|
02 Mar 06 - 10:55 PM (#1683906) Subject: BS: No Sin City From: number 6 No Sin City I guess you can still order in a pizza sIx |
|
02 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM (#1683911) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Rapparee Oh yeah. Him. And that. |
|
02 Mar 06 - 11:17 PM (#1683926) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: JohnInKansas 109th US CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. 520 They're NOT kidding. John |
|
03 Mar 06 - 12:16 AM (#1683991) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: John O'L So I guess God's been talking to this Thomas S. Monaghan now, eh? I wonder if he ordered anchovies. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 04:04 AM (#1684106) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Paco Rabanne Why not? He's paying for it all. |
|
03 Mar 06 - 06:35 AM (#1684192) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: gnu Shelby, Brownback and Burrrrr, it's gettin cold. But... given the supposed separation of church and state, isn't that unconstitutional? |
|
03 Mar 06 - 08:17 AM (#1684258) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: kendall And we call the Muslims extremists. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 08:17 AM (#1684952) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Alba It would appear that there is a bit of a back pedal on this issue. Creating one's own Utopia would seem to have certain problems, no matter how much money one has to fund it! rethinking the game plan! |
|
04 Mar 06 - 10:21 AM (#1685022) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: frogprince At the risk of saying something good about Monaghan, at least he admits he stuck his foot in his mouth, as opposed to Pat Robertson's whining that he get's misquoted. Some months back the papers covered the great prophet Falwell's project to build a similar Holy City, where people can live from cradle to grave unsullied by the evil world. I shudder to think of some poor kid raised there, then having to go out and try to cope in a diverse and (in some cases) enlightened society. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 01:14 PM (#1685117) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Mr Happy perhaps these ladies would be suitable residents? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives |
|
04 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM (#1685124) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Alba They would be Mr. Happy except for one thing...cleavage...! If they can be made minus cleavage they are in. Another interesting addition to Ave Maria Town would be Women like Mrs Doyle from Father Ted. She is devout and modest in appearance. You can cast your eyes on this pillar of virtue and family Values here: The one and only Mrs Doyle! :) Jude |
|
04 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM (#1685126) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Purple Foxx Mrs Doyle is a wonderful woman but her habit of using cocaine as a cooking ingredient might not go down well in this particular town. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 01:41 PM (#1685128) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: gnu I dated a hardshell baptist, Falwell type once. She even went to Bob Jones University. You know, the one that hates women and people "of colour". She was the most promiscuous, bigoted person I ever met. Unfortunately, I did not find this out until well into the relationship. I talked with her a few years after I ran away screaming from the ignorant slut. She said she still feared for me because I was not saved. The blind leading the blind. How sad. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 01:59 PM (#1685138) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: GUEST,dianavan I'll never order Dominoes Pizza again. Come to think of it, our schools order Dominoes Pizza a couple of times a year for special events. That too, will end. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 04:32 PM (#1685203) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Alba It's ok Dianavan the Dominoe Man got his money to build his Utopia by selling the Name and his franchises so it is now owned by other folks...so Pizza on:) J |
|
04 Mar 06 - 04:45 PM (#1685215) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: JohnInKansas gnu: given the supposed separation of church and state, isn't that unconstitutional? Check the "Senate" link up near the top. These people don't care about the Constitution, and in fact some, especially in my area, have said openly "it doesn't matter." Brownback is cited as having said, in effect, "GOD is MY ONLY CONSTITUENT." Quite a few people believe he has some chance of being the next Republican candidate for President. A lot more people believe that he will have a very strong influence on who is the next Republican candidate. Supposedly, "insiders" in Congress believe that it was his selection, and that he is principally responsible for the selection and confirmation of the most recent Justice of the US Supreme Court, based on his belief that this Justice will "put God before the Law if it comes to a choice." Twenty three states have passed amendments to their State Constitutions that essentially define "Civil Marriage" as a "Holy Sacrament." These amendments, and statutes in all but one of the remaining states, deny a specific form of CIVIL CONTRACT to certain persons based on what they are and what they believe with no rationale in the law other than "God's Will." They are IMO, in kind no different than previous laws that supported slavery as "sanctioned in the Bible" and the belief that black persons, as "descendants of Ham and cursed by GOD," were meant to be slaves. Quite incidentally, politically influential "ministers" in my area are still preaching the last couple of points. The "sanctity of marriage" amendment recently voted and passed in Kansas is quite similar in tone and language to the "Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, September 15, 1935" and a last minute amendment to the ballot question before it was voted is an almost verbatim translation from the Nuremberg law. Just as conservative religion allied with the newly elected German government in 1930-1935, and the new German government did a "suck up" to conservative beliefs to obtain political backing and power, the fundamentalists are being pandered to by current US politicians who want nothing more than their votes, and the fundie's are delivering the votes in the belief (sometimes even honest) that "God trumps the Constitution." "And the people did nothing." - nor are they really likely to this time around. John |
|
04 Mar 06 - 04:46 PM (#1685219) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: frogprince The Baptist chick whom I dated (briefly, for which I give thanks) was present at a young singles outing when one guy told a slightly risque joke. She referred back to it and noted that it was only to be expected, as "He's a Catholic, not a Christian, you know". The sadist in me would kinda like to see the Monaghans and the protestants of that stripe turned loose on each other, but some decent people might get hurt in the crossfire, and there is enough grief out there already. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 05:06 PM (#1685229) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: JohnInKansas frogprince: Unfortunately, the politicians understand and will use your "my religion's not like them" bit, against you and all the rest of us. The religious fundamentalists that the Natzis recruited were Vatican Rome. Look up "The Concordat of 1933" on the web. It was the first international treaty recognizing the new German government, and it was essential in establishing "credibility" of the new government in international politics. It also established the Vatican version of Catholicism as the official state religion in Germany. Nominally, the Church appears to have believed that they were only "restoring God" to a devout people, but their fundie pograms were used by the Natzi regime to break down civil liberties, destroy the courts, suspend laws, and launch the Reich. The somewhat more liberal German Catholic Church, prior to 1933, was one of the few more or less organized groups able to speak out against new political actions, and it was obliterated by the "Vatican Fundies," in a single stroke, by the treaty. Incidentally, from the Rolling Stones article on Brownback: "When he ran for the House he was a Methodist. By the time he ran for the Senate he was an evangelical. Now he has become a Catholic." John |
|
04 Mar 06 - 06:24 PM (#1685277) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: GUEST,Rapaire And S520 didn't make it, did it? It was known politically as "DOA" (as so many bills are). |
|
04 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM (#1685288) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: JohnInKansas Rapaire - It was tabled, again. This was the second time it was introduced as a new bill. This one, and the previous one that was also "referred to committee" could, either of them, be revived at any time. Once in the mill, such crud usually pops up as a "rider" on something else; and it's fairly easy to tack something on without attracting enough notice to open a debate. It will be back. Eventually it still could pass. The difficulty is that unless people actually get concerned enough to speak up, it or something very much like it probably will get passed, eventually. There are enough members of Congress willing to use it to buy a few votes. John |
|
04 Mar 06 - 08:27 PM (#1685302) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Rapparee Yeah, for quite a while now I've been saying that danged few elected folks are working for the community as a whole (however you define "community") and not just for themselves. |
|
04 Mar 06 - 11:49 PM (#1685375) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Peace '"We're truly just trying to create a town with traditional values."' from Alba's link. Question: What ARE these traditional values I keep hearing about? |
|
05 Mar 06 - 12:06 AM (#1685379) Subject: RE: BS: No Sin City From: Kaleea Where do we go from here (the USA) to achieve religious freedom & escape religious prejudice & persecution by the christian zealots? I've been thinking about finding a relative on a res. |
