To 10:32am wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:12 PM:
" The only problem is, no one is suggesting that our laws be an exact mirror of Biblical law. There is crossover in that our laws are based on societies collective idea of morality. Hence, there are laws against killing and stealing. But, there are no laws against trimming hair, homosexual behavior, or eating shellfish. Capice? "
What?!? wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:03 AM:
" The Bible says all that stuff, too. Doesn't it seem like if people take that passage about homosexuality literally then maybe they should take the other stuff literally, too. Or maybe not take any of that Leviticus stuff literally. I vote for the latter! "
Biblical law wrote on Mar 26, 2008 10:32 AM:
" Dear friendly neighborhood Bible interpreters:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "
To 7:34pm wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:21 AM:
" Where is this coming from? I think you lost us...did you post on the wrong board? No one was advocating theocracies or stonings.... "
notme wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:36 AM:
" Mr./Mrs. Did you see....
That not a single individual (parent or student) has "signed up to participate" in our day of silence (wearing an empty holster) to protest persecution of those who choose to exercise the 2nd amendment right, NOT ONE!
We are NOT "bible thumping right wingers," but rather more centrist. We believe ALL citizens should stand up for ALL constitutional right.
We 100% support ALL individuals, including these students, but ONLY if they stand in support of ALL RIGHTS as anything less is hypocrisy. As we haven’t been contacted by any of these individuals, we cannot support these students, their actions, or their cause.
Further, we will continue to point out their hypocrisy, as is our right. "
Did you see? wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:25 PM:
" At the meeting tonight Board President Hancock explained that if Holmen was coming up on a web site someplace it was because individual students have signed up to participate and had nothing to do with the district endorsing or sponsoring this activity. So that should be enough to end this discussion or do you bible thumping right wingers find something wrong with that too? Leave them alone and let's get back to celebrating the goodness of our school. "
Re: To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:34 PM:
" To take your idea a step further, would it be OK in Saudi culture to persecute and stone Christians and all non-believers (non-Muslims) because they picked the wrong god to worship? If you want Christian Sharia in Wisconsin, why can't Muslim society deem your religious preference and behavior to be inferior and worthy of only scorn or even death? Bottomline: theocracy ain't fun when you're at the opposite end of the barrel. "
To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:38 AM:
" Your 11:12pm post seems to imply one cannot find homosexual behavior immoral unless one is a Bible believing Christian. Laws do not have to accomodate differing needs in order to be just. I am not sure where you got that idea from. If that were true, drug use would have to be legal to accomodate the needs of people who are addicted to drugs or simply prefer an altered state of mind. I could go on, but you see where this is going. But, the point is, if society as a whole finds a behavior immoral(whether those moral standards are based on the Bible or whatever), they have no obligation to accomodate everyone who might have a need to engage in this behavior. And not accomodating all behavior is not necessarily discrimination. I agree with the other poster that in regards to homosexual behavior, society should allow the behavior but should be under no obligation to endorse or sanction the behavior. "
RE: Just a thought wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:43 PM:
" And if we get just one middle-eastern looking mannequin, it can "double" as Moses, Jesus, Mithra, Mohammed (and probably a few more). Maybe with a couple of well-placed pillows and the right lighting, we could pass him off as Buddha. If the religions don't squabble over the minor details, we could save the taxpayers a few dinero. And who doesn't mind saving a little moo-lah? "
Just a thought wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:24 PM:
" Why, yes, I DO think tax payers should pay for decorations to celebrate all religious holidays if there is tax-payer support for one. After all, that's the only way to ensure that the government is not endorsing any one religion.
In fact, with a few modifications, the star can be made into a pentagram for wiccans, and a Star of David for Jews...
Sounds like a plan to me. "
To: Just a Thought. wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:46 PM:
" I think for holiday decorations, ANY religious group should get tax-payer money to celebrate all the religious-based holidays of their choice (just like Christmas). As long as ALL religious groups have access to the SAME amount of tax-payer money, access, you don't have a problem with that. And if you don't like it, just don't look.
Imagine the following (and this is JUST for April):
APRIL 2008
6: New Year - Hindu
8: Birthday of Buddha - Buddhist - Mahayana
14: Ramanavami - Hindu
14: Baisakhi - Sikh
18: Mahavir Jayanti - Jain
19: Lazarus Saturday - Orthodox Christian
20: Hanuman Jayanti - Hindu
20: Palm Sunday - Orthodox Christian
20-23: Theravadin New Year - Buddhist
20-21: Pesach (Passover) - Jewish
21: First Day of Ridvan - Baha'i
23: St. George's Day - Christian
25: Holy Friday - Orthodox Christian
26-27: Pesach (Passover) final 2 days - Jewish
27: Easter - Orthodox Christian
29: Ninth Day of Ridvan - Baha'i
30: St. James Day - Orthodox Christian
Are all these decorations (and union wages to take them up/down) going to cost us taxpapers money? YUP? So, open up your wallets and close your eyes. "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:12 PM:
" Mar.21, 2008, I know what you're attempting to say, but as soon as one steps outside the mind-numbing confines of a belief that God authored the bible, your argument doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
By your logic, if the situation were reversed, and *only* same-sex marriage were permitted, the system would be just as fair as the one we have now. A man (gay or straight) could get married as long as he chose another man for a spouse.
I disagree. Laws have to accodmodate a certain range of differing needs in order to be just. Imagine telling a wheelchair-bound person that he has the right to vote in the booth at the top of the stairs, but no accomodations will be made to enable his access to it. After all, putting in a ramp would be granting him "special rights."
Some "one-size-fits-all" laws work and are appropriate. Some only serve to marginalize certain demographics. The latter is *not* justice. "
Just a thought wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:23 PM:
" Unfair said: " I think it is unfair that they get to hold their vigil on public land paid for by the taxpayers. I find their lifestyle immoral. I think if they wish to protest there, they should have to buy the land. How do I file an informal complaint with the village of Holmen? The Constitution clearly gives me the right to not be exposed to views I disagree with on public land paid for by the taxpayers. "
I think you expressed perfectly what Eric Barnes has been saying about the Cross on Star Hill.
(smile) "
Just a thought wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:14 PM:
" So when a group of Christian kids want to have a "See You At The Pole" in September, their request to meet with be denied as well?
I'm always amused when people say that homosexuality is a threat to the sanctity of marriage or morality.
With divorce rates topping 65 percent and recent studies indicating at least half of all married people have had an affair, it seems to me that we straight folks have compromised the sanctity of marriage just fine on our own.
"
To Just A thought wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:20 PM:
" Of course there would. Just ask our dear friend Mr Barnes. He would be all over the church/state thing. "
just a thought wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:37 PM:
" I wonder, if a group of Christian students wanted to have a vigil in response to the killing of a Christian student who was killed for his/her beliefs - would there be any effort to deny the request? "
To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:48 AM:
" Wolfgang, it is you who are missing the point of equality. It is factually inaccurate to state that gay people are discriminated against regarding marriage, or that the policy as it stands now is not equal. A gay man and a straight man in this country have the exact same legal options regarding potential spouses. The "pool" of partners, so to speak, is identical. So, you can't say there is discrimination. It simply doesn't fit the definition. I am sorry there are things that you don't like what some of your tax dollars go to pay for. There are plenty of things I feel the same way about. Sorry, Wolfgang, do what you wish behind closed doors, but don't ask me to pay for it. Good luck to you, and thanks for the discussion. "
One Nation under MY god and MY church wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:22 AM:
" I don't really care what your "united church of christ" wants to think. We've got a constitutional amendment in-place which now defines doctrine at your "church"...to basically save you from yourselves. "Separate of church and state" is a myth! "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:45 PM:
" Notme, you did make an excellent point about the Day of Silence. You're right. It should be a day of speaking out and standing up. That would serve as a better memorial to our fallen--Singing and shouting and rainbow flag-waving. "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:41 PM:
" "Mar.20,9:20am" wrote, "Our tax dollars would be used to pay for benefits, for Government employees to process licenses, etc."
So why should my tax dollars go to straight couples? You're missing the point of equality. You want "equality" for yourself but not for those you disapprove of. This is what I mean by special rights, the benefits that straight couples receive but that gay couples are denied. These exact same arguments were used back when interracial marriage was illegal.
"Equality for All" means just that. Whether a couple is straight, gay, lesbian, interracial, or includes a transsexual or other intersexed person, they should all be treated the same under the law. "
To: To 7:56pm wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:11 PM:
" It's not the job of the government to enforce what one religion deems "immoral" or not. If it WAS the position of government to not allow what one religious group or another viewed as immoral, the list would be ENORMOUS (from eatting pork or shellfish, to eating beef, to allowing woman the right to vote). And since we're talk amendments, the 14th Amendment allows for all citizens to be treated equally before the law. But, please, don't trot out your very tired argument that all people have equality before the law because everyone is allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender they want. Lastly, my church (The United Church of Christ) allows for marriage of people of the same-sex. SO, WHY SHOULD YOUR CHURCH GET TO TELL MY CHURCH WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO? ESPECIALLY IN THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION OR ANY CONSTITUTION? Well, the short answer is you shouldn't. "
notme wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:04 PM:
" Again, WOW! You have missed the point altogether. My point has always been, that many, not all, but many people who support first amendment rights, are opposed to second amendment rights.
Specifically to the topic of this article, although I support the concept, a day a silence is NOT in the best interest of the children or the GLBT community; silence IS the problem. We need to teach our children to stand TOGETHER and speak out when they see discrimination, bullying, etc. Only then will the outcome be changed.
My point on the second, which seems to be proven here, is that none, not one, of the posters here who supports the day of silence for GLBT rights stepped up and said, "YES, all rights are equally important." For when I suggested a similar action as a way to support the second amendment right, I was ridiculed.
Why is it OK to speak out against oppression of minorities (GLBT, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) but speak out against the oppression of the (gun ownership, and more directly, ones right to self defense) minority and even those who support the other minorities ridicule you? "
To:Wolfgang wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:42 PM:
" Are you aware of the post regarding the vigil at the under the Tribune..Most Commented site? I am surprised there aren't more comments there. Some of the people there really need to see that there is support out there for this cause. I think "notme" is even there. Well, on second thoiuhgt, maybe you want to avoid him! "
To:Wolfgang wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:18 PM:
" Get used to it. Not me is everywhere. He pops up on all boards with the same stuff. He assumes we are all against the 2nd amendment because we stand up for issues that he considers left/liberal. I am not but I think if I see one more idiotic post from notme I might change my mind! I would imagine if one checked the parenting, gardening, sports, religion sections that he's there to. I think if a 2nd amendment news story comes up we should divert the discussion to auto repair or knitting. "
To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:38 PM:
" See 9:20am post right below yours, which addressed your point. Due to the time lapse between when posts are submitted and when they actually appear, I am sure you didn't see this before posting. So, we should be good now. "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:38 AM:
" Notme, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment here. Perhaps you think that us gay commie pinko liberals are all anti-2nd Amendment, so let me set the record straight. Personally, I'm a pro-gun, deer hunting, country music-loving hillbilly--Actually, that defines my "lifestyle" much more thouroughly than the gay part. "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:29 AM:
" "Mar.19,4:36" wrote, "...the additional, special right you are requesting is to marry someone of the same sex. No one else is allowed to do so."
What twisted logic! Obviously, if same-sex marriage were legal, you too would have the right to marry a partner of the same sex. This wouldn't be a "special right," it would be an expansion of existing rights and everyone would have equal access to it, even those who would choose not to make use of it because they're not gay. You would still *have* the right.
This whole argument is about equality. Right now it is you straights who have "special rights." "
To 7:56pm wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:20 AM:
" I am not disputing that your way would also be equal. But, it is also equal right now. Don't get me wrong-if someone was pushing for a law to make homosexuality illegal, I would be fighting just as hard as you to make sure that law is never passed, even though my personal beliefs are that homosexual behavior is immoral. BUT, I don't feel I should be forced to sanction and/or endorse behavior I find immoral either. Redefining marriage would force people to do just that. Our tax dollars would be used to pay for benefits, for Government employees to process licenses, etc. "
notme wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:31 AM:
" There he goes again ....
WOW, so judgmental, I thought that was the purpose of such protests, to help end the stereotyping and bigotry. It is obvious that those who believe in their second amendment rights are also persecuted by society and face many of the same hurtles as those in the GLBT community.
"
To: To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:56 PM:
" If same-sex marriage were allowed, then YOU are permmitted to marry the male OR female of your choice (not the government's choice). And since this right would be available to ALL Americans, there's nothing "special" about it. It would be the same, EQUAL rights for all Americans. Understand? "
To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:36 PM:
" To answer your question, the additional, special right you are requesting is to marry someone of the same sex. No one else is allowed to do so. There is no "gay marriage" or "straight marriage". These are fictitious terms. It is "marriage" period. Gays and straights enjoy identical rights regarding marriage. "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:07 PM:
" "Mar. 18th, 4:00PM" (I wish people would use a name so I can tell who's posting what. It'd be easier to quote them too.) wrote, "Gays are asking for a special, additional right that no one else enjoys."
What "special right" are we asking for? We're asking for same right you straights have, the right of two consenting adults who love each other to have all the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage. How is that a "special right?"
Of course there are restrictions on straight marriage. They are few and very appropriate, and I would expect the same to apply to gay marriage. "
Thank you wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:47 AM:
" " I just want to thank Mr. Jeff Thomson and Mr. Johnston for enlighting the youth of Holmen about this vigil. Thanks to you now something that was nothing is going to be something. Oh and Mr. Thomson where are your kids? "
"
There he goes again .... wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:41 PM:
" Going off half cocked "
notme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:22 PM:
" If you support a day of silence for the GLBT community, you MUST support our day of silent protest as well, lest ye be a hypocrite.
We are organizing a day whereby the students will be encouraged to come to school wearing an empty holster on their hip as a silent protest sending the message that all rights, including the right to bear arms, are equally important.
Feel free to contact us at support.the.2nd@gmail.com
"
A thought for the Holmen Courier... wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:49 PM:
" The concept of equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness go back in American history to the beginning: 7/4/1776. And I say concept, because the author of those paraphrased words was a slave-owner and kept one as his sex-slave. So our concepts are always right-on, it's the "delivery" this is somewhat suspect (but eventually corrected if you have the patience and longetivity to wait for decades or centuries). So the challenge to the Holmen Courier is to research how groups of Americans (blacks, gays, mormons, jews, native-Americans, latinos, etc) have been dis-enfranchised by society and by its government institutions over the past 232 years, but later corrected through laws (e.g.: Civil Rights Act of 1964), constitutional amendments (e.g.: 13th Amendment), and our favorite, activist judges (e.g.: Loving vs. Virginia). Things for the Holmen Courier to explore: what language was used by the masses to justify the discrimination? (Special Rights? Uppity? A woman's place is barefoot and pregnant?). What Biblical texts were used against each group (e.g.: Blacks: Genesis 9:19-29? Women: I Timothy 2:10-12? Mormons: Galatians 1:8.9). And also explore what language was used to finally overcome these traditional values and grant these groups equality and justice in the law. Just a thought...it would be a great read and I think, a real eye-opener for the vast majority of your readers. "
To 3:11pm wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:08 PM:
" Regarding your "idea". There would indeed be no discrimination. We would all be equal. But, I think I will pass. Thanks anyway.
"
To Wolfgang wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:00 PM:
" A straight person cannot necessarily marry the person he falls in love with, no more than a gay person can. There are certain Government imposed restrictions that apply to everyone. Gays are asking for a special, additional right that no one else enjoys. If you are a straight man and I am a gay man, my pool of legal potential spouses is identical to yours(the exceptions being, of course, our respective blood relatives). "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:11 PM:
" To8:57pm wrote, "Gays have the same rights as straight people regarding marriage and getting married."
A straight person has the right to marry the person he falls in love with. A gay person does not.
Here's an idea: Let's have government-arranged marriages. The government decides who each person may marry, based on genetic compatability profiles. You're given a choice: You can either marry the person that the government chose for you (even though you are not attracted to her in the least), or you can remain single for life.
There, now we have equality. "
To To 8:57pm wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:49 PM:
" That is actually an excellent point. I never thought of it that way. I may need to rethink my position. "
To Right wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:47 PM:
" Maybe you wouldn't have to discuss the specific rights in depth, but at least acknowledge he has a point regarding the hypocrisy. As a side note, smokers don't, nor should, have any rights except to smoke on their own property. It is the business owners whose rights are being violated by the smoking ban, not the smokers. "
Re:Notme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:22 PM:
" He is on every forum, disrupting discussion. Gays-2nd amendment Church-2nd amendment Smoking-2nd amendment Are you on the weather site too? "
Right wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:40 AM:
" You are right, discussions do branch off, but to come into a discussion and insist on branching off when nobody else is interested and then accuse everybody of hypocrisy for not branching off, well, that's just wrong. "Not me" is in the wrong forum. "
To:Right wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:24 AM:
" Sometimes discussions branch off. "
To:right wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:24 AM:
" Good point. "
Right wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:04 AM:
" Just because there's a discussion about one aspect of our "rights" doesn't mean this needs to be a forum for all rights. Imagine how confusing that would be. Nobody's being a hypocrite because they don't want to get into a gun rights discussion with Not Me. I bet you don't find a lot of discussion of gay rights or civil rights or the like on NRA blogs. Just go play with your gun-loving friends. "
To To notme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:31 AM:
" Then address the point. Either concede notme makes a good point, or form an arguement against it. That is part of having a discussion. "
To 8:57pm wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:27 AM:
" That was amusing, but it would be more relevant if these things were happening to gays. I know that is part of the propoganda that we are fed, but it simply isn't true. Gays have the same rights as straight people regarding marriage and getting married. We all have to follow the same rules. The push for legalizing same sex marriage is the push for a special right, not an equal right. "
To:Notme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:55 AM:
" Alright already...but do you have to make the same point day after day on every board? It's really nauseating... "
notme wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:52 PM:
" No, this story is about students exercising their constitutional rights. My point was and still is you support either ALL rights, or NO rights. Anything in between is hypocrisy. "
RE: keep the Cross wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:57 PM:
" It's true, Nick (from Bulgaria). Just last year in Wisconsin, the homosexuals (and their agenda) passed a constitutional amendment that FORBIDS Christian fundamentalists from getting married! And guess what? They've got a similar constitutional amendment lined up in Florida to outlaw Christian marriage between fundamentalists in that State. And just last week in Oregon, two legislators started a petition drive to LEGALIZE DISCRIMINATION against Fundamentalist Christians. And if this bill passes, Fundamentalist Christians could be fired from the jobs or kicked out of their apartments just because their Fundamentalist. HOW INTOLERANT IS THAT??? What just minute...I'm sorry, it's the Fundamentalists that are passing laws and constitutional amendments against gay people, not vice-versa (I'll need to talk to the editor about that typo). You see, Nick, it's not intolerance if Fundamentalists do it to other people, it's ONLY intolerance if it's the other way around. And as another poster commented: remember, it's the RELIGIOUS RIGHT THAT KILLED JESUS. That's a good thing to ponder as Easter approaches, don't-cha think? "
keep the Cross wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:26 PM:
" Re: Nick from Bulgaria
The gay agenda has been asking for "tolerance" for many years now. What does tolerance really mean? To put with with a behavior, an action or belief?
As a christian I truely believe it is not our place to condemn or pass judgement.
But I really would like to know why the ones asking for "tolerance" seem to have no tolerance for others. "
Wolfgang E. B. wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:56 PM:
" Fred Conwell wrote, "Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships?"
Where the bible speaks of "homosexuality," it speaks of the sort that existed in the time and place that these documents were written. It was common practice among the Greeks and Romans for a man have sex with (or, more accurately, rape) a slave boy on the cusp of puberty. Sometimes, young male slaves were kept specifically for this purpose.
So, homosexuality in these cultures was *not* about consentual sex or loving relationships based in equality. In other words, it was not the sort of homosexuality we have today. I'm sure there were some mutually loving gay relationships back then, but they existed well out of the public eye. When the authors of the bible wrote their texts, they were undoubtedly thinking in terms of the common, well-known practice of pedophilia.
They also wrote from the perspective that bearing children was not a choice, but a duty. However, if you read the gospels carefully, you'll notice that Jesus challenges this notion. Some historians have also theorized that the Centurion's servant, whom Jesus heals, is actually the Centurion's male sex slave. "
The "L" guy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:45 PM:
" Already quoted on the Tribune forum regarding this issue. Pretty sad stuff. "
To Fred conwell wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:42 AM:
" Try Leviticus. "
Fred Conwell wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:35 AM:
" Jesus still defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40 says love God and neighbor as self - it sums up ALL the law and Prophets.) Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who is the victim being sinned against? These are not rhetorical questions. No Gospel writer nor prophet covers homosexuality because it is not a sin issue. ("Homosexual" was coined about 1865, so any translation using a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. In 1946 it premiered in an English Bible.) If God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said "Man shall not lie with man PERIOD That whole "...as with a woman" thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman. "
To Nick wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:01 AM:
" A very thoughtful post. I think some of the comments below were making the point that some people are hypocritical when they ask for tolerance for some but don't show tolerance for others. They show no tolerance for the Cross on public land, but then call for tolerance for a vigil on public property. If you truly believe in tolerance for everyone, you get it. Some other people posting don't get it. "
To notme wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:23 PM:
" Because this article and blog is about speech and not the 2nd amendment....but when there is an article on that - we will all happily discuss it with you. Until then quit interrupting a perfectly good discussion. "
RE: Keep the Cross wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:41 PM:
" You make a good point. Liberal protestant churches like my own (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and others have seceded Christianity, the cross, and the gospel to the religious right. Yes, on occasion church organizations like mine would grumble a bit, but for the most part that were happily asleep at the wheel. Meanwhile, the 700 Club, Jerry Falwell, and all their Southern Baptist cohorts took over the airwaves and defined what is Christian, and what is not. Frankly, I'm tired of their brand of "Christianity" if you can call it that. You're absolutely correct...it's time for the big middle to stand up to these well-paid televangelists and their pro-war, hate-mongering friends. And it should be done by us Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Catholics and others in reclaiming Christianity, the cross and the gospel. Never forget, it was the Religious Right that killed Jesus. "
notme wrote on Mar 16, 2008 6:18 PM:
" High school students also have enough sense to decide if they want to carry firearms as well, as is their right.
Why do you bloggers continue to defend only ONE(1) of the many rights in the constitution? Shouldn't we teach our children that all rights are equally important? "
Keep the Cross wrote on Mar 16, 2008 3:51 PM:
" I encourage everyone to send Eric Barnes an Easter Card with a polite and thoughtful note. You'll win more hearts with compassion than you will with sharp words.
If you give in and act like a secular progessive you'll only give them the ammunition they want.
Its time to demonstate what the cross symbolizes not just with words, but through real and meaningful action. "
Nick from Bulgaria wrote on Mar 16, 2008 3:37 PM:
" I lived in the USA for 7 years in Fort Lauderdale, and I am gay. There is a difference by who you are on one hand, and what you believe in on the other. These are two layers that can be a part of the same person. Although I call myself Christian, I do not believe it is Christian to kill somebody for merely expressing what he/she is. A vigil should bring awareness of tolerance. The only thing people should be against is bigotry, ignorance, and violence. Simply being gay does not create problems for straight people and vice versa. We have the same blood, we even worship the same God. Let us respect each other. "
High school students wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:42 PM:
" have enough sense to decide if they want to participate in a day of silence or not. Thanks to the 3 men who spoke at the meeting last Monday, everyone is aware of the day of silence. You gave tons of publicity to a day that you wanted no one to notice. And, you used reverse psychology to entice high school students to participate. Not quite what you had in mind, is it??
To the students who do participate, I am proud of you for doing what you believe is right. More power to you. "
To:notme wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:22 AM:
" Have you ever heard of "Guns Anonymous"? "
To: Notme wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:50 PM:
" Do you want a lit gun up on the hill or what? You probably have a light up one in your window! Give it up! Join Guns Anonymous! "
notme wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:18 PM:
" The hypocrisy is rampant here. Exercise/demand your right to free speech, or separation of church and state, and you are a great hero to the liberals, but exercise/demand your right to bear arms, and you are attacked and insulted by the liberals.
The freedoms people enjoy were brought about by the gun, are protected by the gun, and once the right to the gun is gone, so shall all other rights follow. That is why the constitution was amended, and that is why our state constitution specifically grants the right to bear arms.
"
conflict wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:51 PM:
" Hmmm. Chuck usually only cow tows when there is a dollar to be made. "
Homer wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:49 PM:
" " "Planned Gay Vigil" is such a misleading headline. The Holmen School District DOES NOT have a planned event as described in this article. The concern probably arose out of e-mail spam being flung about in the last week or so. I know because my father-in-law just sent it. These people who showed up at the board meeting just provided a free front page add for this movement; CONGRATULATIONS...if you are against this, you just did the stupidest thing you could have ever done. Now every kid who would have never heard about this event will join in...just because someone told them they couldn't...nice one Dennis and Jeff. Got anymore bright ideas? Tribune ...you should be ashamed for such a misleading headline. "
To Susan Fabian wrote on Mar 15, 2008 4:49 PM:
" How does a day of silence "broadcast their opinion on public paid lands"?? Also, how are high school kids "violating the law" by being silent?? What law is that? You look very ignorant, Susan. Read the article, find out what exactly the day of silence entails. There is no "broadcasting", nor laws being broken. But way to hop on that right wing bandwagon. "
Let me echo the thoughts of a previous poster... wrote on Mar 15, 2008 4:49 PM:
" Dear Lord, please save us from your followers. "
notme wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:54 PM:
" A firearm, like silence, is only deadly when misused. "
Get the facts wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:48 PM:
" Hunter Safety classes are allowed on school property. The school board did not chase away the protester - the village police did, and the school district is NOT endorsing any one groups systems of beliefs or broadcasting anything. IF they do it - it is a day of silence. Please read the article and not just the blogs so you all don't look so stupid. "
To notme wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:52 PM:
" But firearms kill. A day of silence does not. "
Susan Fabian wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:33 PM:
" It's not the right of the public school system to endorse any individual groups system of beliefs or allow any individual group of people to broadcast their opinion on public paid lands. This includes this group. They should take their protest/celebration to private land or facility where they can do what they please without violating the law. This goes for all groups. "
notme wrote on Mar 15, 2008 11:30 AM:
" Training children how to and then allowing them to carry firearms would not interrupt the education of anyone else. Second, carrying firearms would be COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. Third, it is actually an educational opportunity in and of itself by teaching the idea that restriction of constitutional rights is illegal and unacceptable. Fourth, it gives a group of people, who are HATED by many people in the US, an opportunity to express their constitutional rights and to be heard. Finally, it gives students the ability to raise awareness of the rest of the ignorant as to both our federal and state constitutional rights to bear arms "
Sally wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:49 AM:
" It's not a problem to be a bisexual. It depends on how to see it. "People live in fear of discrimination and, consequently hide their sexual orientation, hide their families, their children and their lifestyle as a result," Johnson said. "I believe it will positively impact the health of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered community."
So I think GLBT should release them, maybe come out. Then they may be more healthy. Maybe the site BiLoves. "
Ezzee wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:56 AM:
" The day of silence is a wonderful event to participate in. First of all, it doesn't interrupt the education of anyone else. Secondly, it is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. Thirdly, it is actually an educational opportunity in and of itself by teaching the idea of civic engagement and/or protest. Fourth it gives a group of people who are HATED by a lot of people in the US an opportunity to be heard. And finally, it gives students the ability to raise awareness to the rest of the ignorant as to GLBT issues. If you want to know more about the Day of Silence, the website is http://www.dayofsilence.org/ "
Mr. Unfair wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:14 AM:
" Remember, the board said the school was "private property" when they chased that war protester away. "
One last thing wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:58 PM:
" I did go to the site as well and it seems pretty harmless to me, in fact their goals seems to be creating a safer school. Do you know the statistics about violence against young gay men? Bullying against them is rampant in schools across the country and I find it commendable that young people would want to take a stand against it. And where did you get the information that Holmen was going to sponsor such an event - probably some right wing website. Don't believe everything you read on the web - or are you waiting for those millions to be deposited in your bank account from your new found friends in India? Oh and as the HHS student said - you have now opened the flood gates......wonder what is going to happen on April 25th now. "
You got your answer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:49 PM:
" didn't Dr Fricke indicate that after checking with the principal he found there was NO plan to hold an event at the school? So if an individual student chooses to be silent what are they being exposed to? I would be much more concerned if the plan was to hold a sit in or protest or some other event that could disrupt the day but this doesn't seem to be the case. "
HHS Student to Mr. Johnston wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:10 PM:
" hey i wasn't planning on participating in this vigil, in fact i don't think many students here even knew about. Thanks to you, i will now be participating! "
It is not a "vigil". wrote on Mar 14, 2008 5:00 PM:
" A "gay vigil"?? What are you talking about? It's not a "gay vigil". Check your dictionary. A vigil is "a religious observation formerly held on the night before a religious feast; the day before a religious feast observed as a day of spiritual preparation; evening or nocturnal devotions or prayers; an act or time of keeping awake when sleep is customary." Observing a day of silence, for whatever reason, is a form of expression. If high school kids choose to be silent on that day in support of something they believe in, more power to them!! That's the beauty of high school kids. They believe in something and support it whether others disagree or not. And one more question: exactly how would you force kids from silence to talking?? Think about it. "
To Steve re: the Day of Silence Web Site wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:58 PM:
" Here's a few snippets of what it says about it's purpose:
"The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year’s event will be held in memory of Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed Feb. 12 by a classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender expression. Hundreds of thousands of students are expected to participate on April 25 so that Lawrence and the countless others who endure anti-LGBT bias will not be forgotten."
"The Day of Silence, a project of GLSEN, is a nationwide, student-led event during which thousands of high schools and colleges protest the oppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth."
I couldn't even find the word "lifestyle" on the website for the event...not even in the organizer' manual. Probably because activists in the homosexual community don't typically use that word to describe their sexuality.
How about I treat this like many are treating Eric Barnes? He's been told, if you don't like the cross, don't look at it. Well, if your kids don't like the silence...talk. "
To Steve Johnston wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:23 PM:
" You make a good point. Imagine the outcry if students wanted to hold a 15 minute prayer vigil. The people arguing for the right of the gay vigil are proabably at the top of the list of those who would cry foul about Christians expressing their beliefs on public property. "
Steve Johnston wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:15 PM:
" I was one of the individuals to go before the school board on Monday to express my concern about the Day of Silence. And yes, I do home school one of my children. However, the rest of my children are in the Holmen school system.
Although I do not agree with the method of protest with the Day of Silence, I do respect everyone's right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Where I have a problem with GLSEN is that it is advocating that message of social expression and ativism be taken into the school and in doing so, it becomes a disruption to the education process. And I do grieve for the 15 year student that was hurt. Voilence against anyone is wrong. Especially against a child.
I encourage you to visit the GLSEN website. You'll see that the day of silence is also a day to "celebrate a lifestyle".
As Americans, I feel we should keep our public schools as a place of education and not a place for political and social activism regardless of where you stand on politics and religion. If GLSEN wants to take their Day of Silence outside of school hours but on school grounds, I support and defend their right to do so. Regardless of my personal beliefs.
And Christian Pelman, I am not an extremist. Not once before have I ever held a sign in protest. Nor have I ever marched in opposition to anything. I did grow up in Europe and I am the son of French parent who became a naturalized citizen. My home as a child was very far to the left. Farther left than most. I am an artist and I work in the media. And for that you label me an extremist? You don't know me, but yet you judge me and condemn it seems because you don't agree with me.
I politely like ask that in future you please take a moment and think before you judge and condemn anyone. After all, isn't that what the Day of Silence is supposed to be about? I condemned no one on Monday night.
My only sin was to express my concerns for the sake of my children and the children of others and what they be exposed to within the public school system. I encourage you and others to do the same at the next school board meeting. "
To:The way I see it wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:05 PM:
" I think you are right. He absolutely would love them. But, I don't think he would excuse their sinful behavior. Remember the prostitute? Jesus stopped the people from stoning her, but then he told her "Go, and sin no more." Jesus was loving, but he wasn't "tolerant" of sin. "
The way I see it wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:21 PM:
" Only God can judge. It is not for me to say the people who are homosexual are right or wrong. As far as I know, we are to treat people as Jesus would treat them. And I'm fairly sure that he wouldn't publicly condemn people who are gay, lesbian, purple, green, or whatever. He would love them. And that's what I am going to do, too, because it is the right thing to do. "
It's nice to see... wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:25 AM:
" It's nice to see Norway granting equal citizenship to its gay and lesbian citizens (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2313762.ece). My ancestry is Norwegian as are probably many of the Courier's readers. Now scan to the US, where we have people complaining about a vigil to bereave someone that was murdered and our religious right shows up to stoke the flames higher. Truly sad. From my Lutheran background, I really can't imagine Jesus being too thrilled about what's frequently done in His name. I really can't. Although, it was the religious right of His day that had Him killed, so maybe the fruit didn't fall too far from the tree. Now, it's all falling into place. "
Re: Unfair wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:15 AM:
" Congress-persons (state or federal) say things on gov't property, supported by tax dollars, that I sometimes disagree with. Practically every city, town, and village in the country puts up Christmas decorations that our fellow Hindu or Buddhist citizens may not agree with (and again, on the taxpayers' dime). At the same time, a Jewish citizen may object to you eatting your BLT on public property because the Bible calls that "immoral" and an "abomination". In closing, I think that prayer offered below is intended for you. Lighten up...have a couple of beers and mellow out. Life's too short to be so mean and hostile. "
Unfair wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:41 AM:
" I think it is unfair that they get to hold their vigil on public land paid for by the taxpayers. I find their lifestyle immoral. I think if they wish to protest there, they should have to buy the land. How do I file an informal complaint with the village of Holmen? The Constitution clearly gives me the right to not be exposed to views I disagree with on public land paid for by the taxpayers. "
My Favorite Prayer... wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:18 AM:
" Dear Lord, please save me from your followers. "
pretty tame wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:10 AM:
" I think the reporter shared only the most tame comments by these three men. I was appalled in watching their comments. And it is not a vigil they were protesting it was an event called a day of silence where students protest by remaining silent for a day. Also - Chuck Olson was the only one that tried to cow tow to these men. He agrees with everything they said I think is how he put it. I hope we remember that come next election time. "
Christian Pelham wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:17 PM:
" More nutty Christian extremists. Hello!? Don't they all home school their children. "
One man Think-tank wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:58 PM:
" Well, as long as they don't protest on public land, eh? I mean, everyone has the right to not be offended, right? "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
