defacements I see and hear about all the time. The only churches I can recall of being vandalized are black churches and those cases are because of racism.

When a white church is vandalized, it’s alarming. If it’s a synagaogue or a black church no one is surprised.

I’m not pointing at you specifically but I don’t understand why Christians seemingly want to be persecuted.

By AllaboutME

November 30, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

…google…barna research group, Texas…NYTimes has an article about no-fault…I try to use quotes…o ok…I will…

By Randy

November 30, 2004 03:13 PM | Link to this

Dane, you have my appology for comments made yesterday. I find it very admirable to serve our country. Have a great day/

By RS

November 30, 2004 03:15 PM | Link to this

Randy: Now I’ve seen it all; I’m appalled & saddened that a fellow American would make such a disrespectful remark to someone that was brave enough to put his life on the line serving in the war. And I’m sure Dane wouldn’t welcome you in his foxhole either; I strongly suspect you’re not his type.. Kool Kathy: Yes, you ARE truly “kool”! Thank you for defending us Jews; very brave of you among so many anti-Semites here. Terry: Prejudice of any kind is wrong. Nope, Christians are NOT a “persecuted minority”. Not in this society where Chrsitianity rules. And how can anyone say anti-Semitism doesn’t exist? It’s alive & thriving right here in this forum! Duh! Next you’ll be telling us the Holocaust was a big lie. Ever seen an old person with concentration-camp numbers tattooed on their arm? I have. Gave me nightmares for months so imagine living THROUGH that. You must hate the Holy Family too; they were Jewish

By RS

November 30, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this

Ooops! Randy, just saw your apology to Dane. I myself thank you for that; very classy of you. Sometimes we all need a little dose of “That was unacceptable”. I’ve been guilty of it too.

By Terry

November 30, 2004 03:37 PM | Link to this

Joseph,

Uh, no - you don’t hear of synagogue defacements “all the time”. If you did - there would be none. Figure it out.

RS,

Please spare me with the prattling about: “Any prejudice is wrong”. Please.

No - I don’t believe that millions of people were killed in a shower. And if you think that numbers tattooed on the arm of a living persons constitutes proof of millions being killed in a shower - I will kiss your behind on GA. 400 South-Bound at 8:00 in the a.m.; any day of the week - of your choosing!

You have every right to believe in fabels - I will pass, thanks.

By Tim

November 30, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

Terry… those are some of the most awful things I have ever heard… you obviously have never been to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC… leaving there I don’t see how anyone could say what you just said

It amazes me how mean spirited people can actually be

By RS

November 30, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

Terry: So you think it’s OK to hate Jews. Fine; you’re entitled. Well, pucker up then! I’ll meet you tomorrow morning at 8am sharp; you pick the exit!

By RS

November 30, 2004 03:46 PM | Link to this

Aw, Tim, thank you sweetie! As IF I ever had any doubt, I now know who the REAL Christians are here.

By Akeya

November 30, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

Terry,

Off of what turnip green truck did you fall?

By Terry

November 30, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Tim,

And let me tell you what you saw at the museum:

You saw pictures of many people who had starved and died of diseases - it was horrible and tragic indeed.

You saw pictures of many, many other things from A-Z which told of many, many people being removed from their homes, their belongings being taken away from, the people being shipped off to perform slave labor, etc., etc… And all those things that happened to those people was again - very tragic indeed!

But you did not see any proof that there was ever anyone who was: gassed in a shower! You did not see that - because it did not happen!

By RS

November 30, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Aw, Tim, thank you sweetie! As IF I ever had any doubt, I now know who the REAL Christians are here.

By Texas

November 30, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Joseph, One little fact. Society jumps all over Catholic Priests. Very seldom do other denominations comand such attention, as if it only occured with the Catholic denomination. Not justifying, merely making a point.

By Tim

November 30, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this

Terry… ah… let me tell you what I (seeing as I was there I would know what I saw) saw

I saw train cars they used the ship Jews, Homosexuals, Mentally and Physically challenged, etc off to their deaths… I saw the shoes (the EXACT shoes) of those who were MURDERED (including those of an infant… the image is forever burned in my memory)… and yes there was even evidence of the gas chambers that were used to kill thes innocent people

I saw these things when I was only 13… I left there with tears in my eyes, hardly able to walk from the sarrow I felt for those people, and a totally different perspective of life! No matter if you believe that these people were gassed, shot, or whatever does not change the fact that they indeed were MURDERED and for anyone (including you) to make light of that is sickening and I for one will stand up against that any day of the week!! (wink RS! I am wish ya!)

By Tim

November 30, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

I am thinking it was probably a pretty big turnip truck because I think one would have to have been hit pretty hard on the head to believe that stuff!

(sorry… I know it is totally off the subject… but can’t just stay quiet when I hear rediculous things said like what Terry mentioned)

By Tim

November 30, 2004 04:08 PM | Link to this

sorry but one more thing

Terry… is an eye witness account enough for you… before I went on that trip in 1996 a Jewish woman that survived that Holocaust came into speak with us… she saw with her own eyes her brother and her father shot in the head and fall into a shallow grave… then her and her mother were sent to a concentration camp… then saw as some women were sent to one shower and others were sent to another (she was sent to one shower and her mother and other women were sent to another)… she never saw her mother again… the shower that her mother went to was one filled with gas and those women were killed… I honestly don’t know what is more convincing than an eye witness account

By Texas

November 30, 2004 04:13 PM | Link to this

Terry my man, what’s up? Why are you going there? We are way off base here. But the facts do exist my friend. The gas chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau of Poland still exist, for all to see the horror…..Let’s get back on forum. You are way to good to stoop my friend. Get back up. We all make mistakes. Let’s get back to why Diane thinks that Christians are the cause for High Divorce in this country….

By Terry

November 30, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

Tim,

You saw NO gas chambers. You saw showers and/or rooms that were said to be gas chambers.

You saw train cars - period. Train cars that were used to ship people into the camps.

Seeing the piles of shoes - means nothing. If piles of shows equate to gassing - someone better go and charge Goodwill with murder!

And 13 was a good age. That’s why the fable has been taught in schools - you can get kids to believe in anything. But when they become adults they’re supposed to be able to use adult reasoning and logic - which don’t lend itself to believe that millions of people accross an entire continent were brought to a shower for execution! Outrageously absurd!

By RS

November 30, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

Tim: I’ve got your back too, my dear. Listen, you can’t take anyone like Terry seriously. Any rational, halfway intelligent human knows he probably got his “information” off hate websites. People like him are actually to be pitied.

By Terry

November 30, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

Texas,

There were no gas chambers at Birkenau. What was said to be a gas chamber was actually a mortuary. It was built underground so as to stay cool in the summer for dead bodies - and to serve as a bomb shelter if needed. There were no gas chambers. If the Nazis would have wanted to build gas chambers - they would have done so.

But the point I am proving with all this Texas - is that you can condition people to react just as you want them. I could question and/or doubt the credibility of any event in history. Any event - and NO ONE will get upset. But question ANYTHING about the Holocaust - and people come unglued. People have been conditioned to portray any one who questions it, as some “Jew-Hater” or “Neo-Nazi” and start in with all the claims of “Racist”, etc…

They don’t know why they do it - they’ve just been conditioned to!

By Tim

November 30, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this

Terry… don’t try to undermine my intelligence… maybe you were a simple minded 13 year old… I was not… sorry… I know what I saw… and I know what I heard… if an eye witness account is not enough then I don’t know what is

RS… some people just amaze me

By Kool Kathy

November 30, 2004 04:31 PM | Link to this

Terry—well—-we must differ on opinions here. But, friends and interested parties can always communicate.

I am certain that there were concentration camps, “showers” and cremation ovens. Our American troops were horrified to find them. Too much evidence in multiple places by multiple people to not believe that they were there. So terrible was the Holocaust that most Americans want no discriminatory expressions against Jews. Still, I feel there is an undercurrent. Christians may hear stormy words but they are not really persecuted. Not in America. We are not Pavlov’s dogs. It is our basic repulsion and revulsion to oppression. Long may it last.

Perhaps we should turn our thoughts to Darfur. That is the current genocide. While we worry about the next Walmart, perhaps we should also worry about 70,000 intentional deaths. The age old question: Where is justice for the innocents?

By RS

November 30, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

Kathy & Tim; don’t even frustrate yourselves. You can pile heaps & heaps of documented facts right at Terry’s feet but he’s so blinded by his hatred of Jewish people he’d never admit that he can possibly be wrong.

By Terry

November 30, 2004 04:42 PM | Link to this

Kool,

There certainly were concentration camps. Our soldiers were horrified at what they saw. Because what they saw was many dead from starvation and diseases - and may others who were dying. That would horrify anyone.

But if dead and and dying bodies does NOT mean that people were killed in gas chambers. The idea did work though. Create the horrific notion that millions of people were being gassed - show pictures of dead people - and the notion is adopted by the masses.

Next time you go to Turner Field and it is packed with 50,000 people - try imagining 340 times that amount of people being killed in a shower and their bodies, by some force of magic - disappering without a trace. It’s all outrageously preposterous!

By RS

November 30, 2004 04:45 PM | Link to this

Terry, if you did some research & I’m not talking about downloading hatemongering websites either, you’ll see there were more than enough facilities to exterminate that many people. And I bet you don’t believe there were no homosexual Holocaust victims either but given your unreasonable prejudice against gays & lesbians, I’m sure you’d have had no problem with that, as well.

By Terry

November 30, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

RS,

You’re nothing but an idiot. You wouldn’t know how to make or prove a point - if your life depended on it. You’re just another rube who thinks if fashionable to call someone a racist or hate-mongerer because they don’t believe in some fable. The shallow folks like you come a dime-a-dozen. And because you are unable to think for yourself and require the assistance of “websites” - doesn’t mean everyone else does. Quit boring me with all your juvenile comments.

By norman

November 30, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

Up to now this post only brought out those I call Christo-Fascists. But now real Fascists are surfacing. Wow! What a load of BS these Christians generate.

By Steven

November 30, 2004 05:12 PM | Link to this

I’m curious about the statement that “opposing homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry.” How is it not bigotry if you are treating someone who is homosexual differently than someone who is heterosexual? The only way to not be bigotted if ‘opposed’ to homosexuality is to not be homosexual yourself and leave it at that.

The difference I see between posts and attitudes of conservatives and liberals is that liberals offer choices and conservatives speak in absolutes. When it comes to abortions the conservatives say NO to all women while liberals support each woman’s choice. When it comes to marriage for gays conservatives say NO while liberals support equal rights under the law. Conservatives claim that christians are being persecuted while liberals are saying that everyone should have an equal voice rather than just the christian one. If it weren’t for those darned liberals there wouldn’t be freedom of religion, equal rights, women voting, the public school system that most of us attended, and a huge array of other things.

By Dave

December 1, 2004 08:17 AM | Link to this

Kudos to you, Steven (November 30, 2004 05:12 PM)!

America’s Founding Fathers were Liberals! Wonder how many people recognize that? If they (the Founding Fathers) had not been successful in their/our revolution, while hendered by the conservative Tories, we would still be bowing to the monarchy in England.

Liberals are responsible for the freedoms we enjoy and cherish today.

By Dave

December 1, 2004 08:20 AM | Link to this

“hindered” vice “hendered”.

My apologies.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 08:35 AM | Link to this

Steve, The difference I see between posts and attitudes of conservatives and liberals is that conservatives say no to over 40 million abortions since 1973. Conservatives say yes to the youngest of all, the unborn, still in the womb. They are our greatest national resource, the strength and vitality of our land, the hope of what is to be. Liberals say 40 million dead and let’s keep killing. No real Christian treats anyone different. Love thy neighbor my friend. Yes there are people who profess to be Christians and don’t treat all fairly. We are all sinners my friend, and tolerance is a two way street. I as a Catholic I seek to support Homosexuals in our church and pray for abstence and courage, for strength. Yes it is difficult for me to understand, but God teaches tolerance and not to Judge. I do my best, but I fail at times, as we all do. This country was founded by Christians and governed for over two hundred years by observing the 10 Comandments. Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 08:41 AM | Link to this

abstinence not abstence Commandments not Comandments

By Terry

December 1, 2004 08:43 AM | Link to this

Steven,

“Choice” has nothing to do with Abortion whatsoever. The Pro-Abortion folks were losing the societal battle on whether or not Abortion was the taking of a human life - and so they changed the argument to one of: choice.

Liberals don’t support “equal rights” for Gays - they support additional rights for Gays. Gays currently have the same rights as everyone else - they just doesn’t suit them.

Conservatives are not saying that they are being “persecuted” - Liberals use that word. What Conservatives are saying is that Christians should be allowed to bring their ideas to the table just like anyone else - regardless of the origin of the ideas. Liberals want to reject at the door any idea that is derived from Christianity, simply because it is derived from Christianity. Regardless of the merits of the ideas themselves.

But you are right about one thing: If it weren’t for Liberals - our Public School System wouldn’t be in the mess that it is!

By Tim

December 1, 2004 09:00 AM | Link to this

Terry… how simple it is to refute your argument that liberals want to give gays more rights… that gays already have the same rights… that is HILARIOUS… heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they LOVE and want to spend the rest of their life with (or actually in over 50% of the cases until they are ready to get out)… homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love… so no, gays are not trying to get MORE rights they are trying to get EQUAL rights… if we all went by your argument black people and white people should not be allowed to marry each other… because in the past black people were allowed to marry black people and white people were allowed to marry white people… seems like equals right under your argument… so shouldn’t inter-racial marriages should be outlawed again?

By Texas

December 1, 2004 09:11 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme, ok, I searched and the only data I could find was from 1994, and yes Massachusetts was # 1 @ 2.4, New York was # 5 @ 3.3, Georgia was #34 @ 5.2 and Texas was #36 @ 5.4. The US total was 4.6. Now Massachusetts voted 62% Blue and 37% Red. Of which percentage of the people who voted blue got divorced? New York voted 58% Blue 40% Red, again which percentage of the people who voted blue got divorced? Georgia voted 41% Blue and 58% Red, same question? Texas voted 38% Blue and 61% Red, again same question?

My point is, you and Diane are using statistics has a whole to prove your point, when you can not really depict in Massachusetts whether or not the blue voters are not the ones getting divorced. Please keep in mind, Massachusetts is predominantly Catholic, which remained at a 21% rate compared to other Religions with the high being 34%. Divorce is not a good thing. But nor is placing blame on Conservative Christians for the high divorce rate when it could be Liberal Christians causing the problem.

By AllaboutME

December 1, 2004 09:28 AM | Link to this

…Terry…your league of christian supporters have all shrunk back to reconsider if this belief is part of your body of truth…I doubt anyone who sides toward the right on issues…actually wants you in their court….and even Shaunti shudders to have your blazing truths in her corner…you actually went so beyond the pale…you have proven yourself irrelevant…so no matter what you say next…most people…even the most conservative among us…will ignore it…

…Dave…as for the founding fathers being liberal…what part of slave ownership qualifies one to be liberal…remember the wealth of their mansions were built not just on the backs of slaves but also with endentured servants bought from european prison gangs…not a very liberal or radical or enlightened group…

…Texas…if you want different statistics…look them up…if you want answers different than what I gave…post them…find your facts the way you like them and dance your happy I-am-perfect dance…frankly I dont give a ruddy hoot about the subject…what business is it of any group—red—blue—green—yellow—pink to tell someone how they should live…

…who would be most hurt if no-fault divorce is changed so couples had to live apart for two years to ‘reconsider’ their options? who? …its children…have you ever been to a custody hearing…I remember a man spent 7 years hauling his ex-spouse to court to obtain total custody of his son for religious beliefs he had…and who won I dont know but I can guess that kid really detested both parents for making him a pawn to their animosity…

By Terry

December 1, 2004 09:36 AM | Link to this

Tim,

Your argument is factually incorrect.

No one has the right to marry the one they love - including Gays.

Current marriage laws afford the opportunity for people to marry someone of the opposite sex. These laws apply to everyone - including Gays.

Gays do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex - so they want the laws changed to include same-sex marriage. Simple as that.

You cannot logically or reasonably say, that Gays want equal protection under the law - when changing the law is required to give them what they want.

By Tim

December 1, 2004 09:45 AM | Link to this

Terry… heterosexuals are attracted and fall in love with the opposite sex… therefore under the law heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love

and you still didn’t answer my question about inter-racial marriage

By Terry

December 1, 2004 10:04 AM | Link to this

AllaboutME,

That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t need “leagues” of supporters to think for me - Christian or otherwise. You on the other hand, are just another simpleton out there who is unable to think for himself, has others do it for him - then goes around repeating what they told you. A trained parrot - so to speak.

It is because of the masses like you partner - that the history human civilization is filled with oppression, slavery and despair. A few smart people can come along at any time and convince the masses of rubes - of anything! All they have to do is attach a little feel-good emotion to anything they want - and you folks will follow along like little sheep!

And I hardly think that Shaunti is concerned in the least - about what I think. I think she is more than capable of expressing her own opinions without me or anyone else in a “league” of supporters.

You pal - couldn’t submit an intelligent response to anything out here. You’re just another simpleton who trots out here with the same old prattle and carryings-on that you’ve been taught to say.

“Polly wanna cracker?”

By Terry

December 1, 2004 10:06 AM | Link to this

Tim,

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard today.

By Tim

December 1, 2004 10:11 AM | Link to this

Terry… coming from someone like you I will take that as a compliment!

and again… you still never answered the question about inter-racial marriages

By Texas

December 1, 2004 10:15 AM | Link to this

how bible-thumpers want to make all us others into christians whether we want to or not… so all you more-moral-than-me folks I do enjoy your hypocrisy…do continue telling me about family values Those are your words allaboutme what business is it of any group�red�blue�green�yellow�pink to tell someone how they should live more of your words

You spout tolerance and at the same time say no one has the right. No one is forcing Religion on you. You view a person as being a hypocrite because they as Christians have different opinions than yours and you judge them based on statistics slanted to suit your prejudices. No Christian is supporting divorce. It’s you implying that we are. I don’t support divorce. And the sad fact of it is, people suffer, children suffer, people make mistakes everyday, and this forum is placing blame on the conservative Christians for those mistakes, and that’s not right!

By AllaboutME

December 1, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

…believe it or not Texas…I dont spew tolerance!…the history of christianity speaks for itself…amen…halleluja and pass the inquisitions…many, even conservative christians, do support divorce and do support abortion and have firm belief in the santity of gay marriages as being as valid…further…there are christians who believe government ought not make laws that concern the private lives of its citizens…do I name them as hippocrates? nah, but have noticed a plethora of other christians ridicule them, their beliefs, even their right to call themselves christian or attend church…so while you rant against me, a non believer in christian dogma, perhaps you ought rant against christians who belittle other christians..tollerance my arse!

By Texas

December 1, 2004 11:10 AM | Link to this

A water bearer in India had two large pots, one hung on each end of a pole which, he carried across his neck. One of the pots had a crack in it, but the other pot was perfect, and always delivered a full portion of water at the end of the long walk from the stream to the master’s house, while the cracked pot arrived only half full.

For a full two years this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water to his master’s house. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments, perfect to the end for which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was very ashamed of its imperfection, and was miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do — or so it thought.

The cracked pot, after two years of what it perceived to be a bitter failure, spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. “I am very ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you.”

“Why?” asked the water bearer. “What are you ashamed of?”

“For the past two years, I have only been able to deliver half of my real capacity, because this crack in my side allows water to leak out all the way back to the master’s house. Because of my flaws, you have to do all of this work, and you don’t get full value from your efforts,” the cracked pot said.

The water bearer felt sorry for the old cracked pot, and compassionately said, “As we return to the master’s house, I want you to notice the beautiful flowers along the path.”

As they went up the hill, the old cracked pot did notice the sun shining on the beautiful wild flowers growing along his side of the path, and this cheered it some. However, at the end of the trail, it still felt bad because it had again leaked out half its load, and so it apologized to the water bearer for its failure.

The bearer said to the pot, “Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of the path, but not on the other pot’s side? That’s because I have always known about your flaw, and put it to good use. I planted flower seeds on your side of the path (for the return trip), and every day while we walk back from the stream, you’ve watered them. For over two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate my master’s table. If you weren’t the way you are, he wouldn’t have the flowers for his house.”

Each of us has our own unique flaws. We’re all cracked pots. But if we will allow Him, the Lord will use us, in spite of our flaws, to grace His Father’s table in some way. In God’s great economy, nothing goes to waste.

So as we seek ways to minister, and as God calls you to the job He has appointed for you, don’t be afraid of your flaws. Acknowledge them, and allow Him to use them, so you too can help add beauty along the pathways He has chosen for you.

Addendum — 2 Timothy 2:21 “Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.”

By AllaboutMe

December 1, 2004 11:59 AM | Link to this

…yawn…

By Randy

December 1, 2004 12:19 PM | Link to this

I here the phrases Christian Dogma and Bible-thumpers. Wonder why non Christians feel the need to use the terms? Could it be that they know down deep that Christianity is the one true way to heaven? Why else would they find the need to push it away. I don’t think there are expressions concerning Buddists, Hindu or Atheists. So you all only have a need to push away Christ. I’ve always said, that if Santa Claus were real he would be banned in our schools. People only have a fear of things which truly exist and issues that they have not taken care of. Here the issue would be, getting right with GOD.

By Randy

December 1, 2004 12:24 PM | Link to this

On yesterdays column there was a issue on how many Jews were killed in the concentration camps. Here I agree with Tim, Hitler took troops away from the eastern front to make sure as many Jews were killed as possible. Hitler was horrible, but Stalin was just as bad.

By Kool Kathy

December 1, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

Ladies, gentlemen, Fellow Americans and children,

Did almost everyone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? This is not Mr. Robert’s Neighborhood but it should be a decent street to travel on. Forget name calling, “bad” words and insults. There are better ways to communicate.

This is a forum. Remember? I love the mental exercise but I hate the verbal graffiti.

If you shut up, I will too. Maybe.

By Randy

December 1, 2004 12:34 PM | Link to this

KK I think you mean Mr Rogers neighborhood.

By Randy

December 1, 2004 12:46 PM | Link to this

Let’s review, in the last few months on this forum we have proved Gods existance, proved that Jesus is the Messiah, that some people won’t listen to reason(mainly Norman), that all of us have some good points and some not so good. But the main thing I have learned is not to judge others, that is not my job, that’s GOD’s job. You and your life style, the decisions you make here on earth are something between you and the Creator of this universe. Everybody have a great day.

By Tim

December 1, 2004 01:00 PM | Link to this

Randy… I have to say that I agreed with a lot of the things you said! what a day :)

KK… I agree with you too!

By Lyrazel

December 1, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

So, when do we go full circle and talk about the issue of the week again or must stagnation inevitably result. Where is Bosco Roads when we need him?

By Kool Kathy

December 1, 2004 01:16 PM | Link to this

Good grief, Randy, I’m in the wrong neighborhood. Wouldn’t you know? Mr. Roger’s, yeah. I may be kicked off the school patrol.(Big fib!) Forgive, forgive. A new day is dawning.

By RS

December 1, 2004 01:21 PM | Link to this

Terry: I agree with Tim. Thank you for the compliment. Anyone as hate-filled as you calling ME an idiot proves I’m not a total washout as a human being. And, no, gays do not have the same rights as straights. You & I can marry the person we’re physically & emotionally in love with. A gay person cannot. Gee, I guess in a perfect world, all gays & non-Christians would be immediately exterminated; wouldn’t you love that?

By Texas

December 1, 2004 01:32 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I agree, where is Boscoe??? Oh well, Back on forum: I read this on townhall.com by Walter E. Williams: Years ago, when I was younger, it would be considered lowdown of men to use the kind of language that’s routinely used today. To see men sitting while a woman was standing used to be unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first names was also unthinkable, not to mention the use of foul language in the presence of or to adults. How about guys and girls walking down the street whilst the guy has his hand in the girl’s rear pocket. What might explain the differences in behavior today versus yesteryear? A significant part of the explanation is seen by recognizing that society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. Customs, traditions and moral values are those important thou-shalt-nots such as: thou shalt not murder, steal, lie and cheat. They also include respect for parents, teachers and others in authority plus those courtesies one might read in Emily’s Post rules of etiquette. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody is looking. There are not enough cops, and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and the criminal justice system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see police, laws, and the criminal and civil justice systems as society’s first line of defense. For nearly a half-century, the nations liberals, along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts, have waged war on customs, traditions and moral values. Many in this generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion, or what is or is not criminal. During the sixties, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads like “values clarification”. So-called sex-education classes were simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family/church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passé, and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortion. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extra-legal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent. Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn’t work. Customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now, we’re paying the price. What’s worse is that instead of a return to what worked, many of us fail to make the connection and insist “there ought to be a law.” As such, it points to another failure of the so-called “great-generation” - the failure to transmit to their children what their parents transmitted to them.

By Dane

December 1, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this

Wow.

My eyes are burning! Looks like all the bases are covered here: the Holocaust was a fraud, gays apparently now have equal rights, and I actually recieved an apology. What could possibly top all that?

And thank you, Randy, that was very big of you to recognize that who I love has nothing to do with my loyalty to this country, and my capacity to defend it. Ten years of honorable service in the Marines should say it all.

By Dane

December 1, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

Texas, I have to agree with your last posting. It is very true that customs and traditions passed down through the generations are very instrumental in holding the fabric of a society together, but, sometimes, without a more broader view of the world and realization that there is indeed a world outside society’s traditions that those very traditions can make people insular and narrow-minded.

I was raised in rural Appalachia, and you don’t get much more traditional than that. I served in the Marines because every son is expected to: my dad, both my grandfathers, all my male cousins, most of the friends I went to high school with, all served in one of the branches of the armed forces. We all went to church, went to family reunions in the summer, and listened to what mamma and daddy said, or else we had to go cut our own switch or mamma got daddy’s belt if we talked back.

We were taught to say yes sir, yes ma’am, help the elderly, do our chores and just be good people. The ultimate goal in life was to get married, buy a trailer and a 4x4, get a good job with the coal mines or with the logging company, have a bunch of kids, get a satellite dish and go deer hunting and then get fat and go to Dollywood in the summers. That’s it.

There’s nothing wrong with that life, and I wouldn’t be the person I am today without that upbringing. My partner of five years was raised in a similar environment in north west Georgia, and our roots and ties to our families are the very reason why we haven’t left the South.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this

Dane, Good Manners, Respect, Morals, Values, Customs and Traditions do not add up to narrow mindedness. It does not lead to a life in a trailer with Deer Hornes hanging above the front door. It does indeed lead to a Honorable Marine, no doubt.

By Dane

December 1, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this

Let me address one of the comments posted concerning the term “bible thumper.”

I have travelled to more than 26 countries, both with the military and as a civilian. My concept of religion has been made more inclusive because of that travel, and one thing I have observed is that religions and philosophies like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism as well as Sikhism and Jainism do not seek to convert others to their beliefs as does Christianity and Islam. The major Asian religions do not claim to be the true religions, or rather, do not discount other religions as false, as do Christianity and Islam.

Now, I say this out of experience, and I am sure that someone with the inclination and the bent of a nay-sayer can go to some database or website to refute my comment, but let me ask you, when was the last time you heard of a Buddhist terrorist, or a Taoist crusade or a Confucian lobby to change the constitution?

My point is that most far-eastern religions are very peaceful and tranquil by comparison to the more rhetorical and condescending religions of the West and Mid-east, and do not “thump” their sacred texts as a visual means of frightening others.

By Lyrazel

December 1, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

Texas, your earnestness does not go unnoticed however, what was that long post supposed to say? It covered all the bases but says nothing except dishonor three generations of public school educators.

—-What’s worse is that instead of a return to what worked, many of us fail to make the connection and insist “there ought to be a law.—-

I applaud generational changes in society as good and would call the writer of your quote a man who conveniently forgets the truths with his nostalgia. If you actually study that glorious period of impeccable morality one finds: McCarthyism, cold war ethics, jim crow laws, women denied fair pay for same work and a host of issues not mentioned on Father Knows Best because alchoholism and spouse abuse were too impolite to be mentioned in said polite society, as was incest, rape and inter-racial marriage.

Dont look to the past to see how glorious life was, look to the NOW and live it.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

Dane, I thought you might find this funny as well as the rest of us: The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O’Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

“I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,” said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. “He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left. Didn’t even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. “Not real effective,” he said. “The liberals still got through, and Limbaugh annoyed the cows so much they wouldn’t give milk.”

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. “A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions,” an Ontario border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though.”

When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR. In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers. “If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age,” an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. “I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “How many art-history majors does one country need?”

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. “We’re going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts, and we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out.”

By Texas

December 1, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, the article started out saying the following:Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction,” Nicollette Sheridan’s towel malfunction and naked leap into the arms of Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens in a promotion before ABC’s “Monday Night Football,” and the recent Detroit Pistons/Indiana Pacers game melee are just the most recent signs of a new culture that has emerged among Americans, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

Dane, Your a bitter man, comparing Islam to Christianity. Your Brothers are in Iraq dying as we communicate on this forum figthing against Islamic Terrorist. If you where in most Islamic countries professing to be Gay, they would decapitate you. NO CHRISTIAN is forcing their views on you. Christians have every right to profess their faith. You can take it or leave it. Not so with Islamic Terrorist. Your not being fair my friend and you should do as Randy did.

By Terry

December 1, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

RS,

If you were able to stop parroting for a moment - you might notice where I have stated several times that: I am not religious. And if you manage to stop with the juvenile accusations of “hate” long enough, you might also realize that it would be highly illogical of me to want all Non-Christians “exterminated” - now wouldn’t it?

But you keep right on doing what you do best: Have others think for you - and all you have to do is repeat what they say. It’s an easy world you live in - isn’t it?

By Amazed

December 1, 2004 04:08 PM | Link to this

After reading the comments in this forum, I am deeply amazed at how hateful some of the people are in the world. As a loving, understanding, tolerant, liberal christian woman - I realize that many of my counter parts have know idea what being a Christian truly means.

And yes, I used liberal and christian in the same sentence, because you can be a christian and liberal at the same time. You do not have to make judgement upon others to know and understand the meaning of being christian. If I choose to marry, I would hope it would last a lifetime. However, I will agree with Laci Peterson mother that Divorce should always be an option. Because you never know what you are going to get…. married to that is…..

Amazed

By Tim

December 1, 2004 04:14 PM | Link to this

Terry… I think you have been misinformed… if you would actually research Islam I think you would come to find that it is quite similar to Christianity in a lot of ways… they both even originate from Abraham… I don’t think it is a bad thing that they are similar… the actual religion of Islam is very loving, caring, and compassionate (those are 3 of the main themes… much like the main themese of Christianity)… the problems arise when people take it to an extreme

and you said that Christians who don’t agree with gay marriage aren’t trying to force their religion on me or Dane or any other gay man or woman is funny… because the only arguments I hear from ‘Christians’ why I should not be allowed to marry is because the Bible says it is wrong… if that isn’t forcing ones beliefs on a person I don’t know what is

By Royal Chic

December 1, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this

Amazed you have taken the words right out of my mouth, as I read this forum I take more and more pride in my liberty to be a “liberal”……although I hate to use that title because it boxes me into a category that this forum paints in a horrible light….what can I say ignorance is bliss…..what one does not understand they condemn…..I agree with Texas’s comments our society’s values, morals, traditions, and customs are changing drastically and do not reflect the morals of the great “traditionalists”, but most of the people I know that have abandoned the morals, values, and traditions of past societies are CHRISTIANS or people who choose to abandon their Christian faith…or shall I call them cultural Christians…their “faith” is directly linked to habit rather than their spirits…no offense to Christians that do not fall under this category:)

By Terry

December 1, 2004 04:28 PM | Link to this

Tim,

I know you guys like to make things up as you go along - but when in the world have I ever said anything about *Christianity, Islam and “Abraham”…?

Goodness gracious!

By Tim

December 1, 2004 04:28 PM | Link to this

I apologize… I was addressing Texas… not Terry… sorry for the mix-up

By Texas

December 1, 2004 04:29 PM | Link to this

Tim, I guess you where refering to me on Islam and Christianity. Yes there is a few comparisons one can point out between the faiths. Islam from what I understand is not a peaceful religion. If it is, most countries who are Islam do not teach compassion, and instead teach hate and violence and death to all who do not believe their way. Now in respect to same sex marriage. You can say it was Christians, but it was society that voted my friend. And like Terry said earlier, The laws are in place. Liberal Judges felt those laws where unconstitutional, therefore, society voted to prevent liberal judges to interpet the existing laws differently to support their liberal agenda. You can blame Christians, but society, with all religions reflected voted overwhemingly to change the state constitution. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

By Tim

December 1, 2004 04:35 PM | Link to this

Texas… there are more than just a few similarities between the two religions… what you see on TV are religious extremists… I personally know numerous Muslims and hate, violence, and murder are certainly not what they or the majority of other Muslims stand for

I also never said that people that only Christians voted in favor of ammending the state constitution… what I said is that the Christians who voted in favor of it did so because ‘the Bible said it is wrong’… therefore they were forcing their religious beliefs upon me

By Steven

December 1, 2004 04:43 PM | Link to this

Our country has been “governed for over two hundred years by observing the 10 Comandments?!” How interesting that the 10 Commandments are NOT listed in The Constitution or The Bill of Rights. And you can forget that whole argument about they are the foundation of our laws, too! Please show me the law of “Thou shalt have no other God before me” or “Honor thy Father and thy Mother.” When did coveting become illegal? The foundation of our law is actually English Common Law.

Our Nation’s Founders may have held slaves, but the ideas found in our Constitution were outrageously liberal for their time. As was Jesus behavior for his time. Face facts folks…like prostitution there will ALWAYS be abortion. The decision is whether to make it legal, safe, and regulated or not. If you don’t agree with abortion then don’t have one and please get off your rear to adopt an unwanted child.

By Steven

December 1, 2004 04:43 PM | Link to this

Our country has been “governed for over two hundred years by observing the 10 Comandments?!” How interesting that the 10 Commandments are NOT listed in The Constitution or The Bill of Rights. And you can forget that whole argument about they are the foundation of our laws, too! Please show me the law of “Thou shalt have no other God before me” or “Honor thy Father and thy Mother.” When did coveting become illegal? The foundation of our law is actually English Common Law.

Our Nation’s Founders may have held slaves, but the ideas found in our Constitution were outrageously liberal for their time. As was Jesus behavior for his time. Face facts folks…like prostitution there will ALWAYS be abortion. The decision is whether to make it legal, safe, and regulated or not. If you don’t agree with abortion then don’t have one and please get off your rear to adopt an unwanted child.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 04:44 PM | Link to this

Tim, I’m sure that your can find good muslims and bad christians all day long. Today in the everything goes society of the Netherlands, Islamic Terrorist are killing people. In Sewden, Ambulance drivers will not go into certain towns for fear from Islamic Muslims. Today in London, Islamic Muslims are professing hate and promoting the killing of all westeners. I don’t see the peace your talking about my friend. Every where you look, theres a war going on. And for Dane to say Christian People and Islamic Muslims have the same goal is not fair.

By norman

December 1, 2004 04:44 PM | Link to this

Ignorance abounds! Islam is simply a primitive Semitic version of the whole Judaeo-Christian tradition. If we don’t like Islam (as I don’t) we certainly should not like Christianity or Judaism (which I don’t). You redneck Christians ought to study Islam which will show you how pernicious the whole biblical tradition in religion really is.

But you won’t study Islam. You won’t even study Evolution. Mired in ignorance you will still go to Baptist Churches and let those damned ignorant preachers lead you by the nose.

By Terry

December 1, 2004 04:45 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Ok, now I will weigh-in on this Islam stuff.

First of all, why would anyone care when, how and by whom - Islam originated?

However Christianity and Islam may or may not have been similar many centuries ago - is totally irrelevant today.

This nonsense about Islam being a peaceful religion, is just that - nonsense! Every place on earth that this so-called peaceful religion exists in high numbers: There is overwhelming violence and oppression. There is not a single place where Islam is the majority where this isn’t the case.

But hey, I know you guys are just repeating what the good Leftists tell you to - regardless of the fact that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

By RS

December 1, 2004 04:51 PM | Link to this

Terry: Hatemongering is not the exclusive domain of the religious, as we see here. As for “parroting”, letting “others think for me”..Ha! You don’t know me at all; I work in the suburbs in an office where I was pretty much the sole Kerry supporter. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

By Texas

December 1, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this

Steven, DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world’s law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. DID YOU KNOW? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments! DID YOU KNOW? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C. DID YOU KNOW? James Madison, the fourth president, known as “The Father of Our Constitution” made the following statement “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” DID YOU KNOW? Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. DID YOU KNOW? Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777. DID YOU KNOW? Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies. DID YOU KNOW? Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law….an oligarchy….the rule of few over many.
DID YOU KNOW? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, “Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.”

By Tim

December 1, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this

Texas… yes you can find good Muslims and bad Muslims… or you can find good Christians or bad Christians… I never said all Muslims were good or all Christians were bad… but you are implying that most Mulsims are bad and that is simply not true… like I said earlier go learn about Islam before you start talking about how bad Muslims are… like I stated before… the ‘Muslims’ you are referring to are not the majority… and if you did actually study Islam and The Koran you would see that yes Islamic and Christian goals are VERY similar

and there are still ‘Christians’ trying to impose their ‘Christian beliefs’ on me

By Terry

December 1, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

RS,

There’s absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind - you’re a Kerry supporter

And I don’t have to know you - you describe yourself in everything you say. You attitude toes the line of Leftist allegiance. Even all of the words you use - come right from the Leftist playbook.

You have no ideas, thoughts or opinions that are yours. You do nothing but repeat the drivel that has been handed to. I’ve seen you guys - saying all the same stuff - thousands of time.

And when someone doesn’t agree with the drivel: Claim they “hate” or they’re “racist” or some such other juvenile nonsense. That’s the extent of your intellect.

By Steven

December 1, 2004 05:06 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with Tim on the forcing of a religious belief on gay people by voting against a law that comes from a secular institution. To date I have not ever seen a concrete example of how allowing gays access to the rights and responsibilities provided by state and federal marriage laws will affect another person’s marriage. Is the issue for those who voted against over the word marriage or the laws? Why should a couple be forced to testify against each other in court when married heterosexuals aren’t? Or why should a gay person have to claim that portion of insurance premiums paid by their employer for their ‘spouse’ as income that is taxable, but a heterosexual person doesn’t? Why shouldn’t gay spouses automatically inherit property regardless of whether a will exists or not? Why should two people who are attempting to pledge personal responsibility for each other be denied that pledge?

By Texas

December 2, 2004 07:27 AM | Link to this

Terry, I think I understand what your trying to say to an extent. Lets put it in perspective: 60 years ago 6 million Jews killed under Hitler. The world is outraged, and the new call is never again 30 years ago 2 million Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge. Silience 15 years ago people in Iraq are being killed by poison gas, executed and buried alive, in fact one day in 1991 2000 Shia are killed. Today mass graves are being unearthed. Wrong war Today, 2 million Sundanese Dead, 4 million displaced. Silience 60 years ago 40 Million people died in WWII outrage Today, 40 million unborn babies killed silience

By Texas

December 2, 2004 07:31 AM | Link to this

Silience should be Silence

By Dave

December 2, 2004 08:21 AM | Link to this

Excellent points, Texas. (December 2, 2004 07:27 AM)

By AllaboutME

December 2, 2004 08:29 AM | Link to this

…as long as nobody seems on topic…can I play the silence game Texas?….The Bush administration’s combination of massive spending on the war and tax cuts for the wealthy means less money for social spending. The $151.1 billion expenditure for the war through this year could have paid for: close to 23 million housing vouchers; health care for over 27 million uninsured Americans; salaries for nearly 3 million elementary school teachers; 678,200 new fire engines; over 20 million Head Start slots for children; or health care coverage for 82 million children. Instead, the administration’s FY 2005 budget request proposes deep cuts in critical domestic programs and virtually freezes funding for domestic discretionary programs other than homeland security. Federal spending cuts will deepen the budget crises for local and state governments, which are expected to suffer a $6 billion shortfall in 2005….(silence) Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 364,000 reserve troops and National Guard soldiers have been called for military service, serving tours of duty that often last 20 months. Studies show that between 30 and 40 percent of reservists and National Guard members earn a lower salary when they leave civilian employment for military deployment. Army Emergency Relief has reported that requests from military families for food stamps and subsidized meals increased “several hundred percent” between 2002 and 2003….(silence) About 64 percent of the more than 5,000 U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq received wounds that prevented them from returning to duty. One trend has been an increase in amputees, the result of improved body armor that protects vital organs but not extremities. As in previous wars, many soldiers are likely to have received ailments that will not be detected for years to come. The Veterans Administration healthcare system is not prepared for the swelling number of claims. In May, the House of Representatives approved funding for FY 2005 that is $2.6 billion less than needed, according to veterans’ groups….(silence)

By Texas

December 2, 2004 08:32 AM | Link to this

Tim, I lived in a Muslim Country for four years. Most people are so poor they live in dirt floor huts, while the rich have marble mansions. I can go on about the conditions these people live in but I don’t want to go on for forever. It’s so easy for them to teach hate. They don’t have anything else. A promise of 17 virgins in heaven is a far cry from the no where life they live. Most of these people are just like us, and want opportunities to make a better life for themselves, but under their Islamic Rule that will never happen. In fact women are circumcised. In Most Muslim Countries Women are treated worse than animals. You say Muslim teachings are peaceful, but today in every part of this world Muslims are killing Christians. Sudan is a prime example. After 9/11 there was celebrations in the streets of most Muslim Countries. Celebrations! Where were the Muslims in America after 9/11. Did they come out in masses claiming how unjust the act of a few was. Silence. Peaceful? Doubtful! But the merits of Islam is not the issue here. The issue was that Dane stated Christians where no better than Muslims. Us Bible Thumpers where forcing our evil ways upon him. Shameful! I’ve been to Muslim countries, and these people don’t have a chance. In this great land of Christian America, Yesterday People in San Diego were celebrating their Homosexuality, try doing that in Iran, Indonesia, and any other Muslim Country. And lastly, defining the definition of marriage is in no way forcing any belief on you my friend. It is preserving a institution!

By Brian Curtis

December 2, 2004 08:47 AM | Link to this

quote: DID YOU KNOW? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, “Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.�

Texas… DID YOU KNOW? Americans don’t have rulers… something Mr. Above-the-Law Bush and his buddies seem to forget.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 08:47 AM | Link to this

Texas,

Yes, to a certain extent - those things are a part of what I was talking about. No doubt.

But what I was primarily talking another aspect of it. Take the examples you cited for instance. Anyone could have any opinion they wish on any of those events that you cited. People could agree with the claims that were made about those events - or they could disagree. Some folks could say that all the claims about any of those events were 100% factually correct - others could say they’re 100% factually incorrect. And anywhere in between.

And my point is, is that regardless of what opinion anyone has about any of those things - no one will be called a “Racist”, “Hate-Mongerer” or anything else of that nature simply because of their opinion. But you let anyone doubt anything about the Holocaust and they’re immediately accused of being: “Jew-Hater”, “Racist”, “Neo-Nazi”, on and on…

And if there is anyone on this board that doubts it - go back and look at the things that have been said about me. I couldn’t care less that they have said these things about me - I am just offering it as proof of what I am talking about.

By Texas

December 2, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme, I agree, but while you are at it, what about this:
$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian Canoe
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Total: $ 45,980,000

Total: $109,470,000

Total: $6,730,000

By Terry

December 2, 2004 09:01 AM | Link to this

Texas,

You forgot to add that that money could have been spent on: Health Care and Education.

I enjoy watching Liberals do that. Any expenditure that they don’t agree with, it should have automatically been spent on Health Care and Education. Never mind the fact that funding has absolutely nothing to do with any of the problems associated with either of those things!

By Tim

December 2, 2004 09:10 AM | Link to this

Terry… you talk about me just saying what I hear others saying on the left… well you are doing the EXACT same thing… saying the same things the right is saying… so don’t throw stones… and furthermore there actually are not too many people who would be willing to defend Muslims so I don’t see how you can say that I am just repeating what I heard… I am going off of experience (my own!) not what someone told me

Texas… I have never argued that there aren’t Muslims out killing people… My argument was the the true nature of Islam is very similar to that of Christianity… simply because SOME claiming to be of Islam take it to the total extreme does not mean that Islam in general is bad

and you still have not given me a good argument about some ‘Christians’ not imposing their beliefs… they voted for the amendment because ‘the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong’ that is imposing ones beliefs on another!

it was not because ‘Christians’ wanted to ‘protect the institution’… because if that were the case then they wouldn’t be against gays having civil union benefits… or better yet… if it were ‘to protect the institution’ then why don’t we bring back slavery or better yet legalize prostistution… those ‘institutions’ have been around a lot longer than our western view of marriage… it is because the ‘Christians’ that voted for the ammendment did so because of their religion… and that is imposing ones beliefs on another person

By AllaboutME

December 2, 2004 09:17 AM | Link to this

..which Muslim nation were you a guest in, Texas…just an FYI…and did you stay in luxurious accomodations or in the dirt floor homes…see in Mexico, Hati and throughout the americas & virgin island territories, you can find dirt poor people without resources and zero laws to help living in squatter fashion alongside mansions of wealthy…why, there are families in the usa who live in squallor so pitiful a dirt floor home would be a luxury… while I agree with you that female circumsision is dreadful & how can anyone support a government who continues to do massive trade in those same countries…i.e., trade for oil, gas, gold and other natural resorces…but our government turns a blind eye to countries in lieu of profit, cheap goods, and influence…if Hati had oil or any natural resource dont you think it would have received massive amounts of aid already…if Hati was a white nation…would their citizens be turned back enmass as refugees…they are christians…should natives in Brazil be cast out of their lands so drilling companies can strip mine jungle to mine gold, and natural resources…see if you need to find horror stories overseas you can…but horror stories are common in americas too… …finally preserving an institution…what kind of balderdash is that? The amendment was to recognize a group’s wedded unions as valid…but the vote proved most americans dont think gay relationships are as valid as the marriages they seek to get out of with more frequency than is admitted…hence this WtoW topic…

By Texas

December 2, 2004 09:18 AM | Link to this

Tim and Steven, Okay, lets change the law. Marriage is now acceptable for people of the same sex. Well hold on! What about the Mormons in Utah or anyone else for that matter who want more than one wife/husband. Myself personally, I think one’s more than enough but that’s another issue. Let’s move on, What about the girls who want to marry their Fathers? Incest! Or sons who want to marry their Mothers???? Its out there! What about some sickies who want to marry their goats? There are a lot more negative examples of changing the definition of marriage “one man one woman.” My company allows insurance benefits to same sex couples. Give me an example of a Gay imprisoned because he/she was forced to testify against their better half. (Forgive me for the lack of a better term). And it is always smarter to have a will in any case to avoid any complications from any outside force. Tax codes need to be changed and I’m all for the new 23 cents sales tax and eliminate the current Taxation laws. All for one, one for all.

By Tim

December 2, 2004 09:22 AM | Link to this

Texas… you stated earlier that some Christians don’t try to impose their beliefs on others… well I was just proving a point that that is simply not true

and Terry I don’t hear you calling Texas a parrot… sounded right out of the right wing text book to me… oh but you probably wouldn’t because he is on your side and you only do that people who have a differing view from yours

By Terry

December 2, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this

Tim,

Wake up. Take a look around - you might notice what is going on. There are not too many people who would defend Muslims?

Maybe you’re right. That’s if you don’t count everyone who prefaces their condemnation of Terrorists with: Not all Muslims are Terrorists, Islam is a peaceful religion

and…

If you don’t count all the people who were dead-set against denying Muslims the right to air travel after 9/11 because: That would be racial-profiling and infringing on the Rights of Muslims

and…

If you don’t count the endless apologies to Muslim-Americans over a handful of acts of violence towards them after 9/11.

It goes on and on with people bending over backwards to make sure they don’t offend Muslims, that they only say good things about Muslims, that they hail the Quoran as a sanctimonious work of love and peace - even though they’ve never read it!

And yet you say - hardly anyone defends Muslims?

“Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see” -John Lennon

By Texas

December 2, 2004 09:39 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme you are absolutely correct. You can look in the US and see people sleeping in cardboard boxes. Who’s to blame? People have been living in Cardboard boxes way before President Bush took office. Was it Clinton that caused their flight? Or is it all of us that need to except at least partially except the blame. Do you drive a Car? If so, aren’t you a part of the American devastation on the Americas. Do you eat? After all fuel is required to get food to the markets. We can go on and on about this. But let’s get back to topic, marriages, after reading some of these post, liberal Christians stepped up and stated that they where all for divorce (oh by the way, I recognize the necessity at times) but you and Diane seem to think it’s a conservative problem and not an American problem. FYI I lived in Indonesia for four years, and while I lived in a beautiful home, I did many many things to assisted as many people as I could

By Tim

December 2, 2004 09:45 AM | Link to this

Terry… all I can say is sorry that I ‘bend over backward’ to defend friends of mine who I love dearly who just so happen to be Muslim… I do that not because I am a ‘parrot’ as you like to say but because I know that the true believers of Islam are good people

I find it interesting that you do not challenge people defending Christianity… but goodness someone try to defend Jewish people or Muslims and you get all in a tissy… and you say you are not a religious person… well if you aren’t you sure have a strong biased to Christians

(goodness we have gotten extremely off topic)

By RANDY

December 2, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this

THE PROBLEM WITH MUSLIMS ARE THEY ARE MAINLY IN A POOR ECONOMY AND UNFORTUNATELY LISTEN TO LEADERS WHO USE ALLAH FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL GAINS. MANY ARE VERY NICE PEOPLE WHO ARE MISLEAD.

By AllaboutME

December 2, 2004 09:47 AM | Link to this

…tell me from that great list of yours TX, how many provisions were actually passed to be funded…certainly new playing cards for AFII and the subway…and lets add the congressional pay raises to the fray…see TX its not I cant agree with you on frivolity of government wasteful spending…but your willingness to assume the right is santioned by higher power assaults the basic core of my beliefs… so what do you think of the new spending bill coming out…you know the one where we pay home depot to import ceiling fans because they cant be made in america as cheaply as in china… I tend to heckle you….you seem to have read far more than the drones…its in good fun….please take it that way….

By becky

December 2, 2004 09:49 AM | Link to this

What a peaceful religion Islam is.

This is straight from the Quoran, why don’t you try reading it before you defend it.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Oh and by the way, how can you compare Christianity to Islam? The bible never says to kill unbelievers, it simple says spread the word of Christ (or as the nonbelievers call it “force the religion”). Please excuse us Christians, what horrible people we are.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

Tim,

Once again - you’ve missed the point.

By RANDY

December 2, 2004 09:51 AM | Link to this

RESPONDING TO NORMANS COMMENT, IF ANYONE STILL LISTENS TO HIM. EVERY CHRISTIAN I KNOW WOULD RUN FROM A CHURCH IF ANY OF THEIR PASTORS TRIED TO TELL THEM ANYTHING NOT IN THE BIBLE. WE ARE NOT BLIND AND DUMB, WE THINK VERY INDEPENDENTLY. MAYBE NORMAN IS LISTENENING TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA, WHICH HAS A AGENDA OF THEIR OWN.

By Tim

December 2, 2004 10:07 AM | Link to this

Terry… what point? that I am a parrot… I got that one… now when does Texas turn into a parrot? once he starts saying things you don’t agree with? just curious

Randy… I find myself agreeing with you again… kinda cool :)

Becky… i will not go through the entire Bible but one simple passage in Ecclesiasties the 3rd chapter speaks about a time to kill (Ecclesiastes 3:3)… now one shouldn’t one take this to mean that Christianity is not a peaceful religion… certainly not and if anyone said otherwise I would defend Christianity as well

By Texas

December 2, 2004 10:10 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme, I do not take it personally. And I too, enjoy your heckling. I am appalled about the new spending bill. Did you see Nancy’s pork causes. It is shameful on all sides left and right. All the spending in Alaska, wrong, wrong, wrong. Politicians should be removed from their golden fleece retirement plan and put on SS. Maybe then, something from both left and right would be accomplished. What about all the money wasted on the corrupt UN or the International Red Cross? I like you wish I could do as Jesus did in the markets on the Sabbath with the Tax collectors and smash their shameful spending on shameful causes. But you need to recognize the contributions from the Christian based charities. Christians of this great land do far more that any politician left or right. We can argue till the cows come home, basically we’re saying the same thing. I’m not blaming liberals or conservatives for the flight of the American marriages. I’m just saying it’s not just the conservatives, but all of us!

By Steven

December 2, 2004 10:15 AM | Link to this

Texas…even if all of the statements you made are true (and I’ll assume that they are) that does not mean that we are ‘governed’ by the 10 commandments. The quotes you provide are the opinions of individuals and our government is a democratic republic designed to protect minorities from the tryanny of the majority and vice versa. If one looks at the level of religious tolerance over the course of our country we are becoming LESS tolerant than our Founders. They experienced or had direct contact with people who experienced State sponsored religion and understood the potential detrimental effects thereof.

By Zack

December 2, 2004 10:26 AM | Link to this

In response to someone asking me how I could say opposing homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry, if you haven’t thought about it in your own time and discovered why, I’ll respond.

Homosexuality is a perverse lifestyle choice made by an individual. To stand against this lifestyle is in no way an act of bigorty but rather simply a show of your personal beliefs. Homosexuality is not the only sin out there, but apparently it’s the only sin where the liberal agenda tries to single you out as a bigot if you’re in opposition to it. (If you’re a bigot for opposing homosexuality, you’re also a bigot if you’re opposed to terrorism, arson, money-laundering, etc..)

I’m also tired of the myth that morality can’t be legislated. We have liberals doing all they can to legislate immorality, and we’re supposed to accept this as Constitutional? All our laws are supposed to be for the greater good and also for the good of the individual. Liberals don’t want this. They want abortion on demand, although it is injustifiable homicide (they can say it’s not murder, but there’s not an ounce of support for this statement and never will be). This is just one example.

Do not mention a woman’s right to vote in the same category as her legal right to an abortion. Women have every right to vote, but killing another human being is a totally separate issue. Let’s not try to combine the two.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 10:27 AM | Link to this

Tim,

Where have you seen Christians be-heading folks?

Where have you seen Christians stoning women to death because of adultery?

Where have you seen Christians strapping dynamite to themselves and killing all innocents around them?

Where have you seen Christians caning women for misstepping?

Where have you seen Christians teaching school children that Jews must be eradicated from the Earth?

Where have you seen Christians, where every place they inhabit in large numbers - there is widespread violence?

Where are there different Christian sects fighting against one another - Endless, never-ending?

My goodness, Tim! The violence of Islam continues to spread around the world, it has now been brought to our shores, and because you have a friend of yours who is a good person - you bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no difference between Christianity and Islam!

You can cite a Bible verse all day long - but I am talking about what is really going on out here - in the here and now…!

By Tim

December 2, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this

Terry

I never said Christians were doing that… nor did I ever say that people professing to be Muslim were not doing those (for lack of a better word) inhumane things… my point was the actual religion in its very essence is similar to Christianity… of course there are terrible people professing that they are fighting for Islam… but that doesn’t mean that actual Islamic religion is bad… it means those people are

the only reason I used Biblical text was to prove a point to Becky that the type of scripture she took out of The Koran could also be found in the Bible as well… I in no way shape or form believe that Christianity is bad, or violent of hateful… I am a Christian… was just proving a point

By Tim

December 2, 2004 10:46 AM | Link to this

also… simply because I believe that the actual religion of Islam is similar to Christianity in no way means that I am ‘burying my head in the sand’… where in the world did you get that?

By Brian Curtis

December 2, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this

quote from Randy: THE PROBLEM WITH MUSLIMS ARE THEY ARE MAINLY IN A POOR ECONOMY AND UNFORTUNATELY LISTEN TO LEADERS WHO USE ALLAH FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL GAINS. MANY ARE VERY NICE PEOPLE WHO ARE MISLEAD.

Hmm… Just change “Muslims and Allah” to “Christians and God” and you have a pretty solid description of what’s going on here in the U.S. too.

Zack: “Legislating immorality”? Interesting… how exactly does allowing people to make choices somehow force YOU to behave immorally? If you don’t want an abortion or a gay marriage, no one is forcing you to participate in either. As always, your problem is not that you’re being forced to do something—it’s that other people aren’t being forced to do what you prefer.

Moslem fundamentalists are indeed a danger to civilization… as, in fact, are ALL religious fundamentalists. To me, that was the major lesson of 9/11: the realization that religious fanatics (of whatever faith) are the enemy of all humanity.

By Steven

December 2, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this

“Homosexuality is a perverse lifestyle choice made by an individual. To stand against this lifestyle is in no way an act of bigorty but rather simply a show of your personal beliefs.”

People choose to believe that homosexuality is a choice, but ask any homosexual person (all the ones I know were raised by heterosexuals) and they’ll tell you they didn’t choose to be attracted to the same sex. Why can’t you believe them? They experienced the situation, but you haven’t. Can any heterosexual point out the time they sat down and decided which sex they are attracted to? The only choice when it comes to homosexuality is to be honest or to live a lie like the NJ Governor.

Also, can ANYONE point out, with a specific example, how the homosexuality of another person impacts your life any more than say the heterosexual couple who enjoys S&M or the person into bestiality impacts your life on a daily basis? If the Bible doesn’t condem homosexuality in the New Testament, and Jesus (whose sacrifice negated ALL the old Testament Laws) didn’t say anything about it, why is this ‘abomination’ still a sin, but eating shellfish (also called an abomination) no longer applies?

By Texas

December 2, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this

Steven, Introduction: On this day, 213 years ago, September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was ratified, and America was born. There are certain paragraphs of the Constitution that are important to Christians living in this nation: I. The Preamble is very important: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.� A. Our forefathers were seeking justice, peace and safety from war and tyrants, and the blessings of liberty. B. The word “blessings� is a word from the Bible, and it means the favor of God; grace, mercy and kindness from God. The Bible teaches us that every blessing comes from God Himself (James 1:17). C. America’s founding fathers depended on God for justice, peace and liberty. They prayed for God’s help at the First Constitutional Congress (The Rev. Duche, an Episcopal minister, led in prayer at the request of Congress.) Be Thou present O God of Wisdom, and direct the council of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundations; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored; and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish among the people. Preserve the health of their bodies, and the vigor of their minds; shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Saviour, Amen.

By Brian Curtis

December 2, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

And how did this turn into a flame war about gays again? The topic (for those who’ve forgotten) is divorce rates.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this

Tim,

Do you see what you are doing? You don’t deny any of the things that I cited, but then talk about the “essence” of the religion. The “essence” of Islam, is what Islam is - not what you want to pretend it is.

The essence of something is NOT what is in a book, NOT what an ideologoy or philosophical point claims it is. The essence of something is in the proof of what it is in reality. And what Islam is in reality - is a religion of widespread violence and oppression!

That’s the essence of Islam as it pertains to the real world - in the here and now!

By Brian Curtis

December 2, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this

Okay, we REALLY need a word-count limit on posts, otherwise we’ll be scrolling through Texas’s cut-and-paste parables every third message.

The issue’s divorce, remember? Divorce rates. Not the perfidy of Moslem fundamentalists; not the Christian origins of our nation; not gays and abortion. D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

By Shanie Scott

December 2, 2004 10:57 AM | Link to this

I think many involved in this conversation have sadly missed the point of the article. The point is that religion and politics/government should stay seperate, for the obvious reasons that have come from all of the comments made. This being that Americans have the religious freedom to believe whatever they believe. It was the conservative, and yes, President Bush that trotted out Jesus as a running mate. This is why the national debate over the “religious right” began. I was raised with religion, in a mormon home, yet I understand that we must, as the forefathers stated, keep religion seperate from state and government. I find it offensive that Jesus and what he represents has been used as a political tool for certain groups. Although I am christian, I am also aware that there are many that are not, I respect their beliefs, and understand that one is no better than another, just different.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 11:05 AM | Link to this

Shanie,

Except for one thing: The Fore-Fathers didn’t state that.

By Kool Kathy

December 2, 2004 11:07 AM | Link to this

Well, friends of the internet, here’s my two cents worth.

Forums—YOU may be right or wrong but no name calling, just discussion.

Religion—All have/had extremist movements. Muslims/Islam have Wahhabism. Christians had Crusades & Inquisition.

Divorce—Still legal, expensive and often detrimental but seldom affected by politics.

Christmas—Scrooges, don’t celebrate. Miss the joy.

America—We ‘re all here, fussing and fuming but would fight tooth’n’nail together against enemies.

Sunshine—here today and beaming away!!!

By Tim

December 2, 2004 11:09 AM | Link to this

Terry… there are more Muslims in the world NOT killing people than those that are… so in ESSENCE… Islam is a peaceful religion

I love how you first state that you are not a religious person… but will defend Christianity until you are blue in the face… but then get upset when people defned another religion

I am still waiting for you to call Texas a parrot :)

By Texas

December 2, 2004 11:10 AM | Link to this

Ouch Brian, Sorry Sometimes I do get long. I will do my best to stay short and simple. And I agree, we are way off topic. Every third message indeed!

By Tim

December 2, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this

Terry… sorry don’t know if you are actually ‘blue in the face’ from arguing… just one of those phrases I picked up from being a parrot

By mit

December 2, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this

terry, your christian questions answered. and you alreday know them all. go check out the date of muslim countries, they are 500 years behind us, so were the native americans when we came over.

remember this: spiritually (the belief of a higher being) good; religion starts wars.

By RS

December 2, 2004 11:19 AM | Link to this

Terry-The fact that I consider myself neither a true liberal or true conservative disproves your half-baked theory that I can’t think for myself. There are some issues in which I stand millions of light years to the left of John Kerry & others where I stand millions of light years to the right of Jerry Falwell. Randy, I actually agree with you re Muslims/Islam. As a Jewish person who’s very pro-Israel, I admit to a natural distrust of Islam, but the Muslims I’ve known have been just fine. In fact, I used to have a Muslim roomate who treated me like a queen & yes, he knew what I was & didn’t care. But the type of subhumans & their ilk who supported & orchestrated 911?? YUCHHHHHH!!!

By Lyrazel

December 2, 2004 11:33 AM | Link to this

Brian, after Tuesday seldom is the topic Shaunti & Diane lead with even mentioned. I raged once…did no good… Kool Kathy: its a glorious sunny day—thank you for shaking my tree in that direction…my dafodills are coming up…I am froth with worry on the impending doom of frost…

Be strong people and let your compassion guide your convictions…have fun.

By Texas

December 2, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this

Heck Brian, I can’t sit idle while Shanie states ” It was the conservative, and yes, President Bush that trotted out Jesus as a running mate.” Com’on that’s not fair. What election isn’t based on Morals? And what about the Johns exploiting Christopher Reed, Under the Johns people will get up and walk again. Talk about political tools!

By Terry

December 2, 2004 11:39 AM | Link to this

Mit,

beheading-french christians invented the guillotine(sp?) stoning- just fine according to your bible.

If we we’re living back in those times - we might be concerned. But since we’re living in the here and now - it’s irrelevant.

suicide bombers- not a christian trait, we prefer to send smallpox infested blankets.

Don’t have a clue what your talking about.

caning- asian form of punishment, doesn’t apply to religion.

And where are Chrisitians doing this?

jew eradication- KKK, very christian

Please let the viewers know how many Jews the KKK was responsible for killing. Also let us know how this was widespread; not only here - but all over the world. Let us know as well - where Jew eradication is being taught to our school children. And lastly, please confirm for us, that we, as decent people of the United States, did in fact, stand-up against the actions of the KKK; virtually all but destroy their organization; arrest those who were guilty of the crimes; try them; sentence them - and the Klan, for all intents and purposes - has been rendered powerless! And then show us the same actions taken by the people of Islam to do the same…? and 7.

Ireland (protestant vs. catholics)presently, historically, please i don’t have all day

You have named one instance of violence which was NOT Protestants vs. Catholics as a whole, but rather - Protestants and Catholics in one country.

By Marnie

December 2, 2004 11:57 AM | Link to this

Texas, who in the world is this Christopher Reed that you refer to?

By Texas

December 2, 2004 12:02 PM | Link to this

Marnie, Christopher Reed was Superman! Did I spell his name wrong?

By Terry

December 2, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this

How many folks out here are able to distinguish between a small child playing with matches who accidentally starts a fire - and one of a full grown adult who goes around intentionally starting fires.

Are they both lumped together as: Arsonists…?

I ask this question because it is apparent that some cannot distinguish between:

Christians who are against Gay Marriage - and Muslims who videotape be-headings.

Christians who are against Abortion - and Muslims who strap dynamite to themselves and kill innocent people.

Christians who want to place the Ten Commandments in buildings - and Muslims who stone women to death.

Christians who want prayer in school - and Muslims who teach death to Infidels in school.

Nope, let’s just lump them both together - and call them both: religious fanatics And since they’re both religious fanatics - there’s no difference between the two, right?

By David

December 2, 2004 12:07 PM | Link to this

What an exciting topic. Bottom line is that divorce is higher in the red states than the blues states. If the so-called marriage crusaders focused more on their own marriages instead of gay marriages, then the numbers might be lower.

As far as Shaunti’s rebuttal, it is flawed in several ways. First the minority argument. She picks Texas to back up her point, however, states such as Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Nevada rank in the top for divorce and have a greater percentage of whites than the US as a whole. Also, if age were a factor then teh older folks would already have been divorced. They too were young once.

Nice try

Setting the Record Straight 860 AM Tuesday’s 12:00

By Tim

December 2, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

Texas… his last name was Reeves (or Reeve)… no harm though… I knew who you were talking about

By Akeya

December 2, 2004 12:17 PM | Link to this

Actually, the KKK was pretty much defunct until “Birth of a Nation” came out. That movie renewed people’s hatred and fear…

By Amazed

December 2, 2004 12:49 PM | Link to this

No one can take prayer away from anyone, not even in school. You do not have to pray out loud and as a group. I thank God everyday. Stop complaining about muslim students leaving school early for their religious purpose. Our Christian activities coincide with everything that takes place in this country.

Some people need to take a hard look at themselves and their way of thinking. Everyone who complaines about the morals in this country, should follow the bible word for word. They would NOT wear jewelry, make-up, live in expensve houses, drive expensive cars, get divorce, allow women to wear pants….etc…..

As a christian, they should know that being humble is loving thy neighbor, taking care of the poor, giving to the needy, taking care of the sick and elderly. Live the way Jesus lived. Jesus wasn’t concerned about being taken advantaged of, just providing the advantage was the message.

Stop picking and choosing one sin over another. By this I mean…. if you don’t want gays to have the right to marry, then heterosexual should not be allowed to divorce. I will admit that as a christian, I totally believe that divorce is sometimes the best thing to end a bad union. We want to enforce one set of beliefs, but we turn a blind eye to our on short comings and believe me there are many.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

I personally work on taking the speck out of my eyes daily, I suggest some of the commentors in this forum do the same.

Amazed

By Randy

December 2, 2004 12:54 PM | Link to this

TIM, Thanks for agreeing with me. We both know that anyone who accepts JESUS as his lord and savior sincerely, will go to heaven. That’s the only requirement. I’ll see you there!

By Texas

December 2, 2004 12:55 PM | Link to this

Ooops! Yea, that’s right, Reeves. Thanks Tim and sorry Marnie for the mistake. David, your correct. Tenn. OK and NV have the highest divorce rates. Now tell me friend, In those states, 57% to 42%, 66% to 34% and 50% to 48% voted Red. The state as a whole is not Red. So, David, tell, of those people who voted red, how many of them stayed married? Oh you can’t. Well then, could it be that the data used is not inclusive for the argument your making. Could it be that the people causing the high divorce rate are Liberals. Let’s just say that the divorce rate in America is an American problem and we all need to look at it responsible. Not just a conservative problem as you and Diane are indicating!

By norman

December 2, 2004 01:07 PM | Link to this

Randy: if nitwits like you will be in heaven I am glad I’m not going there. Anyway, there ain’t no such place.

By Texas

December 2, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, where are you? How about a little help here!

By norman

December 2, 2004 01:15 PM | Link to this

Don’t call for that integrist Catholic nut, Boscoe. He should have been burned at the stake long ago.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

Amazed,

I’ve got the “plank” out of my eye. Let me tell you what I see:

Many people who cannot understand that you don’t have to be perfect - to take a stance on things.

Many people think that you have to be perfect - otherwise you cannot object to any other type of conduct. In a manner of logical reasoning, if society had to wait until everyone is living to perfection before we can object to any form of decadent behavior that society as a whole is opposed to - we can just throw in the towel and accept all forms of destructive behavior right now!

This convoluted reasoning is what leads people to believe that Gay Marriage has to be allowed - because heterosexual marriages aren’t perfect. It’s the type of reasoning that has been displayed out here today with posts comparing Christianity and Islam: Muslims aren’t perfect, but neither are Christians - so they’re both the same.

And perhaps it’s really not convoluted reasoning - because there’s no reasoning to it all!

By Tim

December 2, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

Terry… who ever said ‘Muslims aren’t perfect, but neither are Christians - so they’re both the same.’

I know I didn’t… what I said was that general Islamic beliefs (not those blowing up buildings) and general Christian beliefs are similar… has anyone stated that neither Muslims or Christians are perfect therefore they are both the same?

By Zack

December 2, 2004 01:35 PM | Link to this

RS—You say you think for yourself. I commend you for accepting the blame.

By Tim

December 2, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this

Furthermore… who gave the argument that gay marriage has to be allowed because heterosexual marriages aren’t perfect? much better reasons were given… the ‘convoluted reasoning’ you are acusing people of you simply made up in your head

By Terry

December 2, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this

Tim,

No they haven’t, Tim. No one has stated that verbatim. That was NOT a quote from anyone.

What is WAS, was a brief statement which reflects a compilation of many things that were stated, which when you add it all up - you could conclude that.

It’s called: Reaching a conclusion from the information that has been provided.

No, I was not quoting anyone. Thanks.

By AllaboutME

December 2, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this

…Texas, your decree that liberals who have higher divorce rates not conservative christians, where are your facts to back it up? liberals tend to be used as a scapegoat for every argument brought out and I would like to see your facts…as you so well know how to post them…

one of the problems Nevada has is the many people who flock to it for quickie marriages and divorces and their statistics commonly do not reflect residents of the state…

…could it be that many conservative christians tend to marry young before they are mature enough to understand the vows, at the encouragement of church elders who see divorce as prefered behavior, rather than having unmarried sexual relations…

if you compare marriage laws in georgia (red) and new york (blue) you find divorce is easier to attain in georgia…is georgia actually more liberal than NY?

…one very overlooked statistic I found was in states where no-fault was introduced…suicide rates for women went down…

By Tim

December 2, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this

Terry… I am impressed by your ‘convoluted reasoning’ because I don’t see how you can conclude that by what people have stated that ‘Christianity and Islam are similar because neither are perfect’… or that people believe ‘gay marriage should be legal because hetersexual marriages are not perfect’

I didn’t get either of those from ready this forum… thanks for the insight

By Amazed

December 2, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this

Terry, I made my point. No one is perfect! You are correct, you do not have to accept everything that is put before you. However, I have a verse from the bible for you.

Luke 6:20 - Blessings and Woes

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.”

There is a lot more to this verse, but I think I made my point.

I believe in marriage as the Bible states. However, this country has made marriage a business proposition, when it comes to tax deductions and property, etc…. So I completely understand why gays want to be married. Would conservative Christians consider giving up their tax deductions to save marriage? I would, but I am not married. We sell marriage like it is a product over the counter. It’s not something to be sold to accumulate wealth, it is suppose to be a religious union. Once you make that change, I can see our moral values change in a significant way. I am all for improving the morals in this country, especially when it comes to the way we see dollar signs.

Amazed

By Terry

December 2, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this

Tim,

This is what I stated:

This convoluted reasoning is what leads people to believe that Gay Marriage has to be allowed - because heterosexual marriages aren’t perfect.

Now, are you going to tell me that you have not heard people repeatedly state: How will Gay Marriage hurt marriage itself, marriage has already been degraded by heterosexuals themselves who are divorcing at about a 50% rate, so what difference will it make if Gays are allowed to marry - they can’t ruin it any more than it already is.

Have you not heard something to that effect repeated many, many times?

THAT is what I am referring to. It should have been obvious.

By Tim

December 2, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this

ready should be reading

sorry

By T. Simpkins

December 2, 2004 01:55 PM | Link to this

Actually, Texas, it’s Reeve.

By Tim

December 2, 2004 01:59 PM | Link to this

Terry… I still didn’t see anyone (directly or indirectly) show that they believe gay marriage should be allowed because heterosexual marriage is not perfect… or Christianity and Islam is the same because neither is perfect

If you did… then good for you… nice ‘convoluted reasoning’

By Scalia

December 2, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this

Zack, I think that people fornicating is immoral and having sex with anybody out there. But you don’t see a constitutional amendment banning sex before marriage. I don’t see people picking Friday and Saturday nights when you see people doing all sorts of immoral behavior in the streets. Nobody condemns the Jeremy Shockeys (who wrote in GQ that he wanted to do a hot Mom and her daughter, which is mentioned right up there with homosexuality.), you don’t see people making a constitutional amendment banning sex when a woman in having her monthly. That is mentioned in the bible, too, in the same chapter as homosexuality.

By Zack

December 2, 2004 02:11 PM | Link to this

Again, I ask why forum questions almost always are worded with a liberal slant? Well, the media itself is very liberal, so what do you expect? (Of course, when more objective news like FoxNews comes around, even to the point of being right-slanted, here come the liberal activists getting up in arms. Why, how dare someone counteract a liberal bias with a conservative bias? Never mind all the profanity, vulgarity, etc. on TV and in commercials; someone call the FCC on FoxNews immediately!!)

As far as heterosexual divorce being high, yes, it is. However, the answer to this problem is for people to return to seeking God’s will in whom they marry, not to ignore the problem and think allowing gay marriage is the answer.

America made it clear during this election that gay marriage is not wanted. Good. Speaking up works, always has, always will. Now it’s time to speak up against abortion because the potential for overturning Roe v. Wade is there, and it’s more substantial than Democrats would like for you to believe.

Let’s return to a more responsible America, where showing accountability for your actions is a forethought, not a foreign concept. Having sex, killing your baby, and then asking the world to tell you you did nothing wrong (as though the world’s the authority) is not the answer.

Heck, people can’t even show enough responsibility to use a cell phone in the right time and place nowadays. I don’t think these people are responsible enough to tell the majority how to live.

While typing, I noticed the recent question of whether or not it’s appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide. John Kerry’s statement that he wouldn’t do so was untrue. His worldview is his guide. America chose a man who at least realizes better than Kerry that the Bible is not something to run from when it comes to law. (Kerry was right that his personal faith wouldn’t come into play when you consider the fact that he didn’t win the election.)

By Amazed

December 2, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

If Roe v. Wade is overturned here is what I see happening:

If Roe v. Wade is overturned - be prepared to have your taxes increased, because social spending will increase as well. Rich people can afford to have kids. They only seek abortions because their bodies might not bounce back like rubber. My only concerned are for women who might die during the birthing process or women who are forced to have kids because they were raped by a jerk.

Amazed

By Texas

December 2, 2004 02:56 PM | Link to this

Whoa, hold on allaboutme, I didn’t say Liberals have a worse divorce record than conservatives. I said the data was inconclusive to obtain that information. I said you, Diane and a lot of these people posting are saying “conservatives need to answer honestly.” I’m saying that’s not fair and that it is an American problem not a left or right problem. I do however think that a cooling off period would not work. Usually people are already committing adultery before they divorce, waiting is not the answer. But I like the way your thinking. It shows your looking for solutions, and that’s what we need, NOT BLAME

By Jodi

December 2, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

I think that the biggest cause of divorce in our country is selfishness, pure and simple. I don’t mean that it’s selfish to want a divorce, but rather that a lot of times the parties are acting selfishly (i.e. clinging to drug addiction, adultery, domestic violence, or even something as simple as refusing to meet a partner’s emotional needs). If people thought more about their spouses and less about themselves, then I can guarantee that divorce rates would go down. Most of us would probably stay married to people who were considerate of our needs and thought of us before themselves, don’t you think?

By Randy

December 2, 2004 03:13 PM | Link to this

I agree with Jodi. I am married and if I have a problem with my wife, I must correct that problem. I do not give myself the option to quit or get a divorce. That attitude eliminates 50% of the chance of a divorce right there. I look at it as if I don’t have the right to go against Biblical principals. Who do these people think they are getting a divorce.

By Sage

December 2, 2004 03:16 PM | Link to this

For all you fundys from a liberal …

1 Corinthians 13:1–13

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 03:17 PM | Link to this

Amazed,

I want to apply your same logic to resolve the problem:

The welfare problem will not go up - if we just pass a law that allows people to kill welfare recipients like they do the babies. The poverty rate will not go up - the poor can just be killed like the babies. Everything you cited can be solved by killing someone or something.

Do you not realize that you are justifying the killing of babies - just other people will live more comfortably and to solve other potential problems? Do you realize how incredibly perverse that is?

By Texas

December 2, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this

Amazed, what on earth was happening before 1973. Were there mass suicides? Mass Divorce? Higher Poverty? Abandoned infants? Man I missed all that. Oh, by the way, rich people, IE OJ, Cullum Davis etc. etc. got away with murder, should we legalize murder because some rich people got away with it. And nobody is advocating ignoring the Health of the Mother or Rapes, those need to be addressed, but to put that into prospective it doesn’t account for .01% of the abortions committed in this country. Wasn’t people a little more cautious before 1973 and abstinence was indeed more prevalent. Didn’t schools and parents have more control before 1973. Killing isn’t the answer. Is it?

By Randy

December 2, 2004 03:22 PM | Link to this

Again amazed, it isn’t about us. The children deserve to live.

By Jodi

December 2, 2004 03:26 PM | Link to this

Randy—For me, it’s not a “who do these people think they are” kind of thing. It’s more of an introspection about what we all, as married people, can do to ensure that our marriages last. If I am selfish and make unrealistic demands of my husband or he makes unfair demands on me, it makes it difficult to have a fulfilling life together. However, if we do our best to build up one another, our chances of success increase. I’ve gotten this attitude not from the Bible but from working as a paralegal for a divorce attorney. I saw so many heartbroken people that it encouraged me to work extra hard to overcome any differences my hubby and I may have. We’re not perfect by any means, but we give it our best. There’s nothing inherently religious about that—just common sense, I guess.

By Steven

December 2, 2004 03:27 PM | Link to this

Texas…what is your point? By the way blessing is a word IN the Bible, not from the Bible. The Etymology of the word bless is Middle English, from Old English blEtsian, from blOd blood; from the use of blood in consecration. Since the etymology is English and the original texts of the Bible in ancient Hebrew and Greek the word blessing can not logically be FROM the Bible.

If your point is to attempt to bolster your position of being governed by the 10 Commandments you still haven’t proved the point by mention of the Bible or prayers. All that shows is that Founders were likely Protestant and STILL liberal enough to recognize that the dominant religion of the time or use of religion was not an appropriate guideline to form a government. The founders may have prayed their rear ends off, but The Constitution of the U.S. is a secular document.

One of the great mistakes of most people is to read a text written in another time solely from the perspective of the current times. One must read it in the context of the socio/economic/political/ and etymological point to arrive at the correct underlying message and then apply it to the current situation. Homosexuality in the Bible is a great example of this because the word itself wasn’t coined until approximately 1892 in a translation of Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis.” Since the Old Testament was written at least 3,000 years prior to the word being coined we know that the ‘homosexuality’ in the Bible is not what we understand it to be today.

By AllaboutME

December 2, 2004 03:31 PM | Link to this

…yes, it would be better to live without blaming others…but thats so un-american its scandalous…to even suggest it…………and I agree a cooling off period would actually hurt the homemakers more than homebreakers…their turmoil kept in limbo until court decides they can continue their life…and what happens when the courts are backed up….does daddy/mommy have to pay child support in this vague time of departing couples…does he/she also have to pay for mother to live as she/he is accustomed…if so then are pre-nups essential to marriage…and should marriage be more of a contract between people…rather than a faith/love declaration..should age be an issue…like no one under 18 can get married…without 2 years of study of historical emotionally neutering relationships…should only highschool graduates be allowed to get married…and should politician/columnists who put said laws into effect be subject to following the same laws equally so their children…should neutering and spaying of couples with children be manditory for parents who abandon children…what about enforced birth control for all non-married couples…

By Randy

December 2, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Jodi, To me if its not biblical, it has no support system. If I were not a Christian I probably would not be faithful to my wife. What would be the point. If your not a Christian do what you want to do. Take all you can take, if you feel you don’t have a creator to answer to. If you don’t follow Christ, to me there is no purpose or meaning to life, other than to take whatever you can and get away with it. Without Christ life is really meaningless when you get down to it.

By Texas

December 2, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

Sage, what kind of love is it to kill unborn babies. That’s a liberal issue. As a matter of fact, partial birth abortion was a liberal issue and indeed, Kerry voted against the ban. What kind of LOVE is that? What kind of love are you telling children today when you advocate promiscuity by saying any sexual behavior is okay and should be recognized as an acceptable and indeed change the laws to permit it? Does your love ignore wrong?

By Jodi

December 2, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

Randy—I appreciate your opinion but may I politely suggest that there are many people who are capable of acting in a moral fashion without necessarily having to believe in God or Jesus. Sometimes, it’s just about being a decent human being to someone you love. Why does being decent necessarily have to be linked to having a creator to answer to? If you’re in a candy shop, do you need to have the shopkeeper standing over you in order to not steal? Or maybe you just don’t steal because it’s not a nice thing to do and you wouldn’t like it if someone did it to you. I commend you for living your beliefs, but there are a lot of extremely moral people walking on this earth that don’t necessarily believe in Christ. I try to be good to my husband because it’s the right thing to do, not because I’m afraid of repurcussions if I don’t. And, so you don’t automatically discredit me, I also believe in Christ.

By Jodi

December 2, 2004 03:47 PM | Link to this

Randy—one more thing. I think it’s really sad for you that you wouldn’t be faithful to your wife if you weren’t a Christian. My husband is an atheist and has never stepped outside our marriage.

By Randy

December 2, 2004 03:57 PM | Link to this

Jodi, I have a problem with atheists, they really haven’t thought it through. The universe in the beginning didn’t just appear out of thin air(Physics) and the universe is not eternal(always been here) 2nd law of thermodynamics. So a creator does exist. Science doesn’t prove God exists, but it eliminates all other possibilities. Although a few people like your husband have not thought about it a length. You should be very proud of your husband for being faithful.

By Jodi

December 2, 2004 04:06 PM | Link to this

Randy—I don’t think that science eliminates the possibility of God at all. If anything, I think it enhances the possibility of God. I personally believe that there are laws of nature which God used to create this world, i.e. evolution, gravity, etc. I’ve never understood why it has to be one or the other—God or Science. To me they mesh quite well. As to being “proud” of my husband for not cheating on me, I would expect nothing less. I don’t cheat on him either. It’s what decent human beings do. I would never do that to someone I really care about.

By Buck

December 2, 2004 04:25 PM | Link to this

I’m glad someone finally got around to quoting from the sermon on the mount. Christianity, AS I SEE IT is about gaining eternal life from the giving and receiving the gift of love. It is about granting honor, respect, dinity and compassion to ALL peoples just like the Father. Many of the self confessed christians posting on this site obviously struggle with this concept daily. That is as it should be; attaining the divine is impossible, but it should nevertheless always be the goal.

This is a ridiculous topic to begin with. Neither Ms Glass or Ms Felldman prove anything except how completely incosequential rationalizations usually are. It hardly matters since this forum seems to always degenerate into some kind of cyber p** match about God, Gays and the flag.

The topic of a good forum for this group might be “Why do we keep trying to tear ourselves apart?” why do people who profess love seem so angry? How did we get to the point where we just refuse to listen to one another?

By E. Lewis

December 2, 2004 04:29 PM | Link to this

Hypocrisy. Living together without marriage is wrong, but marriage-and-divorce-and-marriage-and-divorce…..with children and stepchildren thrown in is morally acceptable.

Personally I don’t really approve of either situation, but then I don’t preach about the immorality of living in sin while supporting those who can seem to get married enough.

By Terry

December 2, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

And on and on it goes about Gay Marriage…

The issue of Gay Marriage is a simple one - society does not want it. Period. It has nothing to do with “equality” or “fairness” - society doesn’t want it.

The problem many folks have accepting this, is that they have been inundated with all this nonsense about “equality” and “fairness” - that they cannot think outside of that pardigm.

Society has created the institution of marriage. Society has determined that there is a minimum age for marriage. Society has determined the number of people that can constitute a marriage. And society has determined that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

Marriage was not created as an act of “fairness” to begin with. Society created marriage to serve a purpose that society has deemed beneficial to the society as a whole. “Fairness” has never had anything to do with it.

But because many people think the earth revolves around “fairness” - they automatically think that marriage must include Gays. If “fairness” had anything to do with who could marry who - Fathers and Daughters could marry, Mothers and Sons, 10 year old’s could marry and Grandpa could have 20 wives if he wanted!

If every tradition, value and moral is to be determined by what someone thinks is “fair” - we will have no traditions, values, or morals. We would live in a society where everything can mean anything and thus everything means nothing

In essence: We will no longer be a society, but rather a mass of humanity co-existing in the same geographical location at the same time with no sense of direction about anything!

In a word: Chaos.

By Jodi

December 2, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Buck—Very good points. I think people who profess love seem so angry because they are afraid. It’s a scary world out there for people who are either unwilling or unable to adapt to the realities of our world today. I believe that the Bible can provide some moral guidance to people, but only if it is taken with the spirit by which it was intended—meaning the symbolic rather than the literal. This is the same problem Islam is having with the Koran—there are things in this modern world not even contemplated at the time that was written (i.e. photographs, radio, technology, etc.) that Islam has trouble dealing with and therefore just bans outright. The main jist of the Bible (and Christianity) should be loving your neighbor and being as kind as you can be and not getting mired in the details. And, coming back to topic, that is exactly what is important to a good marriage—being kind to one another, regardless of belief.

By Amazed

December 2, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

Abortion/Gay Marriage/Divorce are all things that are choices that can be made by the individuals involved. We all have to live with our CHOICEs in life. The best way to increase the moral standards is to lead by example, with your family, friends, etc…. You can not make\pass laws to make others follow suite. The Bible has been interpeted by many, it can be used to justify just about anything. It was used to keep inter racial couples from getting married. It was used to justify slavery. It was used to keep women from holding certain positions. If more people used it to show love, compassion and understanding we would all benefit greatly.

Like I stated earlier, stop picking and choosing what you want to enforce and not living up to the full or even partial christian standards. It doesn’t mean that you have to ACCEPT what you may consider immoral practices, it just means that others do not have to live up to your standards.

I made the statements about what will happend if Roe v. Wade is overturned because of statements made by others in the past forums regarding welfare recipients, single parents, poor people, etc…… I’m not concerned about how tax dollars are spent, I would rather feed a hungry child, see poor people get medical services and the elderly get social security. Being responsible for your choices is the best thing, but sometimes having a choice to make is just as good. I like the bible story about the two ladies laying claim to the same baby. The true mother made the choice to let the other woman keep the child, to save the baby’s life. There was a choice to be made and she made the best choice for her at that time. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Forgiveness for our sins, is spoken highly of in the Bible.

Terry, you truly value lives as long as the lives are of your choosing. I would rather spend my time trying to keep unwanted pregnancies from occurring from the start, because that is where the sin honestly starts. Get on the front line, don’t fight from behind.

Amazed

By Steven

December 2, 2004 04:38 PM | Link to this

Jodi you make a great point about a creator and science not being mutually exclusive. As I recall even Einstein became more convinced of a creator the more he studied physics.

I believe that God is having the last laugh at all of our expense. God gave us the golden rule, then put us in an environment that is wildly differentiated, and He expects us to honor it. That my dear friends is God’s ultimate test for us. It’s easy to do unto others when they are exactly like you, but terribly difficult when they aren’t. God put gay people on the earth to test heterosexuals like Texas and Terry.

By Texas

December 2, 2004 05:01 PM | Link to this

A man spoke with the Lord about heaven and hell. The Lord said to the man “come, I will show you hell.” They entered a room where a group of hungry people sat around a huge pot of cooking stew. Everyone in the room was starving. Each person held a spoon that reached the pot but each spoon had a handle so much longer than their own arms that it could not be used to get the stew into their own mouths. The suffering was terrible. “Come now, I will show you heaven” the Lord said.

They entered a room identical to the first, the big pot of stew, the group of people and the same long-handled spoons. But here everyone was happy and well nourished. “I don’t understand” said the man. “Why is everyone happy here and miserable in the other room? Everything is the same.”

“Here, said the Lord, they have learned to SERVE each other.”

Addendum — Galatians 5:13-14 (NKJ) “For you brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love SERVE one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

By Kool Kathy

December 2, 2004 05:07 PM | Link to this

I guess it is easy for us to justify our own behavior but not others. That is harder. We all find it so. But forums do make us think. Terry & Texas aim for the truth as they see it. Quite clearly, too. Others do too and a few get carried away by “proselytizing”. But it makes the brain cells active and that is good. See you tomorrow, maybe?

By norman

December 3, 2004 07:01 AM | Link to this

These Christians are feeling their oats, Smug with those fraudulent votes, Armageddon is due They’re converting the Jew, We’d better take to our boats!

By norman

December 3, 2004 07:06 AM | Link to this

To Jesus spoke up an old Pharisee, “Your teaching is totally heresy, But those American rednecks In their trailer-park outbacks, Will send all their shekels to Galilee.”

By Terry

December 3, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this

Amazed,

I wouldn’t care to think of things in that manner. I would prefer that people have as much sex as they care to. They can have sex day and night - with as many partners as they choose. BUT, when you fool around and get pregnant, we’re not going to support you. It’s not our responsibility to look out for your welfare. You were free and independent to make your own choices before - and you’ll be free and independent to accept the responsibility for them now.

And no - you can’t kill the baby as a means of escaping the responsibility either. Just in case you were wondering.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 09:08 AM | Link to this

Texas: If you will read and comprehend what my statement said you will see that I made the comparison of Islam and Christianity in the sense that both religions consider themselves the only true religion. I made no other comparisons. I also only made the point that the other major world religions do not, and that the “thumping” of their sacred texts, i.e. the Bible and the Koran, as the indisputable Word of God is another similarity.

I lived in the U.A.E. for over a year, and in Muscat, Oman for another year, so I have an insight into Islam and Islamic culture, but those two nations are very prosperous, and the people tend to be more secular than in impoverished Muslim nations. I spent five months in Karachi, Pakistan, and in that poorer country the attitudes are completely different than in the oil-rich sultanates of the Arabian Penninsula.

My point, which was completely skimmed over, is that, for all their differences, Islam and Christianity have very important similarities, and chief among them is their evangelic nature: the desire to convert others.

Texas, you further state that our brothers are dying in Iraq. Yes, they are, but for what? Are they fighting to destroy Islam? No. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a religious war, though terrorists are trying very hard to make it one.

It’s truly amazing how a simple question about conservative divorce rates can fuel such debate that spreads out over such a wide spectrum. Conservatives use Christian morality as a means to condemn everything and everyone that they do not agree with. The topic of same-sex marriage is always attacked with “because the Bible says so” or some variant, and is invariably chucked into the same barrel as incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

Proselytizing from on-high is precisely what brings about the inevitable attacks on Christianity and Christians. I don’t understand why anyone should be surprised. My religious beliefs are just that: mine. I don’t expect everyone to believe as I do, and from that position I do not condemn anyone. I am very much a centrist in my politics and in my religious beliefs: live and let live.

Some just simply can’t do that.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this

Amazed,

One other thing I thought I would throw in:

The problem with many of you Leftists, is that you all too often think like children - when you shouldn’t. And don’t think like children - when you should!

Since we’re talking about sex, let’s use sex education in school as an example. Sex Education in schools - is a Leftist idea. In a Leftists way of thinking, the more children are taught about safe-sex - the better, right? Leftists teaching is that we don’t condone teenage sex, but if they are going to have sex - to practice safe-sex (condoms, etc.) Isn’t that about the way it goes.

The reality is however, the more that safe-sex is taught in schools - the more teenagers engage in sex.

Here’s why - and you have to think like kids do. Example: If you stress the importance to a child, of looking both ways before you cross the street, the child will learn the importance of looking both ways before they cross the street and will be far more likely to do so.

But, if you say to a child: “You should look both ways before crossing the street, but in case you don’t - run across the street as fast as you can so as to lessen the chances of being hit by a car” — children; because they are children - take it to mean that they have an: option

Adults would not see that as an option - because we don’t think like children (Leftists not withstanding).

The more you try and teach safe-sex to teenagers - the more they think that having sex is an option. The more they choose the wrong option - the more teenage pregnancies and STD.

You gotta think like children Leftists - when you’re supposed to think like children!

By AllaboutME

December 3, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

….why is it so many feel the need to publicly declare their faith and sermonize…is it just for the sake of showing off?…who are you supposed to impress…me? I have noticed the faith-in-your-face people all know great quotes to prove arguments biblically but if you ask for facts they are conveniently not provided…but more bible verse is… …how can a nation say it behaves like godly people when more is spent to build sports arenas than in housing orphans? more spent on building churches to show loyalty to god…than on the same church’s charities… who does charity anymore in this: lets cut all social services so we can own palacial houses decade…they like to say ‘stand by the presidents decisions for war in Iraq’…but who among you is willing to not buy that new plasma screen tv but donate that cash to veterans hospitals that are in desperate need of funding…youre not practicing scriptures you just quote…and quote…and quote…and quote…

By Tim

December 3, 2004 09:28 AM | Link to this

Terry… would you please enlighten me on the times I should think like a child and the times I should think like an adult since you are the all knowing expert on the subject

By Terry

December 3, 2004 09:40 AM | Link to this

Tim,

You’re acting like one now - and you shouldn’t. Glad to be of help.

By Tim

December 3, 2004 09:45 AM | Link to this

Terry… thanks for the help

By RS

December 3, 2004 09:57 AM | Link to this

Now here is a clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle black. Terry is forever going on about the likes of Tim & me “parroting’ what we hear as an alternative to thinking for ourselves. So what does he do? Turns around & declares gay marriage wrong because SOCIETY deems it wrong! “Fairness” doesn’t matter; after all, who CARES if laws are passed that are unjust to decent, tax-paying citizens who simply want the freedom to marry the person they love? As long as one slavishly follows the dictates of SOCIETY. Terry, how is it hurting you if Tim decides to marry his boyfriend? I mean, really, what business is it of the rest of us? How would you like it if someone told you you shouldn’t be allowed to marry your wife? Oh but you’re straight so you’re better & more important than homosexuals. Oh, I get it!

By Tim

December 3, 2004 10:00 AM | Link to this

RS… I am always ‘AMENing’ a lot of your posts… well here’s one more AMEN! :)

By Terry

December 3, 2004 10:03 AM | Link to this

RS,

It wouldn’t effect me - if Tim killed his boyfriend.

Adults in society don’t make decisions for the betterment of society as whole: Based on how something is going to effect each individual personally.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 10:14 AM | Link to this

In the not-so-distant past society felt it was acceptable to own slaves, and in the more recent past society felt that “separate but equal” was acceptable: segregation. Even into the ‘70’s and early 80’s interracial marriage was frowned upon by society, and in many ways it still is.

Society has a problem with the use of the term “marriage,” but on the average supports civil unions, which are de facto marriages in a court house.

I live in Kennesaw, but how is it that my marriage to my partner of five years hurts you in, say, Jonesborough? Does it weaken Martha and Herbert’s 40 year marriage in Dahlonega if two gay women are married in Mentone, AL after sharing their lives for 14 years?

Better yet, gays are being married in Massachusetts even as we sit here and type, but is it effecting anyone in Georgia? Is it? If it is, it is because you simply cannot accept that someone else is being happy and you have to step in and put a stop to it.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 11:03 AM | Link to this

Yes…a gay marriage in Massachusetts affects all of us in the United States for a couple reasons. The first has to do with a general degradation of society. Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. For the past FORTY YEARS homosexuals and Liberals have been trying to “prove” scientifically that homosexuality is a normal genetic trait, or in other words, God made them that way. There is not ONE SHRED of evidence that homosexuality is either genetic or normal.When we begin to accept the perverse as normal, it tears down the barriers that separate us from the hedonists. Democracy does NOT mean that “anything goes” as some on the left would have us to believe. Second, homosexuality is SIN. There is no history of long-term success for societies that have embraced homosexuality as normal. Every such society to this point has FAILED. I believe that failure has been a result of God’s judgement on those societies. We must not go down that road. Finally, there is NO pressing need to allow either gay marriage OR civil unions. People cite the “visit a partner in the hospital” argument all of the time, among others. These arguments for recognition of these unions is totally unnecessary, because the same goals could be attained through the use of a durable power of attorney. This is a legal document that gives that other person the right to make decisions concerning their “partner”, without any accompanying formal union. The ability of homosexuals to address the so-called reasons that they need civil unions and marriage has always been there and many of them use that legal method to garauntee the ability of their “partner” to do those things. That being said, it is obvious that these “reasons” are just a smokescreen being used by homosexuals to try to convince society that marriage/civil unions are necessary to protect their “rights”. It is nothing more than attempt to normalize their perverted behavior. Study after study has shown that the BEST way to raise children is in a home that includes both a father and a mother. We hurt our society as a whole when we say that ANY other means of raising children is fine. YES that means that we ought to seriously limit divorce among heterosexual couples in addition to blocking any attempt to legalize homosexual unions or marriages. Finally, a recent study showed that in spite of the AIDS and other STD epidemics sweeping this country, promiscuity is still rampant among both heterosexuals AND homosexuals. Our society is headed for trouble if these trends continue. Our whole way of life is at stake.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 11:04 AM | Link to this

Yes…a gay marriage in Massachusetts affects all of us in the United States for a couple reasons. The first has to do with a general degradation of society. Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. For the past FORTY YEARS homosexuals and Liberals have been trying to “prove” scientifically that homosexuality is a normal genetic trait, or in other words, God made them that way. There is not ONE SHRED of evidence that homosexuality is either genetic or normal.When we begin to accept the perverse as normal, it tears down the barriers that separate us from the hedonists. Democracy does NOT mean that “anything goes” as some on the left would have us to believe. Second, homosexuality is SIN. There is no history of long-term success for societies that have embraced homosexuality as normal. Every such society to this point has FAILED. I believe that failure has been a result of God’s judgement on those societies. We must not go down that road. Finally, there is NO pressing need to allow either gay marriage OR civil unions. People cite the “visit a partner in the hospital” argument all of the time, among others. These arguments for recognition of these unions is totally unnecessary, because the same goals could be attained through the use of a durable power of attorney. This is a legal document that gives that other person the right to make decisions concerning their “partner”, without any accompanying formal union. The ability of homosexuals to address the so-called reasons that they need civil unions and marriage has always been there and many of them use that legal method to garauntee the ability of their “partner” to do those things. That being said, it is obvious that these “reasons” are just a smokescreen being used by homosexuals to try to convince society that marriage/civil unions are necessary to protect their “rights”. It is nothing more than attempt to normalize their perverted behavior. Study after study has shown that the BEST way to raise children is in a home that includes both a father and a mother. We hurt our society as a whole when we say that ANY other means of raising children is fine. YES that means that we ought to seriously limit divorce among heterosexual couples in addition to blocking any attempt to legalize homosexual unions or marriages. Finally, a recent study showed that in spite of the AIDS and other STD epidemics sweeping this country, promiscuity is still rampant among both heterosexuals AND homosexuals. Our society is headed for trouble if these trends continue. Our whole way of life is at stake.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 11:04 AM | Link to this

Yes…a gay marriage in Massachusetts affects all of us in the United States for a couple reasons. The first has to do with a general degradation of society. Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. For the past FORTY YEARS homosexuals and Liberals have been trying to “prove” scientifically that homosexuality is a normal genetic trait, or in other words, God made them that way. There is not ONE SHRED of evidence that homosexuality is either genetic or normal.When we begin to accept the perverse as normal, it tears down the barriers that separate us from the hedonists. Democracy does NOT mean that “anything goes” as some on the left would have us to believe. Second, homosexuality is SIN. There is no history of long-term success for societies that have embraced homosexuality as normal. Every such society to this point has FAILED. I believe that failure has been a result of God’s judgement on those societies. We must not go down that road. Finally, there is NO pressing need to allow either gay marriage OR civil unions. People cite the “visit a partner in the hospital” argument all of the time, among others. These arguments for recognition of these unions is totally unnecessary, because the same goals could be attained through the use of a durable power of attorney. This is a legal document that gives that other person the right to make decisions concerning their “partner”, without any accompanying formal union. The ability of homosexuals to address the so-called reasons that they need civil unions and marriage has always been there and many of them use that legal method to garauntee the ability of their “partner” to do those things. That being said, it is obvious that these “reasons” are just a smokescreen being used by homosexuals to try to convince society that marriage/civil unions are necessary to protect their “rights”. It is nothing more than attempt to normalize their perverted behavior. Study after study has shown that the BEST way to raise children is in a home that includes both a father and a mother. We hurt our society as a whole when we say that ANY other means of raising children is fine. YES that means that we ought to seriously limit divorce among heterosexual couples in addition to blocking any attempt to legalize homosexual unions or marriages. Finally, a recent study showed that in spite of the AIDS and other STD epidemics sweeping this country, promiscuity is still rampant among both heterosexuals AND homosexuals. Our society is headed for trouble if these trends continue. Our whole way of life is at stake.

By Zack

December 3, 2004 11:19 AM | Link to this

Ever notice (and I’m sure you all have) how disagreeing with a liberal allegedly makes you someone filled with hate? Yep, you’re a bigot if you oppose anything concerning homosexuality, a woman-hater if you oppose abortion, and a hater of free speech if you oppose pornography.

My, what a messed-up set of statements. I forgot one (of many more): You’re also allegedly a hater of people of other religions if you dare to say that Jesus is the only Way to Heaven, even though is in the Bible and even though the God-given faculties of reason and wisdom support this 100%. (Don’t think so? Seek out the truth and then see if you still disagree.)

I’m tired of all the hatred being dished out from non-Christians to Christians on a daily and even constant basis, especially combined with the myth that you’re full of hatred if you dare to disagree with these people.

I’m tired also of the myth that you’re narrow-minded if you disagree with the liberal agenda. Liberals generally are so broad-minded that they’ll accept anything as long as it’s non-Christian. (THIS, by the way, is a trick of the devil. The devil endorses everything except for what will result in salvation.) Honestly, this is a Christian country, our laws were originally Christian, and only when we moved away from this and embraced the myth of relativism have we found our foundation as weak as quicksand.

Ever notice also how people don’t want to give God glory but sure turn to Him first for blame? People disregard God all the time, but as soon as 9/11 comes around, people blame God. They disregard the fact that we’ve disregarded him to the point of ignoring Him in our schools, our courtrooms, and even our churches, and then they wonder why we seem to have lost His protection. (Homeland security is not the answer. Returning to God’s protection is.) We’ve heard “God bless America” left and right since then from a lot of people. Unfortunately, we’re still turning our back on the Bible and trying to change God into our own image, one where He tolerates wrongdoings and keeps right on appeasing us anyway and allows us into Heaven no matter which road we take in life. This is not God.

There’s a lot of talk about love and hatred in this society. The problem here is that tons of citizens out there don’t know the definition of either. Love is not the aforementioned tolerance of wrongdoings, and hatred is not the acceptance of them, which, quite honestly, the liberal agenda would love fur us all to believe.

Thank you, Shaunti, for your typical sensible post.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 11:28 AM | Link to this

Dane,

Society changed it’s mind on all those things - and may very well do so with Gay Marriage at some later point. But right now - society does not want it.

The fact that Gays are married in Massachusetts - have no impact on us here in Georgia. But, what will have an impact, is if an activist court deems Georgia’s laws: Unconstitutional. That will have an impact and is the reasoning behind the Constitutional Amendment.

Me personally - I don’t think that Gays will destroy marriage if same-sex marriage is allowed. Heterosexuals will. But folks would have to think outside of the box to understand why that is.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 11:36 AM | Link to this

Zack,

The reason that Liberals place those labels on you (hate, racist, etc) is because they cannot debate the issues with you. Liberalism is void of any logic or reason; it is nothing but emotion - that is designed to make them feel good about themselves.

And as their debate is void of any logic or reason to counter your argument - they simply accuse you of being (fill in the blank) when you disagree with them. They have nothing else to counter with.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 11:39 AM | Link to this

sigh My point has been proven once again.

Do you get out much, Chuck? I work on campus at a large university in metro Atlanta, where I also attend class. I listen to, know, and observe how the students on campus behave. I know that the guys are always talking about what they did with their girlfriends, and which girl gives the best “b.j’s” and which girl looks hot, and on and on. All I have to do is sit in the student union with my laptop and work on my papers, (while posting on this message board)and listen to those around me. It isn’t just the guys, it’s the girls talking about their boyfriends in the same manner. I also work part time at a restaurant to help pay my way through graduate school, and I work with kids anywhere from 16 to 22 and am amazed at just how much sex they’re having.

I’m 34 and am considered an “old timer” by these kids, and they know I’m gay and are really cool with it, and it’s me cautioning them to be careful. Yet I’m the one in a stable relationship, I’m the one who doesn’t sleep around. I’m the one who’s an “old married” guy, and yet it is because I am gay I am contributing to the degradation of society?

One of the girls I work with is trying to get on at Hooters, so she’s trying to lose weight and says she wishes she could get breast implants. One of the younger guys I work with, a young Hispanic in his senior year of high school, has just discovered his girlfriend who’s in the 10th grade is pregnant. Somehow keeping me from marrying my partner will stop all this?

Go ahead, blame gays for the so-called unravelling of society. Yes, I am sure my partner who’s been working at his job for 11 years, myself a teacher working on a master’s degree and working part time at a local eatery to help pay for our mortgaged house and two SUV’s are really sinful and deplorable people. The kids are just being kids, I imagine. Well, at least they’re straight, right?

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 11:53 AM | Link to this

Terry, you state that if liberals disagree with conservatives then they accuse conservatives of being something or another. When conservatives disagree with what liberals are saying, they accuse liberals of being against God. Conservatives do not have a direct phone line to God, nor do they know his/her mind. Jesus himself was most harsh to the Pharasees who claimed to be holy and yet were filled with hatred, contempt, and self-righteousness. He did not like those who prayed in public just to be seen as righteous. He wanted people to pray in private and with sincerity. Just claiming to be a Christian and then bashing everyone who disagrees with your “brand” of Christianity does not make one a true Christian. Loving your neighbor and striving to be kind to everyone does.

By Zack

December 3, 2004 11:54 AM | Link to this

Terry—exactly

By Zack

December 3, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

Dane—Did it ever occur to you that “live and let live” is a vague phrase tossed around without any deep thought? If we live and let live now, we’re living and letting liberals kill babies, for one. We’re not supposed to sit back and tolerate this.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 12:06 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

That is not correct. Religious people may accuse people of being out of line with God - but not Conservatives as a whole. And when you see religious folks who do that - it is generally done when debating topics that directly involve religion. And in addition to that, stating that someone is out of line with God is not as drastic as accusatory insults like: “Racist”, “Jew-Hater”, on and on…

Liberals will make those accusations as commonly as ordering food at a Drive-Thru!

By Dane

December 3, 2004 12:13 PM | Link to this

Zack, I honestly agree with you when it comes to abortion. And my “live and let live” statement comes from you live your life, be that married with 2.5 kids, soccer practice, two mortgages, a minivan, a German sport sedan, a golden Lab, church on Sundays and a 45 minute commute to the office down I-75, while I will live my life with my partner, our two mortgages, drum & bugle corps rehearsal on Saturdays,a Chevy Blazer and a Dodge Durango, two beagles, church on Sundays and a 45 minute commute UP I-75.

Our lives aren’t so different, but it seems that some people just will go out of their way to tell me that MY life is wrong. I don’t understand that, and I am not criticizing anyone or anyone’s religious beliefs. I never have.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 12:19 PM | Link to this

Terry—You’re right about one thing—not all conservatives are religious. Not all liberals are atheist God-hating, society wrecking, hedonistic people, either. We are all living in a world now which has changed more in the past 30 years than it has probably in the last several hundred. People are afraid, angry, and uncertain. Conservatives are afraid that their traditional values are being undermined and liberals are afraid that the world is becoming increasingly intolerant and hateful. If all of us were a little less afraid, I think we could tackle some of the challenging issues facing us. No one wants to see the divorce rate rise but they are. I personally feel that we should make it harder to get married (i.e. requiring counseling, classes, etc.) and easier to get divorced. The reason I think it should be easier to get divorced is that, as I’ve mentioned earlier, I worked for a divorce attorney for 3 years. Once people have gotten to the point that they want a divorce, it’s usually pretty much over between them. It is really painful for both parties and their children when the divorce is long and drawn out. I’ve seen cases that take a couple of years to finish (sometimes the divorce takes longer than the marriage lasted!). I think if we were really required to think long and hard before marrying in the first place, it would really help things.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

I would just like to make one comment quickly about gay marriage. People seem to think that if you’re gay somehow sex dominates your life. I would like to suggest that it’s just a small portion of who a person is. I mean, Terry, is your sexual orientation your only quality? As Dane put it quite well, there are WAY more similarities between gay people and straight people than there are differences. How would you feel, Terry, in Dane’s shoes?

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

Excellent post, Jodi!

Your statement about fear is dead-on.

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this

Terry- That was the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!

The issue is that teenagers ARE HAVING SEX. You can preach and teach abstinence, but only a portion of the teenagers will abide by those teachings.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 12:30 PM | Link to this

Dane, If you read my post you would have noticed that I said that promiscuity was rampant among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I condemn promiscuity among heteros. I don’t know whether or not you are deplorable, but based on your own statement, you are sinful. Homosexuality IS A SIN. The Bible condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms. That does NOT mean that I therefore hate you OR want you dead. My point is that your lifestyle is a choice that contradicts nature AND God’s laws. I, as a Christian, cannot and will not approve of your lifestyle, though I would never advocate that you be persecuted for it. That said, though my desire would be that you repent and turn to Christ, I would not presume to make that choice for you. Contrary to what many say on this board, those of us who hold the position against homosexuality are not espousing “our own brand of Christianity”. We are espousing God’s brand of Christianity. One only has to look in His Word to see what His position on the subject is. It is NOT a matter of interpretation. The meaning throughout scripture is clear. Those who claim to follow Christ, but deny the truth of scripture are like a rudderless ship, without direction, tossed by every societal whim or wind of change. The Bible says that the Word NEVER changes. The biggest problem with the left is their denial of the existence of Moral Absolutes. As for your “degradation of society”, It doesn’t matter how responsible you are or how committed you are to this illicit relationship. My position is that allowing such relationships to appear to be normal by codifying their existence is what would degrade society. Frankly, it’s not what you do or don’t do that degrades society. Rather, it is society’s response to the QUESTION of making such activities legitimate that will determine whether or not society is degraded. Jodi, you are correct in one sense…conservatives DO NOT have a direct line to God, but Christians do.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 12:31 PM | Link to this

Um, I didn’t write that post agreeing with myself.

By norman

December 3, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this

Woe ye scribes and pharisees, woe.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 12:38 PM | Link to this

Jodi, sorry, that was me agreeing with you, I just typed your name in the “name” box by accident!

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 12:39 PM | Link to this

Wow, Chuck. The Word of God may never change, but are you aware of how many times the Bible has been “edited” by someone or another to fit with their interpretation? It was a book written by men with considerable changes made throughout history to fit the needs of those in power. And, as a Christian, I don’t think that Christians have a direct line to God any more than anyone else who believes in God. We can all pray if we want to and receive guidance. Also, which “Christians” do you refer to? Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, those who aren’t affiliated with any church…? I do want to say, however, that I understand your point about disagreeing with homosexuality doesn’t mean you want to harm those who are not straight. Very valid and good point. It doesn’t do much good to say you’re Christian and then spew hate.

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 12:39 PM | Link to this

You want degradation of society?

Ask Brittany Spears how she rose to fame after dressing up like a school girl? Since when were little girls sexy? Don’t you think it’s a little sick that grown men drool over 18 year old girls that dress like 10 year old school students?

By chuck

December 3, 2004 12:40 PM | Link to this

Jodi, No doubt it should be harder to get married, BUT the ONLY legitimate reasons for divorce are adultery and abuse. The Bible only allows remarriage for those who have divorced because of adultery.

By Tim

December 3, 2004 12:48 PM | Link to this

Chuck you are wrong… you HAVE INTERPRETED the Bible to state that homosexuality is a sin… during earlier discusions Texas and I have gone back and forth on this… like Jodi said… the Bible has been changed throughout history… including the so-called references to homosexuality

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 12:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck—That is what I’m talking about with the Bible. The Bible was written a long time ago, when women had to put up with all sorts of abuse because divorce was not acceptable to the societies existing when the Bible was written. I seriously do not think God would hold it against someone who remarries a wonderful person after being abused for years by a spouse. Nowdays, women are much more independent and have the resources to leave and start over if they need to. One other thing—although many people in this country have a traditional Christian heritage, our laws don’t mirror the Bible (thank heavens—stoning, anyone?). The Bible, I believe, is not meant to be literal but rather a guideline and parable.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 12:50 PM | Link to this

Is there anyone else who can read Chuck’s posting and feel the love and warmth just oozing through your computer screens?

Illicit?

Chuck, buddy, I neither want nor desire your approval. It is from people like you that Christianity provokes the attacks it gets.

By Tim

December 3, 2004 12:52 PM | Link to this

AMEN Dane!

By chuck

December 3, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

Jodi, Anyone CAN “pray”, but the only prayer from a non-believer that God listens to is one of REPENTENCE and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. As for your misinformed statement about the “editing” of the Bible to meet the goals of those in power, that is simply not true. There have been a few “versions” of the Bible. That is NOT what I am talking about. Most of the major TRANSLATIONS of the Bible are true to the original text (KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.). They are NOT interpretations, they are TRANSLATIOS. There is a huge difference between the two. As for “which Christians” I am talking about that have a direct line to God, there is only ONE brand of Christian…those who have accepted Christ as Savior and Lord. It doesn’t matter which denomination of the Christian Church they belong to, though some churches are truer to the scripture than others. What matters is whether or not someone has entered into a personal relationship with Christ. Those who have done so have the Ear of God. As for “believing in God”. The Devil himself believes in God but he won’t be spending eternity in Heaven. It is not enough to believe in God. One MUST have a very specific relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. Akeya, As usual you have added NOTHING to this discussion.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 01:05 PM | Link to this

Tim, thank you brother.

My syntax was a little skewed, what I meant to say was that comments from those like Chuck are what provoke people to attack Christians and conservatives. There is nothing love-filled or inclusive in his posting where he outright called my relationship illicit. And how kind of you, Chuck, to not call for my persecution, although I don’t know what referring to someone’s loving and committed relationship as “sinful” and “illicit” is, if not persecution.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 01:11 PM | Link to this

You know what Jodi? It doesn’t much matter what YOU or I THINK. What matters is what God SAYS in His Word. You can choose to accept His word or not. You have free will just like Dane has free will to participate in his homosexual relationship. There ARE moral absolutes that DO NOT change. God isn’t going to change based on what society believes is OK. God is perfect and His Word is perfect. If God changes, well that would mean that he is not eternally perfect. By definition that would disqualify Him from being God. Don’t trust the wisdom of man. That’s the path to distruction. Trust God.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 01:13 PM | Link to this

Any time a translation is made, the translator inserts his or her own interpretation. Sometimes it’s intentional, sometimes it’s just a matter of word choice. It’s like the game “Gossip.” People try to repeat exactly what they heard but make mistakes anyway and the end result is something completely different than the original statement. I think it’s sad that you feel God doesn’t listen to all prayers. Your interpretation of God is one that’s pretty scary and harsh. I prefer to think of God as a loving being who really knows me, knows my fears and hopes, and loves me despite my shortcomings. What about all of the really good and kind people in this world who have never even met, let alone heard of, Christianity? Do you really think God would punish them for something beyond their control? Boy we’re way off topic here!

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

I’m not saying God changes. It’s the people interpreting him or her that do.

By Tim

December 3, 2004 01:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck… I am just glad that you aren’t God… I am glad that God can see my heart… don’t be surprised when you see me in heaven and other homosexuals for that matter

p.s. I will be the well dressed one

By Terry

December 3, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

The reason that those divorces you speak of, can be long and drawn out - is that the laws were designed specifically for that purpose.

The current divorce laws were created by lawyers and politicans; most being one in the same, for the purpose of making money. They have specifically designed the entire procedure so as to ‘boost their busisness’ - so to speak. The have created an environment whereby the act of obtaining an attorney and “taking him for all he’s got” - has become a financial winner for women. That is why, in the vast majority of cases (not all) that women are the primary benefactor of the court’s ruling: It keeps the women coming in! If the divorce laws were a simple procedure whereby all the court’s decisions were based on what is fair and equitable - the attorneys would be out of business! Very, very few people would run and grab an attorney, pay him a few thousand dollars - only to have the court render a fair and equitable settlement to both parties. If fair settlements were the norm, the divorcing parties would simply agree on that which they know the court is going to decide anyway - and go to a para-legal (or whatever they’re called), have the papers drafted-up, pay a few bucks and be on their way.

Lawyers will never let that happen. So, they’re going to ensure that the divorce laws remain as they are (heavily favoring women) so that they keep the business coming in. And oh yeah, before I forget - they’ll keep lying to us about how it is all needed; especially for the children. We’ll keep believing it - and they’ll keep going to the bank!

By chuck

December 3, 2004 01:24 PM | Link to this

Jodi, The Bible teaches that apart from Christ there ARE NO good people. “There is none that is good, no not one”. Again, how you prefer to see God doesn’t matter.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 01:24 PM | Link to this

I think that Akeya added a lot to the discussion. Her observation is correct.

I think a lot of faithful are going to be very surprised when they get to Heaven (if they get to heaven!) and find that there will be a lot more gays there doing hair, decorating the mansions, arranging flowers, and conducting the Heavenly Choirs. Who do you think came up with the idea of Pearly Gates? You know some big ol’ queen was helping the Father design the layout of Heaven way back in the Beginning. And those off-the-shoulder robes, honey! You know Gianni Versace is up there having a blast!

I write that with some humor because there is none when it comes to religion. God has a sense of humor, and He loves a great variety, that’s why there are different races, and why there are gay people. The great artists and musicians, poets, and writers have been largely gay throughout history, though dour conservatives would like to believe otherwise.

No one has a monopoly on God, and everyone has a direct line to Him, all you have to do is pray. I lead a very blessed life, I have everything I could want, including love. I have a great family, caring friends, an education, and an excellent job with prospects of an even better job once my Masters’s Degree is completed. And yes, this big homo goes to a church where he and his partner and several other gay couples are welcomed in Christ’s love. There are different “brands,” those that truly follow Christ’s teachings about love, forgiveness, and inclusion at the Father’s table, and those that preach hate, derision, condemnation, and exclusion.

Regardless of what you call me, my relationship, or others like me, I will still love you, Chuck, because I’m that much of a man. I served ten years in the Marines to defend your right to condemn me, and would do it all over again.

By Checkinsometimes

December 3, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this

hey Chuck,

I just talked to God myself and he told me you were an idiot. By the way, there’s no historical evidence that proves that such a man Jesus Christ ever even existed. By the way, God also told me that being gay is ok…your direct line to him must be disconnected. Karl Marx was so right.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 01:30 PM | Link to this

I beg to differ. Having seen hundreds of divorces, believe me, the men do quite well for themselves in the settlement process. A lot of times (there are always exceptions, of course) the man ends up with a lot more money than the woman because he hides assets, has more access to the bills, finances, etc. and because a lot of women get intimidated by their husbands into taking less than is rightfully theirs. Having said that, there are a lot of women, too who act disgracefully in divorce. As far as attorneys go, most of the ones I know want to settle the divorce as soon as possible and VERY STRONGLY encourage their clients to act in a reasonable manner. It’s most often the clients that drag out the process by their unwillingness to work together. That is why attorneys are needed—to try to come up with a solution to the impasse. Trust me, when I was doing family law, our favorite clients were those who were fair and cooperative with their spouses. We loved the “uncontested” ones! If you have a problem with how divorces proceed, you ought to take it up with the legislature of whatever state you’re in—they are the ones that set the guidelines about who is entitled to what.

By Disgusted

December 3, 2004 01:34 PM | Link to this

Terry, among many others, are yet just classic examples of people who are basically full of hot air, and obviously have nothing else better to do with their time than to sit in front of a computer all day, with their holier-than-thou ramblings at anyone who does not agree with them. The same holds true with anyone leaning so far to the “left” that they all but jump up & down about saving some spotted owl or tying up the courts with ridiculous suits for recounts, etc. etc. Yes I know, nice WIDE generalizations for all of you. Fact of the matter is, we’re all a bunch of mealy-mouthed hypocrites. Everyone, no matter if they’re “left” or “right” or “religious” or “atheist” or what the hell ever, wants to butt their stupid little noses into everyone else’s lives and naturally assume how other people should live.

Wouldn’t it stand to reason that we should mind our own damn business? WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE’S MARRIAGE??? Worry about your own. WHO CARES IF TWO FRUITS WANT TO MARRY?? Find something else WORTHY of your time to become concerned with. WHO CARES IF SOME RELIGIOUS ZEALOT IS SCREAMING ABOUT HOW “GOD FEARING” THEY ARE?? Ignore them, most truly intelligent and spiritual people do anyway.

We humans, quite frankly, suck. I think it’s sad that in the time we spend arguing with each other ON SOME RIDICULOUS INTERNET FORUM, could be spent with someone who is special to us, LIKE our spouse, our kids, our friends, maybe even take the time out to.. gasp do a little volunteer work and give back to the community, maybe do something positive for someone who is less fortunate than we are. But no. We’re too concerned with being CORRECT and RIGHT. Hence this forum.

We need to get a life, all of us. I, for one, am going to enjoy the rest of this beautiful day that I’ve been given, and not even bother to look back at all the petty and judgmental squabblings on this lame board. I would say “perhaps Terry/Chuck, you should do the same”, but honestly, I could care less what you do with your sad lives. I’m finally exercising my statement of “minding my own life and business and keeping out of other folks”.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

Chuck—you didn’t answer my question about those who have never even had the chance to hear about Christ. Do you think God would punish them for this?

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

The Bible also says love one another as I have loved you. It doesn’t say love only those who believe in me. It says love one another.

By Right On

December 3, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

What a profound rant!

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this

Oh Chucky…

I added my comment that was relevant to the topic days ago.

Try actually READING the other posts and you’ll see…

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Dane.

I guess when God personally called Chuck, they were talking and he missed the other posts…

By chuck

December 3, 2004 01:55 PM | Link to this

Jodi, Instead of asking me that question, why don’t you go to the Bible itself for the answer. Since you did ask however, here is what the Bible says about that: Romans 1 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 01:59 PM | Link to this

Of course Jodi - “All the attorneys you know are doing the right thing”. Just like all school teachers are all doing a great job if you ask them, and all politicians are honest - if you ask them.

Yet men are losing their children, homes, cars and savings left and right in divorces, our kids can’t read and write in more and more cases and we hear of a political scandal every time we turn around!

And BTW - If men are hiding assests, how do you know. Lastly, taking-up the issue of divorce law with legislators, is like taking-up divorce laws with *Lawyers” - they’re both one in the same!

By chuck

December 3, 2004 02:14 PM | Link to this

Jodi, If you read all of my posts you will find one thing missing universally: There is NO language of hate anywhere in them. I do not advocate hate or persecution of ANY person. I do however reserve the right to hate SIN. I do love EVERYONE. God loves EVERYONE. That doesn’t change the fact that God HATES sin. God gave us His only Son to be the SACRIFICE for our sins. We have the choice as to whether or not we accept that gift. God established the rules of behavior as part of His perfect plan. Then, so that our return of His love would be genuine He gave us a free will to choose whether or not to love Him. As another poster noted, I am NOT God. That job has already been filled. I’m just trying, through the daily struggles of life, to stay true to His Word. You can castigate me for that if you like, I expect that. You will NEVER understand God OR His Word until He’s living inside of you in the person of Jesus Christ. Oh AKEY, I’m referring specifically to your post at 12:39 p.m. in which you injected yourself into a conversation that was already in progress. It’s fine to do that if you like…I do it all the time…but if you do, you ought to at least make sense.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this

Disgusted,

I will do as I damn well please - it is irrelevant to me what you suggest that I do!

You ramble on about someone out on a forum - and you’re on the damn thing yourself! And how on earth would you possibly know what is going on as you described - if you were not out doing the very things that you’re so concerned about everyone else doing?

Only a nimrod would be out preaching to everyone about “minding their own business” - then preaching to everyone else about what they should do!

Some of you folks get more and more amazing by the day!

By chuck

December 3, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

That’s funny Checksin, Your parole officer must be proud.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 02:27 PM | Link to this

Terry—I know from experience about attorneys—not just hearing about it. I’ve seen it in action hundreds of times. However, there are definitely bad women out there, too. Men, in my experience, tend to play games with money (i.e., I hate her so much there’s no way I’m paying) and women a lot of times tend to play games with the children (i.e. if you don’t pay support, you can’t see Junior). Both positions are wrong. If you have a decent lawyer, though, and your ex is not a complete psycho, most people can get a reasonable settlement. The reason a lot of times that the children go with the woman is because, at least where I was practicing, the children usually go with their primary caretaker, who is more often Mom than Dad. I do think, however, that the woman should let the kids and Dad see as much of each other as is humanly possible. I have seen lots of cases, though, where the kids go to dad. It sounds like you’ve had a rough experience with it. I’m sorry.

By Terry RULES!!

December 3, 2004 02:27 PM | Link to this

Golly. I must’ve really gotten a rise out of you. “Nimrod”. That’s great! So original for such an Ann Coulter Wanna Be, b*** about “libs”. Apparently, doing as you “damn well please” includes sitting on your fat a*, furiously typing away clever and snappy retorts, or at least, what you consider to be “clever” and “snappy”. A legend in your own little mind, I would imagine.

Perhaps if you had actually read the statement, you would’ve seen that I included myself in with being hypocritical. You’re right, brainiac. I AM typing on this forum. Very insightful on your part. Frankly, I rather enjoy seeing bleating babbling sheep such as yourself squeal and scream about your self-righteousness. It brightens by day and makes me realize, “Gee, God really DOES love me! He put these silly people on this earth for comic relief!”

Honestly sister, sounds like you just really need to be laid. I’ll be praying for you!

God Bless And Many Real (Not Faked) Orgasms For You!

-Miss Carriage

By Dane

December 3, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

Terry, I couldn’t agree more concerning your rebuttal to “Disgusted.”

By Tim

December 3, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

‘Terry RULES!!’ e-mail address is interesting (click on his/her name to see)… don’t think I have seen that one before

By mike in cincinnati

December 3, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this

To all of you kind folks who refer to the bible, please, give me a break. I went to Catholics schools, and realized early on that the bible is just a BOOK.Am I a catholic now? No. Will I go to hell If I divorced, don’t thinks so, don,t think there is one. Unless there is a special one for all the chritian evangelist who take your money in the name od God. Live together, I have, no goverment or relgion involved. I married because I had a child, Oh dear lord, out of wedlock. Will I divorce, you tell me Mr Bible.

By Dane

December 3, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this

Well, gentle posters, the end of my work day has come at last. Since very little was accomplished this week in the forum, as usual, I will check back in next week to see what delicious topic is being discussed.

I will probably do some Christmas shopping on the way home, and then let my dogs out for a while before starting supper for my boyfriend in our illicit relationship, since he doesn’t get home from work until after 5 PM because he helps to further degrade society by building new houses— (ewww, a beefy gay construction worker whose company has even built…churches!)

All of you have a great weekend!

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 02:58 PM | Link to this

Chuck…I think it’s you that offers nothing.

That last comment to me didn’t make any sense.

By Zack

December 3, 2004 03:07 PM | Link to this

Akeya—If only you were as serious about life as you are about making your typical snide remarks. It’s folks like you who have your twisted worldviews—which you attempt to impose on the rest of us—that causes problems. Then you accuse conservatives of doing the same.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 03:07 PM | Link to this

Whatever your name is this time,

When you awake from the coma and join us - you might realize that (Terri) is normally the spelling associated with a female.

You changed your colors mighty quick there didn’t you Lib? First you were preaching all the love thy neighbor stuff and telling us how we should all mind our own business and do what you think we should do.

(Terri) is the female spelling.

Then you went into a tirade about me getting laid and calling me “Sister”. Sounds to me like you’re suicidal. The thing that tipped me off was the part about: We humans, quite frankly, suck”.

So at this point, I will be a compassionate “human” and stop. I don’t want to be the one to push you over the edge.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 03:09 PM | Link to this

Akey, since I don’t offer you anything, feel free to ignore my posts. And BTW, I have read most of your posts…certainly all of them on this topic…and they exhibit a certain amount of naivete’ and immaturity. They do nothing to stimulate us intellectually, and contribute even less to the furtherance of your pollyanyish liberal position. Confucious Say “It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and have the world think him foolish than to open one’s mouth and prove it.”

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this

Kids, Kids! No name calling! Am I going to have to separate you?

By Zack

December 3, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this

Mike in Cincinnati—

The Bible is not just a book.

You downplay divorce, living together (which will almost guarantee a future divorce), etc.. No one’s condemning you for what you’ve done. Opposing the actions is a different story.

I reiterate how those who talk about hatred, with their false definition of it, come out and show the real definition of it when people start mentioning the Bible.

This country needs to return—quickly—to the basic Biblical principles this once-great nation was founded upon and put a stop to the liberal agenda, which blatantly and unapologetically violates the freedoms of all.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this

Zack—I don’t get that. How does the so-called “liberal agenda” violate freedoms of all? Does allowing a gay person to marry prevent you from marrying or doing anything you want to do? Does taking care of the weak, poor, and disenfranchised somehow tread on your liberty?

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

Have a blessed weekend, Dane…

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 03:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck- I’m almost sure that you think anyone who doesn’t quote Bible verses does not add anything intellectual to any conversation. I forgive you your ignorance.

You deserve to be ignored.

You’ll join Zack in my “Why are we even communicating” Club.

Have a great day.

By chuck

December 3, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Amen! Zack. Have a great weekend folks. See you in Church on Sunday

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 03:39 PM | Link to this

Yeah, see you at St. Luke’s Episcopal, 9:00 a.m. service and 10:00a.m. adult classes.

You should try it. It’s a wonderful church!

By Terry

December 3, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

Jodi, Jodi, Jodi…

Men are not trying to “play games” with money - men are trying to keep their money from being stolen from them by a Government Lackey in a black robe; who probably couldn’t get a job in a pie factory if left up to his own abilities - and have that money given to an ex-wife! This is not “playing games” - it’s survival!

And of course, some of you out here will read this and your brilliance will once again conclude that: I hate women. I don’t of course - as I am married to one.

And I am not blaming any of this on women either, but rather - men. The same kinds of marketing geniuses; who take a plain piece of ordinary soap, put it in a little basket and wrap it with colored cellophane paper - and sell it for $15.00! Because it’s: “Soooooo cuuuuuute!”

These men know what they are doing, they know what attracts women. And these lawyers have rigged these divorce laws so as to entice women to rush through the doors of the Bed, Bath and Beyond’s of the legal system: Divorce Courts.

It’s that simple.

By norman

December 3, 2004 03:43 PM | Link to this

Zack is right, the bible is not just a book. It is a very dangerous book when ignorant people take it literally.

By Randy

December 3, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

Norman, I see you still have your position as the Village Idiot. I see you more as a clown though. Why do you do these posts, no one has paid any attention to you in months?

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this

Wow. You are really bitter. I don’t think you hate women—just one. I was merely suggesting that perhaps your view is somewhat tainted given your obvious personal experience. FYI, there are a lot of women lawyers, too. Also FYI, there are PLENTY of men flocking to divorce attorneys as well. There are obviously going to be people out there who misuse the system. The Court I’m familiar with attempts to equalize each party’s living standards, so that after 20 years, the husband (or wife, for that matter) doesn’t end up disproportianatly wealthy compared to the other partner. Just because one partner earned the money doesn’t mean that the other partner did not make it possible for the richer one to do so (i.e. a homemaker who supported a husband by raising children, keeping the home nice, etc.). You seem to imply that each party in a marriage is a separate entity, i.e. your money is yours alone. It simply doesn’t work that way. Your partner is entitled to up to half of everything earned during your marriage. Otherwise, there would be a lot of stay-at-home spouses left high and dry. There are laws out there, at least where I practiced, that state that alimony must be terminated if the ex is cohabitating with the opposite sex or gets remarried. There are a lot of men (and women) who really want their wives to stay home and raise the children. That’s a really great idea, except if he leaves after 20 years (so common it’s sickening) she is left with no marketable skills or way to earn income. It’s only fair that she should have a piece of what she helped build. I’m sure you probably won’t hear what I’m telling you, but the system really does try to equalize things. It also protects the men from having the woman drain the bank accounts and run. For all of you child support payers, it is generally more expensive to have the child living with you than to pay child support ordered. Again, there are always exceptions, but that has been my experience.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 04:14 PM | Link to this

One more thing—do you have any idea how much you have to do to become a judge? It’s grueling. Trust me—they have abilities.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 04:25 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

Our legal system is going to be able to continue getting away with these things - precisely because of opinions like yours.

You’re right, the Court does try to “equalize each party’s living standards” - and they have absolutely no logical reason, nor right - to do this!

When you get married - is the Court there concerned about your living standards?

Is the Court there all during your marriage telling you how your money is to be spent; what you can and cannot have, can or cannot buy, or in general - how you are supposed to spend your money?

Does the Court help you pay for your mortgage if you find yourself in financial trouble and are unable to do it?

Is the Court there helping you come up with the down payment for an automobile?

On and on it goes…

So why on earth, just because a couple is getting a divorce, does a Court need to step in and all of a sudden be so terribly concerned about your “living standards”…?

When a couple buys a home and it is financed, let’s say - by Bank of America. There is a contracted agreement between the couple and Bank of America. This agreement has absolutely nothing to do with some flunky Family Court Judge. And if the couple is not a married couple and the couple has a parting of ways, they simply go to the appropriate court for property disputes should they not be able to settle it on their own. And this court will simply look at the property involved and will make a fair and equitable judgement based on the particulars of the property itself.

But oh no, not when it involves a married couple getting a divorce! In that case, some little Family Court judge gets to decide the disposition of the property on NOT what is an equitable judgement based on the particulars of the property, but on how and what “standard of living” HE thinks is important, for which he has never been concerned about a day in his life!

This crap is absolute madness!

By Tim

December 3, 2004 04:30 PM | Link to this

Terry… who in your opinion should then decide how much child support is granted… simply the two parties involved… if that would be the case then I am sure my father would have paid my mother a lot less in child support (and what he paid still was not half of the expenses of my sister and I while we were children)

By Kool Kathy

December 3, 2004 04:31 PM | Link to this

It is all inconsequential. Kool Kathy is gonna “chill out”. Too much gay bashing, gays bashing “straights”, and more insults than discussion. So go!

I will miss some of you. Thanks for the ride.

By norman

December 3, 2004 04:38 PM | Link to this

Randy: idiots like you don’t interest me at all. Or whould I say Christo-idiots?

By Sage

December 3, 2004 04:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck, You are wrong. Religion is totally a matter of interpretation. There are many different interpretations about what the Bible means; that’s why there are so many denominations. People read different Bibles. Judaism uses a different holy book than you. Then there’s Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism (millions of people to whom the Bible means nothing). Those millions are just as moral as you or I and although you probably believe your religion is truth and theirs isn’t, you can’t know that. They believe theirs is truth and yours isn’t. Even the Eastern christian churches are very different from the western christian churches. How do you know they aren’t right and the western churches wrong? We all have our own “Moral Absolutes” based upon our relationship with Spirit, our level of education and understanding, and your Moral Absolute’s don’t mean a thing to others. I know that’s hard for you to grasp and that’s why people criticize christians. You believe your way (your interpretation) is the only way and you want to force your way on others who don’t need or want your way because they have their own way. Some people (whether they are christian, muslim or new age view everything and everyone with eyes of love and forgiveness and compassion as Jesus did. Others use religion (whether they are muslim, christian or hindu) to beat others over the head with their Moral Absolutes which are ONLY their interpretation. Christ is the absolute center of your religion and he never said a word about homosexuality being a sin. Yes you can find passages in the Bible that call homosexuality an “abomination” but many other things are called abominations (like handling pig skin) that nobody pays any attention to. Do you tell football players that they are sinners and that the Bible condemns them? The word “abortion” is not in the Bible. If I were to have an abortion that would be between me, my moral absolutes, and my God; if I were gay that would be between me, my moral absolutes, and my God. Your moral absolutes have nothing to do with it at all. Jesus did say to remove the log from your own eye before you worry about the beam in someone else’s eye. Is your life so holy that you can spend all your time preaching to others about what YOU believe are their sins! “The Word” you say “never changes”. You are wrong again. The Bible has been rewritten, changed while being translated into different languages, changed to suit King James, and a group of catholic bishops decided whether or not Mary was a virgin. And of course the sins that are emphasized have changed over time. What are your sins Chuck? Do you love your neighbor? Do you judge others? Do you covet your brother’s new truck? Do you lust after a woman other than your wife? If a homeless person on the street asks for a dollar do you give him two? Do you take all that you have every seventh year and give it to the poor? Do you work on the Sabbath? “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Of course they have a logical reason for doing this. It’s as I said before—it’s designed to keep spouses from disproportianatly becoming wealthy at the expense of the other. If a woman works her tail off to put her husband through medical school, she should be entitled to some of the money he makes as a result because she was a major party in helping him get to where he is. I suspect you would feel differently if you were the spouse with the lesser earning capacity. Generally, the court doesn’t award alimony if both parties have similar earning capacities or if the marriage was very short. Spouses can be a key factor in someone’s earning capacity. It’s a lot easier to become a CEO if you’ve got someone cleaning your house and ironing your shirts every day. Not to mention taking care of children. Hey, but if you’d like to leave a spouse penniless, there are plenty of lawyers who could help you do that, too. Most of the alimony awards I’ve seen certainly don’t make the wife rich. In fact, women are usually left in a worse financial position than men are.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Tim,

I will answer your question by asking you one:

When a baby is born, is the Court there at birth telling a Father how he is to support the child? 10 years later, after the Father has been doing his best to provide for the child, is the Court there in the home ensuring that the children are provided for?

My point to all of this, is that the vast majority of men are out there doing the best for their children as they possibly can - with no Courts telling them how to love and raise their children! But for some strange and convoluted reason, it is assumed that once there’s a divorce - men are just going to leave the children out on the street, hungry and with no clothes - unless the Courts step in and take charge of the situation!

This is a blatantly absurd assumption! And to run out here showing an example about which father did what - is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of men will do whatever they can for their children - without some judge sticking his nose in it!

And the Fathers who don’t give a damn about their children’s welfare - normally don’t give a damn about the Court Order either! So what is the point? The point is, is that this whole mess of a divorce court is nothing more than than a flim-flam to line the pockets of a bunch of Lawyers! Period.

By RS

December 3, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I will never “get” why it’s a sin to be in a loving, committed realtionship with another consenting adult not related to oneself. Gee I thought that was a GOOD thing! Jodi, Tim & Dane; you speak a language that some on this board will never comprehend-LOGIC. Have a lovely weekend!

By norman

December 3, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Sage: your comments are very sage indeed! But preaching to Christians is hopeless since the evangelical Christians believe that they need only to believe in the unbelievable doctrines of Christianity to be saved; they don’t care about their behavior or their deeds, they are saved, period. No question that this is nonsense, but that is its appeal: do what you will, but if you think you believe all this BS you will have eternal life. If there is eternal life, which is questionable, these so-called Christians will have a rude awakening. Hard to say which will be worst for them: no afterlife or a real reckoning of their sins.

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 04:48 PM | Link to this

Sage—part of the problem is that when you discuss ideas with SOME (please please note that caveat) religious people, they will say to you that it doesn’t matter what you think because God commanded such and such…As if they are objectively speaking for God and your idea is simply a misguided opinion. They are unable to see that their statements are opinions also, based upon their circumstances. It’s like Fox saying they’re Fair and Balanced. No one is truly fair and balanced (objective), and we should be suspicious of any who claim they are. Nice post.

By Terri/Terry

December 3, 2004 04:49 PM | Link to this

Hiya! Didn’t know you made yourself the honorary Spelling/Gramatical Police.

Oh Great & Mighty One, please forgive this snivelling smart a*, for not recognizing the gender of your name. By the way, I’ve known a few ladies who spell their name as you do. Neither here nor there, I realize. But in your postings, you pretty much b*** like a female, so I assumed you were.

“I don’t want to push you over the edge”. Wow. Your wife may flatter your flacid ego with comments to your superhuman intellect and your intense ability to supposedly push people over the edge, but still, you are a sad tragic stereotypical comedy to me. Something tells me you’re either a stay-at-home do-boy or collecting some sort of disability, therefore giving you ample time to desperately try to impress other posters of your “spicy wit and insight”. I know I’ve been laughing since I’ve been conversing with you. Thank you so much for making me smile, guy!

May the sun always shine upon your balding head, may God blow gentle winds in the empty space between your ears, and may your bubblegum rhetoric always flow like like a river of poop from your sheep-like mouth.

Baaaaaaaa, Terry with a “Y”…. Baaaaaaaaaaaaa.

By Terri/Terry

December 3, 2004 04:50 PM | Link to this

Hiya! Didn’t know you made yourself the honorary Spelling/Gramatical Police.

Oh Great & Mighty One, please forgive this snivelling smart a*, for not recognizing the gender of your name. By the way, I’ve known a few ladies who spell their name as you do. Neither here nor there, I realize. But in your postings, you pretty much b*** like a female, so I assumed you were.

“I don’t want to push you over the edge”. Wow. Your wife may flatter your flacid ego with comments to your superhuman intellect and your intense ability to supposedly push people over the edge, but still, you are a sad tragic stereotypical comedy to me. Something tells me you’re either a stay-at-home do-boy or collecting some sort of disability, therefore giving you ample time to desperately try to impress other posters of your “spicy wit and insight”. I know I’ve been laughing since I’ve been conversing with you. Thank you so much for making me smile, guy!

May the sun always shine upon your balding head, may God blow gentle winds in the empty space between your ears, and may your bubblegum rhetoric always flow like like a river of poop from your sheep-like mouth.

Baaaaaaaa, Terry with a “Y”…. Baaaaaaaaaaaaa.

By Randy

December 3, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

Norman, Where I come from Idiots are people who argue a lose/lose position, like the one you are doing. I will be glad to debate you on the authenticity of Christianity and not quote the bible. Go for it.

By Terry

December 3, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this

I take back my earlier comments about you being suicidal.

You’re jealous and suicidal.

By Tim

December 3, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this

Terry… if the vast majority of fathers are out there doing the best for their children then great… but what about those who try to run from their repsonsibility… I would have to beg to differ on the point you made about fathers who don’t give a damn about their childrens welfare won’t give a damn about a court order… they do care because they do not want to be thrown in jail… yes there are definitely fathers that will do everything they can for their children and there are others who totally run away from their repsonsibilities altogether… but there are also fathers who fall between the two and for those it is necessary to have laws that ensure that they meet their obligations to their children

By Jodi

December 3, 2004 04:55 PM | Link to this

You really don’t need a court to intervene if you truly are doing your part for your child. That is why there are uncontested divorces and child support cases. Most men who are really paying what is fair don’t see the courtroom very often. It’s expensive to raise a child. $200 a month (what some feel is fair) doesn’t really cut it. That child support goes for rent (or mortgage), food, clothes, utilities, all sorts of things. The Court would not have to intervene if both sides were rational. I’ve done MANY that didn’t need a judge at all.

By norman

December 3, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this

Randy: I will debate you anytime anyplace about the fact that Christianity is no more true than the Wizard of Oz.

By randy

December 3, 2004 05:01 PM | Link to this

What I like about Norman is he makes wild claims with no proof. Has for months and has not made any sense, however he continues with this attack on the billions of Christians worldwide. If he was doing this to gain knowledge or understanding it would be different, but he does it out of spite and hatred. He really is not even civil.