Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

[JWB]

Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

Bill in Co. wrote:

JWB wrote:

Tony Miller wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:31:02 -0400, JWB<[email protected]> wrote:>Doug Anderson wrote:>>>>>>How? I thnk he contests it by saing "Bull****.">>>>I know _I_ always find expletives compelling.>>That's all you'll get from him when he has no answer. He'll be leaving>this conversation soon.Time for you to hit the killfile, JWB. You obviously have nothing ofvalue to add to any of these conversations.-Tony

No, you just don't like the fact you got bested in a debate we had.Let's be honest - when the conversation goes against you and you have tosomehow explain an indefensible position, you *do* start swearing, andthen leave.

I thought that was Brian? OK, maybe it's both of them.

well, Brian stays around and at least tries to explain his position.
Tony does not. He gets angry, swears at you, and leaves the conversation.

Something about the heat and the kitchen or somesuchthing

[Joy]

Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!


"Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:11:27 -0400, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:

"Jennifer in Maryland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

"Bill in Co." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ink.net... > Thanks Jess. > It appears blue = rigidly moral (from the 18th century). Strange

use

of

> the word. > If you read that article, one might wonder where our current day

morals

have > gone. Yes, I sure miss these days: "Blue laws typically specified penalties for moral offenses such as failure

to attend church on the Sabbath; lying, swearing, and drunkenness; and

the

playing of games (such as cards, dice, and shuffleboard) in public.

They

also mandated more severe punishments for crimes committed on the

Sabbath

and regulated the sale and consumption of alcohol. Violators of blue

laws

might be assessed monetary fines, be whipped, be forced to spend time

in

the

stocks, have body parts burned or cut off, or even receive the death penalty."

What I don't understand is how Tony can say that a statement that Blue

laws

(that penalized the population for things like failing to attend church

on

Sunday) were a violation of the separation of church and state is "bulls***". I think it widely accepted that these violated that

principle -

therefore they have been taken off the books. Well, gee, Joy. We were talking about alcohol sales, and you've completely changed the discussion and attributed my position to it.

Huh? Alcohol sales? We weren't discussing alcohol sales, we were
discussing blue laws- which were far, far broader than alcohol sales.

[Guest]

Take Action: Reject Statuatory Rape!

In Message-ID:<[email protected]>
posted on Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:00:08 GMT, Tony Miller wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:57:36 -0400, Joy<[email protected]> wrote:

"Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:49:02 -0400, Joy <joydoesnt[email protected]> wrote: > > "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] >> Blue laws don't force you to worship any God. > > They are forcing you to observe at least a portion of the religious > practices of the group that passed the laws. That would be the "thou

shalt

> not do business on Sunday" part. I know, it isn't scriptural - but when

the

> blue laws were enforced that was the religious practice behind it. They aren't forcing you to worship any particular God. And last I knew, not buying booze on Sunday was not part of my particular religious doctrine.

I think you missed the point. The dominant religion of the time believed that one should not do business on Sunday. Therefore they passed laws that said you could not do business on Sunday. Therefore it was legally enforcing a religious doctrine.

So what? The dominant religion at the time thought killing was wrong. Sothey passed laws against killing. Therefore it was legally enforcingreligious doctrine.I get it. It's not enforcing religious doctrine if YOU agree with it.

OK, Tony, now look it from the other extreme. Suppose that
the majority of people in your community demand that you
sacrifice your firstborn to Moloch. Or a bunch of people
move in who think that stealing and killing are OK. Do you
agree that their views should set the standards for the
community?

At the moment, a fairly big issue in this part of the world
is whether the inhabitants of Pitcairn island should be
allowed to ignore British law.

See my earlier post:
----------------
Path: news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
Subject: OT:Feature: The Australian: A secret, horrific
Pacific secret
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Lines: 31
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:20:53 GMT
--------------------

If you can be bothered to read this, would you like to get
back to us and tell us if you approve of "their" community
standards?

Kind of like requiring plain brown wrappers on porn mags in the convenience stores. No, this was NOT like requiring plain brown wrappers on porn mags. This was requiring people of differing religious views to fall into line and not do business on Sunday.

It's called "community standards". If you don't like them, move to adifferent community.

> The "f" word will get you sent home from school until you can come back > attired in a fashion that meets the dress code. They CAN say Christ. We

> have very active Christian groups for the students in our schools. My > daughter goes to a Bible Study in the auditorium before school every > morning. Any kid who wants to go can go. Any kid who doesn't want to

go

> doesn't have to. The key is, it has to be voluntary. It can't be

mandated.

> On a voluntary basis, though, the kids can be as religious as they want. > (We also have a Bible History class available as an elective.

Voluntary,

> but available). Indeed. Your school seems to be enlightened and knows what's going on.

Actually, this is in a rural, very conservative, very, very, very unenlightened area.

Do you seriously believe that Christmas, in American society today, has anything to do with Christ?

To an awful lot of people, it does.

That's not what I asked.

-Tony (Who wears a wristband every year that says "Jesus is the reason for the season" ) My point exactly.

But that's just me. Ok, I think Abortion is a sacrament of radicalfeminism. So we should not use federal money to support someone'sreligion.So there.

You are free to think what you wish, but I will point out
that the cost of an abortion is orders of magnitude cheaper
than paying for child support for unwanted kids, as well as
the increased cost for schools, police, prisons, etc.

If you, or your religion, opposed abortion, then are you or
they willing to bear the increased costs of these other
services?

Regards,
"nilkids"

-Tony