Barrack's Paster Has Unexpected Fellow Traveller
Brian J Dawson
a product of CHURCH ATTENDANCE!!!
Paster Wright has some strange friends. See a video of Paster Wright's
"fellow travellers".
http://middle-class-populist.com/2008/03/20/barrack-obama-pastor-separation-anxiety/
http://middle-class-populist.com
Brian J Dawson
Ed B.
Westboro Baptist Church but offers no evidence of that. They are not
even of the same denomination. In fact, the Baptists are embarrassed by
Westboro Baptist Church but because of the nature of the Baptists'
beliefs of congregational polity they are powerless to stop that church
from using the name "Baptist".
The Westboro Baptist Church runs a website called "God Hates Fags". The
church has regularly picketed the funerals of those who have died from
AIDS. Within the past few years they have also picketed the funerals of
our service men and women who were killed in Iraq. When they picket
those funerals they claim that those who died in battle deserved it
because it is God's punishment for fighting for a country that allows
"Fags" to exist.
I notice that the site does nothing to link Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan
and Jerry Falwell to Westboro Baptist Church or to Senator Obama's
church yet those "pastors" have also preached their own brand of hate
and have also condemned America.
The site you sent us to also makes the claim that Senator Obama is "a
member of a HATE America (so called) Christian sect." Senator Obama's
church is Congregational, also known as United Church of Christ. I
think most Congregationalists would be stunned to know that they are
members of "a HATE America (so called) Christian sect."
The site is a classic example of hate-mongering by attempting to link
two very different groups that actually have no connection to each
other. The site is also a classic example of racism. Why should it
matter that Pastor Wright is 3/4 white as the site claims (again with no
offer of proof). Why would the site mention his skin tone at all? And
labeling him "Pastor Bleach"?
The site further tries to spread religious hatred by stating that
Senator Obama's church "is not a liturgical Church where the sermon
takes second place to the Sacraments." Is the person who wrote that
saying there is only one model for churches? Who decides?
The site opens by stating that "I am a supporter of Barrack Obama and
voted for him." with all the lies, half-truths and innuendo that
follows I am inclined to doubt that opening statement.
And BTW, another classic example of hate-mongering is spreading those
lies as you, Brian, have done by posting that link to at least 3
different newsgroups.
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the
one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true
religion. The other is mere business. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote: the inherent worth and dignity of every
person. -Unitarian Universalist 1st Principle
Brian J Dawson
"Ed B." <lav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1_xEj.6445$GW5....@newsfe12.phx...
NO there is no link between the two of them. I never said that. What I did
say is that from a "middle class" prospective we are seeing two sides of the
same coin. PC liberals would correctly attack the conservative Church for
Gay Bashing. Fine I agree.
But what about AMERICA BASHING! Perphaps Pastor Wright can give the
Invocation at Barrack Obama's swearing in ceromony as the "God Damned"
President of the "God Damned United States".
Barrack Obama played the race card against himself far more than Bill
Clinton did in South Carolina!! There Bill Clinton compared Obama to Jesse
Jackson who would NEVER make the inroads Obama made. I like Obama and voted
for him. But we don't need this Hate America krap. One has to wonder if his
wife's remarks were just that of a foolish amateur or somethng she learned
AT CHURCH!
Jerry Falwell gave almost the same krap when he blamed 9-11 on America's
tolerance of Gays. He was nuts! So why cannot Obama say the same about
Wright? What kind of friend is Pastor Wright to leave his friend Obama out
in the lurch like this while he leaves the country to go on vacation?
Brian J Dawson
http://middle-class-populist.com
Gene Douglas
> "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem here is that his remarks are taken out of context --
twice. Once in that they are now being read and heard by a middle-
class white audience, that doesn't understand the context of
liberation theology. Secondly, there is a pun on the phrase God
damn. In addition to the usual profane use, the word damn literally
mean the opposite of bless -- to condemn, in other words. So he was
saying that considering the acts of racism in this country, that even
result directly or indirectly in people's deaths, God would condemn a
nation that would do that. (Probably old testament thinking.) Blacks
don't need to have that explained to them, and they can understand the
shorthand version.
What he was saying was not un-American, or even anti-American, it was
critical of America. Notice that you don't hear the whole sermon, so
you would hear what leads up to that, or the expounding that follows
it. That makes it triply taken out of context. And notice you aren't
given a date. His career has covered 40 years. If it was said in
1968, it would mean even more in regard to what was going on in the
country then. That takes the quotation quadruply out of context.
And yet, Obama, who didn't even say it, can't go into that nuance or
parsing of his statements. The public would tune out. He's just
stuck with the unfiltered, unexplained raw sound bite lasting a few
seconds.
Gene Douglas
http://unitarian-universalist.wetpaint.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology
ccc31807
> The problem here is that his remarks are taken out of context --
> twice. Once in that they are now being read and heard by a middle-
> class white audience, that doesn't understand the context of
> liberation theology.
JW is a racial bigot, a Black Ku Kluxer, pure and simple, and the
'context' argument is a red herring. In the first place, statements
that the US used the HIV virus and illegal drugs to commit genocide
against the Black community are extremely serious and one would expect
that they would be substantiated by evidence. The context of JW's
accusations is that if a serious and intentional charge of specifics.
In the second place, I heard JW's interview on Fox News, listened to
all of it, and the context of his explanation was consistent with the
video clips of his sermon's and talks. He may use Liberation Theology
as an excuse or justification, but it's only a rationalization for
race baiting and racial bigotry.
> What he was saying was not un-American, or even anti-American, it was
> critical of America. Notice that you don't hear the whole sermon, so
> you would hear what leads up to that, or the expounding that follows
> it.
I don't care if it was unAmerican or antiAmerican. It was
antiChristian. I agree that pastors are critical of American, and the
White, conservative fundamentalists certainly engage in criticism. I
heard no connection to Christian themes in JW's interview, or in his
speeches and sermons.
> And yet, Obama, who didn't even say it, can't go into that nuance or
> parsing of his statements. The public would tune out. He's just
> stuck with the unfiltered, unexplained raw sound bite lasting a few
> seconds.
Actually, he isn't stuck with it, and according to yesterday's polling
data (March 26) he seems not been hurt at all, while McCain and
Hillary seem to have suffered serious declines in their poll numbers.
In fact, as of today (all bets are off for tomorrow) he appears to be
reaping the benefit of the JW controversy, and certainly hasn't been
tarred with JW's negatives.
CC
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
The fact is all of us have intimates with problamatic views, that is
a resultof the fall.
e.g. Goldwater voted against the Civil
rights bill in 1964.
Kevin Philips a Republican stragist wrote
a book advocating a Southern Stragey,
Ronald Regan began his campaign in the
town where the KKK began.
So those who ask why Obama had Wright
for a pastor should ask why didn;t people
leave their Republican friends over the above
acts.
Jim
Mt 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:21:10 -0700 (PDT), "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
True, but in 1964, most Democrats bit the
bullet and changed. LBJ said there goes the
south and he was right.
>
>
> > Kevin Philips a Republican stragist wrote
> > a book advocating a Southern Stragey,
>
> So what? Did the book openly promote anything racist?
>
Not openly, but ir was obvious, he was saying
the Republicans can now take away the
anti-black vote in the South from the Democrats.
>
>
> > Ronald Regan began his campaign in the
> > town where the KKK began.
>
> Where it began over a hundred years before. So what's your point?
>
The symbolism was obvious.
> Are you saying that the town must be completely populated by Klansmen?
>
No, but the symbolism was obvious.
> Shit, we have Nathan Bedford Forrests' tomb along with a statue of him
> on top of it in the center of Memphis.
Forrest a former leader of the Klan.
Guess that must mean all the
> black folks that live here(80% of the population) must be rabid Klan
> supporters yes?
>
Reagan could have oppened in the
birthplace of Lincoln symbolizing he
was in the tradition of Lincoln, whom
I believe was a republican.
>
>
> > So those who ask why Obama had Wright
> > for a pastor should ask why didn't people
> > leave their Republican friends over the above
> > acts.
>
> > Jim
>
> Quote when any of the above listed ever said anything as bigoted as
> Wright.
>
Wright had no power, the Republicans I sighted
did.
>
>
> >Mt 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge,
> > ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete,
> > it shall be measured to you again.
>
> You openly advocate "God Damn America" and then end with that
> scripture? What a fucking hypocrite.
>
Wright was wrong as Obama admits, but others
with real power have done even worse and they
are considered honorable a la Shakespeare.
> Regards
>
> Starkiller
You missed the point ,we all being sinners,
but deal with other sinners. Life is complex,
we all need a little slack.
Jim
Mt 6:15 - But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Gene Douglas
>
> > The problem here is that his remarks are taken out of context --
> > twice. Once in that they are now being read and heard by a middle-
> > class white audience, that doesn't understand the context of
> > liberation theology.
>
> JW is a racial bigot, a Black Ku Kluxer, pure and simple, and the
> 'context' argument is a red herring. In the first place, statements
> that the US used the HIV virus and illegal drugs to commit genocide
> against the Black community are extremely serious and one would expect
> that they would be substantiated by evidence. The context of JW's
> accusations is that if a serious and intentional charge of specifics.
> In the second place, I heard JW's interview on Fox News, listened to
> all of it, and the context of his explanation was consistent with the
> video clips of his sermon's and talks. He may use Liberation Theology
> as an excuse or justification, but it's only a rationalization for
> race baiting and racial bigotry.
>
the republicans who published his remarks want a lot of people to do.
> > What he was saying was not un-American, or even anti-American, it was
> > critical of America. Notice that you don't hear the whole sermon, so
> > you would hear what leads up to that, or the expounding that follows
> > it.
>
> I don't care if it was unAmerican or antiAmerican. It was
> antiChristian. I agree that pastors are critical of American, and the
> White, conservative fundamentalists certainly engage in criticism. I
> heard no connection to Christian themes in JW's interview, or in his
> speeches and sermons.
He didn't say anything about Christians. At any rate, to call a
person anti-Christian isn't necessarily a criticism in many peoples'
eyes. Why bring that up if he said nothng against Christians?
>
> > And yet, Obama, who didn't even say it, can't go into that nuance or
> > parsing of his statements. The public would tune out. He's just
> > stuck with the unfiltered, unexplained raw sound bite lasting a few
> > seconds.
>
> Actually, he isn't stuck with it, and according to yesterday's polling
> data (March 26) he seems not been hurt at all, while McCain and
> Hillary seem to have suffered serious declines in their poll numbers.
> In fact, as of today (all bets are off for tomorrow) he appears to be
> reaping the benefit of the JW controversy, and certainly hasn't been
> tarred with JW's negatives.
>
> CC
He's a real smart guy.
ccc31807
> You're just seeing it through white middle-class eyes, exactly what
> the republicans who published his remarks want a lot of people to do.
Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
and this ain't racism, either.
> > I don't care if it was unAmerican or antiAmerican. It was
> > antiChristian. I agree that pastors are critical of American, and the
> > White, conservative fundamentalists certainly engage in criticism. I
> > heard no connection to Christian themes in JW's interview, or in his
> > speeches and sermons.
>
> He didn't say anything about Christians. At any rate, to call a
> person anti-Christian isn't necessarily a criticism in many peoples'
> eyes. Why bring that up if he said nothng against Christians?
I didn't say that he attacked Christians. I said that his message was
antiChristian. In a nutshell, Christians should exhibit love, joy,
peace, forebearance, etc. (See Galatians 5 for one take on this
subject.) What I heard JW say certainly did not exhibit this.
> > Actually, he isn't stuck with it, and according to yesterday's polling
> > data (March 26) he seems not been hurt at all, while McCain and
> > Hillary seem to have suffered serious declines in their poll numbers.
> > In fact, as of today (all bets are off for tomorrow) he appears to be
> > reaping the benefit of the JW controversy, and certainly hasn't been
> > tarred with JW's negatives.
> He's a real smart guy.
No doubt. So was Joseph Stalin. The point is that JW is just as racist
and harmful as the hate-mongering of the old time segs, like Orville
Faubus, Jim Folsam, etc. The only difference is that they favored
white sheets, while JW apparently favors black sheets.
CC
Ed B.
> On Mar 29, 7:30 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> You're just seeing it through white middle-class eyes, exactly what
>> the republicans who published his remarks want a lot of people to do.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
> government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
> our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
> Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
> humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
> terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
> and this ain't racism, either.
Actually the theory that AIDS was created has been around almost as long
as the AIDS epidemic has been in the public consciousness. The theory
holds that it was created in a CIA lab in suburban Virginia. It was
part of a program on ABC weapons. The theory holds that it somehow was
let loose. The prevailing winds, coming from the west, carried it to
Africa which is why the epidemic spread more rapidly there. Whether the
theory is accurate or not, whether Rev. Wright believes the theory or
not, it is not a black/white thing. Many white people also believe the
theory.
>>> I don't care if it was unAmerican or antiAmerican. It was
>>> antiChristian. I agree that pastors are critical of American, and the
>>> White, conservative fundamentalists certainly engage in criticism. I
>>> heard no connection to Christian themes in JW's interview, or in his
>>> speeches and sermons.
>> He didn't say anything about Christians. At any rate, to call a
>> person anti-Christian isn't necessarily a criticism in many peoples'
>> eyes. Why bring that up if he said nothng against Christians?
>
> I didn't say that he attacked Christians. I said that his message was
> antiChristian. In a nutshell, Christians should exhibit love, joy,
> peace, forebearance, etc. (See Galatians 5 for one take on this
> subject.) What I heard JW say certainly did not exhibit this.
You say that Christians should exhibit love, joy, peace, forbearance
etc. I contend that ALL should exhibit those qualities. However, the
facts show that many people, including many Christians, exhibit exactly
the opposite. Many Christian preachers, white and black alike, preach
hatred from the pulpit on a regular basis. Sometime it is aimed at
Islam, sometimes at the BGLT community, sometimes at other Christian
sects. Before attacking Rev. Wright and his preaching perhaps you
should make sure your own house is in order. Has your preacher ever
condemned BGLT people?
>
>>> Actually, he isn't stuck with it, and according to yesterday's polling
>>> data (March 26) he seems not been hurt at all, while McCain and
>>> Hillary seem to have suffered serious declines in their poll numbers.
>>> In fact, as of today (all bets are off for tomorrow) he appears to be
>>> reaping the benefit of the JW controversy, and certainly hasn't been
>>> tarred with JW's negatives.
>
>> He's a real smart guy.
>
> No doubt. So was Joseph Stalin. The point is that JW is just as racist
> and harmful as the hate-mongering of the old time segs, like Orville
> Faubus, Jim Folsam, etc. The only difference is that they favored
> white sheets, while JW apparently favors black sheets.
>
> CC
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a
hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas
Carlyle, historian and essayist (1795-1881)
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote:
justice, equity and compassion in human relations. -Unitarian
Universalist 2nd Principle
VtSkier
(snip)
> You say that Christians should exhibit love, joy, peace, forbearance
> etc. I contend that ALL should exhibit those qualities. However, the
> facts show that many people, including many Christians, exhibit exactly
> the opposite. Many Christian preachers, white and black alike, preach
> hatred from the pulpit on a regular basis. Sometime it is aimed at
> Islam, sometimes at the BGLT community, sometimes at other Christian
> sects. Before attacking Rev. Wright and his preaching perhaps you
> should make sure your own house is in order. Has your preacher ever
> condemned BGLT people?
BGLT?
Thanks in advance.
(and snip the rest)
Maybe we UU's should start our own brand of
fire and brimstone. We are just too tolerant.
We lack the fire of commitment. Even our
early "fathers" were too tolerant. They were
a bit silent on the issue of slavery, for
instance, until Theodore Parker showed them how.
But then proselytizing just isn't our "thing",
now is it?
Ed B.
saying them. I put them alphabetically following the UUA's Office for
Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns. The T can also mean
Transsexual or Transvestite. Some folks add I for Intersex, Q for Queer
and a second Q for Questioning. It gets cumbersome.
As for fire and brimstone, I have been known to be very fiery.
And tolerant? Sometimes I wonder if it is tolerant to be tolerant of
intolerance.
We DO like people to find their own way but some of them need a map to
do that. I believe we can provide the map without dragging them along.
--
VtSkier
> BGLT - The initials can be in any order depending on who is writing or
> saying them. I put them alphabetically following the UUA's Office for
> Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns. The T can also mean
> Transsexual or Transvestite. Some folks add I for Intersex, Q for Queer
> and a second Q for Questioning. It gets cumbersome.
Understood, thank you.
> As for fire and brimstone, I have been known to be very fiery.
Me too, but only for very small audiences.
> And tolerant? Sometimes I wonder if it is tolerant to be tolerant of
> intolerance.
That's when I've been fiery.
> We DO like people to find their own way but some of them need a map to
> do that. I believe we can provide the map without dragging them along.
Herein lies the rub. If we don't drag them along,
someone else will. And we just stand there and
watch (figuratively, of course) because we respect
the rights of those doing the dragging.
ccc31807
> Actually the theory that AIDS was created has been around almost as long
> as the AIDS epidemic has been in the public consciousness.
Whats the evidence? Theories by themselves don't count for anything.
It's the evidence that's significant. Besides, this is a distraction.
JW's preaching of racial hatred would be just as damaging if he didn't
resort to a theory without one shred of evidence to support it.
> sects. Before attacking Rev. Wright and his preaching perhaps you
> should make sure your own house is in order. Has your preacher ever
> condemned BGLT people?
I was not in an attack mode, but merely attempting to characterize
what I heard JW say. I was a teenager when Lester Maddox used an axe
handle to chase niggers* away from his Pickrick restaurant in Atlanta,
and had a churn of them for sale. No one thought it an attack when he
was called a segragationist.
*I use the word because (1) that was the term used in the historical
context, and (2) some of JW's language is as offensive today as this
word was in the 1960s.
CC
Gene Douglas
> On Mar 29, 7:30 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > You're just seeing it through white middle-class eyes, exactly what
> > the republicans who published his remarks want a lot of people to do.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
> government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
> our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
> Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
> humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
> terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
> and this ain't racism, either.
That's a racist comment in itself. Possibly you foolishly believe the
above, or possibly you are just being extreme to be sarcastic.
Normally, one should see there are alternatives between opposite
extremes.
I won't bother addressing your statements one by one, because most
readers can see their folly anyway. However, you'd have to be blind
to think there has never been racism in this country, or that it
doesn't exist today, or that it isn't still around, and that its
effects aren't still with us. The fact is, poverty kills people.
Lack of medical treatment, poor nutrition, exhaustion from working two
full-time jobs, problems of sanitation or crime in the neighborhood,
risks of crime and influences on children in bad neighborhoods,
decrepit schools, the list goes on and on. There is even suicide in
despair over those things in one's life.
If he made his speech 40 years ago, that even goes double. And what
was he actually thinking about? Maybe the Tuskeegee experiment, in
which the U.S. government didn't treat syphilis in black men, because
they wanted to see what would happen to them? And let them infect
partners, spreading a fatal disease to others? A decision in New
Orleans in a flood near the turn of the 20th century not to rescue the
black people, and just let them die? (They eventually changed their
minds, when they considered they would be losing a source of cheap
labor.) Was he thinking of KKK lynchings? Was he thinking of college
kids being exempted from the draft during Viet Nam, when most blacks
couldn't afford to get into college? Could one think of an even
longer list of possibilities?
>
> > > I don't care if it was unAmerican or antiAmerican. It was
> > > antiChristian. I agree that pastors are critical of American, and the
> > > White, conservative fundamentalists certainly engage in criticism. I
> > > heard no connection to Christian themes in JW's interview, or in his
> > > speeches and sermons.
>
> > He didn't say anything about Christians. At any rate, to call a
> > person anti-Christian isn't necessarily a criticism in many peoples'
> > eyes. Why bring that up if he said nothng against Christians?
>
> I didn't say that he attacked Christians. I said that his message was
> antiChristian. In a nutshell, Christians should exhibit love, joy,
> peace, forebearance, etc. (See Galatians 5 for one take on this
> subject.) What I heard JW say certainly did not exhibit this.
If you hate what is evil, you don't love it. Forebearance isn't
reasonable when it just results in further oppression. If you offend
your neighbor, and you discover him saying so, as a Christian you
should be asking what you can do to reverse that. You heard him say
"That's in the Bible." He meant that God condemns those nations that
abandon his will.
>
> > > Actually, he isn't stuck with it, and according to yesterday's polling
> > > data (March 26) he seems not been hurt at all, while McCain and
> > > Hillary seem to have suffered serious declines in their poll numbers.
> > > In fact, as of today (all bets are off for tomorrow) he appears to be
> > > reaping the benefit of the JW controversy, and certainly hasn't been
> > > tarred with JW's negatives.
> > He's a real smart guy.
>
> No doubt. So was Joseph Stalin. The point is that JW is just as racist
> and harmful as the hate-mongering of the old time segs, like Orville
> Faubus, Jim Folsam, etc. The only difference is that they favored
> white sheets, while JW apparently favors black sheets.
>
Why would you compare Barak Obama with Joseph Stalin? Are you that
eager to tar him with a wide brush? If one is dealing with the
Faubuses, Wallaces, Mattoxes, etc., you don't tell people to love
them, or at least not to love their actions.
You can love your enemies, but most Christians don't actually do
that. Even the pope, who forgave his attempted assassin, did so while
he sat in prison. If a gang were attempting to assasinate the pope, I
doubt he would forgive them while they are still active. (And this
was the Romanian government, which was still in business at the time.)
> CC
Gene Douglas
> On Mar 31, 2:03 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually the theory that AIDS was created has been around almost as long
> > as the AIDS epidemic has been in the public consciousness.
>
> Whats the evidence? Theories by themselves don't count for anything.
> It's the evidence that's significant. Besides, this is a distraction.
> JW's preaching of racial hatred would be just as damaging if he didn't
> resort to a theory without one shred of evidence to support it.
Show me any racial hatred in JW's sermon. He expressed anger, and it
was not even toward a race. That's a lot different.
As you say, mention of AIDS is a distraction, not relevant to JW's
sermon, and something a poster (perhaps yourself) brought in.
However, for the record, HIV is killed by air, and it is killed by
sunlight. You have to work hard to get AIDS, and unless you do, it's
nearly impossible. (Exceptions are tainted blood transfusions and
babies born to HIV+ mothers.)
>
> > sects. Before attacking Rev. Wright and his preaching perhaps you
> > should make sure your own house is in order. Has your preacher ever
> > condemned BGLT people?
Good point. Good, good point.
>
> I was not in an attack mode, but merely attempting to characterize
> what I heard JW say. I was a teenager when Lester Maddox used an axe
> handle to chase niggers* away from his Pickrick restaurant in Atlanta,
> and had a churn of them for sale. No one thought it an attack when he
> was called a segragationist.
It really WASN'T an attack to call him a segregationist, because he
would call himself that, and proudly at that.
>
> *I use the word because (1) that was the term used in the historical
> context, and (2) some of JW's language is as offensive today as this
> word was in the 1960s.
Perhaps you could use quotation marks, meaning you were referring to
someone else's usage. Exactly what of JW's language was offensive,
and what would be equivalent to use of the word "nigger?" You just
didn't like what he said. That's a far cry from saying he was using
abusive language.
>
> CC
Gene Douglas
>
> - Show quoted text -
UU's believe everybody has a right to their own beliefs. That doesn't
mean they have no reason to argue their beliefs. In fact, UU's argue
a lot, even among themselves. We don't proscelite, in terms of going
door to door and asking Baptists and Catholics to convert. But we may
disagree with their theological tenets, and if invited, even disagree
to the Baptists who want to discuss it.
Where it comes to right and wrong, we have an obligation to speak
out. Where a practice is just a private matter, we have no right nor
need to interfere. If a Jew wants to avoid eating bacon, why bother
him? But if an act results in harm to others, that is another matter.
Gene Douglas
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 1:43 pm, Starkiller <NoSpam.SKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:21:10 -0700 (PDT), "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>
> > <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 27, 7:43 am, ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 26, 6:37 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > The fact is all of us have intimates with problamatic views, that is
> > >a resultof the fall.
So you believe.
>
> > > e.g. Goldwater voted against the Civil
> > > rights bill in 1964.
>
> > As did Al Gore Sr. and a wholes shitload of other lifetime democrats
>
> True, but in 1964, most Democrats bit the
> bullet and changed. LBJ said there goes the
> south and he was right.
>
It was a major political sacrifice, but it was for the right, and
changed America forever, in a very major way.
>
> > > Kevin Philips a Republican stragist wrote
> > > a book advocating a Southern Stragey,
>
> > So what? Did the book openly promote anything racist?
>
> Not openly, but ir was obvious, he was saying
> the Republicans can now take away the
> anti-black vote in the South from the Democrats.
>
> > > Ronald Regan began his campaign in the
> > > town where the KKK began.
>
> > Where it began over a hundred years before. So what's your point?
>
> The symbolism was obvious.
>
> > Are you saying that the town must be completely populated by Klansmen?
>
> No, but the symbolism was obvious.
>
> > Shit, we have Nathan Bedford Forrests' tomb along with a statue of him
> > on top of it in the center of Memphis.
>
> Forrest a former leader of the Klan.
One day, when Tennessee moves the statue to a museum, it will have
officially repudiated admiration of a scoundrel.
>
(...)
>
> > > Jim
>
> > Quote when any of the above listed ever said anything as bigoted as
> > Wright.
Show what was bigoted about him.
>
> Wright had no power, the Republicans I sighted
> did.
>
>
> > >Mt 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge,
> > > ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete,
> > > it shall be measured to you again.
>
> > You openly advocate "God Damn America" and then end with that
> > scripture? What a fucking hypocrite.
I mentioned elsewhere, he was making a pun. Firstly, there is the
profane meaning of God damn, but there is also the literal meaning,
damn being the opposite of bless, or to "condemn." God would condemn
those nations that stray from his commandments. He followed by saying
"That's in the Bible." You're so caught up in flag waving, you have a
knee-jerk reaction to what you aren't understanding. A parent who
truly loves her child doesn't say "My child can do no wrong."
>
(...)
Dave Heil
> On Mar 31, 2:03 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Actually the theory that AIDS was created has been around almost as long
>> as the AIDS epidemic has been in the public consciousness.
>
> Whats the evidence? Theories by themselves don't count for anything.
> It's the evidence that's significant. Besides, this is a distraction.
> JW's preaching of racial hatred would be just as damaging if he didn't
> resort to a theory without one shred of evidence to support it.
Let me tell you how this "AIDS Virus Created at Fort (fill in the
blank)" stuff began. For better than a decade-and-a-half, the Soviet
Union had a very active disinformation/misinformation campaign. The
AIDS "made in U.S.A." stories would be planted by various Soviet agents
in second world or third world countries. A reporter in those countries
would be fed the story with tantalizing bits of so-called "evidence".
The stories would then appear in newspapers in those countries. Someone
working for a first world county would see the newspaper stories and
begin to ask questions of officials within the U.S., using the second
and third world stories as documenting sources.
During the period that I worked at U.S. embassies abroad, USIA (and it's
overseas offices USIS (U.S. Information Service) spent much time
debunking the AIDS stories. The planted AIDS stories were only a small
portion of the massive Soviet disinformation/misinformation campaign
directed against the U.S.
There isn't any evidence to support such claims. There was never
evidence to support them. Nowadays the biggest source of
disinformation/misinformation on the planet is the Internet.
Dave Heil
ccc31807
matter. Like you, I won't reply point by point, but make a couple of
general comments. I sincerely hope that you won't disagree with what I
will say.
On Mar 31, 7:38 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> That's a racist comment in itself. Possibly you foolishly believe the
> above, or possibly you are just being extreme to be sarcastic.
> Normally, one should see there are alternatives between opposite
> extremes.
Maybe we have different definitions of 'racist.' My definition is that
anything that recognizes racial differences constitutes racism. The
opposite of racism is absolute blindness of race related artifacts. My
accusation that JW is racist is based on the fact that we constructs
differences (race related artifical differences I might add) and uses
them to create animosity between his artifical categories.
> readers can see their folly anyway. However, you'd have to be blind
> to think there has never been racism in this country, or that it
> doesn't exist today, or that it isn't still around, and that its
> effects aren't still with us.
Of course there are racial differences. I grew up in the Jim Crow
South and didn't attend an integrated school until I was a teenager. I
office mate, a Black man, is my age and he had the same experiences I
did except on the other side. We somtimes talk about this history, and
sometimes we get rubbed a little raw. Yeah, it still hurts after all
these years.
> > > He's a real smart guy.
>
> > No doubt. So was Joseph Stalin. The point is that JW is just as racist
> > and harmful as the hate-mongering of the old time segs, like Orville
> > Faubus, Jim Folsam, etc. The only difference is that they favored
> > white sheets, while JW apparently favors black sheets.
>
> Why would you compare Barak Obama with Joseph Stalin?
To make a point.
This reminds me of a joke I heard about Putin and Stalin. Seems that
Putin had a visitation from Stalin's ghost one night, and the
conversation went like this:
PUTIN: The democrats are giving me fits and I don't know what to do
about them.
STALIN: Shoot all the democrats and paint the Kremlin blue.
PUTIN: Why should I paint the Kremlin blue?
STALIN: Ha! I ~knew~ you wouldn't object to shooting the democrats.
I've heard enough racism to recognize it, and the only difference
between the old time segs and Jeremiah Wright is that they were white
racists and he is a Black racist.
If racism is evil, and I believe that it is, then the color of your
skin doesn't make any difference.
CC
Gene Douglas
> I'm not interested in fighting with you, or anyone else, about this
> matter. Like you, I won't reply point by point, but make a couple of
> general comments. I sincerely hope that you won't disagree with what I
> will say.
>
> On Mar 31, 7:38 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > That's a racist comment in itself. Possibly you foolishly believe the
> > above, or possibly you are just being extreme to be sarcastic.
> > Normally, one should see there are alternatives between opposite
> > extremes.
>
> Maybe we have different definitions of 'racist.' My definition is that
> anything that recognizes racial differences constitutes racism. The
> opposite of racism is absolute blindness of race related artifacts. My
> accusation that JW is racist is based on the fact that we constructs
> differences (race related artifical differences I might add) and uses
> them to create animosity between his artifical categories.
>
it so. You speak of all blacks as a single group, and then say they
believe extreme things, things only the most stupid or lunatic would
possibly believe. That's racism.
As to anything that recognizes racial differences, are you saying if
you meet a Chinese guy, you don't notice he's Chinese? Can you spell
hypocrite?
Would you notice facts such as Chinese score higher on IQ tests than
white people, or that Chinese sometimes speak and write in a different
language, or prepare a particular kind of food? Gee, the Chinese
notice things. That's part of why they sometimes form Chinatowns in
large cities.
JW didn't speak of races. He spoke of a nation that creates
conditions that kill people. Show me where he said that a particular
race is different in a particular way.
If you are on a crowded bus, and somebody says you have B.O., do you
condemn him for discriminating against you? Or do you ask if it is
possible you really do have B.O., and if you are also offending people
who say nothing about it, and wonder what you can do about that? If
all you can do is take offense, then you are condemned to be stuck
where you are.
> > readers can see their folly anyway. However, you'd have to be blind
> > to think there has never been racism in this country, or that it
> > doesn't exist today, or that it isn't still around, and that its
> > effects aren't still with us.
>
> Of course there are racial differences. I grew up in the Jim Crow
> South and didn't attend an integrated school until I was a teenager. I
> office mate, a Black man, is my age and he had the same experiences I
> did except on the other side. We somtimes talk about this history, and
> sometimes we get rubbed a little raw. Yeah, it still hurts after all
> these years.
>
> > > > He's a real smart guy.
>
> > > No doubt. So was Joseph Stalin. The point is that JW is just as racist
> > > and harmful as the hate-mongering of the old time segs, like Orville
> > > Faubus, Jim Folsam, etc. The only difference is that they favored
> > > white sheets, while JW apparently favors black sheets.
>
> > Why would you compare Barak Obama with Joseph Stalin?
>
> To make a point.
You make a phony point. Obama is nothing like Stalin. They both had
noses on the front of their faces, but that does not indicate any kind
of kinship. You were just slandering a good person because you wanted
to slander him.
>
> This reminds me of a joke I heard about Putin and Stalin. Seems that
> Putin had a visitation from Stalin's ghost one night, and the
> conversation went like this:
> PUTIN: The democrats are giving me fits and I don't know what to do
> about them.
> STALIN: Shoot all the democrats and paint the Kremlin blue.
> PUTIN: Why should I paint the Kremlin blue?
> STALIN: Ha! I ~knew~ you wouldn't object to shooting the democrats.
>
> I've heard enough racism to recognize it, and the only difference
> between the old time segs and Jeremiah Wright is that they were white
> racists and he is a Black racist.
If you say blacks are in a single group that believes in extreme
absurd notions, that's racism.
Gene Douglas
> On Mar 31, 9:07 pm, ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Maybe we have different definitions of 'racist.' My definition is that
> > anything that recognizes racial differences constitutes racism. The
> > opposite of racism is absolute blindness of race related artifacts. My
> > accusation that JW is racist is based on the fact that we constructs
> > differences (race related artifical differences I might add) and uses
> > them to create animosity between his artifical categories.
>
> You can define Up as meaning Down if you wish, but that doesn't make
> it so. You speak of all blacks as a single group, and then say they
> believe extreme things, things only the most stupid or lunatic would
> possibly believe. That's racism.
>
is anything a woman says it is. She acted as if she really believed
that. We worked in a sex offender's unit of a prison, and she would
say that if a man does a disgusting thing, he is responsible for the
choices he makes. However, if a woman does a disgusting thing, she is
under the power of men in her environment, and is submitting to their
control. She was referring to an inmate who was caught in a visiting
room having sex with his mother behind a Coke machine, an inmate who
was being masturbated by his wife as he burned their baby with a
cigarette, and an inmate who was having sex with his wife in a
visiting patio, in front of their children. He was guilty, but she
was a victim.
She can say such things as much as she wants, but that doesn't mean
that they are true.
(...)
>
> > Of course there are racial differences. I grew up in the Jim Crow
> > South and didn't attend an integrated school until I was a teenager. I
> > office mate, a Black man, is my age and he had the same experiences I
> > did except on the other side. We somtimes talk about this history, and
> > sometimes we get rubbed a little raw. Yeah, it still hurts after all
> > these years.
>
I never attended an integrated school until college. Oddly, my junior
college was in the same building as my high school. High school
students could pass black students in the hallway, but knew they were
still segregrated, because a college freshman was one grade ahead of a
high school senior, and so they weren't really us.
ccc31807
> > Maybe we have different definitions of 'racist.' My definition is that
> > anything that recognizes racial differences constitutes racism. The
> > opposite of racism is absolute blindness of race related artifacts. My
> > accusation that JW is racist is based on the fact that we constructs
> > differences (race related artifical differences I might add) and uses
> > them to create animosity between his artifical categories.
>
> You can define Up as meaning Down if you wish, but that doesn't make
> it so. You speak of all blacks as a single group, and then say they
> believe extreme things, things only the most stupid or lunatic would
> possibly believe. That's racism.
There are exterior differences between groups of people, such as skin
color, hair texture, etc. Recognition of these kinds of differences
isn't racism, but reality.
Then, there are interior differences, such as character, integrity,
maturity, etc. These have nothing at all to do with the exterior
differences.
'Racism' is using the former class as a surrogate for the latter
class. For example, saying that a darker skin color is a marker for
immorality is racist.
> As to anything that recognizes racial differences, are you saying if
> you meet a Chinese guy, you don't notice he's Chinese? Can you spell
> hypocrite?
Obviously not. Further, you have differences in age, gender, class,
economics, accent and vocabulary, dress, education, etc. I have lived
all my life in the deep South, and have a couple of masters degrees,
one doctorate, and finishing up another. Yet I have had people assume
that I am an ignorant redneck based simply on how my words sounded,
not the content of my words. The key (with apologies to MLKJR) is to
judge a person by the content of his character rather than the color
of his skin.
> JW didn't speak of races. He spoke of a nation that creates
> conditions that kill people. Show me where he said that a particular
> race is different in a particular way.
You must have missed his interview with Hannity and Colmes.
> > > Why would you compare Barak Obama with Joseph Stalin?
>
> > To make a point.
>
> You make a phony point. Obama is nothing like Stalin. They both had
> noses on the front of their faces, but that does not indicate any kind
> of kinship. You were just slandering a good person because you wanted
> to slander him.
You missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. A high IQ isn't the
only qualification for public service. It may help, you might even say
it's necessary, but it isn't sufficient.
> > I've heard enough racism to recognize it, and the only difference
> > between the old time segs and Jeremiah Wright is that they were white
> > racists and he is a Black racist.
>
> If you say blacks are in a single group that believes in extreme
> absurd notions, that's racism.
I didn't say that we should judge all Blacks as being like JW. We
shouldn't prejudge people on the basis of exterior characteristics.
CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 1, 7:28 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(...)
>
> > You can define Up as meaning Down if you wish, but that doesn't make
> > it so. You speak of all blacks as a single group, and then say they
> > believe extreme things, things only the most stupid or lunatic would
> > possibly believe. That's racism.
>
> There are exterior differences between groups of people, such as skin
> color, hair texture, etc. Recognition of these kinds of differences
> isn't racism, but reality.
But the differences you expressed related to extreme, absurd beliefs
supposedly held in common by an entire category of people.
And the differences JW referred to were in terms of wrongful behavior,
which really did and do exist, often in the forming and maintaining of
instutions that do great harm. The former is racism, the latter is
not.
>
> Then, there are interior differences, such as character, integrity,
> maturity, etc. These have nothing at all to do with the exterior
> differences.
>
> 'Racism' is using the former class as a surrogate for the latter
> class. For example, saying that a darker skin color is a marker for
> immorality is racist.
>
> > As to anything that recognizes racial differences, are you saying if
> > you meet a Chinese guy, you don't notice he's Chinese? Can you spell
> > hypocrite?
>
> Obviously not. Further, you have differences in age, gender, class,
> economics, accent and vocabulary, dress, education, etc. I have lived
> all my life in the deep South, and have a couple of masters degrees,
> one doctorate, and finishing up another. Yet I have had people assume
> that I am an ignorant redneck based simply on how my words sounded,
> not the content of my words. The key (with apologies to MLKJR) is to
> judge a person by the content of his character rather than the color
> of his skin.
>
JW didn't refer to biological differences between the races. He spoke
of behavior, not of a color of people, but of a nation.
> > JW didn't speak of races. He spoke of a nation that creates
> > conditions that kill people. Show me where he said that a particular
> > race is different in a particular way.
>
> You must have missed his interview with Hannity and Colmes.
Show me a quote, please.
>
> > > > Why would you compare Barak Obama with Joseph Stalin?
>
> > > To make a point.
>
> > You make a phony point. Obama is nothing like Stalin. They both had
> > noses on the front of their faces, but that does not indicate any kind
> > of kinship. You were just slandering a good person because you wanted
> > to slander him.
>
> You missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. A high IQ isn't the
> only qualification for public service. It may help, you might even say
> it's necessary, but it isn't sufficient.
>
You might have said that, rather than smear Obama by comparing him
with Stalin. Others tried to smear him with JW, and as you noted, it
hasn't hurt him. He handled it brilliantly. He's a real smart guy.
Why put him down after that?
> > > I've heard enough racism to recognize it, and the only difference
> > > between the old time segs and Jeremiah Wright is that they were white
> > > racists and he is a Black racist.
>
> > If you say blacks are in a single group that believes in extreme
> > absurd notions, that's racism.
>
> I didn't say that we should judge all Blacks as being like JW. We
> shouldn't prejudge people on the basis of exterior characteristics.
>
> CC
You said blacks believe this and that absurd notion. If you were
simply being sarcastic, you were then assaulting the previous writer
with nonsense as if he had implied that those notions were all right,
or were what he was referring to.
ccc31807
> But the differences you expressed related to extreme, absurd beliefs
I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
fashion.
> And the differences JW referred to were in terms of wrongful behavior,
> which really did and do exist, often in the forming and maintaining of
> instutions that do great harm. The former is racism, the latter is
> not.
The differences JW referred to were simply racial, Black and white.
They had nothing to do with behavior.
> > You must have missed his interview with Hannity and Colmes.
>
> Show me a quote, please.
I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
(BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
> > You missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. A high IQ isn't the
> > only qualification for public service. It may help, you might even say
> > it's necessary, but it isn't sufficient.
>
> You might have said that, rather than smear Obama by comparing him
> with Stalin. Others tried to smear him with JW, and as you noted, it
> hasn't hurt him. He handled it brilliantly. He's a real smart guy.
> Why put him down after that?
It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
> > I didn't say that we should judge all Blacks as being like JW. We
> > shouldn't prejudge people on the basis of exterior characteristics.
>
> You said blacks believe this and that absurd notion. If you were
> simply being sarcastic, you were then assaulting the previous writer
> with nonsense as if he had implied that those notions were all right,
> or were what he was referring to.
I think you have misread my words. I wouldn't say that a group of
people characterized only by skin color think a particular way. My
use of the words 'Black' and 'white' were meant only as a shortcut to
ideology, in the way we use 'gay' and 'straight' or 'Republican' and
'Democratic.' Or 'liberal' and 'conservative' for that matter. It's an
unfortunate habit, but to rectify matters, go back and in that post
substitute 'those who follow JW's world view' for 'Black' and 'those
who don't follow JW's world view' for 'white.'
Finally, what I would have liked to say to JW at the time would have
been like this: 'Sure, and Blacks never hacked limbs off women and
children with machetes, never burned church buildings filled with
women and children, and never sold Blacks into slavery.' (Yes, I'm
using sarcasm, because Blacks have done all these things, and
recently.) It's a fact that white Europeans did not enslave Africans,
but only purchased as slaves those who had been already enslaved by
Africans, that we (Americans) ended the slave trade by our own
volition even though the Africans would have sold slaves as long as
they could have found purchasers (and still do so to this day), that
the bloodiest war in American history was fought by whites in large
part to destroy the institution of slavery, and that we (American)
fought a war against Africans because they enslaved Americans.
JW seems to reduce complex issues to black and white, and in
consequence becomes no better than our segragationists of fifty years
ago, like Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, etc. And like
those men, if you don't condemn his words, you stand with them.
CC
Ed B.
> On Apr 2, 7:45 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> But the differences you expressed related to extreme, absurd beliefs
>> supposedly held in common by an entire category of people.\
>
> I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> fashion.
Written by you on 3/30/08:
"Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
and this ain't racism, either."
>
>> And the differences JW referred to were in terms of wrongful behavior,
>> which really did and do exist, often in the forming and maintaining of
>> instutions that do great harm. The former is racism, the latter is
>> not.
>
> The differences JW referred to were simply racial, Black and white.
> They had nothing to do with behavior.
Were they racial or historic? It was white people that captured black
people and sold them into slavery and then kept them as second class
citizens through "Jim Crow" laws for 100 years after they were freed.
Very little has been done to right those wrongs. People are still
pulled over by police and highway patrol for driving while black. Black
men still get harsher sentences for crimes than white men. Schools in
black neighborhoods are still underfunded compared to schools in white
neighborhoods. Is simply pointing out these inequities racist?
>
>>> You must have missed his interview with Hannity and Colmes.
>> Show me a quote, please.
>
> I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
You made the claim. You have the obligation to provide evidence to
substantiate your claim or give it up.
>
>
>>> You missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. A high IQ isn't the
>>> only qualification for public service. It may help, you might even say
>>> it's necessary, but it isn't sufficient.
>> You might have said that, rather than smear Obama by comparing him
>> with Stalin. Others tried to smear him with JW, and as you noted, it
>> hasn't hurt him. He handled it brilliantly. He's a real smart guy.
>> Why put him down after that?
>
> It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
> episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
How does comparing Obama to Stalin smear Gene?
>
>>> I didn't say that we should judge all Blacks as being like JW. We
>>> shouldn't prejudge people on the basis of exterior characteristics.
>> You said blacks believe this and that absurd notion. If you were
>> simply being sarcastic, you were then assaulting the previous writer
>> with nonsense as if he had implied that those notions were all right,
>> or were what he was referring to.
>
> I think you have misread my words. I wouldn't say that a group of
> people characterized only by skin color think a particular way. My
> use of the words 'Black' and 'white' were meant only as a shortcut to
> ideology, in the way we use 'gay' and 'straight' or 'Republican' and
> 'Democratic.' Or 'liberal' and 'conservative' for that matter. It's an
> unfortunate habit, but to rectify matters, go back and in that post
> substitute 'those who follow JW's world view' for 'Black' and 'those
> who don't follow JW's world view' for 'white.'
All blacks share an ideology? And all whites? And all Gay people? and
all straight people? What does color or sexual orientation have to do
with ideology?
Even Republican and Democratic is suspect. Does George W. Bush share an
ideology with Goldwater? Or Lincoln?
> Finally, what I would have liked to say to JW at the time would have
> been like this: 'Sure, and Blacks never hacked limbs off women and
> children with machetes, never burned church buildings filled with
> women and children, and never sold Blacks into slavery.' (Yes, I'm
> using sarcasm, because Blacks have done all these things, and
> recently.) It's a fact that white Europeans did not enslave Africans,
> but only purchased as slaves those who had been already enslaved by
> Africans,
That is true in some cases but in others white Europeans captured black
Africans themselves. And, as you pointed out below, the Africans would
not have been capturing and selling other Africans if there was no
market for it.
that we (Americans) ended the slave trade by our own
> volition even though the Africans would have sold slaves as long as
> they could have found purchasers (and still do so to this day), that
> the bloodiest war in American history was fought by whites in large
> part to destroy the institution of slavery, and that we (American)
> fought a war against Africans because they enslaved Americans.
What war? When? I don't recall America ever being at war with Africa
over enslavement of Americans.
>
> JW seems to reduce complex issues to black and white, and in
> consequence becomes no better than our segragationists of fifty years
> ago, like Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, etc. And like
> those men, if you don't condemn his words, you stand with them.
>
> CC
>
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a
hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas
Carlyle, historian and essayist (1795-1881)
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote:
ccc31807
> > I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> > fashion.
>
> Written by you on 3/30/08:
> "Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
> government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
> our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
> Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
> humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
> terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
> and this ain't racism, either."
Sloppiness on my part. I should have been more precise here. I
certainly don't characterize all of any particular race as having the
same opinions, just as I don't characterize all of any particular age,
or gender, or class, or educational level, as having the same
opinions.
> > The differences JW referred to were simply racial, Black and white.
> > They had nothing to do with behavior.
>
> Were they racial or historic? It was white people that captured black
> people and sold them into slavery and then kept them as second class
> citizens through "Jim Crow" laws for 100 years after they were freed.
Whites never captured Africans and sold them into slavery, at least
before 1826. The Africans that were imported into the United States
were purchased from other Africans that enslaved them. As to the
history of discrimination in America, and especially in the South,
this is also factual, and I don't deny it. It happened and we are
still feeling the effects.
> Very little has been done to right those wrongs. People are still
> pulled over by police and highway patrol for driving while black. Black
> men still get harsher sentences for crimes than white men. Schools in
> black neighborhoods are still underfunded compared to schools in white
> neighborhoods. Is simply pointing out these inequities racist?
Sometimes this is a result of racism, and sometimes not. Sometimes
it's the result of geography, socio-economic status, and sometimes
it's the behavior of the people themselves. The fact that Blacks are
in prison and on probation at a much higher rate than whites probably
has more to do with the fact that Blacks tend to commit criminal
offenses at a higher rate than whites, and there simply isn't any way
that you can ascribe this to racism.
> > I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> > you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> > (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> > particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
>
> You made the claim. You have the obligation to provide evidence to
> substantiate your claim or give it up.
Ridiculous. This show is a matter of public record which was
publicized before hand. I have no obligation to provide evidence of
matters of public record. As I said, if you are interested, you can
order a transcript. I'm not interested, but if you want a transcript,
I'll order one for you if you will pay for it.
> > It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
> > episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
>
> How does comparing Obama to Stalin smear Gene?
I was mocking Gene and attempting to refute his point that there is
any inherent goodness in being very smart by responding to Gene's
statement the way I did. If you object to it, forget about it.
Actually, it wasn't much of a mockery, more of using hyperbole to make
a point.
Besides, I think I can do a pretty fair comparison of Obama and
Stalin: they both had two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one
head, one heart, both aspired to careers in politics, both rose to
high office, and ... let's see ... they both had above average
intelligence.
> > I think you have misread my words. I wouldn't say that a group of
> > people characterized only by skin color think a particular way. My
> > use of the words 'Black' and 'white' were meant only as a shortcut to
> > ideology, in the way we use 'gay' and 'straight' or 'Republican' and
> > 'Democratic.' Or 'liberal' and 'conservative' for that matter. It's an
> > unfortunate habit, but to rectify matters, go back and in that post
> > substitute 'those who follow JW's world view' for 'Black' and 'those
> > who don't follow JW's world view' for 'white.'
>
> All blacks share an ideology? And all whites? And all Gay people? and
> all straight people? What does color or sexual orientation have to do
> with ideology?
>
> Even Republican and Democratic is suspect. Does George W. Bush share an
> ideology with Goldwater? Or Lincoln?
As I said, I used these terms as a convenient shorthand. Like saying
for example that gays want gay marriage. Most of the gays I know don't
want gay marriage, and in fact most of them are already married to
their wives. (I'm not gay, so don't read too much into this.)
> That is true in some cases but in others white Europeans captured black
> Africans themselves. And, as you pointed out below, the Africans would
> not have been capturing and selling other Africans if there was no
> market for it.
During this time period, Europeans did not enter the enterior of
Africa. Slaves were brought to the coast where the Europeans purchased
them. In fact, I don't recall that Europeans ever mounted slave
expeditions into the interior of Africa for the purpose of capturing
slaves. Besides which, the African slave trade developed because there
was a product, not a market. During the colonial period, many
Englishmen came to America as indentured servants, and many Germans
came as conscripts, and decided to stay. Yes, I KNOW it's not the same
thing, put the point is that the Africans furnished the slaves for
Americans to purchase -- the Americans did not go looking for slaves
to buy.
> What war? When? I don't recall America ever being at war with Africa
> over enslavement of Americans.
I suggest you study history. '... to the shores of Tripoli.' Thomas
Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to Africa to stop the piracy of American
vessels and the enslavement of Americans. You might remember this
quote: 'Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute.' As I
recall, something like 20 percent of the budget of the Federal
government during this period was for the purpose of redeeming those
who had been captured by Africans.
CC
Ed B.
Being pulled over for "driving while black" is not racism? Black men
receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes as white men is not
racism? Having harsher sentences for rock cocaine (the drug of choice
of many black drug users) than for powdered cocaine (the drug of choice
of many white drug users) is not racism?
What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
And if they do perhaps it is because they receive a poorer education
due to racism in the schools and therefore have less chance of obtaining
a decent paying job. That still does not justify harsher sentences for
the same crimes.
Gays are "married to their wives"? How is that Gay marriage? Or do you
mean Lesbians? If so why do you not say so? And if they are "married
to their wives" although it may be their choice of words it has no legal
status. They do not enjoy the over 1200 rights and privileges that
legally married people have under the law.
And when you say that "Most of the gays I know don't want gay marriage"
are you talking about their own personal choices or are you saying that
they are opposed to equal marital rights for the BGLT community. And
how many Gay people do you know? And how many do not want Gay marriage?
Do you know 3 and 2 don't want it? Or do you know 3000 and 1501 don't
want it? Simply saying "Most of the gays I know don't want gay
marriage" means nothing.
>
>> That is true in some cases but in others white Europeans captured black
>> Africans themselves. And, as you pointed out below, the Africans would
>> not have been capturing and selling other Africans if there was no
>> market for it.
>
> During this time period, Europeans did not enter the enterior of
> Africa. Slaves were brought to the coast where the Europeans purchased
> them. In fact, I don't recall that Europeans ever mounted slave
> expeditions into the interior of Africa for the purpose of capturing
> slaves. Besides which, the African slave trade developed because there
> was a product, not a market.
There is no product for a market that doesn't exist.
During the colonial period, many
> Englishmen came to America as indentured servants, and many Germans
> came as conscripts, and decided to stay. Yes, I KNOW it's not the same
> thing, put the point is that the Africans furnished the slaves for
> Americans to purchase -- the Americans did not go looking for slaves
> to buy.
>
>> What war? When? I don't recall America ever being at war with Africa
>> over enslavement of Americans.
>
> I suggest you study history. '... to the shores of Tripoli.' Thomas
> Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to Africa to stop the piracy of American
> vessels and the enslavement of Americans. You might remember this
> quote: 'Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute.' As I
> recall, something like 20 percent of the budget of the Federal
> government during this period was for the purpose of redeeming those
> who had been captured by Africans.
No, I suggest that you study history. A couple of raids and a Naval
blockade do not constitute a war.
ccc31807
> Being pulled over for "driving while black" is not racism? Black men
> receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes as white men is not
> racism? Having harsher sentences for rock cocaine (the drug of choice
> of many black drug users) than for powdered cocaine (the drug of choice
> of many white drug users) is not racism?
Not necessarily, no. Example, a few months ago a story made the rounds
of a Black man who received a much harsher sentence for the same
offense as a white man, and some wrote outraged commentaries. Then, it
was reported that the Black defendant had commited his third strike
while the white was a first time offender. Yes, the Black man got more
time, but it wasn't because of the color of his skin.
> What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
You've got to be kidding!
> Gays are "married to their wives"? How is that Gay marriage? Or do you
> mean Lesbians? If so why do you not say so? And if they are "married
> to their wives" although it may be their choice of words it has no legal
> status. They do not enjoy the over 1200 rights and privileges that
> legally married people have under the law.
Gene Robinson was married to his wife, and Jim McGreevy was married to
his wife. What don't you understand about a gay man being married to a
woman?
> And when you say that "Most of the gays I know don't want gay marriage"
> are you talking about their own personal choices or are you saying that
> they are opposed to equal marital rights for the BGLT community. And
> how many Gay people do you know?
My point was that when people say that 'gays want gay marriage' they
are making a statement about an objective shared by a significant
percentage of male homosexuals, not a statement of fact that all gay
men want gay marriage. In fact, I personally know two, one of about 40
years and the other I met recently, and both have wives and families
and in one case has been faithful in a long marriage -- and neither of
them support gay marriage.
My point is that we use nouns in non-literal senses. Just as we can
say, 'the White House announced,' or 'I saw ten head of deer.' In
fact, the White house cannot speak and you saw the whole deer, not
just the head. I can say, 'Blacks support Obama,' and be understood to
say that many Blacks support Obama, not all Blacks support Obama.
> > During this time period, Europeans did not enter the enterior of
> > Africa. Slaves were brought to the coast where the Europeans purchased
> > them. In fact, I don't recall that Europeans ever mounted slave
> > expeditions into the interior of Africa for the purpose of capturing
> > slaves. Besides which, the African slave trade developed because there
> > was a product, not a market.
>
> There is no product for a market that doesn't exist.
Okay, the market was African buyers buying Africans from African
sellers. Just as there is today. Jeesh, you are getting pedantic.
> No, I suggest that you study history. A couple of raids and a Naval
> blockade do not constitute a war.
The Barbary States declared war against the United States, and the
United States sent military expeditions to fight. It's not a war only
in the sense that Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not wars.
CC
Ed B.
> On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Being pulled over for "driving while black" is not racism? Black men
>> receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes as white men is not
>> racism? Having harsher sentences for rock cocaine (the drug of choice
>> of many black drug users) than for powdered cocaine (the drug of choice
>> of many white drug users) is not racism?
>
> Not necessarily, no. Example, a few months ago a story made the rounds
> of a Black man who received a much harsher sentence for the same
> offense as a white man, and some wrote outraged commentaries. Then, it
> was reported that the Black defendant had commited his third strike
> while the white was a first time offender. Yes, the Black man got more
> time, but it wasn't because of the color of his skin.
And what of first time black defendants who get longer sentences than
first time white defendants? And in some cases second or third time
white defendants?
>> What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
>
> You've got to be kidding!
No, I'm not. And if they do then, why? Is it maybe because of
inequities in education, salaries, living conditions?
>
>> Gays are "married to their wives"? How is that Gay marriage? Or do you
>> mean Lesbians? If so why do you not say so? And if they are "married
>> to their wives" although it may be their choice of words it has no legal
>> status. They do not enjoy the over 1200 rights and privileges that
>> legally married people have under the law.
>
> Gene Robinson was married to his wife, and Jim McGreevy was married to
> his wife. What don't you understand about a gay man being married to a
> woman?
You are grasping at straws here. Let me repeat. How is it GAY MARRIAGE
if a Gay man is married to a woman? Or if a Lesbian is married to a man?
My question was perfectly clear originally. I am beginning to suspect
that you are a troll baiting these newslists. If not then you are
completely clueless in the matters you are attempting to discuss.
>
>> And when you say that "Most of the gays I know don't want gay marriage"
>> are you talking about their own personal choices or are you saying that
>> they are opposed to equal marital rights for the BGLT community. And
>> how many Gay people do you know?
>
> My point was that when people say that 'gays want gay marriage' they
> are making a statement about an objective shared by a significant
> percentage of male homosexuals, not a statement of fact that all gay
> men want gay marriage. In fact, I personally know two, one of about 40
> years and the other I met recently, and both have wives and families
> and in one case has been faithful in a long marriage -- and neither of
> them support gay marriage.
You avoided the question. When those 2 say they don't want Gay marriage
are they saying that they PERSONALLY are not interested in marrying
another man? Or do they mean that NO Gay man should be able to marry
another man? Those are two VERY different things.
And TWO? Out of uncountable millions? Do you seriously think that is a
significant percentage? I know MANY more and the overwhelming majority
do want the BGLT community to have Marriage Equality.
And how do you know they were faithful? Because they said so? And if
they were faithful then how do you know that they are Gay? Why would a
man happily and faithfully married to a woman take the risk of coming out?
> My point is that we use nouns in non-literal senses. Just as we can
> say, 'the White House announced,' or 'I saw ten head of deer.' In
> fact, the White house cannot speak and you saw the whole deer, not
> just the head. I can say, 'Blacks support Obama,' and be understood to
> say that many Blacks support Obama, not all Blacks support Obama.
And that is pertinent to the Marriage Equality debate how exactly?
You are way out of your league. You have absolutely NO knowledge of the
topic you are attempting to discuss. All you have are a couple of
anecdotes.
>
>>> During this time period, Europeans did not enter the enterior of
>>> Africa. Slaves were brought to the coast where the Europeans purchased
>>> them. In fact, I don't recall that Europeans ever mounted slave
>>> expeditions into the interior of Africa for the purpose of capturing
>>> slaves. Besides which, the African slave trade developed because there
>>> was a product, not a market.
>> There is no product for a market that doesn't exist.
>
> Okay, the market was African buyers buying Africans from African
> sellers. Just as there is today. Jeesh, you are getting pedantic.
>
>
>> No, I suggest that you study history. A couple of raids and a Naval
>> blockade do not constitute a war.
>
> The Barbary States declared war against the United States, and the
> United States sent military expeditions to fight. It's not a war only
> in the sense that Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not wars.
>
> CC
--
ccc31807
> And what of first time black defendants who get longer sentences than
> first time white defendants? And in some cases second or third time
> white defendants?
This has been studied to death, and most jurisdictions in the United
States including the Federal system have sentence review commissions
to address this issue. While we had racial bias in sentencing in the
past, it's mostly been corrected. Same thing with premeptory
challenges of jurors on the basis of race.
> >> What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
>
> > You've got to be kidding!
>
> No, I'm not. And if they do then, why? Is it maybe because of
> inequities in education, salaries, living conditions?
I'm not going to dignify this with an answer. Google race and crime
and you'l find hundreds of thousands of resources on this. Besides,
inequality doesn't excuse or justify crime.
> >> Gays are "married to their wives"? How is that Gay marriage? Or do you
> >> mean Lesbians? If so why do you not say so? And if they are "married
> >> to their wives" although it may be their choice of words it has no legal
> >> status. They do not enjoy the over 1200 rights and privileges that
> >> legally married people have under the law.
>
> > Gene Robinson was married to his wife, and Jim McGreevy was married to
> > his wife. What don't you understand about a gay man being married to a
> > woman?
>
> You are grasping at straws here. Let me repeat. How is it GAY MARRIAGE
> if a Gay man is married to a woman? Or if a Lesbian is married to a man?
We might have a problem with terminology. Gays can marry as well as
straights, and two gays may freely marry each other. 'Marriage' is a
union of male and female, and two men cannot marry regardless of their
sexual orientation. Heterosexuality isn't a qualification for
marriage, and homosexuals can and do marry. Two male heterosexuals
cannot make a marriage because of their gender, not their sexual
orientation, while two homosexuals can make a marriage, as long as
they are male and female.
> > My point was that when people say that 'gays want gay marriage' they
> > are making a statement about an objective shared by a significant
> > percentage of male homosexuals, not a statement of fact that all gay
> > men want gay marriage. In fact, I personally know two, one of about 40
> > years and the other I met recently, and both have wives and families
> > and in one case has been faithful in a long marriage -- and neither of
> > them support gay marriage.
>
> You avoided the question. When those 2 say they don't want Gay marriage
> are they saying that they PERSONALLY are not interested in marrying
> another man? Or do they mean that NO Gay man should be able to marry
> another man? Those are two VERY different things.
>
> And TWO? Out of uncountable millions? Do you seriously think that is a
> significant percentage? I know MANY more and the overwhelming majority
> do want the BGLT community to have Marriage Equality.
My point was that we categorize groups as believing certain things
although a few of the group do not. According to the recent polls, 90%
of Blacks support Obama, and 10% do not. When we say that Blacks
support Obama, we don't mean that the all do, but simply that most do.
Same with gays. While most may support same sex marriage (and even
this is open to doubt) some do not. All I needed was one to
demonstrate this.
> > My point is that we use nouns in non-literal senses. Just as we can
> > say, 'the White House announced,' or 'I saw ten head of deer.' In
> > fact, the White house cannot speak and you saw the whole deer, not
> > just the head. I can say, 'Blacks support Obama,' and be understood to
> > say that many Blacks support Obama, not all Blacks support Obama.
>
> And that is pertinent to the Marriage Equality debate how exactly?
This thread is on the 'Reverend' Jeremiah Wright, not marriage.
Marriage is OT.
> You are way out of your league. You have absolutely NO knowledge of the
> topic you are attempting to discuss. All you have are a couple of
> anecdotes.
Marriage is a union of male and female. Two of the same sex by
definition cannot make a marriage. This has been universally true in
all cultures and civilizations, in every place for all time. Or
perhaps you can find a civilization that accepted two men or two women
as married? I won't hold my breath.
CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 2, 7:45 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > But the differences you expressed related to extreme, absurd beliefs
> > supposedly held in common by an entire category of people.\
>
> I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> fashion.
>
certain things about the transmission of AIDS, etc. It's present on
this page (web version.)
> > And the differences JW referred to were in terms of wrongful behavior,
> > which really did and do exist, often in the forming and maintaining of
> > instutions that do great harm. The former is racism, the latter is
> > not.
>
> The differences JW referred to were simply racial, Black and white.
> They had nothing to do with behavior.
Show any racial reference. He spoke of a nation and its policies.
>
> > > You must have missed his interview with Hannity and Colmes.
>
> > Show me a quote, please.
>
> I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
>
You want to refer generally to a "source," and ask others to accept
your characterization of that source, when your characterizations of
other sources so far have not held water.
> > > You missed the point. Let me spell it out for you. A high IQ isn't the
> > > only qualification for public service. It may help, you might even say
> > > it's necessary, but it isn't sufficient.
>
> > You might have said that, rather than smear Obama by comparing him
> > with Stalin. Others tried to smear him with JW, and as you noted, it
> > hasn't hurt him. He handled it brilliantly. He's a real smart guy.
> > Why put him down after that?
>
> It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
> episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
You smear me by comparing Obama with Stalin? Were you sober when you
got that doctorate?
>
> > > I didn't say that we should judge all Blacks as being like JW. We
> > > shouldn't prejudge people on the basis of exterior characteristics.
>
> > You said blacks believe this and that absurd notion. If you were
> > simply being sarcastic, you were then assaulting the previous writer
> > with nonsense as if he had implied that those notions were all right,
> > or were what he was referring to.
>
> I think you have misread my words. I wouldn't say that a group of
> people characterized only by skin color think a particular way.
You made a long list of crazy things you said blacks believe. You may
have been sarcastically suggesting that the previous writer believes
that about blacks, but that would be just as absurd.
My
> use of the words 'Black' and 'white' were meant only as a shortcut to
> ideology, in the way we use 'gay' and 'straight' or 'Republican' and
> 'Democratic.' Or 'liberal' and 'conservative' for that matter. It's an
> unfortunate habit, but to rectify matters, go back and in that post
> substitute 'those who follow JW's world view' for 'Black' and 'those
> who don't follow JW's world view' for 'white.'
>
> Finally, what I would have liked to say to JW at the time would have
> been like this: 'Sure, and Blacks never hacked limbs off women and
> children with machetes, never burned church buildings filled with
> women and children, and never sold Blacks into slavery.' (Yes, I'm
> using sarcasm, because Blacks have done all these things, and
> recently.)
"Some" repeat "some" blacks have done all those things. 99% of balcks
have never done those things, and in the past century the percentage
is even higher. Then why tar all blacks with what a very few have
done? (Let's see... Hitler was white... what things did he do? So,
white people did those things.)
It's a fact that white Europeans did not enslave Africans,
None of that is a fact. Africans would not have captured Africans had
there not been a ready market for them. Slavery began with indentured
servitude in the colonies, when a black and a white I.S. ran away and
were captured. The white got a sentence of an additional year of
I.S., and the black got life. Then there were a series of legal
decisions over the next century or so, that led to owning blacks as
ordinary chattel.
> but only purchased as slaves those who had been already enslaved by
> Africans, that we (Americans) ended the slave trade by our own
> volition
Again, wrong, It took a long and bloody civil war, started by slave
states that were concerned about expanding slave or non-slave status
to the western territories. Even then, Lincoln did not want to end
slavery, if the south would quit the war. He wrote the Emancipation
Proclamation, holding it back until we had a victory that would make
the south doubtful of its ability to win. In it, the E.P. described
exceptions, including withdrawing from the war by a certain date, and
slave owners who had not supported the war. The border states were
not included in the E.P., and in fact, Lincoln's V.P., Johnson, owned
slaves all during and after the war, including when he was president.
Grant also owned a slave during and after the war (a gift from his
father in law.) The constitution banned slavery only because the
southern states did not have a vote, and only the northern states had
any power in the government.
even though the Africans would have sold slaves as long as
> they could have found purchasers (and still do so to this day), that
> the bloodiest war in American history was fought by whites in large
> part to destroy the institution of slavery, and that we (American)
> fought a war against Africans because they enslaved Americans.
The civil war was fought to preserve the union. Lincoln sent Stephen
Douglass on a tour of the south, trying to convince southern leaders
that Lincoln would not attack the institution of slavery. The south
fired the first shot, because they were concerned that if the western
territories were non-slave, when they became states they would
overwhelm southern states in the congress. They were also concerned
over a new law taxing the imports of textiles, which would have forced
southern states to sell their cotton to northern states and buy their
clothing from the north, meaning lower prices for cotton and higher
prices for woven cloth.
The Emancipation Proclamation was intended as pressure to force the
south to cease firing, and if they did not, an excuse for Lincoln to
remove an institution he had always opposed.
>
> JW seems to reduce complex issues to black and white, and in
> consequence becomes no better than our segragationists of fifty years
> ago, like Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, etc. And like
> those men, if you don't condemn his words, you stand with them.
>
JW did not speak of races, but policies, though we know who was guilty
of enacting those policies, or of being inactive in removing them.
> CC
Gene Douglas
Africans would have sold slaves as long as
> they could have found purchasers (and still do so to this day),
You're still speaking of blacks as a group, and tarring them all with
the same brush. Some Africans do ( ___ fill in the blank.) Also,
some whites do ( ___ fill in the blank.) Include burglary, murder,
charitable work, arson, religious service, wife beating, donate blood,
and on and on.
(...)
> CC
Gene Douglas
> ccc31807 wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 7:45 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net>
(...)
>
> >>> You must have missed his interview with Hannity and Colmes.
> >> Show me a quote, please.
>
> > I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> > you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> > (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> > particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
>
> You made the claim. You have the obligation to provide evidence to
> substantiate your claim or give it up.
>
He used a source, but referred to it vaguely, with a
characterization. I don't think that convinces anybody at all,
considering his characterizing of sources we did see for ourselves,
distorted and inaccurately.
>
(...)
>
> All blacks share an ideology? And all whites? And all Gay people? and
> all straight people? What does color or sexual orientation have to do
> with ideology?
(...)
>
It's a fact that white Europeans did not enslave Africans,
> > but only purchased as slaves those who had been already enslaved by
> > Africans,
So paying somebody else to do it is less vile than doing it one's
self? I'm sure some mafia leaders would be relieved to know that.
>
(...)
>
> > volition even though the Africans would have sold slaves as long as
> > they could have found purchasers (and still do so to this day), that
> > the bloodiest war in American history was fought by whites in large
> > part to destroy the institution of slavery, and that we (American)
> > fought a war against Africans because they enslaved Americans.
>
> What war? When? I don't recall America ever being at war with Africa
> over enslavement of Americans.
>
I think we fought against states supporting piracy (on the shores of
Tripoli) and in addition to robbing ships, they may have taken white
prisoners to be sold as slaves. Had those prisoners been black,
well...
(...)
Well, consider the source. He's a non-UU writing also to republicans
and Episcopaleans, actually thinking he's going to convince UU's of
absurd notions with little fact or logic to back them up.
ccc31807
> > I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> > fashion.
>
> You wrote a rather long paragraph suggesting that blacks believe
> certain things about the transmission of AIDS, etc. It's present on
> this page (web version.)
What I wrote could be justifiably interpreted several ways. This is my
fault, and I take full responsibility. I have addressed this in the
last several posts I have made in this thread, and I'll address it
again. I meant to draw a big picture stating publicly held positions,
not make a statement of fact about every individual member of the
group. The content of a person's thoughts is NOT determined by the
color of his skin or his race. However, individuals like JW command a
large following in the African American community and a smaller
following in the non-African American community. I hope this is clear.
> Show any racial reference. He spoke of a nation and its policies.
He claimed that the United States government (implying that it was
100% white, I guess) instituted genocidal policies against people of
color. If this isn't a racist remark, I don't know what is. ...
unless, of course, the USG in fact DID institute genocidal policies
against color, but then we have a whole 'nother story.
> > I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> > you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> > (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> > particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
>
> You want to refer generally to a "source," and ask others to accept
> your characterization of that source, when your characterizations of
> other sources so far have not held water.
A partial transcript is avaiable at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html
I won't ask you to accept anything that itsn't a matter of the public
record.
> > It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
> > episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
>
> You smear me by comparing Obama with Stalin? Were you sober when you
> got that doctorate?
'Smear' is too perjorative a word. 'Hyperbole' is a better choice. The
point that I wanted to make was that intelligence in and of itself is
not a qualification for public service. Stalin was smart but IMO was a
very poor choice for a leader. At the moment, I couldn't think of any
other example who was obviously very intelligent and very obviously a
poor leader. I could have used Adolph Hitler I guess, but didn't for
obvious reasons.
> > I think you have misread my words. I wouldn't say that a group of
> > people characterized only by skin color think a particular way.
>
> You made a long list of crazy things you said blacks believe. You may
> have been sarcastically suggesting that the previous writer believes
> that about blacks, but that would be just as absurd.
JW has said that the United States is a state sponsor of terrisom,
that the United States instituted genocidal policies against people of
color, that the United States enslaved Black people. In fact, the
United States has fought against international terrorism, the United
States has opposed genocide both by military force and by speaking
about against it, and the United States fought a war to end slavery,
and has officially opposed segragation and Jim Crow since at least the
Eisenhower administration.
> > Finally, what I would have liked to say to JW at the time would have
> > been like this: 'Sure, and Blacks never hacked limbs off women and
> > children with machetes, never burned church buildings filled with
> > women and children, and never sold Blacks into slavery.' (Yes, I'm
> > using sarcasm, because Blacks have done all these things, and
> > recently.)
>
> "Some" repeat "some" blacks have done all those things. 99% of balcks
> have never done those things, and in the past century the percentage
> is even higher. Then why tar all blacks with what a very few have
> done? (Let's see... Hitler was white... what things did he do? So,
> white people did those things.)
This is exactly what JW did, and why I accused him of racism.
> None of that is a fact. Africans would not have captured Africans had
> there not been a ready market for them. Slavery began with indentured
> servitude in the colonies, when a black and a white I.S. ran away and
> were captured. The white got a sentence of an additional year of
> I.S., and the black got life. Then there were a series of legal
> decisions over the next century or so, that led to owning blacks as
> ordinary chattel.
The first Black slaves were transported to the American colonies on
spec. Slavery by that time was well established in the Spanish
colonies. It was the Dutch that first brought Africans to Virginia and
sold them as slaves. The Virginians didn't seek them, but purchased
them when the Dutch sold them. This is hardly the same thing as
Virginian expeditions into the African interior with the express
purpose of capturing the indiginous population and enslaving them.
> > but only purchased as slaves those who had been already enslaved by
> > Africans, that we (Americans) ended the slave trade by our own
> > volition
>
> Again, wrong, It took a long and bloody civil war, started by slave
> states that were concerned about expanding slave or non-slave status
> to the western territories.
Read it again. I said 'ended the slave trade.' Actually, I made a
type. The year was 1808, not 1828.
> Even then, Lincoln did not want to end
> slavery, if the south would quit the war. He wrote the Emancipation
> Proclamation, holding it back until we had a victory that would make
> the south doubtful of its ability to win. In it, the E.P. described
> exceptions, including withdrawing from the war by a certain date, and
> slave owners who had not supported the war. The border states were
> not included in the E.P., and in fact, Lincoln's V.P., Johnson, owned
> slaves all during and after the war, including when he was president.
> Grant also owned a slave during and after the war (a gift from his
> father in law.) The constitution banned slavery only because the
> southern states did not have a vote, and only the northern states had
> any power in the government.
Very nice, a bit of history which we have wilfully ignored. Thank you.
> The civil war was fought to preserve the union. Lincoln sent Stephen
> Douglass on a tour of the south, trying to convince southern leaders
> that Lincoln would not attack the institution of slavery. The south
> fired the first shot, because they were concerned that if the western
> territories were non-slave, when they became states they would
> overwhelm southern states in the congress. They were also concerned
> over a new law taxing the imports of textiles, which would have forced
> southern states to sell their cotton to northern states and buy their
> clothing from the north, meaning lower prices for cotton and higher
> prices for woven cloth.
>
> The Emancipation Proclamation was intended as pressure to force the
> south to cease firing, and if they did not, an excuse for Lincoln to
> remove an institution he had always opposed.
And while you are at it, you need to refer to the institution of wage
slavery as it existed in the industrial areas. Do you remember the
book 'Time on the Cross' and the cliometricians? Do you remember the
Southern Agrarians? It's also a matter of historical record that the
conditions of the industrial workers were harsher, and their life
expectance was less, than the slaves. And while you are at it, you
might as well through in a reference to the Highland Clearances.
Slaves were never burned out of their home, driven from the land, and
left to perish.
> > JW seems to reduce complex issues to black and white, and in
> > consequence becomes no better than our segragationists of fifty years
> > ago, like Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, etc. And like
> > those men, if you don't condemn his words, you stand with them.
>
> JW did not speak of races, but policies, though we know who was guilty
> of enacting those policies, or of being inactive in removing them.
Go read the transcript of the Fox interview. Here are some quotes:
"The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by
laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the
gospel"
"We've been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we've
been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave
trade; we've been saying that ever since they had churches in slave
castles.
We don't have to say the word "white." We just have to live in white
America, the United States of white America."
"Then you can talk about the black value system."
CC
Ed B.
No, it is not. That is an argument used by those who do not want
marriage equality. The term "marriage" is often used to signify a joining.
Several examples from the dictionary:
"Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and
music in a hit song."
"A formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine
operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger."
"A blending or matching of different elements or components: The new
lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture."
and two men cannot marry regardless of their
> sexual orientation.
Yes, they can. However, such a marriage would not be legal except for
Massachusetts and some enlightened countries such as Canada.
Heterosexuality isn't a qualification for
> marriage, and homosexuals can and do marry. Two male heterosexuals
> cannot make a marriage because of their gender, not their sexual
> orientation, while two homosexuals can make a marriage, as long as
> they are male and female.
And now you resort to that offensive term, "homosexual" which fails to
take into consideration any facet of a person's orientation except for
the specific sexual acts.
>
>>> My point was that when people say that 'gays want gay marriage' they
>>> are making a statement about an objective shared by a significant
>>> percentage of male homosexuals, not a statement of fact that all gay
>>> men want gay marriage. In fact, I personally know two, one of about 40
>>> years and the other I met recently, and both have wives and families
>>> and in one case has been faithful in a long marriage -- and neither of
>>> them support gay marriage.
>> You avoided the question. When those 2 say they don't want Gay marriage
>> are they saying that they PERSONALLY are not interested in marrying
>> another man? Or do they mean that NO Gay man should be able to marry
>> another man? Those are two VERY different things.
>>
>> And TWO? Out of uncountable millions? Do you seriously think that is a
>> significant percentage? I know MANY more and the overwhelming majority
>> do want the BGLT community to have Marriage Equality.
>
> My point was that we categorize groups as believing certain things
> although a few of the group do not. According to the recent polls, 90%
> of Blacks support Obama, and 10% do not. When we say that Blacks
> support Obama, we don't mean that the all do, but simply that most do.
> Same with gays. While most may support same sex marriage (and even
> this is open to doubt) some do not. All I needed was one to
> demonstrate this.
No, you did not make the statement to show that there are exceptions.
Your words indicated that "most" do not want marriage equality. That is
why I asked you how many you know. And out of untold millions you know
2. And there is NO doubt by anyone who knows anything about the topic
that MOST Do want marriage equality. And you have still avoided the
question. Do those TWO that you know object to marriage equality on
principle? Or do they personally not want to marry someone of their gender?
>
>>> My point is that we use nouns in non-literal senses. Just as we can
>>> say, 'the White House announced,' or 'I saw ten head of deer.' In
>>> fact, the White house cannot speak and you saw the whole deer, not
>>> just the head. I can say, 'Blacks support Obama,' and be understood to
>>> say that many Blacks support Obama, not all Blacks support Obama.
>> And that is pertinent to the Marriage Equality debate how exactly?
>
> This thread is on the 'Reverend' Jeremiah Wright, not marriage.
> Marriage is OT.
You introduced the topic on 4/02/08.
"As I said, I used these terms as a convenient shorthand. Like saying
for example that gays want gay marriage. Most of the gays I know don't
want gay marriage, and in fact most of them are already married to
their wives. (I'm not gay, so don't read too much into this.)"
Now you are looking for a way out because you obviously are not
knowledgeable enough to hold your own in this discussion. You should
not have introduced it.
I repeat. You are way out of your league. You have absolutely NO
knowledge of the topic you are attempting to discuss. All you have are
a couple of anecdotes.
>
>> You are way out of your league. You have absolutely NO knowledge of the
>> topic you are attempting to discuss. All you have are a couple of
>> anecdotes.
>
> Marriage is a union of male and female. Two of the same sex by
> definition cannot make a marriage.
I have provided you with another definition and examples right out of
the dictionary.
This has been universally true in
> all cultures and civilizations, in every place for all time.
No, it has not been universally true. there have been, and there
currently are, some cultures in which 2 men or 2 women can and do marry.
In addition history is not a good argument for continuing a tradition.
If it were then women would still be bargained as chattel to improve
the position of the bride's family. That is what was universally true
in all cultures and civilizations until the 18th or 19th century and it
is still the case in some cultures.
Or
> perhaps you can find a civilization that accepted two men or two women
> as married? I won't hold my breath.
As I said, you are out of your league. Give it up. If you really want
to know then educate yourself. Do your own research.
ccc31807
> > We might have a problem with terminology. Gays can marry as well as
> > straights, and two gays may freely marry each other. 'Marriage' is a
> > union of male and female,
>
> No, it is not. That is an argument used by those who do not want
> marriage equality. The term "marriage" is often used to signify a joining.
A 'marriage' has a well accepted usage, witness:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious
ceremonies, etc. [Dictionary.com]
1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. [American
Heritage]
1. the ceremony by which a man and woman become husband and wife
[Kerneman English Multilingual Dictionary]
1 the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship
recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law [Merriam-
Webster]
1. legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife;
wedlock; [Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary]
I may remind you that English words are descriptive, not prescriptive
and that words describe things that exist. The fact that no language
has used 'marriage' to describe a union of two husbands or two wives
should tell you something.
> Several examples from the dictionary:
> "Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and
> music in a hit song."
> "A formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine
> operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger."
> "A blending or matching of different elements or components: The new
> lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture."
Different senses of the word. Mariners 'marry' two lines, and soldiers
'marry' their wives, businessmen 'marry' their partners. Yes, two men
may 'marry' in this sense, but don't mistake that for a 'marriage'.
> > and two men cannot marry regardless of their
> > sexual orientation.
>
> Yes, they can. However, such a marriage would not be legal except for
> Massachusetts and some enlightened countries such as Canada.
Not even close. Neither Mass nor Canada created marriage, and they can
no more change marriage any more than they could change the value of
pi (Which Indiana attempted to do about 100 years ago) or repeal the
law of gravity. Marriage existed before Mass and Can existed, and will
continue to exist after Mass and Can cease to exist.
> And now you resort to that offensive term, "homosexual" which fails to
> take into consideration any facet of a person's orientation except for
> the specific sexual acts.
What should I use instead? Sodomite? Faggot? Queer? Fairy? Fruit?
Three Dollar Bill? Last time I checked, 'homosexual' wasn't offensive
to anyone.
> No, you did not make the statement to show that there are exceptions.
> Your words indicated that "most" do not want marriage equality. That is
> why I asked you how many you know. And out of untold millions you know
All I need is one case to disprove the positive. I cited two cases.
> 2. And there is NO doubt by anyone who knows anything about the topic
> that MOST Do want marriage equality. And you have still avoided the
> question. Do those TWO that you know object to marriage equality on
> principle? Or do they personally not want to marry someone of their gender?
I don't know. As to marriage equality vis-a-vis sexual orientation, it
presently exists. Gays as well as straights are free to marry without
hinderance or let.
> > This thread is on the 'Reverend' Jeremiah Wright, not marriage.
> > Marriage is OT.
>
> You introduced the topic on 4/02/08.
Pardon me. I'll try not to do it again.
> > Marriage is a union of male and female. Two of the same sex by
> > definition cannot make a marriage.
>
> I have provided you with another definition and examples right out of
> the dictionary.
>
> > This has been universally true in
> > all cultures and civilizations, in every place for all time.
>
> No, it has not been universally true. there have been, and there
> currently are, some cultures in which 2 men or 2 women can and do marry.
Which ones? As far as I know, and I have spent a number of years
researching this, no language or civilization has ever recognized a
union of two men or two women as a marriage.
> In addition history is not a good argument for continuing a tradition.
Marriage isn't a tradition. It appears to be universally recognized in
all cultures, at all times, and in all places. Even the pre-historic
tribes that have been studied recognize the union of male and female
as separate and distinct from a union of two men or two women. Case in
point: the berdache of the Native Americans were considered other-
spirited people, IOW, the sex of the wife might have been male but the
gender female. Even among the Indian tribes that accepted the
berdache, two of the male gender could not marry.
> If it were then women would still be bargained as chattel to improve
> the position of the bride's family. That is what was universally true
> in all cultures and civilizations until the 18th or 19th century and it
> is still the case in some cultures.
Marriage has existed as far as we know from time before memory, and
has universally consisted of a union of male and female. Even the
exceptions prove the rule, for example, Nero's famous marriage to his
male lover did not establish a husband/husband pairing as a marriage
under Roman law or custom.
> > Or
> > perhaps you can find a civilization that accepted two men or two women
> > as married? I won't hold my breath.
>
> As I said, you are out of your league. Give it up. If you really want
> to know then educate yourself. Do your own research.
I have, and can tell you that you won't find any. Anyway, thanks for
trying.
CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 2, 1:10 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> > > fashion.
>
> > Written by you on 3/30/08:
> > "Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
> > government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
> > our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
> > Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
> > humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
> > terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
> > and this ain't racism, either."
>
> Sloppiness on my part. I should have been more precise here. I
> certainly don't characterize all of any particular race as having the
> same opinions, just as I don't characterize all of any particular age,
> or gender, or class, or educational level, as having the same
> opinions.
>
> > > The differences JW referred to were simply racial, Black and white.
> > > They had nothing to do with behavior.
Show me where he said race, or named any race.. He spoke of the
policies of a nation.
>
> > Were they racial or historic? It was white people that captured black
> > people and sold them into slavery and then kept them as second class
> > citizens through "Jim Crow" laws for 100 years after they were freed.
>
> Whites never captured Africans and sold them into slavery, at least
> before 1826. The Africans that were imported into the United States
> were purchased from other Africans that enslaved them. As to the
> history of discrimination in America, and especially in the South,
> this is also factual, and I don't deny it. It happened and we are
> still feeling the effects.
>
Enslaved is not the same as held captive. They would not have
captured and held them if they had not had a deal with white people
paying them to do that. If I pay a guy to kill my wife, am I less
guilty because somebody else got his hands dirty?
> > Very little has been done to right those wrongs. People are still
> > pulled over by police and highway patrol for driving while black. Black
> > men still get harsher sentences for crimes than white men. Schools in
> > black neighborhoods are still underfunded compared to schools in white
> > neighborhoods. Is simply pointing out these inequities racist?
>
> Sometimes this is a result of racism, and sometimes not. Sometimes
> it's the result of geography, socio-economic status, and sometimes
> it's the behavior of the people themselves. The fact that Blacks are
> in prison and on probation at a much higher rate than whites probably
> has more to do with the fact that Blacks tend to commit criminal
> offenses at a higher rate than whites, and there simply isn't any way
> that you can ascribe this to racism.
Yes, you can ascribe their crime rates to poverty and bad
neighborhoods, which you can ascribe to racism. Even family
situations are inherited from previous generations' situations, which
you can ascribe to racism. To undue the damage done, money must be
spent, and innovative programs must be created to break up unhealthy
patterns. Refusing to spend this money is as much as saying "to hell
with them," and that's racism. It also costs us (the majority) in
terms of crime, police costs and prison costs, which are high.
>
> > > I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> > > you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> > > (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> > > particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
>
> > You made the claim. You have the obligation to provide evidence to
> > substantiate your claim or give it up.
>
> Ridiculous. This show is a matter of public record which was
> publicized before hand. I have no obligation to provide evidence of
> matters of public record. As I said, if you are interested, you can
> order a transcript. I'm not interested, but if you want a transcript,
> I'll order one for you if you will pay for it.
You made the claim, with nothing to support it. Considering the way
you have characterized JW's earlier speech, few would be convinced
that his Fox talk was any more racist than the other.
>
> > > It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
> > > episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
>
> > How does comparing Obama to Stalin smear Gene?
>
> I was mocking Gene and attempting to refute his point that there is
> any inherent goodness in being very smart by responding to Gene's
> statement the way I did. If you object to it, forget about it.
> Actually, it wasn't much of a mockery, more of using hyperbole to make
> a point.
It fell far short of making any recognizable point, other than that
you equated Obama with Stalin.
>
> Besides, I think I can do a pretty fair comparison of Obama and
> Stalin: they both had two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one
> head, one heart, both aspired to careers in politics, both rose to
> high office, and ... let's see ... they both had above average
> intelligence.
>
(...)
> > All blacks share an ideology? And all whites? And all Gay people? and
> > all straight people? What does color or sexual orientation have to do
> > with ideology?
>
> > Even Republican and Democratic is suspect. Does George W. Bush share an
> > ideology with Goldwater? Or Lincoln?
>
(...)
> During this time period, Europeans did not enter the enterior of
> Africa. Slaves were brought to the coast where the Europeans purchased
> them. In fact, I don't recall that Europeans ever mounted slave
> expeditions into the interior of Africa for the purpose of capturing
> slaves. Besides which, the African slave trade developed because there
> was a product, not a market. During the colonial period, many
> Englishmen came to America as indentured servants, and many Germans
> came as conscripts, and decided to stay. Yes, I KNOW it's not the same
> thing, put the point is that the Africans furnished the slaves for
> Americans to purchase -- the Americans did not go looking for slaves
> to buy.
Yes they did. They could not have used slaves unless they knew they
could get away with it in the colonies. And the Africans did not have
any captives to sell, except that there were whites offering money for
them. Otherwise, who would they sell them to?
>
> > What war? When? I don't recall America ever being at war with Africa
> > over enslavement of Americans.
>
> I suggest you study history. '... to the shores of Tripoli.' Thomas
> Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to Africa to stop the piracy of American
> vessels and the enslavement of Americans. You might remember this
> quote: 'Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute.' As I
> recall, something like 20 percent of the budget of the Federal
> government during this period was for the purpose of redeeming those
> who had been captured by Africans.
>
It wasn't quite a war, more like a raid. And it wasn't in indignation
over the institution of slavery, which was alive and well here. It
was in defense of "our own," who were white. We would not have
rescued Germans, Frenchmen or Englishmen. We were concerned with
predation on "our own" ships at sea.
> CC
Gene Douglas
> ccc31807 wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 1:10 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> >>> fashion.
> >> Written by you on 3/30/08:
> >> "Okay, I'll bite. Whites see our societal institutions (including
> >> government) as fighting against HIV and the drug epidemic. Black see
> >> our societal insitutions as creating HIV and drugs as genocidal agaist
> >> Blacks. Whites see Islam terroism and intolerance as a plauge on
> >> humanity and as a just cause for opposition. Blacks see Islamis
> >> terrorism and intolerance as the creation by the White culture. Sure,
> >> and this ain't racism, either."
>
> > Sloppiness on my part. I should have been more precise here. I
> > certainly don't characterize all of any particular race as having the
> > same opinions, just as I don't characterize all of any particular age,
> > or gender, or class, or educational level, as having the same
> > opinions.
>
you can think of. That fails to make any point that the race does
those things. Just demonstrating that you can find a black who has
done a thing does not make blacks guilty of the same thing. And so
far, nobody has said that all whites have been racist. In fact, you
can find exceptions to all of the white statements above. Some whites
cheer Islamic terrorism, and some whites do not see our institutions
as fighting against HIV (especially not in the early days.)
(...)
>
> Being pulled over for "driving while black" is not racism? Black men
> receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes as white men is not
> racism? Having harsher sentences for rock cocaine (the drug of choice
> of many black drug users) than for powdered cocaine (the drug of choice
> of many white drug users) is not racism?
>
> What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
> And if they do perhaps it is because they receive a poorer education
> due to racism in the schools and therefore have less chance of obtaining
> a decent paying job. That still does not justify harsher sentences for
> the same crimes.
>
>
>
>
> > Ridiculous. This show is a matter of public record which was
> > publicized before hand.
But what public record? So far we have seen no evidence of any
record.
(...)
>
> >> Even Republican and Democratic is suspect. Does George W. Bush share an
> >> ideology with Goldwater? Or Lincoln?
>
> > As I said, I used these terms as a convenient shorthand. Like saying
> > for example that gays want gay marriage. Most of the gays I know don't
> > want gay marriage, and in fact most of them are already married to
> > their wives. (I'm not gay, so don't read too much into this.)
>
> Gays are "married to their wives"? How is that Gay marriage? Or do you
> mean Lesbians? If so why do you not say so? And if they are "married
> to their wives" although it may be their choice of words it has no legal
> status. They do not enjoy the over 1200 rights and privileges that
> legally married people have under the law.
Some gays are bisexual, and some marry the opposite sex for reasons of
respectability or convenience. And you probably don't know that most
of the gays you know are gay. If your married friends are out of the
closet, and were asked about gay marriage for other people, they
probably would say yes, though they don't need it themselves.
>
(...)
>
> During the colonial period, many
> > Englishmen came to America as indentured servants, and many Germans
> > came as conscripts, and decided to stay. Yes, I KNOW it's not the same
> > thing, put the point is that the Africans furnished the slaves for
> > Americans to purchase -- the Americans did not go looking for slaves
> > to buy.
Why would they expect Americans (on the other side of the planet) to
be willing to buy slaves unless Americans made those intentions
known?
>
(...)
>
> No, I suggest that you study history. A couple of raids and a Naval
> blockade do not constitute a war.
And it was not a raid against the institution of slavery, so much as
blocking holding our citizens for ransom.
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Being pulled over for "driving while black" is not racism? Black men
> > receiving harsher sentences for the same crimes as white men is not
> > racism? Having harsher sentences for rock cocaine (the drug of choice
> > of many black drug users) than for powdered cocaine (the drug of choice
> > of many white drug users) is not racism?
>
> Not necessarily, no. Example, a few months ago a story made the rounds
> of a Black man who received a much harsher sentence for the same
> offense as a white man, and some wrote outraged commentaries. Then, it
> was reported that the Black defendant had commited his third strike
> while the white was a first time offender. Yes, the Black man got more
> time, but it wasn't because of the color of his skin.
>
> > What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
>
> You've got to be kidding!
It's not more crimes, in terms of the absolute number, but a higher
percentage in proportion to their part of the population. They number
12% of the population, and 24 crimes per hundred (just made that
number up) would be a smaller number than 1 crime per hundred of the
88% remaining.
>
> > Gays are "married to their wives"? How is that Gay marriage? Or do you
> > mean Lesbians? If so why do you not say so? And if they are "married
> > to their wives" although it may be their choice of words it has no legal
> > status. They do not enjoy the over 1200 rights and privileges that
> > legally married people have under the law.
>
> Gene Robinson was married to his wife, and Jim McGreevy was married to
> his wife. What don't you understand about a gay man being married to a
> woman?
>
> > And when you say that "Most of the gays I know don't want gay marriage"
> > are you talking about their own personal choices or are you saying that
> > they are opposed to equal marital rights for the BGLT community. And
> > how many Gay people do you know?
>
> My point was that when people say that 'gays want gay marriage' they
> are making a statement about an objective shared by a significant
> percentage of male homosexuals, not a statement of fact that all gay
> men want gay marriage. In fact, I personally know two, one of about 40
> years and the other I met recently, and both have wives and families
> and in one case has been faithful in a long marriage -- and neither of
> them support gay marriage.
Two is a fairly small number to call "most."
>
> My point is that we use nouns in non-literal senses. Just as we can
> say, 'the White House announced,' or 'I saw ten head of deer.' In
> fact, the White house cannot speak and you saw the whole deer, not
> just the head. I can say, 'Blacks support Obama,' and be understood to
> say that many Blacks support Obama, not all Blacks support Obama.
And some deer may have two heads. You're weasling around about a
racist statement you made. You said blacks see perverse things in
absurd ways. Didn't you have to write a dissertation for that
doctorate you say you have? Didn't they teach you to express an idea
clearly and carefully?
>
> > > During this time period, Europeans did not enter the enterior of
> > > Africa. Slaves were brought to the coast where the Europeans purchased
> > > them. In fact, I don't recall that Europeans ever mounted slave
> > > expeditions into the interior of Africa for the purpose of capturing
> > > slaves. Besides which, the African slave trade developed because there
> > > was a product, not a market.
>
> > There is no product for a market that doesn't exist.
>
> Okay, the market was African buyers buying Africans from African
> sellers. Just as there is today. Jeesh, you are getting pedantic.
There was slavery in Arabic cities. But the availability of slaves
didn't make us adopt the insitution of slavery. We were doing that on
our own, through court decisions, legislation, and of course greed,
which was one motivation coming to the relatively wild new world.
Once slavery was going strong, there was an obvious market if it could
be satisfied, and merchants, including English, Dutch and Spanish
began travelling to Africa. (Though the Spanish enslaved Indians,
reducing the need for foreign imports somewhat.)
>
> > No, I suggest that you study history. A couple of raids and a Naval
> > blockade do not constitute a war.
>
> The Barbary States declared war against the United States, and the
> United States sent military expeditions to fight. It's not a war only
> in the sense that Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not wars.
>
I doubt that the Barbary States issued a formal declaration of war.
In fact, they were making money by giving safe harbor to privateers,
for a price. They did not expect a military confrontation, and
probably thought they were pretty clever, being so far away. They
were raided by as many marines as could get on a couple of ships. It
was over in days, if not a day.
> CC
Gene Douglas
> ccc31807 wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(...)
>
> > Gene Robinson was married to his wife, and Jim McGreevy was married to
> > his wife. What don't you understand about a gay man being married to a
> > woman?
>
> You are grasping at straws here. Let me repeat. How is it GAY MARRIAGE
> if a Gay man is married to a woman? Or if a Lesbian is married to a man?
>
> My question was perfectly clear originally. I am beginning to suspect
> that you are a troll baiting these newslists. If not then you are
> completely clueless in the matters you are attempting to discuss.
Ed has been here for years. You are the one cross-posting to four
lists.>
(...)
>
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 2, 8:12 pm, "Ed B." <lavd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(...)
>
> > >> What evidence do you provide that blacks commit more crimes than whites?
>
> > > You've got to be kidding!
>
> > No, I'm not. And if they do then, why? Is it maybe because of
> > inequities in education, salaries, living conditions?
>
> I'm not going to dignify this with an answer. Google race and crime
> and you'l find hundreds of thousands of resources on this. Besides,
> inequality doesn't excuse or justify crime.
Who said "justify?" But it does help to explain, rather than to blame
a race for what some people are doing. In a different post I said it
is a greater percentage, but not a greater number. I've worked in
three prisons and a jail, and the great majority of people there are
white.
>
(...)
>
> > > Gene Robinson was married to his wife, and Jim McGreevy was married to
> > > his wife. What don't you understand about a gay man being married to a
> > > woman?
>
> > You are grasping at straws here. Let me repeat. How is it GAY MARRIAGE
> > if a Gay man is married to a woman? Or if a Lesbian is married to a man?
>
Reminds me of a man on the street interview on The Onion. "What's the
big deal? My sister's married, and everybody knows she's gay."
(...)
Two male heterosexuals
> cannot make a marriage because of their gender, not their sexual
> orientation, while two homosexuals can make a marriage, as long as
> they are male and female.
That's an arbitrary and prejudicial statement. There's no reason two
homosexuals of the same sex could not be married to one another. It
would merely have to be legal, in order that they would have the
rights and obligations that make it a marriage.
>
>
(...)
>
> My point was that we categorize groups as believing certain things
> although a few of the group do not. According to the recent polls, 90%
> of Blacks support Obama, and 10% do not. When we say that Blacks
> support Obama, we don't mean that the all do, but simply that most do.
> Same with gays. While most may support same sex marriage (and even
> this is open to doubt) some do not. All I needed was one to
> demonstrate this.
>
> > > My point is that we use nouns in non-literal senses. Just as we can
> > > say, 'the White House announced,' or 'I saw ten head of deer.' In
> > > fact, the White house cannot speak and you saw the whole deer, not
> > > just the head. I can say, 'Blacks support Obama,' and be understood to
> > > say that many Blacks support Obama, not all Blacks support Obama.
>
But when you say that blacks support Islamic terrorists, you imply
that means most blacks, when it may mean 1/10 of 1%. And 1/10 of 1%
of whites may do so, also. (Before somebody starts doing
calculations, I mean "a very small number.")
(...)
>
> Marriage is a union of male and female. Two of the same sex by
> definition cannot make a marriage.
By definition? What definition? If we refer to Webster's whatever,
keep in mind that lexicographers do not create a language, they
reflect it. If people mean something when they use a word, and are
understood to mean that, then the word means whatever they intend and
understand. And many people have a wider use of the word, marriage.
This has been universally true in
> all cultures and civilizations, in every place for all time. Or
> perhaps you can find a civilization that accepted two men or two women
> as married? I won't hold my breath.
No it has not. Firstly, in modern times, some European countries
accept gay marriage. In some primitive cultures, a person may marry
an inanimate object, an animal, or even his left leg. Marriage,
though we may have lost sight of it, is a union of two families, not
just two persons. It involves rights and obligations, more than just
romance.
>
> CC- Hide quoted text -
>
Gene Douglas
>
> > But the differences you expressed related to extreme, absurd beliefs
> > supposedly held in common by an entire category of people.\
>
> I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> fashion.
You don't remember the paragraph about Islamic terrorists and AIDS?
>
> > And the differences JW referred to were in terms of wrongful behavior,
> > which really did and do exist, often in the forming and maintaining of
> > instutions that do great harm. The former is racism, the latter is
> > not.
>
> The differences JW referred to were simply racial, Black and white.
> They had nothing to do with behavior.
He didn't say race, and he didn't name a race.
>
Ed B.
Every one of your posts in this thread have been offensive and bigoted
toward one group or another. When people try to explain why what you
have said is offensive you deny that it is and then offend some more.
Your paragraph above was intended to offend. Anyone who is part of this
culture knows that those terms are are hateful slurs. Only ignorant
people would mention them at all.
I think the old adage must have been right, "You can't teach a pig to
sing; it wastes your time and irritates the pig."
I will not discuss this issue or any other issues with you. You have no
concept of polite discourse.
--
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 3, 8:31 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think anything I have written can be interpreted in this
> > > fashion.
>
> > You wrote a rather long paragraph suggesting that blacks believe
> > certain things about the transmission of AIDS, etc. It's present on
> > this page (web version.)
>
> What I wrote could be justifiably interpreted several ways. This is my
> fault, and I take full responsibility. I have addressed this in the
> last several posts I have made in this thread, and I'll address it
> again. I meant to draw a big picture stating publicly held positions,
> not make a statement of fact about every individual member of the
> group. The content of a person's thoughts is NOT determined by the
> color of his skin or his race. However, individuals like JW command a
> large following in the African American community and a smaller
> following in the non-African American community. I hope this is clear.
>
> > Show any racial reference. He spoke of a nation and its policies.
>
> He claimed that the United States government (implying that it was
> 100% white, I guess) instituted genocidal policies against people of
> color. If this isn't a racist remark, I don't know what is. ...
> unless, of course, the USG in fact DID institute genocidal policies
> against color, but then we have a whole 'nother story.
It isn't a racist remark. And you overlook one thing: His statement
was true. Do you believe a minister should not be allowed to make a
true statement? The Tuskeege experiment was genocidal, and carried
out by the U.S. government. When Rutherford B. Hayes ascended to the
presidency following Johnson, he removed the troops from the south, as
part of a deal to get him elected. The southern states immediately
rescinded laws giving citizenship to blacks, and gave them a status
near to slavery. This permitted lynching with impunity, poverty
enforced by laws that allowed various blacks to suffer from nutrition,
exposure, infant mortality and medical neglect, many of whom died over
the decades.
It doesn't look like genocide if it doesn't happen all at one time in
one place, and doesn't get headlines in the newspapers. But with
people dying on a regular basis as a result of government policies,
it's genocide.
>
> > > I don't have time and I don't have the obligation to convince you. If
> > > you are that interested, you can order a transcript from Fox News.
> > > (BTW, I'm not a fan of Fox News or Sean Hannity, I watched that
> > > particular show because I wanted to hear from JW.)
>
> > You want to refer generally to a "source," and ask others to accept
> > your characterization of that source, when your characterizations of
> > other sources so far have not held water.
>
> A partial transcript is avaiable athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html
> I won't ask you to accept anything that itsn't a matter of the public
> record.
Which says?
>
> > > It wasn't Obama I was smearing, it was you. Besides, I noted that this
> > > episode appeared to benefit him, to the detriment of his opposition.
>
> > You smear me by comparing Obama with Stalin? Were you sober when you
> > got that doctorate?
>
> 'Smear' is too perjorative a word. 'Hyperbole' is a better choice. The
> point that I wanted to make was that intelligence in and of itself is
> not a qualification for public service. Stalin was smart but IMO was a
> very poor choice for a leader. At the moment, I couldn't think of any
> other example who was obviously very intelligent and very obviously a
> poor leader. I could have used Adolph Hitler I guess, but didn't for
> obvious reasons.
Hitler wouldn't have been much worse, considering among other things,
that Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler did.
>
> > > I think you have misread my words. I wouldn't say that a group of
> > > people characterized only by skin color think a particular way.
>
> > You made a long list of crazy things you said blacks believe. You may
> > have been sarcastically suggesting that the previous writer believes
> > that about blacks, but that would be just as absurd.
>
> JW has said that the United States is a state sponsor of terrisom,
> that the United States instituted genocidal policies against people of
> color, that the United States enslaved Black people. In fact, the
> United States has fought against international terrorism, the United
> States has opposed genocide both by military force and by speaking
> about against it, and the United States fought a war to end slavery,
> and has officially opposed segragation and Jim Crow since at least the
> Eisenhower administration.
Well, there are "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists. If they
sabotage something in support of the U.S., we look the other way. We
righteously denounce terrorism when it is against us, and tend to be
quiet when it is not. We don't say much when our client state,
Israel, rockets an apartment house, killing a lot of women and babies,
trying to get one insurgent who might be there, or when they rocket a
marketplace, because they think an insurgent might be mingled among
the people there. We call the other guys terrorists, and the ones
wearing uniforms and flying expensive equipment just people doing
their jobs.
The civil war was not fought to end slavery, it just coincidentally
had that outcome. As we know, segregation laws did not disappear in a
day, and since Eisenhower, a majority in the congress supported
segregation. It took the assassination of Kennedy to persuade a
majority of senators and congressmen to vote for a civil rights bill.
And blacks have not been the ony ones to suffer. We could talk about
the Indians, especially during the westward movement.
>
> > > Finally, what I would have liked to say to JW at the time would have
> > > been like this: 'Sure, and Blacks never hacked limbs off women and
> > > children with machetes, never burned church buildings filled with
> > > women and children, and never sold Blacks into slavery.' (Yes, I'm
> > > using sarcasm, because Blacks have done all these things, and
> > > recently.)
>
> > "Some" repeat "some" blacks have done all those things. 99% of balcks
> > have never done those things, and in the past century the percentage
> > is even higher. Then why tar all blacks with what a very few have
> > done? (Let's see... Hitler was white... what things did he do? So,
> > white people did those things.)
>
> This is exactly what JW did, and why I accused him of racism.
JW spoke of a nation and its policies. You can't hide wrongdoing by
taking a cheap shot at people who criticize it.
>
> > None of that is a fact. Africans would not have captured Africans had
> > there not been a ready market for them. Slavery began with indentured
> > servitude in the colonies, when a black and a white I.S. ran away and
> > were captured. The white got a sentence of an additional year of
> > I.S., and the black got life. Then there were a series of legal
> > decisions over the next century or so, that led to owning blacks as
> > ordinary chattel.
>
> The first Black slaves were transported to the American colonies on
> spec. Slavery by that time was well established in the Spanish
> colonies. It was the Dutch that first brought Africans to Virginia and
> sold them as slaves. The Virginians didn't seek them, but purchased
> them when the Dutch sold them. This is hardly the same thing as
> Virginian expeditions into the African interior with the express
> purpose of capturing the indiginous population and enslaving them.
>
One enslaves a person even if he accepts ownership of a person who is
already enslaved. One's hands aren't clean just because someone else
captured the slave. Whites couldn't have bought slaves if it hadn't
been legal for them to do so. Your argument is known as the "straw
man," debating something that isn't in question, and isn't relevant.
It is also a "red herring" argument, in that it distracts attention
from the actual issue.
Speaking of which, this reminds me of sex offenders I used to work
with, who thought it was less bad to molest a child who had been
molested before, because they were already a part of "the life." Or
rapists who thought it was less bad to rape a prostitute, or at least
to rape a non-virgin.
> > > but only purchased as slaves those who had been already enslaved by
> > > Africans, that we (Americans) ended the slave trade by our own
> > > volition
>
> > Again, wrong, It took a long and bloody civil war, started by slave
> > states that were concerned about expanding slave or non-slave status
> > to the western territories.
>
> Read it again. I said 'ended the slave trade.' Actually, I made a
> type. The year was 1808, not 1828.
Yes, some northern states were able to end the importation of slaves,
only because the south had plenty by that time, and some congressmen
were willing not to oppose that. People continued trading slaves
within the country.
You could add the treatment of Indians, which just supports JW's
statement. And wage slavery was doubled when it came to minority
races. I'm from Oklahoma, and during segregation, blacks were
routinely paid less than whites. Some of them were pretty raggedy.
Schools were segregated, and the black schools were greatly inferior
to the white ones. I'm sure some died as a result of these
differences, supporting JW's genocide charge.
During the Eisenhower administration, my town tried to head off
integration. The country club built its own swimming pool, and there
was talk of building a better swimming pool in the black section of
town than the white one. (There was only one public pool, and blacks
couldn't use it.) The project would have cost too much money, and the
idea was dropped. Likewise, expanding their high school was another
idea that had to be dropped.
>
> > > JW seems to reduce complex issues to black and white, and in
> > > consequence becomes no better than our segragationists of fifty years
> > > ago, like Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, etc. And like
> > > those men, if you don't condemn his words, you stand with them.
>
> > JW did not speak of races, but policies, though we know who was guilty
> > of enacting those policies, or of being inactive in removing them.
>
> Go read the transcript of the Fox interview. Here are some quotes:
> "The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by
> laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the
> gospel"
That's a sentance fragment.
> "We've been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we've
> been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave
> trade; we've been saying that ever since they had churches in slave
> castles.
So far, so true. And the interviewer probably asked him about race.
Why shouldn't the answer include race?
> We don't have to say the word "white." We just have to live in white
> America, the United States of white America."
> "Then you can talk about the black value system."
>
So far, so true. Whites cast the most votes. Whites have voted for
their own benefit. One only has to live in an environment of
segregation, then discrimination, to see first hand what it is like.
That all makes sense to me. Then it would be only natural to advocate
for justice and equality, and to develop an attitude of sticking
together in order to cope. Makes perfect sense.
> CC
Gene Douglas
fact that the lexicographer is a person, too, and is thinking in his
own frame of reference. Future dictionaries will reflect the language
as it is actually used, and will remove sexist references. I suspect
a lawyer would have his own definition, relating to rights and
obligations, and with less emphasis on gender.
> > Several examples from the dictionary:
> > "Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and
> > music in a hit song."
> > "A formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine
> > operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger."
> > "A blending or matching of different elements or components: The new
> > lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture."
>
> Different senses of the word. Mariners 'marry' two lines, and soldiers
> 'marry' their wives, businessmen 'marry' their partners. Yes, two men
> may 'marry' in this sense, but don't mistake that for a 'marriage'.
>
Once the law states that certain people can be married, that means
they have certain rights and obligations. Using the term "civil
union" would be a step in that direction, though it deprives a person
of dignity. However, if they believe "marriage" is a religious
concept, they can get married in a church and call it what they want.
If it is a religious concept, then everybody should begin with a civil
union, as the state has no right to create religious status (to
sanctify, as some say.)
> > > and two men cannot marry regardless of their
> > > sexual orientation.
>
> > Yes, they can. However, such a marriage would not be legal except for
> > Massachusetts and some enlightened countries such as Canada.
>
> Not even close. Neither Mass nor Canada created marriage, and they can
> no more change marriage any more than they could change the value of
> pi (Which Indiana attempted to do about 100 years ago) or repeal the
> law of gravity. Marriage existed before Mass and Can existed, and will
> continue to exist after Mass and Can cease to exist.
>
MA and Canada can create any legal status they want, and can call it
what they want.
(...)
>
> > No, you did not make the statement to show that there are exceptions.
> > Your words indicated that "most" do not want marriage equality. That is
> > why I asked you how many you know. And out of untold millions you know
>
> All I need is one case to disprove the positive. I cited two cases.
You said most of the gays I know, and then counted two. That means
you know three gays. Hardly a sampling of the population.
>
(...)
>
> Pardon me. I'll try not to do it again.
>
(...)
>
> > No, it has not been universally true. there have been, and there
> > currently are, some cultures in which 2 men or 2 women can and do marry.
>
> Which ones? As far as I know, and I have spent a number of years
> researching this, no language or civilization has ever recognized a
> union of two men or two women as a marriage.
Polygamy is well known in the world.
>
> > In addition history is not a good argument for continuing a tradition.
>
> Marriage isn't a tradition. It appears to be universally recognized in
> all cultures, at all times, and in all places.
That's a good definition for tradition.
Even the pre-historic
> tribes that have been studied recognize the union of male and female
> as separate and distinct from a union of two men or two women.
That's because het sexual attraction is common, and results in
production of young. Marriage has tradionally been a system of caring
for the young.
Case in
(...)
>
> Marriage has existed as far as we know from time before memory, and
> has universally consisted of a union of male and female. Even the
> exceptions prove the rule, for example, Nero's famous marriage to his
> male lover did not establish a husband/husband pairing as a marriage
> under Roman law or custom.
It certainly established no rights or obligations, as Nero had
dictatorial power. As to the views of prehistoric and ancient people,
there is no reason we need be governed by their customs and attitudes.
>
(...)
>
> CC
Gene Douglas
>
> > None of that is a fact. Africans would not have captured Africans had
> > there not been a ready market for them. Slavery began with indentured
> > servitude in the colonies, when a black and a white I.S. ran away and
> > were captured. The white got a sentence of an additional year of
> > I.S., and the black got life. Then there were a series of legal
> > decisions over the next century or so, that led to owning blacks as
> > ordinary chattel.
>
> The first Black slaves were transported to the American colonies on
> spec. Slavery by that time was well established in the Spanish
> colonies. It was the Dutch that first brought Africans to Virginia and
> sold them as slaves. The Virginians didn't seek them, but purchased
> them when the Dutch sold them. This is hardly the same thing as
> Virginian expeditions into the African interior with the express
> purpose of capturing the indiginous population and enslaving them.
>
those ships were white. Without the market created by white people,
the Africans would not have been capturing other Africans to sell to
them. Granted, if there was an Arab slave market, they would have
captured a small number for them. (Arabs could even be classified as
white, for that matter.)
(...)
ccc31807
> You are speaking of custom and tradition. And you are overlooking the
> fact that the lexicographer is a person, too, and is thinking in his
> own frame of reference. Future dictionaries will reflect the language
> as it is actually used, and will remove sexist references. I suspect
> a lawyer would have his own definition, relating to rights and
> obligations, and with less emphasis on gender.
Marriage is much, much more than mere custom or tradition. As far as
we can tell, it is a universal human constant, transcending all
customs and traditions. Some aspects of marriage do in fact vary as to
custom and tradition, but the essential characteristics do not. We can
see various forms of marriage, plural marriages of different kinds,
concubinage, etc., but they all, every single one, include a husband
and a wife, at least one. Two husbands or two wives cannot make a
marriage. Period. If I'm wrong (and I may be) I trust you will cite
evidence to the contrary.
> Once the law states that certain people can be married, that means
> they have certain rights and obligations. Using the term "civil
> union" would be a step in that direction, though it deprives a person
> of dignity. However, if they believe "marriage" is a religious
> concept, they can get married in a church and call it what they want.
> If it is a religious concept, then everybody should begin with a civil
> union, as the state has no right to create religious status (to
> sanctify, as some say.)
Two different issues. The issue you refer to is the allocation of
legal rights and liabilitiess based on marital status. I believe that
the law should be blind as to marital status, and not take marital
status into account as to benefits and obligations. The other issue is
marriage itself. The government did not create marriage, and can't
change marriage. Yes, it can issue documents stating that two people
are married, just as it can issue documents stating that a fictitious
entity, a corporation, has existence and can sue and be sued. But the
issuance of a document be a governmental body must not be confusted
with the existence of the thing itself.
The declaration of the State of Mass that two people are married does
not create a marriage, but only relates to their legal status.
> > Not even close. Neither Mass nor Canada created marriage, and they can
> > no more change marriage any more than they could change the value of
> > pi (Which Indiana attempted to do about 100 years ago) or repeal the
> > law of gravity. Marriage existed before Mass and Can existed, and will
> > continue to exist after Mass and Can cease to exist.
>
> MA and Canada can create any legal status they want, and can call it
> what they want.
Yes, they can, but that does not change reality. Mass can change the
value of pi, or repeal the law of gravity, but that doesn't alter
circles or mean that pigs can fly. Mass can declare that two men are
married, but that does not mean that their relationship is that of
husband and wife.
> > Which ones? As far as I know, and I have spent a number of years
> > researching this, no language or civilization has ever recognized a
> > union of two men or two women as a marriage.
>
> Polygamy is well known in the world.
Yes, also polyandry though not nearly so common. Still, both require
male and female partners.
> > Marriage isn't a tradition. It appears to be universally recognized in
> > all cultures, at all times, and in all places.
>
> That's a good definition for tradition.
No, tradition will vary according to the time and place. Something
that does not vary cannot be a tradition, otherwise we would all have
the same tradition and the concept of tradition would be useless.
> > Even the pre-historic
> > tribes that have been studied recognize the union of male and female
> > as separate and distinct from a union of two men or two women.
>
> That's because het sexual attraction is common, and results in
> production of young. Marriage has tradionally been a system of caring
> for the young.
This is true. You still didn't address the point that if two men could
be married, at least one culture would have accepted the notion and
recognized the marriage of two husbands. This has never happened in
the entire history of the world. I invite you to prove me wrong.
> It certainly established no rights or obligations, as Nero had
> dictatorial power. As to the views of prehistoric and ancient people,
> there is no reason we need be governed by their customs and attitudes.
I don't claim that we should be governed by the customs and traditions
of prehistoric and ancient people, or even the customs of present day
societies (Sharia law, for example). What I claim is that you can test
the hypothesis that marriage requires male and female partners by
observing marriages in different cultures and societies. Geology,
astronomy, and meteriology are all sciences based on testing
hypotheses by observation, which indicates that this is valid
methodology.
CC
ccc31807
> >> And now you resort to that offensive term, "homosexual" which fails to
> >> take into consideration any facet of a person's orientation except for
> >> the specific sexual acts.
>
> > What should I use instead? Sodomite? Faggot? Queer? Fairy? Fruit?
> > Three Dollar Bill? Last time I checked, 'homosexual' wasn't offensive
> > to anyone.
>
> Every one of your posts in this thread have been offensive and bigoted
> toward one group or another.
Offense is in the eye of the beholder. You have construed what I said
as offensive. I have construed that what I said is not offensive. You
are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.
> When people try to explain why what you
> have said is offensive you deny that it is and then offend some more.
When I asked what was offensive, you have the obligation to explain it
to me. You have never made the attempt.
> Your paragraph above was intended to offend. Anyone who is part of this
> culture knows that those terms are are hateful slurs. Only ignorant
> people would mention them at all.
My paragraph above was to show your stupidity in claiming that the
term 'homosexual' was offensive. Homosexual is the counterpart of
heterosexual, and neither term is offensive. Unless, that is, if you
are heterosexual but someone refers to you as a homosexual ... then,
it is offensive.
> I think the old adage must have been right, "You can't teach a pig to
> sing; it wastes your time and irritates the pig."
Then I'll plead guilty to being a pig and not being able to sing. My
posts stand on their own, and can be tested by reason and logic. I
might be a pig, but I'm a reasonable and logical pig. I may not be
able to sing, but I can reason and communicate.
> I will not discuss this issue or any other issues with you. You have no
> concept of polite discourse.
Your opinion. You don't have to discourse with me if you don't want
to. Simply do not respond to my posts.
CC
ron...@wt.net
> I voted for Obama and now have to wonder was his wife's comments a fluke or
> a product of CHURCH ATTENDANCE!!!
>
> Paster Wright has some strange friends. See a video of Paster Wright's
> "fellow travellers".http://middle-class-populist.com/2008/03/20/barrack-obama-pastor-sepa...
>
> http://middle-class-populist.com
>
> Brian J Dawson
What's a "Paster"?
Someone who applies glue to things?
RO
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 4, 8:37 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > You are speaking of custom and tradition. And you are overlooking the
> > fact that the lexicographer is a person, too, and is thinking in his
> > own frame of reference. Future dictionaries will reflect the language
> > as it is actually used, and will remove sexist references. I suspect
> > a lawyer would have his own definition, relating to rights and
> > obligations, and with less emphasis on gender.
>
> Marriage is much, much more than mere custom or tradition. As far as
> we can tell, it is a universal human constant, transcending all
> customs and traditions. Some aspects of marriage do in fact vary as to
> custom and tradition, but the essential characteristics do not. We can
> see various forms of marriage, plural marriages of different kinds,
> concubinage, etc., but they all, every single one, include a husband
> and a wife, at least one. Two husbands or two wives cannot make a
> marriage. Period. If I'm wrong (and I may be) I trust you will cite
> evidence to the contrary.
>
In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more
than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been
practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as
polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly
as "polygamy" (one person having many wives and many husbands at the
same time). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) In contrast monogamy is
the practice of each person having only one spouse. Like monogamy, the
term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether
the relationships are recognized by the state (see marriage for a
discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize
potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
More later, when I get the time.
> CC
ccc31807
> In a few minutes, here's one:
Thanks for your post. I will look forward to your research. I have
been looking at this for about five years, and I have not been able to
discover a same gender relationship being classified as 'marriage' by
any civilization or culture. Maybe you will.
Polygamy won't work unless you can discover poluygamous unions
consisting EXCLUSIVELY of men or women. The point of 'gay marriage' is
that the relationship is composed of two (or more) husbands or wives.
As you or someone else pointed out, a union between a gay man and a
woman whether gay or not won't cut it.
BTW, would you call a union between two heterosexual men a gay
marriage? If states start issuing marriage certificates to same sex
couples, it's only a matter of time before this happens, and the fact
that the partners do not intend to screw each other will not impact
upon the legality either way.
CC
Gene Douglas
>
> > You are speaking of custom and tradition. And you are overlooking the
> > fact that the lexicographer is a person, too, and is thinking in his
> > own frame of reference. Future dictionaries will reflect the language
> > as it is actually used, and will remove sexist references. I suspect
> > a lawyer would have his own definition, relating to rights and
> > obligations, and with less emphasis on gender.
>
> Marriage is much, much more than mere custom or tradition. As far as
> we can tell, it is a universal human constant, transcending all
> customs and traditions.
Many things are universal, including a kinship system, religion, and
music, though as you know, they vary widely. And all are based on
tradition. These traditions develop based on human inventiveness and
need. (It's hard to say what the need for music is, but maybe it has
some less obvious survival value.) Even basket-weaving is universal,
perhaps based on inventiveness, availability of resources, some spare
time, and the usefulness of woven materials in various shapes. Food
preparation is universal, and the list continues. Language seems to
be biological, as babies will try to talk without encouragement, just
as they will eventually walk upright, with or without encouragement.
And it is difficult to say why you say marriage transcends anything.
(...)
>
> > Once the law states that certain people can be married, that means
> > they have certain rights and obligations. Using the term "civil
> > union" would be a step in that direction, though it deprives a person
> > of dignity. However, if they believe "marriage" is a religious
> > concept, they can get married in a church and call it what they want.
> > If it is a religious concept, then everybody should begin with a civil
> > union, as the state has no right to create religious status (to
> > sanctify, as some say.)
>
> Two different issues. The issue you refer to is the allocation of
> legal rights and liabilitiess based on marital status. I believe that
> the law should be blind as to marital status, and not take marital
> status into account as to benefits and obligations.
I certainly wouldn't want a girl friend to claim half my house, or
custody of my children, just because she stayed over for a weekend.
The other issue is
> marriage itself. The government did not create marriage, and can't
> change marriage. Yes, it can issue documents stating that two people
> are married, just as it can issue documents stating that a fictitious
> entity, a corporation, has existence and can sue and be sued. But the
> issuance of a document be a governmental body must not be confusted
> with the existence of the thing itself.
Marriage is not a thing that exists in itself. It exists because
people describe and define it, by their words and by their actions.
Generally, it requires verifiability, beyond a private promise in the
moonlight. That may be as simple as jumping over a broom in front of
witnesses. Afterward, if you want to deny it, it can be proven that
you entered into the situation, and you have those duties and
obligations I mentioned.
>
> The declaration of the State of Mass that two people are married does
> not create a marriage, but only relates to their legal status.
>
> > > Not even close. Neither Mass nor Canada created marriage, and they can
> > > no more change marriage any more than they could change the value of
> > > pi (Which Indiana attempted to do about 100 years ago) or repeal the
> > > law of gravity. Marriage existed before Mass and Can existed, and will
> > > continue to exist after Mass and Can cease to exist.
>
Institutions are created by people, and can be altered by people.
People who live by institutions of the year 1,000 have a real
problem.
> > MA and Canada can create any legal status they want, and can call it
> > what they want.
>
> Yes, they can, but that does not change reality. Mass can change the
> value of pi, or repeal the law of gravity, but that doesn't alter
> circles or mean that pigs can fly. Mass can declare that two men are
> married, but that does not mean that their relationship is that of
> husband and wife.
Gravity is a thing that would exist if people did not. Marriage is a
human invention, and can be defined and re-defined without limit.
Generally, it is defined to solve problems, like caring for children,
paying the bills, allying with a larger family, reducing conflict
between groups, etc.
>
> > > Which ones? As far as I know, and I have spent a number of years
> > > researching this, no language or civilization has ever recognized a
> > > union of two men or two women as a marriage.
There's always a first time for everything.
>
> > Polygamy is well known in the world.
>
> Yes, also polyandry though not nearly so common. Still, both require
> male and female partners.
>
> > > Marriage isn't a tradition. It appears to be universally recognized in
> > > all cultures, at all times, and in all places.
>
> > That's a good definition for tradition.
>
> No, tradition will vary according to the time and place. Something
> that does not vary cannot be a tradition, otherwise we would all have
> the same tradition and the concept of tradition would be useless.
>
Marriage varies widely according to time and place. You are thinking
mainly of European Christian marriage of the past millenia or so. And
even then, the practice of selecting one's own mate and living
separately from one's parents is fairly new, compared to the past, and
especially to old Europe.
> > > Even the pre-historic
> > > tribes that have been studied recognize the union of male and female
> > > as separate and distinct from a union of two men or two women.
>
And we should model ourselves after primitives?
> > That's because het sexual attraction is common, and results in
> > production of young. Marriage has tradionally been a system of caring
> > for the young.
>
> This is true. You still didn't address the point that if two men could
> be married, at least one culture would have accepted the notion and
> recognized the marriage of two husbands. This has never happened in
> the entire history of the world. I invite you to prove me wrong.
>
Yes or no, it would be irrelevant. I thought for sure you were going
to get into the dangers of non-reproduction, but apparently not yet.
> > It certainly established no rights or obligations, as Nero had
> > dictatorial power. As to the views of prehistoric and ancient people,
> > there is no reason we need be governed by their customs and attitudes.
>
> I don't claim that we should be governed by the customs and traditions
> of prehistoric and ancient people, or even the customs of present day
> societies (Sharia law, for example). What I claim is that you can test
> the hypothesis that marriage requires male and female partners by
> observing marriages in different cultures and societies.
It would be irrelevant either way, as the fact that primitives have
done things a particular in the heart of the
Amazon jungle would have little bearing on anything we choose to do
here.
Geology,
> astronomy, and meteriology are all sciences based on testing
> hypotheses by observation, which indicates that this is valid
> methodology.
This is not the same. In computer parlance, they say GIGO, or garbage
in, garbage out. In other words, a logical conclusion is no better
than its premise.
>
> CC
Gene Douglas
>
> > You are speaking of custom and tradition. And you are overlooking the
> > fact that the lexicographer is a person, too, and is thinking in his
> > own frame of reference. Future dictionaries will reflect the language
> > as it is actually used, and will remove sexist references. I suspect
> > a lawyer would have his own definition, relating to rights and
> > obligations, and with less emphasis on gender.
>
> Marriage is much, much more than mere custom or tradition. As far as
> we can tell, it is a universal human constant, transcending all
> customs and traditions. Some aspects of marriage do in fact vary as to
> custom and tradition, but the essential characteristics do not. We can
> see various forms of marriage, plural marriages of different kinds,
> concubinage, etc., but they all, every single one, include a husband
> and a wife, at least one. Two husbands or two wives cannot make a
> marriage. Period. If I'm wrong (and I may be) I trust you will cite
> evidence to the contrary.
>
Anthropologists debunk 'traditional marriage' claim
Group claims Bush's arguments don't reflect history
ADRIAN BRUNE
Friday, April 16, 2004
Eager boy meets shy girl. Boy proves himself worthy. Boy and girl fall
in love, get married and have children. They all live happily ever
after.
It's folklore that appeals to many Americans -- one that the media
facilitate and many politicians moralize, according to many
anthropologists. They say this timeless tale has one significant
problem: In a great many civilizations, at least until the present
era, marriages were arranged in the interests of kinship networks, not
at the whim of lovers. And, throughout history, they have taken on a
wide variety of forms, including same-sex partnerships.
President Bush similarly portrayed the union between male and female
as the only proper form of marriage, calling it "one of the most
fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization" in his State
of the Union Address. By doing so, these anthropologists say, he
ignored a primary lesson of human culture and further perpetuated the
Western marriage myth.
In a statement released last month, the 11,000-member American
Anthropological Association gave Bush failing marks on his
understanding of world societies and criticized his proposed ban on
same-sex marriage.
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on
households, kinship relationships and families, across cultures and
through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either
civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an
exclusively heterosexual institution," the association's executive
board said.
"Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast
array of family types, including families built upon same-sex
partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."
Modern marriage only 200 years old
Scholars of both texts and worldwide cultures agree that it is nearly
impossible to formulate a precise and generally acceptable way to
define the flexible nature of marriage, according to the AAA.
In his recent book, "The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and
Popular Culture," George Mason University anthropologist Roger
Lancaster argues that the notion of one-man, one-woman marriage crept
into the collective consciousness of American society only within the
past 200 years -- a result of both the industrial revolution, and the
media's influence.
"Leaders often make global pronouncements about 'marriage,' as though
it were a self-evident institution," Lancaster said. "Depending on its
cultural context, marital unions can involve a host of different
persons in a number of possible combinations. People are inventive and
creative about the way they create kinship networks."
Marriage, as Americans envision it today, didn't exist during the time
of the Old Testament, or even as the Apostles spread the word of
Christianity across the Middle East and Europe. Rather, marriage has
consistently adjusted to religious, political and economic changes,
anthropologists said.
Throughout the pre-Christian world, most civilizations practiced
polygamy, until the Romans systematized marriage by establishing an
age of consent and specifying unions across socio-economic classes,
according to Lancaster. The Roman Catholic Church soon spread the
vision of monogamy, but it took hundreds of years to become the
universal axiom, he added. Even then, families arranged marriages,
usually as a business transaction with the bride accompanying a piece
of land to farm, or a livestock inheritance.
A polemical historian, the late John Boswell, concluded that in pre-
modern Europe "marriage usually began as a property arrangement, was
in its middle mostly about raising children, and ended about love.
"Few couples in fact, married 'for love,' but many grew to love each
other in time as they jointly managed their household, reared their
offspring and shared life experiences," he wrote.
Boswell was gay himself, as is Lancaster, who has contributed several
opinion columns to this newspaper.
Churches supported gay unions
Other academics didn't consider Boswell controversial for his
inferences on early marriage, but for his assertions that liturgical
ceremonies in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches sanctioned
gay unions. For a period of more than 1,000 years, between A.D. 500
and 1500, these churches in Europe performed the Adelphopoiesis, or
"the making of brothers," he determined in his 1994 book, "Same-Sex
Unions in Premodern Europe."
Even though these rituals celebrated a life-long union between two
men, historians disagree on the nature of the relationship. Some state
they did carry with them a homoerotic connotation, while others
contend they were friendship, or "blood-brother" accords.
Joseph Palacios, a Georgetown professor of sociology, who is gay, said
the more salient proof of same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe lies
within the vows of religious orders. When priests joined a monastery
or nuns entered a convent they organized their lives around each other
in a common "marriage" to Jesus Christ.
"The vows of poverty, chastity and obedience are technically
equivalent to marriage vows, and to me, these single-sex orders
provide the larger evidence of the sanctioning of same-sex unions,"
Palacios said. "They also procured children in the sense of
establishing schools, orphanages and hospitals, which mirrored or
paralleled the intent of marriage."
The American Anthropological Association created its statement
denouncing Bush at the suggestion of Dan Segal, another anthropologist
who points to the application of marriage to same-sex couples in both
a classical and modern context.
Centuries after the Greeks and early Christians sanctified same-sex
unions, Native Americans still practice a widespread same-sex
tradition known as the berdache, in which two spirit males -- men who
are not tied to one gender -- marry, provided they undergo a social and
spiritual transformation, Lancaster said. One spouse might identify as
female, but both remain biologically male.
Many modern societies don't even draw a distinction between homosexual
and heterosexual in their pairings, Lancaster said, choosing a more
free association regarding sexual or kinship ties. The Nuer of Sudan,
as well as other African societies, institutionalized female same-sex
marriages to preserve the lineage of one woman's family. These same-
sex unions also exist in the form of cohabitation after an occasional
"ghost marriage" of a woman to a dead man.
Polygamy came first
Though some conservative politicians decry same-sex marriages as
opening the door to polygamy, polygamy is actually the time-tested
method of sexual bonding, anthropologists said. Outlawed in the United
States in 1879, it still survives among some Mormons and is practiced
consistently in the Muslim world.
Bush's model of marriage -- the heterosexual nuclear family -- actually
evolved during the Industrial Revolution, as transient populations,
mass education, the women's rights movement and the creation of
leisure time tested marriage's tradition, according to Lancaster.
Women also moved up in status from property to partner, and children
from a source of labor to the treasured outcomes of a loving bond.
Early 20th century magazines, such as the Ladies' Home Journal, seized
upon this idea and circulated it through mainstream America, scholars
noted.
Though all don't necessarily support same-sex marriage, most
anthropologists and social scientists agreed that the American
Anthropological Association correctly challenged what many called,
Bush's "ethnocentric view" of the union. A spokesperson for the
association said the president's narrow remarks struck a nerve among
those who study the culture through time and across the world.
"What happens in cultures is that people tend to see their culture as
the paragon, and then extrapolate its values out to others," said
Joanne Rappaport, a Georgetown professor of anthropology. "We see what
we do as the only way to do things, and the president's narrow views
on issues don't help in changing that perspective."
Gene Douglas
>
> > You are speaking of custom and tradition. And you are overlooking the
> > fact that the lexicographer is a person, too, and is thinking in his
> > own frame of reference. Future dictionaries will reflect the language
> > as it is actually used, and will remove sexist references. I suspect
> > a lawyer would have his own definition, relating to rights and
> > obligations, and with less emphasis on gender.
>
> Marriage is much, much more than mere custom or tradition. As far as
> we can tell, it is a universal human constant, transcending all
> customs and traditions. Some aspects of marriage do in fact vary as to
> custom and tradition, but the essential characteristics do not. We can
> see various forms of marriage, plural marriages of different kinds,
> concubinage, etc., but they all, every single one, include a husband
> and a wife, at least one. Two husbands or two wives cannot make a
> marriage. Period. If I'm wrong (and I may be) I trust you will cite
> evidence to the contrary.
>
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
BoxTurtleBulletin contacted actual anthropologists who surprisingly
are able to speak for themselves. Here's another one.
Jim Burroway
March 5th, 2008
We've heard from Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate
Professor Tom Boellstorff at UC Irvine on Glenn Stanton's assertion of
what "anthropologists agree" on about marriage. Now it's Dr Patrick M.
Chapman's turn. He's another real live anthropologist and author of
the upcoming book "Thou Shalt Not Love": What Evangelicals Really Say
to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008):
Anthropologists Reject "Traditional" definition of Marriage
By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
A recent article from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink suggests that
"anthropologists agree on traditional definition of marriage." This
statement is true only if they reference what anthropologists consider
traditional, not the Focus on the Family opinion that marriage is
solely between one man and one woman.
The article also states "There are two definitions of marriage in
today's culture - one of them has been around for centuries; the other
is brand new." Once again, this statement is true. However, Focus on
the Family is confused as to which definition has been around for
centuries and which is new. Anthropologists, historians and
sociologists all recognize the "one man with one woman" definition of
marriage to be very recent and not representative of how marriage is
or has been expressed throughout the world.
For example, in Marriage, a History historian Stephanie Coontz
documents the changes that occurred in Western marriages over the last
few centuries. Her research demonstrates that what Focus on the Family
calls "traditional marriage" developed over the last 200 years,
reaching its current form only in the middle of the last century.
Anthropologists often define marriage as a social, political, or
economic contract between two individuals and their families - this
does not imply monogamy, as a man with five wives has five separate
marriage contracts. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the world's
cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore,
anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding
Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages.
For examples, the Azande of Africa used the same rituals and words for
same-sex marriages as they did opposite-sex marriages; three percent
of all marriages among the Nandi of Kenya were between two women; same-
sex marriages were common in Micronesian cultures with the married
couple often adopting children and raising them with no ill effects
whatsoever.
In 2004 the American Anthropological Association, the largest
association of anthropologists in the United States, issued an
official statement opposing the proposed federal marriage amendment,
indicating:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on
households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and
through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either
civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an
exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research
supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including
families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable
and humane societies.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association
strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to
heterosexual couples.
Suggesting anthropologists support Focus on the Family's "traditional
definition of marriage" is patently, unequivocally wrong.
See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus' Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists
> CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 3, 9:35 am, ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 8:31 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > The first Black slaves were transported to the American colonies on
> > spec. Slavery by that time was well established in the Spanish
> > colonies. It was the Dutch that first brought Africans to Virginia and
> > sold them as slaves. The Virginians didn't seek them, but purchased
> > them when the Dutch sold them. This is hardly the same thing as
> > Virginian expeditions into the African interior with the express
> > purpose of capturing the indiginous population and enslaving them.
>
> One enslaves a person even if he accepts ownership of a person who is
> already enslaved. One's hands aren't clean just because someone else
> captured the slave. Whites couldn't have bought slaves if it hadn't
> been legal for them to do so. Your argument is known as the "straw
> man," debating something that isn't in question, and isn't relevant.
> It is also a "red herring" argument, in that it distracts attention
> from the actual issue.
>
> Speaking of which, this reminds me of sex offenders I used to work
> with, who thought it was less bad to molest a child who had been
> molested before, because they were already a part of "the life." Or
> rapists who thought it was less bad to rape a prostitute, or at least
> to rape a non-virgin.
This also reminds me of a kid in trouble with his mother, saying, "I
did it because Jimmy told me to," or "Jimmy did it too, so that makes
it all right." If only felons could use that in court, what a boon
for defense lawyers that would be.
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 3, 9:35 am, ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 8:31 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> It isn't a racist remark. And you overlook one thing: His statement
> was true. Do you believe a minister should not be allowed to make a
> true statement? The Tuskeege experiment was genocidal, and carried
> out by the U.S. government.
>When Rutherford B. Hayes ascended to the
> presidency following Johnson, he removed the troops from the south, as
> part of a deal to get him elected. The southern states immediately
> rescinded laws giving citizenship to blacks, and gave them a status
> near to slavery. This permitted lynching with impunity, poverty
> enforced by laws that allowed various blacks to suffer from nutrition,
> exposure, infant mortality and medical neglect, many of whom died over
> the decades.
O.K., for those who might notice, Hayes did not succeed Johnson, but
succeeded Grant.
Gene Douglas
see the end of the post, such as the following:
Gene Douglas
remarks below. I have edited out some lines with bickering and
interrupting, people speaking in sentence fragments and repeating
themselves.)
This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," March 1, 2007,
that has been edited for clarity.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
has been inundated with coverage about his Mormon faith, LDS. In light
of this, last night we reported on the controversial teachings of
Democratic candidate Barack Obama's Chicago-based church. A guest on
our program likened Trinity Unity Church of Christ to a separatist
movement, drawing comparisons to Branch Davidians.
Joining us now for a response to these claims from Trinity United is
the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright.
Reverend, welcome to the program. Thank you for being with us.
REV. DR. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, TRINITY UNITY CHURCH OF CHRIST: Thank you
for having me.
HANNITY: OK, this is the same church. You do have the Web site, right,
where it says commitment to the black community, commitment to the
black...
HANNITY: All right, but we're not dealing with -- this is on the Web
site today. Let me just inform our audience, and I want you to
respond, if you can.
It says, "Commitment to God." By the way, I'm with you, and I hope
you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community,
commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It
goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black
community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging
allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value
system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value
system.
Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and
those words were white, wouldn't we call that church racist?
******************
(NOTE: This is a bait question. If there were such a thing as a
white work ethic, etc., it would be completely fair to speak of it.
But if many whites have a work ethic which is not unique to them, then
to speak of a white work ethic, white family values, etc. would indeed
be racist. In other words, the interviewer is comparing apples and
oranges as if they were alike.)
*********************
WRIGHT: No, we would call it Christianity. We've been saying that
since there was a white Christianity; we've been saying that ever
since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we've been saying
that ever since they had churches in slave castles.
We don't have to say the word "white." We just have to live in white
America, the United States of white America. That's not the issue;
you're missing the issue.
********************
(NOTE: Again, we have to recognize that his words are true. If they
are true, they are not racist, but are just reflecting reality.)
*****************
As I was trying to say to you, liberation theology -- and I thought
Eric Rush has studied at a theological seminary that was conservative
-- I've come to find out he doesn't know anything more about theology
than I know about brain surgery.
(...)
WRIGHT: If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if
you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of
the '60s, (INAUDIBLE) black liberation theology, that started with Jim
Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone, and the writings of Dwight
Hopkins, and the writings of womanist theologians, and Asian
theologians, and Hispanic theologians...
(...)
WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir? Do you know liberation
theology?
HANNITY: I studied theology; I went to a seminary. And I studied
Latin.
WRIGHT: Do you know black liberation theology?
HANNITY: I'm very aware of what you're calling black liberation, but
let me get my question out.
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: I said, do you know black theology?
HANNITY: Reverend, I'm going to give you a chance to answer my
question.
WRIGHT: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's
books have you read?
HANNITY: Reverend, Reverend?
(...)
HANNITY: And it seems to be, when you say the black community, black
family, black work ethic, black community...
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: It seems arrogant, ignorant...
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: I'm asking you...
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: ... how many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
HANNITY: Sir, I'm going to say this whether you like it or not. I'm
going to get my words in, and I'm going to tell you right now...
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: As a Christian, sir, I think, as a Christian, you should not
separate by race in this day and age. And that's why a lot of people
are going to look at that and say, "We're all supposed to be united
under Christ, aren't we?"
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Dr. Wright, it's Alan Colmes. First of all, I
think Barack Obama put it correctly to the "Chicago Tribune" when he
said that he'd be puzzled that the conservatives would object or
quibble with the bulk of a document -- which is your church's document
-- that espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and
self-help. That's what you're talking about on your Web site, self-
reliance and self-help for the committee that your church serves. I
don't see what the problem should be with that.
WRIGHT: That comes out of the perspective of liberation theology and
black liberation theology. And I keep asking him, how many books of
Cone's has he read? How many books of Dwight Hopkins? How many
liberation theologians does he know?
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: But I want to ask you about your church that the public
understands. I want the public to understand where your church is
coming from, because you're being accused of being a black separatist
church, and thus Obama is being accused by default of being a black
separatist. Can you straighten that out for us, please?
WRIGHT: OK. The African-centered point of view does not assume
superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans
speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in
history.
It comes from the principles of Kawaida, the second principle being
Kuji Salawi (ph), which is self-determination, us naming ourselves,
and not saying we are superior to anybody. We have no hierarchical
arrangement.
When you say an African-centered way of thinking, African-centered
philosophy, African-centered theology, you're talking about one
center. We're talking about something that's different. And different
does not mean deficient...
COLMES: Aren't there black churches...
WRIGHT: ... nor does it mean superior or inferior. The whole notion of
hierarchal, one's superior, we must be separate because we're better,
that has absolutely nothing to do with...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: But aren't there black churches all over America that say
pretty much what your church says? They serve the African-American
community. They say very similar things to what you say on your Web
site.
WRIGHT: Yes, they do. Yes, they do.
COLMES: And your church is being singled out, simply because it has
congregants, like Barack Obama, but it also has people from all walks
of life, welfare recipients, Oprah Winfrey, as I understand it, and a
whole bunch of people?
WRIGHT: Correct. That's correct. We've been singled out ever since the
audacity of hope speech, ever since the Democratic convention, ever
since the book "Audacity of Hope," ever since journalists found out
that Barack was one of our members. Yes, we've been singled out.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: I've got to run. We're on a hard break. But may I suggest
that we talk about the American community, instead of black, the
American family, instead of black...
WRIGHT: Let me suggest that you do some reading before you come and
talk to me about my field. I'm not trying to talk to you about -- no,
no, no.
HANNITY: ... that would bring us together.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: ... Martin Luther King...
WRIGHT: Martin Luther King was from the black church. He was not from
the white church. He was not from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the
Christian conservative...
HANNITY: He said, "I judge people by the content of their character."
WRIGHT: Yes, and he also said that war is wrong.
HANNITY: I've got to run.
WRIGHT: He also said that the president lied to take us into Vietnam.
HANNITY: I've got to run. Thank you for being with us.
WRIGHT: Why don't you quote everything? Thank you for having me, sir.
HANNITY: And when we come back, we'll bring you the results of the
Spartanburg, South Carolina, Republican straw poll. We'll bring you
that next, straight ahead.
WRIGHT: God bless you, and God bless you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ccc31807
about marriage. My point was that 'marriage' exists and has
identifiable characteristics, chief of which is a union of (a minimum
of two) of different genders. In the interests of brevity, I will keep
my comments short and to the pointl, and snip heavily.
On Apr 4, 7:21 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Many things are universal, including a kinship system, religion, and
> music, though as you know, they vary widely. And all are based on
> tradition. These traditions develop based on human inventiveness and
> need. (It's hard to say what the need for music is, but maybe it has
> some less obvious survival value.) Even basket-weaving is universal,
> perhaps based on inventiveness, availability of resources, some spare
> time, and the usefulness of woven materials in various shapes. Food
> preparation is universal, and the list continues. Language seems to
> be biological, as babies will try to talk without encouragement, just
> as they will eventually walk upright, with or without encouragement.
Still, we can abstract the essential characteristics of music, or
basket weaving, or food. Music to some can be merely noise to another,
but we can all agree on what is neither music nor noise. Be careful
how you use 'tradition' which can be either something which has become
a habit, such as the Easter egg roll at the White House, or something
much deeper, such as caring for our infants.
> Marriage is not a thing that exists in itself. It exists because
> people describe and define it, by their words and by their actions.
> Generally, it requires verifiability, beyond a private promise in the
> moonlight. That may be as simple as jumping over a broom in front of
> witnesses. Afterward, if you want to deny it, it can be proven that
> you entered into the situation, and you have those duties and
> obligations I mentioned.
Marriage seemingly existed before description and definition, perhaps
from the dawn of language or before. Who can say when marriage became
part of human organization? Perhaps it dates from the time before the
first human. As far as we can tell, marriage predates history. It
certainly predates governments and legal systems.
> Institutions are created by people, and can be altered by people.
> People who live by institutions of the year 1,000 have a real
> problem.
Not my argument. If marriage were an institution, I would agree with
you. Marriage seems not to be such an invention as you describe, but
something hardwired in a sense, something that existed and was
important enough to be given a name.
> Gravity is a thing that would exist if people did not. Marriage is a
> human invention, and can be defined and re-defined without limit.
> Generally, it is defined to solve problems, like caring for children,
> paying the bills, allying with a larger family, reducing conflict
> between groups, etc.
Not if you are an empiricist. The male/female pairing apparently is so
essential to human society that we name it and protect it. Even if you
expanded your definition of marriage, it wouldn't change this fact,
but only make language less useful and less accurate.
> Marriage varies widely according to time and place. You are thinking
> mainly of European Christian marriage of the past millenia or so. And
> even then, the practice of selecting one's own mate and living
> separately from one's parents is fairly new, compared to the past, and
> especially to old Europe.
Not at all. Every culture and civilization that we know of has
recognized the significance of the male/female union, and has given it
a name. Yes, there have been societies that have recognized homosexual
pairings and unions. Even the Medieval church did so, as John Boswell
demonstrated, but these were never confused with marriage.
> And we should model ourselves after primitives?
Do we have a choice? At least as to the things that make us human?
Despite human progress and advancement, we can still trace the
essential qualities of homo sapiens throughout history, and even
prehistory.
> > This is true. You still didn't address the point that if two men could
> > be married, at least one culture would have accepted the notion and
> > recognized the marriage of two husbands. This has never happened in
> > the entire history of the world. I invite you to prove me wrong.
>
> Yes or no, it would be irrelevant. I thought for sure you were going
> to get into the dangers of non-reproduction, but apparently not yet.
Irrelevant? That's the core of my argument! 'Marriage' is now and
always has been been a union between the sexes, and a same sex union
can never be termed a marriage. All it takes is one case to disprove
that, and the burden of argument lies with the party who can disprove
the thesis.
> > I don't claim that we should be governed by the customs and traditions
> > of prehistoric and ancient people, or even the customs of present day
> > societies (Sharia law, for example). What I claim is that you can test
> > the hypothesis that marriage requires male and female partners by
> > observing marriages in different cultures and societies.
>
> It would be irrelevant either way, as the fact that primitives have
> done things a particular in the heart of the
> Amazon jungle would have little bearing on anything we choose to do
> here.
If a primitive tribe in the heart of the Amazon accepted a homosexual
pairing on the same terms and in the same way as a heterosexual
paring, it would disprove my point. Certainly if you could find
historical cases where a culture accepted a marriage as composed of
two husbands or two wives, I would have to concede that you are
correct.
> > Geology,
> > astronomy, and meteriology are all sciences based on testing
> > hypotheses by observation, which indicates that this is valid
> > methodology.
>
> This is not the same. In computer parlance, they say GIGO, or garbage
> in, garbage out. In other words, a logical conclusion is no better
> than its premise.
??? My point was that science can be well founded on observation as
well as experiment. When we observe two natural phenoma always
occuring together, it implies a relationship, and when we observed two
natural phenoma never occuring together, it also implies a
relationship albeit negative. We observe that two men have never
composed a marriage. Surely this is evidence, isn't it? Of course it
is. Only a fool would ignore it.
CC
ccc31807
> http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm
>
> Anthropologists debunk 'traditional marriage' claim
> Group claims Bush's arguments don't reflect history
>
> ADRIAN BRUNE
> Friday, April 16, 2004
>
> Eager boy meets shy girl. Boy proves himself worthy. Boy and girl fall
> in love, get married and have children. They all live happily ever
> after.
I am familiar with this research, and it's consistent with my
argument. The unions described by John Boswell were in fact homosexual
unions, and were still practiced as late as the 20th century in the
Balkins, but the parites were enjoined to sexual chastity in return
for the blessing of the church. The Beredache were a same sex but
different gender union, sex being the biological fact and gender being
the societal construct. The couple may have been composes of two men,
but was still a union of husband and wife, male and female. The
African tribes that recognized family units of two women did not
accept them as homosexual unions, the partners were not lesbians, and
still preserved a linguistic distinction between these kinds of family
units and male/female unions.
The point remains that no human culture has ever accepted a same sex,
same gender, sexual union as a marriage.
CC
ccc31807
> http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/05/1579
>
> Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
> BoxTurtleBulletin contacted actual anthropologists who surprisingly
> are able to speak for themselves. Here's another one.
>
> Jim Burroway
> March 5th, 2008
>
> We've heard from Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate
> Professor Tom Boellstorff at UC Irvine on Glenn Stanton's assertion of
> what "anthropologists agree" on about marriage. Now it's Dr Patrick M.
> Chapman's turn. He's another real live anthropologist and author of
> the upcoming book "Thou Shalt Not Love": What Evangelicals Really Say
> to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008):
Note three things:
(1) This article, which I have not previous read, appears to be part
of the debate of the Focus on the Family position. I do not agree with
the arguments of Focus on the Family, and some of their positions are
totally without evidence. I agree that marriage has commonly been
pluralistic and polygamous.
(2) The devil is in the details. Typically, a scholar will make a case
that a particular culture accepted homosexual unions as marriage, but
further study would reveal that the scholar misinterpreted the
evidence. Example: John Boswell claimed that the Adelphopoiesis Rites
were homosexual marriage, but had to retract that when the rites
themselves imposed on the partners the requirment of abstainence.
Another example: the berdache were claimed to be homosexual marriage,
but that claim had to be retracted when the facts showed that the
partners were considered to be of different genders, i.e., a man and
an 'other-spirited' partner, not two homosexual men.
(3) It's easy to find claims of homosexual marriage, but far tougher
to find actual evidence. This has been a hot topic for years now.
Evidence consists of research studies in peer reviewed journals, not
opinion pieces or editorials by journalists. I've been through these
kinds of debates, and the two article you cite don't constitute hard
evidence. If you wanted, I could match you piece for piece with
opinion articles from the other side. Starting with the 'studies' from
Focus on the Family ... but I don't accept any of this as evidence,
only polemics.
CC
ccc31807
notice in all of these a clear distinction between these pairings and
a permanent male-femal union that we may properly call marriage. In
those societies that formalized male-male relationships, they
typically were between man and boy, and ended when the boy became and
adult. The best known case of this is in Greece with the Spartans and
the 700 Thebes.
Church homosexual marriage -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis
American Indian homosexual marriage -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
African homosexual marriage -
http://books.google.com/books?id=yYHcK6kWcPAC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=African+marriage+Azande+Nandi&source=web&ots=Q2cNELmWT9&sig=CjkdFc-Ac42gkw3yKMiLo8oqsco&hl=en
http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage
Gene Douglas
straight talk.)
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
Dr. Wright's talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of
Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik
Rush's comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):
* One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of
ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like
him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely
ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision
statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the
systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the
publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
* Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that
became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include
Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and
Womanist theology.
* I use the word "systematized" because Black liberation theology was
in existence long before Dr. Cone's book. It originates in the days of
the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by
theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars,
ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr.
James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline
Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon,
Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.
* These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include
seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew
Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines
Africans and African Americans as subjects - not the objects which
colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined "others" as.
* We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started
defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by
naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like
"others" defining themselves.
* To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the
vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to
say that African or African American people are superior to any one
else.
* African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume
superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
* There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the
words of Dr. Janice Hale, "Difference does not mean deficience." It is
from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.
* Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of
African and African American religious history show that Black
liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It
is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral
literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.
Gene Douglas
(...)
>
> On Apr 4, 7:21 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Many things are universal, including a kinship system, religion, and
> > music, though as you know, they vary widely. And all are based on
> > tradition. These traditions develop based on human inventiveness and
> > need. (It's hard to say what the need for music is, but maybe it has
> > some less obvious survival value.) Even basket-weaving is universal,
> > perhaps based on inventiveness, availability of resources, some spare
> > time, and the usefulness of woven materials in various shapes. Food
> > preparation is universal, and the list continues. Language seems to
> > be biological, as babies will try to talk without encouragement, just
> > as they will eventually walk upright, with or without encouragement.
>
> Still, we can abstract the essential characteristics of music, or
> basket weaving, or food. Music to some can be merely noise to another,
> but we can all agree on what is neither music nor noise. Be careful
> how you use 'tradition' which can be either something which has become
> a habit, such as the Easter egg roll at the White House, or something
> much deeper, such as caring for our infants.
The fact of caring for infants is not tradition. How we care for
infants is. Some may strap the infant, unable to move its feet, to
their backs. Some may put the infant in a sack of fine sand tied
around its neck, and come back to change the sack during work breaks.
Some may chew their infants' food before putting it in their mouths,
and so on.
>
> > Marriage is not a thing that exists in itself. It exists because
> > people describe and define it, by their words and by their actions.
> > Generally, it requires verifiability, beyond a private promise in the
> > moonlight. That may be as simple as jumping over a broom in front of
> > witnesses. Afterward, if you want to deny it, it can be proven that
> > you entered into the situation, and you have those duties and
> > obligations I mentioned.
>
> Marriage seemingly existed before description and definition, perhaps
> from the dawn of language or before. Who can say when marriage became
> part of human organization? Perhaps it dates from the time before the
> first human. As far as we can tell, marriage predates history. It
> certainly predates governments and legal systems.
>
Perhaps early human mates developed possessiveness, and agreements
that others will not tread on one's property without punishment.
Various conflicts created more detailed rules as to what constitutes a
violation of property and what does not. (Property meaning a right to
exclusive use or enjoyment of a thing.)
It would have been a short step to discover that marriage to an
individual constitutes marriage to a family. The family is loyal to
its married individual, and the spouse develops loyalties to the
family s/he has married into. Eventually, marriage becomes a way of
uniting families, reducing conflict, and sharing resources. Over
time, as things become more complicated (and traditional) complex
kinship definitions evolve, and rules result, such as saying that a
person must marry within the clan (to increase unity of the clan) or
the person must marry outside the clan but within the tribe (to
promote unity and harmony between clans.)
In other words, the meaning and conditions of marriage evolve with
time and need.
> > Institutions are created by people, and can be altered by people.
> > People who live by institutions of the year 1,000 have a real
> > problem.
>
> Not my argument. If marriage were an institution, I would agree with
> you. Marriage seems not to be such an invention as you describe, but
> something hardwired in a sense, something that existed and was
> important enough to be given a name.
>
There is no reason to say that marriage is hardwired, unless basket
weaving is also hardwired. Even if it were, the fact that the
structure of your brain material makes you prone to do a thing, does
not create a moral imperitive to do it. Rape may also be hardwired,
but we are taught to restrain ourselves, and ask before taking, and
then only if given permission. We teach that to children in regard to
their toys and things they see in stores, and it becomes their means
of self-governance (usually) and generalizes to all activity.
I could talk about widely varying rules of property, including the
expression "Indian giver," but that's a digression.
> > Gravity is a thing that would exist if people did not. Marriage is a
> > human invention, and can be defined and re-defined without limit.
> > Generally, it is defined to solve problems, like caring for children,
> > paying the bills, allying with a larger family, reducing conflict
> > between groups, etc.
>
> Not if you are an empiricist. The male/female pairing apparently is so
> essential to human society that we name it and protect it. Even if you
> expanded your definition of marriage, it wouldn't change this fact,
> but only make language less useful and less accurate.
Male/female pairing is common, and that has resulted in institutions
governing it, which varies with tradition. It has never been
universal. Obviously, it results in procreation, but there has seldom
been a shortage of that. In the modern world, we have no need to
insist that people procreate as much as possible.
>
> > Marriage varies widely according to time and place. You are thinking
> > mainly of European Christian marriage of the past millenia or so. And
> > even then, the practice of selecting one's own mate and living
> > separately from one's parents is fairly new, compared to the past, and
> > especially to old Europe.
>
> Not at all. Every culture and civilization that we know of has
> recognized the significance of the male/female union, and has given it
> a name. Yes, there have been societies that have recognized homosexual
> pairings and unions. Even the Medieval church did so, as John Boswell
> demonstrated, but these were never confused with marriage.
>
You can call it marriage or schmarriage, but if the rules are the
same, it's the same thing.
> > And we should model ourselves after primitives?
>
> Do we have a choice? At least as to the things that make us human?
> Despite human progress and advancement, we can still trace the
> essential qualities of homo sapiens throughout history, and even
> prehistory.
>
Yes, we definitely have a choice. (I hope the program doesn't reduce
this to "show quoted text" again.
> > > This is true. You still didn't address the point that if two men could
> > > be married, at least one culture would have accepted the notion and
> > > recognized the marriage of two husbands. This has never happened in
> > > the entire history of the world. I invite you to prove me wrong.
>
> > Yes or no, it would be irrelevant. I thought for sure you were going
> > to get into the dangers of non-reproduction, but apparently not yet.
>
> Irrelevant? That's the core of my argument! 'Marriage' is now and
> always has been been a union between the sexes, and a same sex union
> can never be termed a marriage. All it takes is one case to disprove
> that, and the burden of argument lies with the party who can disprove
> the thesis.
>
Yes, it's the core of your argument, and is irrelevant. There is no
obligation to imitate ancients or primitives in the modern world. You
can term a same sex union anything you want. Call it schmarriage if
you want. The only reason the name is important is the dignity
afforded the participants. However, lots of people are married by a
judge, and call it marriage whether it is "sanctified" by a church or
not.
As to your "one case," I have posted several in a couple of posts.
> > > I don't claim that we should be governed by the customs and traditions
> > > of prehistoric and ancient people, or even the customs of present day
> > > societies (Sharia law, for example). What I claim is that you can test
> > > the hypothesis that marriage requires male and female partners by
> > > observing marriages in different cultures and societies.
>
> > It would be irrelevant either way, as the fact that primitives have
> > done things a particular in the heart of the
> > Amazon jungle would have little bearing on anything we choose to do
> > here.
>
> If a primitive tribe in the heart of the Amazon accepted a homosexual
> pairing on the same terms and in the same way as a heterosexual
> paring, it would disprove my point. Certainly if you could find
> historical cases where a culture accepted a marriage as composed of
> two husbands or two wives, I would have to concede that you are
> correct.
>
But if that same tribe did not, it would prove nothing, as we have no
need to imitate them.
> > > Geology,
> > > astronomy, and meteriology are all sciences based on testing
> > > hypotheses by observation, which indicates that this is valid
> > > methodology.
>
> > This is not the same. In computer parlance, they say GIGO, or garbage
> > in, garbage out. In other words, a logical conclusion is no better
> > than its premise.
>
> ??? My point was that science can be well founded on observation as
> well as experiment. When we observe two natural phenoma always
> occuring together, it implies a relationship, and when we observed two
> natural phenoma never occuring together, it also implies a
> relationship albeit negative. We observe that two men have never
> composed a marriage. Surely this is evidence, isn't it? Of course it
> is. Only a fool would ignore it.
>
Your premise was wrong, and not thought out. If nobody has ever
flown, that doesn't prove that it can't be done. If women have never
been allowed to vote or inherit, that doesn't mean it can't be done.
If peope have never been able to elect a government by democratic
vote, that doesn't prove it can't or shouldn't be done.
> CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 4, 7:45 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm
>
> > Anthropologists debunk 'traditional marriage' claim
> > Group claims Bush's arguments don't reflect history
>
> > ADRIAN BRUNE
> > Friday, April 16, 2004
>
> > Eager boy meets shy girl. Boy proves himself worthy. Boy and girl fall
> > in love, get married and have children. They all live happily ever
> > after.
>
> I am familiar with this research, and it's consistent with my
> argument. The unions described by John Boswell were in fact homosexual
> unions, and were still practiced as late as the 20th century in the
> Balkins, but the parites were enjoined to sexual chastity in return
> for the blessing of the church.
Today not everybody needs the blessing of the church. That reflected
the prejudice of the time, and nobody would expect a medieval priest
to think as a 21st-century person would do.
The Beredache were a same sex but
> different gender union, sex being the biological fact and gender being
> the societal construct. The couple may have been composes of two men,
> but was still a union of husband and wife, male and female.
Which was merely a pretense, to fit with larger concepts, and one
could clearly look and see they were the same sex. That fits with
another tribe's having a person to marry his left leg, because it fits
with the larger system.
The
> African tribes that recognized family units of two women did not
> accept them as homosexual unions, the partners were not lesbians, and
> still preserved a linguistic distinction between these kinds of family
> units and male/female unions.
>
> The point remains that no human culture has ever accepted a same sex,
> same gender, sexual union as a marriage.
>
You have to stretch a long way to come to that conclusion.
> CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 4, 7:54 pm, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/05/1579
>
> > Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
> > BoxTurtleBulletin contacted actual anthropologists who surprisingly
> > are able to speak for themselves. Here's another one.
>
> > Jim Burroway
> > March 5th, 2008
>
> > We've heard from Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate
> > Professor Tom Boellstorff at UC Irvine on Glenn Stanton's assertion of
> > what "anthropologists agree" on about marriage. Now it's Dr Patrick M.
> > Chapman's turn. He's another real live anthropologist and author of
> > the upcoming book "Thou Shalt Not Love": What Evangelicals Really Say
> > to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008):
(...)
>
> (2) The devil is in the details. Typically, a scholar will make a case
> that a particular culture accepted homosexual unions as marriage, but
> further study would reveal that the scholar misinterpreted the
> evidence. Example: John Boswell claimed that the Adelphopoiesis Rites
> were homosexual marriage, but had to retract that when the rites
> themselves imposed on the partners the requirment of abstainence.
> Another example: the berdache were claimed to be homosexual marriage,
> but that claim had to be retracted when the facts showed that the
> partners were considered to be of different genders, i.e., a man and
> an 'other-spirited' partner, not two homosexual men.
You're resorting to the labeling by language to change the reality.
In our society, a gay may sometimes be "swishy," or in other words,
have effeminate mannerisms. We could if we wish, give him another
gender using a label of the language, and might do that if it fit with
some cultural construct we wish to create. (Like your example of
creating a corporation as an artificial person.) Somewhat unrelated
was the practice of one tribe of ascribing the label of woman to men
who would not fit the model of a man, including engaging in certain
rituals of passage and participating in masculine duties. He was made
to wear women's clothing, and to do women's work. This was considered
a respectable role. Obviously, he was still a man, regardless of the
role ascribed to him by the culture.
>
(...)
If you wanted, I could match you piece for piece with
> opinion articles from the other side. Starting with the 'studies' from
> Focus on the Family ... but I don't accept any of this as evidence,
> only polemics.
>
In that case, I shouldn't accept any of your evidence as evidence.
> CC
Gene Douglas
> here are four references (of dubious value) that may help. You will
> notice in all of these a clear distinction between these pairings and
> a permanent male-femal union that we may properly call marriage.
What is the meaning of the word, "proper?" Obviously, it is related
to the prejudice of society, and not any universal reality.
(...)
ccc31807
> You're resorting to the labeling by language to change the reality.
Not at all. My point is that 'marriage' is a real thing with real
essentials. The labeling of a male/male pairing is merely an artifact,
something artificial, which certainly has analogs in the 'real world'
but is different enough from 'marriage' to justify use of a different
label.
Wrods are only he symbols, not the reality itself. By labeling a male-
male couple as a marriage, we substitute the symbol for the reality.
> In our society, a gay may sometimes be "swishy," or in other words,
> have effeminate mannerisms. We could if we wish, give him another
> gender using a label of the language, and might do that if it fit with
> some cultural construct we wish to create. (Like your example of
> creating a corporation as an artificial person.) Somewhat unrelated
> was the practice of one tribe of ascribing the label of woman to men
> who would not fit the model of a man, including engaging in certain
> rituals of passage and participating in masculine duties. He was made
> to wear women's clothing, and to do women's work. This was considered
> a respectable role. Obviously, he was still a man, regardless of the
> role ascribed to him by the culture.
Sex is complicated, as is gender. What about the 'man' married to the
women (where was it, Oregan?) whose wife couldn't conceive, so he did
to give the couple a child. Let's don't mistake the anomalies for the
usual cases. Remember, sex is a biological construct while gender is a
sociological construct. It's possible to have a person who is sexually
a male but whose gender is female.
I don't deny that to men can make mutually monogamous pairing. Always
have and probably always will. But to call such a pairing a 'marriage'
confusing the union with a husband and wife with something that simply
isn't that.
> If you wanted, I could match you piece for piece with> opinion articles from the other side. Starting with the 'studies' from
> > Focus on the Family ... but I don't accept any of this as evidence,
> > only polemics.
>
> In that case, I shouldn't accept any of your evidence as evidence.
My point. Hence my remark about scholarly research published in peer
reviewed journals.
CC
ccc31807
The REALITY is the husband-wife union. We don't have to call it
marriage, but to talk about it, we've got to call it something. Make
up a term, for all I care. The marriage of a bride and groom is
different enough, and common enough, to justify categorization of
something different from a joining or a partnership of two people who
are not bride and groom.
You know, I simply can't understand how people can confuse the union
of a husband and wife with something else. Do they really think that a
homosexual partnership of two men is the same thing? We don't
recognize the meretricious parring of a heterosexual couple of a man
and a woman as a marriage if it's an ad hoc, informal living
arrangement.
Was Andrew Jackson married? He evidently had no license, certificate,
religious ceremony, etc. Just his say so that he was. This
demonstrates as well as anything that neither state nor church is
sufficient to form a marriage. Neither can state nor church make a
relationship a 'marriage' from something that isn't, as we see on a
daily basis.
CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 4, 8:44 am, ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 8:37 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Many things are universal, including a kinship system, religion, and
> music, though as you know, they vary widely. And all are based on
> tradition. These traditions develop based on human inventiveness and
> need. (It's hard to say what the need for music is, but maybe it has
> some less obvious survival value.)
Actually, given some thought, music does have some survival value. In
primitive societies, music is often a part of a celebration, and
celebration tends to promote social unity. Participating in a musical
event makes one a part of the group, which is essential for survival
of the members of the group.
(...)
>
> And it is difficult to see why you say marriage transcends anything.
> > > > Not even close. Neither Mass nor Canada created marriage, and they can
> > > > no more change marriage any more than they could change the value of
> > > > pi (Which Indiana attempted to do about 100 years ago) or repeal the
> > > > law of gravity. Marriage existed before Mass and Can existed, and will
> > > > continue to exist after Mass and Can cease to exist.
>
I can see how, hypothetically since I don't know of the incident, a
state could legally define pi. Suppose somebody sells something in a
circular shape said to have a particular area, and somebody else wants
to say the object was too large or too small. If a law says that 3.14
would be accepted as pi, then you can clearly say in court whether the
object met the description, and whether the buyer was cheated.
This is relevant to the current discussion (having forgotten all about
Rev. Wright) in that a society creates a convention by its own
decision, and then abides by the law created, or if it is impractical
or unjust, changes it.
Michael James
It is not a marriage 'like' a man and a woman .agreed . it is a blending
'like' two males becoming one spiritually, no to be confused with your
heterosexual union, you so desperately defend, but just as united.
I doubt however that you have the capacity to understand that, depspite
all your degrees. You are limited by the concepts of your mind - as
G.D. put it GIGO. Your program does not allow for anything outside of
it. It's beyond your reality. It's icebergs to a native of Papau New
Guinea.
It doesn't vibrate with your frequency modulation . It is analogue
signal vibrating on you digital mind No respond , divide by zero.
You will never understand CC.
ccc31807
> It is not a marriage 'like' a man and a woman .agreed . it is a blending
> 'like' two males becoming one spiritually, no to be confused with your
> heterosexual union, you so desperately defend, but just as united.
> I doubt however that you have the capacity to understand that, depspite
> all your degrees. You are limited by the concepts of your mind - as
> G.D. put it GIGO. Your program does not allow for anything outside of
> it. It's beyond your reality. It's icebergs to a native of Papau New
> Guinea.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. It's a fact that
homosexuals have bonded probably since the dawn of homo sapiens. The
Hellenistic culture was probably the most gay friendly culture in
history, Sparta in particular, and our founding fathers (with
apologies to Canadians) modeled the U.S. constitution not on Athens
but on Sparta.
Still there is something basic, fundamental, about the husband/wife
union that transcends all cultures, it is a constant among the great
variety of marriage customs and traditions and among the even greater
variety of sexual expression. To now say that two husbands can form
the same sort of union (or two wives) constitutes noting more than
selling our birthright for a mess of pottage.
Particularly when the harm to be remedied, removing legal distinctions
based on marital status, is emminently doable without mentioning
marriage.
It's funny, when you think about it, that a man and woman can marry
without state certification, licensure, or approval, while 'gay
marriage' requires the intervention of the governmental apparatus.
What would happen to 'gay marriage' oif the state were to disappear?
It would disappear as well, relying as it does solely on a legislative
act for its existence.
> It doesn't vibrate with your frequency modulation . It is analogue
> signal vibrating on you digital mind No respond , divide by zero.
> You will never understand CC.
Thank God for that.
CC
Michael James
does..its the act of a government elected by the MAJORITY..democracy in
action.
And if you thinjk that a man and woman don't need the states approval
you are correct but then they don't have all the legal privileges.
It'salled shacking and people have been doing it forever.
BTW no o ne needa your approval. It is the root of your disapproval
which feeds the action those who hate. They listen to your words and
find justification in all kinds demonic acts from stoning
, to bashing, from kill a queer for christ to electro shock therapy, to
torture gays into being straight and currently to brain washing making
gays feel worthless Keep it up CC..you're doing a great job sowing
the seeds of hatred. You do it with your tongue and others with deeds.
Just like Hitler, he didn't do the killing, the just spoke and other
follows his hatred and did the deeds.
You are just as responsible as someone who takes a baseball bat and
smashes a gay guy because he is an abomination...
John Galt
"Michael James" <michae...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:4j_Jj.9268$_K.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
So, the problem is free speech?
(You may want to rethink that premise......)
JG
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 5, 3:24 pm, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
(...)
>
> It's funny, when you think about it, that a man and woman can marry
> without state certification, licensure, or approval, while 'gay
> marriage' requires the intervention of the governmental apparatus.
> What would happen to 'gay marriage' oif the state were to disappear?
> It would disappear as well, relying as it does solely on a legislative
> act for its existence.
>
Andrew Jackson had the advantage of "importance." Nobody was going to
deny him a right based on paperwork. On the other hand, had there
been a divorce, one or the other may have claimed there was no
marriage. His state may have allowed common-law marriage. Oklahoma
has recently outlawed it, and has created a legal quagmire for people
who have lived together for 40 years, and now are relieved of both
rights and obligations connected with that.
>
> CC
Dave Heil
> ccc31807 wrote:
> And if you thinjk that a man and woman don't need the states approval
> you are correct but then they don't have all the legal privileges.
> It'salled shacking and people have been doing it forever.
You may want to check your facts, Michael. The laws vary a bit from
state to state but after a certain period or after you have introduced
the person of opposite gender (and with whom you are sharing your
quarters) to a specified number of persons as "my wife", you are
considered married by the state.
>
> BTW no o ne needa your approval.
I saw no claim for a need for approval. "No o ne needa" your approval
either.
> It is the root of your disapproval
> which feeds the action those who hate.
I don't know about Carter, but I certainly disapprove of any attempt to
equate two homosexuals living together as a marriage by my state or by
the Church. I don't intend to wear the mantle of blame for any other
person's action for my own views.
> They listen to your words and
> find justification in all kinds demonic acts from stoning
> , to bashing, from kill a queer for christ to electro shock therapy, to
> torture gays into being straight and currently to brain washing making
> gays feel worthless
Wow, that's certainly quite a load of hypotheticals you've managed to
toss into a pile. Is it my understanding that without being married,
homosexuals feel worthless?
> Keep it up CC..you're doing a great job sowing
> the seeds of hatred. You do it with your tongue and others with deeds.
I share the stated belief of The Episcopal Church that homosexual
practice is inconsistent with Christianity. You may call that hate if
you like; that doesn't make it so.
>
> Just like Hitler, he didn't do the killing, the just spoke and other
> follows his hatred and did the deeds.
Nothing Carter has mentioned is "just like Hitler".
> You are just as responsible as someone who takes a baseball bat and
> smashes a gay guy because he is an abomination...
No, Michael, that is not the case. You seem to be acting a little
irrationally.
Dave Heil
ccc31807
> > Particularly when the harm to be remedied, removing legal distinctions
> > based on marital status, is emminently doable without mentioning
> > marriage.
>
> > It's funny, when you think about it, that a man and woman can marry
> > without state certification, licensure, or approval, while 'gay
> > marriage' requires the intervention of the governmental apparatus.
> > What would happen to 'gay marriage' oif the state were to disappear?
> > It would disappear as well, relying as it does solely on a legislative
> > act for its existence.
>
> The bonding does not depend on the government. The legal recognition
> does..its the act of a government elected by the MAJORITY..democracy in
> action.
Marriage pre-existed the state, and it will post-exist the state. Or,
do you think that men and women didn't get married prior to 1776? As I
pointed out, the fact that the government assigned rights and
liabilities on account of marital status can me changed without
affecting marriage one iota.
> And if you thinjk that a man and woman don't need the states approval
> you are correct but then they don't have all the legal privileges.
> It'salled shacking and people have been doing it forever.
A man and a woman can marry, and the community will treat them as
husband and wife. Two men can also get 'married' but the community
will not treat them as husband and wife (because they are not) and the
apstrophes will be implicit every time someone mentions the
'marriage.' This isn't the state's doing, but the community's. Two men
(whether gay or straight, sexual orientation has nothing to do with
it) cannot marry.
> Just like Hitler, he didn't do the killing, the just spoke and other
> follows his hatred and did the deeds.
You have a point. If we killed all the homosexuals, we wouldn't have
this problem. Of course, we would have other problems, which would
probably be worse, but at least we would have this problem. [I'm not
advocating this, just following your logic to show its idiocy.]
> You are just as responsible as someone who takes a baseball bat and
> smashes a gay guy because he is an abomination...
And your logic is? How is recognition of something that seems
universal across all cultures the same as homicide? I don't say that
gays are an abonimation, we have discussed this long enough for your
to realize this. I for one think that a person's sexual references and
personal relationships are NOT the business of the community or state.
CC
ccc31807
seeing race-based distinctions as fignificant. As you can read from
the interview, this is what JW is all about. Take away his race-based
baiting, and the man disappears, like the Wicked Witch of the West
when exposed to water.
CC
Michael James
> Michael James wrote:
>> ccc31807 wrote:
>
>> And if you thinjk that a man and woman don't need the states approval
>> you are correct but then they don't have all the legal privileges.
>> It'salled shacking and people have been doing it forever.
>
> You may want to check your facts, Michael. The laws vary a bit from
> state to state but after a certain period or after you have introduced
> the person of opposite gender (and with whom you are sharing your
> quarters) to a specified number of persons as "my wife", you are
> considered married by the state.
>
>>
>> BTW no o ne needa your approval.
>
> I saw no claim for a need for approval. "No o ne needa" your approval
> either.
Thanks for remarking my typing errors.
If you ever experience a stroke and become semi paralysed you might be
so quick to notice them. So clever of you.
>
>> It is the root of your disapproval which feeds the action those who hate.
>
> I don't know about Carter, but I certainly disapprove of any attempt to
> equate two homosexuals living together as a marriage by my state or by
> the Church. I don't intend to wear the mantle of blame for any other
> person's action for my own views.
>
>> They listen to your words and find justification in all kinds demonic
>> acts from stoning
>> , to bashing, from kill a queer for christ to electro shock therapy,
>> to torture gays into being straight and currently to brain washing
>> making gays feel worthless
>
> Wow, that's certainly quite a load of hypotheticals you've managed to
> toss into a pile. Is it my understanding that without being married,
> homosexuals feel worthless?
No i don't think that .so I never could have written such a thing.
I think you must be projecting.
>
>> Keep it up CC..you're doing a great job sowing the seeds of
>> hatred. You do it with your tongue and others with deeds.
>
> I share the stated belief of The Episcopal Church that homosexual
> practice is inconsistent with Christianity. You may call that hate if
> you like; that doesn't make it so.
>
>>
>> Just like Hitler, he didn't do the killing, the just spoke and other
>> follows his hatred and did the deeds.
>
> Nothing Carter has mentioned is "just like Hitler".
>
>> You are just as responsible as someone who takes a baseball bat and
>> smashes a gay guy because he is an abomination...
>
> No, Michael, that is not the case. You seem to be acting a little
> irrationally.
'seem' is the key word.
Someone by their words can inspire others to act. for good or for bad
and not lift a finger.
If those who are violent are inspired they will act violently and use
the orators words as justification/
If you want a more blatant example the take Al Capone who didn't get
involved in killing, but by his words/orders his followers did the killings
Words are the seed of acts..even when others do the acts.
You can still call me irrational, however unless you have an axe to
grind you must agree.
>
> Dave Heil
BTW did you find a church with no active adulterers where you could
kneel at the rail without having unrepentant sinners beside you?
You never answered that.........of course we know you couldn't care
less..it's only active homosexuals that bug you and not those
heterosexual adulterers.
Jesus never spoke about homosexuals.
He did speak about adulterers...but maybe you skipped over that part of
the bible ...so incovenient for you straight guys..especially if you are
divorced and remarried.Every time you have sex with your second wife you
are sinning - according to Jesus. And Im sure you won't repent and stop.
You have every intention to continue sexual relations and take communion
on sunday.
How nice to be able to point the finger at homosexuals and divert
attention away from your intentional sin.
VtSkier
> A number of opinions on the "gay marriage" issues
> facing people and state lawmakers.
From Vermont, a decidedly liberal place to live.
Regarding the discussion about gay marriage.
In the US there are social, tax and other financial
advantages to be married if two people share a
life.
For various reasons, this has traditionally meant
a man and a woman.
Well, other folks who share a life like a gay
or lesbian couple or even an aged brother and
sister should be entitled to get the same legal
benefit of being married.
The solution to all of this is to eliminate the
legal advantages of marriage. You are free to
marry or have someone just say that you are
pledged to each other. The officiant does not
need the license of the State to perform this
ritual. There is no marriage license. There is
only a statement from your church (if that's
where you married) stating that you are married,
much like a baptismal certificate which has no
legal standing.
Since there is would be no legal standing to
marriage except as a religious function, it
won't matter who marries whom.
This seems to be becoming the pattern in Europe
where fewer and fewer people of any orientation
are getting married.
The other part of recognizing marriage legally
is to "protect the children". One of the
partners in a marriage is the most likely
perpetrator that a child needs to be
protected from and legal remedies are needed
here that are available regardless of married
state. Laws that ostensibly "help children"
are often notorious in keeping families apart
anyway, so where is the protection?
No "legal" marriage, but two people committed
to raising a child. Where's the problem?
One parent leaves so the other parent needs
assistance in raising the child. The law is
often such that one parent MUST leave for this
assistance to be available so where is the
protection for the child?
In other words, our laws around marriage
tend to favor one group over another.
This is basically unconstitutional. At
least this is what the Supreme Court of
the State of Vermont has said and why we
have a "Civil Union" law. It seems to me that
a better solution would be to eliminate the
laws that favor marriage. Then there would
be no need for the "morals" argument that
surrounds the "gay marriage" issue. It
would be a non-issue.
ccc31807
least as to consenting adults. The granting of benefits or the
imposing of burdens on account of marital status also cannot be
justifies IMO. Why should a married person, or a single person, have
legal benefits or legal obligations not granted or imposed on the
other/opposite marital status?
It's only in the last century or so that the state became so heavily
involved in marriage. Until the 1920s, no one needed a state issued
license or certificate to marry -- that was the function of the
religious bodies and the inferior magistrates. (Don't forget, marriage
is first and foremost a religious concept at least in the European
culture, and is a sacrament in the Roman church.)
If a legislature wants to regularize partnerships for legal purposes,
fine by me. Just don't try to do it by shorhorning these relationships
into the pre-existing state of matrimony.
There was a news story about a court in Germany that acquitted a man
from a charge of beating his wife on the ground that both were Muslim,
and that Islamic law permitted a husband to beat his wife, and that
the German law would honor the Islamic law. This kind of insanity is
the result of confusing religions concepts with legal concepts. Like
promoting social equality by altering culteral constructs like
marriage.
CC
ccc31807
> BTW did you find a church with no active adulterers where you could
> kneel at the rail without having unrepentant sinners beside you?
The difference between adulterers and people like Vicky Gene is that
the adulterers confess their sin and repent, put it behind them and
attempt to live their lives in accordance to Christ's commant to flee
fornication -- while Vicky Gene and his ilk glorify their sin, rejoice
in it, and teach others to do likewise.
Most churches would arrange for unrepentant adulterers to leave the
fellowship, indeed most unrepentant adulterers would leave of their
own accord. TEC has developed a custom of welcoming unrepentant
adulteres with open arms and allowing them to teach others to be
unfaithful.
> You never answered that.........of course we know you couldn't care
> less..it's only active homosexuals that bug you and not those
> heterosexual adulterers.
This is ABSOLUTELY not the case!!! I may even so bold to say that it's
an outright lie. Unless you can establish the truth of your statement,
you need to retract it.
> Jesus never spoke about homosexuals.
No, but he did speak about sexual immorality, adultery and
fornication. A person who has a sexual relationship with a person to
whom he is not married violates Christ's precepts, whether or not his
partner is of the same sex or the opposite sex.
> He did speak about adulterers...but maybe you skipped over that part of
> the bible ...so incovenient for you straight guys..especially if you are
> divorced and remarried.Every time you have sex with your second wife you
> are sinning - according to Jesus. And Im sure you won't repent and stop.
> You have every intention to continue sexual relations and take communion
> on sunday.
So it's not infidelity for a married, homosexual man to have an affair
with his male lover, while it is infidelity for a married,
heterosexual man to have an affair with his femal lover? Come,
Michael, you must be smoking some of that bad stuff again.
> How nice to be able to point the finger at homosexuals and divert
> attention away from your intentional sin.
No one is doing that. The ideal is for faithfulness in marriage and
abstainence for those not called to marriage. No one defends those who
sin, but who, convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin, repent
it, and are restored to fellowship.
We condemn those who do not confess, do not repent, but flaunt their
sin and call for others to follow them in sim. This is true for gays
and straights.
CC
Gene Douglas
> I don't know about Carter, but I certainly disapprove of any attempt to
> equate two homosexuals living together as a marriage by my state or by
> the Church. I don't intend to wear the mantle of blame for any other
> person's action for my own views.
>
As noted, you are free to disapprove all you want, but that is
irrelevant, other than your one vote. As for "the Church," which
church? You are obviously not a UU, and if you were, you would be a
microscopic minority. You are posting to an episcopal group, and you
might notice that they have a couple of gay bishops, and I think they
marry gays there.
> > They listen to your words and
> > find justification in all kinds demonic acts from stoning
> > , to bashing, from kill a queer for christ to electro shock therapy, to
> > torture gays into being straight and currently to brain washing making
> > gays feel worthless
>
> Wow, that's certainly quite a load of hypotheticals you've managed to
> toss into a pile. Is it my understanding that without being married,
> homosexuals feel worthless?
>
Without the social dignity afforded by the title, marriage, a person
or a couple feels demeaned. Though the writer lumped several concepts
together, there is phony therapy attempting to make a gay "straight,"
and lecturing to shame them. Your understanding is that this all
comes from them. It comes from certain persons in the environment.
> > Keep it up CC..you're doing a great job sowing
> > the seeds of hatred. You do it with your tongue and others with deeds.
>
> I share the stated belief of The Episcopal Church that homosexual
> practice is inconsistent with Christianity. You may call that hate if
> you like; that doesn't make it so.
>
This isn't an Episcopal group, though you've chosen to post here. No
matter, we get our share of Penticostals, too, though you resemble Pat
Roberson more than I'd expect you to. I think Episcopalians have not
made up their minds on that subject, however.
>
>
> > Just like Hitler, he didn't do the killing, the just spoke and other
> > follows his hatred and did the deeds.
>
> Nothing Carter has mentioned is "just like Hitler".
I think he means you are saying colonial whites didn't enslave
anybody, since somebody else handled the first leg of the trip.
>
> > You are just as responsible as someone who takes a baseball bat and
> > smashes a gay guy because he is an abomination...
>
> No, Michael, that is not the case. You seem to be acting a little
> irrationally.
The person who speaks words and creates a verbal and social
environment that says the public believes certain things are O.K. sets
the scene for others to carry out the acts. People don't use the n
word as much as when I was a kid, and that changes the environment.
When they did, and expressed corresponding attitudes, there were
lynchings, and the people creating the atmosphere were partly
responsible.
>
> Dave Heil
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 6, 3:43 am, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Marriage pre-existed the state, and it will post-exist the state. Or,
> do you think that men and women didn't get married prior to 1776? As I
> pointed out, the fact that the government assigned rights and
> liabilities on account of marital status can me changed without
> affecting marriage one iota.
>
enforced by mob rule. In fact, my grandmother told me that in
countryside Texas around the turn of the 20th century, if a woman got
pregnant and was not married, a lynch mob would make her tell who did
it, and then would force the man to marry her or lynch him. If she
wouldn't tell, they'd lynch her. One woman distantly related to me
killed her newborn to prevent that from happening.
Marriage can't post-exist the state, unless the mob becomes the
state's surrogate. Marriage creates binding conditions, preventing
one from entering into the same condition additional times, without
dealing properly with the previous condition. Dealing properly means
dividing property and arranging for the care of children. Probably
some other elements, too. Without something making those conditions
binding, people will irresponsibly drift from one shack arrangement to
another, or maintain several at once. This happens now on a covert
basis, and among poor people, marriage is almost unenforcable because
there is little to divide, and little one can do to support all those
kids he leaves around.
> > And if you thinjk that a man and woman don't need the states approval
> > you are correct but then they don't have all the legal privileges.
> > It'salled shacking and people have been doing it forever.
>
> A man and a woman can marry, and the community will treat them as
> husband and wife. Two men can also get 'married' but the community
> will not treat them as husband and wife (because they are not)
Because the legal environment does not provide for that. With the
proper legal environment, then they would have the rights mentioned,
and would then be treated as spouses are treated.
and the
> apstrophes will be implicit every time someone mentions the
> 'marriage.' This isn't the state's doing, but the community's. Two men
> (whether gay or straight, sexual orientation has nothing to do with
> it) cannot marry.
>
The state reflects the community, and the community creates and
telegraphs its will to the state. If the state would handle the
matter, then nobody need care a flip what the neighbors think.
> > Just like Hitler, he didn't do the killing, the just spoke and other
> > follows his hatred and did the deeds.
>
> You have a point. If we killed all the homosexuals, we wouldn't have
> this problem. Of course, we would have other problems, which would
> probably be worse, but at least we would have this problem. [I'm not
> advocating this, just following your logic to show its idiocy.]
>
His logic was reasonable. Of course, Hitler did try to kill all the
homosexuals. As for not getting his hands dirty, he was no less
guilty than those who did. This applies to those who create an
atmosphere justifying negative actions toward gays, and it applies to
those who bought slaves, though they didn't originally capture them
with their own hands.
> > You are just as responsible as someone who takes a baseball bat and
> > smashes a gay guy because he is an abomination...
>
> And your logic is? How is recognition of something that seems
> universal across all cultures the same as homicide?
The person who speaks against gays is responsible for those who act
against gays.
I don't say that
> gays are an abonimation, we have discussed this long enough for your
> to realize this. I for one think that a person's sexual references and
> personal relationships are NOT the business of the community or state.
>
If those things are not the business of the community or state, then
the community and state should not discriminate, and forbid them the
same privileges as other people. (I know, I know, you'll then say
they do have the same privilege of marrying the opposite sex, and then
we'll spend a lot of typed space clarifying that, too.)
> CC
Gene Douglas
He objected to bad policies, either based on race or having a negative
effect on some races. You are a little like the present
administration, waging class warfare against working people, and then
when they complain, accusing them of waging class warfare.
Gee, how many similar examples could we think of? White people
invading the west maybe, killing Indians and stealing all they have,
and then speaking of them as bloodthirsty savages, maybe?
Gene Douglas
> I mostly agree. Who marries whom is non of the states business, at
> least as to consenting adults. The granting of benefits or the
> imposing of burdens on account of marital status also cannot be
> justifies IMO. Why should a married person, or a single person, have
> legal benefits or legal obligations not granted or imposed on the
> other/opposite marital status?
>
children. And if the marriage splits, division of property. As Ed
has noted, there are 1200 other rights involved, including the right
to visit a hospital room.
> It's only in the last century or so that the state became so heavily
> involved in marriage. Until the 1920s, no one needed a state issued
> license or certificate to marry -- that was the function of the
> religious bodies and the inferior magistrates. (Don't forget, marriage
> is first and foremost a religious concept at least in the European
> culture, and is a sacrament in the Roman church.)
>
But the important point is that is be enforcable. One should be able
to go into court and pray for relief in regard to some instance
created by the marriage condition.
> If a legislature wants to regularize partnerships for legal purposes,
> fine by me. Just don't try to do it by shorhorning these relationships
> into the pre-existing state of matrimony.
>
The term civil union works fine. Then people can go about the
community and use whatever therm they wish. They can get "married" in
a UU church, if religious sanction is required.
ccc31807
alt.politics.republicans, alt.religion.christian.episcopal, and
alt.religion.unitarian-univ. I subscribe to and participate in
a.r.c.e., not the other two. Please don't think that your groups is
the end all and be all, and that the others are interlopers. From my
point of view, you are the tresspasser. Not that this bothers me
because I welcome your participation. The Episcopal Church welcomes
you.
On Apr 7, 7:54 am, Gene Douglas <new...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As noted, you are free to disapprove all you want, but that is
> irrelevant, other than your one vote. As for "the Church," which
> church?
The Church is Christ's body, the communion of the saints, the
Bridegroom's Bride, the elect, all the saved of earth. There is only
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
> Without the social dignity afforded by the title, marriage, a person
> or a couple feels demeaned.
This is just plain bullshit. 'Marriage' denotes something concrete and
particular, the union of a husband and a wife. (At least one, anyway,
I recognize the great variety in forms of marriage - which BTW has
never included just husbands or just wives, but at least one of each.)
> > I share the stated belief of The Episcopal Church that homosexual
> > practice is inconsistent with Christianity. You may call that hate if
> > you like; that doesn't make it so.
>
> This isn't an Episcopal group, though you've chosen to post here.
See the note above. You've chosen to cross post to a.r.c.e. You don't
have to, you can specify the groups to which your posts will be sent.
But since you have chosen to cross post to a.r.c.e. you can't
complain.
> The person who speaks words and creates a verbal and social
> environment that says the public believes certain things are O.K. sets
> the scene for others to carry out the acts. People don't use the n
> word as much as when I was a kid, and that changes the environment.
> When they did, and expressed corresponding attitudes, there were
> lynchings, and the people creating the atmosphere were partly
> responsible.
So you condemn those who attempt to defend marriage against those who
seek to destroy it? If it's alright to advocate one position, why not
the other position? No one on a.r.c.e. advocates homophobia or hatred
based on sexual orientation. Most of us accept the formula adopted by
both TEC and the AC, that Christian discipleship calls for
faithfulness in marriage and abstainence for those not called to
marriage. You may not be Christian, you may not even be religious, but
you must concede that Jesus Christ is quoted in the NT as saying both
fornication and adultery make a man unclean. The Lord didn't say that
this applied only to heterosexuals.
I believe that the only legitimate expression of sexuality is within
marriage. This is part of my religious faith. In my previous dialog
with you, I did not base anything I said on faith, belief, or
religion, but only on those things subject to empirical verification,
matters of objective science. If you want to discuss religion,
especially of the Anglican varieity, I welcome you. If you don't, I
will dialog with you on your own terms. But please don't complain of
people who subscribe to a.r.c.e. discuss things of interest to them.
CC
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 6, 8:53 pm, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > BTW did you find a church with no active adulterers where you could
> > kneel at the rail without having unrepentant sinners beside you?
>
> The difference between adulterers and people like Vicky Gene is that
> the adulterers confess their sin and repent, put it behind them and
> attempt to live their lives in accordance to Christ's commant to flee
> fornication -- while Vicky Gene and his ilk glorify their sin, rejoice
> in it, and teach others to do likewise.
>
to a Baptist, consuming any amount of alcohol or buying a lottery
ticked is a sin, to a Catholic using birth control is a sin, to a 7th
day Adventist eating meat is a sin, to a Jehovah's Witness, taking a
blood transfusion or serving in the army is a sin, to a Christian
Scientists, seeing a doctor is a sin, to a Jew or Muslim, eating pork
is a sin, and on and on. And then one of them can cross-post and say
everybody else is sinning. Yeah, right.
> Most churches would arrange for unrepentant adulterers to leave the
> fellowship, indeed most unrepentant adulterers would leave of their
> own accord. TEC has developed a custom of welcoming unrepentant
> adulteres with open arms and allowing them to teach others to be
> unfaithful.
>
> > You never answered that.........of course we know you couldn't care
> > less..it's only active homosexuals that bug you and not those
> > heterosexual adulterers.
>
> This is ABSOLUTELY not the case!!! I may even so bold to say that it's
> an outright lie. Unless you can establish the truth of your statement,
> you need to retract it.
>
> > Jesus never spoke about homosexuals.
>
> No, but he did speak about sexual immorality, adultery and
> fornication. A person who has a sexual relationship with a person to
> whom he is not married violates Christ's precepts, whether or not his
> partner is of the same sex or the opposite sex.
And so the elastic clause, right? Just decide for yourself what is a
sin, and then say Jesus was against it. Wow, that's flexibility for
you, right? And then you can just forbid a category of person to be
married, say, a Muslim and a Jew, or a black and a white, and then say
if they can't marry, they're living in sin. Gotcha!
>
> > He did speak about adulterers...but maybe you skipped over that part of
> > the bible ...so incovenient for you straight guys..especially if you are
> > divorced and remarried.Every time you have sex with your second wife you
> > are sinning - according to Jesus. And Im sure you won't repent and stop.
> > You have every intention to continue sexual relations and take communion
> > on sunday.
>
(...)
>
> We condemn those who do not confess, do not repent, but flaunt their
> sin and call for others to follow them in sim. This is true for gays
> and straights.
>
"We" meaning persons who follow that concept.
> CC
Michael James
> On Apr 6, 8:53 pm, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> BTW did you find a church with no active adulterers where you could
>> kneel at the rail without having unrepentant sinners beside you?
>
> The difference between adulterers and people like Vicky Gene is that
> the adulterers confess their sin and repent, put it behind them and
> attempt to live their lives in accordance to Christ's commant to flee
> fornication -- while Vicky Gene and his ilk glorify their sin, rejoice
> in it, and teach others to do likewise.
>
As christ said ANYONE who remarries commits adultery, period.
If someone has remarried they have committed adultery
If they stay remarried they are committing adultery
If they intend to stay remarried then there is NO REPENTENCE
there they are unrepentent sinner.PERIOD,,and all the spin you make
won't change that.
that is for those who want to interpret every word in the Bible
literally without using their brain.
People who divorce and remarry are unrepentent sinner and when a church
allows that it is complicet and if you say it is alright to remarry then
you are in agreement with this sin of adultery..but of course its ok
for heterosexual do commit their sin and flaunt it before everyone.
Sorry,, don't smoke.0
>> How nice to be able to point the finger at homosexuals and divert
>> attention away from your intentional sin.
>
> No one is doing that. The ideal is for faithfulness in marriage and
> abstainence for those not called to marriage. No one defends those who
> sin, but who, convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin, repent
> it, and are restored to fellowship.
faithfulness in marriage - not remarriage which is adultery - the
heterosexual sin "thou shalt not commit adultery" Never ever
It's in the ten commandments..so simple. You straights do all the spin
you want. If you are remarried *you are an unrepentant
sinner* Stop trying to weasal out of it. There are thousands of
unrepentant sinners receiving communion. They are remarried heterosexuals.
What part of 'thou shalt not' don't yo understand?
Michael James
National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously to create a status of
civil union, available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples and
largely having the same rights as marriage, by modifying the Civil Code
of Quebec. The law was enacted on June 24, 2002. See: Civil Code of
Quebec [CCQ] (Book 2: 'The Family', Title One.1, arts. 521.1 to 521.19)."
This worked quite well and gave gays all the rights they needed and did
not use the word 'marriage'
It is only when the federal government passed legislation using the word
'marriage' that religious people freaked.
Personnaly I prefer to use some other word than marriage as in society
it has been between man and woman, ie blending or bonding or whatever.
Then we would not be mixing civil law and religious cannons.
We would have as in Quebec the same civil rights..and gays who wanted to
join as life partners could feel just as united as straights.
And religious straights would not feel so paranoid as they do.
ccc31807
> As christ said ANYONE who remarries commits adultery, period.
Not so fast, Michael. Matthew quotes Jesus as excepting divorce on the
grounds of unfaithfulness. This has been interpretied variously,
including adultery after the marriage and unchastity prior to the
marriage. Also, you have marriage according to other religious
traditions and according to the civil law, which may or may not
qualify as the kind of marriage Jesus spoke about. You also have
marriages without consent, forced marriages, etc. I think that the
concept of marriage is much more nuanced than your rule.
> If someone has remarried they have committed adultery
The operative word being 'have.' I person who is convicted of sin can
confess it and repent. I have friends who remarried after divorce not
thinking that it was a sin, but coming to that realization later. That
mistake certainly does not them to make another in abandoning their
new families. Remarriage after divorce may be a sin, commited in most
cases unknowingly but perhaps knowingly. It does not excuse
abondonment of vows taken subsequently. This isn't a gimmie. but
recognition that one has the obligation to fulfill vows, even if they
are improvidently made.
> If they stay remarried they are committing adultery
Where does this come from? There is nothing, repeat, nothing, in the
Christian tradition that supports this.
> If they intend to stay remarried then there is NO REPENTENCE
A conclusion based upon a false premise. A further divorce or
separation may compound the original sin.
> there they are unrepentent sinner.PERIOD,,and all the spin you make
> won't change that.
I challenge you on your theology. Show me any Christian doctrine or
teaching that requires a person who has contracted a marriage after
divorce to end that marriage as well.
> that is for those who want to interpret every word in the Bible
> literally without using their brain.
We've been through this before, Micheal. I certainly don't interpret
the Bible literally, although some parts do indeed call for a literal
interpretation. This is a case where faithful Christians can have
legitimate differences of opinion.
> People who divorce and remarry are unrepentent sinner and when a church
> allows that it is complicet and if you say it is alright to remarry then
> you are in agreement with this sin of adultery..but of course its ok
> for heterosexual do commit their sin and flaunt it before everyone.
Most ministers I know will not marry a couple of one of them has been
previously married, except in well defined cases. Most churches I know
will not support a remarriage after divorce except in these well
defined cases. Even the Roman church allows for annulment. Most if not
all Christian churches uphold the ideal of reconciliation rather than
divorce. We do have a number of people in this category in my church,
and this occasionally a topic of conversation. As far as I am aware,
all of these remarriages took place prior to a conversion experience
with one exception, and that involved flagrent marital infidelity.
> > So it's not infidelity for a married, homosexual man to have an affair
> > with his male lover, while it is infidelity for a married,
> > heterosexual man to have an affair with his femal lover? Come,
> > Michael, you must be smoking some of that bad stuff again.
>
> Sorry,, don't smoke.
Point: the biologocal sex of your unwed partner is irrelevant.
> > No one is doing that. The ideal is for faithfulness in marriage and
> > abstainence for those not called to marriage. No one defends those who
> > sin, but who, convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess their sin, repent
> > it, and are restored to fellowship.
>
> faithfulness in marriage - not remarriage which is adultery - the
> heterosexual sin "thou shalt not commit adultery" Never ever
> It's in the ten commandments..so simple. You straights do all the spin
> you want. If you are remarried *you are an unrepentant
> sinner* Stop trying to weasal out of it. There are thousands of
> unrepentant sinners receiving communion. They are remarried heterosexuals.
That may be the case, but there isn't one Christian church that
teaches and encourages this. As far as I know, every Christian church
follows the teaching of Jesus Christ in this regard. The fact that a
great number ignore that teaching doesn't nullify the teaching. In
fact, this is true accross the board, the most glaring example being
gluttony -- and this is obvious with both clergy and laity.
CC
Michael James
> On Apr 7, 10:52 am, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> As christ said ANYONE who remarries commits adultery, period.
>
> Not so fast, Michael. Matthew quotes Jesus as excepting divorce on the
> grounds of unfaithfulness. This has been interpretied variously,
> including adultery after the marriage and unchastity prior to the
> marriage. Also, you have marriage according to other religious
> traditions and according to the civil law, which may or may not
> qualify as the kind of marriage Jesus spoke about. You also have
> marriages without consent, forced marriages, etc. I think that the
> concept of marriage is much more nuanced than your rule.
you do with those relating to same sex partners inj which there are no
nuances just black and white.
"anyone who puts away his wife for another commits adultery" no nuance
there. It is quite clear.
You I do not see things in black and white, though in these posts I aam
using the same kind of logic for straight and gay. Not some double
standard.
If you don't want to recogonize that there are different ways of
understand male/male relationships (and there are) and want to strictly
interpret text in this regards then do so for straight couple too.
You know I wasn't refering to forced marriages and the like!!!
And I wwasn't refering to other religious traditions ..I was talking
about the Bible and how straights interpret it for their convenience.
I will not talk about Solomon and his thousand wives or polygamy in
Islam We're talking about Chistians and Christianity. But of course
you will add red herrings to the discussions and bring in a thousand
other things to distract from christian hetetrosexual adultery as Jesus
referred it. 'Leaving your first wife and marrying another' That and
that alone.
Staying married to the second woman is a sin. And Christian males in
great number do that. And they are unrepentant about that. And they
take communion as unrepentant sinners.
Of course the Church very conveniently gets around that by declaring and
annulment for anyone who a civil divorce. They say the first marriage
never existed. How clever!
Michael James
> ccc31807 wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 10:52 am, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> As christ said ANYONE who remarries commits adultery, period.
>>
>>> If someone has remarried they have committed adultery
>>
>> The operative word being 'have.' I person who is convicted of sin can
>> confess it and repent. I have friends who remarried after divorce not
>> thinking that it was a sin, but coming to that realization later. That
>> mistake certainly does not them to make another in abandoning their
>> new families. Remarriage after divorce may be a sin, commited in most
>> cases unknowingly but perhaps knowingly. It does not excuse
>> abondonment of vows taken subsequently. This isn't a gimmie. but
>> recognition that one has the obligation to fulfill vows, even if they
>> are improvidently made.
Quite so, now apply the same logic to Gene Robinson.
>>
>>> If they stay remarried they are committing adultery
>>
>> Where does this come from? There is nothing, repeat, nothing, in the
>> Christian tradition that supports this.
It definitely is in the Christian tradition when you marry it is for
life...At least in the Holy Catholic Church. Maybe it is not so among
protestants (Baptists?)
The only out is an annulment..making the first marriage nul and void so
that the second marriage becomes the first marriage.
If you don't get an annulment, any second marriage is adultery.
Why do you think the Duke of Windsor had to relinquish his trone?
Wally Simpson had already been married and in the eyes of the Church of
England it would have been an adulterous relationship. A nono for the
King and Governor of the Church of England.
Yes CC it is very much a part of our theological tradition.
And when people do get married they do so with full knowledge of what it
means through education and discussions with their priest. Everyone I
kno0w since children knows that. Obviously thing are different in your
area since yu think divorce is OK. Your 'christian traditon'is Baptist
OK..so it is not in your tradition...but don't think that this attitidue
applies to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It does not!
Gene Douglas
> On Apr 7, 10:52 am, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > If someone has remarried they have committed adultery
>
> The operative word being 'have.' I person who is convicted of sin can
> confess it and repent. I have friends who remarried after divorce not
> thinking that it was a sin, but coming to that realization later. That
> mistake certainly does not them to make another in abandoning their
> new families. Remarriage after divorce may be a sin, commited in most
> cases unknowingly but perhaps knowingly. It does not excuse
> abondonment of vows taken subsequently. This isn't a gimmie. but
> recognition that one has the obligation to fulfill vows, even if they
> are improvidently made.
>
Very foreign, as the middle east is even today. I suspect that part
of this relates to dumping one spouse in order to marry another, which
would be a problem even today.
Consider they also had customs requiring one to marry his brother's
widow, even if one already has a wife, or to take a concubine if one's
wife can't conceive, and on and on. If you take the other part,
shouldn't you take this part, too?
> > If they stay remarried they are committing adultery
>
> Where does this come from? There is nothing, repeat, nothing, in the
> Christian tradition that supports this.
>
> > If they intend to stay remarried then there is NO REPENTENCE
>
> A conclusion based upon a false premise. A further divorce or
> separation may compound the original sin.
This kind of thinking also does harm to mental health. A person
divorces for perfectly good reasons, and sometimes involuntarily,
having been divorced by the other. S/he remarries, and goes through
the rest of their life believing they are going to hell because they
do a guilty thing every time they have sex with their spouse. If one
can rid himself of such notions, he can get on with his life much more
reasonably and happily. (What? Is happiness irrelevant, or a naughty
word?)
>
> > there they are unrepentent sinner.PERIOD,,and all the spin you make
> > won't change that.
>
> I challenge you on your theology. Show me any Christian doctrine or
> teaching that requires a person who has contracted a marriage after
> divorce to end that marriage as well.
The pope would have his view, but then I don't subscribe to the
opinions of the pope.
>
(...)
>
> Most ministers I know will not marry a couple of one of them has been
> previously married, except in well defined cases. Most churches I know
> will not support a remarriage after divorce except in these well
> defined cases. Even the Roman church allows for annulment.
Annullment requires a lot of paperwork. If one ex-spouse refuses to
sign the papers, even though he himself is remarried, it doesn't go
through. Tell me what God cares about paperwork.
(...)
> > faithfulness in marriage - not remarriage which is adultery - the
> > heterosexual sin "thou shalt not commit adultery" Never ever
> > It's in the ten commandments..so simple. You straights do all the spin
> > you want. If you are remarried *you are an unrepentant
> > sinner* Stop trying to weasal out of it. There are thousands of
> > unrepentant sinners receiving communion. They are remarried heterosexuals.
>
> That may be the case, but there isn't one Christian church that
> teaches and encourages this. As far as I know, every Christian church
> follows the teaching of Jesus Christ in this regard. The fact that a
> great number ignore that teaching doesn't nullify the teaching. In
> fact, this is true accross the board, the most glaring example being
> gluttony -- and this is obvious with both clergy and laity.
>
> CC
Firstly, Jesus has offered absolutely no teaching on this. Secondly,
the Metropolitain Community Church is one such church. (Where
gluttony is concerned, The Seven Deadly sins was not express by Jesus
or the disciples, but was written by a priest. They've added some new
sins lately, and plan to publish them soon.
Gene Douglas
> ccc31807 wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 10:52 am, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
(...)
> > That may be the case, but there isn't one Christian church that
> > teaches and encourages this. As far as I know, every Christian church
> > follows the teaching of Jesus Christ in this regard. The fact that a
> > great number ignore that teaching doesn't nullify the teaching. In
> > fact, this is true accross the board, the most glaring example being
> > gluttony -- and this is obvious with both clergy and laity.
>
> > CC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, could you guys take it outside already? This isn't a UU
discussion, and we have no need of it on a UU website. Just go to the
little panel above, and delete the alt.religion.uu part, and discuss
this on some fundamentalist group if you want to.
Gene Douglas
> The OP, Brian Dawson, cross posted this post to three newsgroups,
> alt.politics.republicans, alt.religion.christian.episcopal, and
> alt.religion.unitarian-univ. I subscribe to and participate in
> a.r.c.e., not the other two. Please don't think that your groups is
> the end all and be all, and that the others are interlopers. From my
> point of view, you are the tresspasser. Not that this bothers me
> because I welcome your participation. The Episcopal Church welcomes
> you.
I can fix that after today.
(...)
> > This isn't an Episcopal group, though you've chosen to post here.
>
> See the note above. You've chosen to cross post to a.r.c.e. You don't
> have to, you can specify the groups to which your posts will be sent.
> But since you have chosen to cross post to a.r.c.e. you can't
> complain.
>
As noted above, I'll correct that situation, and you guys can share
delusions without bothering the neighbors.
(...)
>
> I believe that the only legitimate expression of sexuality is within
> marriage. This is part of my religious faith. In my previous dialog
> with you, I did not base anything I said on faith, belief, or
> religion, but only on those things subject to empirical verification,
> matters of objective science. If you want to discuss religion,
> especially of the Anglican varieity, I welcome you. If you don't, I
> will dialog with you on your own terms. But please don't complain of
> people who subscribe to a.r.c.e. discuss things of interest to them.
>
> CC
Nope, I don't care to debate whether the dogma of the Catholic church
forbids this or that. I already know it does a lot of things that
make no sense outside of the ideologies created within that system.
Gene Douglas
> ccc31807 wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 10:52 am, Michael James <michaelja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
(...)
>
> "anyone who puts away his wife for another commits adultery" no nuance
> there. It is quite clear.
>
This is probably the case in which divorce is most discouraged. There
are many other instances where this does not happen.
ccc31807
> There are still issues that must be addressed, such as the caring for
> children. And if the marriage splits, division of property. As Ed
> has noted, there are 1200 other rights involved, including the right
> to visit a hospital room.
Caring for children is a job for parents, not spouses. As to division
of property, we have analogs in the commercial world -- the
dissolution of businesses and the liquidation of assets.
> But the important point is that is be enforcable. One should be able
> to go into court and pray for relief in regard to some instance
> created by the marriage condition.
How is this different from any contract? A promise to marry may be
governed by the Statute of Frauds, but the marriage itself is an
executed contract.
> The term civil union works fine. Then people can go about the
> community and use whatever therm they wish. They can get "married" in
> a UU church, if religious sanction is required.
Don't confuse the legal and religious qualities of marriage. The only
purpose of the drive toward recognition in TEC is to do away with the
concept of sin vis-a-vis sexual immorality. The church teaches that
sex outside of marriage is a sin, which means that those with sexually
immoral relationships, like 'Bishop' Gene Robinson, have a serious
problem in reconciling their Christian discipleship with the lusts of
the flesh. Clearly, the classification of a behavior as 'sin' by a
religious sect has nothing at all to do with the legal concept of
marriage.
CC