Woman to Woman

By deidre

February 14, 2005 07:11 AM | Link to this

if the waiting period would be used for some kind of affordable counseling it would be great for the states to mandate a waiting period..i live in north carolina where there is a 1 year waiting period and ive yet to see that cause a marriage to stay together….and during the waiting period there is no counseling required or even suggested.

By J Baker

February 14, 2005 07:16 AM | Link to this

It’s interesting that Shaunti, a proclaimed “conservative” would take the position of having more government intrusion into people’s lives when it comes to getting a divorce. While the costs she cites are interesting, they don’t tell the whole story. Where are the societal costs in terms of the mental and emotional toll on the couples who are forced to be lectured to by the government? How about the emotional and physical toll on the well being of the kids? What about abuse?

It’s interesting how conservatives keep trumping the idea of “smaller goivernment” and how they “want the government out of our lives” - but that’s only true when it comes to rich people’s pocketbooks - they certainly like to be involved in your life when it comes to whom you can marry, whom you can be intimate with, forcing their (mostly) Protestant prayer in school, and what types of tv shows we should watch and what kinds of music we should listen to. Love the hypocrisy.

By Randy

February 14, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

*WARNING* THERE IS SOMEONE WHO GETS ON THIS FORUM WANTED BY THE MENTAL POLICE, FOR THE MENTAL WARD. HIS NAME OF COURSE IS “norman”. Believe me, there is nothing “normal” about him. HE is NUTS!

By kt1066

February 14, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Shaunti is saying that one of government’s roles is “to alleviate and prevent human suffering.” Oh, the blatant hypocrisy of a right-winger! If she believes that, then does she support welfare (a safety net for families so they don’t have to live under a bridge and beg for scraps), universal health insurance (now that would go a long way toward alleviating human suffering), or any other “liberal,” “socialist” plan to help ease human suffering? Probably not. The right-wing plan for helping people seems to be to let them starve on their own, while being forced to stay in bad marriages and being denied effective, safe means of birth control. Oh, and if they are veterans or retired, they can expect the right-wing government to alleviate their suffering by slashing their benefits, benefits they’ve earned by their service. Oh, wait, I’ve got the wrong people. The folks the right-wingers want to help, to alleviate their suffering, are the wealthy, who suffer greatly from paying taxes. The rest of us are expected to have compassion on our suffering, wealthy neighbors and gladly pay more taxes to ease their burden. Even if we have to work 3 jobs to do it.

By R.S.

February 14, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

I agree 100% with Diane

By MG

February 14, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

What hypocrisy. If the nutball legislators in this state were actually interested in doing something productive, why not a 1 year waiting period BEFORE marriage?

By Nicki

February 14, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

I’d like to see society treating marriage consistently. So I’d support either a waiting period for both marriage and divorce, or none. After all, given the many potentially negative effects of a bad marriage and the importance of assuring that marriages stay viable, doesn’t it make sense to ensure that people are making an informed decision?

By Texas

February 14, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Happy Valentine’s Day All (What a subject for this day)???

Silver what?

Sweetest Day is tomorrow, so don’t forget to do something thoughtful for your sweetie! Sometimes marriage can seem like an unconquerable mountain filled with rocky paths and p****** brush, at times too difficult to keep climbing. This story so perfectly describes what many of us can relate to in marriage, and yet it also shows that the view from the top is spectacular and worth the climb!

I just had my 25th wedding anniversary. What an accomplishment. I’ve only contemplated divorce about 1 million times over the last 25 years, so you can imagine my surprise over reaching this milestone.

I have been complaining about this man for about 9,125 days….give or take a few days. My life is not how I envisioned it. Every major fight we’ve ever had has been over money. How you fight about something you don’t have is beyond me. There was also the big fight over the candle light dinner I fixed…….it seems he wants to see what he eats! He has seldom paid me a compliment. He rarely buys me presents. He won’t learn how to massage my back. He won’t wear shorts or swim trunks. We have only been on one family vacation in 25 years. He has never disciplined our girls, thus leaving me as the repeated bad guy! He refuses to go grocery shopping and continues to sneak and smoke after a bilateral carotid endartectomy. AND he spends way too much time in his recliner!

This same man wouldn’t miss a day of work unless he was half dead and he hands over his check every payday. He would drive day and night to pick up either of our girls if they needed him. He loves my mom and Granny almost as much as I do. If you called him and said, “I’m Sue’s friend, we’ve never met and my car won’t start”………he would be out of the door in a flash to help you out. What an incredible father he has been. I know he loves our girls as much as I do! He has never complained about how much I’ve spent on either child….no matter how out of budget I went. Since he knows how I hate to cook….he hasn’t complained (much) about the 20,000 fast food meals we’ve consumed. He almost drowned as a child….which is why he doesn’t swim…….and maybe if we didn’t make fun of his ultra white legs…..he’d wear shorts. He doesn’t drink alcohol and is forbidden to use the words that are unacceptable to children’s ears (and mine). He hates to leave our sleepy little town…..but, encourages me to go where I want to and he always seems happy to see me as I make it back up the driveway.

I cannot begin to tell you the number of conversations I’ve had with God about him.

“Lord, I’m so UNhappy. Life is too short and I know you don’t want me to be UNhappy!” He’d whisper…..”Make yourself happy with him, Sue” “I can’t live with him another minute, Lord. You’re up there watching the whole vast universe and I don’t think you see me down here, miserable!”

“Oh, I see you. I’m here, always and forever. Speak to me.”

“I am speaking to you! I want to have some peace in my life, you know, Lord….but I don’t want you mad at me! He’s driving me crazy!”

“And he’s doing what?”

“First of all….he’s breathing my air!”

“THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, SUE!”

I spent so many years praying for God to change him. God doesn’t play fair sometimes. It seems that all along God was changing me. I had to come face to face with the fact that ‘submissiveness’ just isn’t my best quality. (Not even close!) But, I spend a small part of each day working on it. I was so busy with my girls and my life that I didn’t realize how little of myself I gave to him. I concentrated on the fact that we were polar opposites and he would never be able to fill that part of me that needed filled. I didn’t realize I wasn’t playing fair either because I hadn’t reached into myself to give him the part of me that needed nurturing. The poor man was walking in the dark. He didn’t have a clue. I think we both wondered if love was enough.

We were at a family reunion and someone asked where he was. I gleefully told them he was working overtime! Someone said, “Poor Leonard.” It’s become a family joke to say “Poor Leonard” because it grates on my last nerve! My own mother looked at me and said, “Do you notice no one ever says, “Poor Sue”? It felt like ice water had been dumped on my head. It was SO very true! That day my eyes started to open.

So, at the ripe old age of 47, I’ve learned that happiness is a state of mind. You can be hopelessly in love and decide you don’t want to be happy. He still does things that drive me totally over the edge. But, I am receiving the nurturing that I have so long desired. I made up my mind that’s he’s not responsible for my happiness with him…..I am. I can hold grudges over what he’s not done or done badly….or I embrace all the fine things he does so well. So this morning, and hopefully every morning for the next 50 years, I choose to keep my family whole, to love with all my heart and please God and myself.

I hope it comes through that I really love that man! I always have….I just appreciate him more now!

[ Sue Henley (doupray2@charter.net) — from ‘2THEHEART’ ]

By norman

February 14, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Randy: what does your fascist tirade vs. me have to do with the question at hand? I think you are about to break, having been shown repeatedly that your faith is nonsense. You belong in a mental ward because you believe in an imaginary world with imaginary people and an imaginary saviour saving your imaginary soul from an imaginary hell.

As for the question at hand, the moral level of American politicians is so low that it is ludicrous to expect them to improve through legislation the success rate of marriages.

J Baker is right, the Republicans want a nanny state even more than the democrats. They want to regulate what you do on sunday morning, what you do in your bedroom, and in what position you copulate. Republicans are mostly noted for their hypocrisy, so you can imagine what their actual behavior is really like. Former Speaker Gingrich would be a great one to write a new marriage law!

By Michelle

February 14, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

How about a mandatory waiting period for marriage? That would give people time to see what they’re about to get themselves into. :)

By Tim

February 14, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

The problem isn’t that getting divorce is too easy, it’s getting married isn’t difficult enough.

There should be counseling for anyone that wishes to get married to insure that they both understand the consequences and repercussions for marriage and a potential divorce.

Younger couples seem more prone to getting a divorce than older couples that have waited and allowed themselves time to find out who they are and establish themselves individually before joining in with another person whom hopefully has done the same for themselves.

I agree with Diane in that the longer it takes for an abusive marriage to end, the more potential there is for the marriage to end in an “until death do you part” fashion. Would the government want to be responsible for those types of endings, probably not. Which is exactly why lengthening the period for divorcing should not be a consideration for the State of Georgia or any other state in the union.

By Lyrazel

February 14, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Ooooboy o boy a chance for more hokie mokie mutawwaeen (morality enforcing volunteers) Republicans to intrude upon the lives of citizens by our inept but moral, state government! Quote mutawwaeen Shaunti: In most cases, the government has a moral and fiscal responsibility to save failing marriages wherever possible. WHEN DID GOVERNMENT EVER HAVE A MORAL CLAIM TO MY LIFE? And HOW, I beg to be answered, HOW can such legislation be fiscal when it increases the amount of government services needed to implement this legislation? Quote mutawwaeen Shaunti: A Utah State study tallied the per-divorce cost to taxpayers at $30,000 in direct court costs… Ok, my divorce cost $500 bucks and I waited 6 months to get a court date. I dont know who spent that $29,500 but it wasnt me—so do I get a refund or did it go to pay for a mutawwaeen like Shaunti?

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Actually, this is one of the rare occasions when I agree with Shaunti.

By Patrick

February 14, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Hey Norman…funny how all you do is criticize and shoot down others opinions. What is YOUR stance? You left that out. How easy it is to shoot holes in other arguments w/o presenting your own. You’re probably the same guy who thinks Darwin got it right and moral relativism is the way to go. If so, you have my sympathy. All I ask is, what do you believe in regards to this argument?

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Actually, this is one of the rare occasions when I agree with Shaunti.

There should be a mandatory waiting period on divorces, since this state is so gung-ho about protecting the “sanctity” of marriage.

The only exception to the rule should be if there is abuse, proven with things like hospital and police reports, restraining orders, or physical evidence of abuse.

I really believe that imposing a mandatory waiting period is an invasion of privacy, but isn’t that what the government is doing so frequently nowadays? Invading people’s privacy? Ordering women sterilized, stripping the rights of people to marry whom they please, imposing more unnecessary waiting on abortions, outlawing sex toys in stores where only adults are allowed to frequent…all personal choices being mandated by government…

Add divorce to the bandwagon…hey, I hear there’s a waiting period on divorces in Mexico…wonder how it’s going there?

By Tim B

February 14, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

If a marriage can be saved great… but I highly doubt that it will be saved by simply implementing a mandatory waiting period to get a divorce… and like others have stated earlier… I have to fear for those who are in abusive relationships… it is already hard enough emotionally for those people to leave those situations… now the government is going to make even more difficult for those people who have already gotten up the strength to leave… a waiting period is not the answer

By norman

February 14, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Marriage is an institution for the consolidation of property and the raising of children. The state has nothing really to say about it since one can combine property and raise children without mariage, see the black community for example. I don’t recommend the abolition of marriage but the defense of marriage cannot be attempted without a vast increase in the nanny state. (The nanny state used in the past to be called the “Christian State.” Enough said about its lack of freedom.

By Scott Williams

February 14, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Give me a break. Shauti says it is government’s responsibility to prevent divorce? Is this what “Conservatism” has come to??

By PoliticalMan

February 14, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Of course, what Shaunti is not saying is that the Right believes that women should accept their lot in life without complaint. Marriage is a hierarchy headed by a man. The husband may be a benevolent monarch, but it does not really matter.

She and the Right absolutely do not believe that government should address social problems. She can at least acknowledge their “fend for yourself” philosophy. If not wise, she can at least be honest.

By Texas

February 14, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

I’d like to point out a few things. 1. It was not the government, but a judge who ordered a women to be sterilized. 2. Marriage was defined! Judge’s misinterpretation of that definition caused the changes to the law.
3 Abortion (Murder) was against the law. Judge’s (Supreme Court) (Roe Vs Roe) changed that. Not the government. I agree that this issue should be taken out of the hands of the courts, and into the hands of our elected officials, where the people have a voice. 4. The Catholic Church has a mandatory 6 month waiting period where all applicants most attend classes.

By lozen

February 14, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Norman, you are so right. How in the h* did we get from a government that talks about smaller government and staying out of our lives to this? Newt Gingrich or Bob Barr would be good ones to write a marriage law for the state of GA. We better wake up and admit the prospect of a looming dictatorship with control of every aspect of our lives (from birth to death) in the good old US of A. Norman, thank you for your compliment of last week. RS, no I don’t presently live in any of the zips you mentioned but I have in the past. Randy called me a crackpot last Friday! I take that, coming from him, as a high compliment.

By Tom

February 14, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Oh Tex, why did you mention the “A” word? Now that subject will dominate the forum for the rest of the week.

By Randy

February 14, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

SEE WHAT I MEAN!!!

By Archie

February 14, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Talking to people that have been through divorce they say 3 months is long enough and some people I know don’t even wait until the divorce is final before they start dating again so I agree with Dianne that waiting-period laws are wrong. If people want to be together then they will find their way back to each other without any waiting period. Dianne makes good points about potential for abuse from both sides. Counselors say they have a low success rate for getting couples back together after a decision has been made to split up.

By Randy

February 14, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

I HAVEN’T CALLED ANYONE A CRACKPOT, EXCEPT FOR THE CRACKPOT(NORMIE).

By norman

February 14, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Sunday’s NY Times Magazine had an amusing as well as poignant article about the return of match-making in Manhattan. It left out one thing, though. Since the consolidation of property is so much the center of marriage and has been so for at least ten thousand years, what would be better than a match-maker or the government interfering is a financial planner arranging marriage. Like the Morgan Stanley ad where the financial planner takes a bigger role at the wedding reception than the father of the bride.
Marriage is not a sacrament but a contract.

By norman

February 14, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

There was a great letter in this morning’s Savannah Morning News telling off a redneck preacher who had attacked Darwin with trailer-park rhetoric. He observed that believers live in a world of imagination which has no proof and no evidence. It’s great to see a little intelligence expressed after letters from hundreds of demented Christians who never got beyond the 4th grade mentally, despite having finished some Calvary or Christian or Full-Gospel school in an attempt to avoid racial integration. Integration has forced countless whites into schools run by churches in which they get no education except creationism and vicarious atonement. The black school are better. Randy: you probably went to a Christian school in an attempt to avoid contact with the blacks, hein?

By Tom

February 14, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

How bout a 2 marriage limit? They say gay marriage makes a mockery of marriage yet look at the Hollywood marriage stats. They make more of a mockery of marriage way more than gays.

By lozen

February 14, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

PoliticalMan, very good point. Oh, for the good old days when women had no control of our reproductive lives, and when women couldn’t be divorced (even from an abuser) without public censure! Women have obviously gotten too uppity!

By Randy

February 14, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

NO I WENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL, I THINK AFRICAN-AMERICANS ARE SUPER. IN FACT I PERSONALLY THINK THEY ARE THE BACKBONE TO OUR SOCIETY AND CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA. I THANK GOD EVERYDAY FOR THEM. THEY DON’T LISTEN TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND THE GARBAGE THAT COMES OUT OF POSTS LIKE YOURS(AT LEAST MOST OF THEM). SOME OF US WHITE PEOPLE GET NEUTRALIZED BY HOLLYWOOD AND THE MEDIA AND DON’T PROFESS OUR FAITH AS MUCH AS WE NEED TO.

By Maria

February 14, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

First of all, I believe the proposal does not require a waiting period in cases of abuse.

I’m very much on the fence with this topic. My parents separated when I was 10 and divorced about a year later. I know a waiting period would not have changed the outcome. And I do wish couples with children would consider their divorce for longer, because living with divorced parents is not fun. There are some couples, who find that marriage takes more work than they thought, who might benefit from a waiting period, if they sought counseling in this time. However, I do not think the government should be able to intefer with people’s personal decisions. But I do think the government should provide more counseling for couples considering marriage, or considering a divorce.

By J. Gray

February 14, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Want the government involved in your life? Get a divorce. The government will decide how many days a month you can see or speak to your children, how much of your paycheck you should give to the other parent to spend on the children, whether you can keep your home or have to sell it, how much of your retirement savings and other possessions will be given to the other spouse and what you will be left with to live on. Disagree with something that the custodial parent does? Then you have to hire an attorney and go to court. Then the judge can decide if your children need to go to counseling, need more time with the non-custodial parent, need to go to a better school, etc., etc., etc.

Bottom line, there should be a one-year waiting period BEFORE you get married and there should be required counseling and classes in the legal ramifications of marriage and divorce before the marriage license is issued.

By lozen

February 14, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Randy why are you yelling at us today? Maria, the government is not going to provide more counseling for anyone; the government is cutting funds for social service programs and education. We have a war to pay for!

By Tom

February 14, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Randy, The “backbone” to your society has an 80% illigitimate birth rate. That is no lie.

By Zack

February 14, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Another week, another question, another blog, another round of attacks by the left to the right. More of the liberals trying to impose their agenda on us all, well-armed with buzz words like “hatred” and “bigot” to those who disagree with them, although we all know that those two adjectives describe them, not us.

Another round of liberals trying to impose their worldview on the rest, although it clearly violates the personal rights of others. By definition, the rights of person A end where the rights of person B begin. Should this be practiced as it should, abortion never would be considered as a legality. Nor would stem-cell research. Nor would cloning. Nor would gay marriage (who does gay marriage hurt? Children, adults, our national moral fabric. Don’t believe those who say it’s harmless.)

As for the question, yes, this would be a terrific idea. I’m glad to see this question asked. As for the shot someone took at Shaunti about conservatives protecting us from divorce, as though that’s a bad thing, divorce, since the attacker doesn’t seem to know, has a negative effect on society. One reason why we see men and women not upholding their gender roles is because they have lacked the parental influence they have needed. Again, I’m so incredibly sick of the liberals poisoning society with their agenda and then accusing those who try to protect society as overstepping their boundaries.ww

By Michael

February 14, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

The quotation from the Georgia Family Council is rather silly. Of course government must be involved in the dissolution of a marriage because marriage is a civil institution. The allocation of property and custody of children can be carried out by no other authority. However, it is unnecessarily intrusive and paternalistic for a government to require a waiting period prior to divorce. Most couples who divorce have devoted a sustained effort to rescue their marriages and hardly taking the decision lightly.

As J Baker noted in his post, it is manifestly obvious how selective conservatives are when they appeal to the role of government, in Ms. Feldhahn’s words to “allieviate and prevent human suffering.” There is no hesitation on the part of most conservatives to call for reductions in programs designed for relieving human suffering such as medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, food stamp programs and so forth. It also interesting to note that the Georgia Family Council is one of those organizations on the religious right that seeks to instantiate into American law a distinctively religious-ethical-political agenda. This is the real story, not the desire to improve the material conditions of those who divorce or their dependents, but to impose a reacionary ethical view on the whole of society.

By mit

February 14, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Texas, judges are government,the judicial part. then there is the executive and legislative parts. here’s webster’s definition of marriage:

1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

so where is the judges misinterpretation?

judges rule on laws, they don’t make them.
Laws are made by the elected officials and judges check for constitutionality (word?) when that law is challenged by the people (or person). the judges make the elected officials change the law so that it is constitutional.
this topic of marriage is retared. please let my elected officials know that I need to know what time to go to bed tonight. I am lost without them.

By norman

February 14, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Good for you Tom! But it won’t be long before Zack accuses you of being anti-black.

By Zack

February 14, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Norman,

I didn’t accuse you of being anti-black; I pointed out that you were. I’m surprised that you seem upset, though, because you were so overt about it that I thought you wouldn’t care who knew.

By kat

February 14, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

I agree with Diane. The government should stay out of our personal lives. On the cost comment, if it was made simpler there wouldn’t be all the court expenses. It would not have made a difference in my 1st divorce how long we waited. I’m in a poor marriage now but am too lazy to get out of it. Once I file, a waiting period serves no purpose. Government knows what’s moral? hahahahahahahaha

By kimberly

February 14, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Marriage is a lie anyway. I cannot honestly encourage my daughter to marry when she’s old enough. I think of all the weddings I’ve been to, and in, and the ridiculous cost and ceremonious pomp. Within six to twelve years these same people are shelling out thousands to divorce lawyers, dividing up their debt, counting the broken promises they made to each other, and using their children as pawns in their game of back-at-ya. If love is real, then keep loving each other. If it’s not, walk away without having to pay a lawyer!

By Julie Batson

February 14, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Why is it that it is widely believed that divorce impoverishes women and children? What about daddy? In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a bill out there to change Georgia’s current child support laws. That bill has come about because of many fathers not being able to afford to live and see their children after getting a divorce due to unfair child support awards. The bill is HB 221 and it has a solid backing this year. I am tired of hearing that only women and children become impoverished after divorce. Let’s take a look at daddy’s situation as well. Julie Batson Atlanta, Georgia

By norman

February 14, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

What do the black churches teach about marriage? It seems that blacks get married very little but they do attend church. Or do only the women attend as a search for comfort in a situation where black men are unreliable? When blacks went to church more heavily, marriage was more common. So there is something which makes no sense. We see large numbers of blacks going to church but not marrying.

In the Southwest many Hispanics do not marry although they do have children, like blacks. There it seems to be a desire to avoid the Catholic prohibition on divorce. When Mexican-American liaisons fail there is no need to get either a civil divorce (which means trouble from the Holy Roman) or an annulment (which takes time and requires some semblance of a ligitimate reason).

Perhaps blacks don’t want the hassle or expsense of a divorce, so marriage is out.

I wish someone (not Zack, pleeeeeze) would enlighten us on this matter. And not Randy either, since he thinks blacks are the bedrock of social morality.

By Michael

February 14, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

The quotation from the Georgia Family Council is rather silly. Of course government must be involved in the dissolution of a marriage because marriage is a civil institution. The allocation of property and custody of children can be carried out by no other authority. However, it is unnecessarily intrusive and paternalistic for a government to require a waiting period prior to divorce. Most couples who divorce have devoted a sustained effort to rescue their marriages and are hardly taking the decision lightly.

As J Baker noted in his post, it is manifestly obvious how selective conservatives are when they appeal to the role of government, in Ms. Feldhahn’s words to “allieviate and prevent human suffering.” There is no hesitation on the part of most conservatives to call for reductions in programs designed for relieving human suffering such as medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, food stamp programs and so forth. It also interesting to note that the Georgia Family Council is one of those organizations on the religious right that seeks to instantiate into American law a distinctively religious-ethical-political agenda. This is the real story, not the desire to improve the material conditions of those who divorce or their dependents, but to impose a reacionary ethical view on the whole of society.

By norman

February 14, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Control over marriage has always been a way of seeking power. Religious authorities have always wanted to have exclusive control over marriage because it gave them power. Our government has enough power already, don’t you think?

The Democratic Party may have to base its comback on states rights and smaller government and balanced budgets. What a hoot!

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Seeing as how I am a black woman, it amazes me that there are some who can tell me about people in my race better than I can. Funny, huh?

I have often wondered why the marriage rate for blacks is so low. The rates for Latinos are slightly higher than blacks, although many Latinos simply call themselves married once they are in a committed relationship whereas I believe that many blacks will continue to call the relationship what it is as opposed to calling themselves married. Also, the male to female ratio of blacks is pretty skewed. I am a proponent of dating outside of one’s race, myself. There are, however, many black women who are not dating outside of their races as much as black men, hispanic men, or even white men…

TOM- it’s a possibility that Randy is referring to hundreds of years ago..why don’t you ask him what he means by that comment?

TEXAS- sigh is the judge not an official that works for the government?

By Robin

February 14, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

I was granted a divorce over 20 years ago. I sure do wish that someone had recommended or made mandatory counseling. It doesn’t matter who you are or how strong you think you are - divorce is a debillitating, emotional roller coaster. Anyone who thinks they’ll come out unscathed is living in the land of delusion.

By RS

February 14, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

It may help if we get to the ROOT of why most marriages don’t work out. Sorry to be so negative but it’s true. Look around you..yet when I was a kid, I didn’t know ANYONE who was divorced…

By Lyrazel

February 14, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

How much cost are we adding to divorce by creating new requirements? If a poor man wants a divorce from his poor wife and they have no kids why do they need to wait just so somebody is the state legislature gets happy? My second point is going to ruffle some feathers. Im not taking pot-shots at anyones faith…BUT…it is documented that church encourages young vital adults to get married early so the chances of having illigetimate children is lessened. My third point is: the government involved itself in peoples lives when it created welfare programs and told women getting on public assistance there could be no men in the house. No husbands. After 5 generations of women on welfare the negative effects of single-parent households has soared and the government still does not accept it could possibly be the largest contributing factor to single family households.

You want MORE government involvement?

By Tom

February 14, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Akeya, I doubt Randy went to school hundreds of years ago.

By Randy

February 14, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

ACTUALLY I DID GO TO SCHOOL HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, OR 25, ONE OF THOSE. I BELIEVE AFRICAN-AMERICANS ARE STRONGER IN THEIR FAITH AND CHRISTIAN FAITH IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR SOCIETY, THEREFORE AFRICAN-AMERICANS(AT LEAST THE 80-90% THAT GO TO CHURCH) DON’T LET ANYTHING GET IN THEIR WAY OF FAITH. DO THEY HAVE SOME CULTURAL DIFFERNECES YES, HOWEVER, IT HAS ONLY BEEN 40 YEARS SINCE “SELMA” AND I THINK THEY HAVE CAME A LONG WAY. MY ADVISE WOULD BE, FOLLOW THE BIBLE AND LIVE A HAPPY LIFE HERE AND BEYOND. PROBABLY LISTEN TO COSBY, HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

By Tom

February 14, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

When I was young, I didn’t know anyone who was divorced. While eating dinner with the family, both of our high school aged children commented how they were the ONLY ones in their class that did NOT have divorced parents. (They acted like they were missing something)

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

ducking the point Tom missed

By mit

February 14, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

tom, they were missing the extra presents for birthdays and christmas.

By chuck

February 14, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

I’ve seen so many posts talking about the “hypocrisy” of the right in terms of this proposal being a violation of our principle of limited government. That is a totally invalid charge in this particular instance because we are talking about a proposal from the STATE LEGISLATURE, NOT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. While I prefer limited government from both the state AND the feds, this is one of those instances where I make an exception. For the state to be involved in this particular type of legislation is definitely appropriate. It is a power of the state to grant both marriage licenses and divorce decrees, so IF this issue is to be addressed, at least it is in the proper venue. As to the issue itself, I think the government should make it more difficult to get married AND to get divorced. We need to abolish the so-called “no fault” divorce, require counselling AND institute a waiting period. We also ought to require psychological screening PRIOR to marriage and pre-marital counselling. The cost for these should be paid as part of the marriage license fee and the court costs for divorce.

By Zack

February 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

I’ve noticed a not-surprising trend that those who want less government involvement want a national worldview supported by nothing in the Bible but instead by relativism.

By AllaboutME

February 14, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

…doesnt anyone have brain one to think for themselves anymore…certainly isnt that what this kind of legislation says?

By Tom

February 14, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

I know. Depressing. Randy thank you for clairifying your point. I do however have doubts about the accuracy of you percentages.

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Chuck-the members of the state legislature are majority on the right…

National WORLDVIEW?….the WORLD does not use the Bible…

By chuck

February 14, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

AKEYA- SO?

By chuck

February 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Those of on the right WANT to strengthen the family. This is not inconsistent at all.

By Dustie

February 14, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

The day was cold and dark and dreary. Where oh where is Terry? All the usual blowhards are extolling, But, sadly, their words are very boring.

By Debora

February 14, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Today I celebrate my 20th anniversary with the most beautiful woman in the world. Since I was 18 years old, I have never looked or thought about another person in a romantic way. We rarely fight and our lives are peaceful and loving.

Every straight person I know has been divorced at least one time, most more than once. They have children and step-children by so many parents, I barely see how these kids figure out WHO their real biological parents are and how they are related to all of these other children. I don’t envy the hetersexual community. I find it all very pathetic and sad.

By Tom

February 14, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Yeah. Where is Whiley & Jodi? We love them too.

By Tom

February 14, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

If I were a woman I would probably be a lesbian. I don’t see how anyone would want to kiss a man. Yuck!

By Dustie

February 14, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Love is for Valentines. Interesting is for Terry.

By Reed

February 14, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

You want to save families???? Then change the Child Support Guidelines to an INCOME SHARES SYSTEM and do away with making children a finacial price sought after by women.

SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 221 SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 221 SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 221 SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 221

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Actually, the problem I find with Child Support is that many men pay child support in exchange for spending time with their children.

Also, there are women that complain that a man isn’t paying enough child support, yet they are the ones who have no job history on their DOL reports, are sucking the food stamp, TANF and Section 8 systems dry, and who kids are barely making it through school…

This is what I’ve seen as during my experience as a social services caseworker…

By Zack

February 14, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Akeya—You have the wrong definition of the word “worldview.”

As for this country, it was founded upon the Bible, and our laws need to adhere to it. We don’t need laws based on relativism, as in abortion rights.

By Tom

February 14, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Akeya, Hats off to you. You are in a very difficult job. We need more people like you who care.

By J. Morris

February 14, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

The notion that the government has some moral responsibility to prevent divorce from occurring is frightening. Is marriage always in the public interest? No. What purpose is served by forcing someone with an abusive spouse to spend another year legally bound that that spouse? What purpose is served by forcing two people with “Irreconcilable differences” to spend another year together?

I have seen too many friends and family members in untenable situations, situations in which the welfare and health of the children that Shaunti is so gung-ho to “protect” was in jeopardy because of an abusive spouse/parent, to ever support a law that would give the government this power.

The idea that marriages should stay together no matter what is, at its heart, a religious one. Yet again, we have an example of a conservative group of legislators trying to write their faith into law. If one is deeply religious, then one certainly has the right and the option to put off a divorce or not seek one at all. It is only when the government tries to impose this stricture that it becomes problematic.

Finally, if one looks at the study cited by Shaunti in her column, one discovers that the $30,000 per divorce includes both state and federal expenses, and despite her dismissive use of “and the like”, encompasses not only direct court costs but many, many indirect costs of divorce such as increased welfare time, aid to needy families, etc. Since any effective analysis of cost compares the cost of an action with the cost of not taking that action, I wonder what the true costs would be of this 1-year wait.

What are the costs of, say, domestic violence cases, health care resulting from violence, emotional damage to children and spouse that may need to be addressed by psychologists, etc? Even if the issue is only indifference between spouses, the strong likelihood is that the marriage will end after the waiting period, so the costs haven’t really changed. In fact, the added layer of the year wait will slightly increase the costs - more court involvement = more cost.

It is very frightening to see the government attempting yet again to interfere in the lives of the citizens it is meant to represent – not control.

By Zack

February 14, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

No, what’s frightening is that liberals want to control society with their hideous worldview and want to take no steps to abolish the kind of violent behavior that goes on in marriage. In short, if you try to remove God from the equation, you’re asking for trouble.

By steve

February 14, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

I think most of us would agree that divorce happens all too frequently today. Excluding cases of abuse (which are very legitimate reasons for divorce), most divorces are filed for “irreconcilable differences” - whatever that means. Who doesn’t have “irreconcilable differences”? I think divorce probably is too easy to get, but I also agree with what someone else said earlier - perhaps it is too easy to get married. Maybe we should focus more on the front end of the relationships? It seems that most people today do not enter into the marriage with the idea that this is a lifetime committment. I think many people enter marriage thinking of how their needs are going to be met and how they are going to be fulfilled. The focus on ourselves instead of our mates is the doom of many marriages.

When my wife and I were married, our church required us to take a 13 week class and meet regulary with a mentoring couple. I confess that I hated the idea at first. Looking back 10 years, it was the best thing we could have done.

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

ZACK- you are the one who used the word “worldview”

I wonder if God tells husbands to beat their wives unconscious and violate restraining orders…

You have God on speed dial, Zack… why don’t you call up and find out…

By kh

February 14, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Zack - As usual, you bible thumpers have it wrong. This country was not “founded on the bible”. Perhaps you should review your history a little closer. The reason the founding fathers included separation of church and state in the constitution was to protect us from the likes of you.

By Zack

February 14, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Akeya—I’ve used the word “worldview” numerous times on here, and I never denied this. I pointed out how you, by your context, don’t know its meaning.

Don’t put words in my mouth. It’s people like you who try to change God.

By steve

February 14, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

kh - Just curious….where in the constitution does it include separation of church and state?

By Akeya

February 14, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

By Zack

February 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

I’ve noticed a not-surprising trend that those who want less government involvement want a national worldview supported by nothing in the Bible but instead by relativism

Those words were typed by you…were they not?

By J. Morris

February 14, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Please don’t feed the troll - it only makes him rant more.

By lozen

February 14, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

JMorris, you are exactly right when you say, “The idea that marriages should stay together no matter what is, at its heart, a religious one. Yet again, we have an example of a conservative group of legislators trying to write their faith into law.” Religion is the reason we can’t get our heads out of the sand in this country and try to address the real problems. The religious right likes to pretend sex doesn’t exist. They don’t want to teach teenagers about birth control; they pretend young people will all practice abstinence until they finish graduate school at 30! Then when teenagers do get pregnant, they do not want them to have access to safe abortion! Sometimes I really think what they want is to get them all pregnant and married by the time they’re 14. It isn’t too far back in the past when that was common here in the south after all. How long until they’re passing legislation to keep all women barefoot and pregnant just like in the good old days?

By Randy

February 14, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

KH, Why don’t you show us where the founding fathers said “Separation of Church and state” in the constitution or any other document.

By Seaborn

February 14, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Right on Shaunti. Finally something I agree with her on. In fact, I think this is such an important issue that we should amend the Georgia constitution to enforce mandatory waiting periods for you married folks, so let’s put it up for a vote. Who can predict the results? I can, how about 72 percent against?

By Randy

February 14, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Iozen, there is not going to be any trying to it. It’s going to happend. We conservates are going to make the USA strong again and get rid of the garbage morals(as much as possible) of the liberal left.

By Shannon

February 14, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

It’s not about money - it’s about saving marriages. My divorce became final Jan 28th of this year. My husband was allowed to leave our home while I was out of town, file for and obtain a divorce without even once speaking to me about the problems in our marriage. In this state - you have no recourse if you don’t want to get divorced. If your spouse does, tough, you are getting divorced. I think that perhaps a waiting period and some sort of court mandated counseling would have helped. At least it would not have allowed my ex to simply walk away when they going got slightly tough.

By kh

February 14, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Steve:

You may obtain this information through a simple google search,

Amendments to the Constitution CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (See Note 12) Article [I.] (See Note 13) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By Tom

February 14, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Didn’t our founding fathers mean that the government will NOT force any particular religion on the people? We were founded by people who were denied the right to worship.

By Bruce

February 14, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

I agree with Chuck, marriage and divorce should be made more diffcult. If you are of a mind to get married you certainly do not mind paying for the flowers, cakes, clothes, etc. Why not pay for the counseling too. If you are unhappy in your marriage, for whatever reason, you should be responsible for the cost of disolving the relationship and the cost split equally between the two individuals. Counseling at both ends may not make much of a difference but the old saying “it’s cheaper to keep her/him” might make folks work harder at making their marriage work.
The last time I checked the constitution could not be changed unless the people voted on it. A prime example is this last election and the Homosexual issue. The PEOPLE of the State of Georgia stated, by their vote, they feel that Homosexuality is wrong, not the “Right Wing Goverment”. Divorce is not an issue to be blamed on the Left or the Right, unless someone came show statics that there are more divorces in red states than blue ones. Divorce leaves everyone holding the bag, except the lawyers.

By Byron

February 14, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Kh- If you knew your United States history and the history of the first presidents, then you know that this country and the constitution was formed by using the Bible as their guide. Also, the judicial system, including the supreme court, was set up by using the book of Ezra as the model for them. As for the phrase separation of church and state, President Jefferson was simply echoing the promise in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, separation of church and state was phrased to reassure believers that government would never restrain their religious freedom by mandating one state-sponsored denomination.

By Randy

February 14, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

What you will find Byron, is that the left will make up what they want to believe. Including Kh and others statements like separation of church and state, which doesn’t exist, it more convenient for them that way. They also get to make up who created the universe in the beginning and what moral laws to go by. Next they are going to tell us to use leeches to clear the blood, they are a bundle of information!!!

By Dr. Doug Duncan

February 14, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

This isn’t just a matter of opinion! The subject of Summers comments – why fewer women go into science – is a well-studied topic, and the answer is known. The landmark work in the field is a book called “Talking About Leaving,â€? which was published 7 years ago! The study, by Elaine Seymour, followed hundreds of women through their college careers. All were in the sciences when they started, about half made it, and half dropped out. Why?

A very nice editorial by Clay Evans in the Boulder Daily Camera (www.dailycamera.com),Feb. 14, summarizes the book.

Hint: It’s not what all my (male) physics profs told me, “The good become physicists, the rest drop out.� Nope, those who left had the same GPA and SAT scores as those who stayed! It wasn’t genetics, either. It was the climate female students worked in, and the quality of the advice they got.

The same thing happened in medicine. 30 years ago almost all new doctors were male. Now the ratio is 50-50. No, women did not evolve genetically in 30 years! The climate in medicine changed in such a way that they are now accepted and encouraged.

Except in surgery.

By J. Morris

February 14, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

That’s funny, because my grad school law professor taught that the US court system was primarily modeled after the British courts. He never mentioned the Book of Ezra. Did I mention that this was at a Baptist-affiliated school?

By Tom

February 14, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Where were you last week Doug?

By norman

February 14, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Don’t you bible thumpers quote Tom Jefferson. He thought so little of your damn Gospels that he rewrote one of them to make it less obnoxious. He wasn’t yet ready to throw it out entirely, which he would now do for certain.

By kh

February 14, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Byron - I did not personally observe the founding fathers writing the constitution so I cannot say with any amount of certainty that the bible was used as a guide, nor have I personally read any history of those events that states such a thing. I have read Thomas Paines “Political Writings” about the formation of this country and it does not speak of that. I do know with certainty that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court have interpreted this amendment to be a separation of church and state. This country was founded by those seeking to escape religious persecution so in my opinion, you are correct regarding state sponsored religion.

By Eirik

February 14, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Do all of you religious folks really want the laws of the United States to be based on the Bible? Have you really thought it through? Wouldn’t it be an enforcement nightmare? Who would provide the ultimate interpretation of the law…many different Christian faiths differ on this also. How would it work?

By J. Morris

February 14, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

As much as I hate cutting and pasting material in an “argument” such as this, here goes.

Religion in the original Constitution

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States.

In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, religion did not get a lot of sound bites. It should be noted that without exception, the Framers were Christian or, at the very least, believed in God (Deism). There were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. Disagreements about style and method of worship between them were nearly as vast and incongruous as any seen today between, say, Jews and Muslims, such that the Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy.

James Madison, when speaking of the method and manner of the election of the members of the Congress, noted that even “Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression,” telegraphing his own desire for no religious test for government service. He had been a prime mover in the efforts of some Virginia lawmakers to ensure that no preference be given to any religion in that state, and that a proposed tax to aid religious efforts be defeated. Madison and one of the Pinkney cousins moved, in the waning days of the Convention, that the Congress be permitted the power to establish a university, with the express stipulation that “no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion.” The motion was turned down on a six to four vote, but it was another illustration of his desire to extend no preference to any religious sect.

There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath. This alternate text has been described both as a way of accommodating those religious persons for whom “swearing” was forbidden, and as a way for the unreligious to take the oath with the same force of personal responsibility that swearing would have for a religious person. Either way, the alternate text attempts to make the oath all-inclusive and religion-neutral.

Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as “the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” Some have argued that the use of the term “Lord” in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.

By chuck

February 14, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

KH- I can assure you, as a U.S. History teacher that the intent of the founders was to prevent the U.S. Government from establishing a National religion like the church of England. The courts have erred in their rulings beginning in about the 1940’s when they went against precedents set in earlier courts to create an issue that had never been there before. They created a new legislation from the bench saying that any promotion of religion by any government official would be a violation of the establishment clause. This clearly was not the intent of the founders since from the beginning of our history, they have had a PAID Chaplain who opens every session of congress in prayer. There are NUMEROUS quotes from the founders from Franklin to Madison who declared the NECESSITY of Faith as the only means by which a free people could remain free. I’m in a hurry or I would lay a few on you. Perhaps tomorrow.

By Michael

February 14, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

One of the most curious and unquestioned assumptions that appear in these postings and our culture as a whole is that there is a necessary conceptual and social connection between religion and morality. According to the Pew Foundation, fifty eight percent of Americans say it’s necessary to believe in God in order to be a moral, good person. There is some evidence that may count against this. The US is the most religious of Western nations, yet it has the highest violent crime rates since statistics have been kept. Despite being the wealthiest society in the history of humanity the US poverty rate greatly exceeds that of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Sweden, Canada, and Switzerland, all of which are much more secular than the US. The US is unique among Western nations in not providing health care for all of its citizens. Economic equality among citizens is a political-ethical value that is consciously held in higher regard in Europe than the United States. Currently the richest 1% of Americans hold more than 38% of all the nation’s wealth, a concentration unmatched by any other developed nation.

Despite lauding themselves for their charity to the poor and victims of disasters Americans should consider these facts. In 2001, the most recent figures available, Denmark and Norway gave a little over 1% of their gross national income in foreign aid. The Netherlands and Sweden give over .7%. The United States governmental foreign aid and private contributions together totaled 0.145% among the lowest of all developed nations. To be on the same footing as Denmark and Norway the United States would have to increase its foreign aid budget from $18 billion in 2001 to nearly $100 billion.

Australia, where I once lived, is a very secular and liberal country with legalized prostitution, has pledged more money to the Tsunami victims than the United States government and private contributions combined. And the population of Australia is 1/15 that of the United States.

But religious Southerners are generally more concerned with “socialâ€? issues than social justice. How does the Bible belt fare? According to the conservative political scientist Andrew Sullivan the states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. All “blue states.â€? A recent study found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are “born again” and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born agains have been divorced twice or more. “What about abortion in the US? It’s not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?â€?

So, instead of invoking an ideologically constructed straw man known in various guises as the “liberal world view,â€? maybe religious people should engage in a bit of reflection on these differences (though I doubt they will, the most likely response will be the ad hominem variety.) As Albert Einstein, following the Scottish philosopher David Hume correctly pointed out: ”A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

By Bruce

February 14, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Norman, In an earlier post you said, “Our government has enough power already, don’t you think?”

It was a liberial goverment that got us to where we are today. We have had a liberial controlled goverment for the last 50 years or so. Now we are reaping the fruits of their labor and all of a sudden it is the conservatives that are fault? Not in my opinion.

You also claim it is the religious right that is bringing us down. I say it is the prayers and work of the religious community that has kept us afloat this long. If God be with us, who can stand against us?

By Eirik

February 14, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Michael,

All I can say is “Bravo”. Unfortunately, I fear that your intelligent remarks are wasted on certain posters of “faith and morality” here.

I’m still clapping though.

By Texas

February 14, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Yes, Judges are Government Officials. However:

Judges in the federal United States Courts are all appointed for life and never run for election.

Most voters, even those well-informed about other ballot issues, find it difficult to vote intelligently for judges. A recent study noted that, “In any given election in Washington state, as many as 50 percent of those who cast votes for other candidates choose not to vote for judicial candidates on the same ballot.” The same study quoted one speaker at a town hall meeting who said of the judicial candidates, “I have absolutely no idea who any of them are. I’m embarrassed to say but I couldn’t tell you a single name.

The United States Supreme Court, All Judges are appointed for life.

But y’all know this. The point I made earlier was not all judges interpret the laws the same. But you know that too. So when a Appointed Liberal Judge interprets the law against the will of the people, then, and rightly so, changes are made to the Constitution. But you know that too.

So, let’s cut to the chase about Abortion, a life impacting decision. Shouldn’t this be in the hands of our elected officials, and NOT appointed officials? Shouldn’t the will of the people be the deciding factor and not the interpretation of judges?

As many of you who have rightly pointed out, a “Judge ordered Sterilization or Jail”, was he right? I think not. The woman broke the law, and killed her newborn baby and the penalty should reflect the crime. So Akeya and MIT, What is your opinion on this Judge? Did he interpret the law correctly?

By Beverley

February 14, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

I totally disagree with Shaunti. So…we’re supposed save the state money by delaying a divorce? Hmmm…not very smart considering the untold problems people sometimes bring into a relationship in the first place and the problems they inflict on children produced in the marriage. If you ask me, the state may end up paying more money anyway for counseling, criminal activity, court dates, etc, that too often stems from divorce in the first place. If people realize they should be together, all they have to do is get married again! I do agree that people should take time in getting to know each other better before marrying but that still does not guarantee that you’ve married the right person. Why force anyone to remain in a marriage that for some could inflict physical and/or mental harm? Counseling isn’t for everyone. There are just some situations that need to end and end quickly. Part of the problem is government wants to control everything. Government is part of the reason why divorce is so devastating on women and children in the first place as too often government has rules and laws that dictate then contradict. I’d like to know what kind of moral and fiscal responsibility governments are supposed to have to save failing marriages? Unfortunately, local, state and federal government is too often run by those who want money (or more of it) and serve the interests of those who have a lot of it. As much wealth as this country has it’s a shame that we still can’t feed and clothe the hungry, can’t or won’t provide adequate and universal healthcare and look after our elderly and veterans a lot better than we do now.

By MG

February 15, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this

To Michael: as a born and bred Southerner who has lived all over the U.S. and outside the U.S., and as a current resident of the reddest of the red states (yes, folks, that’s Georgia)…..all I can say in response to your post is BRAVO!!

By Eli

February 15, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Maybe they should impose a waiting period on marriage. Most people go into marriage without a clue on how to have a successful marriage.

The state currently requires classes for the divorced if they have kids, why not have classes before they marry.

By Lyrazel

February 15, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

If you make my taxes pay for your separation year wait, let me sit in judgement of your union BEFORE you tie a knot. I would evaluate your intellegence, your mates fertility, your ability to cope with issues. I would decide if I really wanted you to breed, maybe you just are too flighty, uncommited and a risk because you have yet to change a nappy at 3am. I feel I would have the right to monitor your sexual exchanges, and take you to jail if I found you eating pizza at a Motel 6 with Ms. Kitty from accounting. You see, I want to make sure you live the way I want you to live when your failures begin to use my tax dollars—for there is no way funding for programs like this will not use tax dollars—I want a complete report of all couples seeking dissolution of their unions in the state so I can evaluate whether they should be allowed such—or for the sake of the children—forbidden to. I would further assign case workers to every one seeking a divorce to provide counseling and these workers would be required to publish evidence of their success rate and failures. Your union would further be discussed and evaluated by judges and laymen of the courts to see if there is merit for separation and I would have to evaluate all your children to see if they can cope with parental splits, certainly I would put your children in a group home if I discovered you were engaging in post-marital affairs and subject you, your boyfriend and your husband to further interviews concerning your lust but, I could administer various medications to turn off your needs while we evaluate your union. I could possibly jail you for visiting a girlfriend while you were in this counciling session because you were not adhering to the rules of the waiting years. I could make sure you both lived together during the hours your lawyers were drawing up papers, just so you could again, feel the love. Yes, I could make your lives a living hell and there would be little you could do except wait—until I got out of your life and you could never marry again. I am your government.

By Angie

February 15, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Michael, I applaud you heartily on your post yesterday. You are absolutely right, America is very rarely a bastion of anything….especially morality. To legislate morals and values under the guise of “saving money and marriages”, is religious rubish. One can be a good person who follows social “norms” and not be religious and/or married. This country continues to ignore the plight of abandoned, neglected and abused children….battered women…..jobless men and women….etc. And in the face of all that, our good government officials think its a good idea to stir our marriage pots?! Its beyond insane. Once a couple has decided to divorce, the emotional toll has already been handed down to the children in the equation. They have already learned the lesson that no matter how you feel and how hard you try….some things just change. How back asswards is it to institute more emotional madness for these children? In a perfect world, when two people decide to divorce, they sit down and have a heart felt talk with the children….explaining that they are loved and wanted but that mommy and daddy can be better parents if they live apart. But this doesn’t always happen. Mommy and daddy hate eachother frequently and pass this declaration onto their babies. What purpose does it serve to prolong that kind of bitterness? Religion should have no place in this matter……and neither should the government. PERIOD!

By Texas

February 15, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Your facts on Charity is missing some important ISSUES! Some French-based (what else?) organization has drawn up some figures (Which Michael used) on the ration of charitable giving compared to a country’s gross domestic product (GNP). These figures show that America only gives 0.14% of its GNP for relief. This supposedly makes us stingy. This French organization didn’t count any of the money donated by individual Americans. You see, in the wonderful world of giving, only government giving counts. The actions of individuals are meaningless and not to be considered as part of the big picture. In 2003 individual Americans donated $241 billion to charitable causes. Private giving to tsunami victims will exceed anything spent by the US federal government.

In addition, After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada (24 per cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimization rate.

While Michael is correct with the USA leading the world in abortion rate, just maybe the USA will be leading the world in ending this horrible act.

The Congress of the United States, the nation’s lawmaking body, is made up of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The main power of Congress, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, is to make laws that, when signed by the president, become the law of the land, governing American life.

From 1955 to 1995 a majority of the members of Congress were Democrats. Go figure!

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”.

Compared to children in male-headed traditional families where their natural parents are married to each other, children living in female-headed single-parent, lesbian or other environments where they are deprived of their natural fathers are: 1. Eight times more likely to go to prison. 2. Five times more likely to commit suicide. 3. Twenty times more likely to have behavioral problems. 4. Twenty times more likely to become rapists. 5. 32 times more likely to run away. 6. Ten times more likely to abuse chemical substances. 7. Nine times more likely to drop out of high school. 8. 33 times more likely to be seriously abused. 9. 73 times more likely to be fatally abused. 10. One-tenth as likely to get A’s in school. 11. On average have a 44% higher mortality rate. 12. On average have a 72% lower standard of living.

Source: “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus Ph.D. It is posted in HTML format at http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/damneus/garbgen.htm

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

Fathers’ Absence 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. California has the nation’s highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation’s highest juvenile unemployment rate. Juveniles have become the driving force behind the national increase in violent crime; the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family. 71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency. In 1983, a study found that 60% of perpetrators of child abuse were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents’ to monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them. 18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty. The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle. Kidnapping: family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200 to 300, attributed to the parents’ disenchantment with the legal system.

Reestablishing fatherhood is not just a minor issue to the Signatories to the Fathers’ Manifesto. It is the only way to rid this world of its current social pathology, and they know it. Any and every plan for doing this must be presented and carefully scrutinized, regardless of its “political correctness.” There is too much at stake to ignore any possible solution.

The Constitutional right to freedom of religion clearly requires the preservation of families — and this requires strong fatherhood.

Your TAX dollars are being spent whether you like it or not. Just maybe a waiting period will reduce 1 in 10 divorces. Just maybe, and if it does, we making a step in a better direction!

By Angie

February 15, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

I agree with the majority of posters on this one…..the answer I believe lies in instituting a wait period before getting marriage. I ususally don’t find myself in line with Catholics..but on this I agree. If you are an active member of a Catholic church…and to be married in a Catholic church, both you and your partner have to be…before you can enter into marriage, you both have to undergo counseling sessions with a a priest. These sessions usually include financial, child rearing, emotional, and educational issues. If the government has to get involved in anything, perhaps it should be to the tune of putting more focus on the real issues faced in a marriage. If you want to get married, get a lisence…but before you do, you better have gone through an appropriate counceling session…..AT THE GOVERNMENT’S COST! I realize people want to make this a religious issue, it simply is not. If God wasn’t at the wedding, why should our esteemed government officials invite Him to the divorce?

By norman

February 15, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Despite the Catholic church requirement of classes and pre-Cana preparation divorce among Catholics is no less than among others. When people want to marry nothing will stop them.

By steve

February 15, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Michael, I really appreciate your post. I do think that some of the statistics you quoted are skewed as a previous post pointed out. When considering private dontations, no nation gives more money to charitable causes than the United States.

The stats regarding divorce should be alarming to all us who claim to be a Christian. While again, those stats could be slightly distorted for various reasons (for example, folks in western states and northeastern states are less likely to marry, many more opt to live together without marriage). I have seen enough studies, including those by Christian organizations to support the fact that divorce is occuring in the church almost as much as it occurs outside the church. You are absolutely correct about that and those of us in the church should not be so blind as to pretend that is not the case. I would disagree with the term “Bible Belt”. I prefer the term “church belt”. If you live in the south, you live in the church belt. Church has remained very important to southerners. However, a large number of our churches today, simply have set aside the Bible. Church has become part of the social fabric of our communities, but in many cases the Bible is ignored. Other studies that I have read indicate that in churches where the Bible is faithfully taught and studied, and church discipline is administered, divorce is far below the national average.

Bottom line, we in the church need to recognize that the problem of divorce is serious issue INSIDE the church. Why is that? I think it all goes back to helping couples BEFORE they get married. Like I said in a prevous post, my wife and I had to take a 13 week class and meet regulary with an older, mentoring couple. It was the best thing we could have ever done for our marriage.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Steve, Would you have gotten marryed if you had not taken the course? (Be careful, the wife may be reading)

By steve

February 15, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Tom, To be married in our church required taking the class. It was not an option. I did not want to take the class initially, but looking back 10 years now - it was the best thing we could ever do for our marriage and I am very thankful for that time and the life skills we learned.

By the way, my wife hates these forums and does not want to participate, but she would echo what I have said. (I think!) :)

By Lyrazel

February 15, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Statistics about parents who breed irresponsibly but expect government assistance to carry their liabilities still cannot prove to me that the AVERAGE AMERICAN COUPLE cannot think through their divorce without government interference.

Sure, you can throw all these facts about poverty and kidnapping and tendencies toward promiscuity that children of divorced families endure—but please give me one reason why some legislator in Savannah has the right to evaluate my divorce when I dont have kids. Blanket legislation affects everyone. Frankly the statistics for responsible parents in the USA is appaling if the figures Texas has presented are valid. My problem is the thousands of other folk who will be inconvenienced by this legislation. What about us? The mentally capable, independent but not family-oriented couple who wants to calmly part the civil union we made? We dont cost the courts $30,000. We dont need counseling because we are capable of settling our differences and moving on in life without the other. How does this wait period assist us in any way especially when backlog of court runs around 6-8 months as it is? Is this feel-good justice or is it legislation deemed to belittle the ability of Americans to know what is right for themselves.

By Randy

February 15, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Steve, Why do about the same percentage of Christians get a divorce and non-Christians? The non-Christians don’t bother to get married in the first place! I had a thought last night for the non-believers. If you don’t believe in God then you must believe in “The Big Bang”. So I guess you guys are looking continually in the sky, for another big bang to occur(could be in the same place as you say the first one was). This could happend time after time, what a mess. Here comes another sun and universe, exactly at the same place the universe and sun are now. It could do it many times. You all really don’t think things through, tell me what you think about this, except I don’t want a response from Norman as he doesn’t really say what he thinks. (He has an agenda)

By Brian Curtis

February 15, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Randy, I know this is a futile gesture… but how does the Big Bang have ANYTHING to do with the topic of this forum?

Your preaching would probably be better received if you could manage to make it even slightly related to the topic at hand, instead of just barging in with an irrelevant and meaningless comment (or, as in Texas’s case, a long and irrelevant anecdote).

As a reminder: The topic is divorce. Not atheism, not abortion, not the Big Bang. Divorce. Now try again.

By Alice

February 15, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

As a judicial clerk who handles divorce on a weekly basis, I can assure you that a waiting period will only serve to make a bad situation worse. The legislature must be operating under the assumption that couples have an argument one day and file for divorce the next. In fact, most couples separate at least 4-6 months prior to ever filing for divorce. I can only guess as to how long these couples struggled with their problems prior to separating. In addition, divorcing couples with children are sometimes required to attend a divorcing parents class to help them help their children deal with the divorce. If the legislature wants to make divorce a less painful process, they should remove it from the adversarial arena of a courtroom and encourage couples to mediate their disputes. After all, couples don’t seek a court’s permission to get married. Why should they seek the court’s permission to divorce?

By Akeya

February 15, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Texas,

No, the decision to abort should be the decision of those directly involved (the woman, doctor, man involved). It is not your business, nor mine, to dictate how the lives of those involved should pan out. Have an opinion on it, yes…make a decision about it…no…

Also me and both of my best friends were raised by single-parent, mother-led households and we were all honor students, never been to jail, don’t abuse drugs, or any of the other drivel you typed…

Instead of denigrating female-led homes, how about we jack up the salaries of women so that they are equal to that of men? How about we get the “Girls Gone Wild” into “Girls Gone Wild about Math and Science”? How about we cut the ridiculous “beauty” pageants? How about we treat women like they have brains instead of concentrating on their breasts? How about all schools have Big Brother/Big Sister programs to mentor those children coming from single parent homes, since they are such a menace to society. What are you prepared to do about these “staggering Statistics”, Tex, other than cut and paste stats from biased researchers?

And how do we know these children with the “behavioral problems” aren’t being treated differently by administrators, teachers, etc., which would have a hand in their “behavioral problems”?

By Texas

February 15, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Akeya, Read your on post on the subject: By Akeya

February 14, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Actually, the problem I find with Child Support is that many men pay child support in exchange for spending time with their children.

Also, there are women that complain that a man isn’t paying enough child support, yet they are the ones who have no job history on their DOL reports, are sucking the food stamp, TANF and Section 8 systems dry, and who kids are barely making it through school…

This is what I’ve seen as during my experience as a social services caseworker…

Now on Abortion, “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights â€â€? of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

You say I don’t have a say. Our constitution says’syou are denying that unborn baby their rights!

By Dustie

February 15, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Marriage brings out all the inner personalities and habits of both parties, something not always easy to handle. Blessed are those who have enough love and consideration to make it last. The government can’t furnish that, before or after.

Ther is nothing better than the great companionship generated by a “good” marriage. I know. I had one. But he left me. Yep, up and died. Some part of me left too. But the sun goes down , even on Valentine Day.

Divorce ends it too. Be careful and be kind.

By AllaboutME

February 15, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

…seeing how heterosexuals unions raise such traumatized rugrats and plague the court systems…all this failure of parenting and heterosexual indecisions choice further justifies gay marriage…

By J. Morris

February 15, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

The flaw apparent in the statistics posted by Texas is that they assume causality. Are we to believe that being fatherless is the sole reason for these statistics, or is being fatherless a consequence of some other factor that is far more contributory than belonging to a single parent home? It’s a classic Complex Cause fallacy with a little Post Hoc thrown in on top of it.

On a side note, the link to the study does not exist, and the professor referenced does not appear on the faculty list of the university web site, so it was a little hard to verify the data, the methodology of the study, whether or not it was peer reviewed, etc.

However, the real question remains: Do we want the government (BY the people, OF the people, FOR the people - not OVER the people) deciding when a marriage should end? We don’t need a paternalistic legislature telling grown men and women how to live thier lives.

By the same standpoint, I can’t condone a legally mandated waiting period, but it would be interesting. I grew up on the campus of an area Baptist college and at some point - I think it was when I was in college myself and saw many of my friends marrying as sophmores or even freshmen - realized that the combination of surging hormones demanding to be answered and the deep religious strictures against pre-marital sex that these friends had drove them into early, hasty marriages. MANY of these failed within a few years because the people involved wanted to have sex and needed the bond of marriage to not feel guilty about it.

By Zack

February 15, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

You came across in a very confusing way yesterday. You kept accusing me of using the word “worldview” and by your context showed that you didn’t know the meaning of it. Then I told you I used the word several times and admitted I used it and wondered what your point was. You then pulled up a quote from me where I had used the word, which was something, as I said, I had admitted to using a lot. It didn’t make any sense, and there wasn’t a point there to be found. You just confused me and wasted a lot of time typing.

allaboutme—The divorce rate is high, and heterosexuals oftentimes have indeed failed in that area. I won’t deny that. The answer, however, is not to change the definition of marriage from a legal standpoint. My goodness, we don’t need that. Nor do children. Nor do adults.

Yes, a mandatory wait for a divorce would be a good idea. People would think a little longer before getting married. This is good thinking, especially in this rush-rush-rush-and-don’t-think-about-the-possible-consequences society of ours.

By lozen

February 15, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Randy, we’re having a discussion about divorce here! What planet do you live on? We don’t care if you think there are only two choices: God or Big Bang. You are such a simple minded man but really, try to keep up with the topic. (Sound familiar?)

By Tom

February 15, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

If you really want to know someone before you get married, go camping in a tent with them for a week.

By Debora

February 15, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Boo hoo! The straight people want goverment out of thier private lives and bedrooms. Boo hoo! Different when it your private life, huh, straight folks?

I HOPE THIS PASSES WITHOUT SINGLE NO VOTE!! I have written every legislator begging them to vote yes!

By J. Morris

February 15, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry, in my earlier post I should have specified that I could not support a mandatory waiting period prior to marriage.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.

By Akeya

February 15, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Texas- oops… did I fail to mention that there are many women on the system who are married or have long-term partners? Oh yeah…. it’s called fraud…

I am not denying anyone anything by minding my own business..as you and others should when it comes to life altering decisions that don’t concern you.

Zack- why don’t you try using a different word than “worldview” before you attempt to interpret the meaning of the word the way that you please. I don’t think that I confused you any more than you already are confused…

By lozen

February 15, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

JMorris, excellent point about people getting married too young so they can have sex. I know I did. If there hadn’t been so much pressure to remain a virgin until marriage, I wouldn’t have married so young. There was no way I could be mature enough to understand what I was doing at 18! The marriage didn’t last even with three years of counseling because I wanted to grow up and my ex wanted me to stay his submissive little girl. Separating from him and living on my own was the beginning of growing up. He divorced me two years later. We had nothing in common and never should have married. I loved to read; I never saw him read a single book. He wanted to spend every weekend with his parents; I wanted friends our own age. It was the marriage that was the mistake and not the divorce.

By Zack

February 15, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Akeya—

You’ve made posts in the past that didn’t make sense from a subjective standpoint, but you at least could use the phrase “That’s my opinion.” Yesterday you made no sense at all and just showed you had no idea what the term worldview meant, and now you’re trying to say I’m the one who doesn’t know the meaning of the word. In other words, you’re showing a ton of ignornace.

By Z

February 15, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

ignorance

By Zack

February 15, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Akeya—Really, think about it. You don’t know what the term “worldview” means, and so you show this in a context where you reveal your lack of knowledge of this definition is shown to all who do know it, and you accuse me of using the word oftentimes—as though that’s a bad thing—and then I admit to using the word often and ask what your point is, and then you show no point but instead pull up a quote where I used the word.

You’re calling ME confused??????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Bruce

February 15, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

I do not understand those that think God can be left out of marriage. God invented marriage, He planned it, implemented it, and blessed it. It is only through the lies of Satan that we have come to the point in our society that divorce has become the catch-out when things don’t go our way. Divorce is, IN MOST CASES, a very selfish act. Because the other spouse cannot/will not be treated that way, another selfish act, that’s when the children begin to pay. It is the responsibility of the adults to make a marriage work not the goverments. After doing some more thinking last night I change my position. The Goverment does not belong in marriage at either end, God does. If you place God at the center of your relationship and follow his lead your marriage will only be stronger. Stop believing the lies of the devil.

By Akeya

February 15, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Zack- I’m sorry that you are so obtuse that you cannot understand the words that I type. Forgive me. In the future I will attempt to dumb it down for you.

MOst of the time I don’t use “that’s my opinion” because this is AN OPINION FORUM. What I write is my opinion.

For example, it is my opinion that you are a pompous, quasi-religious blowhard. But since I don’t know you personally, I cannot base that on facts. Only my opinion…

By Zack

February 15, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

In my previous post, “…is shown” need to be removed.

Bruce—Thank you.

By Texas

February 15, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

J. Morris go to http://childstats.gov/ac1999/toc.asp to obtain statistics.

Akeya, “Texas- oops… did I fail to mention that there are many women on the system who are married or have long-term partners? Oh yeah…. it’s called fraud…”

What’s your point?

Finally, I will and do mind my own business, however, when My Tax Dollars are paying for something (Abortion) I don’t believe in, well then it becomes my business. And as a Tax paying citizen, I would want my representatives whom I vote for to take out of the hands of appointed officials and put back into the hands of our elected officials the power of the U.S. Constitution guarantees of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Surely “you” agree?

By Zack

February 15, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Akeya—

Got a response for this?

As I’ve said now several times, I used the word “world- view” yesterday, which I’ve done many times, and then you showed that you didn’t know the definition of it. You later accused me of using the word. I was wanting to know what you point was, because I use the word a ton, and you were acting as though using the word was a bad thing. I asked you to explain yourself, and you responded by pulling up a quote where I had used the word, as though I had denied it, and as though there was something wrong with it. It’s not my fault if you don’t understand the definition of the word, and it’s not my fault that you came across as downright stupid.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Akeya, it does no good to argue with a zealot.

By chuck

February 15, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, A simple Google search revealed this to be a book written by Aneus and published in 1990. I don’t know where the statistics came from as I have not had time to look for them, however, anecdotally, I can say as one wh teaches 8th graders, these statistics bear out in the classroom. Most of the children that cause problems and don’t do the work are students who live in a ONE parent home. In my experience, it doesn’t much matter whether that one parent is a male OR a female, though most of the families are female led.

By Zack

February 15, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Tom—If you don’t see that I’m right and she’s wrong in this, you need to take a good look at yourself.

By the way, the term “zealot” has a negative spin on it, thanks to the liberal agenda, but guess what? You can never be too good. I’m not saying I don’t have areas of weakness, but people, even some Christians, act like you’re only supposed to be somewhat passionate about serving God. No, it needs to be 100%.

Akeya—I’m sorry I said you showed stupidity. That was wrong. I get frustrated when people are communicating with me and don’t listen.

By Akeya

February 15, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Tex- If you are so concerned about your tax dollars paying for abortions, why not commit to adopting 2 children per year? That way your tax dollars and your hard earned disposable income will be spent on something in which you believe.

Zack- I don’t think that using “national worldview” and using the Bible make sense together. IF you were to say that 100% of US citizens believe in the Bible, then could you make the statement you made regarding a worldview and it would have made more sense.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

I look at myself every day. I’m not a liberal and I do go to church. I just don’t believe that the will of a few should dictate the behavior of all. It is not MY place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do.

By Akeya

February 15, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Zack and Tex, I’ve just become involved in a rather interesting blog about the effects of parents of one race/ethnicity adopting children of a different race/ethnicity.

As much as I enjoy our lively banter, I’m going to flit on over to that blog for a while.

Anyway…

I don’t think that the government should have anything to do with marriages or divorces.

By Mary

February 15, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Once again, Shaunti uses faulty logic. “Divorce affects one million new children each year â€â€? children who are more likely to struggle with depression, delinquency, poverty and drug abuse….and every one of our social problems can be tied directly to family breakdown.”

She is assuming that one thing causes the other. Isn’t it equally possible that drug abuse leads to divorce, not the other way around? That children in unhappy households will suffer from depression whether or not the parents are married or not, and it’s only the unhappiest that end up divorcing? She has no evidence that these things cause each other, only that they are related. To argue otherwise goes against the very basics of logic.

By Zack

February 15, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Akeya—I was referring to the constitution, and I stand by my comment that it was based on the Bible. Earlier on, we had a national worldview that was established on God’s Word. Now, over time, our worldview is based on relativism, unfortunately.

Tom—You’re accusing me of telling a woman what she can and cannot do. When it comes to abortion, where her decision kills the life of another individual, yes, someone needs to step in. The government should NOT have this as legal. By definition, our rights end where the right of another person begin. Abortion violates this, so I get very tired of people acting like a defense of the unborn is a violation of the rights of a woman. This is untrue.

Akeya—Please don’t try to place the blame on Pro-Life advocates who don’t adopt babies. There are tons of people out there who are able and willing to adopt, and now you’re trying to place the blame on those who are against abortion and who haven’t adopted. This is wrong.

By Texas

February 15, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Bruce, You are absolutely correct about God in our lives, as well as in our marriages. But you are not being fair with respect to our government being involved. A marriage license is a governmental document. One must be obtained to get married. In the state of Texas, you can get married 7 times. (I think that’s a bit ridicules) But the point is the State has a limit. Since precedence has been established, (government involvement) Why shouldn’t the government regulate divorce. They regulate Cigarettes. No one is stopping the divorce. Just allowing a cooling off period. If after that period, no mutual ground can be obtained, then so be it. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? The government sets speed limits. Why shouldn’t the government set a speed limit on the slippery slop of divorce? The intent is honorable!

By Tom

February 15, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Say hi to Eric Rudolph for me Zack.

By J. Morris

February 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Using anecdotal evidence is a common logical fallacy - feel free to google search critical thinking, if you like. One need only look at the widespread acceptance of many urban legends to understand that anecdotal evidence is simply not reliable. I can offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but that would not accurately describe the population in question either.

You also don’t address the basic argument of causality. Certainly there are children that are from single parent homes who conform to the characteristics outlined earlier. That isn’t in question. What IS in question is whether or not that conformity is caused because the children in question are from single-parent households.

Logic would suggest that this is not the case; it is more likely that a multitude of factors are responsible. Logic suggests that socio-economic status is far more responsible than belonging to a single-parent household. Poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity - these things are likely more contributory to criminal behavior, school performance, etc.

Do you think that if the sample studied was divided into the socieo-economic demographics of the participants that you would see a conformity to the previously mentioned characteristics across socio-economic lines? I don’t. I strongly suspect that you would see an uneven distribution, with the swell occuring at the poverty level.

Oh - and Texas. The “my tax dollars” line just doesn’t wash. I don’t agree with our military action in Iraq (this is meant as an illustration, people - not an excuse to go chasing red herring arguments). Yet, billions of tax dollars that I believe would be better spent on other programs are going to support it. Do you grant me the same license to “make it my business” that you grant yourself? No, I suspect you would accuse me of being un-American.

Do you not understand the checks and balances of the government? Judges are not intended to be rubber-stamp officials elected at the whim of the masses. They are meant to be impartial arbiters of the law. When the decisions they make don’t agree with your particular philosophy, you call them “activist judges” but you have no objections to conservative judges interpreting the law as they see fit, so long as it does agree with your philosophy.

Just because something is popular does not mean that it is right. Segregation was popular. Separate-but-equal was popular. It took “activist judges” to overturn that, too.

By SHANE SMITH

February 15, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Marriage should not be a government issue. I think our government can find other things they can focus on besides this.

By Eirik

February 15, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

It is the role of societies, not the government, to keep social order. When societal pressure is not enough, the government is needed to enforce and/or clarify social rules. Government interference in our personal lives should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. Is there a cost of divorce to society? Of course, but we don’t need the government making it worse. We are adults…we assume we know how to make our own decisions concerning our personal relationships. There is a great cost to government intrusion into our personal lives, and that is that intrusion leads to the acceptance of more intrusion.

By Texas

February 15, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Akeya’ This is a slogan that produces quiet fury in pro-abortion activists, for each adoption is a baby saved and represents a failure to the pro-abortion industry. Few in the general public realize it but Planned Parenthood “counselors” and the rest of the pro-abortion, anti-child activists have for 3 decades been waging a quiet but successful war against adoption. This is evident in the pregnant girl who would rather have her baby killed than the alternative of “a fate worse than death” (adoption).

How many babies are adopted?

4% of non-marital births are placed for adoption. In the U.S. this is about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year compared to 1,500,000 babies aborted.

Why do so few mothers place their babies?

In society, customs change. Right now it is the “in” thing to keep your baby. Part of the reason for this has been the overemphasis on women’s “rights” (as in abortion) over the baby’s rights, and the concept of the mother’s “ownership,” which the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision taught our nation. Add to this the above insidious influence, the almost condemnation of, and the “poor mouthing” of adoption by many sex educators, Planned Parenthood people, social workers and others.

How many couples are waiting?

There are about two million couples waiting. Furthermore, each of these couples would want two or three, if available. Many will take hard-to-place children with special needs. Bachrach et al., “On the Path to Adoption”

“When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God â€â€? and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there’ll be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world â€â€? and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, ‘Spare him, because he loved us,’ â€â€? and God will look at you and say not, ‘Did you succeed?’ but ‘Did you try?’”

By Debora

February 15, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Shane, Eric, and others, I bet you didn’t have the same opinion about government instrusion when the legislature was bashing gay people and adding an amendment to the constitution.

By Lyrazel

February 15, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Whoa! Hold thy mighty horses here— Again and again I have heard pro-god-in-your-life discussions being held over this issue. Think flatly of the many divorcing couples who are bi-faithful, athiest, and whatever O heck… I will leave faith to you all…and interject some REALITY….

Ok, so you go to court and some judge tells you counseling for a year is required before you divorce—So, you go to sit in a DUI-type discussion room, staring at a bunch of DUI looking individuals all just wanting—out—and what? What are they going to say for this hour class you have to attend monthly for a year? Do we sit through Dudly explaining how Myrna refuses to use toys—or Fred wont flush? Will it be full of jilted wives who session after session break out in screams about the selfish bastard sitting…right next to you? Or, do we have to sit through a movie, like for Jury Duty, where Monika Kauffman talks about strong family bonds…and the role of government and your privates? Welcome to the real world of government services.

You all have debated this thing like you will be receiving excellent counseling—without actually understanding what government will provide. Come back to reality and realize the more money wasted on feel-good-intentions of the government the less money there will be in YOUR pocket on April 15.

By Nancy Brown

February 15, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Why not just let the government decide who you are going to marry?

By Texas

February 15, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

J Morris, Our elected officials voted to give the President the right to go to war. You have every right to vote out your representative if he did not represent your interests. That is your right sir! In regards to Abortion, I have no say. That my friend is not right!

I asked a simple question regarding a Judge, in the case of Sterilization or Jail. MIT or Akeya failed to address this question. Mr. Morris, I propose this question to you, do you think this judge is adhering to the law, or making law?

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.

By Renee

February 15, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

FABULOUS BANTER, but can’t we all just agree to disagree? Do any of you really think your going to change another persons mind on these subjects….I mean c’mon, it’s politics!! Stop waisting your time.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Renee, You are correct but your post is falling on deaf ears. (or is that blind eyes?)

By Renee

February 15, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

And another thing….for all you professed Christians???? None of you are very Christ-like!

By Randy

February 15, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

I love it Iozen(your earlier post on me), what are the other choices? (Besides God or Big bang). I’m thinking we should talk about a new topic next week, how about Divorce. HA!!!

By Randy

February 15, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Renee, explain what you mean by Christ-like? Is that where we give in to your opinion and let you ignore the facts?

By Renee

February 15, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

lozen - You wouldn’t happen to be Mormon would you?

By Lyrazel

February 15, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

By Eirik

February 15, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Debora ,

(I’m gay myself…sshhhh). Believe me, I understand your feelings…let’s see how all those people that interfered in my personal relationships like it when someone interferes in theirs. But ultimately, this legislature scares me…and the so called “conservatives” that support all of this government interference scare me more.

By the way, you and your partner sound fabulous.

By Renee

February 15, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Randy - I never said I was ignoring the facts, I was only speaking of all the banter back and forth, which in many instances contains unneccessary insults. Opinions are one thing, insults are another. I wonder if we’ll see Christ post anything in this discussion…..

Doubt it!

By Tom

February 15, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Judging by the posts on this blog it seems nobody wants government to tell the people what to do about marriage but quite a few want the church to tell them. This is fine as long as you don’t try to push your believes on someone else.

By J. Morris

February 15, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Texas, I don’t know enough about sentencing guidelines - nor, I suspect, do you - to make a determination about the appropriateness of the judge’s sentence. I don’t know the specifics of the case you are describing, but since you are talking about sentencing, you aren’t talking about “making law”.

Common law - relying on precedents and interpretation of higher courts - would have been affected only in the actual trial phase. Once the merits of the case were proven or disproven, the judge had sentencing guidelines to follow. I do know that so-called “creative sentencing” has been increasing in popularity as an alternative to the ever-growing prison population. Judges would seem to have a certain leeway in the kinds of sentences they can impose.

Again, just so we’re clear - that’s not “creating law”.

And perhaps the Iraq thing was a poor metaphor. My point was that there are always going to be things that don’t sit well with everyone but are still the right thing to do. I repeat my example, though you choose to ignore it. There was plenty of resistance and anger at the end of segregation - but that didn’t make it wrong.

By Renee

February 15, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Off the wall question. Just wanted to get some opinions on interracial relationships. They are becoming more and more common and I was just curious if any of you thought they are, in turn, more accepted or just ignored? I have recently started an interracial relationship and I just wanted to get some opinions on the subject.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Birds of a feather should flock together.

By Renee

February 15, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Tom - By birds, do you mean humans?

By J. Morris

February 15, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Well, we’re all human so that works. The concept of race is pretty much nonsense.

By JP

February 15, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

OK, Shaunti, I usually think you are full of B.S., but I kind of agree with you here. The true sanctity of marriage needs to be looked at. Many churches offer (voluntarily) classes before a couple is married. However, I really do feel if you want to prevent divorce, start at the begining. Teach folks the truth about what a marriage is about. Sex, as all those who have been married for years knows, is a very small part of the marriage. (And it is the same for us gays-sex plays a very small role in committed relationship). Give people the skills. Then, a waiting period to begin and end the relationship. Just a period for the divorce is a band aid on a deep wound. It ain’t doing nuthin’.

Renee As for interracail relationships, go for it! Jim Crowe laws are dead, just like the ban on gay marriages will be one day. If you find a man or woman of a different race that makes you happy, treats you well, and is a good fit for you, GOOD FOR YOU! Be prepared, as it is still frowned upon by the Holly Rollers. But, if it is a blessing from God, then so be it. Don’t let narrow minded people tell you what God is saying, follow his words in your own heart.

Shaunti-I leave you with this thought: God loves all of us. He speaks to us all differently. His diversity is infinite. And we must follow his most cherished rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself and Judge not least you be judged. You, your minister, and everyone in your church is a sinner. I try very hard not to judge others (even though I do). Open up a little, you will find God in all of us. Not just the select few.

By Lyrazel

February 15, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Renee, its survival of the species. See Darwin. LOL isnt it great though? Interracial intercostal interfaith says its time for the world to realize most of them are humans. I however, chose to come here in my flying machine to make chit chat with the natives, toodles.

By Bruce

February 15, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

JP, What “Holy Roller” has said that interracial relationships are wrong? I have been around quite a few over the years and I have never heard that.

By Tom

February 15, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

What do you think I meant Renee?

By chuck

February 15, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

JMorris, You appear to an educated man with some background in research. That being the case, you are disingenuous at best in your faulting the statistics because they don’t show causality. Any educated person should know that in social science research it is not possible to show direct causation unless all other factors can be controlled for. That being the case most causal comparitive studies attempt to show through statistical analysis whether or not there is a significant relationship between a factor and an outcome. Short of experimentation (which is NOT POSSIBLE) we cannot show causation. That said, The statistics he quoted IF CORRECT, would in my experience with doctoral level research, probably show such a statistical significance.

As to the matter on anecdotal evidence, certainly one anecdote would certainly not be very trustworthy in terms of being able to rely on it. I however have been teaching for 15 years and the basic premise that I espoused earlier has held true for hundreds of cases. I have taught well over 2000 students in that time frame.

By Renee

February 15, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the opinions guys! I really appreciate them. I recently got divorced from a guy that treated me with no respect and with that divorce, I moved. When I did, I rekindled a relationship with my Best Friend of 12 years. We’ve known each other since 6 & 7th grade and he was there for me (as a friend) through the divorce. We’re now dating and he’s the best. He treats me with the utmost respect and love and the fact that we were “friends first” has made our romantic relationship that much better. I know there are still a lot of people that don’t agree with it, but we figure, if we’re happy and in love, nothing else matters. Of course, we still get stares and comments, but we try our best to just ignore it and chalk it up to ignorance.

Thanks again for the comments!

By Michael

February 15, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Thank you MG, I too am a born and bred Southerner who has lived elsewhere, in the US and abroad, and I appreciate your comments. (I meant to say red states, not blue in my post.) And thank you Erik for your kind remarks.

Texas, the figures that I used were from the OECD, which has 30 democratic members and its research is highly regarded and widely cited in the economic literature on these issues. The fact that the Secretariate is based in France is only relevant to your prejudices, not the reliability of their research. All that matters is the rigor and soundness of the methodology employed, not whether it is based in Paris or Texas. Second, you are wrong, the figures actually did include private contributions from individuals. The % of GDP. that the US devotes to aid to poor countries is only 0.11 and rises to 0.145 when private donations are included, which is the figure I gave. You are not the first conservative to make this mistake, as I corrected a journalist who made a similar argument in the San Francisco Chronicle last month. Other sources used in my post are from the World Bank, not exactly a bastion of left wing advocacy research and the Center for Global Development and Center on Budget Priorities. The other claims regarding the ranking of the US, the G.P. %, and Australians outspending the US despite one fifteenth the population base are true, and they are relevant to the issues I raised. My original source was the Princeton University philosophy professor Peter’s Singer’s book “The President of Good and Evil.� Since I teach college and take my the credibility of my claims seriously I double checked his figures before using them in one of my classes. I politely suggest that you do the same.

The crime figures you gave are not credible, no matter how one defines “crime.� (I suspect that you obtained them from one of the NRA “fact sheets� or similar ideologically biased source. They are the usual suspects behind such claims. And what kind of academic titles an article “The Garbage Generation,� a crackpot I think.) And it certainly is the case that the US does and always has led all Western nations and Japan in violent crime rates. It makes a difference to quality of life and may make a difference with respect to the moral condition of a society. I lived in Australia for nearly five years and have visited Scandinavia more than once, including this past summer. Norway and Sweden were ranked as having the highest quality of life in the world by the UN, followed by Australia and then Canada. Anyone who visits or spends time in all of these countries, and I have, can judge for themselves where they are safest and which societies are more socially just. These differences certainly strike and shock almost all the Europeans who visit the US.

Nothing you said supports the claim that there is a necessary connection between religion and morality, conceptually or sociologically, which was my original issue.

Patrick Henry was wrong and to tendentiously quote one set of remarks by one figure to favor a such a position is rather common among conservatives. Yes, great men can be wrong and often are. There is no mention of the word “Godâ€? or “Christianityâ€? or “Jesus Christâ€? in the Constitution, so how can the US be “foundedâ€? on the gospels? (The Supreme Court has certainly never issued such an interpretation.) The God in the Declaration of Independence was the god of deism, not Christianity. But I prefer Thomas Jefferson’s comment to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1776: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

By Renee

February 15, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Tom - I’m not sure, what did you mean?

By mit

February 15, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

texas, i don’t know anything about this case, i did hear about it and she had like seven kids. SEVEN now she’s in jail? sterilization sounds good to me. I also like judgements like that. I believe all drug defendents, criminal defendents, etc. (able bodied) should be sentenced into the military instead of jail. at least then they would learn something instead of watching tv and playing video games. like boot camp for 1st offense then a 2 - 4 year service for 2nd offense. i would almost garauntee (sp?) there wouldn’t be a 3rd offense for those who would know have a skill and a serious job potential.

By J. Morris

February 15, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you hit the nail on the head. I was not faulting the statistics because they didn’t show causality – and I think careful review of my post will bear that out. I was faulting an interpretation of the statistics that takes one factor out of many and declares it the root cause of the problems within the sampled population.

And you are being disingenuous if you expect us to believe that all doctoral level research is equal. That is why I mentioned peer review before - that’s what it’s for. I assure you, as someone with a Master’s degree of his own and as the son of a college professor who has spent an enormous percentage of his life on various college campuses, that research is not infallible just because a PhD performed it.

Again, just to restate – my argument with the original poster’s {of the statistics) conclusion was that it assumed a single, simple causality. To use a local example, it’s like saying that the Civil War was cause by slavery. That works in third grade, but by the time you hit college its time to dig a little deeper.

By lozen

February 15, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Renee, nope not Mormon - raised fundamentalist baptist here in the cultural backwoods of north GA and now a religious universalist/comparatist. I experience a great mysterious presence that cannot be put into words, limited by any definition, or contained in any holy book. The simple minded biblican literalism of my childhood stood in the way of the experience.

By lozen

February 15, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Hey what’s with the big gray block? Is there censorship going on here?

By Renee

February 15, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Lozen, oh ok, just curious. Thanks for the response.

By lozen

February 15, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck, it is so easy for people to see what they’re looking for if there are no controls present. Could there be a chance that you are looking to prove your basic premise (children from single parent households are always problem children) and therefore only see evidence to prove your premise? Oh gosh I guess not since you have no bias and nothing to prove.

By Texas

February 15, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this

Michael, Does morality thrive in the absence of religion? While some allege that it will, studies do not support that conclusion. There are exceptions to most every rule. And exceptions are precisely that; they are exceptions. Let me explain.

There are some people who have no religious philosophy. They profess not to believe in any Supreme Being. In spite of this, they lead reasonably respectful lives. They do not murder, commit adultery, or embezzle from their employers.

On the other hand, there are those who profess to be quite religious, and yet, clearly, they are as far from godliness as one can be. The notorious Ku Klux Klan is an apt illustration of the disconnect between “profession� and “possession.�

As a general rule, however, the person who truly believes in God, and who has some sense of the moral principles set forth in the Bible, is a better person. He is less to be feared in the neighborhood, and is more likely to be a savoring influence in his community.

George Washington once warned that it is folly to suppose that “morality can be maintained without religion.� Studies repeatedly have shown this statement to be true.

Some months ago, author David Myers penned an essay titled “Godliness and Goodliness,â€? which appeared in the magazine Sightings (4/11/01). Myers called attention to the fact that in one “U.S. national survey, frequent worship attendance predicted lower scores on a dishonesty scale that assessed, for example, self-serving lies, tax cheating, and failing to report damaging a parked car. Moreover, in cities where churchgoing is high, crime rates are low…In Provo, Utah, where more than 9 in 10 people are church members, you can more readily leave your car unlocked than in Seattle, where fewer than a third are.â€?

A report by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Byron Johnson, which combined the results of some forty studies and probed the relationship between religion and juvenile crime, revealed that most delinquent crimes are committed by youngsters who have “low levels of religious commitment.� Children who attend church become delinquent with far less frequency than those who do not.

According to Myers, studies have demonstrated that the most benevolent people of our society are the ones who are involved in religious activity. Americans who never attend church give about 1.1% of their income to charity. Those who are weekly church-goers (who constitute only 24% of the population) give two and one-half times as much as the non-religious, and account for almost half (48%) of all charitable contributions given.

Several other surveys have shown that the highest rates of “volunteerism� are by the religious, as compared to those in whose lives religion was deemed “not very important.�

A poll of 502 teens, conducted earlier this month, by the Christian News Service, determined that more than 80% of those surveyed disciplined their sexual activity on the basis of their faith values.

And so while there always will be exceptions, the general truth is this: Those who believe in God are much more likely to have respect and concern for their fellows than those who do not. Read Romans 3:10-18 for the divine assessment of this matter.

By Randy

February 16, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

Your right Texas, I coach a softball team of 14 year olds and have coached for 6 or 7 years. Every year there is usually one or two( of 12) out of the players who doesn’t go to church. These unchurched players are as obvious as they can be, they are unhappy, sad, meaner and just lost emotionally. I thank my mother all the time for the fact she took me to church, it showed me she really loved me and was the most important thing she and my dad ever did.

By AllaboutME

February 16, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

…yeah, texas, Paul Shanley was a moral git too…believed in his bible…he probably can quote as much scripture as you…

By JP

February 16, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I was born and raised in a Southern Baptist Church in S. GA. I am a white male who looks, acts, talks & walks like any straight male. It is amazing what people will say when they do not know who you are. It was just 20 years ago churches were damning interracial couples to hell. I sat there as a child and heard it. Both the officail line and the ‘behind closed doors,’ just as I do now. I also have a close friend (straight) who is in an interracail relationship. She says the same thing. It always seems to me the ones that are the most intolerant & hateful are the ones who are the most vocal about telling others what God demands you should do while not seeing the worng they, themselves do.

I am a Christian. I have a very close relationship with the Lord & Jesus Christ in my heart. And, I get very upset with those who use his name to spread hatered & fear. Jesus came to teach us love and tolerance for all. Texas will probably tear me apart, but I have strength & faith in what God has put in heart. There is just too much hypocracy & ‘better than thou’ and not enough ‘I love you no matter what’ in this world.

By Bruce

February 16, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

I too was raized and live in South Ga and attend a Southern Baptist Church. Not once in my 45 years have I heard it preached that these kinds of relationships are wrong. 20 years ago I am sure you heard alot of things, but to spread it as a fact today seems a little going against what you closed your post with. Isn’t calling people “Holy Rollers” just a term one would use to spread “fear and hatered”? Isn’t it being a little hypocritical for you to demean those who differ with you and then demand “I love you no matter what”? You want people to love you, no matter what, but where is your love for them, no matter what?

Jesus did come to teach love, however I cannot find any teaching where he taught us to tolerant sin. Loving your neighbor as yourself is not the same as toleranting their sin. People can’t seem to see the difference.

By Randy

February 16, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

The problem is not what we Christians say, in reference to the unchurched. It’s what the unchurched think we are saying and thinking. They think that because we don’t do things we are better than them, it’s more their perception than ours. They feel the need to do what is right, so to keep from doing that, they call us holy rollers etc.

By norman

February 16, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

“The government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion….” 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the USA and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary,” unanimously ratified by the US Senate.

The fundamentalists would “whip and crop, pillory and roast” those they disagree with if they were in charge — John Adams.

“I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.” —Ben Franklin.

Washington spoke no words of religious note on his deathbed, did not ask for a clergyman to be present, and his last act was to take his own pulse, a sign of scientific rationalism.

These examples of the utter lack of Christianity among our founding fathers may be found in an article in THE NATION, Feb. 21, 2005 by Brooke Allen entitled “Our Godless Constitution.”

I admit that the founders did not use my language, that Christianity is a form of mental illness, but they came close.

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Let me take a stab at Bruce’s statement about tolerance, even though the whole devolving of this conversation into a battle of religious ideology is way off topic. How about:

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Why do you notice the sliver in your friend’s eye, but overlook the timber in your own? How can you say to your friend, “Let me get the sliver out of your eye, when there is that timber in your own? You phony, first take the timber out of your own eye and then you’ll see well enough to remove the sliver from your friends eye.

If you are too busy “not tolerating” the “sins” of your beloved neighbor, then you are doing a lot of judging and a lot of stone-throwing. I’m just guessing your aim is off because of the big timber sticking out of your eye.

In case you’ve missed the meaning of these statements, Christ is saying, to put it bluntly, Mind your own damn business, worry about your own problems, and leave your neighbor in peace.

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Randy, for giving me the best laugh I’ve had all week. I’ve never been referred to as the unchurched before. Trust me - I don’t believe that “because you don’t do things” that you are a better person than I. I also assure you that my sense of morality and ethics is as strong, if not stronger, than most of the sanctimonious “churched” people I work with. Please feel free to continue in your delusions of superiority, and please realize that your post is the epitome of the sanctimonious “holy roller”.

By Bruce

February 16, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

J. Morris How about this:

If you see your brother sinning go to him, if he does not listen go to him again but take someone with you. If he still does not listen bring him before the church.

How can we determine if sin is being committed if we do not judge. We are not judging that person but their actions (sins).

I have never and will never say I am without sin, however if you see me sin it is your responsibility to call me on it. In a loving manner of course.

Also, how am I to Love my neighbor if I do not know what is going on in their life? How can I know that they are in need if I just leave them alone? How do you help someone when you do not know they need help? Minding my own business does not show love for my neighbor. Nor does toleranting their sins.

By Texas

February 16, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Michael,

You Sir are incorrect! First let’s start with CRIME. These findings are produced jointly every three years by academics in Holland. The results “England has the worst crime record in the industrialized world with 58 offences for every 100 inhabitants each year.

England and Wales, Australia, Netherlands and Sweden had victim rates above 24%.

Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the US had rates between 20 and 24%.

Source”Leiden University in Holland.”

Second, let’s discuss Charity for a moment. According to a quote by American philanthropist Daniel Rose in “An Exceptional Nation,” an article in Philanthropy magazine (November/December 2004) “American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that’s some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities.” Americans contribute six or seven times more than some of our European neighbors.

So Michael, what about President Bush’s $350 million commitment for earthquake and tsunami relief is that just as praiseworthy? Let’s look at it. Charity is reaching into one’s own pockets to assist fellow man in need. Reaching into someone else’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man hardly qualifies as charity. When done privately, we deem it theft, and the individual risks jail time.

What would some of our ancestors say about government “Charity”? James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, in January 1794 speech in the House of Representatives, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty to the government.”

A few years later, Virginia Rep. William Giles condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to “attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require.”

Franklin Pierce, our 14th president, vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity,” adding to that to approve such spending “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

In 1887, President Grover Cleveland, our 22nd and 24th president, said, when he vetoed a bill to assist drought inflicted counties in Texas, “I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds…I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”

Tennessee Rep. Col. Davy Crockett, in a speech before the House of Representatives, said, in protest against a $10,000 appropriation for a widow of a distinguished naval officer. ” We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress, we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

Michael, did the 109th Congress and President discover a constitutional authority for charitable expenditures undiscovered by James Madison, William Giles, Presidents Franklin Pierce and Grover Cleveland, and Davy Crockett.

Major U.S. companies, such as American Express, Pfizer, Exxon Mobil and General Motors donated millions of dollars to tsunami relief efforts. Like those of the administration and congress, their actions aren’t praiseworthy at all. The CEOs who authorized these “charitable” donations were reaching not into their own pockets but into the pockets of their shareholders.

Michael, did individuals in Australia contribute, or was it their government reaching into their pockets?

By Michael

February 16, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Texas,

There is a considerable amount of research on religiosity in the US and internationally, but there are no objective, social scientific studies that demonstrate that there is a causal relationship between belief in religion and being a better person, though there is, as always, self serving advocacy research. I specialized in ethics in graduate school and teach the subject in college and no one in the academy takes such claims seriously. I also teach critical thinking and devote a section of my course to advocacy research. (I also notice that you did not acknowledge the correction in my post, nor any of the claims about secular societies being more socially just than the religious United States. It’s a bit too inconvenient and a more relevant comparison isn’t it?) Religious people are not better on the whole than non-religious people although I can see that this belief is obviously a deep part of your religious ideology and that does not interest me at all.

By Randy

February 16, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

J Morris, Terms like Holy Roller, etc, are a defense mechanism for the unchurched, so that they can fight off the holy spirit. I’m not trying to be superior to anyone, I just don’t have the need to do things contrary to the bible. My soul is fulfilled 100%, through the power of Jesus Christ, I don’t need alcohol, drugs, cheating on my wife, saying cuss words to act big etc.

By norman

February 16, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Randy: in any sane country the men in white coats would be knocking on your door.

By Lyrazel

February 16, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Just to let you know the term: churched is a reference to women who have given birth and have fully expelled birthing fluids, etc. It was used in the middle ages quite a lot. So unchurched would actually mean you are waiting to loose such fluids of birthing and have not done so.

Why is everyone who goes to church and who believes in their faith so thin skinned they feel they need to defend themselves over every comment and sneeze others make? Ive been called a liberal socialist pinko fraud and giggle every time someone invents a new term for me. Love your faith and live it but laugh people and make god smile about something today!

Second thing about marriage and life…my ex-sister in law is going to wed a woman of a darker shade of melanin. Her family quite loudly is admonishing fervent religious-based intollerance and hatred…(in true assembly of god fervor and AG folks make Baptists seem liberal)…Her ceremony will be administered by her cousin a minister in Chicago who does homeless ministary…he is also getting flack…because he too is gay. Im thinking of sending the new couple a lamp…light up their life…etc…is it ok for an ex-sister in law to support such subversive behavior?

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Randy,

Terms like “Holy roller” are a sign of thinly-veiled contempt for narrow-minded, limited and self-righteous people like you. I was not aware that I was actually battling with the Holy Spirit, but thank you for alerting me. Just so you know, we “unchurched” folk don’t think we are “acting big” because we drink alcohol (if we happen to do so). Nor do we cheat on our spouses/wives/partners/SO’s with any more frequency than the “churched”. I’m really not sure what drugs have to do with your delusional superiority, and I am absoultely thrilled that you are 100%filled up by Jesus Christ. I personally think you are 100% filled up with something else, but that’s just me…and probably a lot of other people who have had the misfortune to encounter you.

Just so you know, my contempt for you does not originate from the fact that you are religious. I know a lot of devoutly relgious people whom I respect deeply. My contempt originates from your rigidity, and the fact that you actually make a statement like “…holy roller are defense mechanisms…” and then immediately use a label of your own like “unchurched.”

I am done with you now. Please feel free to call me out on my obvious hostility, call me hypocritical, etc. I really don’t care. I feel no obligation to attempt to get along with someone who is so obviously not interested in getting along with anyone who doesn’t tow his religious line. I’m off to drink some alcohol and say some “cuss” words so I can feel big about myself.

By Michael

February 16, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Texas, I hadn’t seen your latest post when I made my comments and I am reluctant to waste any more time responding to these scattershot claims so this is my last comment. Once again, as measured by % of GDP the United States is well down the list of industrialized nations in aid to poorer countries when government, private and corporate contributions are aggregated, and that is a fact. The figures that I originally posted and cited included all these forms of giving. All your talk about government “theftâ€? is wholly irrelevant since Europeans and Australians view government as the best mechanism for addressing social justice in their own countries and the best means for giving abroad, not private and corporate contributions. Giving by any means is commendable, but if a people self-consciously choose government taxation as the way to aid others, as Europeans and Australians happily do, the private donation/government contribution distinction makes no difference. Yet, that point seems to be utterly lost on you. Australians did not complain about their taxes going to aid the Tsunami victims any more than they complain about their superb, publically funded hospitals. In fact, it is well known that Europeans and Australians are proud of their welfare states and the role of government in their societies, a role which contributes significantly to the quality of life ranking that I pointed out before.

Yes, corporations give money from a variety of motives. One motive is concern for the well being of others and that is to be praised. They also give for reasons of publicity and a partial tax deduction, and to varying degrees, depending on the corporation, exploit poorer societies. That is part of the larger picture of corporate giving as well.

By Randy

February 16, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

J Morris, I guess I hit a sore spot. Sorry. Do you have this kind of reaction to other religions? Didn’t think so. But then the truth hurts.

By Bruce

February 16, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Randy, Darkness cannot exist in the Light. You planted the seed just sit back and watch it grow.

By RS

February 16, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Yes, Randy, I am “unchurched” but does attending synagogue count or am I still an evil, Satanic heathen?

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Randy, please stretch your meager reading comprehension skills to their fullest and re-read. I believe you will find that it is not the religion you chose that I despise - far from it, in fact. It is you and the self-righteous, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, arrogant fundamentalist rabble that saturate our current society that I despise. I find great value in all the religions of the world. It’s the blindly religious irrational people who are the problem.

By JP

February 16, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

The term ‘Holly Roller’ is a generic term for Overenthusiastic Religous person. I apologize if it offended you. However, many of these ‘Holly Rollers’ use much worse names for me. And, if in the 45 years of your life you never heard a preacher speak of the sins of interracail relationships, you must have selective hearing or memory. Also, why is that you decide to choose which sins you want to dismiss folks for? What about the sin of mixed fabrics? The bible allowed for slavery, but you now know it is not right. Divorce was not allowed. Men owned women. Men could have multiple wives. The bible was used all throughout the 60’s to make Black Men 2nd class citizens. However, as society has evolved, people see that some prejedices/concepts are just not right. They must change, and this too shall come to pass.

Bruce, I do not ‘not love’ an overenthusiastic religous person. I do not want to interfere in their lives. I want them to be happy and live a life that fufills them. Handle snakes, do not wear make-up, etc. Do whatever you need to do. However, I have a huge problem when you choose to control others based on your concepts of how life should be. I have a firm belief that if you do not hurt another person/animal/etc. with what you choose to do, then make yourself happy. I do have a love for everyone. I might not like ya, but I love mankind. I always do the best I can. I am not perfect. I am a sinner, just like you. However, I do not wish to regulate and make laws telling you how to live your life. When you come to me, whether in business or on a personal level, I will not dismiss you or treat you badly if I find out you are an ‘Evangelical Christian.’ However, I have seen the way many religons, churches treat interracail couples & gays. It is not your place to judge. I am not going to tell you I have all the right answers, but I am going to tell you that I have to right to do as I feel God tells me to in my heart as long as it does not hurt another.

By norman

February 16, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

The thing Christians hate most is to be faced alone with the irrationality of their beliefs. That is why they attend church and church functions, to be constantly reassured that their crazy beliefs are shared by others and therefore cannot be wrong or ridiculous. This is called “fellowship,” whenever two or three fools are gathered in Jesus’ name there is confidence and security. But take each Christian alone and he will fall apart in the face of common sense and reason.

By Boscoe

February 16, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Norman the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the USA and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary is a myth. There is no evidense of its exsistance anywhere but in the annuls of Anti- Christain web sites. There are no copies of this text to be found anywhere. With regards to President Washington,In his Farewell Address,* Which is in the Library of Congress* ,the first president advised his fellow citizens that “Religion and morality” were the “great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.” “National morality,” he added, could not exist “in exclusion of religious principle.” “Virtue or morality,” he concluded, as the products of religion, were “a necessary spring of popular government.” The library of Congress goes on to show that The country’s first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. You can find all this and more in the Library of Congress.

By Wicked

February 16, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

This one goes to Texas. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for not ranting on someone else’s post and offering words of wisdom in stead.

We are a (very) weak society. We are selfish, and believe the world owes us something, just because we are in it! In stead of looking to someone else (i.e partner/government) to make us happy, and to make all our dreams come true, we should focus on doing it ourselves! Take the blinders off and see things for what they truly are. Be honest with yourself and others. If you are in a bad spot, see what you can do to make it better. Learn from your mistakes and don’t blame others for it.

As far as waiting periods for divorce is concerned… Isn’t there something more important that needs voting on?

By Bruce

February 16, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

JP, I had a sermon typed out but though better of it. But I will leave you with this. As a Christain you probably know that slavery as it was in biblcial times is not the slavery we know today. Divorce is allowed in the Bible and what about being a stumblind block (example)to others?

By YOLANDA MORGAN OSWALD

February 16, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

One thing these pathetic comments fail to mention is second wives but second wives have always gotten the raw public press. Sometimes leaving a first marriage is the best thing that ever happens to a couple AND its children. Everyone posting here HAS MAINTAINED THE ASSUMPTION that these women will never remarry if they have children and custody. Its the old WOMEN AS USED GOODS theory!!! In the 20th and 21st century women re-marry and begin families without stima and also husbands re-marry and love and adore their second wifes kids. Some men re-marry men and are better loved and the relationship is stronger. We live in a far different world than the one that cries foul of everything that is not 1950-ish traditional. HERES TO ALL THE SECOND AND THIRD UNIONS!!!

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Hi Yolanda. Sorry if you think we’re neglecting second marriages - that is absolutely not the case. The possibility of second or even third marriages is implicit in my disagreement with the fundamental argument that a divorce will automatically result in a worse situation than existed prior to it.

I myself am the product of a second marriage - I have two great sisters who look at my father as their real father. My mother was married very young in the late 50s - you know, that decade that all the proponents of this measure point to as the great ideal - to a husband who quickly proved to be very disturbed and abusive. She eventually was able to leave the relationship and go back to college. There, she met my dad (she was his student, but she was older than he) and they married. They have had a great marriage since.

Any emotional scars my sisters suffer stem not from the divorce but from the horrific treatment that both they and my mother were subject to. To this day, the first husband sends derranged letters to my sisters, threatening to kill my father and reclaim my mother. You can see why I find the idea that a marriage should be preserved at all costs offends me deeply. I can only imagine how much worse things would have been for my family had the state “forced” my mother to stay with that man once she had worked up the courage to divorce him.

By Michael

February 16, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

The treaty does exist, though perhaps some people make more out of it than they should, that is a larger historical issue. In any event, you can find the text at the Yale law school site under the Avalon project, which contains the texts of many charters and treaties. I occasionally consult it and it is reliable research tool. I have also seen the treaty referred to in other well known sources and the Nation magazine article referred to in an earlier posting also reports the numerous places in which it was originally published and voted on by Congress. It is easily obtained at their website. That should settle the factual issue, its import is another matter.

By lozen

February 16, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Four blind men were sitting around arguing one day about what an elephant is like. The first man felt the elephant’s trunk and said, “The elephant is round and wrinkled and has a soft, wet hole at the bottom.” The second blind man felt the elephant’s tail and said, “No, you are so wrong. The elephant is short and thin.” The third blind man felt the elephant’s ear and said, “You’re both crazy! The elephant is flat, broad and thin.” The fourth blind man felt the elephant’s leg and said, “The devil is deceiving all of you and you’re going to hell. The elephant is huge and round and hard like a tree trunk.”

By Sam

February 16, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Aside from disagreeing with the idea of this mandatory waiting period on principle, I also have to disagree with it on personal experience. My parents’ divorce was the best thing that ever happened to me. When people mention exceptions to the waiting period for abuse - they tend to overlook neglect and psychological abuse, both of which can be devastating, but nearly impossible to prove.

By chuck

February 16, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

tol·er·ate: 1)To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit. 2) To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others). 3) To put up with; endure.

JP, I can assure you that Jesus NEVER taught us to tolerate SIN. He Himself gave us the example when He saw what the money changers had done to the Temple. He went in with a Whip and drove them out. If you are GAY and Profess to be a Christian one of two things is true. Either you are mistaken about your relationship existing at all (A Christian cannot live in habitual sin. Christians will sin on occasion, I do more than my share, but a Christian cannot live a lifestyle of sin)OR you are in a one-sided relationship with Christ in which He is distant and in the process of bringing things into your life to draw you to repentence of your sin and a return to your first love. Christ will not be associated with sin. He is waiting to forgive it but that forgiveness comes AFTER repentence or turning away from the sin. Rest assured that pracicing homosexuality is a sin. Like any other sin it can be forgiven through repentence.

By RS

February 16, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck: PRACTICING homosexuality? My dear man, the gays I know are so good at it they don’t NEED to practice! Seriously, God made gay people gay. No one chooses who they’re attracted to. And did you know there are gay churches? Love isn’t a sin; you’re confusing it with lust. In Biblical times, homophobes insisted it WAS a sin; ok, maybe it was frowned upon because gay sex did nothing to increase the population of (at the time) a meagerly peopled Earth but clearly that is hardly the case now.

By Eirik

February 16, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

*Rest assured that practicing homosexuality is a sin

Isn’t this only an issue among the religious? Homosexuality is not illegal (anymore) in the privacy of one’s home, so it’s being “wrong” is really just a matter of opinion. Why should I, a non-Christian, care if you call it a sin or not?

By Tim

February 16, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

RS… well said… I don’t really ‘practice’ anymore :)… you are right love isn’t a sin… and also NO WHERE in the Bible does it state that being gay is immoral… anywhere that the Bible discusses homosexuality it is referring to specific societies and it not being the ‘social norm’… much like when the Bible states women are not to speak in church… something not being the social norma is much different than something being immoral

By Seaborn

February 16, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

RS,

You stole my “gay practicing” joke :). Actually, after 15 years with my partner, we really don’t practice that much anymore…sorry, TMI.

So, is it too early for this weeks forum to start to spiral into absurdity? Lance Armstrong is going for his 7th tour d’france win…anyone want to spar on that one?

Chuck, I’m curious how you know so much about homosexuality…

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Dear Something-that-rhymes-with-Chuck: One-sided relationship with Christ? Mistaken about his relationship existing at all? Christ…is distant? Like, what…a jilted ex-lover, or that guy around the office who you don’t like much but are forced to socialize with?

Who the hell are you to tell someone the state of his or her soul? Who made YOU the final arbiter of a person’s spirituality? Why in the name of all that is holy are you referring to a person’s spiritual life in terms that are more appropriate to an episode of Dr. Phil?

If ever a person fit the stereotype of the self-righteous, pompous, arrogant, fundamentalist, HOLY ROLLING, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou jackass - it’s you.

You people never cease to amaze me with the narrow limitations you put on a God you claim is all-knowing, wise beyond measure, and loving beyond our comprehension. Answer me this question: if a gay man or woman’s parent (that’s Earthly parent for you dogmatics out there) can love, accept and cherish him or her without question, without qualification, unconditionally, then why, reasonably, do you find it so hard to believe that God, with all of the qualities ascribed to him does not do the same?

The God you talk about and the God my priests have always talked about are obviously not the same.

By RS

February 16, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Tim & Seaborn, bless your hearts! You’re both shining examples of why I’m a f* hag! Seaborn, the reason Chuck knows so much about homosexuality (& I’ve expounded on this theory several times in this blog) is because homophobes hide behind their anti-gay bigotry to rationalize their own fears that they themselves may have homosexual tendencies. This theory is well-documented by the way.

By Tom

February 16, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Seems Chuck has everybody fired up. Randy & Norm are probably getting jealous.

By J. Morris

February 16, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure jealousy is a sin.

By Tom

February 16, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Yeah. They do like to throw stones.

By norman

February 17, 2005 07:04 AM | Link to this

The Christians have taken over several school districts in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead of studying math they are to sing Christian hymns and listen to preachers discourse on the meaning of “is” in various Gospel verses. Tom Jefferson must be turning over in his grave. Did he struggle to create a commonwealth of redneck Christians? I think not.

By norman

February 17, 2005 07:17 AM | Link to this

Tim: you will never get anywhere by claiming the bible does not condemn homosexuality. It is obvious that primitive semitic societies did not favor gay rights. Why not just admit the bible is not meant for modern life and continue to engage in whatever sexual activities your proclivities demand, within the purvue of the law?

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Here is a couple question for you. If God created someone gay why is it that the only mention of two people being joined together it is always between a man and a woman? If God knew there were going to be homosexuals why isn’t it mentioned in the bible, other than being it being wrong?

By Lyrazel

February 17, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

Excuse me, but just how dang sure you are that GOD is not gay?

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, Why would He say it is wrong it if he was? Kind of a silly question isn’t it?

By Lyrazel

February 17, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

Why not? GOD made MAN in his own image first and was quite content to play around with ONLY Adam in the garden. Indeed, he never made Eve until Adam got bored…proving only Adam had heterosexual tendencies…

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, The only thing that proves is you apparently have never studied the Bible. I really do not have time for a Sunday School lesson right now. Randy or Chuck could you handle this one please?

By Lyrazel

February 17, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Bruce, did I ask for a lesson? Nope. See biblical verse is open to interpretation and if you choose to interpret words written centuries ago, I can too. What really bugs me is this OUR-WAY-ONLY interpretations that so many have in this forum…

By norman

February 17, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Of course biblical passages can be read in many different ways. But that is not the point. Why bother reading them in any case? Do we parse phrases from The Iliad? The Bible had no more authority for a person who is rational and not deranged than a novel. Don’t dignify those who read the bible by taking their activity seriously. They are deluded, deranged, depraved, and devoid of any merit.

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, It’s not OUR-WAY-ONLY, it is GOD’S-WAY-ONLY. If your interpretation of ANY bibical verse is that God is gay, or that homosexuality was created by Him, I would suggest you read through the Bible again but this time open your heart and allow God to tell you what His words mean.

Again I ask, If God knew there were going to be homosexuals why isn’t it mention in the Bible, other than it being wrong?

By Lyrazel

February 17, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

If god did not know there were homosexuals in the world I sometimes wonder what planet HE is from, ya know? God did not write the bible. The only thing God ever wrote was the 10 commandments….it was men who studied ancient hebrew and ancient greek who compiled the pages of text known as THE BIBLE. My point is only…why must we base legislation on one interpretation of a book that has MANY broad interpretations? Such following leads me to belive poligimy is OK with GOD…and there is no way anyone can prove God didnt approve poligamy…

By Angie

February 17, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

My dear Norman….your proclomation that those of us who read the Bible are “deluded, deranged, depraved, and devoid of any merit” is the most inflamatory comment you have made in quite a while. And that is certainly saying something. Why do you say these things? I agree, there are certain aspects of ALL religious writings that are indeed open to interpretation. But to label those who read them as somehow lacking mentally is simply stupid. It amazes me still that what one reads is fodder for the water cooler. If you are going to be so juvenile and simple as to stoop to the level of name calling over what people read…then please don’t get your panties in a wad when those same people throw barbs at you for not reading. And no…Spengler is no longer considered a literary point in your blog column. You seem quite intelligent Norman….and while I very seldom agree with you on anything….I expected more.

By RS

February 17, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Bruce: If God created heterosexuals, of course by the same token He also created homosexuals. After all, they’re people too. The reason their union was not mentioned in the Bible is because, clearly, the Bible was written by bigoted homophobes.

By BSW Student

February 17, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

OK, people lets get the facts straight. The divorce bill states an extended waiting period with education classes to be taken during the waiting period. If at the end of the waiting period you still want a divorce you will be granted. This bill only effects those who have children under the age of 18 and does not pertain to cases of abuse or any other violence. As far as a marriage bill the house has a bill coming out that extends the waiting period as well, this bill also includes classes during this waiting period. Both bills mandatory classes gives the waiting adults insight to what they are really facing after the marriage/divorce. Problem people don’t realize such as credit issues, finance issues of maintaining now two households, and the worst of all the childrens well being mentally. Just because the children don’t say anything does not mean they are not affected deeply. Children of divorced parents according to statistics are 2x as likely not to finish school. Boys of divorced parents are 5x as likely to end up in prison. If this alone is not a reason to try and save a marriage what is?

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, Following your way of thinking how do you know God wrote the 10 commandments? It’s funny you believe God wrote the 10 commandments but you cannot give Him credit for the rest of it? That is lame at best.

And comparing Poligamy with Homosexuality is apples to oranges. You are grasping at straws.

Personally I do not care if the goverment imposes a waiting period for divorce. I do not plan to get one and if the time comes for me to get one, I guess it will mean no more to me than having to buy a fishing license, just another man made law.

By norman

February 17, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: what do you mean, God wrote the Ten Commandments? They are the same more or less than the Code of Hammurabi, the Babylonian ruler. They are simply a primitive social code, not coming from any God or god. Your emancipation from the bible is only partial, my dear. You cling to certain conceptions out of fear or ethnic pride or whatever. Free yourself, be brave, and ignore Angie who is not worth our trouble.

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

RS, I sure the limb you are out on doesn’t break!! Maybe Lyrazel can give you some straws.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Good people, pay no attention to Chuck and his obsessions. Did you note how he brought homosexuality up yesterday when the discussion had nothing to do with that? He will always bring the topic back to being gay. What does that indicate to you? Why is he so obsessed with the small percentage of gays (10 percent) and what they’re doing in the bedroom? You know there must be several adulterous affairs going on in Chuck’s church and with the other teachers he works with but he isn’t obsessing about that. Hummmmmmm? I’m beginning to think RS is right about that homophobe thing. Also, I’ve seen Chuck use the “Jesus whipping the money changers in the Temple� story several times. But he never, ever mentions Jesus saying the one without sin should throw the first stone. Oh, no! Chuck doesn’t like that story. He doesn’t ever quote Jesus’ “Judge not,� or “take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in someone else’s.� No, no, no. Chuck is very selective in his choice of bible stories. Pay no attention to Chuck and his kind. They are bitter and loveless people. Dance, sing, laugh, love, and be happy and then love some more! Blessed Be.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

I absolutely do not share Norman’s contempt for religion - I want that clearly noted. I despise fundamentalism and everything it leads to, but I do not believe that religion is valueless. Quite the contrary - there is great wisdom to be found in the various religious texts of the world’s Great Religions. The problem arises when we lose our perspective - when we accept the dogmatic view that a particular source is inerrant. It is then that minds begin to close and people like Randy and Bruce begin to emerge.

I believe - I know - that rationalism and spirituality or faith can co-exist. I have spent my life surrounded by highly educated, highly rational people who also embrace some kind of faith. We should not let the rigid, destructive, unthinking minions of orthodoxy prevent us from seeing the value in something or someone just because that someone or something is religious. To do so is to be as rigid and unthinking as they are.

I hate to say it Norman, because I see that on many issues we are generally on the same side, but your condemnation of all religion and religious people is as narrow-minded as Randy and Bruce’s condemnation of those who don’t fit their narrow definitions of what is right.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

I hate it too,Norman, because I agree with many things you say and it’s obvious you know your religious/ancient history much better than most, but…. The blanket statements such as the one you made this morning do nothing but totally turn people off. Then they don’t hear anything you say. You have so much anger I think you must have been very hurt by people who were religious fanatics.

By Crystal

February 17, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

I finally figured out the purpose of BLOGS. They give all the misfits their day in the sun. Reading them is like going to the Zoo: Will the wild things perform as usual? Doesn’t anybody tire of repeating the same ideas over and over?

Yeah, I’m wasting time, too, but not for long.

By Randy

February 17, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Most of you non-believers are going to end up becoming Chiristians in the long run, after you think it through. Then you will be like Lee Strobel who use to be an editor for a large Chicago newpaper and use to go up to people and attack their faith. Afterwards, he did his research and found that Christianity was true and he became a Christian(he has written several books on the subject). He still feels guilty for what he said to those people back then, thinking that something he said will cause someone to go where they don’t want to go after they pass into eternity.

By norman

February 17, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

J Morris: I spent almost all my life on a university campus. I know those wonderful people who are rational but still believe. They are just kidding themselves and others. There is no world beyond the world of our senses, there is no Creator who thinks about us as his children, if He exists he is distant and a geometrician only. When the Sultan sends a ship to Egypt he does not worry if the rats aboard ship are comfortable, nor does he listen to their prayers or concerns. Religion is what Marx and Freud said it was: in the first case, Opium, a way of easing pain. In the second case, an illusion, a way of avoiding reality. Religion alienates us from what we are by positing a fictitious other world, a fictitious soul, a fictitious saviour, a fictitious relatinship between man and god. You, sir, are one of those half-emancipated types who go half way towards the truth but are blinded by its rays and have to retreat.

By Angie

February 17, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

I could not agree more J. Morris…very well put. Norman, it seems you exist on this forum simply to stir the pot. Now, I enjoy a good pot-stirring just as much as the next granny….but Norman…it seems you may also be smoking it. Your rants and tirades are for the most part….without merit. Your delivery is admirable, but your content lacks substance. You dissect and provoke responses apparently for the fun of it. You say (all in the same breath mind you) that religion is if for bigots and the deluded. That religion calls forth all the closed minded people into it’s ranks. And while demanding that we “believers” open our eyes to your truth….you fail to consider that your truth is quite relative. As is the truth that I follow. You attempt to inject your venom into people whom you think you can sway….whatever your beief system, if it is staunch…..one cannot be swayed. You accuse those who adopt a religious belief of being silly and small for following such a path. But what of your path Norman? Can the same not be said of you? We all believe in something. Even the great Norman believes in something….even if it is just himself. I see very little bigotry here, but an abundance of hypocricy.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Most of you non-believers are going to end up becoming Gay in the long run, after you think it through. Then you will be like Lee Strobel who use to be an editor for a large Chicago newpaper and use to go up to people and attack their sexuality. Afterwards, he did his research and found that homosexuality was true and he became a homosexual (he has written several books on the subject). He still feels guilty for what he said to those people back then…

By norman

February 17, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

I do not mind turning people off; only a few can take the light.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Crystal, you are absolutely right. That’s why I’m looking for a BLOGGERS anonymous! I have become addicted to seeing what outrageous nonsense Randy, Boscoe, Chuck, Bruce, Zack etc. can come up with today. Like “God invented marriage!” How absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about ancient history or world history for that matter, can only laugh at these simple minded pronouncements. It is entertaining, but please don’t put down the animals in the zoo like that.

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

J. Morris, You are right I am very rational about my faith, and that everyone has faith, even Norman. It takes alot of faith to believe in nothing. However, I disagree that my faith is rigid and destructive. It has boundries, yes but it is the value that we DO see in someone or something that we say the things we say. You call that destructive I call that love. Just because I do not view things through your eyes doesn’t make me an unthinking minion.

I will ask you the same question I asked before and please no name calling you seem to be to intelligent for that.

If God created homosexuals why doesn’t the Bible address the issue, other than that it is wrong?

By RS

February 17, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

J. Morris: Oh, that last post of your was too much! I almost injured myself laughing! Lozen: Yes, the fundies I’ve known are, for the most part, dried-up, bitter & loveless. Perhaps (re my theory) Chuck should try attending a gay church? Oh, wait, maybe he did & was rejected there. That would explain whole lot.

By norman

February 17, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Angie: faith is not good just because it is staunch. Paranoid schizophrenics have staunch beliefs too.

By Seaborn

February 17, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Most of you non-believers are going to end up becoming shrimp eaters in the long run, after you think it through. Then you will be like Lee Strobel who use to be an editor for a large Chicago newpaper and use to go up to people and attack their preference for shell fish. Afterwards, he did his research and found that shrimp, scallops and oysters (except the raw ones) tasted great and he became a shellfish eater (he has read several books on the subject). He still feels guilty for what he said to those people back then…

By norman

February 17, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Of course I believe in something. I believe man is a rational animal capable of incredible wonders and incredible folly. He has invented God, religion, violence, war, and other evils. He has also used his reason to create the USA, the most beneficient nation on earth. He has used his reason to fight disease and to ennoble the human animal beyond belief. But there are good beliefs and bad beliefs. My beliefs are based on reason and evidence and are good. Religious beliefs are fantasies based on wishful thinking and are bad. Period! Of course everyone believes in something. But these beliefs are not equal. Some should be heralded, others should be denounced. People should not be persecuted for their belief, but that does not mean one should shine it on and say, fine, what you believe is what you believe, what I believe is what I believe. Truth, after all, matters. So do consequences. The consequences of religious belief are horrendous.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Thank you, Norman, for proving my point. You are every bit as narrow and offensive to others as Randy, Zack, Bruce, and the other fundamentalists are. Your unwillingness to examine viewpoints that disagree with your own is equally as bad as theirs is. They call people “unchurched”, you call them deluded or “half-emancipated” (a personal favorite). For someone who claims such a strong educational background, I find it interesting that you fail to see the hypocrisy of your own behavior.

I, too, have spent virtually my whole life on university and college campuses. I, too, have letters after my name. I am the child of one of those deluded folk. I will be certain to let my father - who has had his PhD and been teaching at the college level for longer than many of us have been alive - that he is just kidding himself because you said so. He is possibly the most rational man I know, and has constantly challeneged the rigid religious orthodoxies of his students. He despises the descent of this country into superstition and fundamentalism, but he is neither devoid nor contemptuous of religion.

Ah, I don’t know why I’m bothering arguing with you. You’re as bad as the fundies in your own way.

By norman

February 17, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

J Morris: as I said, some can only go part way. Your father, bless him, probably lost his courage at some point. Nothing to be ashamed of. The rational life can be a lonely life. But I resent your calling me narrow. It is not narrow to respect the truth and hate lies.

Here in the South people have lived with lies for a very long time, so long they have forgotten often how to recognize the truth.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Bruce, your question is predicated on the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God and encompasses everything.

The Bible was written by men – and ancient, primitive men at that. The parts of the human condition that are not addressed by that collection of allegories, recorded oral tradition, social customs and taboos are innumerable. For you to say “Why doesn’t the Bible say is O.K.� is just…silly. The bible doesn’t address nuclear physics either, but the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly felt the effects of splitting the atom.

The question you should really be asking yourself, relying on your frame of reference, is: “If homosexuality is really the great evil, the “sin� against which we must guard at all costs, then why did Christ NOT mention it…ever…anywhere?

Oh, and as for your kind of religion not being destructive - I’m sure that the parents of children in the 50’s who institutionalized their children rather than deal with a physical disability, or the people who had family members lobotomized because of some psychological disorder, or the people today who send their gay children to draconian, abusive “conversion therapy” clinics THINK they are acting from love. That doesn’t make their actions any less evil.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Bruce, don’t give a flying flip what the bible says or does not say about homosexuality. It does not matter. Thank goodness, some humans are able to change with the times, grow up, and see what’s going on here. Since you spend your time telling people what they should and should not do, I have some advice for you. Get out and meet some gay people. You would be surprised I’m sure how many you know already. They won’t come out to you with your attitude. Talk to some people from other cultures with other religious beliefs. Go visit some other countries. Read a book or two about ancient history and myths of different cultures. No, Randy I will never be a christian because the great spirit is much, much too big to fit into one little religious box, esp. the juvenile one you’re in.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Norman, I’m not sure whether to be offended by you, or amused. It’s really funny that you lambaste the fundamentalists for thinking they have a lock on truth, but then mock and patronize those who refuse to accept that YOUR truth is the only one. If I have to choose between points of view, I’ll take my poor, deluded, cowardly father’s view over your sadly narrow one any day. Please, don’t feel sorry for my half-emancipated, cowardly self. I’m very content being a person who can appreciate the beauty in all philosophies and perspectives.

By Angie

February 17, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

J Morris… My husband and your father sound very similar in their personal and professional lives. As the wife of a religious studies scholar, I have spent many a year debating the principles of religion, it’s implications for believers and non believers, and it’s proclivity to bring folk out of the wood work. I actually started out as a very complacent Jew. Only slightly believing in something that I was born into. But when I met and married my husband, I researched along side him. I drew my own conclusions…some the same as his and some very different. But in the end what I saw in myself was a lack of belief…period. I chose to believe as I do…I am now a Messianic Jew..as is my husband. But the one thing you will never see us doing is forcing our enlightemment on others. We live as best as we can and hope fervently that God will reward us for a job well done. That reward will never come if we judge others based on how they live their life. Not even the most educated of religious scholars can attest to the purpose/heart/and meaning of God. We know only what He allows us to know. Everything in this world has an opposite…everything. And I think that is also part of the patchwork of His design. Good-evil, gay-not gay(i loath the term “straight”), decaff-regular, lover-haters…..it takes all kinds. To assume one person has the ultimate answers is to assume far too much. Norman is indeed very hypocritical…but he is just a SMALL part of the world’s order. An order he is intimately a part of whether he likes it or not.

By Brian Curtis

February 17, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

And now: The Wisdom of Ydnar, the Anti-Randy from a Parallel Universe!

Ydnar on February 17, 10:49 AM “Most of you believers are going to end up becoming humanists in the long run, after you think it through. Then you will be like Dan Barker, who used to be an evangelical minister and used to attack people for their lack of faith. Afterwards, he did his research and found that Christianity was false and became a freethinker (he has written a book on the subject, “Losing Faith in Faithâ€?). He still feels guilty for what he said to those people back then, thinking that something he said will cause someone to abandon reason and waste their lives on superstitionâ€â€?lives they can never get back after they pass on.”

Ydnar on February 16, 07:31 AM “You’re right, Oklahoma!, I coach a softball team of 14 year olds and have coached for 6 or 7 years. Every year there’s usually one or two players who go to church. These players are as obvious as they can be: they are unhappy, sad, meaner, and just lost emotionally. “I thank my mother all the time for the fact she taught me to think for myself; it showed me she really loved me and was the most important thing she and my dad ever did.”

Ydnar on February 16, 09:12 AM “The problem is not what we humanists say in reference to the godridden. It’s what the god-ridden THINK we are saying and thinking. They think that because we don’t do superstitious things that we are better than them… but it’s more their perception than ours. They feel the urge to think for themselves, so to keep from doing that, they call us devil-worshippers, unchurched, “lost,â€? etc. “It’s a good thing I’M not that insecure and contemptuous, isn’t it?”

Ydnar on February 16, 10:24 AM “K Morse: Terms like God-Haters and Ignorant, etc, are a defense mechanism for the godridden, so that they can fight off the power of reason. I’m not trying to be superior to anyone, I just don’t have the need to do things contrary to logic. My mind is fulfilled 100%, through the power of rational thinking; I don’t need sermons, firebombings, oppression of women and blacks, or terrorism to act big. “And it’s a good thing I don’t look down on those who do, right?”

Just take any of Randy’s posts and swap the religious cliches for humanist/scientific terms, and vice-versa. It’s easy, and fun! Here’s a couple classics:

Ydnar on February 11, 07:58 AM “…Dozen, I don’t quote textbooks or opinion papers; I hit people with logical explanations. With what I have heard on these posts from humanists like Oklahoma, Roscoe, Buck etc., and you guys say you are still not convincedâ€â€?well, I guess you wouldn’t be convinced gravity exists if an apple fell on your head either. “I have heard the arguments from Christians and non-Christians, and you Christian fundies have such a weak case, it’s really pitiful. On the other hand, the scientific case is ROCK SOLID. Sorry.”

Ydnar on February 8, 04:12 PM “Sherman, you can’t see the forest for the trees. Maria, its not us secularists that bother you, it’s your own mind telling you that God is a fantasy and you need to ground yourself in the reality of the world around you. I’m sure you will deny this, but it’s extremely true… if you were to be honest with yourself.”

Ydnar on February 8, 10:23 AM “You are right Buck, the religious right cannot hear what we rationalists say. Their minds are dark and cold, and they probably don’t even know it!”

Ydnar on February 1, 11:21 AM “Really, I think if priesthood was ‘natural’ it would produce an offspring.”

By Tom

February 17, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Angie, I am Catholic and I agree with you wholeheartedly. You are wasting your keystrokes trying to reason with Chuck, Norm, or Randy. I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but should not try to force them on others. keep up the good work.

By norman

February 17, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

J Morris: you cannot decide whether to fish or cut bait. Another way of saying that is, p** or get off the pot!

By Angie

February 17, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Ydnar/Brian….you have far too much time on your hands. Now if you will all excuse me…including you Norman…I must be off. My gay son is bringing his little boy over for a visit with his grammy! Then we are all going to sit down and plan our Bible/Torah lessons for Friday evening’s temple services. That will be of course AFTER the family attends an event to raise money for a Buddist Temple…overseen by our son’s husband no less. See how that works……acceptance and love is a wonderful thing. Have a gorgeous day everyone…..even you Norman.

By norman

February 17, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Tom: what does it mean to say everyone is entitled to his own belief and you should not force your belief on someone? This is a recipe for zero, zero, zero. The point of discussion is to convince others. Otherwise why bother. You are the perfect example of the non-reflective American who says, it’s ok to believe what you want, I won’t challenge it or discuss it.

You play into the hands of the fundamentalists who cannot defend their nonsense and are thrilled to be left along to propagate their stuff with pseudo-arguments, to laugh at non-believers behind their hands, and to stay impervious to logic and truth. You do no one a service by this anti-intellectualism.

You say you are a Catholic, by which you seem to mean, don’t question what I believe. Well, I shall indeed question it. And so should everyone. Just because Protestant fundamentalists are on the whole more obnoxious than Catholics, this does not mean Catholics should be given immunity. Anyway, we always have Boscoe, that Catholic from hell.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

No Norman…I just choose not to live my life restricted by rigid chains of my own making. Nice of you to diverge completely from reasoned debate, though. I really love trite colloquialisms.

By Zack

February 17, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—Yeah, Norman does that quite a bit. He seems to be the kind who has book knowledge, but he also seems blind to reason and wisdom, which is a problem he really needs to address.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Oh dear, now I’ve got Zack agreeing with me. I’m doing something wrong.

By Seaborn

February 17, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

That was quite excellent…Ydnar seems quite the intelligent person. Do Roscoe and Buck next :).

By lozen

February 17, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, Yeah, Zack does that quite a bit. He seems to be the kind who has “little” book knowledge, but he also seems blind to reason and wisdom, which is a problem he really needs to address.

By Zack

February 17, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

J.—That was uncalled for, especially given the context, but I know how your type is.

Lozen—I shouldn’t dignify anything you say by responding to it, especially since the entire time you’ve been a part of this blog, all your posts have been based none at all on reason and wisdom but instead on personal whims, biases, prejudices, sensationalism, and simply what you wish the truth were. Unfortunately, you’re not alone on this blog.

By norman

February 17, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Zack: where have you been? Reading penitential psalms for Lent?

J Morris: don’t talk about rigid chains of your own making. That means you don’t want to be restricted by considerations of logic, reason, evidence, or even common sense, just by how you are feeling at a given moment.

And yes, agreeing with Zack will put you in a pretty awful place.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Dear Something-that-rhymes-with-J, You said: Who the hell are you to tell someone the state of his or her soul? Who made YOU the final arbiter of a person’s spirituality? Why in the name of all that is holy are you referring to a person’s spiritual life in terms that are more appropriate to an episode of Dr. Phil?

I’ll try to put this in simple terms so that perhaps even you, RS, and Loze can understand it.

First, My response to JP was not a judgement of his and I cannot pretend to tell you what his spiritual condition is. The fact is HE TOLD US about that himself BUT what he said is not possible. His statement was oxymoronic as opposed to yours which were just MORONIC. This is what JP said and I responded to it:

• am a Christian. I have a very close relationship with the Lord & Jesus Christ in my heart. And, I get very upset with those who use his name to spread hatered & fear. Jesus came to teach us love and tolerance for all.*

Homosexuality is a SIN: In Romans Chapter 1 it says:

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. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Because homosexuality is a SIN, the following from IJohn is true:

1 John 3:4-6 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

*4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.*

In the original language that word “sinneth” in verse 6 is the word used for habitual sin or a lifestyle of sin or unrepentent sin that is repeated over and over again without regard to Christ. If JP is as he said a practicing homosexual, those verses are the actual description of his life. Because of that description that he gave of himself, he cannot possibly have a close relationship to Christ.

James Chapter 4 puts it this way: 7Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

You have to draw nigh to God by resisting the temptation to sin if you want to have a close relationship with Him.

Second, Lozen’s lie not withstanding, I did not bring up homosexuality in this post except in my response to those who did bring it up. I think if you check the posts, Deborah was the first to broach the subject. A minor point certainly, but I almost always respond when I have been accused of something.

The bottom line is that even Christians sin, myself maybe more than most, BUT if a person who claims to be a Christian is living a LIFESTYLE of HABITUAL SIN, one of two things is true: 1)He is decieved and is not a Christian at all OR 2) He is in rebellion and God will bring discipline into his life to bring him back to a close relationship. That is all I was saying.

You also said the following: You people never cease to amaze me with the narrow limitations you put on a God you claim is all-knowing, wise beyond measure, and loving beyond our comprehension. Answer me this question: if a gay man or woman’s parent (that’s Earthly parent for you dogmatics out there) can love, accept and cherish him or her without question, without qualification, unconditionally, then why, reasonably, do you find it so hard to believe that God, with all of the qualities ascribed to him does not do the same?

That is the simplest explanation of all. You and many others think that the only ATTRIBUTE of God is LOVE. That is not the case. The most important aspect of God is HOLINESS. God is HOLY AND JUST. Therefore, He says what He means AND means what He says. When the sins of the world were placed on the shoulders of Christ on the cross, God turned His back on His OWN SON. Jesus who lived a SINLESS LIFE, took on all of MY sins and all of YOUR sins on the cross. He took the blame for OUR sins. By doing so, He placed a requirement on us if we wanted His sacrifice to count for us…that we turn from our sin, believe that He died for our sins and was raised on the third day, and Accept Him as Savior and LORD. When He is the Lord of our lives, we don’t want to sin, BUT, when we do we can go to Him in repentence and ask for forgiveness and He does that. Even when we do that there are still NATURAL consequences that come from our sin. So, I make no apologies for my response to JP or for my stand on the topic of HOMOSEXUALITY. I don’t have ANY tendencies in that direction by the way RS. I am happily heterosexual AND completely faithful to my wife of 25 years. There has never been another and there will never be another for me.

Finally, to Erick. You are right, it is a religious/moral issue. It was framed as such by JP, which prompted my response. It really didn’t have a lot to do with the topic, but that is often the case in these forums.

The God you talk about and the God my priests have always talked about are obviously not the same.

By norman

February 17, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Chuck: that God your priests talked to you about, was that before or after your molestation?

By chuck

February 17, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

No Norman, I copied and pasted JMorris’ post from earlier and forgot to delete that last bit. I am not Catholic, though I do appreciate their support of the pro-life movement.

By Tom

February 17, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Norm, I started to reply to you but you are a complete idiot. Do us all a favor and crawl back under your rock.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Norman and Chuck sitting in a tree… J-U-D-G-I-N-G

Why do we even bother arguing with either of you?

By Lyrazel

February 17, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Ok…would like to say THANKS. I was really trying to show that once one groups begin implementing faith-based belief in legislation then one must by the same token accept all belief in said faith to become law. Cant pick and choose if you believe. But ya do—which is so ODD to me.

So… I leave you with a quote: God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. Voltaire

Enjoy people. Life is too good to waste bickering.

By norman

February 17, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Tom: you don’t even know the rules of your own church’s game. the Catholic church does not believe in avoiding challenging other beliefs. It used to burn people who had different beliefs. It has not been able to continue this, thanks to the growth of free thought. but it still believes it holds the truth.

Boscoe is a more authentic Catholic than you.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

So J., it’s a lot easier to call names than debate the issues. As usual, when confronted with the the truth of God’s word, the Liberals always revert to insults. If you get an ORIGINAL thought, let me know. And to think, I thought you might be a worthy opponent with real ideas.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

yeah…dude. I didn’t call you a name, though from what I can tell you call people names all the time. And yes - I absolutely am a liberal. Proud of it. Thanks for the compliment!

And..um…since you can seem to do nothing but quote Paul - I really don’t think you should be accusing anyone else of not having an original idea.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

OPEN LETTER to Tom, J. Morris, Boscoe and others. If you notice, I broke my own rule and responded to Norman. That is always a mistake. It really is best just to ignore him. He’s a bomb thrower with nothing to add to the discussion. Just thought I would remind all of us of that.

By norman

February 17, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

New ideas about faith-based initiatives: 1. Let Muslim clergy control the circumcision of boys in hospitals. It would be cheaper. 2. Let blood transfusions be controlled by Jehovah Witnesses. Blood shortages would quickly disappear. 3. Let marriage, divorce, and paternity matters by put in the hands of Mormons. With polygamy much would be solved.4. Let all questions about marijuana as a drug for cancer patients be controlled by native American witch doctors and shamans. 5.Jewish authorities could run all school cafeterias. 6. Catholic priests and nuns would control the distribution of condoms and birth control devices.

The financial and political advantages of all this are incalculable.

I have nothing for Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals to do since all they ever do is to take all joy out of life altogether.

By norman

February 17, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

I wish the army would treat Christian like they treated Muslims at Abu Grhaib. I bet those Christians would enjoy it too. Muslims don’t enjoy it, I guess.

By Michael

February 17, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I won’t defend rudeness and ad hominem retorts by “Liberals”, (the use of the word itself constituting name calling when it is used by many conservatives today), as they are not a substitute for argument. Such responses are not justified, nor defensible. However, in order to understand why many of us “Liberals” are rather tired of religious conservatives, I politely, with respect, invite you to peruse these postings by religious people. They manifest a moral smugness, a moral arrogance, a self-righteousness, and dogmatism that probably derives from religion itself and unfortunately elicits similiar responses from those to whom these attitudes are directed.

Religious people have no monopoly on moral goodness, anymore than nonreligious people have a monopoly on arrogance. Let’s acknowledge that on all sides.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

I am not eating gefilte fish.

By Tom

February 17, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Norm, Don’t tell me what I know and what I don’t. I do know you are an ignorant, pig-headed human. (although not sure you are human)

By Coach

February 17, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

You all are off subject, never the less. The subject you are on is easy. Like I tell my team, there is the right way and the wrong way to do something. The right way on this subject is, A)obviously God exists, B)he would make himself known,C) and he would give us directions on how to be in his good graces(Bible). So this one is as easy a ABC, one, two, three. Go with JESUS!!!

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Oooo…Circular reasoning. Fun.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Michael,

I don’t use the word “Liberal” as a pejorative. It is simply a descriptor that is easier than saying pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-big government, anti-business, anti-Christian leftists. I agree that there is way too much “smugness” coming from many of us on the right. For 40 years it wasn’t cool to be conservative and now we ROCK, so it is hard for some of us not to gloat. If I have offended you in that way I truly apologize. I have never intended to come off as smug or arrogant. I won’t however, ever apologize for what I believe. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I will never be ashamed of it. I will proclaim it as THE ONLY WAY to Heaven, because that is what His word teaches. I won’t stand by and be silent when others proclaim what, according to scripture, is a false doctrine. It is one thing for someone to say, “I don’t believe”. It is another to claim to believe and completely contradict the teachings of Christ. That is the slippery slope that we have gotten into, because we as Christians have compromised our faith and allowed people to ascribe to Christ, attributes that He doesn’t possess…especially tolerance for sin. Jesus NEVER made any statement that could lead one to believe that he turns a blind eye to sin. It doesn’t exist. I never leave any doubt about where I stand on any issue…I stand with Christ.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

BTW, I understand that many of you disagree with me. It doesn’t bother me at all. I believe that the Bible teaches us to be ready to share our faith “in an instant”. I’ll share it whenever the opportunity arises. I just hope that when we disagree, we can do so with some civility and decorum.

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

J. Morris Let me see here. You said: “The Bible was written by men – and ancient, primitive men at that.”

This is true except you forgot the word “inspired”. These men wrote what God told them to write. You can try to discount this all you want but as Randy put it, “one day”. Then who will be silly?

And you said : “The bible doesn’t address nuclear physics either, but the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly felt the effects of splitting the atom.”

Grasping at straws again, please read the last book in the Bible, Revelation. I am sure a man of your intelligence will find what you are looking for. If you don’t go to the nearest Southern Baptist Church and ask the Pastor to explain it.

You also said: “The question you should really be asking yourself, relying on your frame of reference, is: “If homosexuality is really the great evil, the “sinâ€? against which we must guard at all costs, then why did Christ NOT mention it…ever…anywhere?”

I contend that He did. Since I believe in the Holy Trinity I also believe that when God spoke on something Jesus spoke on it too. Since I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God I believe every word wriiten in it, even though it was put on paper by a man, comes directly from Him and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that we must gaurd against ALL sin, not just homosexuality.

Now for your last paragraph: “Oh, and as for your kind of religion not being destructive - I’m sure that the parents of children in the 50’s who institutionalized their children rather than deal with a physical disability, or the people who had family members lobotomized because of some psychological disorder, or the people today who send their gay children to draconian, abusive “conversion therapyâ€? clinics THINK they are acting from love. That doesn’t make their actions any less evil.”

Only religious people committed these kinds of acts? Do you really think for one minute this paragraph should be given any weight at all? You have to do better than that.

By RANDY

February 17, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck, There are alot of us who stand with you also. You have truth on your side. Have a great day.

By FAY

February 17, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Is this the right subject? OK I’ll get in on this. I heard there were some people who didn’t believe in a creator, but I didn’t realize I would ever meet any. Where are you people(non-believers) from? WAKE UP.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Thanks Randy, You too.

By kh

February 17, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I am sure that you have read the original Bible in it’s original Aramic language. After all how can you be a fundamentalist clinging to every word of the bible as absolute truth, without knowing exactly what the original text actually said? Any linguist will tell you that it is impossible to translate anything from one language to another EXACTLY. Therefore things that don’t make the translation get left to the translator to determine the meaning or inference and put their own “spin” on it. We also know that the bible was a collection of stories orally passed down from generation to generation before it was written down. Have you ever known a story to be told that does not get altered to a degree by whomever is the current teller? Of course not.

Jesus only preached one commandment “Love thy neighbor”. That is it, maybe you should try that one on for size.

While you’re at it, maybe you should stop cherry picking which old testament sins you want to apply to people today. I think you will find many, many more items the old testament refers to as sins that I would be willing to bet you do all the time. I mean come on, if you want to preach to us about this one evil sin (as you see it), pull out the rest. Better yet apply them to yourself.

That won’t work for you will it? I mean now that slavery is outlawed (yep, they used the bible to condone that one) You really just need someone to hate, don’t you? Can’t hate the blacks anymore (publicly, that is), so let’s pick on the gays. It’s still fashionable to hate them. You see pal, your clocked. You and your ilk have to have someone to denigrate in order to feel like you have some power.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you get your definition of liberal from Rush Limbaugh, don’t you?

How about this word to describe you - Fascist! That’s easier than saying: Gay-bashing, war mongering, crusading, theocratic, controlling, nationalistic, xenophobic, sexist, lying, hypocritical bigot.

And I just want to touch on a couple of your points, even though it means I am allowing myself to be drawn hopelessly off-topic…from the current off-topic.

First, being pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I don’t run around on the weekend encouraging women to have abortions. In fact, though you may be surprised, I find the idea of using abortion as a means of casual birth control to be repugnant. However, it’s not my decision to make, it’s not my moral consequence to bear. It’s also not the government’s place to control the bodies of its citizens.

Anti-business? Um…I’m an MBA. I work in financial services. Thanks for playing. However I believe in the ethical application of business - something as a professed Christian that you should agree with. The conservative agenda is dominated by the interests of big business over the consumer, and that is wrong. The government exists to protect its citizens, not to make it easier for its biggest competitors to screw over the consumer.

Pro Big-government…you DO realize that the Bush administration has presided over the largest increase in government bureaucracy in recent history, as well as introducing legislation that has increased government intrusion into its citizens private affairs to new heights, right?

Anti-Christian? This means that we don’t want religious intrusion into either government or private affairs, and that we resist the creation of a Christian-based Sharia- like legal system. Christianity is by far the largest religion in the US. I suspect that most of us devilish Liberals belong to Christian denominations, too. It’s called a persecution complex…get over it.

Pro-gay: Well…yeah. So? I’m pro-me.

It all comes down to this - I don’t care how much of a gay-bashing, war mong…oh heck, right - Fascist - you are in your own life. If you want to strut around like a martinet in your own home, goose-stepping and proclaiming death sentences on homosexuals and idolaters, go right ahead! Just…don’t try to make your problem MY problem.

‘nuff said.

By Zack

February 17, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Norman—I encourage you to read the Bible. I discourage you from continuing your attempt to change God.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

You get two seconds Bruce.

I didn’t forget “inspired” - I don’t believe it was inspired by anything but the times…that’s part of your dogmatic faith.

Revelations…is about nuclear war? And I’M grasping at straws? The obvious purpose of this section was to show that there are many things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Bible’s philosophy.

Please see section one for your “Jesus said it because God said it” section…though the direct contradiction of “An eye for an eye” in the Old Testament and “Turn the other cheek” in the New seems to refute this poor excuse for reasoning.

And finally, the last passage is an example of how things done with “love” are not always loving - not an accusation that religious people did these things.

By Another BSW Student

February 17, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

I don’t think many of you have researched what SB25 actually contains. This only extends the waiting period for divorce. The class only costs $30 per person and the judge will waive the fee if you cannot afford it. This bill will save 25% of marriages under no-fault divorce grounds. This will save the state of Georgia $256 million dollars PER YEAR in TANF and child support recovery (and more programs). Right now, 41% of children in the city of Atlanta live in poverty. These children primarily live with a SINGLE MOTHER. Do the math people!

By Tom

February 17, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Lets hope Norm doesn’t reproduce.

By Zack

February 17, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—Dogma? Not at all, my friend. God created the us and the universe and everything good, and the Bible is 100% consistent with God being a God of unconditional love and intolerance for evil.

Dogma, on the other hand, is what we see everywhere else. We see it a lot from gays, threatening to call someone a “bigot” if that person dares to oppose their lifestyle, although God does. We see it from pro-choice advocates who call opponents of this form of murder “female oppressors.” (WHAT???) There’s dogma all over the place, but it’s sent in the direction OF Christians, not from Christians.

By Tim

February 17, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Another BSW Studend… and of those children living in SINGLE MOTHER homes… how many of those children were born out of wedlock?

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Lol Zack…you are too funny. Nice word twisting.

By Tom

February 17, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

I seriously doubt that the bill will save 25% of marriages. How many of the 41% of the children born were legitamate? Not many is my bet. Not in this city.

By chuck

February 17, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

You made my points for me J.Morris. While you don’t want to be called pro-abortion, you are perfectly willing to call me anti-choice. I am pro choice, I just think the choice should be made BEFORE there is a baby rather than killing it.

I hate to tell you that Christianity is BASED ON GOD’S WORD. You cannot pick and choose based on whether or not you agree with it. Abortion is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. Adultery is wrong, Pre-Marital Sex is wrong. Any sex outside of a marriage between husband and WIFE is wrong. These things are WRONG BECAUSE GOD SAID SO. If God is not capable of inspiring and maintaining the integrity of His Word, how in the world can you trust Him to save YOU? You say that we “limit” God by saying that He doesn’t love SIN. How are you NOT LIMITING His attributes when you say He cannot even say what He meant in His OWN WORD and protect it from change. The fact is, you’ve been influenced against your faithb by a bunch of liberal professors who made up your mind FOR YOU.

As for YOU KH, I don’t know what linguists you’ve been talking to, but they are OBVIOUSLY NOT Biblical scholars. My brother is currently a seminary student who will graduate in May with his Masters degree. It is certainly possible to translate the original text of the scripture in to almost ANY language. Your argument to the contrary is just silly.

By Boscoe

February 17, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Michael, why can’t I find a copy of that treaty in a government agency that holds those historic records? I can find treaties for the 1600’s when this country was in it’s infancy, but I can’t find the text of that treaty anywhere. Need I remind you that Yale recently won a court case that allowed them to refuse the military recruiters on campus because Yale doesn’t agree with the military policy on admitting homosexuals. This certainly follows the grain of those organizations that support the gay agenda will routinely attacks an organizations moral values. At any rate…The existence of this treaty remains suspect.

By FAY

February 17, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Norman is a-sexual so he can’t reproduce. Anyway his mother is the only female he knows(not talking about anything weird) other than on this forum. I’m just kidding, but it’s probably true.

By Randy

February 17, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Amen Fay. Norman is nuts.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Another whine from poor little mistreated Zack! Would you people stop criticizing him just because he is so pompous and self-righteous and wants to tell you what a sinner you are? He’s just trying to help you!

Argument # 45 is perfect for Zack.

I do believe in god. I do believe in god! I do, I do! I do believe in god! Therefore, there is a god.

By kh

February 17, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Sorry Chuck, but maybe you should read my post a little more closely. What I said was that no language translates EXACTLY. I don’t give a rats a* what your brother is doing/graduating from. That doesn’t change the FACT. Since languages (all languages) do not translate exactly, it opens the translation up to the translators interpretations.

You seem to have missed the majority of my post about your old testament sin “cherry picking”. Then I guess you can’t tackle that one can you?

By Zack

February 17, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

lozen—Haha. You’ve got some nerve calling me the description of what you’ve shown of yourself the entire time.

Please step away from the name-calling and seek the truth, however. However, you will have to do away with your biases first.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Dear Chuck…thanks for telling me the facts about how I’ve been influenced against my faith by liberal professors. You can spout the ready-made catchphrases of the religious right with ease. It’s a shame you can’t formulate sentences of your own.

See, people have been picking and choosing and deciding what is and what isn’t right and wrong under Christianity virtually since its inception. You do know what heresy is, right? Heresy is a competing belief that lost out. The victors declared it heretical, but the followers of the particular heresy believed it as heartily as you do. There have even been flip-flops from time to time.

Societies acceptance of sex, adultery, etc. is incredibly fluid. I mean - even POPES had mistresses at one time. The Puritans practiced pre-marital sex all the time, to ensure that a marriage would be fertile before it was sanctified. It’s only modern fundamentalist Americans who are so unaware of how history has affected the practice of religion(s) in this world that they assume that everything is as it always has been, amen.

People have been picking and choosing what sins they choose to condem since the foundation of the Church. Grow up.

I realize that you will ignore this…I don’t care.

By Randy

February 17, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Iozen is a freak, Iozen is a freak, Iozen is a freak, Therefore Iozen is a freak. I believe this is argument #45. Back at ya.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

They are both circular arguments and therefore invalid. I don’t think that’s the point you were trying to make, though, was it?

By Eirik

February 17, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Another BSW Student

How many of those benefits are really just temporary? I just can’t believe that people who really are unhappy in their marriage will change their mind after this waiting period. And even if they do aren’t they just putting off the inevitable. I mean how many couples actually divorce by impulse? Those figures you cite (and the one’s Shaunti cites also) are suspect to me…can you give your source? I’m still not convinced it warrants the legal system interfering with private affairs. My brother went through emotional hell dealing with a divorce (his wife met someone else and had an affair). They worked out their differences and agreed to get it over with as soon as possible, uncontested. I can’t see much benefit for him having to wait some government mandated period.

By Bruce

February 17, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, I apologize for making you so upset. That was not my intention. I guess I was wrong to think that I could carry on a intelligent conversation with someone without anger or insult. Your name calling does not bother me at all as long as it makes you feel better. Just because you could not handle being wrong doesn’t make it necessary to fly off the handle that way.

If you do not want to become a Christian that’s fine with me. However, I think it is in bad taste to expect someone to listen to your point of view and then be angry when they express theirs. And you want us to believe Christains are the bad guys?

Chuck, Randy and Zack, Keep the faith and remember we are on the winning side. The Bible teaches us we must endure this kind of treatment. See you tomorrow!

By lozen

February 17, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

kh, chuck always ignores the things he can’t come up with a “cherry picking” bible quote for. I’m sure his brother goes to Bob Jones University! How can you have the nerve to tell someone they can’t pick and choose what they want from the bible? You pick and choose from the bible based on whether or not you agree with it day after day on this forum!
The scholars kh talked to were cunning linquists Chuck. Perhaps you’ll get together with them one day and they can help you to mellow out a little.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your mistake was in thinking that you could carry on an intelligent conversation.

By Tom

February 17, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Does God condemn to Hell those in this world that have never been exposed to Jesus and the bible. I am Christian and I don’t think my God would do such a thing. He is forgiving. I do not need to see pasted verses from the bible, your comments will do.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

They also take any argument that you present to them and declare it void by fiat. Oh…and the slightest hint of irritation out of you and you are “name calling”. Also, if you disagree with their desire to live in a Taliban-like theocracy you are “anti-Christian” and a “bigot”.

This is like arguing in Bizarro world.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry Zack. I just realized I’ve been trying to have an adult conversation with a 10 year old.

By Randy

February 17, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Tom No God doesn’t condemn to Hell those who don’t know about Jesus, nor does he condemn to Hell babies or children who are to young to know right from wrong(good from evil). Both these situations are covered in the bible, i’m not sure of the verse. I heard it described fabulously by a friend of mine, someone who would be from deepest dark africa(for instance) who had never heard of God, at some point in his life he/she would look up, realize God existed(not necessarily know his name) and accept him as lord and savior(let Jesus come into his heart) or reject that feeling. His/her eternal destiny would be determined by that acceptance or rejection. Good question.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

lozen, that was kind of a convoluted version of “I know you are but what am I?”, wasn’t it.

Next time, try this - “I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”

He may have a hard time with so many words strung together, but that’s the only way he’ll learn.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, I think I love you … as a brother in reason. I wish I could remember to see them as the pitiful little kids they were sitting in that church with people scaring them to death and telling them they would burn in hell if they questioned anything. I try to remember they can’t have sex without feeling deep down they are doing something wrong. I don’t believe you can think sex is sinful in every single situation except one and possibly enjoy it in that one situation without some awful nagging guilt feelings. I think that explains a lot of their bitterness and wanting to keep everybody else from enjoying themselves. We should feel sorry for them but they do make that hard. I probably wouldn’t be feeling this way right now if not for that response from Zack and my sudden awareness of him as a 10-year old. Whatever happened to them that left such rigidity, hard heartedness and complete lack of empathy or compassion, it is a horrible thing.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Yes, good question. It also points out the absurdity of Randy’s answer. For instance, until Vatican II, the Catholic church held that unbaptized babies of whatever faith went to limbo when they died, where they suffered for eternity, ever denied the presence of God.

It also assumes that these credulous savages he speaks of(is there REALLY anyone living in “darkest Africa” anymore who doesn’t have at least occasional contact with the modern world?) don’t already have faiths of their own to guide them through life. I have serious doubts that at any time in the life of your average human being that he or she looked up at the sky, thought “GASP - there’s this OTHER God, I’ve been TOTALLY WRONG” and then “accepted Jesus”, any more than Randy is going to one day abandon the faith of his upbringing spontaneously while walking down the street.

Surprise, Randy. Non-Christians and Non-Westerners are not anxiously awaiting the arrival of Pukha-Pukha White Man to bring them culture and religion. They already have culture and religion of their own.

Oh - and Randy said “fabulous”. That’s a GAY word. Randy must be GAY.

By Randy

February 17, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

I just want to tell the other Christians on this forum what a great job you guys are doing. Keep up the good work, peoples hearts soften over time and many will see the truth. The best example of this was my mothers family. 75 years ago none went to church, every sunday the preacher in the nearby church walked by my grandmother’s house. Every week he would ask her to join him and the others at church, for years she said no. Then one week he asked her and she said no, then he said “you sure are waiting a long time”. She got under conviction(holy-spirit at work) and she went. To make a long story short, she lead everybody in my family to the lord(approximately 125-130 people)including aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. The last one accepted Jesus as lord and savior just last year(before he was going into heart surgery) saying “I’m not playing this insane game(not going to church) any longer. So all our efforts will pay off in the long run. God bless you all.

By kh

February 17, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Lozen - be very careful when using words like “cunning linguists” together. When used together they sound like a “depraved”, sinful, non-reproductive sexual act, which will lead to your condemnation by the moral police on here. Or worse, an accusation of lesbianism. (gasp!)

By Tom

February 17, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Gay or straight matters not to me. We are all loved.

By Seaborn

February 17, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

But even if you went to hell wouldn’t you get used to it after a few thousand years? I’d think the demons would get kind of complacent with the same old torture, although I guess they could cycle you to different departments. I’m sure when I arrived at the Ironic Punishment department, I’d have to wake up every day in a heterosexual marriage that I hated, looking at my fat tired body in the mirror every day, and suffering from a bleeding ulcer because I was convinced that the world was just a horrible place of free thinking adults. I’d have no joy in anything and I wouldn’t want anyone else to either.

Of course, if I play my cards right I can probably apply to Demon academy…I imagine I can get in if I start working on my qualifications now.

I just read that the vatican is upping it’s efforts to prevent people in Europe from worshiping Satan…

And the vatican wonders why Europeans are abandoning religion in droves…

By Tom

February 17, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

I happen to be a “cunning linguist� and I enjoy practicing it as often as possible.

By lozen

February 17, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Oh Zack, I have to apologize again. It wasn’t you with the “lozen in a freak, lozen is a freak” it was your little buddy Randy Randy who just loves the word ‘fabulous’.

By Randy

February 17, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Actually J Morris, there is a preacher who is preaching to and converting approximately 30 million in Africa(per year). German preacher Reinhart Bonnke. I’m not Catholic so I don’t know what the Pope did(it is in the bible, what I said before). You are really fighting this, whatever you do don’t listen to conscience, or the evil one won’t be able to use you any longer.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Hey, now there’s an angle I hand’t considered. I can continue to be gay until I’m sure I’m about to die and then have a deathbed conversion. COOL>

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Randy, simple Randy. I know that there are missionaries converting people. Do you actually read what people post? Do you actually read what YOU right before you hit “send”? You said that these people in deepest, dark Africa would one day look up and be hit with a “There is a God and a Jesus” epiphany. You…didn’t say anything about missionaries. I BELIEVE, in fact, that the original “good question” was “What happens to people who have never heard of God”. That pretty much rules out missionaries, now doesn’t it.

By J. Morris

February 17, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

I am so embarassed - I used “right” instead of “write”. I never do that. Sorry folks.

By Sara

February 17, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

My husband spanks me….but we are most definitely Christians…does that mean we are going to hell? I don’t recall if enjoying a little S&M with your spouse is grounds for condemnation or not. Any thoughts…….see how stupid these religious arguments are?!

By Tom

February 17, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

If sex is sinful, why did God make it feel so good?

By lozen

February 17, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

I was glad to hear of the new refresher courses on exorcising satan at the vatican college. The announcement says exorcism information hadn’t been updated from the 1600 hundreds until 1999. I suppose the problem was a lack of time while being so busy burning people at the stake, wrenching bodies apart on wheels, putting out eyes and cutting off fingers to update things at the time. I’m glad they didn’t decide to update their classes on screening out pedophile priests or anything useless like that. It is good to see that the pope and the catholic church have their priorities in order.

By Steve

February 17, 2005 05:20 PM | Link to this

Disclaimer: I am a very conservative, evangelical Christian. I do believe the Bible is the Word of God. I am very hesitant to get involved in the current discussion because so many things can get misunderstood and taken out of context. However, I do have a Master’s in Religous Education and in New Testament Greek. While that does not mean I am right, hopefully, that does give me a little credibility.

With respect to Randy, who from the best I can tell is a sincere brother in Christ, I disagree with your position on those who have not heard of Jesus. J. Morris is absolutey correct that your position negates the purpose missionaires. If those who have never heard of Jesus will have the opportunity to receive Jesus without hearing the Gospel preached, we have not reason to support mission work. It also means, the Apostle Paul is wrong in what he writes in Romans 10.

I would like to give you an orthodox view, recognizing that many will not like it. For those that disagree with me, I hope that all of my posts convey a respectful tone. I want to stand up for what I believe, but do so in a way that does not attack those who disagree. I really do!

Anyway, here it goes:

Unbelievers who die without having heard the gospel go to hell, and so do Jews who reject Christ. Paul made both these points explcitly in Romans 1-3 (e.g. Rom. 2:12). They are all sinners (Rom. 3:9), and thus they earn the wages of sin, namely death (Rom. 6:23).

As Paul taught in Romans 10, this is why missions and evangelism are so important. People cannot be saved unless they believe the gospel, and they cannot believe the gospel unless they hear it, and they cannot hear it unless someone proclaims it to them. This is one reason that Paul declared himself innocent of all blood by virtue of the fact that he had preached the gospel everywhere (Acts 20:26-27). His point was that if he had failed to preach the gospel to everyone, then these people would have perished without Christ and would have gone to hell. Because it was his job to preach, their blood would have been on his head. By “blood,” Paul meant that they would have perished. By speaking of his potential guilt in their perishing, Paul indicated that they would have been hopelessly lost. When we die, there is no longer any hope of salvation, but only judgment (Heb. 9:27).

This was also why Paul was so distraught over the Jews who rejected Christ (e.g. Rom. 9:1ff.) — he knew they were going to hell. But Paul also recognized that God had made certain promises to the Israel, and that these promises could not fail. He explained this apparent disparity by saying that not everyone who was part of the nation of Israel was really a Jew in God’s eyes (Rom. 9:6-13). The lack of faith of those Jews who rejected Christ indicated that they were not part of true Israel. To prove this, he used the typological examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and of Jacob and Esau. In both these generations, one brother was part of the true people of God and the other was not, even though they were both descended from a father who was in explicit covenant with God. In the same way, the descendants of Jacob (i.e. the nation of Israel) were divided between those who were chosen to receive the covenant blessings (such as the gospel) and those who were not chosen to receive them. Those who were not chosen to receive them were not truly part of Israel in God’s eyes — at least insofar as receiving mercy, salvation and other covenant blessings were concerned — even though they were physical descendants of Israel. Rather, God preserved only a remnant of Jews as believers, and only that remnant was saved (Rom. 9:27-28).

I close with a quote from the Apostle Paul:

Romans 10:14-17 (ESV)
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? [15] And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” [16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” [17] So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

By norman

February 18, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

STEVE: Your admiration for Paul of Tarsus is fine. He was a remarkable man, having single-handedly invented Christianity. However, in any sane society he would have been put into a mental ward rather quickly. His beliefs about who is saved and who damned are not relevant for any rational discussion in modern times. We do not share his world view, his concerns, his neuroses, his aspirations. We can admire him but not follow him. I suggest you get in touch with reality.

By Brian Curtis

February 18, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the clarification, Steve. It’s a pity that hardheaded fundamentalist will ignore it, just as they ignore the parts of the Bible they don’t like (assuming they’re even aware of them), and still claim that “every word of the Bible is true.”

By chuck

February 18, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Tom, You have some really weird ideas. SEX is NOT SIN. Sex outside of MARRIAGE is sin. God intended sex between husband and wife to be a bonding experience that brings them closer together. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with finding pleasure in sex in the context of marriage. Promiscuous sex doesn’t do that. It is nothing more than a release of bodily fluids, that almost always leads to guilt, recriminations, bad feelings, mistrust and a loss of respect.

By Brian Curtis

February 18, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

P.S. to Randy: You are really fighting this; whatever you do, don’t think for yourself, or the Church won’t be able to use you any longer.

And now: More of the Wisdom of Ydnar, the Anti-Randy from a Parallel Universe!

Ydnar on January 11, 02:12 PM “Yeah those damn humanists, speaking up for freedom and compassion, and helping the weak and downtrodden with no regard for “God’s willâ€? or the “natural order of things.â€? Helping everyone else see that they don’t need to lean on a wrathful, jealous deity who doesn’t care about them, when the fundies won’t let them live the way they want. Shame on scientists!

“Really, all the greatest people I know in the world (many not famous) are rationalists at heartâ€â€?and some are Christians at the same time!. They have their heads together, even when they are not perfect and make mistakes. Sorry for those who don’t know TRUTH.”

Ydnar on January 11, 02:47 PM “Sherman, I accepted reason as a way of life and it’s never let me down. It is as solid a commitment as any possibleâ€â€?one based on logic and hard, irrefutable evidence. The good thing is it makes me know that no religion can honestly claim to hold “all possible goodness and truth,â€? because many views are possible. As long as I rely on my wits and mind, I really don’t have to worry about anything. I learn to face my problems and not cower away hoping for some figment to protct me. Am I never going to have problems? Of course I will, but I also know I can find a way to deal with them without a crutch or father-figure to run my life.

“If you are a fundamentalist Christian you won’t understand what I have said, but I know it to be trueâ€â€?and very liberating. There’s nothing as wonderful as accepting doubts instead of trying to hide from them. I wish each and everyone the same peace of mind I have now. Think for a change!”

By Lyrazel

February 18, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

They ought to re-name this colomn to: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Religon And Never Have to Ask because thats where it goes week after week. And the posts week after week decry everyone elses beliefs as invalid except theirs. Hmmm…. Sure is strange how terms like darkest africa are still bandied around. One should check out Deep Forest and hear pigmeys music…to enlighten you all that the world has been circumnavigated some amazon indians wear nikes….I also liked Shu-De, mongolian music… technology is odd and everywhere. You can watch re-runs of Jim and Tammy Bakkers show in Siberia..Leave it to Beaver is on tv in China..lol…darkest Africa…yeah, where ya been? Georgia? Quoting long passages of scripture only insures that no one will read it. Truth is, people who believe already read it: skip to get to normans posts, and people who dont believe skip it to get to the beligerent name calling part of this blog. So when yall go to Bible.com and get all those passages to prove your faith arguments, remember, you wont prove anything except you can cut and paste like a pro. Frankly I would rather have YOUR OPINIONS…you are all extremly intelligent, witty, sometimes funny with your passions and enjoyable to read—but these drone quotes—really just go nowhere fast and make scrolling tedious. Sara does hubby spank you in church, on the way to church or after? The Cunning Linguist is an old porn book. You can find it at Amazon.com J.Morris, deathbed conversions? Cripe sitting on a cold bedpan might convert you faster…in those pale hours…before eternal rest. lozen, I would be facinated by a course taught by the vatican about 1600 excorsism, their faith-based Inquisition procedures…The best study of religion and fanaticism has to be the periods of the Black Death. Art and literature of said period are unique…where do I sign up? Happy Friday.

By chuck

February 18, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Steve, thanks for answering Tom’s question correctly. I was going to post an answer myself, but didn’t have time to get to it yesterday. Where did you go to Seminary? My brother will graduate from Southeastern in May.

By Bruce

February 18, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

B. Curtis, I will open the door and let you come in. What parts of the Bible do you say are true and which ones are not?

By norman

February 18, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

If there is a God and if he really wanted to communicate something about himself to mankind, why would he use primitive semites to weave stories about him which would never reach more than a small percentage of the world’s population? Would it not be more likely that he would communicate through nature? That is what the deistic founders of our Republic thought, that God did not have anything to do with the bible but that he told us what we need to know through nature, which through our reason we would progressively discover. See Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and all the others.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Brian, Sorry to disappoint you but I almost have a Master Degree and once thought like you. However, I thought it through and realized a creator exists and how arrogant I was to not attend church. My mind is not closed, since you know everything why don’t you let us all in on it?

By norman

February 18, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Randy: what reputable institution wouls “almost” give you a Masters Degree? Probably Bob Jones University or some abomination like that.

By chuck

February 18, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, You wrote:

So when yall go to Bible.com and get all those passages to prove your faith arguments, remember, you wont prove anything except you can cut and paste like a pro. Frankly I would rather have YOUR OPINIONS…you are all extremly intelligent, witty, sometimes funny with your passions and enjoyable to read�but these drone quotes�really just go nowhere fast and make scrolling tedious.

What you don’t understand is that when it comes to God and His Word, It is NOT ABOUT OPINION. Certainly there are some “gray” areas about which there is room for leeway. For instance, many Christians disagree about whether or not we should use alcoholic beverages. I choose to NOT use them, because I worry about the possibility of being what the Bible calls a “stumbling block”. That is someone who causes another Christian (especially a child)to sin or a non-believer to reject Christ. Others use alcoholic beverages because the Bible does not clearly prohibit drinking (though it does contain many warnings about the use of alcohol). On issues like that I have no trouble expressing “my opinion”. On issues however, where the Bible is crystal clear, like on the topics of homosexuality, adultery, etc. OPINION doesn’t mean anything. The only thing that matters TO A BELIEVER is what GOD says about it. For most of the posts where I include scripture, you will notice that I do include explanations to make the text simpler for those who have not spent their lives in personal Bible study. As for non-believers, I have an obligation to speak the truth to them from God’s Word. I can’t help it if those of you who choose a different path disagree or think it is a stupid position to take. You can take that up with God on Judgement Day. I am not responsible for your response one way or another ONLY to be true to my faith in Christ and to speak the truth. If that comes across as “smug” or “arrogant”, I apologize, however, how much respect would you have for someone who did not express deeply held beliefs with conviction? I don’t waffle, and I don’t waver. I am 100% consistent in my beliefs and in my posts to this and other forums.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Thinking it through, people only attack someone on a personal level after they realize that person is correct and superior in their thinking(so the only option left is to attack the source). So I am going to take the personal attacks on me as a compliment. The university I worked on a master’s degree was American University in Washington DC. As far as the attacks, you all can knock yourself out, give me your best shot. I won’t attack you on a personal level, as I don’t feel a need to.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

To the other Christians, lets keep up the good posts, they are really working, the yet to be-Christians are desperate now(by the tone of their posts). Tough love is what we are giving them.

By norman

February 18, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel: you were nasty to me yesterday but no hard feelings. As you communicate with people like Churck can you see that they do not share normal, rational, modern criteria at all? They are living in the primitive world of the Bible, more like bedouins or Iraqi muslims than Americans or Europeans. It is probably hopeless to try to communicate with them. I am guilty of trying also but I really am communicating with the fence-sitters, hoping that a little satire will make them ashamed of wanting to believe nonsense. Ridicule gets you more results than reason, I’m afraid.
To paraphrase very, very broadly our founding fathers: we must fight hypocritical and persecutory christians to the death.

By Texas

February 18, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Randy, My Dear Brother: Directions to Our Fathers House.

Make a Right onto Believeth Blvd. Keep straight and go through the Green Light, which is Jesus Christ. There, you must turn onto the Bridge of Faith, which is over troubled water. When you get off the bridge, make a Right turn and Keep Straight. You are on the King’s Highway-Heaven-bound. Then exit off onto Grace Blvd. From there, make a Right turn on Gospel Lane. Keep Straight and then make another Right on Prayer Road. As you go on your way, Yield Not to the traffic on Temptation Ave. Also, avoid SIN Street because it is a DEAD END. Pass up Envy Drive, and Hate Avenue. Also, pass Hypocrisy Street, Gossiping Lane, and Backbiting Blvd. However, you have to go down Long-suffering Lane, Persecution Blvd. and Trials and Tribulations Ave. But that’s all right, because VICTORY Street is straight ahead! AMEN!

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

By Hugh G Reaction

February 18, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Sara, does your husband need a hand?

By Bruce

February 18, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Norman, I can handle name calling, disrepect and as you put it nastiness, but I draw the line with wanting to kill someone for their beliefs. And we Christians are the bad guys? All we are doing is to show “yet to be Christians” that God and (us) love them enough to want to spend eternity with them. But you my friend have really gone off the deep end.

Randy - I think you are right the Holy Spirit is alive and working. Keep the faith!

By Lyrazel

February 18, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

sorry norman. wasnt being nasty, trying scarcasm too hard.

By Lyrazel

February 18, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

to chuck, randy and all, I do enjoy short biblical quotes by the way. There is something facinating about belief. Im just certain 300 words or less is enough to persuade or deflect…think about it…no tough love does not work…nor does rational thought…obviously if they worked we would all be wearing military boots and quoting plato….

By Seaborn

February 18, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Randy,

My God you are right…I can feel the holy ghost coursing through me right now as I type this…oh lordy…I’ve been so desperate…

Thank you buddy…

oops…it was just that sausage biscuit I had this morning…shoot..it’s gone now…and I thought I was saved.

but you keep up the good work..you’ll get us…

I’m sorry…I know I’m flippant…I just can’t take you seriously…

Anyway I’m late for an orgy…tah!

By AllaboutME

February 18, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

….would like to know if god is god in other faiths than christianity…and if measurements of hell are valid due to society changes…like pergutory being changed and the seven levels Dante described so well as he tagged along with Bietrice?…all sausage biscut eaters end in orgies seaborn…

By Lyrazel

February 18, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

HAHAHA I can see the run at mcDonalds for sausage biscuits!!!

By lozen

February 18, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Thanks Randy for helping to prove one of my beliefs. Once a fanatic always a fanatic. You once thought like Brian, then you say, “I thought it through and realized a creator exists and how arrogant I was to not attend church.” You are still arrogant just in a different way. Saul was a fanatic and rabid against christians. Then he had his “experience” and became Paul and a fanatic on the other side. As Norman says Paul invented christianity almost single handedly. Jesus was a jew; he was never a christian.

By Boscoe

February 18, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Lozen, Jesus is Christainity sweetheart!

By Tom

February 18, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

It would be nice if those that wish to blog about religion would do so in a different forum. When I started looking at this one I didn’t know that the subject matter would be ignored. You folks are spoiling it.

By Zack

February 18, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Lozen—You are wrong. Paul did not write Christianity; that’s just an argument that became popular on college campuses, as people are trying to convince themselves that the Bible is untrue.

You sound so full of hatred and scorn in your remarks, which isn’t surprising, since Christians are told in the Bible that this is how it’s going to be on earth.

Many in here like to attack Christians. Actually, Christians DO deserve some blame but for reasons other than what liberals use. Christians who stand up for God should NOT be challenged; it’s the ones who do NOT stand up for God who should be. Many Christians today are also guilty of turning more and more away from the Bible, which is God’s absolute truth, and more toward manmade books like “The Purpose-Driven Life”, which is NOT Scriptural and very much new age, actually. Why aren’t Christians seeing this? Why do Christians not challenge preachers like Joel Osteen who preach false doctrines? Something needs to be done. Find a well-known preacher who preaches against abortion, against homosexuality, against cloning, against stem-cell research. Such a preacher is rare nowadays.

Lozen, you can sit back and call me a 10-year-old and all the other names you choose to, but it won’t get you anywhere. You really need to sit back and discern truth from propaganda. A lot of people do. In fact, we all do, myself included. Attacking the Bible, which is God’s absolute truth, is the definition of time and energy-wasting.

By lozen

February 18, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Steve, I appreciate you saying your education didn’t make you right. You may be the first evangelical in this forum to ever say that! Therefore in all respect to you I must say I don’t care what the bible says. Any god that would send people to a hell to suffer (if one existed) because they never heard of the christian god or Jesus is not a god I want anything to do with! That was what started my religious quest when I was very young, being told by some minister that all the people in India and Egypt and China were going to hell because they did not turn against the religion of their parents and their culture and become christians! It’s just stupid. It’s more than stupid - it is cruel, unjust, hateful. Yes, your bible does say that and that’s one of the many reasons why I can’t understand why anybody would want to follow that collection of archaic folk tales about a bunch of wandering nomads who thought nothing of destroying groups of people over and over and invented a god who told them to do it! What is wrong with you people? What is so frightening to you about taking a step into the modern world that you want to live in a world of 2,000 years ago as if the ideas of that time were more important than what’s happening here now? You can’t no matter how hard you try; those people didn’t live, think, worship, relate to each other as we do. This way of thinking, this injustice and cruelty toward others that you accept as right and good because a book says so makes me very angry.

By Tom

February 18, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

I thought Norm was the ten year old. We have two?

By chuck

February 18, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Allaboutme, The God of the Bible is the ONE TRUE GOD. Other faiths are built on man’s attempt to BE GOD. There is only one God and I am not Him, neither are you or the others who post here. Dante isn’t God either and the Bible definitely does not teach levels of hell, nor does it teach purgatory. Man’s ideas about HELL may have changed, but God’s Word remains the same and so does Hell.

Tom, I’m seriously beginning to wonder if you have all of your faculties.Did you not write:

Does God condemn to Hell those in this world that have never been exposed to Jesus and the bible. I am Christian and I don’t think my God would do such a thing. He is forgiving. I do not need to see pasted verses from the bible, your comments will do.

Did you not ALSO write:

By Tom February 17, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this If sex is sinful, why did God make it feel so good?

If you don’t want to hear about God, why do you ask so many questions about Him?

As for you Lozen, God does not send ANYONE to Hell. People choose that for themselves by rejecting the truth. I suspect, based on your posts, that you have had a really bad experience with a church at some point in your life. That is extremely unfortunate. The church should be better than it is at reaching out. Part of the problem is that many people go to church out of tradition or because of social reasons rather than because they have a true relationship with Christ. Unfortunately, some churches are populated by more lost people than saved ones. BUT, those churches won’t be the reason for anyone going to hell. You have obviously heard the truth of God’s Word. I don’t know whether or not you have rejected it…from your posts it seems that you have…but if you have, it will be that rejection of Christ that will send you to hell, NOT GOD. He gave His own son to die on the cross for our sins. That’s how much He loved you and me. I assume you will ridicule me for this post, but I hope you’ll think about what I’ve said in it.

By Jodi

February 18, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Folks, could we PLEASE stay on topic? Criminy! Everyone is acting so childish, on both sides!

As for the actual topic at hand: As someone who formerly worked in family law, I don’t really see a need for a waiting period prior to divorce for a couple of reasons:

By Tom

February 18, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Why don’t you stick it.

By chuck

February 18, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Nice Tom, I guess if the pattern holds true you will be decrying the fact that there is too much meanness on the forum in your next post.

By Tom

February 18, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Would love to meet you Chuck.

By Bruce

February 18, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Jodi, I second you statesment but I do see the problem. You said: “if the parties could behave maturely”. There is the problem. We as grown ups seem to forget how to act maturely. I mean just look at some of the previous post on this subject alone. Where’s the maturity?

Tom, It amazes me how someone that claims to be a Christian can get get the Bible so confused. The term Christian means “Christ like”.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Really everything in life is a selection process, this is the same for heaven. Examples if you think you can’t pass college courses, you won’t, if you think you can’t become a multi-millionaire, you won’t. Jesus get the best and they choose. Faith

By Tom

February 18, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

You can stick it to Bruce.

By Tom

February 18, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

I’ve had all I can stomach. I’m outta here.

By Bruce

February 18, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Randy, Look the Holy Spirit struck again!!! Praise God.

By Zack

February 18, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Lozen—You have an awful lot of nerve to call the Bible stupid. You also have a lot of issues and pain to say such a thing. My friend, I encourage you to seek Jesus and not reject Him. You have a portrayal in your mind of God being unjust. That is not the case. I encourage you to seek Him, and you will discover this to be true.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Zack, forget about Iozen, she thinks Norman knows what he is talking about. I’m going to sell her some beach property in Arizona soon. I’ll give her a good deal.

By Brian Curtis

February 18, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Here’s how Randy avoids personal attacks and tries not to sound arrogant and condescending:

January 11, 02:47 PM “If you are not a Christian you won’t understand what I have said.�

January 11, 04:37 PM “Obviously God exists, and to think he would not make himself known is crazy.�

January 20, 03:37 PM “I’m on the Christians’ side�that means Catholics, Baptists etc. My opponent is EVIL!!! We are not the ones going to Hell.�

January 20, 04:19 PM “I pray everybody is smart enough to accept Jesus.�

January 21, 10:47 AM “I guess this forum gives you a purpose to what appears to be a meaningless life (yours). You really are pitiful!�

January 28, 03:40 PM “[If someone’s a non-Christian], it doesn’t matter what we say to them, their heart is dark and doesn’t want to know or hear the truth.�

February 2, 09:10 AM “I really feel sorry for you, if you really believe the garbage you print.“

February 2, 01:32 PM “Why liberals hate Christians. I believe liberals see Christianity as a restriction on what they want to do. In essence they don’t want to answer to God, they want to BE God.�

February 2, 02:10 PM “Well, Terry, you don’t believe in God or the holocaust. You are not real bright, are you?�

February 7, 04:28 PM “I really feel sorry for those who don’t know the truth, they must really feel out of place…. I really don’t know how you can call yourself an American and not believe in Jesus and a Creator. Really, its un-American.�

February 8, 10:23 AM “The left cannot hear what conservatives say. Their hearts are dark and cold.�

February 8, 04:40 PM “I think the problem with some people who are non-Christian is perception.�

February 9, 01:21 PM “[Evolution] is a joke, plain and simple. Here’s another example of you non-Christians not thinking it through.�

February 11, 07:58 AM “Where I come from a loser is someone who argues a lose/lose scenario, which is what you are doing, you lose either way. Iozen…. I have heard the arguments from Christians and non-Christians, and you non-Christians have such a weak case, its really pitiful.�

February 11, 01:37 PM “Once again you don’t know what you are talking about. Sorry.�

February 11, 05:00 PM “As for the non-Christians, you probably don’t know any better; you have my sympathy.�

February 14, 03:41 PM “We conservates are going to… get rid of the garbage morals of the liberal left.�

February 14, 04:05 PM “The left will make up what they want to believe.�

February 15, 02:41 PM “What do you mean by Christ-like? Is that where we give in to your opinion and let you ignore the facts?�

February 16, 07:31 AM “[Non-churchgoing kids] are as obvious as they can be: they are unhappy, sad, meaner and just lost emotionally.�

February 16, 10:24 AM “I’m not trying to be superior to anyone, I just don’t have the need to do things contrary to the bible.�

February 16, 11:17 AM “Do you have this kind of reaction to other religions? Didn’t think so. But then the truth hurts.�

February 17, 10:49 AM “Most of you non-believers are going to end up becoming Chiristians in the long run, after you think it through.�

February 17, 04:30 PM “Whatever you do don’t listen to conscience, or the evil one won’t be able to use you any longer.�

Randy, you seem especially stuck on this notion that “liberal” or “evolutionary” is somehow the opposite of “Christian.” In your world, do liberal and Democratic Christians somehow not exist? Are there no Christians who can understand and accept evolution on that planet?

None of which has anything to do with the topic, of course; but then Randy’s posts seldom do.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

So the conclusion on Tom was that, he was acting like he was a Christian? Right. I can tell if someone is a Christian by talking to them within 2 minutes. We all have a good perspective and know the truth.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Brian, Thanks for your compliment, wow what research, I must really get to you. If you need my autograph let me know.

By AllaboutME

February 18, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

chuck…time to crawl back under your rock…since you cant even accept other christian writers as valid, dante will meet you in the 6th level of hell with the popes and braggards…say hi to norman when you get there…. jodi…frankly Im not worried about other peoples divorces or their kids…its part of the I-pop-em-you-deal with them-mentality so many americans have….but using my tax dollars to pay for wars to erradicate other peoples kids…that I worry about…

By AllaboutME

February 18, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

…brian…youre starting to loose it man…or else youre in love….

By Angie

February 18, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Jesus may represent Christianity now….but let us not forget that Jesus (Yeshuah) was a Jew.

By Michael

February 18, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

For Boscoe

The reason that you did not find the Treaty at the Library of Congress site is that you did not search diligently enough.

First, the Library of Congress online lists the Avalon Project of Yale Law School as the link to the text of the treaty and the Avalon Project is linked to many other law school sites as well. I found it easily and on the very site in which you claimed it was not available. Second, the law suit you refer to is a red herring and logically irrelevant to this issue, which is a factual one, namely, the existence or nonexistence of a document. (I would suggest that invoking this law suit is probably an excuse for dismissing an entire university and the work of its scholars, the old “liberal bias� so I won’t read it response.) The Avalon Project of the Yale law school is not ideologically driven, it is simply a resource for legal scholars and historians which contains translations of many historical treaties, declarations, and other contemporary documents of interest, such as the charters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. And, again, it is linked in the very source which you have been searching.

The treaty is also mentioned in Thomas Jefferson’s Fourth Annual Message to Congress given on November 8, 1804, and that text is also easily obtainable.

I gave you another reference in the Nation magazine, posted online, February 3, 2005. Brooke Allen, the author claims that the “document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate’s history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.â€?

The Nation is a respected left periodical and I doubt that Allen, who is the author of two highly regarded books, simply invented all of the specific historical claims in the above passage.

Furthermore, the treaty is briefly referred to in my old college texts for an American diplomacy class that I took in completing my first degree.

Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

religion—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So, once again, the treaty clearly exists, it is not manufactured by liberals or anti-religionists. The significance of the treaty in the discussions of separation of church and state is a matter of interpretation. However, let’s not continue to insist that it doesn’t exist, though I suspect that you will since its existence is an inconvenience for your views.

By Whiley

February 18, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Sigh

Religious arguments are pointless & a waste of time. You can’t argue with a person who believes that kind of stuff. You can however sell them beach front property in Kansas.

I don’t think the Govt. should be involved in marriages. This is America, not the Middle East.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Angie, I saw a Jewish Rabbi on TV yesterday, he said that when the messiah comes, he will ask him if this is his first or second visit. Interesting.

By Chihuahua

February 18, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Why can’t we all just “get along”?

By lozen

February 18, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Randy, Bruce, Boscoe, Zack, et all, Your version of religion is both simple minded and cruel. You can pull words out of the bible to prove anything you want to prove. That does not make it true. Abortion is not murder. Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, or anybody else who are not christians are not going to your hell. Homosexuals are not sinning by loving. Women who refuse to be christian martyrs are not sinners. You don’t want to live in the 21st century and that’s fine, but don’t try to drag the rest of us back into the dark ages with you. If the bunch of you were right and you get to heaven (if such a place existed) with the darkness in your hearts and the lack of brain cells in your minds, just because you take jesus as your savior, I don’t even want to go there.

By Jack

February 18, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Sounds like Randy, Chuck, & Norman all need to crawl back under the rock they came from.

By Angie

February 18, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Randy, there is no need to be condescending….it doesn’t go a long way to win any souls. If you have read any of my posts, you know that I am a Messianic Jew. I refuse to go into an hour long dissertation on the subject…like so many of you feel inclined to do. Suffice it to say that while Jesus is the center of both our worlds….your traditions (Christian) are based on the teachings and proclamations of Paul. And he was a very good and chaste man. However, I follow the very same traditions that Jesus followed. And that’s not neccessarily better, just slightly different.

By Jodi

February 18, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it interesting how extremists from both sides make life for the rest of us REALLY uncomfortable? :)

By Randy

February 18, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Well as long as it’s a nice rock.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Angie, No condescending intended.

By Seaborn

February 18, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

I think you have to admit that by mid-week most of these forums have beaten the main topic to death…people have exchanged ideas…and insults, ad nauseum.

The real fun starts on Thursday afternoon…that’s when the fur really starts flying.

And don’t you like to hear the same religious arguments at least a hundred times?

By chuck

February 18, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Jesus was THE CHRIST Angie. Since a Christian is a “follower of Christ” He of course was not a Christian. He was by birth a Jew, but He became the NEW covenant between God and man.

allboutyou, ?

By Bruce

February 18, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, It is our Prayer that one of these Thursday’s you will begin to see the light and ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior too.

I am praying for all of you, both Christian and “not yet Christian”

Have a good weekend.

By Randy

February 18, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Chuck you are such a strong Christian. Great job.

By Steven

February 18, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

I”m late to the discussion, but I always love the claims that our country was founded on The Bible. I’ve studied the Bible in various classes at Church as well as in College and for the life of me I can’t find anything in there about the formation of a civil government or about a democratic republic. I’m sure I’ve studied with some smart folks, but nary a one of them offered a course of Biblical Guidelines for the Formation of a Civil Government. Can one of those ‘our country was founded on the Bible’ folks site a few chapters and verses to help me out? It is a very big book after all and maybe I was too distracted by the religious messages of love, forgiveness, and understanding to see the government guidelines mixed in there.

By Seaborn

February 18, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Well thanks Bruce, but it’s pretty clear that I’m not cut out for your club…and conversion on Thursdays just wouldn’t work for me.

I think I like the eastern religions more anyway…

By Angie

February 18, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Now, Chuck, your comment sounded (as I am sure it was indeed intended) exceedingly condescending. As a believer and a Jewish follower, I cannot for the life of me figure out how some of your brains work on this subject. Thank you ever so for your scholarly outline of what Christ was and is……I am keenly aware. It is this exact approach that turns people the opposite way you want them to go. If you speak down to someone, it quite literally turns them off to hearing the truth. I am sure you are a very learned and educated man, but your tone is very belittling. And the more you and a couple others speak on this topic, the more I think that the very people you are trying to reach are laughing. I am also trying to reach these people. But I do not do it in such a way that suggests I am no better than in any way. I mean no offence….but this type of apparent attitude is no closer to working than if you actually womped one over the head with the Bible and /or Torah.

By Jack

February 18, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Randy & Chuck sitting in a tree….

By norman

February 18, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

To fight to the death is not to wish anyone’s death, just the death of a set of false ideas.

Those of us who expose Christianity for the evil it is do not mind being accused of everything under the sun. The only charge to be feared is the charge of not telling the truth. Christians have been guilty of this since Paul of Tarsus, if not even earlier.

By Jack

February 18, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Norm,

Are you of Arab dissent?

By norman

February 18, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

No, Jack, I ain’t no Arab. I despise Islam as much as I despise Christianity, they are from the same polluted source. Islam does preserve the essence of early Christianity better than the Christian church, but that does not make Islam better.