🚀 go-pugleaf

[I removed kibo from the newsgroups list...]

jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:

>In article <adams.721595322@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>In article <72141699814412@c00404-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu>
>>jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>>>Yep, and charge them with murder just like those who kill with guns. 
>>
>>But they have not committed murder by the current standards of our system
>>of laws.  In fact, there is no 'person' to be murdered under our
>>constitution.  The Constitution speaks of citizens as being 'born' or
>>'naturalized'.  It does not apply to the unborn.
>>
>>You'll have to amend the US Constitution to make abortion murder.
>
>No but I think it should be, and it was pretty much before Roe v Wade the
>constitution and how the court interprets it will be the deciding matter in 
>this issue.

Before Roe, the matter was left to the individual states to regulate.  Roe,
in line with Griswold determined that there is a basic right to privacy and
that abortion was a private matter between a woman and her doctor, which
the State had no overriding interest in.  It said nothing about abortion
being murder or not.

>>>>And this is from history teachers, history texts, AND the neighbors of mine 
>>>>that are ultra religious, and follow and study the bible very closely.
>>>>And your statement "And yes the new testament was written in ad" is quite
>>>>condescending, it's damn unlikely for anyone who received a basic education
>>>>by 1990 to NOT know that fact if only from having the references in some bad
>>>>literature explained in English class.
>>>
>>>I don't know where you went to high school, but no history of what is in the
>>>bible was taught where I grasuated from, only when it was translated, this 
>>>is not a historical fact, it is a religous fact where I graduated.
>
>>Huh?  Translation of the Bible is a historical, cultural fact.  Irrespective 
>>of its content's factual content, the Bible is a historical document and
>>its handling, translation, use, etc are all of cultural and historical
>>significance.
>>
>>The only purely religious issues are the application and authority of the 
>>information contained in the Bible, and which canon one uses.
>
>Yes and that is all that it treated as in some places (not as the religious
>document it is.)
In a purely historical sense, the Bible is rightly grouped with other
ancient and modern religious texts.  What's wrong with this?  Surely you
don't need some sort of secular approval for the Bible!  Either you believe
or you don't...passing a law 'approving' or 'sanctioning' the Bible doesn't
do one whit to increase or decrease the level of truth contained therein,
nor should it affect ones view of that truth.

>Most people don't use the bible for anything more than a bookend.
Which is there perogative.  What would you do with a copy of the Koran or
the Baghavad Gita?

>Well, it is sort of the other way around, they have already imposed their 
>will on me and I am just now trying to try to convince them to see things my 
>way.  
Exactly how have they imposed their will on you personally?

>I would have no choice but to obey what they say and practice my religion 
>underground.
I'm an Evangelical Christian...I don't seem to have any trouble practicing
my religion in the open.  My church is listed in the phone directory, has a
sign next to the street and conducts services.  I do not hide the fact that
I am a Christian.

If you are referring to public sanction of religion, then no, they are not
forcing their will on you, they are preventing you from forcing it on them.
A much different topic.

>>>I can disagree with what you do and demonstrate, fuss, petition and yell 
>>>until I get my way, the same as you.  
>
>>How about we just let each person do what they want so long as they don't
>>violate another persons rights?  Remember, your rights end at your nose or
>>your property, depending.  Exactly how does acceptance and tolerance of
>>homosexuals infringe on your rights?  How are you personally harmed?
>
>Yes, but I keep getting accused that just because I practice religion publicly
>I infringe on others right to not have to.  And I can always try to make my 
>environment satisfactory by changing the things that I don't like (i.e. sending
>representatives to washington that will do what I want).
True enough, but whatever is done must be in line with the Constitution and
the laws of the land.

I bet you can go stand on the street corner and hand out tracts, or pray
aloud, or read the Bible, etc without too much trouble.  I bet you can even
have a prayer service in front of a local Govt. building on 'state'
property.

>>>Yes homosexual marriages do happen, I just don't think any church should 
>>>preform them as that is not right in the eyes of many churches, but you can 
>>>always find one that does, mine wouldn't.
>
>>Mine doesn't either, but I certainly won't make a *governmental* rule
>>preventing it.  In fact, the governemnt should be as neutral as possible in
>>such situations, giving no advantage to hetero- or homosexual couples.
>>Governemnt shouldn't be involved in condoning or discouraging what are
>>basically private relationships between two people.
>
>Fine, leave things like they are now.

But the way things are now *IS* discriminatory and gives special privledges
to those who marry, and then only those who marry spouses of the opposite
sex.  How is this fair?

>>>>>Adultery is when you screw anyone that you are not married to (christian 
>>>>>definition).  
>
>>Last I checked, that's not the case.  Adultery is hacing a sexual
>>relationship where one or both partners are married, but not to each other.
>>Sexual acts completely outside of marriage are called fornication.
>
>Doesn't matter what you call it it is wrong.

I corrected your definition...I didn't say it wasn't wrong.

>>>>>And no, there is nothing wrong with recreational sex in marriage. 
>
>>Nor is there anything fundamentally wrong with recreation sex outside of
>>marriage from a purely secular viewpoint.  Noone will force you to have sex
>>outside of marriage.  You can chose that option yourself.  But society has
>>no business interfering with the sexual relationship between consenting
>>partners, so long as both partners are 'adult' (*not* 18, but mature enough 
>>to make such a decision).
>
>Yes from a secular standpoint it is ok, and that is the world's perogative, not
>mine.  You have the option to have sex if you wish just as I choose not to.  

Bingo.  Now you will cease to insist that your version of morality should
be enforced on others, right?  You just admitted that 'from a secular
standpoint it is ok'...and since our system of government is secular, then
there shouldn't be laws against such actions.

>And if you are 'adult' enough to have sex you are 'adult' enough to raise a 
>child.
But you shouldn't be forced to raise a child, nor to carry one to term if
you do not want to.  Why should agreeing to have sex implicitly imply
agreeing to carry to term?

>>>>>But abortion and religion are two different issues, and man and woman have 
>>>>>the right to say that it should be illegal, THAT gives me the right to say 
>>>>>abortion is wrong.
>
>>You absolutely have the right to *SAY* that abortion is wrong.  But you do
>>NOT have the right to enforce that view on others.  You want to impose your
>>religious values by law - that is totally unacceptable.
>
>Yes and others want to take those values away... by law.

NO ONE, I repeat *NO ONE* is trying to pass laws that will make you violate
your own personal morals.  No one will pass a law that *forces* you to have
an abortion, or *forces* you to engage in pre-marital sex, etc.  You can
make your own choices based on your moral system.  Just because society
doesn't agree with your moral system doesn't mean that you can't follow it.
Look at the Shakers, for example.  Or the Amish.  Or the Mennonites.

>>>You try to use the biblical quote "do unto others as you would have them do 
>>>unto you" against me, while this is a good try, as others are ALREADY doing 
>>>it to me, I can try to do it to them (not very nice or holy I know, but if 
>>>you corner something it will fight)  many are in government doing just that,
>>>and you protest when I want to tell you that you can't marry unless it is 
>>>a woman.

>>Doing what to you, personally?  Exactly what are they doing to *YOU*
>>personally?
>
>Let's see, can't have prayer in public schools (my family=me), 
You can pray all you want.  Even aloud.  No official from the school can
lead a prayer.  How exactly does that violate your rights?  You can still
pray!  And, by the way, what of Jesus command that you should go and pray
in private to God, who is in private, and not stand in public like the
hypocrites???  Hmm?

>can't demonstrate in front of abortion clinics while people can strike 
>companies all day.
That's just not true!  You can demonstrate all you want.  Want you can't do
is block access to a business.  Strikers who do that usually *ARE* breaking
the law, and in many cases you will see riot police there to protect
line-crossers.

You can stand in front of a clinic and pray or carry signs, etc, so long as
you don't harras anyone going in.

>>Why shouldn't he be able to marry anyone he wants?  How does his marrying a
>>man infringe your rights?  Hmm?  How does it hurt you?
>>
>>>You obviously haven't read that part of the bible very well
>
>>"Et tu, Brute."  You seemed to have missed the part about love and
>>tolerance, and that laws were not the way to gain salvation, nor should we
>>bring the Word by the sword, but by the word.  In other words, preach,
>>evangelize, teach, but do not coerce.  A coerced person is no more saved
>>than the one who coerced him.  "You hypocrites...you convert a man and make
>>him twice as much a child of hell as you."..."You hypocrites, you slam the
>>gates of heaven on others when you yourselves will not enter there".
>>
>>Remember, remove the log from your eye so that you can see clearly to
>>remove the speck of sawdust from your neighbors eye.  You cannot possibly
>>survive judgement by the same LEVEL of standards as you are applying to
>>others.  Remember, all sin is equal in God's eyes.  When you lie, you sin
>>as much as any person who fornicates, commits adultery, etc.
>
>Very good!  I can, by this do what I want religously, as you do what you want,
>as long as one makes no restrictions on the other by a law.  I do not attempt 
>to judge others, it is not my place to do so.   

You want to impose your values by law.  That would *require* the government
to judge others by the standard you set up.  That sir, is still you doing
the judging, you've just appointed a surrogate.

>>You shouldn't like it.  Because one day you might just be in the group that
>>is NOT pandered to, and get the short end of the stick.  I don't think
>>you'll like that very much.
>
>Well, lets see I should get my chance when Clinton panders to abortion and 
>homosexual rights activists, so we'll see.

I don't see how this is going to hurt you personally...don't you think that
gays deserve equal protection under the law?  And how is keeping abortion
legal 'pandering' to the abortion-rights activists.  Most Americans believe
that at least some abortions should be legal.  And the Supreme Court has
said they should be legal, even though there were lots of judges appointed
by Reagan and Bush.

>>>To put it bluntly, homosexuality is explicitly outlawed by the bible, and 
>>>therfore I disaprove of rights for them above normal individual rights.
>
>>The Bible is NOT the law of the land, nor should it be.  This country was
>>founded on principles of freedom and liberty.  NOT on the Bible.

>Yes and we lose our freedoms every day, including the right to practice 
>religion.
True, but not in the sense you mean.  You mean state sanctioning of
religion.  Sorry, but there should *NOT* be sanctioned prayer in schools.
The religious freedom we have lost is due to recent Supreme Court rulings
about states overriding interest vs neutral application.  'Prayer in public
schools' *is* legal...sanctioning prayer is not.

No one has taken your rights away.

>>>To put it bluntly, it is the benefit of being "normal"
>
>>Define normal.
>
>If you read the posts in order today you should already get the answer to this.
Let me guess :  heterosexual American Fundamentalist Christians.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558