......that attend the Christian Church (and we know you are out there)......would you please share with us what in the world was going through your head when you voted for Gore???

If the people in the Christian Churches would have 1) voted; and 2) voted right....I dare say we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

And don't give me this garbage about being "citizens of another kingdom".

You had the chance to bring some justice here and now....(i.e., saving lives by limiting abortions....just to name one).

So please, enlighten us....if you have the backbone.....to share with us what in the world you were thinking.

I've really wearied of the church bragging of its numbers and having so little affect on society.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2000

Answers

Agreed Mark.....BUT.....if (following national trends)....only 50% of voters voted in FL (including only 50% of church people).....what a difference it would have made if church people would have voted....and voted right.

Now I will also grant you this.....if "Gore the Vote Whore" ends up stealing this election....expect to see even greater apathy next election.

As I said before....Gore WILL NEVER be my president....and I will never refer to him as such.

Also.....my son was thinking about the military....but I have pushed him away from that. Otherwise....he might end up in jail....because like his dad....he'd probably get in trouble for giving the "Commander in Disguise".....the wrong kind of salute.:)

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2000

Funny Robin......

I deal with LOTS of people every day who not only agree with me but see me as a "breath of fresh air" to the spineless jellyfishness the church has represented for years.

Your attitude has contributed a lot to the poor shape our country is in.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000

Thanks for the clarification Connie.

I had JUST heard that yesterday....it's good now to have the source.

I appreciate it.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000

Respect Robin....is EARNED!!!

Just like I don't respect a mass murderer like Jeffery Dahmer....I don't respect a man who...(shall I list them).....

Lies to the American people Sells our military secrets to the Chinese thus placing the safety of my children in danger Says that an "adulterer and whoremonger" is (and I quote)..."The Greatest President in United States History." Codemns the violence of Hollywood while hypocritcally taking money from them.

Robin.......take some time to read the minor prophets and see how "respectful" they were to their disgustingly sinful kings.

But then....I have to keep remembering....your're from Wisconsin....one of the few Gore states I believe!!:):)

When I referred to your attitude Robin...I meant...your apathy.....to just sit back and let them do whatever they want.....and your unwillingness to speak out againt the Jezebel's of society whether they be "Vote Whores" like Al Gore.....or crooks like Hillary.

Again....read the minor prophets if you want to see some really "to the point" language.

My attitude, compared to them.....is mild.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000

Robin....I can chose to use the words apathetic if I choose....that does not make me a liar...so feel free to use whatever words you need to. You are apathetic about rights of others that you don't care if they lose or don't lose....because....you don't think it affects you.....(eg. smoking). I knew you would ask for an example...so I gave you one.

Again.....read the minor prophets....better yet....let me quote JUST ONE....verse for you.

Amos 4:1....."Hear this you cows of Bashaan"

Now....who was he speaking of?? Namely, the rich oppresive wives of dignitaries in Israel.

Now tell me Robin....what is the logical difference between what Amos said......and what I said??? Why did it work for the prophets....but it won't work for us??

You see, the difference between you and me....is I call an ace and ace, and a spade a spade.

You can fulfill your call in whatever way you feel necessary. But personally, I weary of your criticism of those who chose to be a little more confrontive than you.

Again, it boils down to this.....a liar, a thief, a whoremonger....are not deserving of respect.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

What gives anyone the right to point out any sin....hmmmm Robin??

That same lame argument "Amos was inspired by the Lord" can be used (and has been used many times) anytime one points out any sin even in the church.

Anyone who stands for the Lord and His word....."is inspired of the Lord."

Yeah....the "wrong kind of salute" would be....."Hail Hitler!!!"....cause that's exactly what he is.

By the way....I just heard a new theme song if Al Gore ends up winning the election....how about this.....

"Hail to the Thief!!"

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

Robin....

You asked...."What that kind of talk accomplishes for Christ?"....two things; 1) The same question could have been asked of Amos concerning his "Cows of Bashan" remarks; 2) Corinthians states on the day of judgment each man's works will be tested with fire (not Robin's criteria).

I have a clear conscience and stand ready for that test. How about you??

Back to the original intent of the thread.....no Gore voters willing to share their rationale??

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

Robin...

Don't misapply Scripture.

Ephesians 4 is referring to those in the body of Christ....specifically at Ephesus.....the rift between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Building up our brothers and sisters in Christ....that is THE meaning of that passage.

I have no obligation to build up a thief....a crook....a liar...et. al.

If Gore and/or Clinton had ever shown any signs of repentance...that would be a different story.

But they ultimately are driven by the source of all evil.....Satan himself.

And yes Robin....I do pray for Clinton.....and Al Gore. I pray they get the punishment they deserve for their stiff necked unrepentant atttitude.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2000

Oh....and one more thing Robin....

You don't listen to Rush Limbaugh much do you?? Do they even broadcast him in Wisconsin??:)

If you did....you would understand why some of us have fun with the political satire (i.e., Dr. Seuess, "Hail to the Thief")...etc. It's called..."Highlighting absurdity with absurdity."

By the way.....Jesus was masterful at this as well. Have you read Matthew 23 lately?? Following your criteria....where's the "building up" that Jesus did there??

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2000

Robin....

I'm on vacation in Kansas deer hunting with my 15 year old.

I have a great way to end this discussion and I even hinted at it before.

You do it your way.....I'll do it mine....and let "the fire"...on judgment day....either destroy the house....or cause it to stand stronger.

Nuff said!!

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Hey Robin.....

There's another difference between me and you.

You ask...."How does one support someone who obviously backs abortion rights?"

I would ask it this way...."How does one support a child murderer??":)

Also....Craig.....Really?? (And they say us conservatives are "mean spirited????")

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

ROBIN.....I don't care...never have....that you don't like the way the question is phrased. And your're right....the question was poised to prove my point which happened to be....the right point. Abortion is murder and Gore had the opportunity to at least stop partial birth abortions....and he didn't do it and won't do it. With this we can be sure. If Bush becomes president, within a very short time, it will again be illegal to partially deliver a baby, stab a knife in its spinal cord....and suck its brains out. Now tell me Robin....how do you sugar coat that one??

CRAIG: You slay me. You ask forgiveness for trash talk....AND THEN....proceed to trash talk against Mark Wisniewski by questioning who was going to be "his list" next time. Liberals never can refrain from mean spiritedness no matter how hard they try.

And Craig....granted...the church has failed in its attempts to challenge its people to live holy. We have been more concerned with "getting the numbers up" and maintaining the status quo. However, we do not need govt. to make the job tougher my passing laws that ENCOURAGE and LEGITIMIZE immorality.

And by the way Craig....morality is legislated all the time. Every time you pull up to the stop light.....your morality is legislated....every time you see a sign "No Beer before 2 on Sunday"....morality is legislated. So don't tell us the govt. can't do that.

Slice it anyway you want.....but those who supported Gore have "innocent blood" on their hands.

And by the way.....your statistics are out of whack. The statics show that since Roe v. Wade....back alley abortions have increased....not decreased. Check it out in "Handbook on Abortion" by Dr. Wilke.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Jennie....

As a Jew....you have no right to use the teachings of Christ to chastize Christians whom you don't agree with in the first place. Craig's rhetoric of referring to Jews in the way he did may have been harsh...BUT....to then tell him it was unprecedented in Scripture was wrong on your part. Jesus DID say to the Jewish lenders that they had turned the house of God into a den of thieves and, in what some today would call a very "unloving act".....he took a scourge of cords and beat them with it and drove them out of the temple.

BENJAMIN REES......I am so absolutely impressed I'm almost beside myself. I thought I was the only one who was aware of the fact....that in fact.....prohibition....worked VERY WELL. (I dont' agree with prohibition......but....it did work!!) More than likely it was the big alchohol companies who worked and eventually succeeded to get the prohibition laws overturned. And....they had to do it....because it worked!!! Anyway....thanks for being such a sound student of history.

MARK....you are so very right. If "Dubya" doesn't toe the line....he will be on my hit list as well!!:) He is already running into potentially dangerous waters with this "bi-partisan"....baloney he is talking about. I keep saying...."Don't do it!!!....remember Dad??" The fall of his dad began when he started reaching out to Dems. and they snapped his hands off. Remember "No new taxes"....and then he "compromised" with the Dems....and what did they do?? Stabbed him in the back like a partial birth abortion. Compromise is what you do when you don't have convictions!!! People supported him because he had a message of conviction. That support will drop quickly....if he washes like his dad.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Oh...and Jennie.....

One thing that will make a discussion with you difficult is that we both operate from a different standard. Our morality is based on a standard...i.e., the Scriptures, which for us include....the New Testament. You reject at least the N.T......and depending on what branch of Judaism you are a part of....even all or part of the O.T. is up for grabs as well.

I say this to simply point out....this tread....and possibly not even this forum is for the purpose of converting you to Christianity or even discussing the tenets of Christianity and their validity or lack thereof. If you read the introduction to this forum.....it makes it clear. In fact, the original intent of this thread was..."Christians who voted for Gore." I knew that Jews in large numbers supported Gore (although I still can't figure that one out in light of the fact that Clinton and Gore have spent great amounts of time trying to convince Israel to give up more and more land to the Palestinians).

Therefore.....you need to start a new thread wherein you ask particular questions about why Christians believe the way they do. Your post here really distracts from the original intention of the thread.....and takes the discussion off into all kinds of different directions.

Just a suggestion.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Craig...

Funny!!! You don't want laws limiting abortions....but you want gun laws. How inconsistent is that??

No need for new gun laws.....simply enforce the ones already on the books!!!

I do appreciate your last post. It speaks volumes about where you are coming from and why....it's a good thing you and I don't go to the same church. I'm sorry....God simply does not speak through a Hindu mystic. That would be more of the mouthpiece of Satan....the father of all lies and false religions.

I appreciate your sense of humor in the midst of our bantering.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Benjamin.....

There is one big difference between us, Cananda, and the UK. It's a little thing called....THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT. They had no such thing.

And just for the record....THE ONLY EMPIRICAL evidence ever done on the subject shows.....exactly the opposite.

I'm not sure of the name of the author....but the title of his book is....."More Guns...Less Crime." I'm sure you could do a web search or look on NRA's web page in their book store to find it.

No....he is not a friend of the NRA or any organization. He is simply a college professor who studied the crime statistics as they relate to states with or without concealed weapons permits.

What the data showed conclusively.....was that states with more liberal (i.e., easily accessible) concealed weapons permits.....had signigicantly less crime than those states that do not allow concealed weapons carry.

Two cases in point.....the highest murder rate in the nation is Washington, D.C. and the second is New York.....both of which....have the most stringent gun laws in the nation.

Compare that to my home state of Indiana. Concealed weapon permits are relatively easy to acquire. Yet.....it is rare....that one reads of a murder in the state.

Again....his book is the only scientific study ever done showing any emperical evidence for his conclusions.

The rest of what we hear is purely.....propoganda.

BTW....I did missionary work in Jamaica for a little over 10 years. Weapons have been outlawed there for years. That helps to explain 1) Why people live in fear of the criminals; and 2) every house has bars on the windows. Every Jamaican I ever met envied Americans for the right to protect themselves.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Point taken Robin.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Mark is right on that one.

Mention God in anyway and immediately you are labeled as a part of the "Christian right".....(which is alright since there is no such thing as the "Christian wrong.")

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Again...I would suggest....there would be more people cheering!!!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

I'm sorry Benjamin....but personal experience simply does not replace....the facts.

Secondly, again you failed to recognize the thing that separates us from the rest of the world....namely.....a Constitution and a second amendment.

Thirdly....your "poverty issue" sounds two much like the liberal, left wing, Jesse Jackson view of the world....that if everyone was housed, fed, and etc.....there would be no crime.

That has always been the basis of communistic and/or utopian philosophies to which as of yet.....history has shown....no society based upon these principles has fared very well.

Lastly, and I say this with respect....unless you are willing to study the facts....which you yourself have admitted that you have not done....nor do you have the time....for the sake of fairness....it might be better to withhold your opinion. Othewise....you are simply repeating a "mantra" of anti-2nd amendment propoganda.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Benjamin....

It's the Second Amendment....not the First.

Let's get something straight....the NRA is not "a something".....it is people. There would be no NRA were it not for the millions of law abiding citizens who are sick and tired of being blamed for that which is the fault of legislators....namely....not prosecuting criminals. The NRA is ONLY powerful because it has a lot of people (including myself) proudly backing them. We fully recognize that a govt. that can restrict the Second Amendment.....can also do the same to the First. Can you logically tell me why this would not be so??

Sorry Benjamin.....the facts are simply not on your side.

Again....you failed to address Washington DC and New York. By your faulty logic....those two states with the most restictive gun laws in the nation should have the least amount of crime. Yet just the opposite is true.....they continue to have the highest rate of murder. On the other hand.....states with very loose concealed weapons permits.....have sharply declining crime rates.

Abortion and gun control??? Apples and oranges again....because regardless of the faulty Supreme Court ruling on January 1973.....a woman does not have a constitutional right to an abortion.

I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.....ENFORCE THE LAWS ALEADY ON THE BOOKS.....and the problem would be greatly reduced. Under the Clinton administration......prosecution of existing federal gun laws has gone down 70%. Clinton loves to brag of the 10,000 felons who have been stopped from buying a gun. You want to know how many were prosectued Ben??? Only 10!!!! Let's get serious!!!

And by the way....it was the NRA that developed the 3 strikes and you are out attitude towards gun felons. It was the NRA that pushed legislatures to get mandatory sentences on crimes committed with a gun. Most policeman will tell you that the NRA is one of their best allies.

You act as if guns are natural enemies of chidren. My kids have been raised around guns all their lives. I do not keep my gun cabinets locked (except for my very valuable ones....which is a protection against theft). Because guns are common place to them....they have no natural curiosities which cause them to want to touch that which they are not allowed. Guns to them are a fun part of life. I've never once seen a gun "jump out and grap them."

It's people's hearts that need to be changed Benjamin. Until then....people will use whatever is available to carry out the desires of their hearts.

You refuse to read a book that does not include other countries. I refuse to consider other countries because name for me one other country in the world that enjoys the freedoms we do??? With freedom....there is risk. But it is a risk that I would rather take than living under a less than democratic form of govt.

You brag about Hong Kong......and I'm happy for your work there.....but I think it would be wise to consider when touting their gun laws.....who owns Hong Kong....namely.....communist China.

I'm not comfortable with that trade-off.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Benjamin....

I am glad you mentioned Britain. Are you not aware that their crime rate is soaring?? And that most of that is in the area of violent crime??? Cananda.....who recently took guns away from their citizens is having the same response???

By the way.....I have traveled quite a bit....and do you know what country I felt the safest in?? Israel!! Why....because 16 year old boys on field trips to the Dead Sea were carrying M-16's. (Duane...do you remember that??)

You said..."If your logic carries through....our First Amendment rights should already be slipping away."

You have been away from the US for a while haven't you Ben!!:) Have you heard of "Political Correctness?" I think Charlton Hesston summarized it best when he said...."They (i.e., the government) is already controlling how we think.....is it too much of a jump to suggest it won't be long till they control what we say or do?"

Really....it doesn't matter how you or I interpret the Constitution. The only thing that matters is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Second amendment. And even a causual reading of the comments of the founding fathers show that they clearly intended private ownnernship of guns.

For instance.....Thomas Jefferson said...."The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until they (i.e., the govt.) tries to take it away."

That's interesting....at least in Jefferon's mind....the main purpose of the Second Amendment was not to protect us from criminals....but the government (which today is about the same thing).

I will work on compiling a series of quotations from the writers of the Constitution concerning their intent of the Second Amendment which clearling shows the goal was private ownership.

You completely missed my point about enforcing the existing gun laws. You obviously make comments about things you have no idea about. If you even casually listened to anything the NRA says rather than what the media says about them....it is the NRA that has been at the forefront of putting pressure on the legislatures to punish the criminals.....not the law abiding gun owners (which is all new gun laws do).

BTW....it was the NRA that came up with the idea and pushed the idea of Instant Background Checks via the computer.

You also fail to address the problem with society. Guns were as easily accessible if not more accessible 50 years ago. Also....in many parts of the country.....such as where I am....and in the south...guns are a way of life and still easily accessible.. You see them everywhere....in trucks....laying around houses...etc for sale in hardware stores. Yet.....by your logic....there ought to be a shooting everyday....people dropping dead....everywhere. It doesn't happen.

Guns are related to a much bigger issue...concerning dysfunctional families....kids who are not taught the right way to cope with anger.....kids who are not loved by their parents....and the list goes on.

However, politicians don't want to deal with these issues. They would rather pass laws against law abiding citizens like myself....and then they go can go back to their constituiency and tell them..."I'm tough on crime."

Give me a break!

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Benjamin....

I'm sorry to say....that never has your Constituional ignorance been more well demonstrated than in your last post. You have the "Gore mantra" down pat.

You are so entirely wrong about the what the framers of the Constitution meant by "militia"....and what the purpose of the Second Amendment was.

Tell you what.....instead of arguing with me.....I'll let you argue with the framers of the Constitution.....and I will put it under the thread title....."What the Second Amendment REALLY Means."

By the way......news release just yesterday....a man in Britian is now in jail because he shot a known rapist and murderer who was entering his house. He likely faces life imprisonment....all because he had an "illegal" gun and defended him and his family. In addition.....a government official is now under "official" investigation because he is speaking in defense of the man. Sounds like a wonderful country.

Oh yeah....news release this morning.....in the last few weeks the Chinese have burnt close to a thousand churches.

Gun control sounds like a good idea to me!! NOT!!!!

But don't argue with me Ben....argue with the writers of the Constitution.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jenny....

Two quick things.....

1) Don't be offended at the words of Jesus who confronted the sins of the Jews. It is the nature of a Holy God to confront sin. In the N.T. there is plenty said to confront us as Gentiles as well. God is an "equal opportunity sin condemner"....but more importantly.....He is also an equal opportunity forgiver as well.

2) ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!! Clinton Administration.....80% fewer Federal Prosectuions of existing guns laws.....and only 11 out of 10,000 felons stopped by background checks were prosecuted. Please explain how another law that they are not going to enforce is going to help??? Talk about narrow thinking!!!

You are a typical liberal....I will give you that....i.e., refer to everyone with convictions as "right wing"..."narrow minded" et. al.

I will sign off saying..."Proud to be a Christian, right winger, Republican, Bush Supporting, Anti-Abortion....gun toting......American."

PS Jenny: The facts on the cities involves "percentages"....so numbers of people has NOTHING to do with it.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Mark.....

Well said!!! Bravo!!!!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Danny,

So far, I have only come across 3 people I know voted for Gore - none of which are CC/CoC people. Which leads me to the conclusion that almost NOBODY voted for Gore. All his votes have been manufactured from the beginning - which is why he is fighting it in the courts so bad - he knows that he bought more votes than what the count (recounts) show. He just wants to get his money's worth out of the deal. Or should I say he wants to get the Chinese's money's worth out of it!

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2000

Danny,

In my humble opinion, your kind of talk does nothing positive for Christianity. But then, you love to be a radical... perhaps too much so.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2000

From another forum:

Supreme Court's Decision to look at Law bodes Ill for Democrats Date: 11/25/00 9:10:27 PM Eastern Standard Time

Saturday, November 25, 2000

Justices Dust Off an 1887 Statute for Ballot Battle

By DAVID G. SAVAGE, HENRY WEINSTEIN, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court argument next week over Florida's ballots will focus almost entirely on a federal law--apparently never used in the 113 years it has been on the books--that forbids states to decide presidential elections based on rules adopted after the voting. Lawyers for Texas Gov. George W. Bush had advanced grand constitutional arguments against the hand recounting of Florida's votes. But the justices turned away those claims in their brief order Friday announcing that they would take the case next week. Instead, the justices said they would consider whether the Florida Supreme Court's decision to require that recount results be included in the state's vote totals violated the Electoral Count Act of 1887. That law requires that "any controversy or contest" concerning the naming of members of the electoral college must be decided based on "laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors." In their appeals, Bush's lawyers say the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday violated that statute because it "retroactively changed the law in Florida," which authorized Katherine Harris, Florida's secretary of state, to certify the winner of the presidential race on Nov. 14. Vice President Al Gore's lawyers dispute that interpretation. But the fact that the justices agreed to consider the case came as a surprise to many legal experts, who had expected the court would wait to see how events developed before jumping into the fray. The announcement was an ominous sign for the Democrats. The high court has almost complete discretion on what cases it considers, and four of the nine justices must agree to grant a petition for review. Several legal scholars said the justices would not have taken the case, George W. Bush vs. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, 00-836, if the initial briefs had not caused a majority to lean in Bush's favor--although all cautioned that the justices often change their view of a case after studying additional briefs and arguments. "They wouldn't have granted review unless they were going to reverse" the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, said UC Berkeley law professor John C. Yoo, who served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

A Fifth Vote Is Likely There Although only four justices need to agree to have a case considered, "usually, in a case like this, four justices wouldn't" vote to take a case "unless they thought they had a fifth vote," Yoo said. "Think of if from the point of the four: You would bring the U.S. Supreme Court into a highly contentious battle, and you would lose 5- 4 and damage the prestige of the court," he added. The move to hear the case puts the court into the middle of one of the most contentious political disputes in generations. If the eventual decision is closely divided, it could put a partisan taint on the court, just as the Florida Supreme Court's decision appears to have done for that panel, at least in the view of many Republicans. All seven of Florida's justices are Democratic appointees, and Republicans have harshly criticized Tuesday's ruling by the state court as partisan. The balance is reversed at the U.S. Supreme Court. Seven of its nine justices are Republican appointees. Two of them--Justices David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas--were appointed by the candidate's father, President Bush. Gore's team put a brave front on the news. "I think it's good for them to take on something this fundamental," said David Boies, Gore's lead attorney in Florida. "It's fine to have a hearing. A hearing may well benefit us. It will put to rest the kind of arguments that can be made," Boies said. "This should be resolved in the courts, not in the streets," he added, referring to the protest in Miami that Democrats say convinced the county's election board to halt recounts. Boies said he remained confident that, after reviewing all the arguments, the justices would end up siding with the Democrats. At least some legal experts said he may be correct. As the case currently stands, the Republicans are, in effect, asking the high court to rule that Florida's mechanism for resolving a dispute over electors has been so distorted by the Florida Supreme Court that the state court's ruling "can be considered a sham and not entitled to respect," said Vikram David Amar, a law professor at Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, who has studied the 1887 law. "That is an extraordinary argument," Amar said, because the U.S. Supreme Court generally gives considerable deference to state courts' interpretations of their own laws. The 1887 law would seem to come into effect only if a state had "failed to make a choice" of its electors, Amar said. Even with the recounts, it remains too early to say that, he added. The high court may, in the end, decide that taking the case at this stage of the proceedings was an error, he said. Moreover, if Gore is behind in the vote count on Sunday and Harris certifies Bush as the winner, the case could become moot, said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan. But because Gore's attorneys have already said he plans to contest the election returns on Monday morning, the continuing litigation is likely to keep the controversy alive until Friday's scheduled hearing before the high court, other legal experts said. The law in question was enacted after one of the nation's worst political debacles: the election of 1876. Then, the Democratic candidate, Gov. Samuel J. Tilden of New York, won the popular vote on election day and seemed to have won an electoral vote majority as well. But Republicans sent their lawyers to several Southern states, including Florida, and succeeded in disqualifying enough Democratic votes to tip the electoral college to the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio. The election was eventually settled in the House of Representatives after Hayes won support from key Southern Democrats by promising an early withdrawal of federal troops from Southern states that had fought in the Civil War. The withdrawal left freed slaves in the former Confederate states with little protection and ushered in nine decades of legalized discrimination against black citizens. Once Democrats regained power in the 1880s, Congress passed the new law, designed to avoid a repeat of the maneuverings that led to the 1876 standoff. The part of the law now at issue appears never to have been litigated, according to Bush's lawyers, although a separate provision became an issue in 1969, when a member of the electoral college chosen to vote for Richard Nixon voted instead for George C. Wallace. The high court's justices have been reluctant to use broad constitutional claims to second-guess decisions by state officials. And after a series of decisions upholding state authority against federal challenges, a sudden ruling in the opposite direction could be attacked as hypocritical. The focus on the 1887 law could offer a more direct and appealing way for them to decide the case. In ruling, the justices may look for guidance to several cases on term limits that came before them five years ago, Yoo said. At that time, several states tried to limit the terms of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. On a 5-4 vote, the justices struck down those laws and said federal rules, not state laws, controlled the election of members of Congress. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a conservative, joined the four liberal-leaning justices of the court in the majority. The dissenters were the conservatives, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But now that ruling may give those conservative justices a good argument for siding with Bush. The key question before the court will be whether the Florida Supreme Court decision amounts to an after-the-fact change in Florida's voting laws. Florida law said that Harris "may ignore" returns submitted after Nov. 14. The Florida court ruled that enforcing that deadline would effectively nullify another section of Florida law that allows a candidate to ask for a manual recount. Bush's lead lawyer in the case, Theodore B. Olson, told the high court in a brief filed Wednesday that the Florida Supreme Court ruling was an "arbitrary judicial departure from the well-established law of Florida" and therefore a violation of the 1887 law.

Ruling Was Ordinary Act, Gore Team Says Gore's lawyers, in a brief filed Thursday, dismissed that argument. The Florida Supreme Court decision "amounts to an ordinary act of statutory interpretation of a law enacted prior to the election, not to a new 'enactment,' " wrote Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe. Other legal experts argue that the 1887 law could be read as upholding the decision-making power of a state Supreme Court. One section of the law--a passage not quoted by Bush's lawyers-- says that if a state provides "judicial or other methods" for resolving election disputes, those procedures "shall be conclusive." That provision "makes the Florida Supreme Court . . . the ultimate arbiter of the state's contested election," asserts University of Baltimore law professor Charles Tiefer, writing in the weekly Legal Times. The justices asked both sides to file briefs of no more than 50 pages by 4 p.m. Tuesday, with final reply briefs due Thursday. They will hold a 90-minute oral argument Friday. Republican leaders in the Florida state Legislature announced Friday that they will intervene in the Supreme Court case, on Bush's side, and will be represented by Harvard law professor Charles Fried, who was solicitor general of the U.S. during the Reagan administration.

* * * Savage reported from Washington and Weinstein from Los Angeles.

Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times

<><....<><....<><....<><....<><

Thought you might be interested in this.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2000

Danny,

I don't believe my attitude of showing respect has contributed negatively to our country. One can vote for Bush, not like Gore's policies, do everything they can to lawfully elect the president they like... and still not come off sounding/acting like a Jerk. Perhaps, if more Christians showed respect for the lost (and each other)... our country wouldn't be in the shape it is... for they would be attracted to what we have instead of being repulsed.

Believe it or not, Danny, you can (or, at least should be able to) disagree with someone and still show respect to them as persons. Calling names (Whore, etc.) and putting forth other acts of disrespect accomplishes nothing positive for Christ.

-- Anonymous, November 26, 2000

Problem is, Danny..... you have accused me of having an apathetic attitude with no evidence of such whatsoever.

Let's see.... I voted for Bush, I spoke out at every opportunity against Al Gore's Abortion and Homosexual Rights policies, I was involved in many discussions concerning voter apathy (especially in the church), I transported people to the polls, etc., etc. AND all of this, as you smugly pointed out, in a Gore stronghold.

Am I apathetic? Nope, not in the least. And please refrain from saying such or I willl have no choice but to point out that you are a liar.

On the other hand, I realize that I am an ambassador for Christ. I am the only Christ some people will ever see/hear. Therefore, I choose to treat people (including Mr. Gore), as someone whom God loves and desires to have a relationship with... just like Jeffery Dahmer.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

Danny,

One can choose to do most anything... including sin.

Amos was God-inspired ("declares the LORD").... you............ are Not.

Let me try a different approach... Above I said, "In my humble opinion, your kind of talk does nothing positive for Christianity." You seem to disagree.... So, can you explain to me what calling Al Gore a "Vote Whore" accomplishes for Christ? Can you explain exactly what you meant by "the wrong kind of salute" and what that kind of talk accomplishes for Christ?

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

"Hail to the Thief!!" AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "That same lame argument "Amos was inspired by the Lord" can be used (and has been used many times) anytime one points out any sin even in the church.

Anyone who stands for the Lord and His word....."is inspired of the Lord." "

It is fine to use the Bible to point out sin. I didn't see you doing that by calling Al Gore a "Vote Whore". Also, your words are NOT inspired... you are NOT quoting the Lord (as Amos was). You can use the Bible (God's Words) to point out that stealing is wrong... and, presuming you have evidence, could point out to Al Gore that he is 'stealing' and that it is wrong. No "Vote Whore" talk called for.

Later, you said, "You asked...."What that kind of talk accomplishes for Christ?"....two things; 1) The same question could have been asked of Amos concerning his "Cows of Bashan" remarks; 2) Corinthians states on the day of judgment each man's works will be tested with fire (not Robin's criteria). "

Did you answer the question (or just avoid it)???

Perhaps this comes down to the fact that I was raised to believe that we should pray for our leaders (sinful or otherwise).... rather than ridicule them. I hope you spend as much time praying for Bill Clinton and Al Gore as you do deriding them.

Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." I don't see much "building up" and I sure don't see much "benefit" from listening to such things as "Vote Whore", "Commander in Disguise", "Hail to the Thief", etc., etc. Do you?

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "Building up our brothers and sisters in Christ....that is THE meaning of that passage." in reference to Ephesians 4:29. Notice that it says, "that it may benefit those who listen"... it is not saying "make sure you speak wholesome to your brothers and sisters in Christ... but don't worry how you speak to (or about) others."!!

I am your brother in Christ.... I am not built up by listening to you be absurd. (On the other hand, I am built up when you apply your obvious knowledge to clarifying scripture.)

Do you claim that "Highlighting absurdity with absurdity" builds up your brothers and sisters in Christ?

Again (and again): What does this kind of talk do for Christianity? What does "Highlighting absurdity with absurdity." do for Christianity?

As far as Rush goes... I don't know if they broadcast him in Wisconsin or not... but I sure wouldn't listen even if they did! No matter how you look at it... Absurdity is..... Absurd! :-) Synonym for 'absurd'? FOOLISH. I prefer to not see Christians act like...... Fools!!

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000

Robin,

You asked of Danny, "What does this kind of talk do for Christianity? What does "Highlighting absurdity with absurdity" do for Christianity?"

I won't answer this for Danny, as he is well able to do so himself and I'm sure that he will. But let me give you my take on that question.

What such talk does is make Christianity more accessible, more believible to most people. Most people outside of Christ resist the church because they feel it is unapproachable and unrealistic. They think that in order to be a Christian, they must give up all of their feelings and passions and become Puritanistic. True, Christians are to be in the world, but not of it; but one cannot expect, or be expected, to destroy the characteristics (God-given characteristcs) that make them the individual that they are.

Examples include: The hunter who becomes a Christian - is he forced to give up hunting? The soldier who becomes a Christian - is he forced to resign from the military? The person with a passion for patriotism who becomes a Christian - is that passion to be squelched? The man with an active sense of humor who becomes a Christian - is he to be forced to become cold and stone-faced?

I think you would agree that none of the above are mandated by any scripture. So what is wrong with a little absurdity? I've always found that my witness has increased when I showed how "human" I am - being the person I am, instead of trying to be somebody I'm not in order to fit someone else's definition of what a Christian "should be". Perhaps our feelings and passions will be somewhat redirected as maturity in Christ comes about, but they will still be there. We have, in effect, been made stewards of those feelings & passions - shall we ignore them?

Personally, I enjoy a little absurdity - since the world is full of it already, why not make the most of it? Elijah sure made the most of an absurd situation as he taunted the prophets of Baal on Mt Carmel. John the Baptist did it when he called the Pharisees at the river Jordan a "brood of vipers" or snakes in the grass. How about when Jesus called the Syrophoenician woman seeking His help, "a dog" (Mark 7:24-30).

Again personally, I've always found Danny (his passions & his wit) to be a breath of fresh air in a stagnant, and often sterile, church environment. And if anyone similarly expected me to give up my passions and sense of humor, I probably Would go ahead and storm the White House with an AK-47 (ala Slim Pickens riding the A-Bomb in "Dr. Strangelove") because my life and my witness would be too much diminished by that loss.

As is often the case, in order to build up - one has to build on the current foundation footprint. And none of us can dictate the parameters of another's footprint.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000

A funny pic I found at Jokewallpaper.com ... must be a best-seller!

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2000

Robin, (and everyone else too)

If you want proof of Gore being a "Vote Whore" check out the data on this website:

http://www.pushback.com/justice/elections/RobertCook1.html

Yes, he IS prostituting the rights of Americans for the price of a vote. So therefore, it is not wrong to call him by such a name - because it is true and because he, and those who support him, need to be brought to repentance before the Lord. The days of "burying our heads in the sand" need to end.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Wow! IF the Democrats did all that and cover it up and win.... they deserve it! :-)

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Mark,

You have said, "What such talk does is make Christianity more accessible, more believible to most people. Most people outside of Christ resist the church because they feel it is unapproachable and unrealistic."

Are you saying that things like calling Al Gore a "Vote Whore" and using sayings like "Hail to the Thief" and "Commander in Disguise" make those outside the church feel it is more approachable??

You're probably right... sort of like having a chat with their Bar Buddies. This must be a new Seeker Friendly witnessing tool that I'm not familiar with....

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

I'm trying to figure out how these verses pertain to the topic of "absurd talk" under discussion... (It seems to me that they apply directly... but perhaps not?):

Ephesians 5 1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Does verse 4 apply to us as Christians today? (I surely believe so....) How do we define "foolish talk" (or "absurd talk")? In light of this verse, should we as Christians be "highlighting absurdity with absurdity"?

Titus 3 1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

Do these verses apply to us today? Does "all men" mean... "all men"?

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Robin,

You stated: "Are you saying that things like calling Al Gore a 'Vote Whore' and using sayings like 'Hail to the Thief' and 'Commander in Disguise' make those outside the church feel it is more approachable? You're probably right...sort of like having a chat with their Bar Buddies."

Now you're catching on!

I'm not on this Forum or "out in the trenches" trying to save the preachers or change them to my way of thinking. I want to win the lost. And where are they located you ask? In the bars, on the street corners, and out in the streets protesting in favor of a crook like Gore. Someone has to reach out to them.

Isn't these the same types of places where Jesus conducted His ministry? He went to the Prostitutes, Adulterers, crooked tax collectors, etc. Only those who are sick are in need of a physician.

Did not Paul say, "I am made ALL things to ALL MEN, that I might by ALL MEANS save some (Rom 9:22)? Does "all men" mean ALL MEN - you tell me.

Robin, there is a place and a time in this world for all types of ministries. What one man can't reach in a lifetime, another can reach in 5 minutes. Different ministries, conducted by different types of people with different styles and personalities must be allowed or else we purposely neglect and alienate some - and those are usually the ones that need Him most in their lives.

We must be like Jesus, we must be where the people are at in their lives if we are to connect with them. Hmm.....do I hear the hymn "Just As I Am" playing in the background?

And personally, I prefer being around those whom you would probably label as "the bar scene". Why? There is no pretentiousness with them. They are exactly what they are. I know where they are coming from and they can understand where I am coming from. I stand a much better chance of making them see right from wrong with a "Vote Whore" than someone else would with a "Repent or Burn in Hell". I can sure lead them to repentance (been there & done that), but I must first be able to lead them at all.

You use your method, but please allow others to use their methods without condemning their character or motives. We're all driving in the same race, it's just that we all choose the brand of car that suits us best and gets us to the finish line.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Danny,

I'm sorry you 'weary' of this discussion (perhaps Mark will continue on....). To me, there seems to be verses in the Bible that indicate we should act/not act a certain way (see my last post). I'm trying to figure out how (if) I am misinterpreting (or misapplying) those verses to cause me to believe that certain things said here are not what God expects of Christians.

I am not (nor was I ever) attacking you personally... it is just that you author many of the things that I find questionable, so it may seem that way. I do have sincere questions about the 'rightness' of these things in light of the scripture. That, to me, is enough to justify having a discussion about it... and I would love to hear your input on Ephesians 5:4 (as well as the other verses I listed).

Of course, God will judge our actions and motivations in the end... but, for now, we have His Word to use as a guide. That is all I am trying to do....

May God bless your hunt!

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Mark,

Our messages passed in CyberSpace.

Where have I questioned someones character or motives?

Please read my above message to Danny and then give me your input on the verses above including Ephesians 5:4.

Of course there are different methods of reaching people.... acting like sinners (sinning) is not one of them.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2000

Danny,

Don't hurry back from hunting. Why would anyone who didn't vote the "proper" way want to tangle with your irreverence, disrepect and knock-the-chip-off-my-shoulder type of attitude? From reading the dialog between you and Robin Cornell, he and I could come to an understanding about my "Gorishness" in a much more amicable manner than with the likes of you. Try not to shoot yourself in the foot. :) But just pretend each buck is a Democrat. I'm sure you'll do just fine!

I don't recall Jesus storming Jerusalem in a war chariot because he didn't like the Pharisees. So who are you to attack the "wrong" occupant of the white house with an AK-47? Besides, that's a Russian assault weapon. Not very patriotic of you, although I must admit, it's a beautiful rifle.

With mutual disrespect, I remain your most loyal and humble opponent,

(:raig Miller

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2000

Craig,

A point of clarification here: I was the one talking about using the AK-47, Danny just has an AR-15 Bushmaster.

Oh....how is it that a Democrat (those who think guns are the scourge of the earth) can actually appreciate such a weapon?

And Jesus didn't need a chariot. He just walked into Jerusalem and proceeded to (bare-handed) kick the living dog-snot out of the crooked money-changers who had infiltrated & perverted the Temple. Now THAT does sound like a Biblical prescedent for casting the "wrong" people from the White House - and with the violence of righteous anger to boot.

Robin,

Maybe the above is part of your answer. Jesus said these money- changers had turned the Temple into a "House of Thieves" - sounds a lot like "Hail to the Thief" to me.

Oh....as far as the comment on maligning anyone's character, I may have made a mistake on the recount of your "intent"(as us Florida people seem to have a problem with such things :~) There was no specific verbal attack on anyone that I could see, it just seems that the argumentative nature of some of your comments seemed to belie the "peaceful, gentle, & kind" nature you say we all should be showing.

And you are right about acting like sinners being no way to win them. I never said I would drink in the bars as I spoke to them, nor would I ever secure a prostitute's wares as I spoke to her. I merely point out that language can be a powerful tool to win the lost. I won't be standing beside them "cursing like a sailor", but neither will I be covering my eyes, ears, & mouth when they respond in the language to which they are accustomed.

Finally, "Shock Value" is a wonderful tool for a preacher. The "Vote Whore et al" served its purpose. It is an accurate statement, even though those who voted against scripture would disagree (but hey, it's still a free country - at least until January). Even though you don't like the language, it got your attention - and that's the first step in reaching and motivating someone. Such statements can infuriate, satiate, or bring low one who needs to repent. That is the 1st goal of every 10-Step program like AA, to confess "I am a sinner".

Danny's words accomplished their goal. People are now talking, instead of licking their wounds. People are now thinking, instead of languishing in apathy. Who knows, by the time all is said & done, this country might even wake up to the plight it faces as a "Nation that was Once under God".

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Mark,

Sorry... BIG difference between Christ bustin' up the Temple and you 'attacking' the White House!!!

If the "argumentative nature" of my comments indicate that I am condemning someones character and motives... then please hold yourself and others to that same standard. There was never any condemning of anyones character or motives on my part. Apology Accepted.

"Shock Value"... would that fall under "foolish talk"? I'm still waiting for your input on Ephesians 5:4 and Titus 3:1-2.

Craig,

Back to Danny's original intent with this thread (for the intent was good... even though the methodology was questionable :-}).... I too am interested in how one could claim Christianity and vote for a man (Al Gore) who obviously backs Abortion Rights. Can you perhaps enlighten us? (I will understand if you don't in this forum....)

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Hi Danny,

That was fast! Either hunting was very good or the Democratic bucks got away. Anyway, to explain my Gorish behavior...

I am not a one issue voter. The time that Gore would have spent on abortion issues and that Bush probably will spend on abortion issues is an infintesimal percentage of his entire time in office. And quite frankly, with the Congress so evenly split, the next president will have to do a good amount of horse trading to get anything passed. So, having said that, what about abortion?

I don't agree with it. I also don't agree with making it illegal. Why? Because you can't legislate morality. If I make comparisons to Prohibition, I'm sure someone will shoot back with "We're talking human lives here, not booze" Very true. But the principal is the same. Many people want it, support it and d*mn to the person that stands in their way. That's the angry response. There is also the fearful response of a woman who is terrified of the consequences of her actions. Are their Christian support groups that will assist and council her, or is she just going to get the "you're going to Hell" cr*p, er doggie-doo-doo? If abortion is made illegal, then NO Christian has to be nice or supportive. They'll simply point to the jail cell and say "you get what you deserve, b*tch."

The other principal involved here is that the easy path for concerned Christians is to go whining to the legislatures to pass laws because their churches are doing such a miserable job of checking the "moral decline" of America. Which, by the way I've heard for 50 years and believe me, it's wearing mighty thin.

Gore is not the b*st*rd that many people make him out to be. And Bush cetainly isn't the knight in shining armor, either. But the next president will be the president of ALL the people. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, you name it.

"Oh my, Toto. We're not in Texas anymore"

Respectfully submitted (you too, Danny)

(:raig Miller

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Craig,

Too bad you're not a one issue voter - because there is only one issue that exists. That issue is LIFE - both physical & sprirtual.

Gore has promised to create a better life for the US public through his Healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, etc. plans. But how in the world can someone who doesn't even know what Life is or when it begins actually improve my life? Logically it is totally impossible for such to happen. A house falls down when its foundation is faulty, would we expect any less to happen with Gore.

As far as time spent with issues and "horse trading", as long as he is willing to trade the lives of innocent babies for political gain & public popularity, I am extremely afraid of the deals he will make with the lives of my family & my boy in the Air Force. Until Gore learns to revere life, no trade he makes can be equitible.

You need to look around a little bit. There are about a million different groups (most gov't sponsered) to help women faced with this decision. And that's not to mention all the churches that would be more than happy to council with them, pray with them, and set them up with agencies to help - all they have to do is ask. Oh...that's right, the Liberal (Gore-type folks) have banned religious people from getting anywhere near the "Abortatoriums". In fact, the Liberal Legislators and courts have made it almost legally impossible for a church to even approach a pregnant woman unless she walks into the preachers office on her own accord and no one is within 500 feet of her on the way.

But to be honest, the churches must step up their efforts in this arena. We have to stop talking & start doing. We must provide more Godly avenues of support for these women. We must work harder to teach them Godly ways so that they don't end up in this predicament in the 1st place. And we have to be willing to start adopting the babies that would be born but still unwanted by the mother. That is basically the argument being presented in this thread & several others - we need to get busy and that is why Danny, myself, & others here bring this up in the first place - trying to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

That's the problem we have with Gore - he adamantly believes in taking lives while we believe in saving them. In that context, Gore IS EXACTLY what you called him (&^%#! type of stuff). He is evil in the site of God because he promotes the same things that God's enemy (Satan) promotes (murder, lies, lack of morals). If we refuse to stand up against such a one, we are no better than he - and THAT ain't gonna happen as long as there is breath in these lungs of mine. Is Bush much better - that remains to be seen. Do you remember the saying, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"? Gore had his chance. In eight years he never did ANYTHING to promote the (supposedly positive) things he wanted to do until now - whatssup with that?

My motto, "We Don't get Fooled Again"!

Does it make you feel better that Gore doesn't mind killing Muslim babies, Buddhist babies, Jewish babies, pagan babies, etc? What's that got to do with anything.

And what's wrong with Texas? I was born & raised there, & spent the first 30 years of my life there. Honestly, I haven't seen many places in the USA that compares favorably with it(except Indiana). It makes Florida look like a septic tank and Washington D.C. an open cesspool. And forget New York - they deserve Hillary.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Mark,

You haven't been to Wisconsin much, have you?! :-)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Danny,

You have said,

"There's another difference between me and you.

You ask...."How does one support someone who obviously backs abortion rights?"

I would ask it this way...."How does one support a child murderer??":) "

Notice this: Craig answered when I asked... I'm not sure he would have when you asked. You see, When I ask a question, I really want to hear the answer... you seem to just want to make your point known. (See your original post in this thread for an example....)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Craig,

(I posted this earlier... but it apparently got lost in CyberSpace....)

Thanks for answering. Perhaps your answer can give us who disagree with you some insight... and perhaps we can use that insight to better get our message out in the future.

Personally, I would ask that you refrain from "*%*#*@$#" talk.... You know from reading this thread that I am not big on 'Trash Talk' (foolish talk) in any form.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Thank you Robin and Mark for your replys,

TO ROBIN: Now that I've calmed down a bit I realize that there is no need for my "trash talk". You're absolutely right and I apologize to you and any else who I have offended with inconsiderate remarks.

TO MARK: Excellent post, BTW. First of all there is nothing wrong with Texas. I was simply implying that the next president of the Unites States has to put his bias to Texas aside and realize that the other 49 are just as important in his administration.

Gore doesn't kill babies, nor does any other elected official. When (if) Bush takes the oath of office, abortions are going to cease? HUH? Let me tell you a true story of pre Roe vs. Wade days.

Rewind the clock to 1964. I'm a senior in high school. There were two girls in my class who had uh, "weight" problems. During Chirstmas break, their parents bundled them off to Switzerland. When they returned in January, their weight problems had been "corrected". What's the point? In 1964 abortion was illegal. Did the girl's parents care? NO! Did any law stop them? NO! If abortion was once again made illegal tomorrow, are you going to save anybody? NO! Women will head to Canada or the Carribean.

And so, Mark, believe it or not, I agree with you 100%. The effort has to be grass roots, one parish at a time, one fetus at a time. Never mind the guy in the White House. He can be the greatest saint or the worst sinner, but nothing will stop a women from walking into an abortion clinic UNLESS YOU GET TO HER FIRST, with conviction, with grace, with love and support.

The defence rests, your honor.

(:raig

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

OK Robin,

I think I've found the time to answer your questions on the Ephesians and Titus passages. As with all scripture they must first be interpreted in the context in which they were written, and then application made to current situations.

1) Ephesians - Here we had somewhat of a rift between Jewish Christians & Gentile Christians along the lines as to who was "better" and also the keeping of the Law over the freedom offered in Christ. But also Paul had to deal with the great Pagan influence in Ephesus due to the Temple of Diana which was located there. Paul worked hard to get them to leave the Paganism out of both their lives and Church practices.

Vss 1 & 2 of chapter 5 deal with the Jewish/Gentile situation. Paul works to get them to a common ground by remembering the love of God (from the Old days) and now exemplified in Christ.

Vss 3 & 4 deal with the Paganistic issue. Verse 3's reference to sexual purity is in contrast to the temple prostitutes that were the common practice in the pagan religions of the day. I think verse 4 should also be looked at in that light. Obscenity and public humiliation, or taunting, of people, Christian or Pagan, is to be avoided - as it is not in-line with the love of God mentioned above. This would be in-line with your comment to Craig about the *&^$# stuff - it has no place. Like I was taught as a boy, only unintelligent people have to use foul language to make a point.

Verse 5 ties it all together, "For this you know with certainty, that no one who commits sexual immorality or impure person or coveteous man, who is an idolator, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God".

In this light I don't see the conflict with "Hail to the Thief" or even "Vote Whore". They are truthful, painfully truthful, statements. Just as truthful as God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute in order to illustrate Israel's harlotry with the Pagan world. Surely that would be considered a "foolish act".

2) Titus - Context is vital in this passage. As discussed in other threads, those Paul wrote to (including Titus) had no say-so in gov't. You didn't voice an opinion on politics if you wanted to live. The only rule of law was "do what Caesar says".

Not so today. We have been given a voice in gov't by God's grace & wisdom. And to not exercise that freedom to influence the world for Christ would be (I believe) an abuse of God's grace. Again, there is no slander involved with our words. Gore needs to repent of his record and actions before it is too late for him. His & the other Liberals' Ideologies are Satanic in nature (promoting murder, lies, immorality) and they need to be made aware of the consequence of their actions - just like all of us sinners need to be made aware of such.

Nobody here said we didn't care about Gore's stance before God. No one said we wouldn't pray for him & the rest. In fact, quite the opposite is true. No one said we would break the laws of the land, as long as there IS a rule of law in the land. (The AK-47 was but an example of absurdity if you look at it's original context) But neither have we said we will give up on proclaiming Christ and His principles of right, wrong, & morality - even if it hurts. Like I said before, some people have to be Brought to their knees before they will voluntarily bend the knee.

You might disagree with the methodology, but that's OK. Every one of the prophets were accused of the same injustices and most were put to death violently for it. Danny & I will have good company, whether right or wrong.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Say Mark,

It occurred to me that barring WWIII, on Jan. 20th, Clinton and Gore will be history. The Republicans will have a (very) slim lead in Congress, so theoretically, everything that Bush wants he can get. And you KNOW it aint-a gonna happen. So , since the liberal Satanists will be in the minority, whose your next target when things don't go your way? We better get a list together now so we can determine who can righteously have Whore and Thief added to their title.

Oh, I keep, forgeting. If Republicans are refered to in that manner, someone may get angry.

(:raig

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Robin,

I meant no sacriledge toward Wisconsin by the way. Never been there, but I have seen some beautiful pictures from there. And let's face it, any place that has moose to hunt and where cheese is CHEESE can't be all bad.

I was more concerned about the spiritual and moral climate in different areas. Every place has its problems, but at least the big picture in Texas is that there were enough folks with the moral fortitude to vote on a Biblical & moral stance rather than a financial one.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Craig,

You say that making abortion illegal wouldn't stop some people from getting abortions, they would just run off to Switzerland or have an illegal back-alley abortion or whatever. I fail to see your point as to why we shouldn't make the taking of unborn life illegal. Murder is illegal in this country, but people still do it. Should we then make it legal, since we can't seem to stop it completely by having a law about it?

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

I was trying to avoid being drawn into this particular thread, so I hope I don't regret giving in. I just have two quick points to make, both with regard to the trite saying, "you can't legislate morality".

Perhaps you can't make people "moral" by making laws about it, but according to the Bible, one of the main reasons for having human government -- the main reason why human governments are said to be "ordained by God" is to punish "wrongdoers." See Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17.

True, in some cases the women who have abortions need sympathy and help more than punishment -- tho' perhaps not all, since there are some women who use easy abortion as a means of birth control that allows them to continue an immoral lifestyle "without consequences" -- but surely the ones who do or facilitate the abortions could and should be punished.

Second, Craig mentioned Prohibition in passing as an example to support his contention that morality can't be legislated. I'm surprised that no-one else challenged this. Certainly the PUBLIC PERCEPTION is that Prohibition was a colossal failure. But I have read several studies that showed that Prohibition was really working very well in most of the country. It is just that the few areas where it wasn't working were so highly publicised that it created the false perception that this was the case generally -- which it wasn't. It may be either that the failures were so "interesting" and "newsworthy" (following the dictum that "the only 'good' news is bad news") or that the media people and politicians were so much against Prohibition themselves that they went out of their way to make it look as though it wasn't working -- or a combination of the two.

Yes, Prohibition -- until repeal -- is a good example to bring up in this thread, but not to prove that "you can't legislate morality." Rather, it points to the opposite.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Craig,

I'm glad to see that you can find some common ground with me. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step".

However, my conscience, my spirit, and my Bible will never let me agree with legalized abortion. Murder is murder; no matter where it happens, when it happens, or how it happens. Saying that "if we don't allow it, they will go somewhere else" is the same cop-out that got abortion legalized in the 1st place. It's the same thing the church has been saying to itself to ease it's conscience over its failure to speak up and do something - but that don't make it right. Only God's Word makes something right or wrong. Unfortunately, God never asks our opinion - He makes the rules and we can only choose to obey or disobey. I believe it was Kipling who penned the words, "ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die". Quite appropriate in this circumstance I believe.

Oh, as far as another "target" is concerned, I don't need one. This election, regardless of who is handed victory, doesn't put a stop to Liberalism and the immoralities it promotes. The "targets" (a word I don't much care for in this context by the way), if you will, are, have been, and will always be those who act in opposition to God's Word. These "targets", by the way, are not for execution, but for conversion.

Oh, by the way....

Political affiliations mean nothing to me. By chance, the Republicans take stances that I believe are more in line with Scripture, but I don't vote for a Party, I vote for individuals. If a person shows himself in-line with God's Word, I'll vote for him whether he is a Republican, Democrat, Independant, or an Eskimo named Nannook. There exist Republicans I will not vote for and there are probably Democrats out there that I could vote for - a person rises or falls on his own merit. Here's an example: because of his lies, I did not vote for Papa Bush when he ran for re-election. He proved himself a liar over the "read my lips" promise which he could have kept but didn't, plus (because of my security clearance) I knew of several lies he spoke during the Gulf War. I could not support one who is a proven liar, because Satan is the Father of Lies.

My hope is that "Dubya" doesn't fall too close to Dad's tree. I'm willing to give him the chance - the Bible says (in Ezekiel) that we are not to judge the son on the merits of the father or vice-versa. Bush's positions on abortion & morality, at least on the surface, are pointed in the right direction and as such I will support him until this changes - realizing that, because of the different Legislative bodies, somethings will probably not be possible.

I cannot however, support Gore because like I posted above, he had his chance and did nothing in-line with God's Word. And yes, I do consider him a murderer. He may not have held the offending scissors or scalpel, but God's Law and the laws of every civilized nation in the world have a penalty for "Accessory to Murder" - usually the penalty for such is the same that the "actual" murderer receives. All his Congressional voting records show him voting FOR abortion and his Vice-Presidential record is no better. Therefore, by his words and actions, he is a Self-confessed Accessory to Murder. He made his mistakes and I pray that he will one day come to his senses and repent - and why not, the plaintiff in the Roe vs Wade case did repent and claims Christ as her master now.

"God (nor I) am willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance".

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Danny- you said (around the middle of this discussion) that Clinton and Gore were driven by Satan. I cracked up when I read that. Do blame satan for everything that doesn't agree with you? Clinton and Gore are no angles, sure, but they're not evil, they're dumb. There's a big difference. And along the lines of stupidity, I don't give Gore enough credit to be able to manufacture votes. And I happent to know a lot of people who voted for GOre. And a lot who voted for Bush. ANd even one who voted for Nader. None of them manufactured anything, the country just happens to be split almost evenly between to idiots, neither of whom is fit to be the president. Robin- I applaud your sentiments in your NOV 29 message. Absurdity is foolishness, and as for Rush, don't even get me started. Mark- you say that all of Gore's supporters will be "brought before the Lord" and punished,but, for example, if Gore actually was somehowe able to steal or manufacture or prostitute all these votes, and he had a supporter who didn't know he was cheating, would the supporter still be punished? why? for ignorance? Robin- I applaud your sentiments in the Nov 30 message. In case you guys haven't got it yet, as I write this, I'm combing through the message board, so its all going to be chronilogical. Mark- what exactly does one need to do to be "lost"? I'm assuming, fromyour christian point of view, a "lost" person is one who has not accepted Christ. But accepting or not accepting Christ has nothing to do with politics. You may beleive, and you may be right, that Bush better embodies Christ's message than Gore does. But Jesus didn't personally endorse anybody, so you can't be sure than voting for Gore makes someone lost. Despite the fact that you'll never win people over by telling them they voted wrong. Craig- I loved yout Dec.1 message, and I agree on everything except about the beautiful weapon. I wouldn't know what one looks like. mark- (about Dec 2 message) Who ever said Democrats hate guns? I have fired shotguns, bb guns, and M-16's. If you know how to use a gun responsibly, and you're shooting at animals within the law, go for it. have a blast. But I can't see condoning laws that allow irrisponsable people to use guns to kill people. And I can't understand how you can either. If you are afraid that laws will restrict your gun rights, then perhaps we need better worded laws. But we can't just do nothing. Because people die when we do nothing. As for your next sentence: HOW DARE YOU! There were NO croocked anything perverting anything in OUR temple. On behalf of myself and all Jews, I wished I beleived in hell so I could send you to it. Where are your "christian" values of love for your neighbor? Even if you think the Jews were misguided (NOT WRONG- we are God's chosen people, and Jesus was a Jew himself!) and Jesus was there to correct them, then he was there to help them, not make fun of them. Being a Jew, Jesus would never have refered to them as crooked money-lenders. So if you truly follow him then you won't either. Jesus never said money-lenders or house of thieves. Go back and read the bible, get it straight. You may be right about the nation once being under God. It might still but under God. But how do you know it was your God? what if it were under Budha? Freedom of religion- if you want to do your thing, you have to let me do mine. Danny, Robin- about the abortion issue: Abortion isn't about murder. Its about choice. You may see it as the choice to murder or not. Others see it as the choice of a woman's control over herself or not. But it is about choice. And it is about who controls that choice. Most of the people who say abortion is murder claim this because of their religious conviction, and that their religion told them it was murder. Because of separation of Church and state, a law cannot be constitutionally passed if it is based in favor of a religious point of view. If you want to say abortion is murder, you need the medical profession to agree to murder, not christ. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. But since it has not been conclusivly proven whether abortion is murder or not, the choice to have or have not must be retained until further time when abortion is decicively proved one way or the other. I myself think abortion is not murder at least until the fetus is viable, at which time I think it is a baby, and its murder. But I'm still unsure in that beleife, and I can't see restricting anyone when I'm unsure myself. And the medical profession doesn't even agree on viability. Craig- (dec 5) I wrote the above before I read your response. I agree with you completely, I liked the Toto end bit, too! Mark- they don't stop religious people, but anti-abortion people near clinics for good reason. Because abortion is currently protected, the gov. has to enforce the freedom of choice. You can't do that if people are intimidated or not able to enter the door of a clinic. But don't worry your pretty little head to much, congress has already made so many loopholes that Roe v. Wade looks like swiss cheese.Whats wrong with Texas? I'm not going to go there, if you like it, the better for you. But I couldn't live there, not with people like you, its just not safe for us Jews. And San Francisco not only compares with Texas, it surpasses it for beauty and weather. Craig (dec 6) wow. I am impressed. Your right about women getting abortions even if its illegal. And more women will die from back alley abortions than clinics. Hey, if you can help people from getting unwanted pregnancies, more power to you. But to Danny and Mark, don't confuse loving prevention with hateful intimidation. John (dec 6) interesting argument- but please see my above comments on abortion. Danny (dec 6) as far as criticizing Craig for mean spiritidness, you're not exactly one to talk. There is one thing that Christ had that you'll never have- humility. And about the stats- why the hell would backalleys increase? why don't you look up legit stats at a gov. site- one thats not biased on either side? and its not that the gov can't or shouldn't legislate morality- they can't legislate morality that is based on religious convictions. a reasonable person would agree with the exapmples you gave (stop sign) and so since the majority of this country, regardless of religion feels that morality is appropriate, the gov can legislate it. But the majority doesn't think abortion is murder. The majority is unsure. Ben- women don't use abortion as birthcontrol. Talk to women who've been through it- it sucks. It hurts, emotionally and physically. its expensive. A lot of women who have had abortions are against it, because it is so psychically stressing, ect. It takes a lot out of a person to have an abortion. If you want birth control, you take the pill. Mark- assuming you're correct and only God's word makes something right or wrong, in this country, our laws are founded on the beleife that we can't determine whose God is right or wrong, which one exists and which doesn't. The very laws (1st ammendment) that allow us to have this dispute are the same that protect me from you're theocracy. It doesn't matter what God says as far as legality is concerned in this country, because we have decided that we will allow no religion to dominate or infiltrate our laws, nor will we allow any person to be denied liberties of their beleifs because laws are passed. So you're out of luck. You can't illegalize abortion because God said its murder. That doesn't cut it here. And it won't until you overturn the first ammendment. So good luck. And just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean we're all satan-loving scum suckers. I may disagree with you, put you down, but I still beleive you have the right to be respected for your opinions. Respect is earned- it is earned by being a human being and thereby being worthy of respect. Assuming you're human, I will respect you though, I may disagree with everything else. Show all that good love and grace you christians love to tout as Jesus's teachings, and do the same for me. If the liberals messed with Jesus, he'd turn the other cheeck. Yet you attack. How can you stand by the bible without living by it? If you want to get technical enough to debate passages, then the exact wording should mean something to you. Love thy neighbor. I do support your stance that one should vote for the individual and not for the party. To echo you, there are many democrates who I despise, and several republicans I would vote for. For example, Olympia Snowe, senator from Maine. Republican. Great woman. And maybe Gore did nothing about God's word because he was protecting the sanctity of the Bill of Rights by keeping the separation between church and state. He is not a self-confessed anything, except maybe self-confessed pro-choicer. You labeled him an accessory to murder. It doesn't matter if you're right or not, he never confesed to murder. If you don't like him lying, you shouldn't do it either. I hope this wasn't to long, or bored anyone, I found this facinating, I love debateing stuff with people who are the opposite of me, I hope you guys respond. I'm not going to ask for all your language to be clean, after what I've read it would be naive to think it could be. But if you call me names, I'll go after you too. I guess thats a fair warning.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Jennie,

Whew....it's a good thing that today is Pearl Harbor Day - you sure just tried to drop a few bombs here. Fortunately, through Jesus Christ our Lord we have Stealth Technology that allows us to "extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one".(Eph.6:16)

That's all I have to say about the overall tone of your post, but I do feel the need to respond to several individual statements you made. I'm going to use New Testament quotes in my responses because that IS the purpose of this Forum. I understand that you do not accept the authority of these writings, but I hope you can at least acknowledge their historicity and wisdom and derive some value from what I say. Here goes:

You said: "Do (I) blame satan for everything that doesn't agree with you? Clinton and Gore are no angles, sure, but they're not evil, they're dumb. There's a big difference."

My response: No - God blames Satan, for he was a liar & a murderer from the beginning and all that follow his ways are of him. And Gore IS evil, not dumb. He went to Divinity School (even though he dropped out - imagine that) so he has no excuse. Therefore he has no claim on "ignorance of the law".

You said: "I don't give Gore enough credit to be able to manufacture votes.

My response: Neither do I give him that much credit, but he is not alone. He has surrounded himself with a Political machine that has the savvy to do so. Why do you think Bill Daily Jr. is a part of his team? His dad was the inventor of crooked politics in Chicago. Go back and read newspaper articles dating back to Daily Sr's years as Chicago Mayor, the abuses were absolutely horrendous.

You asked: "if Gore actually was somehow able to steal or manufacture or prostitute all these votes, and he had a supporter who didn't know he was cheating, would the supporter still be punished? why? for ignorance? "

My answer: Yes. Neither in American Law nor in the Torah is "ignorance of the Law" an acceptable excuse - hence the sacrifices that were demanded for "unknown sins" that may have been committed. Also read Romans 1:18-32, Paul says that not even the gentiles were without excuse concerning the ways & existance of God.

You stated: "But accepting or not accepting Christ has nothing to do with politics."

My response: Maybe not in your faith, but it does make a difference in mine. As Christians, Christ is to be Lord and master of our lives - which means we must always yield to His ways and words. I see a big conflict of interest in saying God is the lord of my life and then voting to support a murderer. If God & His word reigns supreme in your life, there can be no "yes, but.......s". Oh, by the way, does not the Torah COMMAND that a family's Goel (blood Avenger) seek out & execute anyone who murders a family member, unless that person is able to seek refuge with the Priest upon the horns of the Altar?

You asked: "Who ever said Democrats hate guns?"

My reply: The Democrats have, and by the handfuls I might add. I've listened to congressman after congressman and political activist after political activist cry out against the evil of guns. I'm glad that you have enjoyed shooting (a rarity among women these days), but if the Liberal argument against them is pushed to its only logical outcome - we will lose the chance to fire them again. And which Party is pushing Gun Control laws these days? It ain't the conservative groups.

So, therefore you ask: "But I can't see condoning laws that allow irresponsible people to use guns to kill people. And I can't understand how you can either. If you are afraid that laws will restrict your gun rights, then perhaps we need better worded laws. But we can't just do nothing. Because people die when we do nothing."

My reply: We don't need new laws nor do we need to reword those on the books. We just need to enforce the ones we have. Several months ago Clinton boasted that the Brady Bill had prevented some 20,000 felons (I believe that was the number he quoted) from buying guns last year. The current laws make it a felony for a Felon to even attempt to buy a gun. How many of those 20,000 were prosecuted - O, none, nada, zilch, zip, goose-egg! THAT is irresponsible & unacceptable. Why is it that the Federal Gov't gives Law Enforcement agencies tons of money to fight drugs, but nothing to prosecute such violations of gun laws which have the potential for instant and devestating consequences? Because eventually they plan to eliminate guns from the public's possession, that's why. That's not paranoia talking, it's history talking - it happened in Nazi Germany and it happened in early Communist Russia.

I think Archie Bunker summed up the best explanation of gun control laws. His daughter Gloria complained about all the people who were killed by guns each year, to which Archie replied - "would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?" We need to fix people, not guns. And perversion in the nation's highest office is not going to do that.

Which leads me to a question of you Jennie. As a woman, how do you feel about the Monica Lewinsky thing? If you and I were on a job and I asked you to do the things to me that Slick Willie had Monica perform on him - would I be in jail now? I venture to say that I would probably be under the jail by now. Is not right, right and wrong, wrong? Yet, in every poll I've seen on the subject, most all women say they would vote for Clinton again - can you explain that for me?

Anyway - now on to a BIGGIE.

Your accusation: "As for your next sentence: HOW DARE YOU! There were NO crooked anything perverting anything in OUR temple. On behalf of myself and all Jews, I wished I beleived in hell so I could send you to it. Where are your "christian" values of love for your neighbor? Even if you think the Jews were misguided (NOT WRONG- we are God's chosen people, and Jesus was a Jew himself!) and Jesus was there to correct them, then he was there to help them, not make fun of them. Being a Jew, Jesus would never have refered to them as crooked money-lenders. So if you truly follow him then you won't either. Jesus never said money-lenders or house of thieves. Go back and read the bible, get it straight."

My reply: I've read these scriptures many times and I'm as straight as an arrow on them. Like Danny said, Jesus did indeed say that they had turned the Temple into a den of thieves. Read Luke 19:45-47 and Mark 11:15-18 - it's there in black & white (& red if you have a red- letter edition). And you are wrong in saying Jesus never rebuked or "made fun" of them. Read John 8:31-47, there He says that those Pharisees who were secretly plotting his murder were of their father the devil and that they were not of God because they were not doing the acts of Abraham - the father they claimed. And realize of course, that the Gospel of John is often referred to as the Gospel of Love and John as the Apostle of Love.

And don't forget to read Matthew 23:13-39 where Jesus pronounces a multitude of woes against the Pharisees, Scribes, etc for their many transgressions against God and against the people. Also don't forget to cross-reference all of the times Jesus called these Jewish leaders hypocrits and John the Baptist calling them a "brood of vipers".

If you make claim to the seed of Abraham yet do & promote evil like the Pharisees (or Gore for that matter) did - I'll be seeing you in that Hell that doesn't exist. (I hope they have good coffee and Krispy Kreme Donuts there)

I have to assume that you are a Talmudic Jew since you don't believe in Hell as there are several Old Testament references to Sheol and Gehenna that would serve as explanations of Hell.

You stated: "I myself think abortion is not murder at least until the fetus is viable, at which time I think it is a baby, and its murder."

My response: That is the very lie that Liberals use to promote abortion. It is a bunch of "Whooie". How do you define viable? You say at some point the child becomes viable, and I assume that is at some point before birth. Under the Liberal definition, a newborn baby is not "viable". If you leave a newborn alone for only a few hours, it will die. There is no difference between a 1-minute old fertilized egg and a 5 year old - they both must have a mother, a care-giver to survive. A child must have someone to take care of its needs until he is at least old enough to forage for food and feed & shelter himself.

Let me ask this: if viability determines whether one lives or dies - what about the elderly in nursing homes? They can't fend for themselves and they are a burden on the families and on the public coffers (via Medicare & Social Security). How long will it be before Liberals will begin to determine their right to live under the viability clause? Ask that of Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian - he is living proof that such will happen.

You said: "Whats wrong with Texas? I'm not going to go there, if you like it, the better for you. But I couldn't live there, not with people like you, its just not safe for us Jews."

My reply: That is a typical, sterotypical Liberal statement that I find greatly insulting!!!!! When logic fails (as it always does in a Liberal's argument), just pull out the Racist/Anti-Semetic Card and make unmerited accusations against people. You accuse me & all of Texas of being Anti-semetic when you have never even been there. Who in the hell (er...non-existance) gave you the right to do so. I'm am not now, nor have I ever been anti-semetic. I'm also not anti-black, anti-hispanic, anti-asian, or even anti-eskimo. If anything, I might be anti-hog - since I love to hunt and eat wild hog. Which I guess is something you will never experience. Fortunately my Lord has declared all foods clean.

You said: "its not that the gov't can't or shouldn't legislate morality- they can't legislate morality that is based on religious convictions." and also "assuming you're correct and only God's word makes something right or wrong, in this country, our laws are founded on the beleif that we can't determine whose God is right or wrong, which one exists and which doesn't."

My response: That is historically inaccurate. If you will research and read many of the documents of the early congressional sessions and Supreme Court rulings the references to Christian (Godly) standards abound and if fact dictated the actions they took. This remained the rule, not the exception, until the fallacy of separation of Church & State was forced upon us.

And Yes, separation of Church & State is a fallacy. The Constitution does not say those words nor does it illustrate the intent of the founding fathers - again read the historical documents & personal writings of these men. All the Constitution says is that the State is not allowed to Mandate a single religion upon the people as opposed to the Roman state that dictated Catholocism or death during the Dark Ages. And in all common sense, to think that Legislators, Presidents, & Judges can operate outside of their own religious (or lack thereof) ideas is absurd. We are all a sum total of the life we experience so there is no logical way to expect leaders to become total mental zombies when they get elected. Personally, I don't think ANY of us would want that.

You said: "It doesn't matter what God says as far as legality is concerned"

Response: Oh yeah, explain that one to Israel and Judah when God sent them into captivity for unGodly and Paganist ideas & actions. I guess God & Moses was right, this is a "stubborn & thick-necked people".

And Finally:

You said: "He (Gore) is not a self-confessed anything, except maybe self-confessed pro-choicer."

Reply: Like I said before, that makes him a murderer. You said yourself that at some point you believe the pregnancy becomes viable & abortion at that point becomes murder. Gore cast the deciding vote to allow partial-BIRTH abortions - surely (by your definition) a baby that is 10 minutes away from being born is viable and worthy of protection under the law. Not anymore - Gore wants them dead as long as the mother wants them dead, and he made sure that they can carry out this abomination. Why kill a baby that close to being born? It is going to be delivered anyway. For God's sake, show it the mercy of God and let it live. It's not a choice - it's not a burden - it's not a decision - IT'S A HUMAN LIFE WITH A GOD-GIVEN SOUL !

How can you sleep at night knowing that this has occurred and that you support the person that made it happen?

There you have it. No name calling, no anti-seminism, no profanity. "Nothing but the facts Ma'am, nothing but the facts".

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Jennie,

I forgot one point - I wouldn't touch San Francisco with a ten foot pole and I would probably consider it lower than New York.

I'm sure there are some beautiful areas there - every place has them.

But it is a Spiritual Hell-hole. Fornication and Homosexuality is rampant there and has been for years. To God, it must truly be a dark blot on the gorgeous world He spoke into being.

My advice to you is the same that the angel of the Lord spoke to Lot - get you and yours out of Sodom before the sky comes crashing down upon it - that is, unless you are planning & WORKING on converting them to Godly ways.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

DANNY & MARK: I'm glad I have some entertainment value :). And Mark, here's another common point. I wrongly assumed you Republican. Sorry. I'm a feisty independent myself. As far as trash talk and name calling. TRUCE. Tell 'ya what. I'll send email to Gore and Clinton and so will you, telling them EXACTLY how you feel about them and what you'd like to see happen to them, and we'll see whose door the Secret Service kicks in first.

P.S. on Prohibition. Yes it worked just fine here in Northeastern, Ohio. Canada is a straight run across Lake Erie and the rum runners brought in a fortune in illegal booze that added to the wealth of Cleveland. Ditto for Buffalo, Toledo and Detroit. All depends on your perspective.

JENNIE: Holy Moses!!!!!! I'd admire your hutzpah. And don't worry about what Mark said about San Francisco and it's Fornication and Homosexuality. As everyone knows, nothing like that exists in Texas, so how could he possibly know otherwise.

Are we having fun, yet?

(:raig

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Craig,

"E-mail Gore & Clinton"?

Been there, done that and have the FBI file with my name on it to prove it. In fact, I already had a file because of the correspondence my Dad sent to Carter back in the 70's. YES - Big Liberal Brother IS watching you.

And yes, Jennie Should pay attention to what I said about San Francisco. True, Texas has its perverts too - but at least they aren't it's only claim to fame.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

"(:raig", you said,

"P.S. on Prohibition. Yes it worked just fine here in Northeastern, Ohio. Canada is a straight run across Lake Erie and the rum runners brought in a fortune in illegal booze that added to the wealth of Cleveland. Ditto for Buffalo, Toledo and Detroit. All depends on your perspective."

"All depends on your perspective"? Not really. Some things do "all depend on your perspective", but not this. This depends more on how objective you are willing to be and how willing you are to research the "true facts."*

(*"True facts" ought to be a tautology, but not the way language, objectivity and morality are all so subjectively interpreted these days.)

I don't think Danny said Prohibition had been totally successful everywhere, and I certainly didn't. I said there had been some failures -- primarily, it seems, in some of the major cities of the Northeast. But overall, in the country as a whole, Prohibition was working.

Just so you don't think I'm a rampant "temperance" fanatic, I personally don't believe it is a sin to drink alcoholic beverages, and if I had lived then I'm not sure I would have supported the introduction of Prohibition (though I would have obeyed, once it was introduced). But that's not the question. You said, "you can't legislate morality" and brought up Prohibition as an example to support your case. The facts support the opposite view. In the country as a whole, for the majority of U.S. citizens, Prohibition was working, and not only drinking, but alcohol-related crime (notwithstanding the highly publicised smuggling and illegal brewing, etc., during Prohibition), accidents and death decreased during this time and have been steadily increasing since repeal.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm going to wrap up my postings on this particular thread... *applause and sighs of relief in background*

... I've pretty well said what my positions are, but I would like to complete some answers.

MARK: I too have a file. I actually got to read it and suggested some changes, not that the FBI was listening, but at least we have an understanding. I'm reminded of that scene in "JAWS" where the guys are sitting around the table in the boat cabin comparing scars :).

BEN: Well though out responses. Prohibition DID work for those that obeyed the law. Prohibition also worked for those that broke the law and made fortunes in a perverse way. After the repeal of Prohibition, those same people became normal stalwart (not my word :)) citizens, many of them tavern owners in Little Italy and on the west side in Cleveland. I'm summarizing from local factual history.

So, if making booze illegal brought down the crime rate, then making guns illegal will bring down the murder rate. YOWEE! Ain't that a match in gas can! Also, another thread. Not here.

The whole business about abortion, etc. comes down to this. At least for me. If you want to pass laws, fine, go right ahead. But, I'm not going to wait for the Great White Father in Washington to pontificate what's right and wrong for the huddled masses. I've got teens at home and in the youth group in church that need encourgement, guidance and direction, Now. Up front and personal. I can dictate what's right and wrong and be told in so many words where to go. Or I can help them find their own answers. From Scripture. From experience. From Wherever, that's moral and ethical. Those are the answers that count. The only ones that count. I've got a finite time to make a difference and it's not going to be spent waiting on Congress. Or the church, for that matter.

Do I limit myself to the NT? Well, let's put it this way. I married a Catholic who taught English and math to students at the Orthodox Hebrew Acadamy of Cleveland, whose rabbi provided day care for our daughter; was involved in the music program at Christ Episcopal Church whose director was also the music director at Fairmount Temple (Reformed Jewish) and lent a hand on Jewish High Holy days; got rescued from a firefight on the streets of Saigon by a Buddhist monk who dragged me into a nearby monestary; located the North Vietnamse artillery captain, a dedicated Communist who did his darnedest to kill me (he was an excellent shot) and corresponded with his family after the war; learned more about the love and spirit of Jesus from a Hindu mystic than all the Christian priests and ministers I've ever dealt with; and all within a mortal span of 54 years. I try to keep my eyes, ears and heart open, and will now shut my mouth.

Best wishes to you all in this holiday season.

(:raig Miller

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Craig, you said,

"So, if making booze illegal brought down the crime rate, then making guns illegal will bring down the murder rate."

Actually, it probably would. Just compare the murder rate in the U.S. with that in Canada or the U.K.!! Compare it NOT ONLY in terms of raw numbers, since the populations sizes are different, but in terms of percentage of the population.

As you said, perhaps this would be something better saved for another thread -- though actually, this is the SOLE significant issue on which I disagree with Bush and the Republicans.

BTW, my wife and I did both vote for Bush -- by absentee ballot from Hong Kong -- but NOT as Florida voters!!! (Three of our other missionaries here are from Florida. One voted for Bush, one couldn't get an absentee ballot for some reason, and I don't know about the third -- though I'm sure he wouldn't have voted for Gore.)

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Wow! I stayed away a few days and missed a bunch!

Danny,

You said, "ROBIN.....I don't care...never have....that you don't like the way the question is phrased. And your're right....the question was poised to prove my point which happened to be....the right point. " My point was this, if you phrase a question just to make your point... you might not get an answer. I personally would rather ask a question in a way that facilitates discussion... not squelches or taints it.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Mark,

You have said (concerning Ephesians 5:4), "Obscenity and public humiliation, or taunting, of people, Christian or Pagan, is to be avoided - as it is not in-line with the love of God mentioned above. " I agree!!! (Although your rendition of 'foolish talk' might be a little narrow....) Then you go on to say, "In this light I don't see the conflict with "Hail to the Thief" or even "Vote Whore". They are truthful, painfully truthful, statements. " I disagree!!! You are saying that you could walk up to Al Gore and say "YOU VOTE WHORE!" and not fall under public humiliation or taunting and be in line with the love of God!?!? You seem to be saying that just because something might be true, it cannot be used for public humiliation and taunting... that is just not true.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Robin,

No, I'm not saying that I could walk up to "Uncle Albert", call him a "Vote Whore" to his face and not face humiliation. Of course I would. Anytime someone stands up and publicly confronts evil with the truth, they can expect to be lambasted. That's what happened to Jesus, the Apostles, and the thousands of martyrs how called a spade a "spade" and wouldn't compromise truth.

But, that humiliation comes at the hands of the world, not at the hands of the Godly. Such is an "occupational hazard" of being a Christian. My words to Gore, though harsh, would not have been for the purpose of humiliating him, but for the purpose of humbling him toward repentance.

Your example above then is actually the opposite of what I meant. I am the one being humiliated not Gore. Paul's words to me in Ephesians would be to prevent me from being like the Press that would be attacking me for confronting Gore. By the way, you know in that circumstance I would be attacked whether I said "You Vote Whore" or if I quietly said to him "you know, I think you're wrong on some things and God probably doesn't appreciate what you're doing". In such a case, the harder words are probably to only chance to reach into a hardened heart.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Mark,

I meant that you would be taunting and publicly humilating Al Gore by face-to-face calling him a "Vote Whore", not that you would be humiliated!!!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Mark,

To clarify, above I said, "...and not fall under public humiliation or taunting..." .... I meant it as "and not fall into the category of publicly humiliating or taunting someone".... which is exactly what you had said we shouldn't do. Sorry for the confusion... my wording could have been more precise.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Danny,

Possibly.... but, does that make it right?

To me, "Vote Whore" still is something we should not do per Ephesians 5:4 (and other scriptures) AND it seems to fit as something we shouldn't do According To Mark's Own Interpreation of Ephesians 5:4. I would consider walking up to someone and saying "You Vote Whore!" as a taunt (and as an attempt at Public Humiliation if done in public)... which is what Mark himself says we shouldn't do.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Mark,

You said, "Obscenity and public humiliation, or taunting, of people, Christian or Pagan, is to be avoided." I consider calling someone a "Vote Whore" a taunt. Let's define your word 'taunt'. American Heritage Dictionary: 1) To deride or reproach with contempt; mock; jeer at. 2) to drive or incite (a person) by taunting. How do you get around the fact that calling someone a "Vote Whore" IS A TAUNT?? And if you can't... then you yourself have said it is wrong....

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Danny,

You have mentioned this study about guns, etc. previously -- or, if not this one, one like it. I don't have time to look for it or read it right now, but I think it is safe to make the following couple of observations, even sight unseen.

(1) As some have observed occasionally in this forum, the degree to which the existing laws are enforced is more important than how strict the laws themselves are. Did your book consider this factor? I strongly suspect that this factor made a bigger difference in the rates for murder and other gun-related crime than the severity of the actual laws did. I also suspect that this, plus the extreme poverty of the country and the wide gap between rich and poor, are what account for the high crime rate in Jamaica despite strict gun laws.

(2) In what you've said both previously and here, my impression is that only states of the U.S. were included in the study. In my opinion, any such study which does not take into account the experience of other countries is highly suspect.

You mention your personal experience -- in Jamaica. I have lived in Hong Kong most of my life, but have also visited a number of major U.S. cities, and some major cities in other parts of the world. There is no part of Hong Kong where I would be afraid to go alone ... on public transport ... in the middle of the night. There are hardly any places where I would be reluctant to send my wife or any tourist. I have also been out ... alone and/or with my wife and/or kids ... walking and on public transport ... late at night ... in Toronto and London, and without any problems or any fear of problems. I would not be so bold in the streets of L.A., New York, D.C., Detroit, or even the Indiana portions of the Greater Chicago area -- even though the actual population density is actually lower in these places (MUCH lower than Hong Kong)! Why? Because of guns, first of all, and, second, the climate of easy violence that seems to breed when guns are commonplace.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Well Robin,

It looks like this has narrowed down to what the definition of "taunt" is

The first rule I go by, is to never just quote a worldly dictionary when you're dealing with a word in a theological context. God's way of looking at things is usually much different than the world's way so we have to be careful in defining Biblical concepts. Apparently my definition of "taunt" is different than yours.

I see calling Gore a "Vote Whore" not as an attempt to humiliate or taunt him, but as an attempt to confront him with his sins to bring about repentance. True, it would probably be humiliating for him (if he still has a conscience), but that is the unfortunate aspect about sin - it almost always embarrasses us when found out.

What I need you to do is re-examine your definition of "taunt" in light of the following Biblical examples:

1) Elijah & the Prophets of Baal. While setting up this confrontation, Elijah called King Ahab "the troubler of Israel" - was this "taunt" or "truth". While the Prophets of baal were doing their thing around their sacrifice, Elijah egged them on saying things like "Speak louder,perhaps your god is out, maybe he is using the outhouse (which is what several Hebrew scholars have said Elijah's words could have meant)" - was this "taunt" or "truth"?

2) While baptizing in the Jordan, John the Immerser called the Pharisees gathered there a "brood of vipers" - was this "taunt" or "truth"?

3) Jesus also called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers", "hypocrites", "white-washed sepulcures", and "children of their father, Satan" - were these "taunts" or "truths"?

4) Jesus even referred to the Syrophenician woman who requested his help as a "dog" - "taunt" or "truth" or something else?

Robin, I see only 2 possibilities here: either my inclusion of the word "taunt" in my explanation was incorrect (even though you seemed to like that definition) or else your definition of "taunt" needs to be loosened up to make room for public confrontation of public sins. I'll let you decide which.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Danny,

You said, "Lastly, and I say this with respect....unless you are willing to study the facts....which you yourself have admitted that you have not done....nor do you have the time....for the sake of fairness....it might be better to withhold your opinion. Othewise....you are simply repeating a 'mantra' of anti-2nd amendment propoganda."

I never said I hadn't studied "the facts" -- only that I hadn't seen or had time to study your particular book, and, as I said, unless it considers the experience of other countries, I'm not sure it is worth the time! I think I've done quite a lot of study of this matter over the years -- and, obviously, come to completely different conclusions than you have.

As for quoting personal experience, you were the first to do that, bringing up Jamaica as an example of a place where gun control "doesn't work."

As for the first amendment, I haven't forgotten that and am not ignoring that. It is just that, (1) as I've argued elsewhere, I don't believe that the INTENTION of the first amendment was anything like what the "gun lobby" tries to use it to justify today, and (2) important though the Constitution may be, it didn't come from God, and I think there are higher, Biblical, principles involved that REQUIRE limits on what the 2nd amendment might possibly be taken to justify.

It makes me sad to see Christians, of all people, hide behind the 2nd amendment to justify something that destroys so many lives, including the lives of children.

You are, rightly, very much against abortion. But the kind of free and easy access to deadly weapons that prevails in most of the U.S. facilitates easy and convenient murder too! You are, rightly, I believe, scornful of the attitude that women will still get abortions even even if legal abortions are banned. But then you (or at least people like you, since I can't remember if I've heard you use this argument yourself) use arguments such as that if guns are banned, criminals will find a way to get guns anyway. Be consistent!

Actually, both arguments are only partly true. If abortions are made illegal, some women will get abortions anyway, but many will not. If gun ownership is much more strictly limited, some criminals will find a way to get them anyway, but many (the majority, if the laws are enforced consistently) will not. That would cut down tremendously on the number of firearms used in the commission of crimes. Secondly, stricter gun laws, coupled with (especially) stricter enforcement, would cut down on two other types of gun-related killing and mayhem -- accidental shootings, and shootings done "on the spur of the moment" because a gun happened to be handy. In countries that take gun control seriously, it works. Why it doesn't work in the U.S. is because the states are too intimidated by the NRA to pass the needed laws in some cases, or to enforce them properly in others.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Mark,

Elijah (prophet), John (prophet), Amos (prophet) -who Danny and I discussed previously- , and Christ (God Himself) were speaking directly FOR God. We, today, DO NOT (directly). We have the BIBLE, God's Words. I believe we should use God's Words to confront sin... not our own words meant to provoke. "Public confrontation of public sins" can be done without taunting... and should be.

And, we must consider another difference from the examples you quote, in this actual instance the use of "Vote Whore" was not to the person's face... but behind his back. No "attempt to confront him with his sins to bring about repentance" was being made.... It was nothing more than a denigrating remark.

Thanks for the discussion.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Danny,

I really, really don't want to enter a 'Gun Battle' with you (nothing bigger than a 30-06 here).... and am not planning on it... but I do have a question.

A couple of times you have pointed out that "there is one big difference between us, Cananda, and the UK. It's a little thing called....THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT." and "the thing that separates us from the rest of the world....namely.....a Constitution and a second amendment."

I'm trying to figure out what your point is and I think it is this, but please correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that even if gun control in those 'other' places works (diminishes crime, increases safety, etc. -- as Benjamin has indicated his experiences show).... that Gun Control should still be fought with all we have because of the Constitution and Second Amendment?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Danny,

Our messages crossed... you explained yourself clearly in your last post. :-)

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Robin,

You had asked previously if I would speak these words to Gore's face and that was how I responded in these last posts as I spoke of trying to bring him to repentance.

As far as "behind the back" remarks go, they are probably not the wisest things to do at times - but they are human. Personally, I can picture in my mind this scenario: after any one of the many times Jesus confronted the Pharisees to no avail, I can see Him walking off, shaking His head, & muttering to Himself something like, "fools", "Hard-headed jerks", or some idiom prevalent in that day. Of course I can't prove that, but I can picture Jesus' humanity and His frustration With humanity in that way.

Also, I agree I'm in a different class than Jesus when it comes to speaking God's word - He's God & I'm not. But maybe not so with Elijah, Amos, & John. True, Elijah & Amos had direct knowledge from God at times and were given prophetic dreams & visions - but you CAN NOT prove that they were under the influence of those things 100% of the time - they were real people just like you & I. If you read through the "Prophets of Baal" passage there is not 1 "thus sayeth the Lord" concerning the whole ordeal (except Elijah's swearing by God to reassure Obediah who was afraid of Ahab). And of John the Immerser there is NO Mention of his ever having a dream, vision, or other type of Prophetic experience other than seeing the Spirit descend "as if a dove" after Jesus was Baptized - which occurred AFTER the "brood of vipers" incident. All that is said of John is that he would be filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb - and as a Christian, I have this same Spirit in me! There is No Difference between John & me except we have different ministries (and I only eat bugs when I ride my motorcycle). And even IF John had been commanded by God to call them such a name - it was still a taunt, because God Knew in advance that the Pharisees would not change.

I'm sorry Robin, there are too many instances in Scripture to not make allowances for stern confrontation of the sinner, and one big reason the church has little witness and affect in the world today is because too many in the church have developed the "oh, we can't do that" kind of attitude. Little by little pacifism has become the mainstay of the church and has turned it into nothing more than a little "Tea Club". The men of the church have allowed themselves to be emasculated by society which is a tragedy because even the Old Testament Law said that the emasculated were not allowed to enter into the assembly of God's people. God Has No Use for "Wussies". (was that a taunt?)

If the world saw more Christians "Crying in the Wilderness" instead of just sitting around and holding hands - the world might just come around. They did in the first century - and it worked. As proof, read the account of Polycarp's death as a martyr - he taunts the authorities and just about makes a mockery of his trial -- And because of his actions, more were added to the church.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

Danny,

You said, "It's the Second Amendment....not the First."

Sorry. I know that, and did say "2nd" elsewhere in my message. Sleepiness and lack of time prevented proper proof-reading.

From you: "Let's get something straight....the NRA is not 'a something' .....it is people. There would be no NRA were it not for the millions of law abiding citizens who are sick and tired of being blamed for that which is the fault of legislators....namely....not prosecuting criminals. The NRA is ONLY powerful because it has a lot of people (including myself) proudly backing them."

The same is equally true of many movements you disdain. I thought you were telling us elsewhere how much better a republic is than a democracy because it avoids this kind of populist madness. It's what is RIGHT that counts, not who can rally the most bodies to support it.

From you: "We fully recognize that a govt. that can restrict the Second Amendment.....can also do the same to the First. Can you logically tell me why this would not be so??"

Why is comparing the pro-abortion argument that "if abortions are banned, women will go elsewhere for abortions" and the gun lobby argument that "if guns are banned, criminals will still get them somehow" like comparing "apples and oranges", but your comparison between the second amendment and the first is not?

I DO NOT believe that one would necessarily lead to the other because --

(1) The two amendments are talking about two DIFFERENT things ("apples and oranges" again).

(2) Almost every country in the world pays at least "lip service" to the rights that are included in the first amendment, and many take them very seriously and protect them vigorously -- including Hong Kong, which may be under Chinese sovereignty, but has a different political and legal system ("one country, two systems"). But hardly any other countries accept the 2nd amendment "rights" (especially as you interpret them) as necessary or wise.

(3) As I've said several times, I don't believe that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is at all in accord with what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they framed that amendment. That being the case, you may be able to argue (as Lee Saffold did elsewhere) that the 2nd amendment gives you a "legal" right to "bear arms" even without being a part of a "well-regulated militia", but if it is contrary to what was intended when the Bill of Rights was passed, do you, as a Christian, really have an ethical right to do so?

(4) According to your reasoning -- that if the 2nd amendment were interpreted in a way that limits ownership or use of deadly weapons any more than you think is reasonable, this will lead to the 1st amendment also being done away with -- we should already be on this slippery path. After all, the 21st amendment completely repealed the 18th.

You said: "Again....you failed to address Washington DC and New York. By your faulty logic....those two states with the most restictive gun laws in the nation should have the least amount of crime. Yet just the opposite is true.....they continue to have the highest rate of murder. On the other hand.....states with very loose concealed weapons permits.....have sharply declining crime rates."

That argument isn't worth touching. According to your "logic", Hong Kong, Toronto, and London should be in a state of utter chaos with rates of violent crime soaring. Sorry, but it aint so! These cities have strict -- and strictly enforced -- gun laws and are among the safest in the world, especially for cities their size.

You said, "I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.....ENFORCE THE LAWS ALEADY ON THE BOOKS.....and the problem would be greatly reduced."

Fine, but DO IT. I strongly suspect that one of the biggest reasons this isn't done is because the ones who should be enforcing the laws are afraid the gun lobby will cry "foul." The NRA may be doing the things you say to try to prevent guns being used in crime -- BUT they spend most of their time saying, "don't touch our guns", and THAT'S the message that really gets across.

You said, "You refuse to read a book that does not include other countries. I refuse to consider other countries because name for me one other country in the world that enjoys the freedoms we do??? With freedom....there is risk. But it is a risk that I would rather take than living under a less than democratic form of govt."

Shouldn't that be "republican form of gov't"? (Grin!) Anyway, if you think the U.S. is the only country that "enjoys the freedoms we do", you don't have much experience of the world outside of the U.S. of A.!! If you look at the overall situation, there are quite a few countries that are quite comparable to the U.S.

Certainly you could point to almost any country and find something that doesn't come up to the standard of the U.S., but you can also find things about the U.S. that fall short of the standards in those countries. (Did you know, for example, that the U.S. is almost the only country in the world that taxes its citizens when they are residents of other countries -- that, in fact, taxes BOTH the citizens of other countries who are resident in the U.S. and U.S. citizens who are resident in other countries. So much for "no taxation without representation"!)

You said: "You brag about Hong Kong......and I'm happy for your work there.....but I think it would be wise to consider when touting their gun laws.....who owns Hong Kong....namely.....communist China. I'm not comfortable with that trade-off."

Hong Kong inherited its gun laws from the British. In Britain even the policement don't carry firearms, or at least very few of them do, and they believe (with good evidence) that that in itself is a deterrent to the use of firearms in crime! Hong Kong's policemen do carry guns, as do licensed watchmen at banks, jewellery stores, etc., and there are gun clubs where you can practice target shooting, but the guns are locked away at the club in between times. But the general populace cannot easily get hold of guns.

When guns have been used in violent crime in Hong Kong, they have ALMOST ALWAYS come from one of two sources: (a) stolen (snatched) police revolvers, which has led to occasional calls for Hong Kong to follow the British practice of not normally having the police carry guns, and (b) mainland China, where gun laws (whether you believe it or not) are much laxer and also less carefully enforced than the Hong Kong calls. A few years ago, shortly before the handover, there was a whole spate of armed robberies of banks and jewellery stores with criminal gangs from the mainland, using guns acquired on the mainland. This led people to fear that we might see this kind of anarchy in Hong Kong after the handover. Fortunately, with improved co-operation between police in Hong Kong and police on the mainland, a lot of the smuggling (of cars and luxury goods from H.K. into China and guns from China into H.K.) has been greatly curtailed and things are safer again.

Anyway, so much for the "scare tactic" that says that the introduction of stricter gun laws, and especially of registration of firearms, is part of a communist plot to disarm the citizenry!!

I'm glad for a lot of reasons that I'm in Hong Kong rather than in China itself -- and one is that stricter and better enforced gun laws here than in China make it a whole lot safer here. You, on the other hand, just might feel more comfortable in mainland China, at least with regard to this aspect of life.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

So who's trying to win the case on personal observation now?

You obviously have one side of the issue well rehearsed and haven't even seriously looked at the other side. You need to broaden your education, but I'm afraid I don't have time to try to do it for you. You probably wouldn't listen anyway, so it would be a waste of my time.

You do make one good point. You say that it doesn't matter how you or I interpret the Constitution, but what the "Founding Fathers" meant by it. In the 2nd amendment it clearly says that gun ownership is necessary BECAUSE it is necessary to have a "WELL REGULATED militia." Even if the way that the amendment is worded does not clearly state that a person with a gun must belong to the militia, it certainly seems to be intended that they would, since this is the purpose of allowing individuals to own "arms". The words "well regulated" allow -- even REQUIRE, in my view -- that the government (probably state governments in the original intention, rather than Federal) MUST "regulate" this militia. To me that gives a lot of scope for governments to also, by one means or another, "regulate" gun ownership.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Danny,

I thought that I would mention from my personal experience what I believe Benjamin is trying to get across, even though you may not agree…

About half of my adult life I have lived in various countries around the world: Germany, South Korea & Japan. I do not know specifics, but NONE of them have the freedoms that we as Americans do in regards to owning weapons. In all of those places, I have felt personally safer than I have in the U.S. There is something about a place as Benjamin says…"There is no part of Hong Kong where I would be afraid to go alone ... on public transport ... in the middle of the night."

For three years I lived in one of the largest, if not THE largest city in the world…Tokyo, Japan. As a woman I could go alone late at night and have no fear. My children could go on the trains at night with no fear. It seemed strange to me that in a country that claims many gods…the people are honorable even to the point of returning a wallet or purse lost on public transportation completely intact money and all, yet in the U.S. a "Godly" nation the likelihood of that happening is almost zilch. What I finally figured out, is that the U.S. is NOT a Godly nation!

I am not advocating more gun laws. But I am saying from my personal experience…those with more controlling laws seemed to me to have much less crime than the U.S.

I agree…I don't believe it is too much of a jump to suggest it won't be long till they control what we say or do. There are some sectors of the population that due to your type of job this is already happening.

I realize guns are related to a much bigger issue. We kill with other things besides guns. Guns do make it easier though. Besides dysfunctional families and parents who don't raise their children right…there is just plain evil out there.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Danny- When the teachings of Christ call my people "a den of thieves" I will use whatever I want to defend them. As for bi-partisan, maybe that shows conviction that America is best when everyone is included (that being what democracy is all about, after all). The American people have consistantly voted a close congress, often the opposite party of the president. I think our community conscious doesn't trust either party, and would like a happy medium. Extremists like you make that difficult.Maybe I should post a new thread. But like to come into the Christian discussions, as much as they sometimes offend, I find them fascinating. If you choose to ignore my comments, I can't force you to answer, but I would appreciate it if you do. As for giving lands to the Palestinians- Just being a Jew and loving Israel doesn't mean we automatically hate Arabs. One of my close friends is from Yemmen. Basically, I feel that it is imposible for the Arabs to live the way they do now, for much longer. They want and need a state of their own. If they had acepted the original UN resolution, they'd already have it. But I am opposed to dividing Jerusalem. Divided cities are disasters. Mark- when you said historicity, did you perchance mean, historical value? Of course I can accpet that the bible has historical value. You said Gore had no excuse for ignorance- I didn't say he was ignorant, I said he was dumb. Hitler was evil, Hussein is evil, Gore is dumb. You might hate him, but that doesn't make him evil. As for his political machine, they are a smart bunch, maybe, but I still don't think they come close to being able to pull of what would have been the greatest vote heist in history, fooling the American public and the justice system. As for the goel, yes, but since we do not consider abortion murder, thats not an issue. Furthermore, you can vote based on whatever you like, faith included, but because of separation of church and state, don't expect laws to also be based on that faith. Democrats don't hate guns. There is no inherint evil in the gun. We hate having guns aimed and fired at people's heads. If you want to excercise your constitutional right to go fire a gun at an animal or a target, go ahead. But we still need provisions to stop those people who prefer to use their peers as their targets. We don't want to stop you from using guns, just from using guns irresponsibly. And are you suggesting that because there is an anti-people-killing-people lobby in this country that we're going to end up like Nazi Germany? You're way off course. And no, I wouldn't feel better if the people killed by guns had been pushed out of windows. Of course, that line was made for laughs, and this is hardly a laughing matter. Every two hours a child dies from a gun. What about putting safety locks on all guns? And background checks- if you're not a criminal you can still have them-Do you really want criminals toting AK-47's? I see your problem with the polls. And I'm unsure how to explain it, because of course I agree that Clinton was wrong, and yet, I would vote for him again too. I think its best summed up by this: Clinton has many bad qualities, one of which seems to be weak morals. However, during his presidency, he never showed this. The only reason we know about his morality at all is because of the impeachment. He tried to keep his private life out of ours, and he never made a morally wrong decision concerning our country that would compell me to vote against him. But the biggest reason is his competition- it sucks. He looks good compared to Bush or Gore. about Jesus- I will reply in a sec to what you say Jesus said, but about what John the Baptist said, I could care less. I trust less what the scribes said the diciples said Jesus said, than what the scribes said Jesus said. Of course, not having read the Bible, I don't know if what you quote is true, but I'll take your word for it. I was wrong. But I am quite disallusioned with Christ, if he could talk about his people like that. I'm not saying that Jews are perfect, there are plenty who I disagree with strongly. But I dislike them based on them personally, and the only people who I hate as a whole would be groups like the KKK whose existance is partially derived from keeping down me, and fellow minorities. If Jesus said we were a den of thieves, then I've lost my last scrap of respect for the guy. When I say viable I mean that it could survive outside the mother's womb. I didn't say survive on its own, with noone to care for it. Sure, kids need care. But a 5 year old doesn't need a placenta, they have working hearts, a fetus does not. Who gave me the right to bad-mouth Texas? the first amendment (free speech) I know you conservatives Love the bill of rights (You stick by the second amendment pretty tightly). I will bad-mouth Texas, maybe based on sterotypes, maybe not. And I give you the freedom to bad-mouth wherever you'd like too. Its a right I intend on taking full advantage of. I base my opinion of Texas on what I know of the south, and what I know from people who have lived there. It may not be overflowing with Nazis, but we don't get a warm welcome either. Your lord, my lord, same guy, remember? And I have eaten pork, in Chineese food, which I love. But I can't say that I ever had wild hog. Not that I intend to try, either. As for separation of church and state- regardless of what was stated in what document, current popular convention and opinion is that we should have and need separation of church and state. Because you woulnd't like living in my kind of theocracy anymore than I want to live in yours. As for thinking outside of religion- for example, I would expect a congressperson to decide, say on a hate crimes bill, based on their religious convictions, and what they think is the convictions of their constituents. But I would not expect them to base a bill on the bible. If you think hate crimes need to be more strictly enforced because Jesus said love thy neighbor, fine. But don't pass a bill that says "because Jesus said love thy neighbor, we should have harsher hate crime legislation". And if you take offense of Texas' behalf, don't be a hypocrite and call all Jews stubborn. And if you want to use bible passages as arguments, fine, but realize that I do not interpret the Torah literally. I don't know that Moses ever said that, so telling me he did isn't all that convincing. Maybe in your twisted mind being pro-life is being a murderer. Call Gore a murderer. But he never said he was, so if you say he is a self-confessed murderer, then you're lying. Don't put words in people's mouths. And when you said let them live for God's sake- thats a great example of how NOT to write legislation. Not for God. This is NOT your theocracy. ANd I don't beleive any of us have souls, so that arguemnt is lost on me too. As for sleeping at night, I sleep just fine knowing I have done my part to protect the freedom of the people who are already alive and contributing to this society, even though I may have sacrificed POTENTIAL life in order to do so. If I were born because my mother hadn't been able to have an abortion, or worse, if she died because she had been forced to have me, then I would have trouble sleeping at night. Nothing but the facts? Hate to break it to you, God is a beleif, not a fact. Mark, speaking of a hell hole, I was about to mention Texas. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with SEX (how do you think you got here?) or homosexuality. If you don't like it, don't do it. And you can be a moral, good person without being Christian, so I have no intention of converting anyone to your theocracy. America isn't going to convert to your irrationality, so get over it. Craig-thanks for your support! Mark- you have an FBI file....should I be impressed? And here I was thinking that the Golden Gate Bridge, Lombard street, trolleys and China Town (not to mention a great view and great people) were SF's claim to faim. Lets see about Texas- big hats, big boots, big mouths, small brains. hmmm.... Danny- do you ever get claustrophobic in that narrow little mind of yours? Since when is Hindu Satan? Open up, its amazing what you can see when you go looking for evil in everyone. And might the difference in crime rate between D.C. and New York v. Indiana have something to do with the huge cities (i.e. higher murder rates, gangs, ect.) and the fact that Indiana has fewer people? Mark-when I read your Dec.10, I laughed so hard! You think Christians have an occupational hazard? Try being a real minority. Jew, black, hispanic, gay, (just pick someone you don't like). Thats an occupational hazard! You WASPS all think its so hard to be christian in America. You're wrong. Its the easiest. Danny- the Christain right is neither. And I mention God all the time, but I'm not a "bible-thumper". Its when you mention God with the intention of pressing your views on others that you are labled a right-wing extremist. Danny-wow, we sort of agree on something In your Dec.11, you said no society has fared well based on Utopian or communistic beleifs. True. But none has been harmed by trying to help its poor people either. We dont need to eleiminate the gap between rich and poor, we just need to bring the bottom line up enough so that the poorest are not driven to crime. They can be poor in comparison with the rich, yet still have a decent standard of living. In the middle of another post, you said how your kids are ok around guns- exactly so. And I bet you raised them knowing how to safely use a gun, and not to use it against people, thats great. It would be great if everyone were like that. But people who don't grow up with guns are the ones who are more likely to committ murder. We can't force everyone to grow up with a gun-something else needs to happen. I think we do need to enforce laws already in existance. We also need more laws. We need COMPROMISE.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Jenny, it is obvious that you have not read the New Testament (even though you say you have). Jesus did not call all the Jewish people corporately a "den of thieves." In context, the religious leaders of his day, the Pharisees and Saducees, had set up shop in the temple courts, claiming that the offerings that people would bring were not "pure" and that they had to instead buy offerings supplied by the priests, at exhorbitant prices, and moneychangers that exchanged Roman coins for temple coins to pay the temple taxes at rates that amounted to nothing short of usury: both practices which were specifically forbidden by both Moshe and the Prophets. So Jesus was perfectly justified in condemning them for their practices, which defiled the Temple.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jennie,

I will post a final comment on your last post. I say final because it is now obvious that continuing this banter is futile. This Forum is about religion, and from several of your comments it is obvious that you have no religion to speak of. You seek discussion not for information, but merely for the sake of argument - which is something I'm getting a little too old for (at least on a continuing basis).

I say that you have no religion to speak of because of comments you made, such as:

"Of course, not having read the Bible, I don't know if what you quote is true" No basis of religious discussion here.

"but realize that I do not interpret the Torah literally. I don't know that Moses ever said that". Well, he not only said it, but he also WROTE it.

"And I don't believe any of us have souls" Even King David believed in having a soul - read the Psalms.

"Hate to break it to you, God is a beleif, not a fact". I hate to break to YOU, but you will find out differently on the day you die.

From your own words, (heredity notwithstanding) you are not a true Jew, but a Zionist and an atheist.

Now, for your specific comments:

You said, "we do not consider abortion murder".

Reply: Well of course you don't - if there is no God and no soul, death really doesn't matter, does it? Kill 'em all and let God (er..nobody) sort 'em out. Why protect kids from "gun-toting crazies" when they have nothing to look forward to in the future - all you're doing is prolonging their agony on earth. (Which, by the way, is the reason why so many kids commit suicide every year - no hope for the future).

You said,"Every two hours a child dies from a gun."

Reply: Check your figures - the leading cause of death among teens in this country is Suicide. Suicide brought about by the feeling of hopelessness that your Liberal buddies have propagated by removing God and soul from their lives.

You said, "But we still need provisions to stop those people who prefer to use their peers as their targets. We don't want to stop you from using guns, just from using guns irresponsibly" and also "What about putting safety locks on all guns? And background checks- if you're not a criminal you can still have them-Do you really want criminals toting AK-47's?"

Reply: We already have all the laws we need and more - you just need to get your Liberal buddies Clinton & Gore to enforce them. About trigger-locks, Bush hands them out for FREE in Texas, no big deal. But I won't put one on my personal-protection pistol because criminals will rarely wait for you to take it off before bashing your head in (or blowing it off with their AK-47). And yes, criminals have automatic weapons - if fact, they are they only ones who CAN get them now because existing gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from buying them.

You said, "Who gave me the right to bad-mouth Texas? the first amendment (free speech)"

Reply: That amendment gives you the right to call us stupid, hardheaded, rednecks, and many other things - but not an Anti- Semetic! About which, by the way, you did not reply. With that statement, you break the "freedom of Religion" Amendment that you use to dismiss us Gentiles with. I've found in life that people who base their ideas and opinions on sterotypes are the most ignorant & narrow- minded of them all. I you can't provide proof that Texans (including myself) are anti-Semetic - drop the accusations because they mean nothing.

You said, "But I am quite disallusioned with Christ, if he could talk about his people like that."

Reply: That disallusionment with Christ is why God allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, along with the Temple in 70 AD. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that there is no God, so I guess it was just Caesar striking down a stubborn, hardheaded, trouble-making people.

You asked, "Anyway, there is nothing wrong with SEX (how do you think you got here?)"

Reply: I got no problem with sex - it's one of my favorite activities, running a very close 2nd to hunting :~). But I do have a problem with sex outside of marriage - God calls it fornication - an act punishable by death according to Jewish (Mosaic) Law. I have a problem with Homosexuality, and so does God - literally translated from the Hebrew in one place, the Old Testament says it makes God want to spew (blow chunks, vommit, hug the porcelein bowl, etc) - and is also punishable by death according to the Law from Sinai.

You asked, "Mark- you have an FBI file....should I be impressed?"

Reply: NO, you should be concerned and apalled that the paranoid, Liberal, leftists find it necessary to mark & track an innocent citizen because his father exercised his 1st Amendment right to express his opinion about a politician's policies! What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" and "a trial by a jury of my peers"?

You said, "You WASPS all think its so hard to be christian in America. You're wrong."

Reply: Again with the anti-Semetic/Racist trump card - my that gets old. I just wish I was a black,Jewish,woman Democrat - then I would be able to get any job and any Gov't assistance I wanted. As a white, Christian male I am the last person who can be considered for a job and have absolutely no access to Gov't aid unless I turn into a Homosexual, intraveinous drug user and contract AIDS.

Finally......

You said, "We need COMPROMISE."

Reply: BUZZ.........wrong answer. When truth is compromised, there IS NO TRUTH !!! And what is truth? Jesus prayed, "THY (God's) Word is Truth". You Accept neither God nor His Word - therefore the truth is not in you.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

John- my claim that Jesus called all Jews den of thieves, ect. is from info I got further up on the post, if you read back sessions, you should see that someone else told me it was true. And yes, of course I haven't read the bible. But if Mosche and co. prohibited money lending, why did the rabbis allow it for so long in Europe? Danny- you say I refer to everyone with convictions as right-wing? I don't refer to myself that way, and I sure have convictions! Maybe you're just a typical conservative- narrow-minded and trying to wedge religion into places in doesn't belong. So your proud, good for you. yeay. really. and I try to spell your name, right, so please, my name is Jennie, not Jenny. Mark- I have oodles of relgion, actually! I am a reform Jew. I teach sunday school to sixth graders. After a period in which I was disallusioned with God, I returned at had my Bat Mitzvah at 16. I traveled to Israel on a youth trip last summer. I just might not have the religion you like. But I've got plenty of religion. And Moses didn't write it. Whatever he said was written down much later by scribes, and their versions and interpretations became the Torah. Maybe they were exact. Maybe not. Moses said something similar. But the Torah doesn't come with a warranty, nothing is guarenteed. And just because King David beleived something, doesn't mean I do. (I think for myself). And when I die, if God is there, I'll let you know. But I'll take my chances that God is a beleif, not a fact. Note, that I didn't say I didn't beleive in God, I said I won't hold God's existance as a fact. Now, about the Jewish thing: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "TRUE JEW". I think there are three "types" of Jews: racial, religious, and cultural. Because I consider Judaism a race, religion and culture. I am hereditarily Jewish, I practice the religion, and I eat the matza ball soup. I AM A JEW. Nothing you say matters on that subject. Because I know who I am, even if you can't accept that. Do you think there is a 'true christian"? Do you have to be orthodox to be true? As for your whole abortion thing, you are presuming I don't beleive in God. As just stated, I do. I still think abortion isn't murder. The key that you were missing was that I don't beleive in souls. I said every two hours a child dies by a gun. That doesn't exclude suicide, I didn't say how the gun killed them. So check your figures. And I know lots of happy healthy people who don't beleive they have a soul. Religion is great, and I need it, you need it, but it is not a requisite for happieness. When I spoke about the safety locks, I want them on guns that are left in the house where kids might get to them, little kids that don't know better. Of course, if you're using it for personal protection, having it on safety won't do you much good. But before you blow up someone because they tried to mug you, check the self-defense laws. Just cause they hit you doesn't give you legal cause to shoot them. You are damn straight about stereotypes. Stop sterotyping liberals,(I am not "buddies" with Cliton or Gore anymore than you are) and stop sterotyping Jews- you've got no idea what a Jew is if you think there is a "true" Jew. Yeah, Ceasar struck us down for trying to maintain their religion. If that means were stubborn, more for us. But as I'll say yet again, I do beleive in God. So your argument fails. I'm not against sex outside of marriage, but I do think people should stick with absitnance until they're really committed. Sex is great, outside of marriage fine, but it shouldn't be a casual affair. As for homosexuality, the whole Soddom and Gommorah thing, forget it. As I explained about Moses, I don't think the Torah is directly from God. People wrote it, and their views (which at that time thought of gays as bad) into it. About it hard to be a WASP- I think that if you became black, Jewish, whatever, you would find that the difficulties far outweigh any government assistance. Especually if you're Jewish. Look on all the forms that ask for race, ethnicity. My only option is white. But I don't think of myself as white. But there are no boxes for Jews (remember I consider it a race). And unlike blacks, Jews have been able to pull themselves up, into mainstream society. We aren't considered a minority. When it comes to college applications, I get no more special treatment than you would. We have the worst of both worlds- we are hated by some for who we are, but because we fixed some of the problems (economic), we aren't helped by the rest. I think the movie Fiddler on the Roof summed it up- "God, I know we are your chosen people. But couldn't you choose someone else for a while?" And for those who do get gov. assistance, if you religious extremists didn't make their life so difficult, they wouldn't get the money anyway! Maybe you're just sticking with your beleifs, but stick them somewhere else for a while. Don't put words in my mouth- I never said compromise. I am concerned about situations similar to this example: say a republican writes a great bill on how to save the Florida everglades. But if there is too much partisanship, democrates won't vote for it. why? It doesn't compromise their ethical principles. They don't vote yes because it was written by a republican. That is a problem. It has nothing to do with compromising the "truth". And your "truth", your religion, doesn't belong in the law anyways. Neither does mine, or anyone elses. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE- you're included. The last time we mixed politics and religion, people got burned at the stake. I accept God, but not Jeses. So am I half truthful? Please. God isn't the ultimate answer for everyone. You can't make their decisions for them. Keep your religion out of our government. This isn't your theocracy. And it never will be. Danny- everything I said above goes for you too. You guys have every right to do what ever you want (pursuit of happieness) until it infringes on someone else' pursuit of happieness. So keep your church off my body, and its ok. You wouldn't want me pushing Judaism on you. You'd wail about separation of church and state. But if you do it, you think its ok. If you think God is truth, great. I bet you lead moral lives, and all that good stuff. But God doesn't equal truth for everybody. If you make laws based on what you think God is, you are forcing essential physical conversions on everybody, because we'd all have to live by the bible. Thats not right, its not allowed, and it is n't happening. Ever.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jennie,

Are you Jewish? Just asking. I'm half. I totally agree with you on everything you said. I'm a Democrat, if anyone wanted to know, and if I wasn't 16, I would have voted for Gore. I am pro-choice, and thus the mush I hear from a few people claiming to be Christians about how religion should have more to do with government makes me shudder. Thank you Jen for clearing that up.

I'm only here 'till I can apologize to everyone I ticked off, Kaophyre Tamadashi Serai

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2001

Okay, um...scratch that "Are you Jewish" question. I had only read the bottom half of your post. Replace it with "Have you read the Kabbalah"? If not, do check it out. It is far more interesting than Christian theology and doesn't restrict social issues constantly.

Your half-Jewish and all-liberal friend, Kaophyre Tamadashi Serai

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2001