From: Don Perrett-VP GPA (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 04:07:30 EDT
>>>Thank you for the label. That means, of course, that what I write must be
not worth reading.
Labeling only because you label others at times. As for worthyness, yours
are worth reading otherwise I wouldn't be replying. :)
>>>If I had made that claim, you would be justified in citing it. I did not.
Deciding what motives a writer has for any particular post is dangerous
But you yourself have made the statement that the "right" sees the "left" as
less Christian. Even if this is true, I do not recall at any time this being
directly quoted from someone on the "right". It may be a reasonable
assumption however and this is what I am doing. The point is that while it
is easy to make generalizations, anyone can do it and your mention of it
being dangerous is exactly MY point. But it's nice to know that one can be
>"One's politics and religious beliefs are between God and the individual
>>>Horse hockey. When your political beliefs affect me, or my country, they
necessarily become between you and me also.
In that statement I did not say that it doesn't affect others. Anything one
believes or does affects others. If you have been reading my various posts
on this thread, you would have noted that I specifically state that the
actions of one affects others, and since their actions are guided by their
beliefs then..., well hopefully you get the point. What I was referring to,
is that no one need answer to another. If I say that you must do and think
as I say, would you not consider this "right wing" or "RR" behaviour? If on
the other hand, you say that I should believe in homosexuality, abortion and
other liberal ideas, is this not the same "oppressive" behaviour? What you
believe will be "judged" by God alone, that is what I meant. In fact the
whole basis of "liberalism" is the premise that people should be allowed to
do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, correct? If so,
then how can you believe yourself? If you feel that "your" political beliefs
affect "me", then how can you "force" me to agree with you. I don't know if
you have even caught up on my entire theme on this thread, but it is based
solely on the fact that the very things you state and believe so much about
can be applied to yourself as well. If you judge the "right" because they
are influencing your "rights", they too can say the same about the actions
of the "left". At some point one must realize that accepting the fact that
the best you can do is to convince others that your position is correct,
rather than complaining about how bad the other person's views are.
Negativity breeds negativity. Too many people in power, both left and right,
complain and say how bad the ideas of the opposition is, but few are capable
of coming up with solid and reasonable arguements to support their own
>"If one believes in homosexuality or abortion, that is for them to explain
to God not I."
>>>Of course. BTW, "the first is an orientation, not an action. The second
Yes, but the first one requires an action, either physical or emotional, to
substantiate their claim to this orientation.
>>>Balderdash. Being homosexual is an orientation that some people have.
its a handicap, like weak eyes. Are weak eyes OK with God?
Are you implying that being homosexual is genetic? As for bad eyes, science
continues to work on ways to heal many born and aquired illnesses and
disorders. Shouldn't we do the same for sexual disorders, whether homosexual
or heterosexual? We look to cure a manic depressive, so that they can be
more productive in life. Would this not also apply to those who have sexual
problems. I know, you say it's not a problem for someone to be homosexual,
but that is your belief.
>>>Killing our unborn is an action I speak against. But there are times when
killing the unborn is the better of two very poor options. I also speak
against involving the government in the doctor-patient decisions on this
issue. Maybe God wants a draconian law on the books for this purpose. So
far, I think not.
Actually, you are correct on your last statement. The Bible states that man
will never be able to govern himself, which is why Christ will return. We
are inadequate at anything we do, in God's eyes. We are imperfect, yet he
loves us. Even those that kill their own child, or may be homosexual, etc.
As for the "two options", I do agree with abortion if the life of the mother
is in danger. If the mother dies, then no more children can be born, and the
child may die anyway, should it become that complicated. If the unborn child
dies, then the mother can have many more children. But, to kill for ones own
gain is not only immoral, but illogical. If my grandmother chose to have an
abortion, my mother would not have been born and neither I. So, if someone
choses this option for no other reason than to avoid gaining weight or due
to poverty, career, etc, I believe they have relinquished their right to
live. NOW, when I say that, I say that in the spiritual sense, not physical.
But, as I said it's up to God.
>>>Not allowing prayer in schools which is government mandated seems like a
decision which is reasonable and rational. There is no law against private
prayer, of course.
If you mean that schools should allow one to "privately" pray before a test
or at anytime they chose, so long as it does not infringe on another
student's rights, nor disrupts the class, then OK. But, many schools do not
allow it at all. If a student is seen praying or prays allowed, even if it
is not in the classroom, but let's say outside during lunch, they can be
disiplined. Still others mandate a moment of silence before test, etc. If
this is what you refer to as mandated prayer, your lost. How does it force
the other students to actual pray, or even hear the prayer of others. If you
know of a school, besides religious ones, that force students to pray, let
>>>I know, W says this all the time. It is an easy answer. I think it is
an incomplete one.
OK. Complete it then. Your answer alone was incomplete. How can one
criticize without justification. There are many reasons that other
nationalities may dislike us. Some for politics, some for religion, some for
our wealth, etc. But I was speaking specifically to the radical Islamics.
They may say that they hate our wealth and influence in the world, but in
fact they hate our morals and religion, or sometimes lack thereof.
>>>Interesting claim. Can you defend it. The First amendment is an early
example of liberal thought. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why it should be
Let me first say that I am a person with a great memory for specific events
and statements, but not good on dates. OK. Both Greece and Rome had some of
the same social problems we do, they also had for example problems with
disease, specifically within the "gay/bisexual" community. The greatly
accepted behaviour of husbands having a "male", usually young, concubine
lead to tragic outbreaks of disease, which back then usually meant death.
How does it serve society for this to be allowed.
On abortion, since you are the expert on it, can you give the number of
abortions performed since Rowe v Wade? The following is not an actual
calculation. It is only to express a point. The end number would in fact be
higher, if this were an actual equation.
1)Take the number that would have been born from that point until 1990,
multiply that by 1.3.
2)Take the number from 1990 to 2010, assuming projections, plus the number
from item 1, and multiply that by 1.3.
3)Continue this for periods 2010 to 2030 and 2030 to 2050.
Now with your number, compare this to the number of worker aged persons
projected to be required to support the Social Security program, that the
"left" loves so much. You may be surprised but if abortion had not been
legalized, their might be alot more people working to keep the lame program
>>>I had not heard of that. I would observe that I'd be on her side on that
one. If the story is true, of course.
That's nice to hear. And, yes, the story is true. In fact it was on just
about every news channel, except the "left leaning" CNN. Ever watch the
"right/center leaning Fox"?
>>>Most liberals I know are fiercely protective of the first amendment.
you can cite where they approve of violating it? As for the obscenity case,
that is a tough one. The amendment has to protect speech we don't personally
approve of, and that's how that one seems to be going. Very much like the
case of the neo-Nazi march in the Jewish town of Skokie.
Well, as I stated, I don't see the ACLU suing the pageant officials for
cutting the girl for her "right-winged" views. And you are correct that
there are those that allow "right-winged" obscenities. What is often the
case however, the "right" does something that the "left" dislikes, it goes
to a "right" court and is allowed, then the "left" goes out saying how
"right" the court was. That is why we have both sides vying to get people
from their side into the higher courts. Correct? I'm not saying that the
"right" is right, I'm saying that both can be wrong. But it seems that no
matter how much I try to explain this to some, they just don't have the
courage to say that they too can be wrong.
>>>I read last year a 903 page tome by Ariens & Destro on the single subject
Religion and First Amendment Rights. It was part of the required reading for
a course on ethics here at Iliff. A much more complex subject than most
Again, you're right. It is complex and for an obvious reason. Having the
right to both "free speech" and "religious beliefs" makes it complicated to
avoid taking the rights of one to give rights to another. I see it this way.
If someone must lose a right in order for a greater number of people to keep
theirs then it should be done. If a few sexual deviates can't look at nude
children, that's fine, if it is done in order to keep the right of others to
religious freedom. This is no different than those in the service giving up
many of their rights, including free speech at times, in order to protect
and defend the rights of the rest of the nation. I guess many of those with
no military background would not understand this. But service to country is
a selfless one and that is something many cannot do. Many are self centered
and only what gratification at any cost to another ones feelings. If for
example a guy draws his own pictures of children nude and "never" shows them
to someone else and keeps them displayed in private away from children
within his home, then perhaps one could make the arguement that this is his
Thank for the parlet
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 19 2002 - 16:35:41 EDT