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?

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?


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.




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.

Oh yes! Only not as many as are given Gods supposed sanction.


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?

Many of 'em


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 gotta repeat, where do you get this stuff?


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.

Where do you get this stuff Brian? Not one piece of literature I read
was anything anywhere near Gay stuff.


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.

Where do you get this stuff Brian? Who is talking about the bill of
rights? But if you wanna ask questions, is there something in the Bill
of rights about banning literature that is not indecent?


I've been in a religion controlled community. I know how they act when
they are allowed to.


Get out.

I did.


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.

Good one Brian! Okay, I'll let you have the last word on this exchange now.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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 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.

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?

73

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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

Let the day be marked down I Mark Morgan have found a post from N2EY
that agree with every word of
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

cut

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

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