War on Sex

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful:
  No big brother stuff, really, they just want the law to keep dirty smut stores out of their town, or at least out of their sight.<

 Isn't the definition of "Big Brother Stuff" one group telling another how to live?

Who's telling who how to live?  Let me give you a little perspective, and then tell you what I mean by that question.  You should understand that conservative Christians feel they are under siege.  For all the fear of a Christian theocracy, the alleged perpetrators feel they are the persecuted ones.  Listen to Christian talk radio, and read the literature some of us are reading, and at least once a month you will hear about some school-kid's Bible being confiscated, or some Christian being told not to pray in the lunchroom at work.  Our view of sex is laughed at and called hateful.  I say all that to get to this point.  I think a lot of people would support this bill just because they view "adult" stores as a big slap in the face to them.  
 
Have you read 1984?  Big Brother watched every move and forbade sex except for procreation.  I'm not saying that this law is good, just that it's a long way from Big Brother, and that I'm guessing the motivation is much different.  Your definition of Big Brother Stuff is so loose that the phrase loses all meaning.  As I've already stated, laws have no other purpose than to impose morality.

[Justin]

Dude, that makes no sense at all.  Even if your argument didn't boil down to "The Christian Right aren't a bunch of fascists, but when we get called that, we just have to go out and act like fascists" it's still silly.

Don't like objectionable content on television?
Then don't subscribe to cable.  Or learn how to use the government-mandated V-Chip that comes standard on all TV's these days.

I think that the public school system is a joke, and not likely to give either side what they want, but the Christian right continues to go about it the wrong way, attempting to force their view on the school system rather than taking their kids out of it and campaigning to end public schools altogether.

I think a lot of people would support this bill just because they view "adult" stores as a big slap in the face to them.

How does this make sense at all?  Such stores are generally heavily restricted by zoning ordinances, and don't advertise their presence much.  Nobody is forcing anybody to go into such a shop, and viewing it as a "slap in the face" should be taken for the childish temper-tantrum that it is.

Have you read 1984?  Big Brother watched every move and forbade sex except for procreation.  I'm not saying that this law is good, just that it's a long way from Big Brother, and that I'm guessing the motivation is much different.

Yes, I have.  I distinctly remember the mention of a sublet of one of the Ministries that was dedicated to creating and disseminating pornographic material through falsley clandestine methods.


From Hunter Rose:

EVERY time I've seen any kind of "anti-porn" initiative, it's been run by a group with "Christian" mentioned prominantly in the title. Haven't caught "Muslims for Sexual Purity", or "Jews Against Lewd Behavior"...

Two words:  Andrea Dworkin.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, Justin, I guess I should edit all my posts to add that I don't support the measure.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't agree with the bill either, but it is getting frustrating to hear the cries of "theocracy!"  The truth is, Christians are people, too.  If we don't always have a proper understanding of civil rights and good government, it's probably because most Americans don't.  The enemy is not Christianity or Christians; it is the statism that has become ingrained in Americans over so many past decades.  

I think that the public school system is a joke, and not likely to give either side what they want, but the Christian right continues to go about it the wrong way, attempting to force their view on the school system rather than taking their kids out of it and campaigning to end public schools altogether.

The Christian right is by no means monolithic.  Many of them are doing just as you suggest.  The Southern Baptist Convention has been talking for a while about making a resolution to that effect, although it was voted down.  I'm guessing that was by the liberal side of the convention.  The Christian Right is split regarding vouchers, as we are on Faith-Based Initiatives, with many objecting that govt funding going to private institutions would just bring on govt. control.  And you have heard of home-schooling haven't you?  Plenty of Christians doing that, like half the kids I grew up with.

One point I've been trying to make is that most conservative Christians in America have a lot of libertarian leanings, but like most people, they don't apply their political principles consistently.  A little explanation and dialogue with such people would be helpful, but ridicule, fear and hatred of them are counter-productive.  

I think a lot of people would support this bill just because they view "adult" stores as a big slap in the face to them.

How does this make sense at all?

Just the way it is, same as some people get all upset when two furriners dare to speak their furrin language in our country.  People are like that.  

Such stores are generally heavily restricted by zoning ordinances, and don't advertise their presence much.

Where do you live, Salt Lake City?  Here in the Saint Loius area, not far from my house, there is one right across from the Wal-Mart, and two or three more across the street from the mall.  All of these are on major thorough-fares.  I don't know what you mean by "advertising their presence," but I think the lingerie in the windows and names like "Secret Desires" do that well enough.  Head west on Interstate 70 towards Kansas City, and there are huge nudey-bar/porn-shops visible from the highway, all with huge billboards.  I've seen that in Texas as well.  

Have you read 1984?  Big Brother watched every move and forbade sex except for procreation.  I'm not saying that this law is good, just that it's a long way from Big Brother, and that I'm guessing the motivation is much different.

Yes, I have.  I distinctly remember the mention of a sublet of one of the Ministries that was dedicated to creating and disseminating pornographic material through falsley clandestine methods.

Yeah, you're right, that does take the wind out of the Big Brother talk.

[Art Eatman]

Justin, go back and red my post #38?

Christians are proud of their religion; why not label themselves when they're expressing an opinion?  Why should they not speak out agaainst what they see as wrong actions?

Until statism got so much power, the history of the criminal justice system in this country has always considered Judeo-Christian values.  The controls on human behavior--or misbehavior--have always reflected these do/don't aspects.

The 1960s saw the beginning of the "anything goes" stuff in our society.  That is, nothing really new as far as human interactions or "sins" began, other than the Timothy Leary view that whatever one cared to do could be done anywhere, anytime, any-old-how.

It was a time where responsibilities became subordinated to "Rights"--many of which were newly invented.

This  attitude gave us our welfare state's public support.  This attitude created the helplessness--from a legal standpoint--against much of "harmless" behavior that is repugnant, such as aggressive panhandlers and street people stinking up a library.

So I again nbring up "Backlash".  A lot of people want something done against the slime-people of Hollywood, or the pedophile crowd or the porno stores.  They don't bother to differentiate; it's all slime.

Hell's bells, I'm not even religious, but I think I have some understanding of the motivations of the Christian "Right", and I darned sure have SOME agreement with SOME of their views.

What it is, is, there used to be social pressures, peer pressures, that contolled outre behavior.  There was a strong separation between private and public behavior.   And we functioned pretty well with that situation.  Nobody says it was perfect, but much of it was better than the crap we put up with today.  Instead of getting rid of the overly repressive stuff and keeping the good, we've done the proverbial throw the baby out with the batwater.  Dumb.

Any religion attracts nutzoids.  Witness what Jihadists are costing us.  I'd just as soon not push on a group that might come up with Jihadists of their own, thank you.

And one t hing I gay-rawn-dam-tee you:  Name-calling does not make for effective accomodation of disparate interests, no matter how smug anybody feels when bad-mouthing about these horrible nasty Christian Rightists--you should pardon my sarcasm.

Art

[richyoung]

Just because people have traditional moral beliefs, doesn't give them the right or the duty to legislate those beliefs on others.

Nor does it put any obligation or duty NOT to do so.  Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming - and religion and morality are as solid a basis for legislation as any other.  Mo body out there is seriously advocating disenfranchising Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists, Giasts - why should fundamentalists alone be denied access to the political process?

Moral and religious beliefs are personal codes of conduct for an individual to choose whether or not they will follow them.

..and LAWS are institutionalized societal codes of conduct for which choosing to NOT follow has potential consequences.

Legislating morality makes one no different than the Taliban trash.

ALL law is SOMEONE'S morality:  from the Americans with Disabilities ACT to CAFE standards to gun control to Social Security to Affirmative Action - it is all someone's imposing a moral judgement on the rest.

[richyoung]

Dude, that makes no sense at all.  Even if your argument didn't boil down to "The Christian Right aren't a bunch of fascists, but when we get called that, we just have to go out and act like fascists" it's still silly.

Do you even KNOW what "fascism" and "fascia" are?  Or are they just lefty buzz words that you've leaned to chuck at anything you don't like?  The absolute LAST thing ANY Christian would want is "fascism", seeing as how the first fascists were feeding Christians to lions and such.

Don't like objectionable content on television?
Then don't subscribe to cable.  Or learn how to use the government-mandated V-Chip that comes standard on all TV's these days.

..or use your voice to express displeasure to your elected representatives at thow the PUBLIC air waves are being used for profit by PRIVATE companies.  Again, I don't understand the theory that only Christian fundamentalists must waive their political rights....

I think that the public school system is a joke, and not likely to give either side what they want, but the Christian right continues to go about it the wrong way, attempting to force their view on the school system rather than taking their kids out of it and campaigning to end public schools altogether.

This is a lot like gun owners in California:  stay and fight, or pick up stakes and move on.  Thats a deeply personal choice, compouned in theis instance by the fact that the CHristians MUST finacially support the public schools with their taxes WITHOUT being reimburded if they take their children out of the system.

How does this make sense at all?  Such stores are generally heavily restricted by zoning ordinances, and don't advertise their presence much.  Nobody is forcing anybody to go into such a shop, and viewing it as a "slap in the face" should be taken for the childish temper-tantrum that it is.

Not where I live they aren't - they (and the strip clubs) advertise heavily on the radio.

[Justin]

If we don't always have a proper understanding of civil rights and good government, it's probably because most Americans don't.  The enemy is not Christianity or Christians; it is the statism that has become ingrained in Americans over so many past decades.

On that we certainly agree.

The Christian right is by no means monolithic.  Many of them are doing just as you suggest.  The Southern Baptist Convention has been talking for a while about making a resolution to that effect, although it was voted down.  I'm guessing that was by the liberal side of the convention.  The Christian Right is split regarding vouchers, as we are on Faith-Based Initiatives, with many objecting that govt funding going to private institutions would just bring on govt. control.  And you have heard of home-schooling haven't you?  Plenty of Christians doing that, like half the kids I grew up with.

For which they ought to be lauded.  The education system in this nation is beyond repair, and anyone willing to stand up and voice a solution other than "raise taxes and throw more money at the system" is being gutsy.

One point I've been trying to make is that most conservative Christians in America have a lot of libertarian leanings, but like most people, they don't apply their political principles consistently.

Other than those who self-apply the term libertarian, this could be said to apply to any group in the US.  Business owners want to be free to make as much profit as they can, so I guess that makes them libertarian?  Drug legalization proponents want to be able to smoke a joint, so I guess that makes them libertarian, too?  I'm sorry, but the hallmark of a true libertarian isn't someone who willingly defends only their pet freedoms.  A libertarian is someone who is willing to defend even liberties they have no intention in engaging.  In fact, they may even find them distasteful or sinful.

Just the way it is, same as some people get all upset when two furriners dare to speak their furrin language in our country.  People are like that.

Nonsensical.  For this comparison to work, it would have to be two foreigners who choose to speak their native language in their own home.

Where do you live, Salt Lake City?  Here in the Saint Loius area, not far from my house, there is one right across from the Wal-Mart, and two or three more across the street from the mall.  All of these are on major thorough-fares.  I don't know what you mean by "advertising their presence," but I think the lingerie in the windows and names like "Secret Desires" do that well enough.

And how is a name like "Secret Desires" possibly offensive to anyone?  If the name were something truly offensive, say by being excessively descriptive of a carnal act, you'd have a point, but getting offended at a lingerie shop that hangs frilly undergarments in the window hardly passes the smell test.  There are shops like that around here, but they're obviously not hanging large-format, explicitly photographed banners in the window for the latest video release.  All of the places around here that sell that particular line of products tend not to have windows that are open to the streets.

Yeah, you're right, that does take the wind out of the Big Brother talk.

I could make a point, but it would be exceptionally snide and unkind, even by my standards.

[Justin]

Art, I didn't live through the 1960's, and was only just in diapers in the late 1970's.  That said, I have no great love for much of the cultural revolution that took part in those years.  I wasn't alive for it, but I generally find that many of the self-labelled intellectuals of the era were woefully irrational and anti-life.  In summation, I don't particularly disagree with you on any of your points.  There are only two points I take issue with:

So I again nbring up "Backlash".  A lot of people want something done against the slime-people of Hollywood, or the pedophile crowd or the porno stores.  They don't bother to differentiate; it's all slime.

Then it's indicative of slipshod thinking on their part.  There's no shortage of true injustices perpetrated by the state and others that they ought to have a backlash against.  Fistful hit on a couple of them.  But why so many of these factions waste their time on things like this, or gambling, or any number of other things that only serve to get them brushed with a negative image is patently beyond me.

Any religion attracts nutzoids.  Witness what Jihadists are costing us.  I'd just as soon not push on a group that might come up with Jihadists of their own, thank you.

If we've reached the point where people in this society are ready to start tossing bombs because some bored, middle-aged housewife decides to go into a sex shop and buy a battery operated "massager" then we've pretty much already lost.

[Justin]

Do you even KNOW what "fascism" and "fascia" are?  Or are they just lefty buzz words that you've leaned to chuck at anything you don't like?  The absolute LAST thing ANY Christian would want is "fascism", seeing as how the first fascists were feeding Christians to lions and such.

You'll note my use of quotes when I posted the statement with "fascism" in it.  I wasn't calling anyone anything.  It was a hypothetical statement to make a point, so there's no reason to get tetchy and start trying to label me as some left-wing hatemonger.  Thanks all the same, though.

Nor does it put any obligation or duty NOT to do so.  Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming - and religion and morality are as solid a basis for legislation as any other.  Mo body out there is seriously advocating disenfranchising Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists, Giasts - why should fundamentalists alone be denied access to the political process?

Majority rule =/= right.  Seems to me that Christianity is built around a lot of that.  And I hardly see where anywhere in this nation Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists or Giasts have any sort of political majority.

..or use your voice to express displeasure to your elected representatives at thow the PUBLIC air waves are being used for profit by PRIVATE companies.  Again, I don't understand the theory that only Christian fundamentalists must waive their political rights....

So, where does it stop?  The right was instrumental in passing legislation to mandate V-Chips on televisions, saying that such a tool would allow parents to screen out objectionable material.  Now that they've got that on every television that comes off of an assembly line, they call for further tightening of the Federal decency standards.  Which causes me to wonder, at what point will they stop calling for the sanitization of society?  Again, just because you can muster a majority to vote for something doesn't make it right.  Incidentally, I don't buy the whole "public airwaves" argument.  It was a lame argument used as justification for a federal power-grab back in the initial days of television and radio, and it's a lame argument now.

This is a lot like gun owners in California:  stay and fight, or pick up stakes and move on.  Thats a deeply personal choice, compouned in theis instance by the fact that the CHristians MUST finacially support the public schools with their taxes WITHOUT being reimburded if they take their children out of the system.

No disagreement here.  Arguably the public school system hoses devoutly religious parents more than nearly every other group.

[richyoung]

You'll note my use of quotes when I posted the statement with "fascism" in it.  I wasn't calling anyone anything.

Technically true.  What you did was accuse them of acting like fascists....

"...when we get called that, we just have to go out and act like fascists"

Where I come from, accusing someone of "acting like XYZ" is the equivalent of asserting that they, in fact, ARE "XYZ".  If that was not your intention, I appologize

It was a hypothetical statement to make a point, so there's no reason to get tetchy and start trying to label me as some left-wing hatemonger.  Thanks all the same, though.

It was a profoundly offensive hypothetical.  Perhaps you aren't aware of the common leftist tactic of calling everything they disagree with "fascism.  Again, if I misunderstood, I take it back...

Majority rule =/= right.

Never?  I don't think so.  Sometimes it does.  Sometimes it doesn't.  If you feel that strongly about the issue - organize like minded voters and do something about it.

Seems to me that Christianity is built around a lot of that.

Then you need more research.  Christians are advised to "...render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars...", meaning that in the good ol USA it is their DUTY to fully participate in the political process, AND not only vote, but vote their conscience.

And I hardly see where anywhere in this nation Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists or Giasts have any sort of political majority.

Oh really?  Never been to San Fransico, New Orleans, parts of Dallas, parts of New York...

So, where does it stop?  The right was instrumental in passing legislation to mandate V-Chips on televisions, saying that such a tool would allow parents to screen out objectionable material.

No, PARENTS were instrumental in passing it, as they didn't want little Jane and Johnny watching "Lesbian Nation" or some porn star having her "third eye" bleached to look better from the rear on screen, or various other bits of garbage that show up on the tube, while they were at work and using the TV as a babysitter so they could both work and make the payments on their McMansion, SUV European sedan, boat, RV, etc....

Now that they've got that on every television that comes off of an assembly line, they call for further tightening of the Federal decency standards.

The airwaves belong to the public - they have, or should have, just as much say in how they are used as any other citizen.  Don't like it?  Persuade them otherwise, or out-vote them,..or get cable or satellite TV - plenty of garbage including soft-core porn & no need to worry about the blue noses votes...

Which causes me to wonder, at what point will they stop calling for the sanitization of society?  Again, just because you can muster a majority to vote for something doesn't make it right.

Again, it also doesn't make it WRONG,...even if YOUR position is otherwise.

Incidentally, I don't buy the whole "public airwaves" argument.  It was a lame argument used as justification for a federal power-grab back in the initial days of television and radio, and it's a lame argument now.

"Buy" or not, its how things are done.  Don't like it?  Convince a majority to elect representatives that will do otherwise, or appoint Supremes that will see things your way.  Just don't complain that the opposition is exercising those same rights...

[Perd Hapley]

For which they ought to be lauded.  The education system in this nation is beyond repair, and anyone willing to stand up and voice a solution other than "raise taxes and throw more money at the system" is being gutsy.

So you don't stand by your earlier complaint about the CR going about it the wrong way?  FWIW, the only gutsy thing I've heard in the area of education is that of abolishing the DoE.  The other options are good, but not all that gutsy.

One point I've been trying to make is that most conservative Christians in America have a lot of libertarian leanings, but like most people, they don't apply their political principles consistently.

Other than those who self-apply the term libertarian, this could be said to apply to any group in the US.  Business owners want to be free to make as much profit as they can, so I guess that makes them libertarian?  Drug legalization proponents want to be able to smoke a joint, so I guess that makes them libertarian, too?  I'm sorry, but the hallmark of a true libertarian isn't someone who willingly defends only their pet freedoms.  A libertarian is someone who is willing to defend even liberties they have no intention in engaging.  In fact, they may even find them distasteful or sinful.

I didn't say they were true libertarians, but I think most conservatives, Christian or not, are more libertarian than what you are describing.  In my experience, most conservative Christians are libertarian on:

Business regulation, even though most don't own businesses.

Guns, though many don't have any.

Campaign finance reform, but only because talk radio tells them so.

Abortion, as libertarians believe government should punish murderers - even though none of the CR are fetuses.

Homosexual sodomy - Believe it or not, I think a lot of them would rather not re-criminalize it.

And to steer this totally off-topic, they oppose legal recognition of homosexual marriage.  This is a libertarian stance, as HM would be an INCREASE in government regulation.

Just the way it is, same as some people get all upset when two furriners dare to speak their furrin language in our country.  People are like that.

Nonsensical.  For this comparison to work, it would have to be two foreigners who choose to speak their native language in their own home.

No sir, we're not talking about people using sex toys at home, we're talking about selling them in stores open to the public.  Like I said, I don't approve of the bill.  I am only trying to explain what its supporters might be thinking.

And how is a name like "Secret Desires" possibly offensive to anyone?

Justin, if you are going to respond to my post, then at least have enough respect to listen to what I am saying.  I'm not claiming the phrase is offensive, only that the stores in my area don't hide what they are.  Put that name on your store and put some lingerie in the windows and it's pretty obvious what you're peddling.  This is in response to your opinion that such stores "don't advertise their presence much."  And how can you pretend that such stores are not offensive to people, when we're talking about the people who are offended by them?

[Perd Hapley]

Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming

But fortunately, we have an anti-democratic institution called the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the minority, or at least it's supposed to.  

ALL law is SOMEONE'S morality:  from the Americans with Disabilities ACT to CAFE standards to gun control to Social Security to Affirmative Action - it is all someone's imposing a moral judgement on the rest.

Well said.

FWIW, Rich, Justin was not calling us fascists.  But I don't feel like explaining it, except to say that he was trying to sum up my statements, as he understood them.

[Strings]

>No sir, we're not talking about people using sex toys at home, we're talking about selling them in stores open to the public. <

Ok, by that logic, states should be able to outlaw gun stores for the same reason. I know you're not saying you agree with the bill, fistful, just pointing it out...

>I'm not claiming the phrase is offensive, only that the stores in my area don't hide what they are.  Put that name on your store and put some lingerie in the windows and it's pretty obvious what you're peddling.  This is in response to your opinion that such stores "don't advertise their presence much."<

So? I lost my grandfather in France in WWII: does this give me the right to raise Hell about German stores? Or is there someone outside these places with a shotgun, forcing folks in?

>And how can you pretend that such stores are not offensive to people, when we're talking about the people who are offended by them?<

Dude... there are people out there that find you handle offensive! Does that mean they should have the right to ban your handle?

 I don't recall any mention ANYWHERE of a right not to be offended, not until VERY recent years. Pick ANYTHING, and there's someone somewhere that's offended by it...

 Oh... one last thing:
>Mo body out there is seriously advocating disenfranchising Wiccans, Satanists, Kabalists, Giasts<

Try being a member of one of the above groups in the US military. While nobody is actively trying to bar us from voting, it's a serious fight on most bases to practice our faith (oh yeah... that pesky First Amendment)...

[Art Eatman]

Justin said, "Then it's indicative of slipshod thinking on their part."

Er, yes.  By the way, there's a web site called The High Road.  It has a Legal and Political forum.  I submit that there are a plethora of posts which evidence slipshod thinking.

Some percentage of ANY group is just that way.

I'm not trying to justify either side of the porno argument.  I'm trying to point out some of the real-world reasons for the behavior of some highly-vocal Christians.  Always remember that to SOME extent they represent the views of the non-vocal Christians and of the secular folks.

What I've seen, over and over and over, is that arguments of this sort bring out extreme examples as though they are the commonplace norm.  That's just not the way it is.

Most of us subscribe to the idea that we're limited by the other fella's nose, right?  I.e., do whatcha want as long as you don't hurt him.  Okay, fine.  But that holds for mental as well as physical.  It's tied to that devil-word "responsibility".  Extreme example:  You're in church for your friend's wedding.  An ant crawls up your pants leg and bites you.  What you don't do is scream out, "That *expletive deleted*in' ant bit me!" at the top of your lungs.

Sure, the occasional mental hotfoot is a fun thing.  Your sense of responsibility should tell you that it's not an unending set of career actions.  Hard to hold a job, for one thing.  I'm not calling for nicey-nice behavior at all times.  I'm saying that you don't go through life agitating, annoying and pissing off a notable percentage of the people around you.

What came out of the '60s was a high regard for one's own rights, and a loss of interest in the rights of others.  This accompanied a notable decline in consideration of consequences of one's decisions and actions.  That all spilled out of the Hippie society and into the mainstream as the Hippies aged.  They went out and became stockbrokers, teachers and politicians and carried the ideas with them.  

Folks can holler about social contract and liberty and freedom and Constitutional rights, and it all looks good on paper and sounds great over a pitcher of beer or with brie and wine.

Has damn-all to do with people as people.

Art

[richyoung]

Its called DEMOCRACY - if 50% +1 vote for it, its coming

But fortunately, we have an anti-democratic institution called the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the minority, or at least it's supposed to.

It DID - before Abraham Lincoln mortally wounded it, and FDR gave it the coup de grace...  now its a dead document.  From the McVeigh trial to the "money" we carry to Social Security to gun laws, the Constitution is ignored.

FWIW, Rich, Justin was not calling us fascists.  But I don't feel like explaining it, except to say that he was trying to sum up my statements, as he understood them.

OK - my bad.

[richyoung]

Try being a member of one of the above groups in the US military. While nobody is actively trying to bar us from voting, it's a serious fight on most bases to practice our faith (oh yeah... that pesky First Amendment)...

America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country.  Step outside of that tradition, and you are going to have friction, especially in the military.  The First Amendment was put in there so we wouldn't have one TYPE of Christianity declared the "OFFICIAL" state religion, leading to Lutherans killing Catholics, (or vice-versa), as had happened in ENGLAND with the ... Church of England.  On top of that, as I'm sure you know, Congress has the authority to raise an army and prescribe the manner of its functioning - that's why the Bill of Rights DOES NOT APPLY to individuals serving in the military - rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies.  Not enough Wiccan chaplins?  Write your Congeressman - its his fault.

[Strings]

>America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country.  Step outside of that tradition, and you are going to have friction...<

Oh, I'm sorry... i guess we shouldgo and found our own country then?

 I know that's not what you were suggesting, but I have heard such suggested many times...

>...rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies.  Not enough Wiccan chaplins?  Write your Congeressman - its his fault.<

Not a complaint about "enough Wiccan Chaplains". How about the simple right to hold differing beliefs, without constant harasment (had to threaten my ship's original Chaplain before he quit riding me). How about allowing service members to have a place to worship (Google "Witches of Fort Hood")? Won't go into the BS i ran up against in boot...

 Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...

[richyoung]

>
 Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...

I'm sorry - refresh my memory.  When was the last time the United States, military or otherwise, did the following?

1. Crucify Wiccans.
2. Flog Wiccans.
3. Feed Wiccans to lions in front of crowds as "entertainment".
4. Kill Wicans.
5. Sell Wiccans into slavery.
6.  Outlaw the Wiccan religion.
7.  Blame WIccans for burining down the capital city.
8. Torture Wiccans.
9.  Compel Wiccans by force and fear to renounce their religion and commit, to them, blasphemy.

You choose to follow a "non-mainstream" religion.  There is a price to pay for that.  Muslims in the U.S> military face similar problems.  I mean no personal disrespect, but the cold hard fact is there aren't enough of (pick minority religion here) to justify re-tooling the military to deal with ALL of them - and as soon as you did, the Satanist would be howling that they aren't allowed to practice sexual magic or human sacrifice in the chapels on post.

[Strings]

Rich: when was the last time any of the above was done to a Christian? As a general rule, arguements SHOULD have some relation to the discussion: that was just a random list of atrocities (most, to the best of my knowledge, fairly old)...

>You choose to follow a "non-mainstream" religion.  There is a price to pay for that.  Muslims in the U.S> military face similar problems.<

Huh... didn't think I was asking for all that much...

>I mean no personal disrespect<

Then think twice, post once. Although it'll take a LOT more effort to offend me, I can't speak for other pagans on here...

>but the cold hard fact is there aren't enough of (pick minority religion here) to justify re-tooling the military to deal with ALL of them - and as soon as you did, the Satanist would be howling that they aren't allowed to practice sexual magic or human sacrifice in the chapels on post.<

Wow... might I suggest you drop out of this part of the debate? You just demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about with regards to "non-mainstream religions". However...

 I don't expect the military to "re-tool". However, I expect just a touch of effort made to allow "non-mainstream practices", where possible. Which is, at best, currently a hit-or-miss proposition...

 BTW: I don't recall hearing any Christians being threatened with burning at the stake. But I've recieved such threats ('course, being me, I told 'em to come along and try: I have most around me outgunned). Yet y'all keep screaming that "Christians are being persecuted!"

[Perd Hapley]

Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...

Admitting your bias is the first step to getting past it.  Persecution you have suffered should make you more sensitive to the persecutions of others.  Christians have been persecuted, sometimes cruelly, throughout history, and they are being shot, beaten, jailed and tortured around the world today.  


http://www.persecution.com/basic/feature.cfm - Honest-to-goodness persecution around the world.  
http://www.aclj.org/News/ - violations of Christians' religious freedom in the United States


Hunter, your responses to my post were so aside from the point that there is little to be gained by responding to it.  Suffice to say, I was attempting to explain the feelings, ideas and behavior of others, whether rational or not.

[Strings]

hmmm... looks predominantly like a Christian group to me...

 As for this: "Hate to say it, but anyone of a Christian faith (of whatever variety) is in a kinda bad spot to claim "persecution" from, at least when talking to me...", when was the last time YOU had your life threatened for your religious beliefs? Are there some issues where people need to get over the "Seperation of Church and State"? Oh yeah... that particular issue needs to be let die. However, when I've had several offers of bodily harm from members of a religious group, and I hear other members of that group claim they're "persecuted" because they aren't allowed to pray at an event (or better, teach their version of myth as science), I get a lil' bucky...

 As far as the original post: if you don't like adult stores, don't enter one. Don't try telling me I can't though... that's stepping over the line...

[Perd Hapley]

hmmm... looks predominantly like a Christian group to me...

no comprendo.

 

However, when I've had several offers of bodily harm from members of a religious group, and I hear other members of that group claim they're "persecuted" because they aren't allowed to pray at an event (or better, teach their version of myth as science), I get a lil' bucky...

So if teachers and administrators tell kids they can't pray before they eat or read their Bibles in school, are you saying this isn't persecution?  I hear and read about this on a regular basis, both from local people I know and in various news media.  Yeah, I know, it ain't being fed to lions, but is it persecution?

[stevelyn]

Who's telling who how to live?  Let me give you a little perspective, and then tell you what I mean by that question.  You should understand that conservative Christians feel they are under siege.

They brought it on themselves when they allowed the tv talking-head, televangelist trash like Falwell,  Robertson others of the ilk speak for them.

[SteveS]

Who's telling who how to live?  Let me give you a little perspective, and then tell you what I mean by that question.  You should understand that conservative Christians feel they are under siege.

They brought it on themselves when they allowed the tv talking-head, televangelist trash like Falwell,  Robertson others of the ilk speak for them.

They don't speak for me and I never "allowed" them, nor have I given them any financial support.  I don't mean to get all "persecution," but the mainstream media will always focus on christian kooks and ignore any decent christians, which is somewhat similar to their treatment of gun owners.