Mea Culpa...
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
of trade, etc. with Ward that I have been a little bit one-sided; I have
argued the libertarian POV against gay-friendly forms of socialism, and I
have let the fascist religious lunatics go on by. In my defense, this is
because I think I have a better chance of convincing a more or less
reasonable person (like Ward), who is in a position to see the harm that
has been caused by big government and who believes that individuals do
have certain liberties whether or not some big bad Xian God says so;
than a religious lunatic (like Phelps), who doesn't share any common
philosophical ground with me, believing that it is a good and moral thing
to force people at gunpoint to alter their sexual behavior to suit his own
personal tastes.
As a result of only debating reasonable opponents, I have found
myself constantly opposed to the "gay" agenda (which in fact not all gays
share), and never touching on the Christian agenda (which has no reasonable
proponents what soever). In order to correct the impression I have been
giving that I am opposed to equality under the law, community acceptance
of gays, etc., I have resolved to make my next venture into aph an attack
on one of the "Right-wing" religious lunatics. Wish me luck. I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
order to correct the
Ward Stewart
Lloyd Olson) wrote:
> I have realized, looking back on my arguments re: speech, freedom
>of trade, etc. with Ward that I have been a little bit one-sided; I have
>argued the libertarian POV against gay-friendly forms of socialism, and I
>have let the fascist religious lunatics go on by. In my defense, this is
>because I think I have a better chance of convincing a more or less
>reasonable person (like Ward), who is in a position to see the harm that
What is it that you wish to convince me of? It might be a step in the
right direction if you were to let that cat out of the bag.
>has been caused by big government and who believes that individuals do
>have certain liberties whether or not some big bad Xian God says so;
>than a religious lunatic (like Phelps), who doesn't share any common
>philosophical ground with me, believing that it is a good and moral thing
>to force people at gunpoint to alter their sexual behavior to suit his own
>personal tastes.
>
> As a result of only debating reasonable opponents, I have found
>myself constantly opposed to the "gay" agenda (which in fact not all gays
Would you care to explain to me what this "gay agenda" may be. Beyond
a wish that all the citizens of the republic be treated equally and
have equal standing before the law -- a wish that I can only suppose
we share -- I am vague as to what you may be referring to.
>share), and never touching on the Christian agenda (which has no reasonable
>proponents what soever). In order to correct the impression I have been
>giving that I am opposed to equality under the law, community acceptance
>of gays, etc., I have resolved to make my next venture into aph an attack
>on one of the "Right-wing" religious lunatics. Wish me luck. I remain,
> -Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
> Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
We look forward -- let me suggest that you adjust your sights to "Liz
Hansen," who seems to be pushing a particularly witless and venomous
line on us.
ward
>order to correct the
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
Ward Stewart <wste...@hi.net> wrote:
>On 9 Sep 1998 20:21:42 GMT, rep...@rupert.honors.montana.edu (Rev. E.
>Lloyd Olson) wrote:
>What is it that you wish to convince me of? It might be a step in the
>right direction if you were to let that cat out of the bag.
I wish to convince you that it is absolutely morally wrong to
use the threat of deadly force to interfere with someone's use of his
own property, provided he is not actively harming anyone.
>> As a result of only debating reasonable opponents, I have found
>>myself constantly opposed to the "gay" agenda (which in fact not all gays
>Would you care to explain to me what this "gay agenda" may be. Beyond
>a wish that all the citizens of the republic be treated equally and
>have equal standing before the law -- a wish that I can only suppose
>we share -- I am vague as to what you may be referring to.
I have seen the gay agenda as first, a desire for equality under
the law; and second, a desire to expand the civic sphere to include
elements that don't belong there. However, upon further thought, I
realize that I have been wrong; gay activists didn't creat EOE or hate
crime/hate speech law, they just want equal protection under it. And
I have to agree that *if* we are going to have anti-discrimination law,
it certainly should prohibit discrimination on sexual orientation, as
well as religion and ethnicity.
My point here is that I have been arguing with the wrong guys;
I bought the CC lie that the gay lobby created intrusive government,
when in reality it has only worked for equality under the law.
>We look forward -- let me suggest that you adjust your sights to "Liz
>Hansen," who seems to be pushing a particularly witless and venomous
>line on us.
Yeah, but what can I do? She apparently believes that she
personally is justified in going around shooting people for being
gay (since any legislation is an abstraction of the simple act of
one person using deadly force on another*). How can you hope to
have any sort of reasonable discourse with such a person? I remain,
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
Rev. E. Lloyd Olson
* My understanding of the social contract is that government acts as
the agent of its citizens, and therefore can only carry out actions
which they already have the moral right to carry out; all legislation
involves the threat of deadly force ("Political power grows from the
barrel of a gun."), so in order to wish an action criminalized, I first
must believe that I have the moral right to kill people for engaging in
it.
Rev. Billy
and I didn't speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists,
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak for me!"
- Pastor Niemoeller
victim of Hitler's Nazis
Ezekiel Krahlin
If you couldn't get it, it's this:
"First they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak out -
because I was not a homosexual."
That would be more honest. Our fine Pastor Niemoeller seems to have
harbor a tacit majority hatred for gays, even after the holocaust. I
believe it was the *homosexuals who were first attacked...and then the
Jews...and then others. How many Jews kept silent about the
homosexuals?
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
---
My website kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
Rev. Billy
>What's missing from this picture:
>>"First they came for the Jews,
>>and I didn't speak out -
>>because I was not a Jew.
>>Then they came for the Communists,
>>and I did not speak out -
>>because I was not a Communist.
>>Then they came for the trade unionists,
>>and I did not speak out -
>>because I was not a trade unionist.
>>Then they came for me
>>and there was no one left to speak for me!"
>> - Pastor Niemoeller
>> victim of Hitler's Nazis
>If you couldn't get it, it's this:
>"First they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak out -
>because I was not a homosexual."
>That would be more honest. Our fine Pastor Niemoeller seems to have
>harbor a tacit majority hatred for gays, even after the holocaust. I
>believe it was the *homosexuals who were first attacked...and then the
>Jews...and then others. How many Jews kept silent about the
>homosexuals?
That was the point.... (hear the swoosh ??)
And the Pastor never talked about gays after the war because he DIED
IN IT!!! ("victim of Hitler's Nazis")
For the times they are changing.
J. Northwood
Krahlin) wrote:
>That would be more honest. Our fine Pastor Niemoeller seems to have
>harbor a tacit majority hatred for gays, even after the holocaust. I
>believe it was the *homosexuals who were first attacked...and then the
>Jews...and then others. How many Jews kept silent about the
>homosexuals?
Actually, no. AFAIR, the Rom were the first, then the homosexuals.
You hate gypsies, don't you? You never mention their suffering . . .
L. Michael Roberts
Here is my amended version... If I have any group out of order, or
omitted any group(s).. let me know:
"First they came for the Gypsies,
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Gypsies.
Then they came for the Homosexuals,
and I did not speak out - because I was not gay.
Then they came for the blacks.
and I did not speak put - because I was not black.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists,
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak for me!"
- Based on Pastor Niemoeller, a victim of Hitler's Nazis
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
cub...@cjnetworks.com
News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com wrote:
How about an americanized version?
First they came for the immigrants, but I did not speak up, because I was
born in America. Then they came for the homosexuals, but I did not speak up,
because I am not gay. Then they came for the athiests and "secular humanists"
but I kept quiet because I believe in God Then they came for the ACLU
members, but I am not with the ACLU, so I kept quiet. Then they came for
unitarians, the blacks, and the Jews, but I kept quiet because I am a white
Methodist. Finally, they came for me, and no one was left to speak out for
me. -- "If they come for me in the night, they will come for you in the
morning"
--
Mike Silverman -- cub...@cjnetworks.com
http://www.turnleft.com/personal/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
JayTeeFL
rep...@rupert.honors.montana.edu (Rev. E. Lloyd Olson) writes:
> have seen the gay agenda as first, a desire for equality under
>the law; and second, a desire to expand the civic sphere to include
>elements that don't belong there.
silly, that is not a "gay" agenda...that is a HUMAN agenda.
prince jace <--- regretably human
http://members.aol.com/jayteefl/
"we're one, but we're not the same...we get to carry each other..."