| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
September 8th 05, 11:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I ridicule many things. Bravo! You do too! I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So where do we stop, Brian? Has it started? Oh absolutely. Is it when they call for the government to assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like? Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life? No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious leaders. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Clinton sent a couple of missiles into an emply office building to show that you can't just go around threatening the President. Is it when they call for holy war? Yeh, I think we should draw the line at Jihad. There ya go! Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Is it when they launch inquisitions? Saddam confessed to crimes. Not Saddam. But religious leaders have often had purges, inquisitions, and the like. Those damned religious people. I wonder if non-religious people have ever committed atrocities. Kill people in the name of an Exorcism? Is it when a Catholic priest is expelled from the UAR after serving a jail sentence for the crime of evangelizing without a permit? Is it when the preacher stands in the pulpit and declares that if you vote for a certain political party, you have to leave the church? And in my own case, where the local fundies put such a stranglehold on the school system that not only is evolution not taught at all, but that no teaching about any dinosaurs or any animal that didn't live in modern time was taught or discussed. Abuses in publice education? Couldn't be. Yup. In the name of religion. Which religion? Public education is the grand indoctrination that our children receive from the left. Yeah, I keep hearing that. My experience has been otherwise. The far right controlled education and what we learned in my little burg. Keep blaming everything on liberals. It's almost as easy as religion. ....as blaming on religion? You tell me. My "sex ed" class consisted of one session of naming of various STDs, and that was it. That is it. less than an hour. I've seen the other side, and it isn't pretty. What did your parent's tell you? Nutthin. OIC. You blame religion for not teaching you things that your parents are responsible for teaching you, but when your parents fall down on the job, it's still the religious people who are blamed. You're double standard is multi-faceted. I got my education at the public library, reading the books that the far right wanted the library to get rid of. It was nice of them to give out the titles though. Gay stuff? Recently, one upstanding citizen removed all of the "alternative lifestyle" free newspapers from the lobby of a public library. Said he didn't want his children to have to walk past it. There is one problem with religious tolerance, and that is that many religions have no concept of tolerance themselves. Fine. It's called seperation of Church and State. We have that and more. As rights are denied to Christians, the pendulum begins to swing the other way. Problem is that what some Christians consider their right, is to deprive others of their rights. Odd. I just reread the Bill of Rights, and I see no right to sex education. For that matter, I see no right to education at all. As such, it is a parental obligation to educate you or to pay to have you educated. I've been in a religion controlled community. I know how they act when they are allowed to. Get out. Lock up people who make threats against other people and quit whining to me about it. I have no idea what you mean here Robertson vs Chavez. Aren't you supposed to be an educated man? Supposed to be. Didn't find out about a lot of things that I should have known until after I graduated High School. - Mike KB3EIA - You weren't supposed to learn everything in high school. That's why we have colleges. Know anyone who's living depends on other people thinking there's more to learn? So it's okay to have forbidden knowledge? Some issues may not be appropriate to teach in public school. For example, I draw the line at "intro to Jihad," "intro to bomb making," and "intro to the combustible properties of effigies of the President of the USA." Meanwhile, I trust that your personal oddysey into human sexual intercourse education was a success? Dinosaurs are dangerous? What threat does a dinosaur have to religion? Don't know - never seen one. Never seen God, for what that's worth. Life is a life-long learning experience. Learn something today. Always do! - Mike KB3EIA - Hey, Joslyn Elders advocated teaching masturbation to school children. You should look her up. You guys might make a dynamic duo on the sex ed scene. |
|
#2
September 9th 05, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
September 9th 05, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I ridicule many things. Bravo! You do too! I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Are religious radicals sacred? Okay, let me make fun of atheists..... Q. What is the worst part about being an atheist? A. No one to talk to during Orgasm..... So where do we stop, Brian? Has it started? Oh absolutely. Is it when they call for the government to assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like? Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life? No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious leaders. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Clinton sent a couple of missiles into an emply office building to show that you can't just go around threatening the President. Is it when they call for holy war? Yeh, I think we should draw the line at Jihad. There ya go! Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it cut |
|
#4
September 9th 05, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Let's start of with inability to support the extended family for one. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. So where do we stop, Brian? Has it started? Oh absolutely. Is it when they call for the government to assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like? Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life? No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious leaders. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process. Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it "Christian" "than" There's not a one of the major religions that does not preach "love, tolerance and understading" that does not subsequently turn around and use overt and covert violence in order to perpetuate its doctrine or control at some point. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#5
September 9th 05, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Let's start of with inability to support the extended family for one. Why would that be a concern? We don't prevent people from having lots of kids they cannot afford. Many if not most families-with-children I know have all the adults working outside the home. Having more adults available would make things easier, not harder. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. But is that due to the polygamy, or due to other factors such as rejection by the mainstream culture? Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in- breeding. That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not polygamy or polyandry. The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the various levels of government. There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process. Where? Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
September 10th 05, 01:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in- breeding. That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not polygamy or polyandry. Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely close and shun outsiders, Jim. Where's the fresh DNA come from? Kidnapping? The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the various levels of government. And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent intra-family breeding. Most societies (cultures) define "marriage" that way. How would Jim have it defined? There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will prevent it, Jim. Multi"-spouse" arrangements are widespread in the welfare communities, without the benefit of official government sanction, but ultimitely with government (tax-payer) support. |
|
#8
September 10th 05, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Let's start of with inability to support the extended family for one. Why would that be a concern? We don't prevent people from having lots of kids they cannot afford. How many families of 20 or more children do you know of in Pennsylvania, Jim? Actually, there are a couple who have made the papers - by adoption and foster care. Of course they have enormous resources, usually. Point is, there's no law against having lots of kids, regardless of whether the family can support them. Many if not most families-with-children I know have all the adults working outside the home. Having more adults available would make things easier, not harder. But these guys don't LET the women work...They are expected to stay at home and multiply...Period. That's not because of polygamy. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. But is that due to the polygamy, or due to other factors such as rejection by the mainstream culture? Uhhhhhhhhhh.........How many families with more than three or four kids do you know of that "lives well", Jim? Several! Of course the parents have good incomes. But that's not the point. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not polygamy or polyandry. Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely close and shun outsiders, Jim. Sure - because what they're doing is illegal. Where's the fresh DNA come from? Suppose - just suppose - "multispousing" was legal. Would those problems continue? The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the various levels of government. And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent intra-family breeding. I disagree 100%. There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will prevent it, Jim. Not really. The big pressures are simple economics and peer pressure. Plus the fact that there aren't many people who would put up with the inherent relationship inequality of sharing a spouse. I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process. Where? Start with your folding money. You mean "in God we trust"? Just a catchphrase, not even specific to Christianity. Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars. As well they shouldn't. It was common at the time. In colonial times, the dominant churches were usually supported by taxes (Pennsylvania was one exception). However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. "Christian principles"? Which ones? They allowed slavery. They did not let women vote. They did not treat the native population as citizens, and in some cases not even as human beings. How "Christian" is any of that? At least they didn't burn witches anymore. Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits? You mean like the attempts to suppress real science and support pseudoscience? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#9
September 10th 05, 02:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: cut Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in- breeding. That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not polygamy or polyandry. Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely close and shun outsiders, Jim. Where's the fresh DNA come from? then the problem is clearly self limiting The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the various levels of government. And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent intra-family breeding. and most of it is the imposition of Christain morality on those that they could not convince of it There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will prevent it, Jim. gee Polygamous societis exists for centuries Japan for example had an esscaily polygamous system for about 1000 years till the Mengi restorain The Japanesse did ok rising a couple of generation to Challenge the Mightof theUSA itself I am sure the "evil religious people" he was refring to were the Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves to put ambiguous language about "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, however liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the political process. Where? Start with your folding money. Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars. As well they shouldn't. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits? ah yes the voice of tolerance speaks, beliefs other than his own are silly 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#10
September 10th 05, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? There are some points I forgot to include in my previous response. The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws of the various levels of government. And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent intra-family breeding. There's nothing to prevent a *simultaneous* multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists. Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve? -- The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a - Peer/societal pressure - Personal preference of most people regardless of religion - It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more supposed to make it work? I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from "Christian" principles as they are derived from society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| K8CPA Email | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
