RRR: vicious right-wing maniacs.
K. Knopp
:
Don't forget... the world has a new player on the loony-bin
stage, spawned in the "Liberal Left" movement of 20 years ago.
He is the obnoxious and repressive --
-- Craig Chilton.
1 strong, and utterly DEDICATED to the ABSOLUTE
RUINATION of many of our rights and freedoms.
Craig Chilton
kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
Well, let's see... what part of the RRR's agenda DON'T
regard to be obnoxious and repressive:
-- The part where they want to destroy our abortion
rights, thereby stealing valuable life options from
millions of women? And bringing back the bad
old days of dangerous, illegal abortions that leave
many women maimed or dead?
-- The part where they'd just love to censor the
living daylights out of:
-- Our movies?
-- Our TV shows?
-- Our books?
-- Our magazines?
-- The part where a significant number of them would
love to eliminate Halloween... a harmless holiday
for children?
-- The part where they seek to reduce the employment
opportunities of people on the basis of their
sexual preferences?
-- The part where they seek to teach nonsensical tripe
called "creationism" in our schools, so that they
can start dumbing-down our kids with respect to
science?
-- The part where they seek to prohibit same-sex
marriages, even though such a move is only spiteful,
mean-spirited, and is direct evidence of their bigotry
and homophobia, and serves no useful purpose?
(BTW, I'm straight not gay... but also NOT bigoted.)
All in all, isn't the RRR (religious radical right) a
DELIGHTFUL faction? A real fun-loving group. Sorta like their
first cousins, the KKK and the neo-Nazis.
--Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net
K. Knopp
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
> >:
> > Don't forget... the world has a new player on the loony-bin
> > stage, spawned in the "Liberal Left" movement of 20 years ago.
> >
> > He is the obnoxious and repressive --
> >
> > -- Craig Chilton.
> >
> > 1 strong, and utterly DEDICATED to the ABSOLUTE
> > RUINATION of many of our rights and freedoms.
>
>
> Well, let's see... what part of the RRR's agenda DON'T
> regard to be obnoxious and repressive:
None of it......if you believe every American citizen had equal rights.
>
> -- The part where they want to destroy our abortion
> rights, thereby stealing valuable life options from
> millions of women? And bringing back the bad
> old days of dangerous, illegal abortions that leave
> many women maimed or dead?
Destroy our abortion rights?
A. There are no "abortion rights" enumerated in the Constitution. These
fictional "rights" were invented by the Supreme Courts of the past 20 some
years. In fact the Constitution has protections for those whom we would
deem "less than human". At one time African American's were deemed to be
only worth part of a human life, and we ammended the Constitution to try
and make sure that Americans could never again have the power to control
others life, liberty and welfare. I'm sure if the founding fathers
(considering abortions had always been illegal in their time) saw how the
constitution was being distorted in order to murder, they themselves would
be turning in their graves. So as you can see, "abortion rights" are merely
a matter of opinion.
B. It isn't a question of wanting to "take away rights". This is
typically how intolerant child murderers like to like to frame the
debate....as a battle to take away "choices". This is a total distortion
of the true nature of the differences between "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life"
advocates. The debate is over whether or not killing a living human inside
a mother's womb is murder. Many of the religious people of America believe
that there are no "rights" to murder. And as far as "life
options"...bwahahaha. If a woman would choose to have an illegal abortion,
that is her "choice" and she should have to live with whatever side effects
such a savage act would produce. That's kind of like saying that we should
take guns away from cops because too many criminals are dying because they
have guns.
> -- The part where they'd just love to censor the
> living daylights out of:
>
> -- Our movies?
> -- Our TV shows?
> -- Our books?
> -- Our magazines?
You ever hear of the V-CHIP? That's one of Mr. Clinton's pet projects.
Actually I see nothing wrong with pressuring businesses to stop selling and
distributing materials that are harmful to our nation. I'm not sure I
remember any of the so call "RRR" petioning Congress for an amendment that
called for censorship. Censorship isn't being hurt financially because no
one wants to buy your offensive materials. Censorship is when the
government TELLS YOU you may not express yourself in a way you want in a
private way. No one has the right to scream fire in a crowded building
without getting "censored".
The GLL (Godless LIberal Left) uses the same tactics to get what they want.
Ever hear of the liberal pro animal nuts, PETA. They want to destroy our
rights to protect ourselfs from the cold chill of wind by wearing fur.
>
> -- The part where a significant number of them would
> love to eliminate Halloween... a harmless holiday
> for children?
>
PLEASE post information on the "significan number" that is petioning the
government to abolish Halloween.....this is the first I've heard of this.
> -- The part where they seek to reduce the employment
> opportunities of people on the basis of their
> sexual preferences?
I have no idea what legislation that has been called for would put forth a
call to reduce the employment of people who are attracted to the same sex.
How could this be applied anyways....is there a test for to determine if
someone has been involved in homosexual intercourse?
> -- The part where they seek to teach nonsensical tripe
> called "creationism" in our schools, so that they
> can start dumbing-down our kids with respect to
> science?
When science can show that it can explain all things, then we can get rid
of "creationism" in schools. Teaching children more than one THEORY of how
the world was created does little to "dumb-down" our children. Teaching
them that our world was created soley by evolution is iresponsible because
of the fact that it is an unprovable THEORY. It is just as likely that
someone made humans out of wood and they came to life one day. We are
dealing in THEORIES not facts. Until "The BIg Bang" or any other theory is
proven, creation remains a viable source for the beginning of the world.
The existence of a "supreme power" really has nothing to do with
"religion". For all we know this "supreme power" ascribes us to no
religion, but created the world. So, once again...not a limit of rights,
just the ability to have educations devoid of religious bigotry.
> -- The part where they seek to prohibit same-sex
> marriages, even though such a move is only spiteful,
> mean-spirited, and is direct evidence of their bigotry
> and homophobia, and serves no useful purpose?
I guess the part were the seek to prohibit polygamy too? You know that's
just spiteful. Their religion won't allow them 10 wives, so why should
anyone else get them. BWahahahaha! I believe that the religious people
don't want the definition of marriage distorted. Should we also allow
Father's and Daughters to marry?
> (BTW, I'm straight not gay... but also NOT bigoted.)
You seem to be very bigoted against religion. You have little sympathy or
tolerance for those who do not share your spiritual views. You know, many
people are not just like you. They have a right to have their beliefs and
not have people like you denigrate them with hateful, mean-spirited
bigotry.
>
> All in all, isn't the RRR (religious radical right) a
> DELIGHTFUL faction? A real fun-loving group. Sorta like their
> first cousins, the KKK and the neo-Nazis.
Huh? More hateful bigotry on your part I see. Practice what you preach.
>
> --Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net
tri...@aol.com
Yes?
Craig Chilton
kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>In article <588tu6$6...@usenet78.supernews.com>, xan...@sbt.net wrote:
>> Well, let's see... what part of the RRR's (religious
>> radical right) agenda DON'T you regard to be obnoxious
>> and repressive? :
>None of it......if you believe every American citizen had equal rights.
>>
>> -- The part where they want to destroy our abortion
>> rights, thereby stealing valuable life options from
>> millions of women? And bringing back the bad
>> old days of dangerous, illegal abortions that leave
>> many women maimed or dead?
>Destroy our abortion rights?
>A. There are no "abortion rights" enumerated in the Constitution. These
>fictional "rights" were invented by the Supreme Courts of the past 20 some
>years. In fact the Constitution has protections for those whom we would
>deem "less than human". At one time African American's were deemed to be
>only worth part of a human life, and we ammended the Constitution to try
>and make sure that Americans could never again have the power to control
>others life, liberty and welfare. I'm sure if the founding fathers
>(considering abortions had always been illegal in their time) saw how the
>constitution was being distorted in order to murder, they themselves would
>be turning in their graves. So as you can see, "abortion rights" are merely
>a matter of opinion.
The so-called "fictional" rights about which you speak don't
exist. But REAL rights do. Such as the right to privacy, upon
which Roe vs. Wade was won. But Roe vs. Wade, IMHO, had a much
stronger constitutional argument -- the right of people not to be
subjected to involuntary servitude. To FORCE a woman to carry a
pregnancy to term is not only callous and cruel, but imposes
involuntary servitude upon her by a person who is only potential
up until birth. That would be an utter travesty of law in a
supposedly free country.
And to compare the value and worth of an already-born,
sentient, thinking black person who has intelligence, hopes, and
dreams... to a developing life that has none of those attributes,
and therefore is no more meaningful than the sperm and egg that
was just one mechanical step (conception) earlier... is a
terrible insult to blacks, and to people of all races in general.
If the founding fathers were alive today, and could have seen
these arguments on both sides evolve, I would be extremely
surprised to see more than a handful of them take the anti-choice
side of the abortion issue.
>B. It isn't a question of wanting to "take away rights". This is
>typically how intolerant child murderers like to like to frame the
>debate....as a battle to take away "choices".
Ah. Now the typical hackneyed and inaccurate rhetoric of the
RRR adherents and the anti-choicers (often one and the same)
begins. "Child murderers," yet. As though a developing life at
any stage could be equated with an actual, already-born,
breathing, fully-sensory-aware, communicative, thinking and
sentient child.
> This is a total distortionof the true nature of the differences
> between "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life" advocates. The debate
> is over whether or not killing a living human inside
>a mother's womb is murder.
And of course it is not, any more than killing a sperm or an
egg is murder. There's nothing special about something that
results from a mechanical act that anyone can do in a lab, in a
petri dish. There is no way that a developing life could outrank
a woman's right to have her full range of life options.
> Many of the religious people of America believe
>that there are no "rights" to murder.
Agreed on the "murder" part. Fortunately, most religious
Americans don't regard abortion to BE murder, either.
> And as far as "life options"...bwahahaha. If a woman would
> choose to have an illegal abortion,
Whoops!! "Illegal" abortion??? Not in THIS country. Not
now, and NEVER, EVER again!! That's wishful thinking on your
part!
>that is her "choice" and she should have to live with whatever side effects
>such a savage act would produce.
The side effects are so minimal as to be almost nonexistent.
Abortion is a "time machine" that actually allows people to undo
an act that lasted only minutes, usually is not illegal, and for
which no one should have to be forced to pay unreasonable
consequences. The side effects that would result, on the other
hand, from being FORCED to carry to term would frequently be
lifelong and negative. Forcing a woman to do that would be a
savage act which the RRR advocates, which is why most Americans
rightfully perceive anti-choicers and RRR-types to be
mean-spirited and cruel. It is a well-earned image that they
richly deserve.
> That's kind of like saying that we should take guns away from
> cops because too many criminals are dying because they
>have guns.
A senseless analogy, in light of the above.
>> -- The part where they'd just love to censor the
>> living daylights out of:
>>
>> -- Our movies?
>> -- Our TV shows?
>> -- Our books?
>> -- Our magazines?
>You ever hear of the V-CHIP? That's one of Mr. Clinton's pet projects.
Actually, the "V-chip" is an EXCELLENT way for society to
PROTECT its freedoms of expression. With that, the TV producers
can have open season in a full range of subjects. The
goody-two-shoes types can simply program their V-chips to filter
out what they don't want to see, while the rest of us can enjoy
better and more versatile programming than ever. I'm all for it!
The V-chip is a virtual guarantee of the END of censorship!
>Actually I see nothing wrong with pressuring businesses to stop selling and
>distributing materials that are harmful to our nation.
Nothing is more harmful to our nation than eroding our
freedom of speech, press, and expression. If we ever lost those,
we can see the ultimate outcome by remembering what happened to
the Chinese freedom-fighters in Tianenmen Square. Just because a
few wackoes misuse porography, for example, is no reason to wreck
our freedoms. Driving 65 and up, as allowed by law by the
states, permits many more deaths than would a national speed
limit of 15 mph. We know that the latter is ludicrous, and would
wreck the country. So would censorship.
> I'm not sure I remember any of the so call "RRR" petioning
> Congress for an amendment that called for censorship.
The RRR was deleriously happy when the CDA provision (soon
after struck down by a sensible court) was passed last year.
That would have impacted even the Internet! We don't HAVE Big
Brother, and we don't ever WANT to have Big Brother!
> Censorship isn't being hurt financially because no
>one wants to buy your offensive materials.
So-called "boycotts" have been tried by the ilk of Donald
Wildmon and his absurd American Family Association for years.
They affect no one. His organization of a few thousand
extremists is no match for the nearly 270 million who want
nothing to do with him or his crusades. In October, he
proclaimed that his 2-year boycott against Disney had impacted
them severely, as evidenced by the lack of success of the film,
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" when compared to "The Lion King," a
pre-boycott film. Then along came "101 Dalmations," which set
the all-time record for Thanksgiving weekend box-office
success... and Wildmon and his AFA cronies wind up with egg ALL
OVER their faces! Justice was served!! And companies
everywhere can now recognize that failure on the AFA's part to be
proof that the RRR can be safely rebuked.
> Censorship is when the government TELLS YOU you may not
> express yourself in a way you want in a private way. No one
> has the right to scream fire in a crowded building without
> getting "censored".
Of course not. The limits of free speech are defined by
whether or not a person or persons are being directly and overtly
harmed by the speech. As would be the case in the example you
gave, and in the cases of provable libel and slander. But not
literature, artwork, etc. Those should NEVER be censored just
because some one or some entity doesn't happen to like it. Not
in THIS country!
>The GLL (Godless LIberal Left)
There you go again with the rhetoric and stereotypes. I can
PROVE to you that "RRR" is repressive and callous. But it is
insulting for you to call those of us who are moderate to
liberal, politically, "Godless." Many of us, myself included,
are Christians, Moslems, and other people of faith in God. We
regard the total trashing (in the case of Christians) of Jesus'
prime directive to love our neighbors and be compassionate -- by
the RRR's trying to IMPOSE their will upon them -- to be the
Godless acts.
> ...uses the same tactics to get what they want.
>Ever hear of the liberal pro animal nuts, PETA. They want to destroy our
>rights to protect ourselfs from the cold chill of wind by wearing fur.
The majority of Americans are pro-choice regarding abortion.
And the vast majority also regard PETA to be a group of
extremists who are nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.
>> -- The part where a significant number of them would
>> love to eliminate Halloween... a harmless holiday
>> for children?
>PLEASE post information on the "significan number" that is petioning the
>government to abolish Halloween.....this is the first I've heard of this.
They know better than to do anything THAT stupid! So
instead, they wage their battles against Halloween, annually,
throughout the month of October, over the airwaves of Christian
radio. (And in tracts.) Fortunately, such broadcasts and tracts
are valued only by the choir to which they are preaching, while
practically everyone else gets a real chuckle out of it. But the
point is... they actually are SERIOUS about thinking that there's
something sinister about Halloween! I mentioned this just to
show you how unreasonable and silly those people can be!
>> -- The part where they seek to reduce the employment
>> opportunities of people on the basis of their
>> sexual preferences?
>I have no idea what legislation that has been called for would put forth a
>call to reduce the employment of people who are attracted to the same sex.
Congress could have passed a bill a few months ago that would
have guaranteed that no one would have been subject to
discrimination on the basis of gender preference, in job seeking
and in the workplace. To its shame, Congress defeated it.
>How could this be applied anyways....is there a test for to determine if
>someone has been involved in homosexual intercourse?
No. But many millions of homosexuals live in the closet
and pursue their romantic relationships clandestinely, because
they fear, even in the '90s, the censure and discrimination that
could, and often would, result in many cases if they persued
their relationships as openly as is normal and accepted for we
who are heterosexual to do. And that's wrong. As long as such
bigotry continues to survive, they are deserving of protection
against it.
>> -- The part where they seek to teach nonsensical tripe
>> called "creationism" in our schools, so that they
>> can start dumbing-down our kids with respect to
>> science?
>When science can show that it can explain all things, then we can get rid
>of "creationism" in schools. Teaching children more than one THEORY of how
>the world was created does little to "dumb-down" our children. Teaching
>them that our world was created soley by evolution is iresponsible because
>of the fact that it is an unprovable THEORY.
Evolution is about 1,000,000% MORE provable, as theories go,
than "creationism." If we were to teach our children to invest
credibility in every crackpot theory that comes along which has
as little going for it as does creationism, there wouldn't be
enough time in the curriculum to teach the worthwhile and
well-founded areas of science. As for evolution -- even the
Pope, as conservative as he is, recently alluded openly to its
likelihood as fact.
> It is just as likely that someone made humans out of wood and they
> came to life one day. We are dealing in THEORIES not facts.
> Until "The BIg Bang" or any other theory is proven, creation remains
> a viable source for the beginning of the world.
I don't know about your God, but I believe that mine has
unlimited power... and thus is fully capable of having created
the universe, and allowed it to develop, with His guidance
provided as necessary, from the moment of its inception, whether
via a "Big Bang" or something else. He is also omnipotent enough
to have created and guided an evolutionary process.
>The existence of a "supreme power" really has nothing to do with
>"religion". For all we know this "supreme power" ascribes us to no
>religion, but created the world. So, once again...not a limit of rights,
>just the ability to have educations devoid of religious bigotry.
I see no bigotry in merely ensuring that a given theory must
be at least somewhat provable, in terms of evidence, before we
start muddying up the waters of sound science by teaching it.
>> -- The part where they seek to prohibit same-sex
>> marriages, even though such a move is only spiteful,
>> mean-spirited, and is direct evidence of their bigotry
>> and homophobia, and serves no useful purpose?
>I guess the part where they seek to prohibit polygamy too? You know that's
>just spiteful. Their religion won't allow them 10 wives, so why should
>anyone else get them. BWahahahaha! I believe that the religious people
>don't want the definition of marriage distorted. Should we also allow
>Father's and Daughters to marry?
[long sigh...] First, polygamy would disrupt society by
creating a barrel of worms in terms of deciding who gets what
benefits, inheritances, etc. It would open the door to
favoritism within family units for one spouse over another.
Divorces in a polygamous society would be nightmarish, and the
courts would surely either drown in an unfathomable sea of
litigation, or alse Congress would be forced to reduce our
freedoms by imposinghnew regulations. BUT -- NONE of that occurs
if we continue with our system of married COUPLES. Same-sex or
opposite-sex would make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
So-called "religious people" aren't being narrow-minded about
same-sex marriages. But at this juncture, a significant portion
of the population still hasn't realized that this would be
perfectly harmless. Including ALL of the RRR.
Secondly, incest is out because inbreeding is known to cause
birth defects, mental and otherwise. There is no such problem
with same-sex couples. Those who would have children would
either adopt them, or become pregnant by another party or
artificial means.
>
>> (BTW, I'm straight, not gay... but also NOT bigoted.)
>You seem to be very bigoted against religion.
Hardly. I'm a fundamentalist Christian. But I don't stretch
my fundamentalism to absurd lengths as some do with respect to
taking all of the Bible literally. There are many allegories and
analogies in the Bible, just as we see in the more obvious case
of Jesus' parables. Not all such cases are that obvious, but
they are there. Something that is NOT there, however, is ANY
directive that Christians should attempt to force change upon any
of the world's peoples or systems. A fact that the leaders of
the RRR conveniently ignore.
> You have little sympathy or tolerance for those who do not share
> your spiritual views.
No. I have little sympathy or tolerance for people who
promote and condone bigotry, and attempt to repress the
legitimate freedoms and rights of people in a free country.
The fact that most of them seem to have jumped onto the bandwagon
of the RRR's transdenominational cult is an indictment of their
gullibility and their willingness to accept unbiblical
"impose-change-upon-the-word" dogmas -- not of their basic
spirituality.
> You know, many people are not just like you. They have
> a right to have their beliefs and not have people like you
> denigrate them with hateful, mean-spirited bigotry.
Hmmm. Okay. By that defination, I would be guilty of
hateful, mean-spirited bigotry if I denigrated the Ku klux Klan,
which in terms of its bigotry is a first cousin to the RRR,
right? And of course people have a perfect right to their
BELIEFS. But their beliefs END where the rights of other people
BEGIN. RRR adherents are some of the world's worst busybodies,
and there's hardly a more obnoxious movement within all of
America's history.
>> All in all, isn't the RRR (religious radical right) a
>> DELIGHTFUL faction? A real fun-loving group. Sorta like their
>> first cousins, the KKK and the neo-Nazis.
> Huh? More hateful bigotry on your part I see. Practice what you
>preach.
I think I do that quite well. If the RRR lays off of its
attacks on people's rights, and adopts a proper live-and-let-live
attitude, as practiced already by 97% of America's Christians, as
well as by most of it's non-Christians, THEN is when I will cease
my rightful attacks upon the RRR. In fact, if the RRR were to
scrap its impositional agenda in favor of turning its attention
entirely to such biblical directives as evangelism and charity,
then (1) it would cease being a cult, (2) it would no longer be
deserving of the "RRR" description, and (3) I would be one of the
first to praise its work.
--Craig Chilton xan...@sbt.net
K. Knopp
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
> >In article <588tu6$6...@usenet78.supernews.com>, xan...@sbt.net wrote:
<SNIP>
> >A. There are no "abortion rights" enumerated in the Constitution. These
> >fictional "rights" were invented by the Supreme Courts of the past 20 some
> >years. In fact the Constitution has protections for those whom we would
> >deem "less than human". At one time African American's were deemed to be
<SNIP>
> The so-called "fictional" rights about which you speak don't
> exist. But REAL rights do. Such as the right to privacy, upon
> which Roe vs. Wade was won. But Roe vs. Wade, IMHO, had a much
Where does the Constitution guarentee us a "right to privacy"? More
Supreme Court interpretation. If the Supreme Court says that we all have
the right to brand new Mercedes....does that make it truly of the
Contitution? Of course not. Supreme Court opinions are often overturned
due to the Court often using their power to legislate, and not simlpy
determine constitutionality.
> stronger constitutional argument -- the right of people not to be
> subjected to involuntary servitude. To FORCE a woman to carry a
> pregnancy to term is not only callous and cruel, but imposes
> involuntary servitude upon her by a person who is only potential
> up until birth. That would be an utter travesty of law in a
> supposedly free country.
It is an utter travesty to require people not to murder? You see, by
trying to cloud the true nature of the debate concerning abortion (whether
or not it's murder) by trying to equate it to slavery, you do little in
forwarding the logical discussion of this controversial issue, but do serve
to keep peoples attention focused on rights of "choice" which aren't
enumerated in the Constitution and the the illegality of murder. Science
tells us that a person can live outside the womb up to the second trimester
of a pregnancy, not "until birth", thus a person is potential way before
they leave the birth canal.
> And to compare the value and worth of an already-born,
> sentient, thinking black person who has intelligence, hopes, and
> dreams... to a developing life that has none of those attributes,
> and therefore is no more meaningful than the sperm and egg that
> was just one mechanical step (conception) earlier... is a
> terrible insult to blacks, and to people of all races in general.
> If the founding fathers were alive today, and could have seen
> these arguments on both sides evolve, I would be extremely
> surprised to see more than a handful of them take the anti-choice
> side of the abortion issue.
So why can't we just kill our babies because they cry to loud? Where do
you draw the line, and how do you justify playing God? After
all...masterbation is not a crime. Your trying to compare a human with a
beating heart to sperm is laughable. The reason why we can't kill our
babies, who according to your logic have less value and worth then adults
because they are just a "developing life and has" none of the attributes
you gave to the full grown adult, is because we have no right to take the
life of others irregardless of our personal judgements concerning their
"value". At one time a black person was also determined to have less value
as a human being than a white person. Of course we amended our
Constitution to protect those who others feel are less worthy......the
Supreme Court just forgot a few. The founding fathers WERE alive at a time
when woman got pregnant...intended or not. Why was abortion illegal then?
> Ah. Now the typical hackneyed and inaccurate rhetoric of the
> RRR adherents and the anti-choicers (often one and the same)
> begins. "Child murderers," yet. As though a developing life at
> any stage could be equated with an actual, already-born,
> breathing, fully-sensory-aware, communicative, thinking and
> sentient child.
Ok I admit..the "child murders" comment was an attempt to inflame and
exagerate. But that is just part of the true debate...WHEN DOES a human
become sentient? How is a child less sentient just before coming out of
his/her mother's vagina but all of the sudden becomes a valued protected
being after leaving. It surely isn't scientific....it's a matter of
opinion. That's the true nature of the debate...Life or Death...not
Choice..Anti-Choice.
> And of course it is not, any more than killing a sperm or an
> egg is murder. There's nothing special about something that
> results from a mechanical act that anyone can do in a lab, in a
> petri dish. There is no way that a developing life could outrank
> a woman's right to have her full range of life options.
Once again...OPINION. No facts. The FACTS are that a fetus can live
without a mother LONG before it leaves the birth canal. It has a seperate
heart and brain and moves, feels pain, and thinks (studies have shown
pre-birth stimuli can have an effect on a babies mental state). So your
OPINION that a pre-birth baby is the equivalent of sperm merits little
serious consideration. A 2 month year old baby is also a "developing life"
and it receives the very same protection that a full growm adult does. Who
decides were to draw the line? You can use personal opinion (like you
have) or scientific reasoning which tells us that a pre-birth baby is
viable without it's mother, thus giving a woman NO right to infringe on
it's rights to live.
> > Many of the religious people of America believe
> >that there are no "rights" to murder.
>
> Agreed on the "murder" part. Fortunately, most religious
> Americans don't regard abortion to BE murder, either.
They don't? I thought that 80% of the US supports a ban on PBA's. So,
most religious and non-religious Americans agree that a mother has no
unconditional right to abort her baby. Also, you would need to define what
your defintion of "religious Americans" are. You have already proven your
ability to stereotype.
> Whoops!! "Illegal" abortion??? Not in THIS country. Not
> now, and NEVER, EVER again!! That's wishful thinking on your
> part!
I was refering to when abortion WAS illegal...for most of the past 200 years.
> >that is her "choice" and she should have to live with whatever side effects
> >such a savage act would produce.
>
> The side effects are so minimal as to be almost nonexistent.
have you had one? There are also emotion and mental side effects to deal
with. Ask someone who has had one about this.
> Abortion is a "time machine" that actually allows people to undo
> an act that lasted only minutes, usually is not illegal, and for
> which no one should have to be forced to pay unreasonable
You can never "undo" a pregnancy. Once again you give laughable,
unscientific reasoning to justify your opinion. You can get rid of
it....but that is hardly the same thing as erasing it as if it never
happened.
> consequences. The side effects that would result, on the other
> hand, from being FORCED to carry to term would frequently be
> lifelong and negative. Forcing a woman to do that would be a
> savage act which the RRR advocates, which is why most Americans
> rightfully perceive anti-choicers and RRR-types to be
> mean-spirited and cruel. It is a well-earned image that they
> richly deserve.
What would the side effects of having a baby and giving it up for adoption?
>
> > That's kind of like saying that we should take guns away from
> > cops because too many criminals are dying because they
> >have guns.
>
> A senseless analogy, in light of the above.
Huh?
>
> >> -- The part where they'd just love to censor the
> >> living daylights out of:
<SNIP>
> >You ever hear of the V-CHIP? That's one of Mr. Clinton's pet projects.
>
> Actually, the "V-chip" is an EXCELLENT way for society to
> PROTECT its freedoms of expression. With that, the TV producers
> can have open season in a full range of subjects. The
> goody-two-shoes types can simply program their V-chips to filter
> out what they don't want to see, while the rest of us can enjoy
> better and more versatile programming than ever. I'm all for it!
> The V-chip is a virtual guarantee of the END of censorship!
Hardly. There will always be "censorship" as long a broadcasters choose to
use public airwaves.
>
> >Actually I see nothing wrong with pressuring businesses to stop selling and
> >distributing materials that are harmful to our nation.
>
> Nothing is more harmful to our nation than eroding our
> freedom of speech, press, and expression. If we ever lost those,
> we can see the ultimate outcome by remembering what happened to
> the Chinese freedom-fighters in Tianenmen Square. Just because a
> few wackoes misuse porography, for example, is no reason to wreck
> our freedoms. Driving 65 and up, as allowed by law by the
> states, permits many more deaths than would a national speed
> limit of 15 mph. We know that the latter is ludicrous, and would
> wreck the country. So would censorship.
Misuse pornography?
>
> > I'm not sure I remember any of the so call "RRR" petioning
> > Congress for an amendment that called for censorship.
>
> The RRR was deleriously happy when the CDA provision (soon
> after struck down by a sensible court) was passed last year.
> That would have impacted even the Internet! We don't HAVE Big
> Brother, and we don't ever WANT to have Big Brother!
And supported by Bill Clinton...is he also a member of the RRR?
>
> > Censorship isn't being hurt financially because no
> >one wants to buy your offensive materials.
>
> So-called "boycotts" have been tried by the ilk of Donald
> Wildmon and his absurd American Family Association for years.
> They affect no one. His organization of a few thousand
> extremists is no match for the nearly 270 million who want
> nothing to do with him or his crusades. In October, he
> proclaimed that his 2-year boycott against Disney had impacted
> them severely, as evidenced by the lack of success of the film,
> "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" when compared to "The Lion King," a
> pre-boycott film. Then along came "101 Dalmations," which set
> the all-time record for Thanksgiving weekend box-office
> success... and Wildmon and his AFA cronies wind up with egg ALL
> OVER their faces! Justice was served!! And companies
> everywhere can now recognize that failure on the AFA's part to be
> proof that the RRR can be safely rebuked.
The publicity for his boycott was at it's height during the release of the
HBOND. Usually publicity does have some effect on the results of a
boycott. By the way, isn't Disney now working on their newest animated
adventure....a story with a Judeo-Christian historical theme? And didn't
they meet with Ralph Reed of the CC (I'm sure your sworn enemies) to
discuss the project? ( or maybe that was DSKG?)
> > Censorship is when the government TELLS YOU you may not
> > express yourself in a way you want in a private way. No one
> > has the right to scream fire in a crowded building without
> > getting "censored".
>
> Of course not. The limits of free speech are defined by
> whether or not a person or persons are being directly and overtly
> harmed by the speech. As would be the case in the example you
> gave, and in the cases of provable libel and slander. But not
> literature, artwork, etc. Those should NEVER be censored just
> because some one or some entity doesn't happen to like it. Not
> in THIS country!
NOBODY is trying to stop ANY of this from happening. What could stop you
from creating a work of art that the entire country doesn't like and finds
repulsive......nothing. Now, if the entire country decided that they would
not buy your work of art, and you were unable to continue making this art
because you could not make a living at it, you could either do it on your
own time and get a job, or stop making the art. Nobody has "censored" you
in this senario. People would have just decided not to sponsor your right
to expression and no harm has come to your right to this expression. You
still have the same right....just you would not be able to profit off of
your rights due to free market capitalism. This is exactly what is
happening when you are claiming "censorship".
>
> >The GLL (Godless LIberal Left)
>
> There you go again with the rhetoric and stereotypes. I can
> PROVE to you that "RRR" is repressive and callous. But it is
No, but you can prove that it is your opinion that some faceless group
called the RRR is repressive and callous. I can also prove that it is my
opinion that there is a faceless group of individuals who lean leftward
and show bigotry toward religion. My use of the term GLL was merely an
tool to point out your own rhetoric and stereotypes.
> insulting for you to call those of us who are moderate to
> liberal, politically, "Godless." Many of us, myself included,
> are Christians, Moslems, and other people of faith in God. We
> regard the total trashing (in the case of Christians) of Jesus'
> prime directive to love our neighbors and be compassionate -- by
> the RRR's trying to IMPOSE their will upon them -- to be the
> Godless acts.
More opinion. A racist can also use the same sort of logic to justify
their hatred of blacks. Hate is hate. You are hardly promoting the
principles of Christ by attacking your neighbor and being intolerant of
their views.
> > ...uses the same tactics to get what they want.
> >Ever hear of the liberal pro animal nuts, PETA. They want to destroy our
> >rights to protect ourselfs from the cold chill of wind by wearing fur.
>
> The majority of Americans are pro-choice regarding abortion.
> And the vast majority also regard PETA to be a group of
> extremists who are nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.
hehe. Nice to see you have a sense of humor.
So then because most of America is anti-PBA, then you are also against
those, contrary to the cries of feminists and liberals?
> >> -- The part where a significant number of them would
> >> love to eliminate Halloween... a harmless holiday
> >> for children?
>
> >PLEASE post information on the "significan number" that is petioning the
> >government to abolish Halloween.....this is the first I've heard of this.
>
> They know better than to do anything THAT stupid! So
> instead, they wage their battles against Halloween, annually,
> throughout the month of October, over the airwaves of Christian
> radio. (And in tracts.) Fortunately, such broadcasts and tracts
> are valued only by the choir to which they are preaching, while
> practically everyone else gets a real chuckle out of it. But the
> point is... they actually are SERIOUS about thinking that there's
> something sinister about Halloween! I mentioned this just to
> show you how unreasonable and silly those people can be!
Aren't the very things that Halloween typically celebrates (ghosts,
witches, devils, spooks, monsters, ghouls,) a little sinister? Sure, it's
actually harmless, but you are now judging other's religious beliefs. Do
you also make fun of Hindus for worshiping cows?
>
> >> -- The part where they seek to reduce the employment
> >> opportunities of people on the basis of their
> >> sexual preferences?
>
> >I have no idea what legislation that has been called for would put forth a
> >call to reduce the employment of people who are attracted to the same sex.
>
> Congress could have passed a bill a few months ago that would
> have guaranteed that no one would have been subject to
> discrimination on the basis of gender preference, in job seeking
> and in the workplace. To its shame, Congress defeated it.
How can one discriminate against something that can't be seen, heard or
tested for? Why would you need a bill to stop something that is not
possible?
> >How could this be applied anyways....is there a test for to determine if
> >someone has been involved in homosexual intercourse?
>
> No. But many millions of homosexuals live in the closet
> and pursue their romantic relationships clandestinely, because
> they fear, even in the '90s, the censure and discrimination that
> could, and often would, result in many cases if they persued
> their relationships as openly as is normal and accepted for we
> who are heterosexual to do. And that's wrong. As long as such
> bigotry continues to survive, they are deserving of protection
> against it.
Oh...so you are suggesting that they would not be discriminating based upon
what a person is....but what a person does. SO....Congress defeated a bill
that would allow employeers to continue discriminating against someone
based upon their ACTIONS? What's wrong with making people responsible for
their actions?
> >> -- The part where they seek to teach nonsensical tripe
> >> called "creationism" in our schools, so that they
> >> can start dumbing-down our kids with respect to
> >> science?
>
> >When science can show that it can explain all things, then we can get rid
> >of "creationism" in schools. Teaching children more than one THEORY of how
> >the world was created does little to "dumb-down" our children. Teaching
> >them that our world was created soley by evolution is iresponsible because
> >of the fact that it is an unprovable THEORY.
>
> Evolution is about 1,000,000% MORE provable, as theories go,
> than "creationism." If we were to teach our children to invest
More provable? Either it is proven or not.
> credibility in every crackpot theory that comes along which has
> as little going for it as does creationism, there wouldn't be
> enough time in the curriculum to teach the worthwhile and
> well-founded areas of science. As for evolution -- even the
> Pope, as conservative as he is, recently alluded openly to its
> likelihood as fact.
Most people believe that evolution and creation should BOTH be taught. It
is only the loony left and their invented "seperation" that has tried to
stop this.
>
> > It is just as likely that someone made humans out of wood and they
> > came to life one day. We are dealing in THEORIES not facts.
> > Until "The BIg Bang" or any other theory is proven, creation remains
> > a viable source for the beginning of the world.
>
> I don't know about your God, but I believe that mine has
> unlimited power... and thus is fully capable of having created
> the universe, and allowed it to develop, with His guidance
> provided as necessary, from the moment of its inception, whether
> via a "Big Bang" or something else. He is also omnipotent enough
> to have created and guided an evolutionary process.
I agree. But really....aren't most people who support creationism just
wanting it taught in addition to other theories?
>
> >The existence of a "supreme power" really has nothing to do with
> >"religion". For all we know this "supreme power" ascribes us to no
> >religion, but created the world. So, once again...not a limit of rights,
> >just the ability to have educations devoid of religious bigotry.
>
> I see no bigotry in merely ensuring that a given theory must
> be at least somewhat provable, in terms of evidence, before we
> start muddying up the waters of sound science by teaching it.
I believe tthe views of the majority of the world, thousands of years of
faith, and a significant historical record of the worlds religions should
count for something when discussion of the creation of the world comes up.
It is a little intellectually perverted to discount something that has
such a strong tradition in human civilization, when the alternative is also
unproven. Both should be taught as theories. In fact, as the Pope has
suggested, we could be a product of a mix of both, and it still not go
against traditional scripture.
>
> >> -- The part where they seek to prohibit same-sex
> >> marriages, even though such a move is only spiteful,
> >> mean-spirited, and is direct evidence of their bigotry
> >> and homophobia, and serves no useful purpose?
>
> >I guess the part where they seek to prohibit polygamy too? You know that's
> >just spiteful. Their religion won't allow them 10 wives, so why should
> >anyone else get them. BWahahahaha! I believe that the religious people
> >don't want the definition of marriage distorted. Should we also allow
> >Father's and Daughters to marry?
>
> [long sigh...] First, polygamy would disrupt society by
> creating a barrel of worms in terms of deciding who gets what
> benefits, inheritances, etc. It would open the door to
> favoritism within family units for one spouse over another.
> Divorces in a polygamous society would be nightmarish, and the
> courts would surely either drown in an unfathomable sea of
> litigation, or alse Congress would be forced to reduce our
> freedoms by imposinghnew regulations. BUT -- NONE of that occurs
> if we continue with our system of married COUPLES. Same-sex or
> opposite-sex would make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
Once again...UNPROVABLE OPINION. If we give homosexuals the same rights as
married heterosexuals because marriage is a "right" then irregardless of
it's inconvenience to the courts or society, we would have no right to
discriminate against polygamists. Either the US has a right to
discriminate against who it gives marriage rights or it doesn't. I'm sure
that DOMA supporters could also give you plenty of opinion as to why
society would crash down if homosexuals were givin marriage rights.
>
> So-called "religious people" aren't being narrow-minded about
> same-sex marriages. But at this juncture, a significant portion
> of the population still hasn't realized that this would be
> perfectly harmless. Including ALL of the RRR.
Oh...most of America disagrees with your opinon...but it's because of
ignorance? How egotisical!
>
> Secondly, incest is out because inbreeding is known to cause
> birth defects, mental and otherwise. There is no such problem
> with same-sex couples. Those who would have children would
> either adopt them, or become pregnant by another party or
> artificial means.
> >
> >> (BTW, I'm straight, not gay... but also NOT bigoted.)
Actually, it only causes problems if there is a genetic tendency for such
defects. A couple could trace their family medical histories and if no
signifigant predispositions to any defects are present, there is little
chance that offspring would be effected. There would be no such problems
for Homosexuals because the very reason most get marriage rights (to
provide for a stable creation of offspring) is impossible without
artificial forces.
>
> >You seem to be very bigoted against religion.
>
> Hardly. I'm a fundamentalist Christian. But I don't stretch
> my fundamentalism to absurd lengths as some do with respect to
> taking all of the Bible literally. There are many allegories and
> analogies in the Bible, just as we see in the more obvious case
> of Jesus' parables. Not all such cases are that obvious, but
> they are there. Something that is NOT there, however, is ANY
> directive that Christians should attempt to force change upon any
> of the world's peoples or systems. A fact that the leaders of
> the RRR conveniently ignore.
Jesus often spoke of witnessing to people and telling them of God's word
and his expectations of those who wish to follow him. I suggest all of
this "forcing change" is merely those people of faith witnessing to those
who choose not to follow God's comandments, what is expected of them
according to God's word.
>
> > You have little sympathy or tolerance for those who do not share
> > your spiritual views.
>
> No. I have little sympathy or tolerance for people who
> promote and condone bigotry, and attempt to repress the
> legitimate freedoms and rights of people in a free country.
> The fact that most of them seem to have jumped onto the bandwagon
> of the RRR's transdenominational cult is an indictment of their
> gullibility and their willingness to accept unbiblical
> "impose-change-upon-the-word" dogmas -- not of their basic
Once again, I still have seen no actual proof that any of this is being
done as you say it is. Nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and forcing
anything. It is EVERY person in America's right to fight for those
principles in which they believe will make the country great. I guess that
doesn't apply according to you to those who emphasize religious principles.
When this "RRR" actually tries and use "force" to achieve their goals...let
me know.
> spirituality.
>
> > You know, many people are not just like you. They have
> > a right to have their beliefs and not have people like you
> > denigrate them with hateful, mean-spirited bigotry.
>
> Hmmm. Okay. By that defination, I would be guilty of
> hateful, mean-spirited bigotry if I denigrated the Ku klux Klan,
> which in terms of its bigotry is a first cousin to the RRR,
Hahahaha, once again bigoted stereotypes. First you would have to prove
that there was a single group of people that share a common goal of FORCING
others to do things against their will, who also hate blacks, jews and
other non-white races. Good Luck!
> right? And of course people have a perfect right to their
> BELIEFS. But their beliefs END where the rights of other people
> BEGIN. RRR adherents are some of the world's worst busybodies,
> and there's hardly a more obnoxious movement within all of
> America's history.
Once again more empty rhetoric and opinion. What is a "busybody" and if
it's definition is a person who wants to effect public change (that you
don't agree with) to the nation through the use of persuasion, then surely
the worst busybodies in the world would include those who tried to block
proposition 209 in California.
> >> All in all, isn't the RRR (religious radical right) a
> >> DELIGHTFUL faction? A real fun-loving group. Sorta like their
> >> first cousins, the KKK and the neo-Nazis.
>
> > Huh? More hateful bigotry on your part I see. Practice what you
> >preach.
>
> I think I do that quite well. If the RRR lays off of its
> attacks on people's rights, and adopts a proper live-and-let-live
> attitude, as practiced already by 97% of America's Christians, as
> well as by most of it's non-Christians, THEN is when I will cease
Well, once you realize that the nature of your faults with this phantom
"RRR" is that your defintion of "rights" and theirs are completely
different. While you may feel and interpret the constitution that it is
your right to run naked through the street, others may not and it is THEIR
RIGHT to try and persuade the nation that you are wrong in your
interpretation. That is the American Way. Is democracy what you fear?
> my rightful attacks upon the RRR. In fact, if the RRR were to
> scrap its impositional agenda in favor of turning its attention
> entirely to such biblical directives as evangelism and charity,
Some would say that their causes ARE evangelistic.
> then (1) it would cease being a cult, (2) it would no longer be
> deserving of the "RRR" description, and (3) I would be one of the
> first to praise its work.
Cult...heheh. You completely wreck your credibility by using such extreme
vocabulary in describing your oposition. When you can provide proof that
some phantom group of people you call the "RRR" are actually FORCING others
to do their will, instead of actually just using their own first amendmant
rights to persuade others to support their causes, post the information.
This is the VERY same thing Christ did during his sermons. He went before
the public and told them of God's words and promises in order to persuade
then to follow him and his principles. The only way to truly affect change
in this country is use persuasion. Force does little in that we are part
of a democracy. Not the "RRR", PETA, the ACLU, or the AFL-CIO can truly
accomplish ANYTHING by using force. It seems that you either believe we
should have another way to affect change other than persuasion, or people
with the free right of speech should not be allowed to use their right to
persuade when it comes to religion or values. Persuasion and force are two
different things. I suggest you consult a dictionary.