Perverts Lose "Ellen" Now
Brian Carey
The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
far this year.
In January, a lesbian lawyer who was denied a job on the Georgia
attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to another
woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
In February, voters in Maine repealed the state's attempt to add sexual
orientation as a protected classification in its 25-year old human
rights contract.
In March, the California State Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts
are not a business covered by California's anti-discrimination laws and
can exclude
homosexuals and boys who don't believe in God.
Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen." This in
spite of the fact that national organizations such as the Human Rights
Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
continued to lobby on its behalf.
"'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
accurate charge.
"Despite the controversy surrounding 'Ellen,' Disney and ABC officials
have consistently stressed that the comedy series' future hinged on its
ratings, not political considerations." Alas, the ratings have fallen
probably because more Americans adhere to traditional values than ABC
executives are willing to admit.
"[The executive director of GLAAD] added that she felt 'Ellen' would
ease the way for future depictions of gay and lesbian characters on
television. A handful of new shows featuring prominent roles for gay
characters are being considered for next season." And will probably be
rejected in short order.
There have been a couple of episodes of 'Ellen' that ABC apparently
refused to air because of "their heavy gay content," which included a
kiss between DeGeneres' and her lesbian girlfriend. Some advertisers
actually pulled out of the show because of such corrupt material. And
who says that corporations don't practice social responsibility? :')
Ellen DeGeneres has herself complained that ABC wanted to get her "back
in the closet." She claims she fought with the writers over every
single episode.
"Network officials have voiced enthusiasm regarding the show's quality
but also conceded that declining ratings may have been in part because
of some viewers' discomfort over the show's subject matter." Do tell!
Quotations taken from the 4/24 issue of the LA Times.
--
Brian Carey --> car...@mindspring.com
Religious Freedom Home Page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rframe.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Usenet Wisdom |
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Or the President can use his constitutional powers to defeat
the opposition as Bill Clinton has been doing. That is why you
hate him so. It makes you bleed from the anus."
- Jim Kennemur, combining his favorite fetish with political opinion
"They approved of Amendment I, too, huh? Amendment I,
the one regarding representation, huh?"
- Jim Alison, acting stupid
John Hosie
I wonder if Disney is considering throwing in the towel?
On another note, parallel to and just as discordant as the first,
I understand that Patricia Ireland is being pressed by her
constituency to have NOW produce a "Friend of the Court" brief in
the Paula Jones appeal. Do you realize that NOW may be braiding
the rope that will hang Bill Clinton?
<snip>
With deep humility, and overwhelming thankfulness
for all the gifts that we have been given
In Jesus Christ,
John W. Hosie III
<*)))><
http://www.maranatha.net/hosie (My family pages)(under
Construction)
http://www.pkdc.org (National Capital Area Men of
Integrity)
http://www.maranatha.net (My ISP - Contains Good Christian
Links)
http://paul.spu.edu/~dsumner/veggie/index.html (Veggie Tales!
Yeah!)
Robert Schroeder
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> far this year.
And the heterosexual xtian bigots aren't fairing too well either.....
>
> In January, a lesbian lawyer who was denied a job on the Georgia
> attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to another
> woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
This woman was denied this job by the infamous Mr Bowers, a bastion of
xtian values......who just so happened to be having an extramartital
affair (lasting some ten years). And adultery is illegal in Georgia!
>
> In February, voters in Maine repealed the state's attempt to add sexual
> orientation as a protected classification in its 25-year old human
> rights contract.
But communities across the nation continue to extend equal rights to
gays and lesbians. Many of those communities are located in Maine.
>
> In March, the California State Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts
> are not a business covered by California's anti-discrimination laws and
> can exclude
> homosexuals and boys who don't believe in God.
Operation Rescue was fined under RICO for illegal activities at women's
health clinics.
>
> Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen." This in
> spite of the fact that national organizations such as the Human Rights
> Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
> continued to lobby on its behalf.
-gasp!- and Pat Robertson sells the "Family Channel" to Fox TV. The IRS
has hit Robertson and his organization for illegal political activities
and are now investigating Robertson for possible violations. You see,
the Family Channel was orginally "CBN" a viewer supported network.
Several years ago, it went commercial and became the Family Channel.
With the sale of the FC to Fox, Robertson has pocketed several million
dollars....money that really doesn't belong to him.
>
> "'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
> broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
> entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
> is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
> accurate charge.
Ellen's coming out also reminded us that the Southern Baptists, the
American Family Association, The Family Reseach Council and various
other xtian groups are nothing but tax shelters for bigots, such as
yourself.
>
> "[The executive director of GLAAD] added that she felt 'Ellen' would
> ease the way for future depictions of gay and lesbian characters on
> television. A handful of new shows featuring prominent roles for gay
> characters are being considered for next season." And will probably be
> rejected in short order.
oh really....what about "Friends" "Veronica's Closet", "Spin City" and
the other shows that have lesbian/gay characters.
>
> There have been a couple of episodes of 'Ellen' that ABC apparently
> refused to air because of "their heavy gay content," which included a
> kiss between DeGeneres' and her lesbian girlfriend. Some advertisers
> actually pulled out of the show because of such corrupt material. And
> who says that corporations don't practice social responsibility? :')
Carey, you idiot...this particular episode aired a couple of months ago.
ABC decided to not air all the remaining episodes, except for the one
hour finale, in order to keep "Two Guys, A Girl and a Pizza Place" in
its time slot.
>
> --
> Brian Carey --> car...@mindspring.com
yeah, we know, Carey's mindspring sprung a looooong time ago.
Nice going, you ol' troll bigot.
Fud Caruthers
I think it's much more likely that sister Pat will find some way to
recognize Bill for his service in behalf of women's issues as she did for
Teddy Kennedy a few years ago; just after he had the incident where he
misplaced his pants down there in Palm Beach.
The hypocrisy of the NOW crowd knows no bounds.
--
Fud
Visit: www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/4662/
John Hosie wrote in message <354101FC...@maranatha.net>...
pa...@nospam.hsh.com
In alt.fan.dan-quayle Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side> sez:
: Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen."
[deleted]
: "Despite the controversy surrounding 'Ellen,' Disney and ABC officials
: have consistently stressed that the comedy series' future hinged on its
: ratings, not political considerations." Alas, the ratings have fallen
: probably because more Americans adhere to traditional values than ABC
: executives are willing to admit.
Nonsense. The fact of the matter is that "Ellen" was on the
ratings ropes long before her coming out; if not for that, the
show would have been long gone. Like so many other sitcom
devices, the coming out was a one-trick pony. Bottom line:
DeGeneres' show wasn't funny before, and it isn't funny now.
In stark comparison was a show called "Brothers," which ran for
four (or was it it five?) seasons on Showtime in the 1980s. It
was well-written and very well-acted; unlike "Ellen," it had
solid plots and meaningful character depth and development, and
-- gasp -- featured _two_ homosexual men (Philip Charles McKenzie
was one; I don't recall the other).
Did I mention that it ran for four or five seasons? That was
because more Americans respect _good_ TV sitcoms -- and watch
them with open minds -- than you're willing to admit.
Alas, the networks were not as enlightened; "Brothers" didn't
make it in syndication because the plots were hacked into
meaninglessness by TV execs who feared the wrath of the
self-righteous.
: There have been a couple of episodes of 'Ellen' that ABC apparently
: refused to air because of "their heavy gay content," which included a
: kiss between DeGeneres' and her lesbian girlfriend. Some advertisers
: actually pulled out of the show because of such corrupt material. And
: who says that corporations don't practice social responsibility? :')
And yet, no advertisers pulled out when two women kissed on "Star
Trek: Deep Space Nine." And the world didn't end, either. ;}
: Ellen DeGeneres has herself complained that ABC wanted to get her "back
: in the closet." She claims she fought with the writers over every
: single episode.
Well, when a show has one and only one plot device, it wears thin.
Even the best joke loses something the fifth time you hear it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann,
who regrets the need to remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
"President Clinton... said he actually wished he was a
rich black athlete. That way, he could get away with
choking Ken Starr and stabbing his wife."
-- Bill Maher, _Politically Incorrect_
pa...@nospam.hsh.com
In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
> ... xtian ...
If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done. The "X"
would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the "t"
remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
but I'm surely puzzled.
Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
the dead horse of logic just by asking?
Jason Christian
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
> In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
>
> > ... xtian ...
>
>
> If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
> abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done. The "X"
> would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the "t"
> remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
>
> I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
> this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
> but I'm surely puzzled.
Ahem.
My Latin teacher, who was fond of handing out nicknames, dubbed me
"Xtian" in the 7th grade. In addition to being a scholar, a veteran,
a wrestler, and a hero (he swam a hundred yards into the cold surf of
Ocean Beach, San Francisco, to save a drowning woman, then said nothing
about it until the Chomicle tracked him down), this gentleman was an
enthusiastic fan of Orwell and a dead shot with a blackboard eraser.
Indeed, he was so good with that weapon that, tho he has left the
mortal coil, I fear Retribution from the Skies should I fail, thirty
years later, to defend the correctness of his classicism. Mr. Moore
named me Xtian, Xtian it is, Xtian it shall be. Think of the "t" as a
grace note, yet another glyphic recognition of the source of my name.
And yes, I still turn my head when a voice shouts out, "Hey X!"
> Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
> simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
> the dead horse of logic just by asking?
Yer horse is so dead it steenks. I don't need no steenking logic.
Xian, finally, is a district in China.
Thank you for asking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian
AKA X
Robert Schroeder
pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
>
> > ... xtian ...
>
> If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
> abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done. The "X"
> would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the "t"
> remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
>
> I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
> this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
> but I'm surely puzzled.
>
> simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
> the dead horse of logic just by asking?
>
I prefer to use "xtian" when refering to Brian Carey, RevWhite, Fred
Phelps and other self-rightous bigots who claim to be
"christian"...except in these cases, I cannot in good conscience call
them chirstian because there is nothing christ-like about them.
Robert
Jason Christian
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Robert Schroeder wrote:
> > Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
> > simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
> > the dead horse of logic just by asking?
> >
> Whatever....
>
> I prefer to use "xtian" when refering to Brian Carey, RevWhite, Fred
> Phelps and other self-rightous bigots who claim to be
> "christian"...except in these cases, I cannot in good conscience call
> them chirstian because there is nothing christ-like about them.
Without getting into whether "Christian" meands "Christ-like" or
something else (I suspect that many people think it is "something else"
entirely), why not say "self-identified Christians", abbreviated "siC"
and leave it at that. Alternatively, one could use the related
construction "Christians [sic]" which has a nice recursive structure.
No, you siCs, that has nothing to do with cursing.
xxx-X
John De Salvio
In article <3540D5...@the.bright.side>, Brian Carey
<lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
> The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> far this year.
>
> "'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
> broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
> entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
> is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
> accurate charge.
As we used to say back in the monastery,
FUCK YOU, you liar and bigot!
If it were not for the homosexuals in the Renaissance, you would still
be building stave churches and painting by numbers.
Some of the most creative geniuses who ever lived were homosexual.
You, sir, are a pig. And a pretty disgusting one, at that.
Let me know when you plan on painting over the disgusting homosexual
art on the Sistine ceiling.
[All other asinine comments clipped.]
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Papel
Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
>The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
>far this year.
>
This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept that
lifestyle in a moral society.
Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice. Well,
the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and lifestyle and
saying "NO!" to their face. The majority are beginning to see through their
lies and propaganda and simply saying "Go BACK into the closet pervert."
Mycroft
If you change "gay-rights crowd" to "jews" you'd have an accurate depiction
of Nazi-dominated Germany in the 1930's. Majority uberalles!
M
--
"All fanaticism is a strategy to prevent doubt from becoming conscious."
-H. A. Williams (Anglican Priest)
Papel wrote in message <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
John De Salvio
In article <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, "Papel"
<pia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
> >The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> >far this year.
> >
>
>
> This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept that
> lifestyle in a moral society.
> Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice. Well,
> the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and lifestyle and
> saying "NO!" to their face.
The homosexuals of the country are tired of the lies and bigotry of the
so-called
"moral" majority and will continue to hurl the truth back at you.
> The majority are beginning to see through their
> lies and propaganda and simply saying
More likely, they are sucking up to YOUR lies and propaganda.
You seem to think we are ignorant of the devious lying and plotting
against us. Forget it, Poopsie.
We have the evidence. We have the tapes. We have the eye witnesses.
"Go BACK into the closet pervert."
God luck, sweetcakes, You'll need it.
More and more people every day are seeing through your baloney, and are
choosing to stand up for us. Straight people. Good people. Honest people.
People you wouldn't like.
Meanwhile, keep you religious ignorant bigotry OFF alt.politics.homosexuality.
Go talk to yourselves.
Michael Zarlenga
It's about time.
It went from spontaneously and hilarously funny at times (when it was
called These Friends of Mine, or some similar title) to preachy and
maternalistic.
When I want preachy, I'll go to Church. Good riddance to the TV
show, now, maybe Ms. Degeneris (a truly funny comic, IMO) can move
on to something funny, again.
_
pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
: [deleted]
: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
: Paul Havemann,
: who regrets the need to remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
: "President Clinton... said he actually wished he was a
: rich black athlete. That way, he could get away with
: choking Ken Starr and stabbing his wife."
: -- Bill Maher, _Politically Incorrect_
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Bill Clinton's legacy: one of America's Fondling Fathers.
John Oliveira Jr
will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on
this nation.
Brian Carey wrote:
> The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> far this year.
>
> In January, a lesbian lawyer who was denied a job on the Georgia
> attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to another
> woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
>
> In February, voters in Maine repealed the state's attempt to add sexual
> orientation as a protected classification in its 25-year old human
> rights contract.
>
> In March, the California State Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts
> are not a business covered by California's anti-discrimination laws and
> can exclude
> homosexuals and boys who don't believe in God.
>
> Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen." This in
> spite of the fact that national organizations such as the Human Rights
> Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
> continued to lobby on its behalf.
>
> "'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
> broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
> entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
> is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
> accurate charge.
>
> "Despite the controversy surrounding 'Ellen,' Disney and ABC officials
> have consistently stressed that the comedy series' future hinged on its
> ratings, not political considerations." Alas, the ratings have fallen
> probably because more Americans adhere to traditional values than ABC
> executives are willing to admit.
>
> "[The executive director of GLAAD] added that she felt 'Ellen' would
> ease the way for future depictions of gay and lesbian characters on
> television. A handful of new shows featuring prominent roles for gay
> characters are being considered for next season." And will probably be
> rejected in short order.
>
> There have been a couple of episodes of 'Ellen' that ABC apparently
> refused to air because of "their heavy gay content," which included a
> kiss between DeGeneres' and her lesbian girlfriend. Some advertisers
> actually pulled out of the show because of such corrupt material. And
> who says that corporations don't practice social responsibility? :')
>
> Ellen DeGeneres has herself complained that ABC wanted to get her "back
> in the closet." She claims she fought with the writers over every
> single episode.
>
> "Network officials have voiced enthusiasm regarding the show's quality
> but also conceded that declining ratings may have been in part because
> of some viewers' discomfort over the show's subject matter." Do tell!
>
> Quotations taken from the 4/24 issue of the LA Times.
>
> --
> Brian Carey --> car...@mindspring.com
>
L. Michael Roberts
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> far this year.
You live in the wrong country... the Civil-rights crowd in Canada is
winning one significant judgement after another [well not monthly...
more like quarterly with no setbacks]. Canada has become the leader in
Human/Civil Rights issues in North america!
<snip>
<<===================== L. Michael Roberts =====================>>
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my address
<<==================================================================>>
friar...@like.noplace.on.earth
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:28:45 GMT, pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
>Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
>simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
>the dead horse of logic just by asking?
Yes... You are correct.
The abbreviation is quite commonly used among divinity students. We
find nothing ridiculous, insulting, or derogatory in it. It is just a
convenient shorthand for xians to use... or others... as the need
presents.
friar trek
(cross-posting deliberately delimited)
(why the other had to go to various political ngs I'll never know!)
Chua Yao Zhang
Why so afraid to use Jesus's name?
How do you like if your whole name is sumarised into one letter?
How do you feel?
I don't approve of this shortform!
friar...@like.noplace.on.earth wrote in message
<35458649...@news.trib.com>...
Mitchell Holman
In article <1998042510...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
}On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:51:29 -0400 "Papel" <pia...@ix.netcom.com>
}wrote:
}
}>This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept that
}>lifestyle in a moral society.
}>Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice. Well,
}>the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and lifestyle and
}>lies and propaganda and simply saying "Go BACK into the closet pervert."
}
}======================================================
}
} The Ranting Religious Right often holds up the Bible as a model for
}
}"morality". The RRRs also are often active in censoring "unfit
}material"
}from school libraries. If some of the stuff below appeared in a
}contemporary novel, the RRR would appear before the school board
}in a swarm demanding it be removed from the shelf.
}
}
} Alcoholism: Recall Noah was selected above all others to round up
}the
}animals and herd them onto the Ark. But in Genesis 9 we find that he
}"planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he
}was
}uncovered within his tent". Fortunately his sons found him and threw a
}
}blanket over him to conceal his nakedness.
}
} Incest: Lot left Zoar and climbed up into the mountains with his
}two
}daughters and lived in a cave. In Genesis 19 the oldest daughter
}observed
}that there were no men around to satisfy their sexual needs so "they
}made
}their father drink wine that night: and the first-born went in and lay
}
}with her father". The next night "they made their father drink wine
}that
}night also: and the younger arose and lay with him". "Thus were both
}the
}daughters of Lot with child by their father". The oldest had a child
}named Moab; the other a child named Ben-Ammi.
}
} More incest: In Genesis 29:12 Jacob told Rachel that he was her
}father's brother -- i.e. Rachel was his niece. At any rate, Jacob
}worked
}7 years to marry Rachel -- but was then told he had to marry Leah, the
}oldest daughter first -- so he married Leah, worked 7 more years and
}married Rachel. After many years, Rachel had a daughter Dinah. Then
}things get really interesting for Jacob had sex, and children, with
}wife
}Leah, wife Rachal, Leah's maid Zilpah and Rachel's maid Bilhah. What a
}
}man!!!! Oh yes, how do you like polygamy???
}
} Rape and murder: Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, "went out to see
}the
}daughters of the land". Sachem (Genesis 34), prince of the country,
}saw
}her and lay with her and defiled her". Sachem wanted to marry Dinah,
}and
}her brothers agreed the crime would be forgotten if Sachem's people
}would
}be circumcized. But "on the third day when they were sore" -- from the
}
}impromptu surgery? -- Jacob's sons reneged on the bargain and slew
}Sachem
}and all the males of the city. So now we have rape AND murder in this
}affair.
}
} Whore: Judah (Genesis 38) was walking down the street one day, saw
}a
}women he presumed to be a whore, so when she demanded "thy signet, thy
}bracelets and thy staff", he gave them to her and had sex. Jacob was
}supposed to bring her a kid and get his property back, but when she was
}
}not found, tried to cover-up, "Let her keep the things as her own, lest
}we
}be laughted at". Turned out the women was his daughter-in-law, Tamar.
}
}Tamar had twins, children of Judah.
}
}
} Child Abuse: Jepthah (Judges 11) was so enraged in his battle with
}
}the "children of Ammon" that he agreed if the Lord would deliver them
}to
}him, "whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me when I
}
}return from the children of Ammon ... I will offer up for a burnt
}offering". He won the battle, and when he returned home the first
}person
}to greet him was his daughter, his only child. She was allowed to go
}to
}the mountains for two months but when she returned to her father he
}"did
}with her according to his vow". Henceforth the daughers of Israel went
}
}yearly to lament the dauther of Jepthah.
}
} Adultery and Murder: David, walking on the roof of the king's
}house
}in the evening (2 Samuel 11), saw a woman washing herself. Bathsheba,
}the
}wife of Uriah, was very beautiful so David "lay with her" and she
}conceived. Eager to conceal his affair, he ordered Uriah home so it
}would
}be believed the child was Uriah's, but Uriah -- apparently suspecting a
}
}cover-up -- refused to go into his house. So David wrote a letter to
}Joab in which he ordered Joab to put Uriah
}in the front lines of the battle "that he may be struck down and die".
}
}Uriah was killed of course and David "fetched her to his house and she
}became his wife".
}
} Incest and Rape: Amnon, the son of David, was attracted to Tamar,
}the
}sister of his brother Absalom. Amar pretended illness and requested
}David
}to send Tamar to prepare food for him. "Let my sister Tamar come ...
}and
}prepare food ... that I may ... eat it from her hand". Amnon directed
}
}all his friends to leave and directed Tamar to come to his bedroom,
}asked
}Tamar to have sex, and when she refused, he "but being stronger than
}she,
}forced her, and lay with her". (2 Samuel 13).
}
}
} Is THIS what you are demanding be taught in the public
}schools to your children??? And I'll bet you are opposed to
}sex-education
}in the public schools.
}
} D. Ferrel Atkins
}
A *most excellent* post, and fair rebuttal to
the Bible thumpers. I hope you will not object
if I repost it when the whining about the need
for "Bible-based" education gets too loud around
here again.
Mitchell Holman
"I hope I live to see the day when we won't have any public schools. The churches
will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy
day that will be!"- Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979
John De Salvio
In article <35413287...@atlantic.net>, John Oliveira Jr
<jol...@atlantic.net> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------F30F5467AFCA5912BF02173E
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I for one am Glad to see such Garbage off the air. Unfortunately, someone
> will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on
> this nation.
Yet another Bible "expert" who doesn't know what he is talking about.
John De Salvio
In article <35526848...@news.southeast.net>, gu...@southeast.net
(Quida Vendio) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:28:45 GMT, pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
>
> >In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
> >
> >> ... xtian ...
> >
> >
> >If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
> >abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done. The "X"
> >would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the "t"
> >remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
> >
> >I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
> >this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
> >but I'm surely puzzled.
> >
> >Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
> >simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
> >the dead horse of logic just by asking?
>
> Paul,
>
> I think you are correct in your analysis. Among the regular posters to
> alt.politics.homosexuality who employ the vulgar "xtian" (Stewart,
> Silverman, Rev. Billy, Schroeder, etc.), there doesn't appear to be
> anyone who is educated beyond the secondary level.
WRONG, pal.
What 'doesn't appear" to you is your own vision problem.
geo
ahem, ahem,
ur latin teacher did what many did in antiquity - that is - borrow/steal
from the greek.
look up "X" or "XMAS" in an encyclopedia to find it's true origin.
Jason Christian wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
>
>> In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
>>
>> > ... xtian ...
>>
>>
>> If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
>> abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done. The "X"
>> would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the "t"
>> remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
>>
>> I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
>> this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
>> but I'm surely puzzled.
>
>Ahem.
>
>My Latin teacher, who was fond of handing out nicknames, dubbed me
>"Xtian" in the 7th grade. In addition to being a scholar, a veteran,
> a wrestler, and a hero (he swam a hundred yards into the cold surf of
> Ocean Beach, San Francisco, to save a drowning woman, then said nothing
> about it until the Chomicle tracked him down), this gentleman was an
> enthusiastic fan of Orwell and a dead shot with a blackboard eraser.
> Indeed, he was so good with that weapon that, tho he has left the
> mortal coil, I fear Retribution from the Skies should I fail, thirty
> years later, to defend the correctness of his classicism. Mr. Moore
> named me Xtian, Xtian it is, Xtian it shall be. Think of the "t" as a
> grace note, yet another glyphic recognition of the source of my name.
>
> And yes, I still turn my head when a voice shouts out, "Hey X!"
>
>
>
>> Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
>> simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
>> the dead horse of logic just by asking?
>
Scott D. Erb
In article <6hshkr$3j6$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>, Jee...@NocturnalE.com says...
>Evolve or die.
All of us will die.
None of us will evolve biologically.
JeeZus
>All of us will die.
>None of us will evolve biologically.
then how do you explain your evolving religion? Explain the Amphibian!
Explain why species die off. Explain all the fossils we have found, and
expecially those of dinosaurs which were not explained in the bible. Explain
Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, and Australopithecine! Explain the flying
squirrel, the bat (mammal) which the bible thought was a bird, explain the
fact that whales live exclusively in the ocean BUT are warm blooded? Why do
whales have vestigal leg bones and breathe air and have five digits in their
fins? Explain Why baby frogs (tadpoles) grow legs throughout their lives
instead of being born with them (mini evolution)? Explain your useless
Wisdom teeth and appendix? Explain your tailbone! Explain why our heads are
much more frail than our meatier ancestors, and why chimpanzee share 98.5
percent of our DNA and also share opposable thumbs and binocular vision?
I don't think you can explain anything ,really.
JeeZUs
JeeZus
>Thank You for such an eloquent post about why Gay Rights laws are
>required!
Do you have a degree in being a "reverend" or are you just naturally
bigoted?
JeeZus
JeeZus
John Oliveira Jr wrote in message <35413287...@atlantic.net>...
>I for one am Glad to see such Garbage off the air. Unfortunately, someone
>will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on
>this nation.
why are you afraid of gay people? I am afraid you will breed and teach your
kids this god crap, and they will breed and so forth. or worse, you will
breed and my tax dollars will pay for your family to go to a brand new
church to worship a god which justifies putting prayer in pUBLIC schools and
then ou'll probably blow up an abortion clinic on the way home after your
KKK rally.
Christians are to be feared...their collective ignorance has a bloody
history.
JeeZus
JeeZus
>No, the majority of the people of this country happen to be true
>Christians, who are perfectly aware of the fact that Christ would be
>horrified at the hate in the hearts of people who claim to follow his
>teachings.
Ah....
So christians cannot even agree on the "rules".
I KNOW most Christians aren't that hateful, as my parents are both
Christian.
Unfortunately, they are still wrong, and there can be NO TRUE CHRISTIANS
until a god proves himself. Then his specific wishes will be considered the
one true way.
But sadly, no god, so no true anybody and you can all just pack your bags
for hell. You're all wrong except maybe one of you, and he probably isn't
christian.
JeeZus
JeeZus
>This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept
that
>lifestyle in a moral society.
I SEE! just how the MAJORITY of the NATION believed in SLAVERY, RACIAL
SEPERATION, Burning of witches (usually atheists) at the stake, conversion
to Xtianity by FORCE, SUBJUGATION OF WOMEN (THEY COULDN'T VOTE, EVERYONE
SMOKED LIKE A CHIMNEY, DRINKING AND DRIVING WAS NOT YET ILLEGAL, ABORTION
WAS ILLEGAL, DRINKLING WAS EVEN ILLEGAL FOR A WHILE, DISCRIMINATION OF ALL
MINORITY GROUPS (LIKE CATHOLICS), AND RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION FOR ALL????
Well guess what Sherlock these things are being phased out by education and
SCIENCE. Just as SLAVERY IS NO LONGER accepted by you bible thumping morons,
RELIGION WILL BE EQUALLY EMBARRASING TO YOU in 15 years or less.
Trust me, it is ALREADY HAPPENING. It is getting to the point where people
will hesitate to blather their dogma, as this society whether you like it or
not iS EVOLVING. IF you want to be the BUTT END of evolution, then be my
guest. I'm at the spearhead.
I was the one back in 1952 that would have said "SLAVERY SUCKS" and deal
with all you white trash telling me I'm an idiot, like you are doing now
though you will soon agree with me....
And you will wonder who that JeeZus guy was, so you could thank him.
Abraham Lincoln, an ATHEIST, is considered the greatest president of all
time, because he SAVED the slaves from their plight, in a world and time
where PRACTICALLY NOBODY would help them or gave a flying fuck if they
rotted on a chain.
I striveto be the ABE LINCOLN of my time, whereas i think AHEAD, not WITH
the masses.
As Thomas Jefferson liked to say (another atheist) the MASSES are the ASSES.
And they truly are.
>Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice.
ALL MINORITY GROUPS must speak loudly over your CHristian PRATTLING AND
BLEATING. Why do you think I have to type in caps half the time?
> Well,
>the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and lifestyle and
>saying "NO!" to their face.
Morality is completely presonal. Who are you to inflict your PURITAN MORALS
on us? I don't commit crimes, but i find your MORALS to be DISTURBING, often
life threatening. When you are blowing up that abortion clinic, or beating
up that innocent gay man, think about your stupid assed morals. OR, next
time you see the bible thumping KKK on Jerry Springer, there's your
brethren.
I doubt you will find an atheist KKK member. I dare you to try. (you may get
pummeled for asking, so watch it).
> The majority are beginning to see through their
>lies and propaganda and simply saying "Go BACK into the closet pervert."
Why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP about religion, if GAYS CANNOT BE WHO THEY
ARE????
We say hetero acts all the time, in public, on tv, they are free.
homosexuals do NOT choose to be what they are, no sane person would choose
to be something that difficult, likenoone would want to be black in 1952
Alabama if they had a choice, most likely.
Being gay is a congenital occurence, it is not chosen, just as your being
straight isn't "chosen".
JeeZus
Mutt
>No, the majority of the people of this country happen to be true
>Christians
WRONG! Christians in this country constitute 25% of the population! The
others are either of other religions, agnostic, or athiest. that's what I
like about this country DIVERSITY!
Blessed be,
-Mutt the Pagan Fur
kit...@flash.net
Mutt@FurryMUCK
ftp://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Jim-Tarpley/
http://www.witchvox.com
"Come on, you apes! You wanta live forever??"
-Unknown platoon sergeant, 1918
Knopp
In article <6hripv$e...@chile.earthlink.net>, "Mycroft"
<shol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you change "gay-rights crowd" to "jews" you'd have an accurate depiction
> of Nazi-dominated Germany in the 1930's. Majority uberalles!
..and if you change "gay-rights crowd" to "ju-ju-bees" you'd have an
accurate description of what happens when the price of movie theater treats
go up too high. Hey...False Analogies! Let's all play!
> M
> --
> "All fanaticism is a strategy to prevent doubt from becoming conscious."
> -H. A. Williams (Anglican Priest)
> Papel wrote in message <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
> >>The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> >>far this year.
> >>
> >
> >
> >This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept
> that
> >lifestyle in a moral society.
> >Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice.
> Well,
> >the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and lifestyle and
> >saying "NO!" to their face. The majority are beginning to see through
> their
> >lies and propaganda and simply saying "Go BACK into the closet pervert."
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Please remove PEZ from the address to reply via E-Mail. This is a
"Spam-Buster".
Melissa, Daughter Of God
In article <3540D5...@the.bright.side>,
Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
so
>far this year.
>
>attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to
another
>woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
>
>In February, voters in Maine repealed the state's attempt to add
sexual
>orientation as a protected classification in its 25-year old human
>rights contract.
>
>In March, the California State Supreme Court said that the Boy
Scouts
>are not a business covered by California's anti-discrimination laws
and
>can exclude
>homosexuals and boys who don't believe in God.
>
>Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen."
This in
>spite of the fact that national organizations such as the Human
Rights
>Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
>continued to lobby on its behalf.
That's ok, it's still inevitable that we will win over your evil
primitive religion, sooner or later.
>"'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it
was
>broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
>entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since
there
>is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
>accurate charge.
The entertainment industry is market driven. If people want to see
it, it sells. If not, it goes. Ellen's biggest problem was running
out of humor, not the gay thing. Just like when Murphy Brown started
getting into too many heavy social issues, like breast cancer, it
ceased being funny. It was supposed to be comedy. We watched it
because it made us laugh and as an escape from life's misery, not to
see even more of it on that show. When it quit being funny, we quit
watching. Nothing beats the free market. Period.
>"Despite the controversy surrounding 'Ellen,' Disney and ABC
officials
>have consistently stressed that the comedy series' future hinged on
its
>ratings, not political considerations."
Exactly. And when people quit laughing, it was no longer funny and
they quit watching. But it has opened the door to other shows now
being able to include the gay issue, so it was ground breaking
stuff. A recent episode of Millenium had a story about a couple of
lesbians who escaped from prison. No one even made a big deal about
it, because Ellen opened the door.
More people will be able to do what they want on TV and less will
listen or pay any attention to your moral tyrant religion and you
funny mentalists, in the future.
> Alas, the ratings have fallen
>probably because more Americans adhere to traditional values than
ABC
>executives are willing to admit.
Nope, it had gotten less funny before she came out and ratings had
fallen. It just ran out of funny steam. Like any other show, when it
runs out of whatever steam was keeping it going, it goes.
>"[The executive director of GLAAD] added that she felt 'Ellen'
would
>ease the way for future depictions of gay and lesbian characters on
>television.
True.
> A handful of new shows featuring prominent roles for gay
>characters are being considered for next season." And will
probably be
>rejected in short order.
Don't bet your bigot ass on it.
>There have been a couple of episodes of 'Ellen' that ABC apparently
>refused to air because of "their heavy gay content," which included
a
>kiss between DeGeneres' and her lesbian girlfriend.
Funny, we saw that one aired.
> Some advertisers
>actually pulled out of the show because of such corrupt material.
Funny you consider two people loving each other as corrupt, but two
people hating each other are ok. The telling sign of your hate
religion.
> And
>who says that corporations don't practice social responsibility?
:')
They practice putting money in their own pockets and that's the
real bottom line.
>Ellen DeGeneres has herself complained that ABC wanted to get her
"back
>in the closet." She claims she fought with the writers over every
>single episode.
And that's probably another reason it got canceled. She was ready to
quit.
>"Network officials have voiced enthusiasm regarding the show's
quality
>but also conceded that declining ratings may have been in part
because
>of some viewers' discomfort over the show's subject matter." Do
tell!
Some viewers were uncomfortable and others like us really liked the
positive lesbian role model. It takes all kinds. Something you moral
tyrants have yet to learn.
Of course that's just my opinion.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is clearly wrong. :-)
Melissa My web pages: under construction
Think yours is a loving religion? See the truth revealed in all it's glory:
http://www.christiangallery.com/strategy.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html
http://revwhite.bestsites.net
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
Thank God I'm not a xtian! God save me from xtianity!
My posting to Usenet does not imply permission, or a request, to email me,
though kind supportive comments are always welcome. Hostile, harassing,
religious harassment and/or abusive email may be posted and result in
complaints to your provider.
Melissa, Daughter Of The Son Of God
In article <ErxyJ...@news2.new-york.net>, pa...@nospam.hsh.com
>In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
>
>> ... xtian ...
>
>
>If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
>abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done.
I agree. I prefer "xtain", because it rhymes with "shit stain".
Melissa, Daughter Of The Son Of God
In article <Erxu9...@news2.new-york.net>, pa...@nospam.hsh.com
wrote:
>In alt.fan.dan-quayle Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side> sez:
>
>: Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen."
>
>[deleted]
>
>: "Despite the controversy surrounding 'Ellen,' Disney and ABC
>: have consistently stressed that the comedy series' future hinged
on its
>: probably because more Americans adhere to traditional values than
ABC
>: executives are willing to admit.
>
>ratings ropes long before her coming out; if not for that, the
>show would have been long gone. Like so many other sitcom
>devices, the coming out was a one-trick pony. Bottom line:
>DeGeneres' show wasn't funny before, and it isn't funny now.
>
>In stark comparison was a show called "Brothers," which ran for
>four (or was it it five?) seasons on Showtime in the 1980s. It
>was well-written and very well-acted; unlike "Ellen," it had
>solid plots and meaningful character depth and development, and
>-- gasp -- featured _two_ homosexual men (Philip Charles McKenzie
>was one; I don't recall the other).
Yeah we used to enjoy Brothers and watched it almost all the time!
Melissa, Daughter Of The Son Of God
In article <35411F...@swbell.net>,
Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> wrote:
>pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
>>
>> In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
>>
>> > ... xtian ...
>>
>> If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
>> would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the
"t"
>> remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
>>
>> I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
>> this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
>> but I'm surely puzzled.
>>
>> simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"? Or am I flogging
>> the dead horse of logic just by asking?
>>
>
>I prefer to use "xtian" when refering to Brian Carey, RevWhite,
Fred
>Phelps and other self-rightous bigots who claim to be
>"christian"...except in these cases, I cannot in good conscience
call
>them chirstian because there is nothing christ-like about them.
If that were the requirement, no one could call themselves xtains.
All that's required is blind faith in a bunch of stupidity and
hatefulness against anyone whose different in any way from most
folks at your church. The defining factors of your religion!
Melissa, Daughter Of The Son Of God
In article <desalvo-2404...@rp27.pm.monitor.net>,
des...@monitor.net (John De Salvio) wrote:
>In article <3540D5...@the.bright.side>, Brian Carey
><lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
>
>> The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per
month so
>> far this year.
>>
was
>> broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
>> entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values."
Since there
>> is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is
an
>> accurate charge.
>
>
>FUCK YOU, you liar and bigot!
>
>If it were not for the homosexuals in the Renaissance, you would
still
>be building stave churches and painting by numbers.
>
>Some of the most creative geniuses who ever lived were homosexual.
>
>You, sir, are a pig. And a pretty disgusting one, at that.
>
>Let me know when you plan on painting over the disgusting
homosexual
>art on the Sistine ceiling.
>
>[All other asinine comments clipped.]
You tell 'em dear!
Lesbigatr rights NOW!
Melissa, Daughter Of The Son Of God
In article <35413287...@atlantic.net>,
John Oliveira Jr <jol...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
Don't get too excited fuckwit, she opened the door for lots more
portrayal of lesbigatrs on TV. Millenium recently had a cool
episode that showed a couple of women kissing each other. Freedom
from xtian hate religion's moral tyranny is at hand!
> Unfortunately, someone
>will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had
nothing on
>this nation.
Fiction, like the rest of your hate religion.
Melissa, of The Immaculate Concept
In article <1998042509...@basement.replay.com>,
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:51:29 -0400 "Papel" <pia...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well,
>>the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and
lifestyle and
>>saying "NO!" to their face.
>
>
>While the majority of the people of this country are not
homosexuals,
>the majority are also not bigots who need to find somebody to hate
in
>order to mask their own inadequacies.
Sure they are, that's why they keep passing unconstitutional laws
against equal rights for lesbigatrs.
>> The majority are beginning to see through their
>>lies and propaganda and simply saying "Go BACK into the closet
pervert."
>
>No, the majority of the people of this country happen to be true
>Christians, who are perfectly aware of the fact that Christ would
be
>horrified at the hate in the hearts of people who claim to follow
his
>teachings.
Not.
Melissa, of The Immaculate Concept
In article <354198...@SpamSux.laserfx.com>,
"L. Michael Roberts" <News...@SpamSux.laserfx.com> wrote:
>Brian Carey wrote:
>>
>> The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per
month so
>> far this year.
>
Canada is
>winning one significant judgement after another [well not
monthly...
>more like quarterly with no setbacks]. Canada has become the
leader in
>Human/Civil Rights issues in North america!
Oh right! Like that's why they ban guns! They've become the leader
in the civil rights YOU like, you mean!
Sorry, if a country isn't at least as free as Colorado, I won't live
there. That includes Iran, Iraq, Canada and UK.
Colo
I thought the sin of Sodom was more rape than anything else.
But then of course I'm forgetting, the national debt is caused by
homosexuality, correct?
John Oliveira Jr wrote:
> I for one am Glad to see such Garbage off the air. Unfortunately, someone
DRS
John De Salvio wrote in message ...
[...]
>The homosexuals of the country are tired of the lies and bigotry of the
>so-called
>"moral" majority and will continue to hurl the truth back at you.
You've just reminded me of a funny story regarding the 'Moral Majority'.
Way back when Jerry Falwell was in full swing (I think it was mid-70s but
don't quote me on that) he came to Australia to visit with his fellow
travellers (everybody here knows the Reverend Fred Nile). Anyway, some gay
student activists in Sydney registered the name 'Moral Majority' ($25 or
something equally trivial to register a trading name) and when Jerry came
down the steps at Sydney airport there they were, a sizeable crowd of
students all wearing T-shirts that read "The Moral Majority Supports Gay
Rights'! He didn't stay very long.
--
Beware of the Spam-Dog
Mike Silverman
In article <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, "Papel"
<pia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
> >The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> >far this year.
> >
>
>
> This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept that
> lifestyle in a moral society.
What planet are you living on?
Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
election is when they are special elections held at weird times...you guys
cannot win "general" elections.
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Eric Bohlman
Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
: Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
: tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
: approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
That's not quite accurate. 80%+ of the American public believe that
people shouldn't be fired, evicted, etc. just for being gay.
Unfortunately, over 50% of the American public believe that gay people are
*already* protected against such discrimination ("why do you need special
laws? If you get fired for being gay, why can't you just sue for wrongful
termination?"). Then there are the libertarians who believe that while
it's wrong to discriminate against people for being gay, it's even more
wrong for the Big, Bad, Way-too-powerful Government to intervene when it
happens.
Even more common is what happened in Maine, where the majority of
registered voters thought the anti-discrimination law was a good idea, but
not important enough to warrant a trip to the local polling place to
support it.
John De Salvio
In article <cubsfan-2604...@dv149s11.lawrence.ks.us>,
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:
> In article <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, "Papel"
> <pia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
> > >The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> > >far this year.
> > >
> >
> >
> > This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept that
> > lifestyle in a moral society.
>
> What planet are you living on?
>
> Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
> tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
> approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
> election is when they are special elections held at weird times...you guys
> cannot win "general" elections.
>
And by mass-producing fraudulent "voter information phamplets."
chris.holt
pa...@nospam.hsh.com wrote:
> In alt.fan.dan-quayle Robert Schroeder <Mb...@swbell.net> sez:
>
> > ... xtian ...
>
> If this is, as I guess, supposed to be some sort of (derogatory?)
> abbreviation for "Christian," then it's poorly done. The "X"
> would seem to be the stand-in for the letters CHRIS, since the "t"
> remains in this (derogatory?) abbreviation.
Well, it's the first letter, isn't it; but abbreviations
can also include last letters, and occasionally middle
letters (as I'm sure Mr. Havemann would agree }d-Q).
> I'm not sure what our redoubtable Chris Holt would make of
> this (him being the only Chris of my Usenet acquaintance),
> but I'm surely puzzled.
How can one be puzzled by idiosyncratic language usage?
Our language, she is so beautiful in her many guises,
and inventions for dressing her more prettily, while
occasionally leading to sartorial disasters, more often
supply a lovely astral bouquet. [I'm more worried about
being called redoubtable; isn't it enough just to doubt
me the first time? :-]
> Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be "xian"? Or would that
> simply look even more ridiculous than "xtian"?
Devise a convention, any convention; and then convince
people to use it. Who cares about formal rules?
> Or am I flogging
> the dead horse of logic just by asking?
I've always thought of logic as more like a unicorn?
--
Melissa, of The Immaculate Concept
In article <3541c...@news.cyberway.com.sg>,
"Chua Yao Zhang" <bjc...@mbox3.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>Why so afraid to use Jesus's name?
First of all, O' brain crippled one, xtian isn't jesus' name, it's
the name of your hate religion!
Secondly, no one's afraid fuckwit! We either abbreviate it because
we don't feel like bothering or because we have zero respect for
your hate religion.
>How do you like if your whole name is sumarised into one letter?
How do you like if your whole brain were condensed into one cell.
Whoops, it already is!
>How do you feel?
>I don't approve of this shortform!
Nobody gives a flying rat's rosy red rectum what you approve of, you
little moral tyrant!
Maybe we could condense xtian even further, let's see. How about
"xtn"? That would save some typing. But it wouldn't rhyme so well
with "shit stain" like xtain does.
Mike Silverman
In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
<eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
> : Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
> : tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
> : approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
>
> That's not quite accurate. 80%+ of the American public believe that
> people shouldn't be fired, evicted, etc. just for being gay.
> Unfortunately, over 50% of the American public believe that gay people are
> *already* protected against such discrimination
In a way this is good, because if they think that the law protects gays,
then they probably will not disobey a (non-existant) law.
Of course, it is bad in that it prevents REAL laws from being passed sometimes.
Mike Silverman
> Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
> : Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
> : tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
> : approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
>
> That's not quite accurate. 80%+ of the American public believe that
> people shouldn't be fired, evicted, etc. just for being gay.
> Unfortunately, over 50% of the American public believe that gay people are
> *already* protected against such discrimination ("why do you need special
> laws?
It is also worth noting that when people learn (via a big-deal case) that
gays CAN be discriminated against, there is usually some shocks and a move
towards passing such laws. Look what happened after the Cracker Barrel
case a few years back...a ton of "liberals" all the sudden were just
shoeck -shocked- that the firings were legal.
The number of gay rights laws passed int he USA rose significantly in the
early 90s...maybe partially becasue of case like Cracker Barell.
That Satanic Bitch
In article <01bd7096$796f8940$7a3a1ed1@mutt>,
>
>WRONG! Christians in this country constitute 25% of the population!
The
>others are either of other religions, agnostic, or athiest. that's
what I
>like about this country DIVERSITY!
>
>Blessed be,
Blessed be dear.
Yes diversity is the greatest strength of the human species.
Even De Len said so. In Valen's name!
Of course that's just my opinion.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is clearly wrong. :-)
Melissa My web pages: under construction
Thank God I'm not a xtian! God save me from xtianity!
I don't hate xtians, I hate the evil nature of xtianity.
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read
through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in
His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the
brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against
the Jewish poison.
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I
recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was
for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."
- Adolph Hitler
Melissa, of The Immaculate Concept
In article <desalvo-2504...@rp26.pm.monitor.net>,
><jol...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> I for one am Glad to see such Garbage off the air.
Unfortunately, someone
>> will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had
nothing on
>> this nation.
>
about.
Yes, and yet another moron who believes fiction to be reality.
Melissa, of The Immaculate Concept
In article <35422AB6...@pil.net>, Colo <cmi...@pil.net>
wrote:
>I thought the sin of Sodom was more rape than anything else.
I thought it was "because they were wicked". But then it's fiction
anyway and no one in their right mind would take it seriously.
>But then of course I'm forgetting, the national debt is caused by
>homosexuality, correct?
>
>John Oliveira Jr wrote:
>
>> I for one am Glad to see such Garbage off the air.
Unfortunately, someone
>> will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had
nothing on
>> this nation.
Of course that's just my opinion.
Jason B Ticknor-Schwob
: Abraham Lincoln, an ATHEIST, is considered the greatest president of all
: time, because he SAVED the slaves from their plight, in a world and time
: where PRACTICALLY NOBODY would help them or gave a flying fuck if they
: rotted on a chain.
: As Thomas Jefferson liked to say (another atheist) the MASSES are the ASSES.
: And they truly are.
I'm n atheist, but I must correct historical innacuracies. Abraham Lincoln
wrote an atheistix pamphlet as a youth, which he burned: it's hard to be sure
about his religious convictions after that but he was publicly a Christian.
Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of reason, the
impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a non-Christian God who
is the author of natural law.
Lincoln did not favor the abolition of slavery on principle: he was willing
to forego emancipation to save the union. The EMancipation Proclamation did
not free any slaves on Northern soil: it declared slaves in rebellious
(Southern) states free, as a poltical measure. Linclon's administration
also instituted the draft, violated constitutionally gauranteed civil liberties,
massively raised taxes, and began the era of big-business subsidy in the
United States.
Jason B. Ticknor-Schwob
Radford, VA
Knopp
> In article <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, "Papel"
> <pia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
> > >The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> > >far this year.
> > >
> >
> >
> > This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept that
> > lifestyle in a moral society.
>
> What planet are you living on?
>
> Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
> tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
> approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
Laws keeping gays from being fired just for liking the same sex. As far as
other "gay rights" legislation such as laws that would put long term gay
relationships on par with marriage, they are typically opposed by about 70%
of the US. Tolerance...yes. Acceptance....not exactly.
> election is when they are special elections held at weird times...you guys
> cannot win "general" elections.
Who are "you guys"?
William Barwell
In article <3540D5...@the.bright.side>,
Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
>far this year.
And the perverts gained the Teletubbies.
(Tinkie-winkie sometimes carries a purse.)
"We've come for your children"
- The Sex Pistols..
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
That Satanic Whore
In article <6i01pa$g...@newslink.runet.edu>,
jtic...@runet.edu (Jason B Ticknor-Schwob) wrote:
<: Abraham Lincoln, an ATHEIST, is considered the greatest president
of all
<: time, because he SAVED the slaves from their plight, in a world
and time
<: where PRACTICALLY NOBODY would help them or gave a flying fuck if
they
<: rotted on a chain.
<:
<: As Thomas Jefferson liked to say (another atheist) the MASSES are
the ASSES.
<: And they truly are.
<
<I'm n atheist, but I must correct historical innacuracies. Abraham
Lincoln
<wrote an atheistix pamphlet as a youth, which he burned: it's hard
to be sure
<about his religious convictions after that but he was publicly a
Christian.
At times, a gay xtain, at that.
<Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of
reason, the
<impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a non-Christian
God who
<is the author of natural law.
Sounds like a Pantheist to me!
Mike Silverman
In article <KnoppPEZ-ya0240800...@news.netaxs.com>,
Knop...@citynet.net (Knopp) wrote:
> In article <cubsfan-2604...@dv149s11.lawrence.ks.us>,
> cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) wrote:
>
> > In article <6hrfi1$e...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, "Papel"
> > <pia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
> > > >The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
> > > >far this year.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT
accept that
> > > lifestyle in a moral society.
> >
> > What planet are you living on?
> >
> > Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of gays....Americans just
> > tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
> > approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
>
> Laws keeping gays from being fired just for liking the same sex. As far as
> other "gay rights" legislation such as laws that would put long term gay
> relationships on par with marriage, they are typically opposed by about 70%
> of the US.
Depends on how you phrase the question. If you ask if gay couples should
have the same rights as married couples, you get a high percentage saying
"yes" -- if you say "should we legalized gay marriage," then the numbers
drop to under 40%.
Mycroft
Knopp wrote in message ...
>In article <6hripv$e...@chile.earthlink.net>, "Mycroft"
><shol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you change "gay-rights crowd" to "jews" you'd have an accurate
depiction
>> of Nazi-dominated Germany in the 1930's. Majority uberalles!
>
>..and if you change "gay-rights crowd" to "ju-ju-bees" you'd have an
>accurate description of what happens when the price of movie theater treats
>go up too high. Hey...False Analogies! Let's all play!
>
Actually, the analogy is frighteningly exact. The majority of 1930's
Germany, stirred up by Nazi demogogery, hated the "immoral" minorities of
jews and homosexuals. Study the history of the period.
Sorry if you don't like it.
M
--
"All fanaticism is a strategy to prevent doubt from becoming conscious."
-H. A. Williams (Anglican Priest)
>> >
>> >Brian Carey wrote in message <3540D5...@the.bright.side>...
>> >>The gay-rights crowd is suffering one significant setback per month so
>> >>far this year.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept
>> that
>> >lifestyle in a moral society.
>> >Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice.
>> Well,
>> >the moral people of the country are tired of their lies and lifestyle
and
>> >saying "NO!" to their face. The majority are beginning to see through
>> their
>> >lies and propaganda and simply saying "Go BACK into the closet pervert."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
Rev. Billy
"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
zoe wilfong
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, JeeZus wrote:
> >This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT accept
> that
> >lifestyle in a moral society.
>
> I SEE! just how the MAJORITY of the NATION believed in SLAVERY, RACIAL
> SEPERATION, Burning of witches (usually atheists) at the stake, conversion
> to Xtianity by FORCE, SUBJUGATION OF WOMEN (THEY COULDN'T VOTE, EVERYONE
> SMOKED LIKE A CHIMNEY, DRINKING AND DRIVING WAS NOT YET ILLEGAL, ABORTION
> WAS ILLEGAL, DRINKLING WAS EVEN ILLEGAL FOR A WHILE, DISCRIMINATION OF ALL
> MINORITY GROUPS (LIKE CATHOLICS), AND RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION FOR ALL????
>
> Well guess what Sherlock these things are being phased out by education and
> SCIENCE. Just as SLAVERY IS NO LONGER accepted by you bible thumping morons,
> RELIGION WILL BE EQUALLY EMBARRASING TO YOU in 15 years or less.
(snip)
>
> >Homosexuals are a very "small" minority that has raised a loud voice.
>
> ALL MINORITY GROUPS must speak loudly over your CHristian PRATTLING AND
> BLEATING. Why do you think I have to type in caps half the time?
Thank you JeeZus, (I never thought I'd say that. laugh) I didn't have
the patience to deal with one more idiot claiming 'but the majority is
on my side.'
zoe
Mike Silverman
In article <3549b686...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:38:21 -0600, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike
> Silverman) wrote:
>
> >In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
> ><eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Silverman <cub...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
> >> : Most people in the US are actually very tolerant of
gays....Americans just
> >> : tend to be common-sense fair mainded folks, which is why polls show 80%
> >> : approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
> >>
> >> That's not quite accurate. 80%+ of the American public believe that
> >> people shouldn't be fired, evicted, etc. just for being gay.
> >> Unfortunately, over 50% of the American public believe that gay people are
> >> *already* protected against such discrimination
>
> This 80% figure you give...What reliable study, poll or survey does it
> come from
Percentage favoring:
"equal rights for gays and lesbians"
Roper poll, 1994 -- 76% MOE 3%
"civil rights for gays and lesbians"
USA Today Poll, 1995 -- 69% MOE 3%
"equal rights for gays in employment and housing"
Harris Poll, 1995 -- 73% MOE 5%
"a law banning discrimination against gays in employment"
Washington Post, 1996 -- 80% MOE 4%
zoe wilfong
On 25 Apr 1998 mel...@NOxtainspam.com wrote:
> In article <3540D5...@the.bright.side>,
> Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
> >
> >In January, a lesbian lawyer who was denied a job on the Georgia
> >attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to
> another
> >woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
> >
> >In February, voters in Maine repealed the state's attempt to add
> sexual
> >orientation as a protected classification in its 25-year old human
> >rights contract.
> >
> >In March, the California State Supreme Court said that the Boy
> Scouts
> >are not a business covered by California's anti-discrimination laws
> and
> >can exclude
> >homosexuals and boys who don't believe in God.
> >
> >Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen."
> This in
> >spite of the fact that national organizations such as the Human
> Rights
> >Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
> >continued to lobby on its behalf.
>
> That's ok, it's still inevitable that we will win over your evil
> primitive religion, sooner or later.
That's a fact. It should also be noted that the above defeats would
never have happened 20 or 30 years ago, because gay people were not even
allowed in the race back then (visibly, anyway). 'Ellen' would not have
been on the air 20 years ago. No one would have dared suggest that the
BSA admit gays 20 years ago. Most states/cities would not have even
considered giving civil rights protections to homosexuals 30 years ago.
Etc. Yes, there are setbacks, but the direction that hisory is moving
on this issue is unmistakably *towards* full social and legal equality
for gay people in america. Ha ha ha.
zoe
That Satanic Whore
In article <3543ab69...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>,
Yeah, only nowdays it's the lesbigatrs and no one speaks out for us.
Mike Silverman
> >Percentage favoring:
> >
> >"equal rights for gays and lesbians"
> >Roper poll, 1994 -- 76% MOE 3%
> >
> >"civil rights for gays and lesbians"
> >USA Today Poll, 1995 -- 69% MOE 3%
> >
> >"equal rights for gays in employment and housing"
> >Harris Poll, 1995 -- 73% MOE 5%
> >
> >"a law banning discrimination against gays in employment"
> >Washington Post, 1996 -- 80% MOE 4%
>
>
> A poll is considered outdated six days after it's compiled...You're
> calling on data the most current of which is TWO YEARS OLD!
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
The opinions of the American public on large-scale social issues simply do
not change very fast. Data that is a year or two old might be a few
percentage points off, but it is still fairly valid.
I think you are dishonestly trying to change the subject...you challenged
me to back up my assertion that approx 80% of the public approves of gay
rights, which I did...so now you all the sudden pull the notion that all
poll data is worthless out of your tired ass.
Michael W. Fisher
In article <354cfcf6...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net
says...
ŹBTW...This is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.
Ź
Hmm. No name, archiving off, and from, la de da, southeast.net.
Hi there anon...@Psynnet.net.
Guess I know for sure what your primary ISP is now, eh?
How many pseudonyms do you hide behind, being the sniveling coward
you are and all?
--
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Ward Stewart
>> > >
>> > > This is because the "Majority" of the people in the USA will NOT
>accept that
>> > > lifestyle in a moral society.
>> >
>> >
>> > approval for gay rights laws...the only way you bigots ever win an
>>
>> other "gay rights" legislation such as laws that would put long term gay
>> relationships on par with marriage, they are typically opposed by about 70%
>> of the US.
>
>Depends on how you phrase the question. If you ask if gay couples should
>have the same rights as married couples, you get a high percentage saying
>"yes" -- if you say "should we legalized gay marriage," then the numbers
>drop to under 40%.
Another question, which has not been asked so far as I know might be,
"Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling
you what adult, unmarried, non-consanguineous, consenting person you
may or may not marry?"
ward
Brian Carey
Robert Schroeder tries to be defensive:
> > In January, a lesbian lawyer who was denied a job on the Georgia
> > attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to another
> > woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
>
> This woman was denied this job by the infamous Mr Bowers, a bastion of
> xtian values......who just so happened to be having an extramartital
> affair (lasting some ten years). And adultery is illegal in Georgia!
And...?
> > In February, voters in Maine repealed the state's attempt to add sexual
> > orientation as a protected classification in its 25-year old human
> > rights contract.
>
> But communities across the nation continue to extend equal rights to
> gays and lesbians. Many of those communities are located in Maine.
Cite the communities in Maine which are extending "equal rights" to gays
and lesbians.
> > In March, the California State Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts
> > are not a business covered by California's anti-discrimination laws and
> > can exclude
> > homosexuals and boys who don't believe in God.
>
> Operation Rescue was fined under RICO for illegal activities at women's
> health clinics.
And people who use violence as they do should be fined under RICO.
> > Now its April, and ABC has said it will cancel <gasp!> "Ellen." This in
> > spite of the fact that national organizations such as the Human Rights
> > Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
> > continued to lobby on its behalf.
>
> -gasp!- and Pat Robertson sells the "Family Channel" to Fox TV. The IRS
> has hit Robertson and his organization for illegal political activities
> and are now investigating Robertson for possible violations. You see,
> the Family Channel was orginally "CBN" a viewer supported network.
> Several years ago, it went commercial and became the Family Channel.
> With the sale of the FC to Fox, Robertson has pocketed several million
> dollars....money that really doesn't belong to him.
"Possible violations." Move on.
> > "'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
> > broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
> > entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
> > is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
> > accurate charge.
>
> Ellen's coming out also reminded us that the Southern Baptists, the
> American Family Association, The Family Reseach Council and various
> other xtian groups are nothing but tax shelters for bigots, such as
> yourself.
Oh, yeah. I'm sure that was the first thing in most Americans' minds as
they watched that episode.
> > "[The executive director of GLAAD] added that she felt 'Ellen' would
> > ease the way for future depictions of gay and lesbian characters on
> > television. A handful of new shows featuring prominent roles for gay
> > characters are being considered for next season." And will probably be
> > rejected in short order.
>
> oh really....what about "Friends" "Veronica's Closet", "Spin City" and
> the other shows that have lesbian/gay characters.
What about 'em? Did they get the amount of publicity that Ellen got?
> > There have been a couple of episodes of 'Ellen' that ABC apparently
> > refused to air because of "their heavy gay content," which included a
> > kiss between DeGeneres' and her lesbian girlfriend. Some advertisers
> > actually pulled out of the show because of such corrupt material. And
> > who says that corporations don't practice social responsibility? :')
>
> Carey, you idiot...this particular episode aired a couple of months ago.
> ABC decided to not air all the remaining episodes, except for the one
> hour finale, in order to keep "Two Guys, A Girl and a Pizza Place" in
> its time slot.
Take it up with the LA Times, Junior.
> Nice going, you ol' troll bigot.
And he finishes it off with a good piece of immaturity and
feeble-mindedness. Nothing new.
--
Brian Carey --> car...@mindspring.com
Religious Freedom Home Page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rframe.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Usenet Wisdom |
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Or the President can use his constitutional powers to defeat
the opposition as Bill Clinton has been doing. That is why you
hate him so. It makes you bleed from the anus."
- Jim Kennemur, combining his favorite fetish with political opinion
"They approved of Amendment I, too, huh? Amendment I,
the one regarding representation, huh?"
- Jim Alison, acting stupid
Brian Carey
JeeZus wrote:
>
> >Thank You for such an eloquent post about why Gay Rights laws are
> >required!
>
> Do you have a degree in being a "reverend" or are you just naturally
> bigoted?
LOL! I think you missed the whole point of his post.
Brian Carey
JeeZus wrote:
>
> John Oliveira Jr wrote in message <35413287...@atlantic.net>...
> >I for one am Glad to see such Garbage off the air. Unfortunately, someone
> >will perpetuate this by syndicating it. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing on
> >this nation.
>
> kids this god crap, and they will breed and so forth. or worse, you will
> breed and my tax dollars will pay for your family to go to a brand new
> church to worship a god which justifies putting prayer in pUBLIC schools and
> then ou'll probably blow up an abortion clinic on the way home after your
> KKK rally.
I love the paranoid rantings of anti-Christian bigots. Watch out for
the black helicopters, "JeeZus"!
Brian Carey
John De Salvio is dyspeptic:
> > "'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
> > broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
> > entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
> > is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
> > accurate charge.
>
> As we used to say back in the monastery,
>
> FUCK YOU, you liar and bigot!
Forget your sedative this morning, Johnny?
> If it were not for the homosexuals in the Renaissance, you would still
> be building stave churches and painting by numbers.
Uh-huh. And if it wasn't for Christians like Blaise Pascal, Isaac
Newton, Hugo Grotius, Johann Kepler, Juan de Mariana, and the monks who
copied the ancient histories, as well as a host of other Christian
greats who furthered the progress of Western Civilization, where would
we be?
> Some of the most creative geniuses who ever lived were homosexual.
Yes. I like some of Elton John's songs.
> You, sir, are a pig. And a pretty disgusting one, at that.
Well, how about that! Juvenile namecalling from John DeSalvio! I've
never seen that before. [sarcasm mode off]
> Let me know when you plan on painting over the disgusting homosexual
> art on the Sistine ceiling.
Let me know when you plan on giving up everything in your life that was
invented by or based upon the discoveries of Christians.
> [All other asinine comments clipped.]
Poor thing.
Mike Silverman
In article <35448D...@the.bright.side>, Brian Carey
<lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
> > This woman was denied this job by the infamous Mr Bowers, a bastion of
> > xtian values......who just so happened to be having an extramartital
> > affair (lasting some ten years). And adultery is illegal in Georgia!
>
> And...?
Nothing, just pointing out hypocricy. Bowers, defender of sodomy law, has
broken the adultery law. He ought to receive the full penalty, which is 10
years in the clink....bet that would make a philandering politician think
twice!
> > But communities across the nation continue to extend equal rights to
> > gays and lesbians. Many of those communities are located in Maine.
> Cite the communities in Maine which are extending "equal rights" to gays
> and lesbians.
Portland
Bar Harbor
South Portland
Brunswick
Kennebunkport
Among others.
> > oh really....what about "Friends" "Veronica's Closet", "Spin City" and
> > the other shows that have lesbian/gay characters.
>
> What about 'em? Did they get the amount of publicity that Ellen got?
No, but they have a lot more viewers, combined then even a super
successful "Ellen" ever would have.
Hell, more people watched the "there nothing wrong with it" Seinfeld then
all the 700 Clubs combined!
Jason B Ticknor-Schwob
: ><Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of
: >reason, the
: ><impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a non-Christian
: >God who
: ><is the author of natural law.
: >
: >Sounds like a Pantheist to me!
: No. Pantheism believes in more than one god. Jefferson believed in one
: god, but not the Christian one.
:
Both wrong. Pantheism believes that the universe is God. Deism believes
in a non-religious God bound by reason. POLYtheism believes in more than
one God. Jefferson was a deist, not a pan- or poly-theist.
Jason Ticknor-Schwob
Publius
DRS wrote in message <6i23n6$ak$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>That Satanic Whore wrote in message <6i04gg$r...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>
>[...]
>
>><Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of
>>reason, the
>><impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a non-Christian
>>God who
>><is the author of natural law.
>>
>>Sounds like a Pantheist to me!
>
>
>No. Pantheism believes in more than one god. Jefferson believed in one
>god, but not the Christian one.
Pantheism believes god is all present throughout the universe. It tends
toward seeing God in terms of nature.
Jefferson believed in one God. He was a Unitarian with deistic leanings and
it certainly was the Judeo-Christian God he refereed to not any other.
You need to get your facts straight.
Tom Tilley
In article <6i23n6$ak$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
"DRS" <simp...@removethis.tig.com.au> shared with us:
>That Satanic Whore wrote in message <6i04gg$r...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>
>[...]
>
>><Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of
>>reason, the
>><impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a non-Christian
>>God who
>><is the author of natural law.
>>
>>Sounds like a Pantheist to me!
>
>
>No. Pantheism believes in more than one god. Jefferson believed in one
>god, but not the Christian one.
Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods.
Pantheism, which means "all god," is the belief that god(s)
is(are) in all things. My dictionary also gives a meaning
of belief in all gods, but that's not the usage I generally
encounter.
As for the former definition of pantheism:
| Scholarship has long distinguished between two strains of
| thought which proceed in the West from human knowledge of
| God. In one, the ascetic's metaphysic, the world is yet
| infinitely other than God, furled away from him like the
| end of a long banner falling. This notion makes, to my
| mind, a vertical line of the world, a great chain of
| burning. The more accessible and universal view, held by
| Eckhart and by many peoples in various forms, is scarcely
| different from pantheism: that the world is immination,
| that God is in the thing, and eternally present here, if
| nowhere else.
|
| - Annie Dillard, _Holy the Firm_
Tom.
--
#------------------------------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley | "The use of a two syllable vulgarity by the |
| Remove ".NoSpam" | chairman [Rep. Dan Burton] was rather ambitious." |
| from addr. to | |
| reply to Usenet | - White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, as |
| posts. | quoted in _Nando_ on 4/23/1998 |
Jason Christian
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, geo wrote:
> ahem, ahem,
>
> ur latin teacher did what many did in antiquity - that is - borrow/steal
> from the greek.
>
> look up "X" or "XMAS" in an encyclopedia to find it's true origin.
As a regular user of (La)TeX, who recognizes the preservation of the
letter in the two-character symbol "chi" (and as one who has been known
to compare various computed quantities to the so-called "Chi-Squared"
distribution, and for that matter as one who writes about the economics
of technological change and therefore knows that Donald Knuth's language
refers not to text but to "teXnology," I need no pointers to a
dictionary, encylopaedia, or other such resource, thank you very much.
But Mr. Moore's knickname surely referred to the syllable, not the first
consonant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian University of California, Davis
ja...@primal.ucdavis.edu Agricultural and Resource Economics
Office:(530)752-1357 FAX:(530)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
Brian Carey
Mike Silverman wrote:
> > > This woman was denied this job by the infamous Mr Bowers, a bastion of
> > > xtian values......who just so happened to be having an extramartital
> > > affair (lasting some ten years). And adultery is illegal in Georgia!
> >
> > And...?
>
> Nothing, just pointing out hypocricy. Bowers, defender of sodomy law, has
> broken the adultery law. He ought to receive the full penalty, which is 10
> years in the clink....bet that would make a philandering politician think
> twice!
Sir, if you want to go on a campaign to see to it that this man is
prosecuted for adultery, heck I might even join ya.
Hmmm... politics does make strange bedfellows. No pun intended. ;')
> > > But communities across the nation continue to extend equal rights to
> > > gays and lesbians. Many of those communities are located in Maine.
> > Cite the communities in Maine which are extending "equal rights" to gays
> > and lesbians.
>
> Portland
> Bar Harbor
> South Portland
> Brunswick
> Kennebunkport
And...? Do you have anything other than city names? What's going on
here? How does it stand against the statewide initiative?
> > > oh really....what about "Friends" "Veronica's Closet", "Spin City" and
> > > the other shows that have lesbian/gay characters.
> >
> > What about 'em? Did they get the amount of publicity that Ellen got?
>
> No, but they have a lot more viewers, combined then even a super
> successful "Ellen" ever would have.
And...?
> Hell, more people watched the "there nothing wrong with it" Seinfeld then
> all the 700 Clubs combined!
And...? Is GLAAD lobbying as hard to keep Seinfeld on the air as they
were for Ellen? Let's face it, this woman was your poster child. Now
she's gone.
Right from the Beginning
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Mike Silverman wrote:
> I think you are dishonestly trying to change the subject...you challenged
> me to back up my assertion that approx 80% of the public approves of gay
> rights, which I did...so now you all the sudden pull the notion that all
> poll data is worthless out of your tired ass.
of course most americans support equal treatment of gays and lesbians, and
of course most americans support equal rights for gays and lesbians. Most
Conservatives will answer yes to those questions. However, when you ask
them if equal rights mean having gays in the boy scouts, or gay marriages,
etc, you won't see such great support.
Shawn
"Some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
George Orwell
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> If it were not for the homosexuals in the Renaissance, you would still
> >> be building stave churches and painting by numbers.
>
> Brian> Uh-huh. And if it wasn't for Christians like Blaise Pascal, Isaac
> Brian> Newton, Hugo Grotius, Johann Kepler, Juan de Mariana, and the monks who
> Brian> copied the ancient histories, as well as a host of other Christian
> Brian> greats who furthered the progress of Western Civilization, where would
> Brian> we be?
>
> Yes, and unlike you, he did not insult a whole
> class of people that are not harming anyone.
How is "Yes" an answer to the question above. And what insult are you
talking about?
> Brian> Let me know when you plan on giving up everything in your life that was
> Brian> invented by or based upon the discoveries of Christians.
>
> That sort of sentiment is more in line with your original
> post on this subject that anything Mr. De Salvio has said
> in this thread.
Huh?
Melissa of the Immaculate Assumption
In article <6i23q0$go$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
"DRS" <simp...@removethis.tig.com.au> wrote:
<That Satanic Whore wrote in message
<6i04gg$r...@examiner.concentric.net>...
<
<[...]
<
<><Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of
<>reason, the
<><impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a
non-Christian
<>God who
<><is the author of natural law.
<>
<>Sounds like a Pantheist to me!
<
<
<No. Pantheism believes in more than one god. Jefferson believed
in one
<god, but not the Christian one.
Your ignorance is showing:
pan·the·ism (p²n“th¶-¹z”…m) n. 1. A doctrine identifying the Deity
with the universe and its phenomena.
Tom Tilley
In article <35448D...@the.bright.side>,
Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side> shared with us:
>Robert Schroeder tries to be defensive:
>
>> > In January, a lesbian lawyer who was denied a job on the Georgia
>> > attorney general's staff because of her impending "marriage" to another
>> > woman lost a Supreme Court appeal.
>>
>> This woman was denied this job by the infamous Mr Bowers, a bastion of
>> xtian values......who just so happened to be having an extramartital
>> affair (lasting some ten years). And adultery is illegal in Georgia!
>
>And...?
Given that Mike Bowers' claim in the case you cite was that
what he assumed would be the lawyer's violation of Georgia
law would demoralize the Attorney General staff, therefore
she needed to be fired, whereas Mike Bowers' own admitted
violation of Georgia law apparently not only allowed him to
be Attorney General, but also to run for Governor, partly on
a campaign of "honesty," I'd say the case you cite approvingly
is one of incredible hypocrisy.
Just to clarify, my problem with this incident isn't based
upon who Bowers boinked, it's based upon his unwillingness to
extend to others the privacy that he himself needs. If public
service is closed to those whose assumed actions are opposed
by Bowers' religious beliefs and Georgia's idiotic sex codes,
then it ought to be closed to Mike Bowers. If public service
should remain open to Mike Bowers, it should have been open to
the woman mentioned above.
[ snip ]
Melissa of the Immaculate Assumption
In article <354cfcf6...@news.southeast.net>,
we...@southeast.net wrote:
<On 26 Apr 1998 21:32:50 EDT, wh...@whore.net (That Satanic Whore)
<wrote:
<
<>Of course that's just my opinion.
<>Anyone who doesn't agree with me is clearly wrong. :-)
<
<>Melissa
<
you
<have expressed what is called an opinion. While you may feel that
your
<opinion has great value, if you were to offer it on the open market
<you would find it has no more value, and maybe in you case,
<considerably less value, than any other opinion in the known
universe.
<I hope you don't find this information too disappointing.
<
<BTW...This is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.
<
Bite me!
Ward Stewart
>> >Percentage favoring:
>> >
>> >"equal rights for gays and lesbians"
>> >Roper poll, 1994 -- 76% MOE 3%
>> >
>> >"civil rights for gays and lesbians"
>> >USA Today Poll, 1995 -- 69% MOE 3%
>> >
>> >"equal rights for gays in employment and housing"
>> >Harris Poll, 1995 -- 73% MOE 5%
>> >
>> >"a law banning discrimination against gays in employment"
>> >Washington Post, 1996 -- 80% MOE 4%
we...@southeast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> A poll is considered outdated six days after it's compiled...You're
>> calling on data the most current of which is TWO YEARS OLD!
>
>Stupid, stupid, stupid!
>
>The opinions of the American public on large-scale social issues simply do
>not change very fast. Data that is a year or two old might be a few
>percentage points off, but it is still fairly valid.
>
>I think you are dishonestly trying to change the subject...you challenged
>me to back up my assertion that approx 80% of the public approves of gay
>rights, which I did...so now you all the sudden pull the notion that all
>poll data is worthless out of your tired ass.
Mike --
Take heart -- every time one of these turkeys tries this incredibly
klutzy version of th shell game the vacancy of their position is the
more clearly revealed.
In Yesterdays's mail there was an extensive citation from someone
explaining it all in an article published in 1980 -- I did not bother
to respond but 1980 might as well be 1880 in this matter -- the
medical, scientific, and social understanding the natural variation in
the sexual orientation of human beings had been entirely changed since
that time. Yet there it was to prove another of their hopeless
points.
NOW, polls on questions which are steadily moving in our direction are
held up for derision because they are two years old.
The desperate scrambling for ANY irrelevance or inconsistency which
can be lied about and turned round and round so as to support their
shaky position is a sort of pathetic going down for the second time
and not even being able to understand that they are wet.
ward
Ward Stewart
>In article <3543ab69...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>,
> no....@my.mailbox (Rev. Billy) wrote:
<"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
><
>
>Yeah, only nowdays it's the lesbigatrs and no one speaks out for us.
>
>Melissa My web pages: under construction
>
Take hear Melissa -- more and more voices are to be heard speaking on
our behalf -- even our pusillanimous president tried to do the right
thing -- he failed in the storm of hatred and indignation that
resulted,
I have been watching this thing for fifty years or so and, in my
opinion, the degree of change is beyond anything I could have
imagined fifty years ago.
We are more accepted than we have been in modern history, we are
appearing in places unimagined a few years ago -- we are in perfectly
mainstream movies like The Wedding Banquet, In and Out, My Best
Friend's Wedding -- appearing as full human beings and not
caricatures.
Just a few minutes we were occasionally character actors, Franklin
Pangborne or Clifton Webb -- never central to the plot and certainly
NEVER expressing ourselves seriously. Just a few minutes ago Tea and
Sympathy made an utterly oblique reference to a "difference" on the
part of the young man -- NO actual suggestion that he might be Gay.
Last month, Ben Affleck a brilliant and talented young actor, Oscar
Nominee and beginning what will certainly be an outstending movie
career said ---
"I'd welcome it [a gay role]. There's nothing more irritating
than watching someone play a gay character and swish it up. It's
so rare when an actor does it in a subtle way, where not
everything he touches turns into flames."
Things HAVE CHANGED, they are changing and they will continue to
change -- the forces arrayed against us are noisy but, finally, they
have neither law nor decency on their side.
Ours is an idea whose time has come and we shall prevail.
ward
Mike Silverman
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.98042...@river.it.gvsu.edu>,
Right from the Beginning <ha...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Mike Silverman wrote:
>
> > I think you are dishonestly trying to change the subject...you challenged
> > me to back up my assertion that approx 80% of the public approves of gay
> > rights, which I did...so now you all the sudden pull the notion that all
> > poll data is worthless out of your tired ass.
> of course most americans support equal treatment of gays and lesbians, and
> of course most americans support equal rights for gays and lesbians. Most
> Conservatives will answer yes to those questions. However, when you ask
> them if equal rights mean having gays in the boy scouts, or gay marriages,
> etc, you won't see such great support.
There is either "equal" or "not equal"
A lot of people, like you say, do like to think they are in favor of equal
rights in theory, but in practice they often are not.
This is something important for everyone to keep in mind, and it is why it
is so important to educate people about who gay people really are:
ordinary Americans.
Mike Silverman
In article <3544B6...@the.bright.side>, Brian Carey
<lo...@the.bright.side> wrote:
> > Nothing, just pointing out hypocricy. Bowers, defender of sodomy law, has
> > broken the adultery law. He ought to receive the full penalty, which is 10
> > years in the clink....bet that would make a philandering politician think
> > twice!
>
> Sir, if you want to go on a campaign to see to it that this man is
> prosecuted for adultery, heck I might even join ya.
If I were the chief of the Georgia State law enforcement, I would
personally seek an arrest warrant for Bowers, for the simple fact that
this would prove how crazy such laws are.
> > Portland
> > Bar Harbor
> > South Portland
> > Brunswick
> > Kennebunkport
>
> And...? Do you have anything other than city names? What's going on
> here? How does it stand against the statewide initiative?
Portland: Has gay rights law on the books.
South Portland: Passed gay rights law last month
Bar Harbor: Put equal rights on Nov 98 city ballot, expected to pass (Bar
Harbor supported equal rights by large margin in Feb election)
Brunswick: Passed gay rights law last month
Kennebunkport: Discussiong law, will probably be adopted shortly.
There are a few others as well, in almost all cases these are towns that
supported the statewide law by a large margin in February, but were
out-voted by rural folks from the northern sections of the state.
> > No, but they have a lot more viewers, combined then even a super
> > successful "Ellen" ever would have.
>
> And...?
So your kids are still seeing plenty o' gays on TV.
> > Hell, more people watched the "there nothing wrong with it" Seinfeld then
> > all the 700 Clubs combined!
>
> And...? Is GLAAD lobbying as hard to keep Seinfeld on the air as they
> were for Ellen? Let's face it, this woman was your poster child. Now
> she's gone.
Yeah, it sucks, but let's look at the big picture...the coming out episode
last May was the biggie...that's the one that was watched by 50 million
people, that is what put Ellen on all the talk shows and magazine
covers...that is what had the huge impact...the fact the show continued
for a year was just extra gravy.
From your point of view, the "damage" has been done!
Clayton Colwell
we...@southeast.net wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:44:31 -0600, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike
: Silverman) wrote:
: >In article <3549b686...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net wrote:
: >
: >> This 80% figure you give...What reliable study, poll or survey does it
: >> come from
: >
: >Percentage favoring:
: >
: >"equal rights for gays and lesbians"
: >Roper poll, 1994 -- 76% MOE 3%
: >
: >"civil rights for gays and lesbians"
: >USA Today Poll, 1995 -- 69% MOE 3%
: >
: >"equal rights for gays in employment and housing"
: >Harris Poll, 1995 -- 73% MOE 5%
: >
: >"a law banning discrimination against gays in employment"
: >Washington Post, 1996 -- 80% MOE 4%
: A poll is considered outdated six days after it's compiled...You're
: calling on data the most current of which is TWO YEARS OLD!
: In other words what you have to support your "80%" claim is: "0",
: Zero, Nada, Nothing. As usual it was a bullshit bluff...Big Hat but No
: Cattle!
Heh. After all the hue and cry I've heard from folks like you
about how The Evil Homosexual is gaining more and more favor
in Our Godless Society, I'm shocked that you aren't stumping
for the figure to be considered even *higher* now.
FWIW, though, I get annoyed by some of these polls,
especially the ones that are merely pasted on a Web
page and the "general" public invited to "tell us what
*you* think". Given the self-selected, non-representative
sampling involved, combined with the ease of ballot-stuffing,
any conclusions drawn from *those* type of polls aren't worth
the fraction-of-a-cent it took to display them in phosphor.
Not to piss in your cornflakes, Mike, but was that Washington
Post poll privately undertaken, with a random sample taken,
or was it the "tell us what *you* think" everyone-call-in
type?
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
Publius
DRS wrote in message <6i2ciu$7bk$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>Publius wrote in message <3544a...@news1.igateway.com>...
>
>[...]
>
>>>No. Pantheism believes in more than one god. Jefferson believed in one
>>>god, but not the Christian one.
>>
>>toward seeing God in terms of nature.
>
>
>Main Entry: pan·the·ism
>Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m
>Function: noun
>Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English
>pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
>Date: 1732
>1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
>2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples
>indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain
>periods of the Roman empire)
Agreed, however definition 1 is the more prevelant definition in my
experience.
>>Jefferson believed in one God. He was a Unitarian with deistic leanings
>and
>>it certainly was the Judeo-Christian God he refereed to not any other.
>
>
>Main Entry: de·ism
>Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
>Function: noun
>Usage: often capitalized
>Date: 1682
>: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing
>morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator
>with the laws of the universe
>
>"Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest
>the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The
>Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate these ethical teachings from the
>religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the
>account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along
>with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous
>narrative." Edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.
>http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
>
>He might have 'referred' (your word) to the Judeo-Christian god but not in
>the manner you implied. He gives every indication of not 'believing' (my
>word) as we ordinarily understand it:
>
>"Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush.
>
>Washington, April 21, 1803.
>
>DEAR SIR,
>In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of
1798-99,
>and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through
>which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes
>our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you
my
>views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and
>very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who
>know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed
>opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a
Christian,
>in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to
his
>doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human
>excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval
>since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from
>public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I
>considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or
>information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received
>from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared."
>This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it
became
>a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The
>result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate
>of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by
>someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I
now
>send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute.
>And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant
>perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new
>misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication
>of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the
>presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal,
>and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the
>rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves
>every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions
>of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances,
>become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example
of
>concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering
>questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept
>my affectionate salutations.
>
>Th: Jefferson"
>
>Note how he had to redefine 'Christian', because he is very far from
>mainstream:
>
>"Letter To William Short.
>
>Monticello, April 13, 1820.
>
>DEAR SIR,
>Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the
>syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his
>death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I
>asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At
>the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his
>friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the
>Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known
in
>this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your
>hands I am sure it will continue so.
>
>But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its
true
>and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew
>code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His
>doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he
>preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require
>counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of
>His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the
eloquence
>of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them,
>that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern
>hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may
>not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by
>His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct
morality,
>and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much
ignorance,
>so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to
>pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from
>the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to
>Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery
>of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was
>the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These
>palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try
>to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past
>composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us
by
>man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read
>them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of
>approbation and dissent... "
>
>>You need to get your facts straight.
>
>You need to look before you leap.
I have looked quite well. I was familiar with these passages you cite as
well as far more than this that Jefferson wrote concerning these issues.
His writings were prolific and in particular his correspondence with John
Adams in their latter years is very revealing as to the progression of
Jefferson's thought in this area. Where some may have identified him as a
deist it is clear that while in his younger years he was closer to that
position than in his latter years. He progressed throughout his life in
seeking to come to a better understanding of these issues in his thinking.
I believe he is best defined in his thinking toward the end of his life as a
Unitarian. He rejected the trinity, he rejected the deity of Christ and yet
he espoused the teachings of Christ as he understood them and believed them
preserved independent of the influence of the early church, hence the
production of his Jefferson Bible which I am sure you are aware was an
edited version of the Christian Bible with those influences he perceived and
disagreed with, expurgated.
The God Jefferson believed in was solely within the context of the Hebrew
and Christian tradition and while he was certainly skeptical of the
supernatural elements he perceived as added by the early church I am unaware
of any other context than the Judeo-Christian one in which he described his
beliefs and thus I contend your statement that Jefferson did not believe in
the Christian God to be overstated. The very fact that his Jefferson Bible
draws solely from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures disputes that fact. If it
is your contention that he rejected the orthodox view of God you would be
correct. However, your statement as presented is over-broad and in my
estimation, particularly in his latter years his view of God was far from
deist and could in fact be described in the context of his day as closer to
Unitarian.
Outcast Satanic Bitch.
In article <3544a...@news1.igateway.com>,
"Publius" <wou...@you.like.to.know> wrote:
<DRS wrote in message <6i23n6$ak$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
<6i04gg$r...@examiner.concentric.net>...
<>
<>[...]
<>
<>><Thomas Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the absolutism of
<>>reason, the
<>><impossibility of miracles and revalation, but with a
non-Christian
<>>God who
<>><is the author of natural law.
<>>
<>>Sounds like a Pantheist to me!
<>
<>
in one
<>god, but not the Christian one.
<
<
<Pantheism believes god is all present throughout the universe. It
tends
<toward seeing God in terms of nature.
<
And the difference would be? A Supreme Being that's infinite and
present throughout the Universe IS one god, though maybe not the
stupid xtian concept of a man sitting on a throne up in the sky. I'm
sure Jefferson and I would have gotten along just fine.
> He was a Unitarian with deistic leanings and
<it certainly was the Judeo-Christian God he refereed to not any
other.
Who the hell knows?
<You need to get your facts straight.
You need to get your twistoid brain str8.
Of course that's just my opinion.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is clearly wrong. :-)
Melissa My web pages: under construction
Thank God I'm not a xtian! God save me from xtianity!
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> >> If it were not for the homosexuals in the Renaissance, you would still
> >> >> be building stave churches and painting by numbers.
>
> Brian> Uh-huh. And if it wasn't for Christians like Blaise Pascal, Isaac
> Brian> Newton, Hugo Grotius, Johann Kepler, Juan de Mariana, and the monks who
> Brian> copied the ancient histories, as well as a host of other Christian
> Brian> greats who furthered the progress of Western Civilization, where would
> Brian> we be?
> >>
> >> Yes, and unlike you, he did not insult a whole
> >> class of people that are not harming anyone.
>
> Brian> How is "Yes" an answer to the question above. And what insult are you
> Brian> talking about?
>
> Look what you snipped. Your gross and uncalled
> for insult.
Is this what you are referring to: "Since there is nothing traditional
nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an accurate charge." ???
If not, do tell, rather than say, "You did it." I need to know what you
are talking about.
> Hint, it was the last of your tripe before Mr. De
> Salvio understandably, and regrettably, blew up.
Then I guess it is. Maybe you should explain how stating an opinion
about homosexuality, and an accurate one at that, constitutes an insult
to a whole class of people.
> >> That sort of sentiment is more in line with your original
> >> post on this subject that anything Mr. De Salvio has said
> >> in this thread.
>
> Brian> Huh?
>
> You do not notice what you write?
Yes, I do.
> Hint, he attacked _you_, after your gratuitous
> and infantile insult of millions of decent people
> that are not harming you at all. He did not attack
> Christians at all.
Where is this insult you keeping harping about?
> Now are you beginning to get it?
Nope.
Alex Elliott
Brian Carey (lo...@the.bright.side) wrote:
: Mike Silverman wrote:
: > > > But communities across the nation continue to extend equal rights to
: > > > gays and lesbians. Many of those communities are located in Maine.
: > > Cite the communities in Maine which are extending "equal rights" to gays
: > > and lesbians.
: >
: > Portland
: > Bar Harbor
: > South Portland
: > Brunswick
: > Kennebunkport
: And...? Do you have anything other than city names? What's going on
: here? How does it stand against the statewide initiative?
Before the statewide initiative, one city in Maine (Portland) had a
sexual-orientation non-discrimination ordinance.
Last year, a statewide non-discrimination law was passed, and it was this
statewide law that was repealed by the initiative. This did *not* cancel
Portland's local ordinance or prohibit any future municipal ordinances by
individual Maine communities (in fact, a statewide initiative that would
have accomplished this was *rejected* by the voters two years ago).
In the wake of the repeal of the statewide law, many communities,
including those listed above, have begun to seriously consider enacting
local ordinances modeled after the one in Portland. All of these
communities are locations where the statewide repeal enjoyed very little
popular support.
There is no "standing against" the statewide initiative since said
initiative only repealed the *state* law and said nothing about *local*
laws.
I hope this answers your question.
Alex.
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Alex Elliott
Yale University Physics Department
New Haven, CT, USA
email: ell...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
WWW: http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~elliott
>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<>=<
Xtianutty is Fiction
In article <3550564d...@news.hi.net>,
wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart) wrote:
<On 26 Apr 1998 21:32:50 EDT, wh...@whore.net (That Satanic Whore)
<wrote:
<
<>In article <3543ab69...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>,
<> no....@my.mailbox (Rev. Billy) wrote:
<<"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
<><
<>
<>Yeah, only nowdays it's the lesbigatrs and no one speaks out for
us.
<>
<>
on
<our behalf -- even our pusillanimous president tried to do the
right
<thing -- he failed in the storm of hatred and indignation that
<resulted,
Oh you mean sworn to fun, loyal to none, comrade Slick Willie?
<I have been watching this thing for fifty years or so and, in my
<opinion, the degree of change is beyond anything I could have
<imagined fifty years ago.
I'm not sure whether to expect full & equal rights in our lifetime
though. Depends on how soon xtianutty dies out, as it should.
<We are more accepted than we have been in modern history, we are
<appearing in places unimagined a few years ago -- we are in
perfectly
<mainstream movies like The Wedding Banquet, In and Out, My Best
<Friend's Wedding -- appearing as full human beings and not
<caricatures.
Appearing on TV and in movies STILL doesn't amount to full & equal
civil rights.
<Just a few minutes we were occasionally character actors, Franklin
<Pangborne or Clifton Webb -- never central to the plot and
certainly
<NEVER expressing ourselves seriously. Just a few minutes ago Tea
and
<Sympathy made an utterly oblique reference to a "difference" on the
<part of the young man -- NO actual suggestion that he might be Gay.
<
<Last month, Ben Affleck a brilliant and talented young actor, Oscar
<Nominee and beginning what will certainly be an outstending movie
<career said ---
<
< "I'd welcome it [a gay role]. There's nothing more irritating
< than watching someone play a gay character and swish it up.
It's
< so rare when an actor does it in a subtle way, where not
< everything he touches turns into flames."
Yeah, some of the stereotypical roles remind me of when they used to
have the band play "Hava Negilah" whenever a Jew would come on stage
in a talk show.
<Things HAVE CHANGED, they are changing and they will continue to
<change -- the forces arrayed against us are noisy but, finally,
they
<have neither law nor decency on their side.
True.
<Ours is an idea whose time has come and we shall prevail.
Yeah, like the Tx Rangers say, it's impossible to stop someone who's
right and keeps on comin'.
Bill Bonde
Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> On 26 Apr 1998 21:32:50 EDT, wh...@whore.net (That Satanic Whore)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3543ab69...@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>,
> > no....@my.mailbox (Rev. Billy) wrote:
> <"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
> ><
> >
> >Yeah, only nowdays it's the lesbigatrs and no one speaks out for us.
> >
> >Melissa My web pages: under construction
> >
> Take hear Melissa -- more and more voices are to be heard speaking on
> our behalf -- even our pusillanimous president tried to do the right
> thing -- he failed in the storm of hatred and indignation that
> resulted,
>
crosspost. You know, it's a good thing to on occasion get some posts
into alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. Alt.politics.homosexuality is just too
mono-issue oriented to provide the big picture.
Mike Silverman
In article <3546eaac...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 05:35:37 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >Another question, which has not been asked so far as I know might be,
> >
> >"Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling
> >you what adult, unmarried, non-consanguineous, consenting person you
> >may or may not marry?"
>
> Since they don't do it now, why would they want to start?
Pop the ol' noggin out of the sand once in awhile...
Mike Silverman
In article <354af1b7...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net (Don
West) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:31:48 -0600, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike
> Silverman) wrote:
>
>
> >From your point of view, the "damage" has been done!
>
> Done!...and Measured by Whom or What?
Many anti-gay organizations are pretty clear about the "damage" that they
think Ellen has done. That is why you are not hearing much celebration
from the organizaed anti-gay movement over the show's cancellation...that
would be like celebrating a tornado that is moving away from you after
your house has already been demolished.
Matthew Alexander
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:12:58 -0700, "JeeZus" <Jee...@NocturnalE.com>
wrote:
>>All of us will die.
>>None of us will evolve biologically.
>
>then how do you explain your evolving religion? Explain the Amphibian!
Please, Mr. Zus, restrain yourself...
If you reread Scott's statement, it clearly uses both phrases in the
personal context. "None of *US* will evolve biologically." Barring any
_totally_ wack shifts in medical technology during our lifetimes, we
are quite likely going to die with the same genetic code we were born
with.
He was just making a clever little observation, Jee. Embarrassing
yourself by acting like some kind of frothing fanatic does nothing to
advance the struggle against religious dogmatism.
-><- Matt Alexander
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew
them like applesauce they taste more like prunes than a rhubarb does.
Now, uh.. Now you tell me what you know." -Marx*
Matthew Alexander
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:49:55 -0400, Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side>
wrote:
>> > "'Ellen's' 'coming out' spurred widespread public debate when it was
>> > broadcast a year ago, while leading to renewed charges that the
>> > entertainment industry doesn't reflect traditional values." Since there
>> > is nothing traditional nor valuable about homosexuality, this is an
>> > accurate charge.
>>
>> Ellen's coming out also reminded us that the Southern Baptists, the
>> American Family Association, The Family Reseach Council and various
>> other xtian groups are nothing but tax shelters for bigots, such as
>> yourself.
>
>Oh, yeah. I'm sure that was the first thing in most Americans' minds as
>they watched that episode.
Is that sarcasm? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning: Everyone knew
the episode would be about the main character coming out, right?
Right-wing Fundimentalists were calling for a boycott of the whole
station, much less the program. Conversely, liberals and other pro-gay
rights people were very supportive of a positive lesbian main
character in a network sitcom... right?
Considering all of the above, would you guess that the show was
watched by more pro-gay-rights or anti-gay Americans?
Considering your answer to that question, what _do_ you think was "the
first thing in most Americans' minds as they watched that episode"
was?
Did _you_ watch the episode? Please don't think these are rectorial
questions, I think it would benefit this conversation if we understood
where you were coming from.
I will agree with you on one level, however: The episode itself had
very little to say about the AFA, the FRC, or other Fundamentalist
groups. What _was_ very revealing about the anti-gay movement was the
media circus and embarrassingly juvenile overreaction by said groups.
I mean... be honest here, Brian: When Pat Roberson called the actress
"Ellen Degenerate", were you the _least_ bit embarrassed that your
side was being represented by a grown man using insults more befitting
of a third-grade bully?
>> > "[The executive director of GLAAD] added that she felt 'Ellen' would
>> > ease the way for future depictions of gay and lesbian characters on
>> > television. A handful of new shows featuring prominent roles for gay
>> > characters are being considered for next season." And will probably be
>> > rejected in short order.
>>
>> oh really....what about "Friends" "Veronica's Closet", "Spin City" and
>> the other shows that have lesbian/gay characters.
>
>What about 'em? Did they get the amount of publicity that Ellen got?
I think you've just proven the previous poster's point (say THAT
three times fast...). The admittedly overbearing amount of media
attention played to the Ellen episode was a direct result of the
controversy surrounding the event, and the reaction of groups who
wanted gay characters kept off television. The fact that there are now
several programs with prominent homosexual characters, and that there
hasn't been any serious controversy suggests that Ellen really _has_
eased the way for gay visibility.
To my understanding, the film "The Object of My Affection" is doing
reasonably well in the box office. There's been no sign of scripts
involving gay roles being "rejected in short order", as suggested
above.
It appears that the side that wants to keep homosexuality a taboo and
forbidden subject is losing the "culture war" once and for all. In My
Humble Opinion, the world can't help but be a better place for it.
Matthew Alexander
On 26 Apr 1998 13:10:19 EDT, mel...@NOxtainspam.com (Melissa, of The
Immaculate Concept) wrote:
>In article <35422AB6...@pil.net>, Colo <cmi...@pil.net>
>wrote:
>>I thought the sin of Sodom was more rape than anything else.
>
>I thought it was "because they were wicked".
That's a comparatively recent translation. A more literal description
of their crimes would have been being inhospitable towards strangers.
>But then it's fiction
>anyway and no one in their right mind would take it seriously.
Historically speaking, myth and tribal folklore have always been
_very_ serious tools for passing down codes of conduct and other
memes. The only error being made by Fundimentalists is removing these
myths from all cultural, social, linguistic, and anthropological
contexts, thereby making them meaningless at best... corrupted, at
worse.
Matthew Alexander
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:06:18 -0400, Brian Carey <lo...@the.bright.side>
wrote:
>Then I guess it is. Maybe you should explain how stating an opinion
>about homosexuality, and an accurate one at that,
Isn't "accurate opinion" a contradiction in terms?
L. Michael Roberts
we...@southeast.net wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 05:35:37 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >Another question, which has not been asked so far as I know might be,
> >
> >"Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling
> >you what adult, unmarried, non-consanguineous, consenting person you
> >may or may not marry?"
>
> Since they don't do it now, why would they want to start?
The are doing it now... the marriage laws discriminate on the basis of
the gender of the participants....
+====================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada - to reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my address
+====================================================================+
Mike Silverman
In article <35501cf2...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net
(Don West) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:33:42 -0600, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike
> Silverman) wrote:
>
> >In article <3546eaac...@news.southeast.net>, we...@southeast.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 05:35:37 GMT, wste...@hi.net (Ward Stewart)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> >Another question, which has not been asked so far as I know might be,
> >> >
> >> >"Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling
> >> >you what adult, unmarried, non-consanguineous, consenting person you
> >> >may or may not marry?"
> >>
> >> Since they don't do it now, why would they want to start?
> >
> >Pop the ol' noggin out of the sand once in awhile...
>
> How about an honest, no bullshit example...!
Same-sex marriage, you imbecile, but you know that already...stop playing
silly games!
John De Salvio
In article <3545ff8d...@news.concentric.net>,
droope...@concentric.net (Matthew Alexander) wrote:
Umm... that was Jerry Falwell. Not that there is much difference.
> -><- Matt Alexander
>
> "Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
> And East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew
> them like applesauce they taste more like prunes than a rhubarb does.
> Now, uh.. Now you tell me what you know." -Marx*
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net