A Great Decision NJ

slack, i had some thoughts re your statement: "I firmly believe in the separation of religion from state and the state from relgiion." 1) ive noticed because you arent infuriatingly absurd like most liberals, i think better. When i'm furious, ive noticed it interferes with my rational thought. 2) i had mostly stayed out of the homosexual discussion, because it's such an assanine discussion. When people are so absurd, they cant even manage to tell the difference in the sexes, i dont waste my time on such stupidity. 3) however, you bring up the church/state separation mantra, that's such a popular silly fad, in recent times. Going back to 1) above, since i wasnt angry at you, i was able to have a new thought about this mantra, that i probably wouldnt have had, if i had been in an angry condition, pointing up the benefit of not enciting wrath.: While ive mostly thought this mantra is just another excuse for eliminating God from society, for the first time today, i actually had a new thought of possibly being for the idea, myself: Sticking with the homo issue for the moment (for simplification sake, not because i think the issue itself is worth discussion, being so absurd), as a church/state issue, the exact reason that Christians are furious about the issue is because of the state's big, fat nose in the issue. In other words, the state is getting into a church issue, (instead of maintaining appropriate separation) and trying to make idiot laws, and shoving them down the country's throat. People who dont want garbage forced on them, DO WANT separation of church and state. Let the stupid state stay out of where it doesnt belong, and there will be more of the separation you say you want. The church was quiet toward homos (other than treating them kindly), before the stupid state, with its idiot judges, failed to heed the separation of church and state. So it turns out that like you, i am for separation of church and state, and the more garbage that the state tries to shove down my throat, the more the state will be in violation of the separation of church and state mantra. tw

slack, i was looking for a simpler way to get to kevin's articles, and came across this. I dont think i could say more than this, no matter how long i contemplated. After this, there just is no excuse for defense of homosexuality, except by someone who wants destruction of humanity (such as many idiots in govt, especially "judge" idiots.
the first part of this is polishits. If like me, you have no interest in polishits, (other than to keep the worst scum out of office), skip down to where i draw a line, with --------------------------------------------------------------------to get to the part really worth reading. If you are interested in the polishits, you can read the first part, too.):


The 'gay' (of course, slack, you know he puts 'gay' in quotes, because there's nothing gay about this illness. Calling it 'gay', is typical of liars of current times, perverting appropriate usage of words.) Truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough


Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by JohnHuang2


Even though people on both sides of the issue deny it, it is increasingly obvious that homosexuality is dominating a new place on the scale of American political life. Even in conservative circles, prominent voices – some of whom I call friends, all of whom I respect – continually find themselves divided on not only the issue, but also how people of conscience respond to it.


In recent weeks, David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America, have been "duking it out" on the issue of whether or not prominent faith-based conservatives (Gary Bauer, Paul Weyrich, Sandy Rios, et al.) should have confronted RNC Chairman Marc Racicot his meetings with the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans.


I have also had some recent spirited discussions with everyday people, fellow pundits, and talk-show types, among them Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager, who also disagree as to the basic tenets of some of what those "religious-right" types had to say to Chairman Racicot.


And since we are on the issue of the chairman of the RNC meeting with the "Log Cabins," let me take my position on that first. Chairman Racicot did nothing wrong in meeting with this group. The chairman's job is to meet with groups of all sorts. He is to allow them to say what they have to say, respond, and let them go. The devil is in the details.


Did he make concessions to them? Did he promise them things that compromise President Bush's otherwise stellar performance for social conservatives? If he did, then that is where and when all that is holy should break loose and crumble around him. On this point, I believe Horowitz is right – Chairman Racicot should be allowed to determine whom he will and will not meet with. (slack, if not interested in polishits, just let me know, and i'll omit, in the future. Maybe like me, you consider politshits garbage.)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________


But I have noticed that when it comes to the entire issue of homosexuality, increasing numbers of banner conservatives are going soft***(other names are "politically correct", or the old fashioned "chicken shit") on truth that has been commonly understood for thousands***of years. That truth is this: Homosexuality is behavior that is damaging to individuals, to families and to society.***(slack, this is why i advise not defending it. Common sense and thousands of years are clear enough that defending it, is promoting human destruction. Read on, if you need more proof.)


Conservatives have been scared into believing that there really is something about homosexuality that is uncontrollable or inherent in genetic or biological make-up to cause these people to behave in this manner. On this point, Horowitz is dead wrong***(i'm glad that kevin points out this truth, not because i dislike horowitz, but to stick with truth. Horowitz is the most excellent ive seen on some issues, such as the destructive muslim scum and what garbage the democrat party is, and that theyre owned by garbage like george soros, who wants the u.s. destroyed by socialism. As kevin indicates, horowitz is wrong on this issue, but excellent on some other issues. We dont play favorites; we go with truth wherever it is, and when a usually truthful source, is wrong, we dont pretend otherwise.)

– there is not a scintilla of proof that homosexuality is a genetic or biological trait. To believe otherwise diminishes Horowitz's credibility, at least on this issue.


So let's examine the statement that has been commonly understood for thousands of years.


It is damaging to individuals. It's true – from AIDS to suicide – look at the numbers. What single group of people is more affected than any others? Homosexual men. At the "International Mr. Leather" contest held in Chicago in 2002, a man died from the "activities" of the weekend. The sex was billed as blockbuster, but what difference does that make if you are found face up in a pool of your own blood after having been given large dosages of the date rape drug?


The "gay" lifestyle does nothing to promote monogamous healthy relationships. Why? Because there is little, if anything, healthy about nihilism, narcissism and compulsive sexual addiction. Yet the community where these traits are not only seen, but also encouraged, is again among individuals wrapped up in the "gay life."


It is damaging to families. Heck, it destroys them. The "alphas" in homosexual relationships, be they men or women, are many times recruiting younger partners. A vast percentage of those who enter the homosexual life do so after having been sexually initiated by an older person of their sex – be it consensual or not – it usually has the feel of enticement or seduction. Homosexuality also destroys families by preventing their future possibility. Frank and Charlie can't have kids – at least not as God designed it. This basic, simple word picture should be easy to understand.


Homosexuality is damaging to society. Over Memorial Day weekend, here in Chicago, the International Mr. Leather event returned. First-hand accounts of hotel workers who were molested, security guards who resigned over fondling, as well as the inability to be allowed to keep order, and the city police who looked the other way while the most disgusting displays of ingestion, consumption, expulsion and any other bodily functions took place in public rooms should settle this issue.


But if you are still not convinced, go out and buy a copy of Dr. Cary Savitch's book, "The Nutcracker Is Already Dancing." Our fear***(nothing is worse than fear; "fear brings torment." Yet, america now, loves fear, meaning that america is in pitiful condition. Slack, have you noticed or sensed that america is in pitiful condition, especially with its love of fear?) to speak out on basic understandings of right vs. wrong is preventing our society from reaching its potential.***(slack, i especially like this remark. Being a person who loves excellence, i'm interested in the reaching of potential. How about you?)

But beyond that, we are also laying the foundation for a destructive future.***(not only not reaching potential, but going the opposite way - to destruction.)


So what am I suggesting? That my otherwise clear-thinking conservative friends and colleagues be courageous and remind the world that one of the basic tenets of conservative values is knowing that there is such a thing as right and wrong.***(slack, you seem to believe that there is right and wrong. Thus, you dont seem to be a real liberal. If you do care about distinguishing right from wrong, and choosing right, for the best for everyone, then i humbly suggest you reconsider some things. I say humbly, because youve shown enough sense to be treated humbly, and not just as another idiot, wanting destruction.)

And for as long as God's creation has been here, homosexual behavior has always been – and continues to be – morally wrong.


Love for our fellow humans can only exist in the presence of truth. When will we as compassionate conservatives show enough compassion to love people to a better tomorrow?

(that's it, slack. Do you find any fault with it? If so, let me know what. I'd like to see how any rational being could find fault with it.) tw

I think you are agreeing with me on the subject of church and state.

Basically for me it boils down to this.

1. Religion has much to teach us. Especially in countries where different religions are respected and religious thinkers are allowed to express themselves freely.

2. Once the state gets involved with religion, religious leaders and thinkers are no longer completely free to follow their own minds and hearts. It will not be long before political correctness rears its head and church leaders will worry about saying or doing something that will offend the state. They may lose funding, lose their tax exempt status, not be allowed to perform certain ceremonies. Who knows, but you know as well as I do it is sure to happen.

3. State involvement with religion will increase non productive squabbling between religions. Which religion does the state appear to favor more? If the state gives 10 million dollars to christian charities, should they also give the same to muslim charities? What about my private religion that I start in my garage? If I get 100 people to come every week to a church of agnosticism and humanism which runs a homeless shelter should I get tax money for my charity? What about scientology for heaven's sake? Should we fund Tom Cruise's and John Travolta's church with your tax dollars?

4. Religious involvement with the state is already accomplished by our form of government. You are free to join whatever church you want and learn and promote that religion's moral teachings. You then vote. Your vote counts exactly as much as my vote. The legislators we elect then enact laws that regulate behavior. If these legislators pass laws that we don't like for moral reasons we don't have to vote for them. Someone else will be elected and the laws will change.

5. Underlying the laws legislator's pass is our Constitution. An independent judiciary makes sure the laws don't violate basic principals embedded in the Constititution. The view of judges on the constitution changes over time as they are replaced by new judges from different generations and by Presidents with different political points of view.

This process is roughly followed at both the state and federal level of our government. The result is that, over the long term, the laws regulating social behaviour in this country pretty much express and align with the morals embraced by the majority of the adult voting population. In the short term, things can get out of whack due to strange decisions or mistakes on the part of the legislature or judges, but the system is designed to be as self correcting without the need for violent revolution as possible.

I can't think of a better system of government than the one we have now, so I would not change it. I may not agree with all the laws and interpretations of laws by the Bush administration, but I follow them. I am also allowed to protest and publicly argue that Bush is wrong, vote for people that want to change things, and try to persuade others to vote like me.

You may not agree that all moral values you hold as self evident or mandated by your relgion are properly enforced on the population as a whole. I may even agree with you on some points. You can persuade other people, donate to political movements and candidates and work to change the laws. This has been going on for years regarding abortion, for example, and I think there is ample evidence that the laws are changing. And as I said in my post on this topic, I think we are close to being able to get some sensible laws at the state level that will be supported by the Supreme Court.

That is as it should be. It may be too slow for some people's liking. But it is better than the alternative of having religious leaders looking over every law passed by the government with the right to reject them based on their private interpretation of a religious text. Thats how they do it in religious states like Iran. I would not want to live under that system.

I won't argue the point about whether homosexuality is biological or hereditary. That will only be proved to me one way or another by scientific evidence. You know I don't just accept assertions based on bibles or korans without other evidence. I am not greatly interested in the subject so I have not done much research on my own, but I think both sides of this argument have some good points, but I think the jury is still out.

To me it really doesn't matter. There have always been homosexuals in our species and there is homosexual activities in other species as well. It is never anything but a minority trait, and a small minority at that.

I will agree with you that there are obvious life styles associated with human homosexuality and that some gay people promote these life styles. As long as they aren't harming people there's no problem with that. Elements, such as fashion or art, may find their way into the mainstream but the lifestyle itself is not attractive at all to the majority of "straight" people. So I don't see any harm in letting them express themselves.

You will always find examples of people behaving boorishly and stupidly. Especially at conventions or public gatherings. That doesn't mean all people of that persuasion are stupid and boorish. As you know there are many politically conservative gays and lesbians and they have formed their own group of Log Cabin Republicans. I am sure they are very well behaved and that unless they told you they were "gay" you would not even know it if you met them in a business relationship.

I think you miss one huge point: The Federal Judiciary injected, or a better term -purloined the issue from the States. First in Griswald, and then in Roe, The SCOTUS found "privacy" rights and then abortion rights never once explicated by a)the Constitution or b) Federal Statutes or court precedent. I read your views on abortion, and unfortunatly the SCOTUS says you have not right to put your view into legislative actions. The SCOTUS took that away from the states in 1973.

As it now stands, abortion is constitutionally protected procedure, that enjoys more respect from our judges than constitutionally explicated rights such Freedom of Speech, and Eminent Domain.

I don't know enough about gay issues to make an intelligent comment on the subject and therefore wisely decline this opportunity.

Church & State?
When religions declare themselves above the law and solicit fugitives to harbor and protect from due legal process then the State should assert full legal authority and close the church, throwing the Pastor or Priest or whatever in jail where criminals belong.

I would agree with you that if a priest commits a crime he should be arrested and tried like any other citizen. Generally that is what happens in this country, though there are certainly going to be cases where prosecutors may be more reluctant to go after a religious figure than an ordinary citizen. And in some cases juries may be more reluctant to convict them.