I don't think you can equate, promoting freedom of choice and rights of
individuals to banning the Bible.  I'm an Agnostic and think most of the
Bible is nonsense, but I would never suggest that the book should be banned.

Surely if people want to do something that only affects themselves, then
they should be allowed to do it, whether that be taking drugs, drinking,
smoking, being gay or being religious, it your choice.  What you shouldn't
do is push your personal morals on other people.  If you choose to follow
the Bible word for word or whatever, that's up to you.

No one is saying ban the Bible, but no one should dictate to other people
what they can and can't do, just because it doesn't fit their personal
morals.  So any policy that takes that into account, is a good policy, IMO.

If Gay people want to marry and receive the same legal status that applies
to heterosexual couples, then let them, preventing them, is prejudice and
wrong.  Personally I would like people to be able to choose not to get
married, yet still be entitled to the same rights as a married couple, but
that's another story.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Mc Coy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 September 2004 08:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: God damned Democrats


Actually, much of what the democrats want to do would in effect ban the
Bible.
In a land where homosexuality is a protected class and we have gay marriage,
the Bible will be looked at as "hate speach". It would be a crime for a
preacher to speak against homosexuality.
Such laws have already been passed in Canada.
Many liberals already speak of Christians as hate-filled and refer to the
Bible as hate speach.  So this is really not out of line.  It is very much
in line with the attitudes of certain people on this list who routinely
spread thier anti-Christian and ant-Jewish hatred.

jm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: God damned Democrats


> You can't make this stuff up. From today's NY Times:
>
> ========================================
>
> September 24, 2004
> Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the
> Bible
> By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
>
> The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to
> residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It
said the
> mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for
President Bush.
>
> The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay
> marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents
warns: "This
> will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West
> Virginians.
>
> A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of
the
> Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are
doing
> is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are
> playing on people's fears and emotions."
>
> In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican
> National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
>
> "When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and
people
> in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws,
> same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same
activist
> judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of
Allegiance."
>
> The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting
on
> motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the
> appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing
voters.
>
> An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for
> example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
>
> "Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many
think
> a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent
war
> and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't
likely
> to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
>
> In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential
nominee,
> said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell
> everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this
again."
>
> Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force,
> called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements.
Although
> the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex
> marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
>
> "The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and
allies
> on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear
> campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
>
> In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious
appeal.
>
> The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors
> and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex
couples
> could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bi
ble
> passages criticizing homosexuality.
>
> Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake
> Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a
sermon
> denouncing gays as sinful.
>
> Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to
> think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the
Bible.''
>
> But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
of
> the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in
this
> country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this
is
> where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate
> speech."
>
> Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the
whole
> Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably
stretching
> it a bit far."
>
> ========================================
>
> Wirt Atmar
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

==================================
This message contains confidential information and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not
the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail
by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete. The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No contracts
may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
==================================

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *