On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:22:45 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>other Christian-haters refuse to accept the Christian heritage behind
>our Constitution.


OK folks, don't say I didn't warn you earlier in the thread.

Bob
 
On Fri 18 Jul 2003 08:00:30p, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:3F188A1E.3AB1BBB4@sympatico.ca:

> This thread is cross posted all over the place and now has become a
> nuisance thread...

How so?
 
HOW SO??? There are many of us who really have not interest in the
raving of the maniacs that are posting regularly to this thread, but we
are interested in the normal posting to rec.autos.whatever. This thread
has lost all relation to the subject areas concerned and, as has been
pointed out, is in violation of some newsgroup charters. If it
continues (no problem with keeping it up, just take it to somewhere
appropriate like alt.religion.christian.charismatic, or perhaps
alt.religion.barfing-yak) I assure you that one of use WILL CONTACT YOUR
ISP and get you shut off the net period!

Best wishes,

Phil Sharkey

Snubis wrote:

>On Fri 18 Jul 2003 08:00:30p, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:3F188A1E.3AB1BBB4@sympatico.ca:
>
>
>
>>This thread is cross posted all over the place and now has become a
>>nuisance thread...
>>
>>
>
>How so?
>
>


 
> >The fact that there is no enduring homosexual family structure isn't the
> >Republicans fault nor is it straights fault. It isn't even political.
> >There's no where for gays to go with it. Redefining marriage to include
> >pairings or groupings (you fill in the blanks) of various types seems
like a
> >nice gesture of inclusion to our gay friends and loved ones, but it won't
> >change anything for them and it would open the gates of chaos for the
> >traditional family and the institutions supporting it. Instead of
marriage
> >being a family institution, it would become legal and moral playground
for
> >adults.
> >
> >
> Considering the number of marriages that fail, isn't it now?

You haven't seen anything yet!


 

> >>
> >> 1. Right and wrong are not religious concepts. They are ethical values.
> >> 2. No, religion hasn't gone the way of the flat earth because there are
> >> always weak minded, addle brained people who believe such crap.
However,
> >> the U.S. is the most "churched" of the industrialized powers, the most
> >> violent and also the most sexually repressed. With these shortcomings,
we
> >> manage to entertain the rest of the world.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, I guess you won't be coming to Sunday School with me this Sunday.
> >
> >
> Will you be burning heretics?

Are you coming???


 


> >That's not what I'm talking about. If homosexuality had the potiential
for
> >having an enduring and stable family structure, it would exist somewhere
on
> >Earth...laws be damned and bigotry be damned. It doesn't.
>
> How did marriage exist before the church and state teamed up to have it?
>

Proves my point. Before they "teamed up", they certainly weren't there to
prohibit it. Yet it never emerged.



> >I remember reading about the issue back when AIDS hit the gay community.
> >*One* of the reasons it spread so quickly was the rampant promiscuity in
the
> >community.
>
> And why is that? Because society will not recognize stable relationships.
>

In San Francisco? Uh, no.


> >Oh please. It's not bigotry to believe that it's a tough thing to be
> >homosexual. Nor does believing it create it. It doesn't mean much to
wake
> >up in the morning and think "I'm heterosexual". Much more so for
> >homosexuals. All the world's cultures have roots in the traditional
family
> >structure.
>
>
> Sure, Nazism, Marxism, etc. Jim Jones' "Kool-Aid" cult. The KKK was a
very
> traditional family group.
>

Your point?


> > To be homosexual is to be outside that "norm".
>
> So is to be Jewish, left-handed, or red-headed.

read the sentence Lloyd.

>
>
> >Over the
> >milennia of human existence, no homosexual based culture or "family" unit
> >has emerged.
>
> Perhaps because society kept killing those who dared try?
>
> >
> >> > it won't change anything for them
> >>
> >> Don't you think *they're* the ones who should decide that? Or do you
think
> >> they're helpless and brainless and unable to determine their own needs?
> >>
> >
> >Biology determines it.
> >
> >> > and it would open the gates of chaos for the traditional family and
the
> >> > institutions supporting it.
> >>
> >> Still waiting for your answer on exactly how two homosexuals getting
> >> married would affect, in *any* concrete way, your marriage and your
> >> family.
> >>
> >
> >The problem isn't how me and my wife are hurt if Frank and Sam accross
the
> >way are "married". The absurdity of that is obvious.
> >
> >Marriage is about creating a stable place to raise a family. It isn't
about
> >money, or hospital visitation, or tax returns.
>
> Then why are those benefits accorded married couples? And are you saying
> people who are too old to raise a family should be barred from marrying?
Or
> if one of the couple is infertile?
>

Enhances welfare of family. No. No.

>
> > To legally redefine marriage
> >to accomadate those things or to provide a legal and moral playground for
> >imaginative adults is going in the wrong direction for those of us who
> >believe the purpose of marriage is all about families.
> >
> >I'm all for gays being able to solve practical problems such as hospital
> >visitation or pick their partners children up from school and so on. But
we
> >don't need to redefine marriage to get there.
>
> Then I take it you support civil unions?
>

Did I say that?


 
Can't you turn the volume down or unplug your speakers?
"Phil Sharkey" <phsharkey@netscape.net> wrote in message news:3EA0E300.2050302@netscape.net...
HOW SO??? There are many of us who really have not interest in the raving of the maniacs that are posting regularly to this thread, but we are interested in the normal posting to rec.autos.whatever. This thread has lost all relation to the subject areas concerned and, as has been pointed out, is in violation of some newsgroup charters. If it continues (no problem with keeping it up, just take it to somewhere appropriate like alt.religion.christian.charismatic, or perhaps alt.religion.barfing-yak) I assure you that one of use WILL CONTACT YOUR ISP and get you shut off the net period!

Best wishes,

Phil Sharkey

Snubis wrote:

On Fri 18 Jul 2003 08:00:30p, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:3F188A1E.3AB1BBB4@sympatico.ca:

This thread is cross posted all over the place and now has become a
nuisance thread...

How so?


 
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>Christians once believed slavery was right.

Don't they still? After all, the Bible still says that if you are a slave,
you should obey your master. Not too damning...

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:17:06 GMT, 'nuther Bob <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote:

>>That's right, "the liberals" are out to destroy religion. If those
>>liberal jerks who wrote the Constitution had just left out that part
>
>Liberals did not write the constitution.

They certainly did. To rebel against the government and put in your own
(and write the rules of your new government) is liberal. There is nothing
about it that isn't liberal.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ?

Ah - but you changed the words and the meaning to twist it to your
purpose. "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
is not the same thing as "shall [may?] not make any law establishing any
religion". Nice try, but a little too transparent.

The government
> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".

That's much closer to the meaning of the original wording than your
earlier paraphrase.

There's two sides to that coin. If they can't make a law respecting the
establishment of a religion, then neither can they forbid nor demand
it. If prayer happens it happens, if it doesn't then it doesn't. They
can't make it happen and they can't forbid it from happening. The most
they can do is remain silent on it.

> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools...

Nor forbid it if it happens - read the original words (not your
paraphrase that has a totally different meaning).

> ...when
> by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
> one or more as the source of that prayer.
>
> Bob

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:45:03 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
>> You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.
>
>
> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ? The government
> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".
>
> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools when
> by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
> one or more as the source of that prayer.
>
> Bob

If you don't know the difference between establish, separate and mingle,
then you'll never understand the 1st amendment. I've never established
a restaurant, gas station or any other business yet I don't separate
myself from them. I go into and make use of many businesses, all
without ever having established one.


Matt

 
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:38:52 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
wrote:

>There's two sides to that coin. If they can't make a law respecting the
>establishment of a religion, then neither can they forbid nor demand
>it. If prayer happens it happens, if it doesn't then it doesn't. They
>can't make it happen and they can't forbid it from happening. The most
>they can do is remain silent on it.

Correct. However, official establishment of a prayer would clearly
violate the part about demanding it. Likewise, I can pray any time
I want, within the limits of disrupting a public purpose, such as a
school engaged in its lawful duties to educate children.

So as a student I can pray at my desk, every morning, about 8AM while
the teacher takes roll call. But, I can't stand up and lead the class
in a prayer sanctioned by the administration.

Bob
 
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Nathan Nagel wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >>DTJ wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said ignorance is very
> >>>>>widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive opinions rendered
> >>>>>here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
> >>>>
> >>>>And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's not
> >>>>bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
> >>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
> >>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
> >>>
> >>>We should welcome them with open arms.
> >>
> >>That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners, regardless
> >>of the sin.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
> >
> > nate
>
> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you to
> accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
> whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>
> Matt

I pray that you never have a gay child.

Of course, you probably do, as well, just for different reasons.

nate
 
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:57:56 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>If you don't know the difference between establish, separate and mingle,
>then you'll never understand the 1st amendment. I've never established
>a restaurant, gas station or any other business yet I don't separate
>myself from them. I go into and make use of many businesses, all
>without ever having established one.
>

Oh, I dunno, you just established yourself as not having a clue.

The meaning of the clause is obvious. The meaning was reinforced
by none other than Thomas Jefferson, who was a leading writer of
the Constitution. This may come as a shock to you, but the members
of the Supreme Court often review the notes and writings of the
Framers and try to establish the context and intent of the
Constitution and it's amendments as written. The intent of this
Amendment was and still is clear.

Only folks like you who try to twist it into some other meaning
have a problem with it. Sorry, if you want an officially Christian
country, you'll need to move somewhere else.

Bob
 
Phil Sharkey <phsharkey@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<3EA0E300.2050302@netscape.net>...

> HOW SO??? There are many of us who really have not interest in the
> raving of the maniacs that are posting regularly to this thread, but we
> are interested in the normal posting to rec.autos.whatever. This thread
> has lost all relation to the subject areas concerned and, as has been
> pointed out, is in violation of some newsgroup charters. If it
> continues (no problem with keeping it up, just take it to somewhere
> appropriate like alt.religion.christian.charismatic, or perhaps
> alt.religion.barfing-yak) I assure you that one of use WILL CONTACT YOUR
> ISP and get you shut off the net period!

Then don't read the ****ing thread. Damn, how hard is that, top posting monkey?
 
Nathan Nagel wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>>Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>DTJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said ignorance is very
>>>>>>>widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive opinions rendered
>>>>>>>here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's not
>>>>>>bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>>>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>>>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>>
>>>>That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners, regardless
>>>>of the sin.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you to
>>accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
>>whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I pray that you never have a gay child.
>
> Of course, you probably do, as well, just for different reasons.
>
> nate

My kids thus far have all been male and female. Not aware of this "gay"
gender. :)


Matt

 

"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:377dfa5a.0307190539.2ebae0c@posting.google.com...
>
> Then don't read the ****ing thread. Damn, how hard is that, top posting
monkey?

Oh God, now we got a NEW thread that's centered on discussing the OLD
thread.

Time honored advice is if you don't like something then go elsewhere. None
of the
Jeep/Sheep thread participants are going to alter their behavior based on
what
anyone says, so complaining about it just makes you look like a Usenet
newbie.

Usenet has had hundreds, if not thousands, of "threads that never die" and
you know
something, all those threads eventually died. This one will too. In the
meantime,
just don't read it. And if you want to do something constructive, post
about cars.
If enough people do that, then the Jeep/Sheep thing will get lost in the
shuffle.
The fact that you didn't shows that you also don't have anything auto
related to
talk about either right now, and why do you think the Jeep/Sheep thread has
gone on
as long as it has?

Ted


 
"Matthew S. Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>'nuther Bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:45:03 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
>> <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
>>> You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.
>>
>>
>> I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
>> an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
>> make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ? The government
>> cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".
>>
>> Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools when
>> by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
>> one or more as the source of that prayer.
>>
>> Bob
>
>If you don't know the difference between establish, separate and mingle,
>then you'll never understand the 1st amendment. I've never established
>a restaurant, gas station or any other business yet I don't separate
>myself from them. I go into and make use of many businesses, all
>without ever having established one.

Then lets make it more simple. The federal government illegally respects
establishments of religion. The federal government defines what
constitutes an established religion. The federal government (and most
state and local governments) subsidize these religious organizations that
have their establishment respected by the laws of the federal government.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Forwarded to groups-abuse@google.com


Path:
news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!borde
r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!news.maxw
ell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!
postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dingleberry@subdimension.com (Dingleberry)
Newsgroups:
alt.autos.nissan,rec.autos.4x4,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,r
ec.autos.makers.jeep+willys,alt.space.monkey.invaders,alt.spacebastards,alt.
chaos
Subject: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? NG CHARTER TIME!
Date: 19 Jul 2003 06:39:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <377dfa5a.0307190539.2ebae0c@posting.google.com>
References: <DmMLa.167233$cm4.4008613@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<3F188A1E.3AB1BBB4@sympatico.ca>
<20ab39bcea286f5381433708b0acf044@free.teranews.com>
<3EA0E300.2050302@netscape.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.161.240.138
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1058621975 14778 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2003 13:39:35
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2003 13:39:35 GMT
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com alt.autos.nissan:110617
rec.autos.4x4:253265 rec.autos.driving:431076
rec.autos.makers.chrysler:220443 rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys:536762
alt.spacebastards:3439 alt.chaos:12073


"Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:377dfa5a.0307190539.2ebae0c@posting.google.com...
> Phil Sharkey <phsharkey@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:<3EA0E300.2050302@netscape.net>...
>
> > HOW SO??? There are many of us who really have not interest in the
> > raving of the maniacs that are posting regularly to this thread, but we
> > are interested in the normal posting to rec.autos.whatever. This thread
> > has lost all relation to the subject areas concerned and, as has been
> > pointed out, is in violation of some newsgroup charters. If it
> > continues (no problem with keeping it up, just take it to somewhere
> > appropriate like alt.religion.christian.charismatic, or perhaps
> > alt.religion.barfing-yak) I assure you that one of use WILL CONTACT YOUR
> > ISP and get you shut off the net period!
>
> Then don't read the ****ing thread. Damn, how hard is that, top posting
monkey?


 
On Sun 20 Jul 2003 07:23:59a, "TJim" <jim@ranlet.nospam.com> wrote in
news:UqOcnTmzJbFM5oeiXTWJkQ@comcast.com:

> Forwarded to groups-abuse@google.com
>
>
> Path:
> news5.aus1.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!bo
> rde
> r1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!news.m
> axw
> ell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.c
> om! postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
> From: dingleberry@subdimension.com (Dingleberry)
> Newsgroups:
> alt.autos.nissan,rec.autos.4x4,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysle
> r,r
> ec.autos.makers.jeep+willys,alt.space.monkey.invaders,alt.spacebastards,a
> lt. chaos
> Subject: Re: Jeep thing or sheep thing? NG CHARTER TIME!
> Date: 19 Jul 2003 06:39:35 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <377dfa5a.0307190539.2ebae0c@posting.google.com>
> References: <DmMLa.167233$cm4.4008613@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
> <3F188A1E.3AB1BBB4@sympatico.ca>
> <20ab39bcea286f5381433708b0acf044@free.teranews.com>
> <3EA0E300.2050302@netscape.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.161.240.138
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1058621975 14778 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2003
> 13:39:35 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2003 13:39:35 GMT
> Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com alt.autos.nissan:110617
> rec.autos.4x4:253265 rec.autos.driving:431076
> rec.autos.makers.chrysler:220443 rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys:536762
> alt.spacebastards:3439 alt.chaos:12073
>
>
> "Dingleberry" <dingleberry@subdimension.com> wrote in message
> news:377dfa5a.0307190539.2ebae0c@posting.google.com...
>> Phil Sharkey <phsharkey@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:<3EA0E300.2050302@netscape.net>...
>>
>> > HOW SO??? There are many of us who really have not interest in the
>> > raving of the maniacs that are posting regularly to this thread, but
>> > we are interested in the normal posting to rec.autos.whatever. This
>> > thread has lost all relation to the subject areas concerned and, as
>> > has been pointed out, is in violation of some newsgroup charters. If
>> > it continues (no problem with keeping it up, just take it to
>> > somewhere appropriate like alt.religion.christian.charismatic, or
>> > perhaps alt.religion.barfing-yak) I assure you that one of use WILL
>> > CONTACT YOUR ISP and get you shut off the net period!
>>
>> Then don't read the ****ing thread. Damn, how hard is that, top posting
> monkey?

For some reason, this netKKKopping asshole actually thinks that anyone really
cares that he's reported a poster to Google abuse. "Oh, look everyone! Look
what I just did!"

Dingleberry is right. You netKKKops are just whiny little bitches.














































 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
2K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
Slooby
P38 2.5 DSE Spares or Repairs [SOLD]
Replies
14
Views
1K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
Arctic2
Freelander 2 (LR2) Front Springs.
Replies
8
Views
891
Freddie17
Freddie17
R
TD4 2.2 Clutch Pedal Release - Normal Shuddering or Something to Check?
Replies
1
Views
326
Alteredtech
Alteredtech
dev742
Oil consumption + cold weather or leaky injectors? (TD5 Disco II)
Replies
0
Views
298
dev742
dev742