| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"No One" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 11:41:07 PM |
| Object: |
Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Hutnik" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
08 Apr 2004 12:00:29 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3smfotfy4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
08 Apr 2004 12:17:26 AM |
|
|
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Hutnik" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
08 Apr 2004 10:56:09 AM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
09 Apr 2004 12:09:28 AM |
|
|
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Hutnik" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
09 Apr 2004 01:05:40 PM |
|
|
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
The problem is similar to what when on in New Paltz, NY. It wasn't a
legal marriage, but some people on the local level acted as if it
were. Is it madness to confront this? I say people need another term
for anger besides madness.
- Richard Hutnik
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
09 Apr 2004 08:02:26 PM |
|
|
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
The problem is similar to what when on in New Paltz, NY. It wasn't a
legal marriage, but some people on the local level acted as if it
were. Is it madness to confront this? I say people need another term
for anger besides madness.
The "problem" is not similar. In San Jose, the city simply stated a
policy of providing benefits to all married employees provided that
their marraiges are legal. If the same-sex marriages in SF are
declared illegal, then the city would not provide those benefits
(although the couples might get the same benefits as those who have
domestic partnership agreements.)
First they complain that San Francisco is marrying people illegally
and then they complain when San Jose states it will recognize all
legal marriages, but no illegal ones.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
09 Apr 2004 04:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 05:09:28 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Message ID: <m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
Of course, they're crazy. They're Christians.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Hutnik" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
10 Apr 2004 05:30:07 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<vk4e7014cubhi00qlkarmbqff43gimgh21@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 05:09:28 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Message ID: <m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
Of course, they're crazy. They're Christians.
If this is the case, then please give me some people who aren't crazy,
and a few biographies some of the more notable ones that lived. I
don't think you would want to go with Madalyn Murray O'Hair who was
gunned down by one of the people who she hired, or Freud who was
hooked on narcotics, though.
- Richard Hutnik
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
11 Apr 2004 11:59:35 AM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2004 15:30:07 -0700, (Richard
Hutnik), Message ID: <37bc9e37.0404101430.bf72c5b@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<vk4e7014cubhi00qlkarmbqff43gimgh21@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 05:09:28 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Message ID: <m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
Of course, they're crazy. They're Christians.
If this is the case, then please give me some people who aren't crazy,
(sigh) Evangelicals are xtians. You indicated they're crazy. I put
the two together and agreed with you. Everything was about a certain
group of people in a certain city. That's a restricted group, not a
unrestricted one.
and a few biographies some of the more notable ones that lived. I
don't think you would want to go with Madalyn Murray O'Hair who was
gunned down by one of the people who she hired, or Freud who was
hooked on narcotics, though.
- Richard Hutnik
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Hutnik" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
11 Apr 2004 07:38:33 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<t3ui709095ohrao7a93ov32loj2khj7csa@4ax.com>...
On 10 Apr 2004 15:30:07 -0700, (Richard
Hutnik), Message ID: <37bc9e37.0404101430.bf72c5b@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<vk4e7014cubhi00qlkarmbqff43gimgh21@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 05:09:28 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Message ID: <m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
Of course, they're crazy. They're Christians.
If this is the case, then please give me some people who aren't crazy,
(sigh) Evangelicals are xtians. You indicated they're crazy. I put
the two together and agreed with you. Everything was about a certain
group of people in a certain city. That's a restricted group, not a
unrestricted one.
So, you are saying a subset of Christians are crazy? I read it as
they were crazy because they are Christians (meaning being a Christian
made them crazy).
- Richard Hutnik
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
12 Apr 2004 09:42:39 AM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2004 17:38:33 -0700, (Richard
Hutnik), Message ID: <37bc9e37.0404111638.6d634179@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<t3ui709095ohrao7a93ov32loj2khj7csa@4ax.com>...
On 10 Apr 2004 15:30:07 -0700, (Richard
Hutnik), Message ID: <37bc9e37.0404101430.bf72c5b@posting.google.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<vk4e7014cubhi00qlkarmbqff43gimgh21@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 05:09:28 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>,
Message ID: <m3k70pivs0.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<m3zn9n6oe5.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>...
(Richard Hutnik) writes:
How angry exactly do hatters in San Jose get?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Take a look. <http://www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/images/MadHatter.gif>
Yes, but is that hatter from San Jose? :-)
- Richard Hutnik
By the way, in this case, to say someone is madder than a hatter is to
say they are crazy, because the mad hatter was insane, not angry.
But they are crazy! What else would you call wanting to overturn an
election and throw out a good chunk of the city council or the mayor
just because the city stated that all lawfully married couples would
get the same benefits?
Of course, they're crazy. They're Christians.
If this is the case, then please give me some people who aren't crazy,
(sigh) Evangelicals are xtians. You indicated they're crazy. I put
the two together and agreed with you. Everything was about a certain
group of people in a certain city. That's a restricted group, not a
unrestricted one.
So, you are saying a subset of Christians are crazy? I read it as
they were crazy because they are Christians (meaning being a Christian
made them crazy).
It was word play, Richard. Read what I wrote again and compare it to
what you had written.
Now to address your comment in serious mode.
In some cases, Christianity could have been what drove them crazy.
Consider the hefty and almost constant 'megastick' (hell) and the light
touch of 'carrot' (heaven). This stuff generally starts shortly after
birth and doesn't let up. That's some hefty stuff to dump on a young
one who hasn't the tools to cope.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 08:46:54 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
Isn't it sad that during the election GWB claimed to be a uniter and not
a divider, and out of that 25% of gay people voted Republican. Here we
are, 3 and a bit years later with none of those promises kept. He's not
only split his party, he has also split society right down the middle.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 09:53:30 AM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
Isn't it sad that during the election GWB claimed to be a uniter and not
a divider, and out of that 25% of gay people voted Republican. Here we
are, 3 and a bit years later with none of those promises kept. He's not
only split his party, he has also split society right down the middle.
The way Bush flip flops, he should run as a divider not a uniter this time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 09:16:08 PM |
|
|
Daniel Horn wrote:
Matt wrote:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
Isn't it sad that during the election GWB claimed to be a uniter and not
a divider, and out of that 25% of gay people voted Republican. Here we
are, 3 and a bit years later with none of those promises kept. He's not
only split his party, he has also split society right down the middle.
The way Bush flip flops, he should run as a divider not a uniter this time.
yeap, and atleast it would be honest. Btw, if Colin Powell was running
for president, I would be (if I could) quite happy to vote for him. Yes
he is conservative but not of the religious nutcase variety.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 09:20:34 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
Daniel Horn wrote:
Matt wrote:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex
couples the same benefits given to other married city employees
*provided* that the marriages are determined to be legal by the
courts. Mostly the additional benefits are things like not having
to wait until an "open enrollment" period before coverage starts -
things married couples take for granted. The "Christians" are
apparently a rather hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases
the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting
tired of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know
which "Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably
doesn't realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
Isn't it sad that during the election GWB claimed to be a uniter
and not a divider, and out of that 25% of gay people voted
Republican. Here we are, 3 and a bit years later with none of those
promises kept. He's not only split his party, he has also split
society right down the middle.
The way Bush flip flops, he should run as a divider not a uniter
this time.
yeap, and atleast it would be honest. Btw, if Colin Powell was running
for president, I would be (if I could) quite happy to vote for him.
Yes he is conservative but not of the religious nutcase variety.
Matt
I listened to Powell give his WMD speech to the U.N. Even then it didn't
seem that he actually believed half the crap he was saying, he was just
following party lines.
--
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 11:15:54 PM |
|
|
Light Templar wrote:
Matt wrote:
Daniel Horn wrote:
Matt wrote:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex
couples the same benefits given to other married city employees
*provided* that the marriages are determined to be legal by the
courts. Mostly the additional benefits are things like not having
to wait until an "open enrollment" period before coverage starts -
things married couples take for granted. The "Christians" are
apparently a rather hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases
the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting
tired of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know
which "Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably
doesn't realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
Isn't it sad that during the election GWB claimed to be a uniter
and not a divider, and out of that 25% of gay people voted
Republican. Here we are, 3 and a bit years later with none of those
promises kept. He's not only split his party, he has also split
society right down the middle.
The way Bush flip flops, he should run as a divider not a uniter
this time.
yeap, and atleast it would be honest. Btw, if Colin Powell was running
for president, I would be (if I could) quite happy to vote for him.
Yes he is conservative but not of the religious nutcase variety.
Matt
I listened to Powell give his WMD speech to the U.N. Even then it didn't
seem that he actually believed half the crap he was saying, he was just
following party lines.
True. I looked at his body language and it seemed to say, "I completely
disagree with this whole presentation but I better follow the party
line". Had Powell been voted in as president, right now he would be
mending the economy and not focusing energy on a side line issue such as
gay marriage.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 10:34:11 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
Daniel Horn wrote:
Matt wrote:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
Isn't it sad that during the election GWB claimed to be a uniter and not
a divider, and out of that 25% of gay people voted Republican. Here we
are, 3 and a bit years later with none of those promises kept. He's not
only split his party, he has also split society right down the middle.
The way Bush flip flops, he should run as a divider not a uniter this time.
yeap, and atleast it would be honest. Btw, if Colin Powell was running
for president, I would be (if I could) quite happy to vote for him. Yes
he is conservative but not of the religious nutcase variety.
Ignorance is bliss.
"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
-- Gen. Colin Powell, US Secretary of State July, 1992
In 1987 this Defense Personnel Research and Education Center
(PERSEREC) was directed to examine,among other things,
homosexuality as a condition related to trust violation. PERSEREC
chose Ted Sarbin, professor emeritus from the University of
California at Berkley, and Kenneth Karols, a navy captain and
resident psychiatrist, to conduct the study. Sarbin and Karols
quickly concluded that trust or security risk was also related to a
larger problem; namely, the suitability of homosexuals for military
service. Thus, when Sarbin and Karols completed their study in
December of 1988, they commented both on security and suitability.
They found unequivocally that gay men and lesbians pose no
security risk and are every bit as suitable for military service as
heterosexuals (Sarbin and Karols, 1988).
The Pentagon reacted angrily to the study, telling PERSEREC
Director Carson Eoyang that he exceeded his authority. Officials in
the office of the secretary of defense labeled the report as a draft,
so that it would not have to be released to the public, and directed
PERSEREC to re-do the report omitting the section on suitability.
But, the Pentagon's actions backfired. In the fall of 1989,
Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) and Congressman
Gary Studds (D-MA) obtained the reports and gave them to the
media. The attempt to bury the report only heightened
Congressional and public interest in the subject and
led members of the Congress to pose questions to Secretary of
Defense Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Colin Powell, on the subject. As Powell noted after receiving
a question on the subject in February 1992 House Budget Committee
hearing, "There it was, out in the open, the hottest social potato
tossed to the Pentagon in a generation" (Powell, 1995, 547).
During the period from 1989 to 1992, several things became clear.
First, the PERSEREC reports were not the first ones that the
Pentagon tried to bury. For example, in 1957 Navy Captain S.H.
Crittenden Jr. completed a 639-page report on the navy's policies
toward homosexuals. Crittenden concluded that there is no
correlation between homosexuality and suitability or achievement.
Some 20 years later the chief of naval personnel replied in the
negative when he was asked by the navy's judge advocate general
whether the navy had any empirical proof that homosexuality in the
navy has an adverse effect on mission completion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 09:47:51 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
It still will not make up for the votes lost to Nader's ego trip.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 03:57:51 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk>
in <406C1FE9.9B571BEC@Horn.uk>:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Typical fundies. However, I spend a lot of time in San Jose
and I can tell you these neanderthals are by no means
typical. In fact, if you put Asians and Hispanics together
they are probably a majority in SJ, and the remaining
"people of no color" are a "live and let live" bunch in my
experience.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
It still will not make up for the votes lost to Nader's ego trip.
I'm not too worried about "Darth" Nader. He doesn't even have
the backing of the Green party, he will have a hard time getting
on any state ballot, and I don't know anyone who isn't on the
extreme right-hand edge of the political spectrum who isn't
still angry at Nader for his spoiler action last time round.
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
There's one born again every minute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 07:54:40 PM |
|
|
Fear gan dia wrote:
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk>
in <406C1FE9.9B571BEC@Horn.uk>:
No One wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to recall
the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts - things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot - in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Typical fundies. However, I spend a lot of time in San Jose
and I can tell you these neanderthals are by no means
typical. In fact, if you put Asians and Hispanics together
they are probably a majority in SJ, and the remaining
"people of no color" are a "live and let live" bunch in my
experience.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
It still will not make up for the votes lost to Nader's ego trip.
I'm not too worried about "Darth" Nader.
LOL ... I like that. I remember when he went on the Rolanda
and kept calling her Row-land-a when she pronounces it
Row-lawn-da and she kept telling him (Blinky) that it is
Row-lawn-da, and he still kept calling her Row-land-a,
Row-land-a, but what about Pintos, clueless to the real
world around him.
He doesn't even have
the backing of the Green party, he will have a hard time getting
on any state ballot, and I don't know anyone who isn't on the
extreme right-hand edge of the political spectrum who isn't
still angry at Nader for his spoiler action last time round.
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
There's one born again every minute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 04:27:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:41:07 GMT,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to
recall the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts -- things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot -- in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
The RRR cult's agendas of hate against women and gays ultimately
WILL go down the Drain of Extinction to join the bones of their first
cousin in bigotry, segregation. All we need to do is to CONTINUE to
shine the spotlight of truth on their hatefulness and hypocrisies. And
they'll shrivel up and crumble into a heap of dust like Dracula caught
in a sunbeam.
As for BUSH... well... the *sig* says it all...
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 08:23:52 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:41:07 GMT,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to
recall the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts -- things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot -- in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
However, the RR are the loudest voice. Or else the normal, fair-minded,
tolerant and sensible Christians don't bother to speak up in the first place.
And as we all know, it is the squeeky wheel that greases the politicians.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 08:52:32 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:41:07 GMT,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to
recall the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts -- things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot -- in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
However, the RR are the loudest voice. Or else the normal, fair-minded,
tolerant and sensible Christians don't bother to speak up in the first place.
And as we all know, it is the squeeky wheel that greases the politicians.
Then there is the split in the Republican party between the RR and those
who simply want minimal government, low taxes and personal
choice/responsibility. The *traditional* Republicans are as *****
as the moderate, fair minded Christians. The traditional Republicans
have gradually seen *their* party move from being a free-market focused
party, to that of a theologically and ideologically driven party based
on populist rhetoric that caters to the RR.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 04:08:31 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au>
in <c4habm$2j29ur$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de>:
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Craig Chilton wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 05:41:07 GMT,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
It seems a bunch of San Jose's Evangelical residents want to
recall the mayor and the city council (or most of it) over a same-sex
marriage flap. The city passed a law giving married same-sex couples
the same benefits given to other married city employees *provided*
that the marriages are determined to be legal by the courts. Mostly
the additional benefits are things like not having to wait until an
"open enrollment" period before coverage starts -- things married
couples take for granted. The "Christians" are apparently a rather
hateful and mean spirited lot -- in some cases the people being
denied immediate coverage are adopted children.
Not all Christians are pleased with these antics and are getting tired
of these Evangelicals trying to speak for them. But we know which
"Christians" George Bush is supporting, and he probably doesn't
realize how many votes he'll lose over it.
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
However, the RR are the loudest voice. Or else the normal, fair-minded,
tolerant and sensible Christians don't bother to speak up in the first place.
And as we all know, it is the squeeky wheel that greases the politicians.
Then there is the split in the Republican party between the RR and those
who simply want minimal government, low taxes and personal
choice/responsibility.
That's all very well, but even though corporations are legally
persons, "personal responsibility" never seems to extend to
them. They can do no wrong in the eyes of the RRR and in the
eyes of many libertarians. They get to write the laws and
ignore the ones they don't like, they poison and pollute with
impunity and the taxpayer picks up the bill. Yet when ordinary
people try to hold corporations accountable, suddenly the
whine goes up in unison from the ranks of the rugged
individualists: "class warfare".
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little people need
personal responsibility".
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
There's one born again every minute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
01 Apr 2004 09:14:42 PM |
|
|
Then there is the split in the Republican party between the RR and those
who simply want minimal government, low taxes and personal
choice/responsibility.
That's all very well, but even though corporations are legally
persons, "personal responsibility" never seems to extend to
them. They can do no wrong in the eyes of the RRR and in the
eyes of many libertarians. They get to write the laws and
ignore the ones they don't like, they poison and pollute with
impunity and the taxpayer picks up the bill. Yet when ordinary
people try to hold corporations accountable, suddenly the
whine goes up in unison from the ranks of the rugged
individualists: "class warfare".
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little people need
personal responsibility".
Maybe I'm not too clued into the Republicans, however, the equivalent in
NZ is the National Party who have always pushed for minimal government.
Let people make decisions; if a person wants to have an abortion, let
them. If a person is gay, respect it. You could call it a watered down
version of libertarianism.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
02 Apr 2004 12:38:38 AM |
|
|
In article <4090eb4d.28928359@netnews.mchsi.com>, Craig Chilton
wrote:
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
Perhaps so -- but so what?
If you'll pardon the paraphrase: All it takes for Christian
extremism to prosper is that good Chrisitans do nothing.
--
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
02 Apr 2004 05:20:35 AM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <4090eb4d.28928359@netnews.mchsi.com>, Craig Chilton
wrote:
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
Perhaps so -- but so what?
If you'll pardon the paraphrase: All it takes for Christian
extremism to prosper is that good Chrisitans do nothing.
Maybe there should be a similar programme in place like there are for
stopping radical Islamic preachers from preaching Jihads and holy wars.
Imagine the number of Christian fundamentalists who would be rounded up
in the first day; they would need to built a new jail to house these nuts.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
02 Apr 2004 09:38:22 AM |
|
|
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> astounded us with: news:c4jia5$2jfk32$2@ID-
220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <4090eb4d.28928359@netnews.mchsi.com>, Craig Chilton
wrote:
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
Perhaps so -- but so what?
If you'll pardon the paraphrase: All it takes for Christian
extremism to prosper is that good Chrisitans do nothing.
Maybe there should be a similar programme in place like there are for
stopping radical Islamic preachers from preaching Jihads and holy wars.
Imagine the number of Christian fundamentalists who would be rounded up
in the first day; they would need to built a new jail to house these
nuts.
Matt
Not necessarily, a room full of shower heads and no apparent drains is one
final solution. Did I say "final"? How crass of me....
It's already been done, but not done enough.
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
02 Apr 2004 10:23:04 AM |
|
|
Phÿltêr wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> astounded us with: news:c4jia5$2jfk32$2@ID-
220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <4090eb4d.28928359@netnews.mchsi.com>, Craig Chilton
wrote:
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
Perhaps so -- but so what?
If you'll pardon the paraphrase: All it takes for Christian
extremism to prosper is that good Chrisitans do nothing.
Maybe there should be a similar programme in place like there are for
stopping radical Islamic preachers from preaching Jihads and holy wars.
Imagine the number of Christian fundamentalists who would be rounded up
in the first day; they would need to built a new jail to house these
nuts.
Matt
Not necessarily, a room full of shower heads and no apparent drains is one
final solution. Did I say "final"? How crass of me....
It's already been done, but not done enough.
The death penalty is too harsh. I'm sure 20 years of hard labour,
intensive science and reality being taught will sort these people out.
They'll move from being lazy, whining unproductive members of society to
mellow, relaxed citizens who pay their taxes, friendly to stranges and
realise they don't have all the answers.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Evangelicals madder than a hatter in San Jose |
02 Apr 2004 11:55:11 PM |
|
|
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> astounded us with:
news:c4k41a$2i4j8h$3@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Phÿltêr wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> astounded us with:
news:c4jia5$2jfk32$2@ID- 220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <4090eb4d.28928359@netnews.mchsi.com>, Craig Chilton
wrote:
The "evangelicals," of course, are the RRR cultists... and they
don't even BEGIN to represent the views of **normal**, fair-minded,
tolerant, and sensible Christians, who outnumber them IMMENSELY.
Perhaps so -- but so what?
If you'll pardon the paraphrase: All it takes for Christian
extremism to prosper is that good Chrisitans do nothing.
Maybe there should be a similar programme in place like there are for
stopping radical Islamic preachers from preaching Jihads and holy wars.
Imagine the number of Christian fundamentalists who would be rounded up
in the first day; they would need to built a new jail to house these
nuts.
Matt
Not necessarily, a room full of shower heads and no apparent drains is
one final solution. Did I say "final"? How crass of me....
It's already been done, but not done enough.
The death penalty is too harsh.
Bush doesn't have a problem with it...
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
