From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #375 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, August 6 2000 Volume 02 : Number 375 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:49:25 -0500 From: larry ball Subject: Re: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) Personally I thought Vance's description of these social perverts as being "genital worshippers" and as evangelists' to recruit, nay force, others to their point of perversion. Historically it has always been that way. However Glendenning has a valid point of view about "Federal Charters" for such organizations as the Boy Scouts. He is, in truth, correct. The constitution does not allow for such intrusions by the Federal Gov. He is also correct that we on the right many times would replace liberal "BIG" government with conservative "Big" government. We are indeed in error on this. I do think, though, that government (primarily on the state and local level) has a mandate to control crime. The gential worshippers are, in my mind, criminals and ought to be "jerked" out of society. Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com Bill Vance wrote: > On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > > >Your private opinion is irrelevant for this forum. > > My opinion, private or otherwise, is just as valid as any you might profess > here. > > >Either the gov is back inside the Constitution, or we are all in deep > >doo-doo. > >The growing hostility between races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. is > >a symptom of the problem. > > > >Social conservatives (and I think the majority of society probably should be > >social conservatives, but don't care to be one of them) worry the rest of us > >because they appear to be more interested in replacing the leftists who > >currently rule us rather than restoring the Constitution and limited gov. > > > >Lew Glendenning > > And how do you propose to get rid of the Statist freaks of whatever stripe, > as well of the attrocities they're performing on this Country, without > _actually_ replacing them in order to undo it? Assuming they could all be > rounded up and given to a firing squad, (which you seem to imply would > happen), or something like that, the damage thay've done would still have to > be undone. In that they aren't too likely to be helpful there, what other > solutions do you suggest? > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > >> [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance > >> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:24 PM > >> To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > >> Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) > >> > >> > >> If it weren't for the fact of their running around demanding that > >> society at > >> large from Kindergarten up, kneel down and tongue worship their > >> genitals, or > >> other destructive agendas, I'd be more than happy to leave them to their > >> stinking closets. > >> > >> > >> On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > >> > >> >This is a fine example of how unlimited gov causes problems in society. > >> > > >> >Where is the Constitutional grant of power for a "Federal Charter"? > >> > > >> >The fedgov has the responsibility of defending the nation, conducting a > >> >census, > >> >... > >> > > >> >It does not, and should not, have any power to affect education, > >> marriage, > >> >corporations, ... > >> > > >> >If the gov was back in the Constitutional bottle, all of our > >> lives would be > >> >a lot simpler, and we could send our kids to any 'almsot the Boy Scouts" > >> >troup > >> >we wished. > >> > > >> >There is no need for anyone to get excited about this kind of > >> stuff. There > >> >have always been homosexuals, there will always be homosexuals, and these > >> >homosexuals always have been and most likely always will have > >> the full range > >> >of human flaws. That is, they are fully human, and enjoy the rights > >> >recognized by our Constitution. > >> > > >> >Beyond that, whether you associate with them, or actively discriminate > >> >against > >> >them in your social group (or blacks or jews or ...) should be a > >> matter of > >> >indifference to the Fed and State govs. > >> > > >> >My wife and son are Jewish. History of the Jews shows they had far worse > >> >problems > >> >under bad gov than under good govs. However serious the social > >> >discrimination, > >> >Jews have always had a rich social life, good family values, and often > >> >economic > >> >success. > >> > > >> >Ditto for Chinese, blacks in the US from the West Indes, blacks in the US > >> >whose > >> >ancestors were freed before the Civil War, ... Ditto for homosexuals in > >> >almost > >> >every culture. > >> > > >> >Discrimination may be annoying, stupid, ..., but it isn't fatal > >> to a group > >> >or a > >> >serious bar to a good life. (It is also declining in all forms, mainly > >> >because > >> >it is economically inefficient. One more of the benefits of an efficient > >> >corporate > >> >economy.) > >> > > >> >ROC needs to focus on the real issue: putting our fed and state > >> govs back > >> >into the Constitutioanl bottle. > >> > > >> >Lew Glendenning > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 18:39:22 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) This kind of argument is exactly what scares the majority of people who are NOT devout religious conservatives. True, Christians had a lot to do with the formation of this country. However, to present them as a single group with a shared purpose is to re-write history as outrageously as any on the left. There were a lot of religious riots in our history, a LOT of bad feeling. Mormons were driven out of the US. The Civil War anti-draft riots of NYC were largely Catholics against Protestants, anti-immigrant feelings were very much based on religion, ... There was serious social discrimination against Mormons, Catholics and Jews among Protestants of all kinds through the 1960s, at least. Now that these opinions have largely died, you claim a common morality, a shared Christian heritage. I think many devout people in these groups would reject your fundamental assumption. Many would reject your attempt to freeze history and maintain the US as a "Christian" country. Further, I believe a Constitutional Republic could operate with Moslem, Confuscian and/or Hindu moralities. It obviously will have to, as these are rapidly increasing groups. Sorry, I like my definition better: Ethics is the fundamental level. Morality is specific to social groups. In any case, the chances of freezing our country's social mix is zero. We will continue to have an influx of Hindus and Moslems and ... I believe the situation calls for emphasizing shared values underlying the Constitution. Lew Glendenning > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 5:35 PM > To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) > > > On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > > >One more point. > > > >Judging from the opinions of my homosexual friends and business > associates, > >you are mistaking the agenda of leftists (divide us into competing groups > >with > >differing privileges) for the agendas of the majority of > individuals in what > >you > >consider the "class" of homosexuals. > > No I didn't, I simply refered to them without specifying that others, too, > exist.. > > >I know homosexuals who are socially conservative, others who are quite > >leftish. > > > >My friends tend to be Libertarian. > > > >>From discussions at parties, ..., there are as many social, > class, race, and > >gender differentiations withih the "class" of homosexuals as > within social > >conservatives, Libertarians, ... > > > >I find it useful to treat everyone as individuals, not as > representatives of > >"classes". Rather more Constitutional, IMHO. > > > >Ethics I take seriously : personal honesty, concern for individuals, > >adherence to > >the Constitution. These things unite us as humans. > > > >"Morality" is personal belief, the things which separate us into groups. > > > >Don't mistake the two. > > > Apperently you just did. Morality is not personal belief. Morality is > correct behavior in the society one exists in, not atempting to > change what > works well for a given society, into something destructive. Some 90-95 > percent of the people in the United States regard themselves to be some > variety of Christian. It's _the_ main thing that has kept us united since > the start, the understanding being, that the things which divide us into > various sects, are not those which make us Christians. A loud vocal Anti- > Christian minority, having seized the reigns of the > entertainment/news media > is attempting to force their _lack_ of morality down _our_ throats, _not_ > the other way around. No matter how shrill they get, they cannot change > that fact. The Judeao-Christian morality in this Country has > meant that we > were all working on the same basic page. It is our > Constitutional Right to > stay that way without interference. There is _no_ Constitutional Right to > _force_ unwelcome change upon us. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** > RKBA! > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | > sword.--Jesus Christ > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 00 21:16:28 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: >This kind of argument is exactly what scares the majority of people who are >NOT devout religious conservatives. > >True, Christians had a lot to do with the formation of this country. > >However, to present them as a single group with a shared purpose is to >re-write >history as outrageously as any on the left. Not at all. The main goals have allways been the same, regardless of sect. That politics, and predjudice, etc., can enter the picture from time to time will never change that. Accepting Jesus as your Savior doesn't mean that you'll never sin again, just that you are expected to get back up from where you've fallen, and keep trying. >There were a lot of religious riots in our history, a LOT of bad feeling. >Mormons were driven out of the US. The Civil War anti-draft riots of NYC >were >largely Catholics against Protestants, anti-immigrant feelings were very >much based on religion, ... > >There was serious social discrimination against Mormons, Catholics and Jews >among Protestants of all kinds through the 1960s, at least. > >Now that these opinions have largely died, you claim a common morality, a >shared >Christian heritage. I think many devout people in these groups would reject >your fundamental assumption. Jesus is the heritage, the role model, and the goal. Nothing there has changed. Politics, prejudice, and perversion, will allways be with us until He returns. >Many would reject your attempt to freeze history and maintain the US as a >"Christian" country. This has nothing to do with freezing history, it couldn't be done even if one wanted to. The fact that the U.S. are a Christian Country, is essentially why it is as good/great as it is. The further we get away from that, the worse things get. Has Bill Clinton really lived in vain, that you wouldn't have noticed this? >Further, I believe a Constitutional Republic could operate with Moslem, >Confuscian >and/or Hindu moralities. But not for long, nor could they create such a Republic on their own; It would have to be enforced upon them from without, and they would soon be at each others throats again for other reasons. Multi-Culturalism is meant to kill, not enhance our Republic. If we went to their Countries and tried to tell them that they had to accept our culture, or Religion, we'd be laughed off the planet. For more and better detail on this, check out, "The Morality Of The Marketplace", and, "America's Real War", by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. The above mentioned Religions and their various Countries, just haven't got what it takes. While its true that many differences are window dressing, and many principals and morals appear similar if not universal, the fact remains that our Country is nevertheless unique in history. Even though they received a good helping hand getting started, would you want to move to Liberia? >It obviously will have to, as these are rapidly increasing groups. And are vastly in need of aculturation to the values we hold. >Sorry, I like my definition better: Ethics is the fundamental level. >Morality >is specific to social groups. > >In any case, the chances of freezing our country's social mix is zero. We >will >continue to have an influx of Hindus and Moslems and ... And no one can freeze that either. But we should stop, or at least slow down immigration, legal or otherwise, long enough to acculturate those we now have, otherwise we're heading for the crapper. >I believe the situation calls for emphasizing shared values underlying the >Constitution. Which is why we shouldn't be trading those _Christian_Values_ for multi- culturalism. >Lew Glendenning > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com >> [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance >> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 5:35 PM >> To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com >> Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) >> >> >> On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: >> >> >One more point. >> > >> >Judging from the opinions of my homosexual friends and business >> associates, >> >you are mistaking the agenda of leftists (divide us into competing groups >> >with >> >differing privileges) for the agendas of the majority of >> individuals in what >> >you >> >consider the "class" of homosexuals. >> >> No I didn't, I simply refered to them without specifying that others, too, >> exist.. >> >> >I know homosexuals who are socially conservative, others who are quite >> >leftish. >> > >> >My friends tend to be Libertarian. >> > >> >>From discussions at parties, ..., there are as many social, >> class, race, and >> >gender differentiations withih the "class" of homosexuals as >> within social >> >conservatives, Libertarians, ... >> > >> >I find it useful to treat everyone as individuals, not as >> representatives of >> >"classes". Rather more Constitutional, IMHO. >> > >> >Ethics I take seriously : personal honesty, concern for individuals, >> >adherence to >> >the Constitution. These things unite us as humans. >> > >> >"Morality" is personal belief, the things which separate us into groups. >> > >> >Don't mistake the two. >> >> >> Apperently you just did. Morality is not personal belief. Morality is >> correct behavior in the society one exists in, not atempting to >> change what >> works well for a given society, into something destructive. Some 90-95 >> percent of the people in the United States regard themselves to be some >> variety of Christian. It's _the_ main thing that has kept us united since >> the start, the understanding being, that the things which divide us into >> various sects, are not those which make us Christians. A loud vocal Anti- >> Christian minority, having seized the reigns of the >> entertainment/news media >> is attempting to force their _lack_ of morality down _our_ throats, _not_ >> the other way around. No matter how shrill they get, they cannot change >> that fact. The Judeao-Christian morality in this Country has >> meant that we >> were all working on the same basic page. It is our >> Constitutional Right to >> stay that way without interference. There is _no_ Constitutional Right to >> _force_ unwelcome change upon us. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 23:51:36 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) Larry: Thank you for your kind words re: my Constitutional point. I think, however, that wisdom requires us to be careful about what we declare as crimes. As far as I can tell, social conservatives have just as many homosexual offspring as any other group (Pat Buchanan, Dick Cheny, ...). You may well be condeming one of them to prison. Second, I very much disagree with your characterization of homosexuals as 'predatory'. No doubt there are some, just as there are heterosexual predators and rapists. 'Predatory' or 'evangelical' does NOT characterize this "group", which is as diverse in every dimension as, for example, Christians. I have a LOT of personal experience with individuals of varying sexual persuasion. I trust ANY of the people I call friends to babysit my son. Lots of people, not just social conservatives, use simple-minded demonization of people they perceive as different to define themselves and/or gain political or social advantage. This year it is gays, a few years ago it was Branch Davidians, next year it may be your 'sect'. I think we should be very careful what political tools we legitimize. Lew Glendenning > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of larry ball > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 5:49 PM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) > > > Personally I thought Vance's description of these social perverts as being > "genital worshippers" and as evangelists' to recruit, nay force, > others to their > point of perversion. Historically it has always been that way. > > However Glendenning has a valid point of view about "Federal > Charters" for such > organizations as the Boy Scouts. He is, in truth, correct. The > constitution > does not allow for such intrusions by the Federal Gov. He is > also correct that > we on the right many times would replace liberal "BIG" government with > conservative "Big" government. We are indeed in error on this. > > I do think, though, that government (primarily on the state and > local level) has > a mandate to control crime. The gential worshippers are, in my > mind, criminals > and ought to be "jerked" out of society. > > Larry Ball > lball@inetnebr.com > > Bill Vance wrote: > > > On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > > > > >Your private opinion is irrelevant for this forum. > > > > My opinion, private or otherwise, is just as valid as any you > might profess > > here. > > > > >Either the gov is back inside the Constitution, or we are all in deep > > >doo-doo. > > >The growing hostility between races, religions, sexual > orientations, etc. is > > >a symptom of the problem. > > > > > >Social conservatives (and I think the majority of society > probably should be > > >social conservatives, but don't care to be one of them) worry > the rest of us > > >because they appear to be more interested in replacing the leftists who > > >currently rule us rather than restoring the Constitution and > limited gov. > > > > > >Lew Glendenning > > > > And how do you propose to get rid of the Statist freaks of > whatever stripe, > > as well of the attrocities they're performing on this Country, without > > _actually_ replacing them in order to undo it? Assuming they > could all be > > rounded up and given to a firing squad, (which you seem to imply would > > happen), or something like that, the damage thay've done would > still have to > > be undone. In that they aren't too likely to be helpful there, > what other > > solutions do you suggest? > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > > >> [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance > > >> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:24 PM > > >> To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > > >> Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) > > >> > > >> > > >> If it weren't for the fact of their running around demanding that > > >> society at > > >> large from Kindergarten up, kneel down and tongue worship their > > >> genitals, or > > >> other destructive agendas, I'd be more than happy to leave > them to their > > >> stinking closets. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > > >> > > >> >This is a fine example of how unlimited gov causes problems > in society. > > >> > > > >> >Where is the Constitutional grant of power for a "Federal Charter"? > > >> > > > >> >The fedgov has the responsibility of defending the nation, > conducting a > > >> >census, > > >> >... > > >> > > > >> >It does not, and should not, have any power to affect education, > > >> marriage, > > >> >corporations, ... > > >> > > > >> >If the gov was back in the Constitutional bottle, all of our > > >> lives would be > > >> >a lot simpler, and we could send our kids to any 'almsot > the Boy Scouts" > > >> >troup > > >> >we wished. > > >> > > > >> >There is no need for anyone to get excited about this kind of > > >> stuff. There > > >> >have always been homosexuals, there will always be > homosexuals, and these > > >> >homosexuals always have been and most likely always will have > > >> the full range > > >> >of human flaws. That is, they are fully human, and enjoy the rights > > >> >recognized by our Constitution. > > >> > > > >> >Beyond that, whether you associate with them, or actively > discriminate > > >> >against > > >> >them in your social group (or blacks or jews or ...) should be a > > >> matter of > > >> >indifference to the Fed and State govs. > > >> > > > >> >My wife and son are Jewish. History of the Jews shows they > had far worse > > >> >problems > > >> >under bad gov than under good govs. However serious the social > > >> >discrimination, > > >> >Jews have always had a rich social life, good family > values, and often > > >> >economic > > >> >success. > > >> > > > >> >Ditto for Chinese, blacks in the US from the West Indes, > blacks in the US > > >> >whose > > >> >ancestors were freed before the Civil War, ... Ditto for > homosexuals in > > >> >almost > > >> >every culture. > > >> > > > >> >Discrimination may be annoying, stupid, ..., but it isn't fatal > > >> to a group > > >> >or a > > >> >serious bar to a good life. (It is also declining in all > forms, mainly > > >> >because > > >> >it is economically inefficient. One more of the benefits > of an efficient > > >> >corporate > > >> >economy.) > > >> > > > >> >ROC needs to focus on the real issue: putting our fed and state > > >> govs back > > >> >into the Constitutioanl bottle. > > >> > > > >> >Lew Glendenning > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! > ***** RKBA! > > > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he > who hath no > > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment > and buy a > > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | > sword.--Jesus Christ > > > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > > > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > > > - > > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 00:16:43 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) I don't think we can prove much with historical argument. Too many variables, no controlled experiments. You may be right, but there is no way for either of us to prove our position, so I won't argue the point any more. I must object, however, to your characterization of the US as a "Christian" country. I was brought up as a member of United Brethern and Methodist churches. My parents still go to church, and I have a few devout evangelical relatives and my brother who stayed in Ohio still attends sproadically. Other than that, I don't know anybody who goes to church, tho no doubt some call themselves Christians if they bother to answer a pollster. Everyone I count as friends/serious acquaintances are as 'good' as any of the Christians I used to know, and quite a lot better than at least 3 of the preachers I have known. I know many Jews, Moslems, Hindus, a Zoastrian or two, some Bahais, and quite a lot of atheists and agnostics. We all consider ourselves American, genuine US of A citizens. Many of us are quite devout Constitutionalists. We are all contributing to the future of this once (and hopefully again) great culture. California is not, of course average 8). But you can't claim the country for your religious faith. It isn't so, and hasn't ever been so. As for Bill Clinton, he is a lying, manipulative, raping sociopath. He attends church, calls himself a Christian, ... Hard to understand what I am to learn from his example. Lew Glendenning > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 10:16 PM > To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) > > > On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > > >This kind of argument is exactly what scares the majority of > people who are > >NOT devout religious conservatives. > > > >True, Christians had a lot to do with the formation of this country. > > > >However, to present them as a single group with a shared purpose is to > >re-write > >history as outrageously as any on the left. > > > Not at all. The main goals have allways been the same, > regardless of sect. > That politics, and predjudice, etc., can enter the picture from > time to time > will never change that. Accepting Jesus as your Savior doesn't mean that > you'll never sin again, just that you are expected to get back up > from where > you've fallen, and keep trying. > > > >There were a lot of religious riots in our history, a LOT of bad feeling. > >Mormons were driven out of the US. The Civil War anti-draft riots of NYC > >were > >largely Catholics against Protestants, anti-immigrant feelings were very > >much based on religion, ... > > > >There was serious social discrimination against Mormons, > Catholics and Jews > >among Protestants of all kinds through the 1960s, at least. > > > >Now that these opinions have largely died, you claim a common morality, a > >shared > >Christian heritage. I think many devout people in these groups > would reject > >your fundamental assumption. > > > Jesus is the heritage, the role model, and the goal. Nothing there has > changed. Politics, prejudice, and perversion, will allways be > with us until > He returns. > > > >Many would reject your attempt to freeze history and maintain the US as a > >"Christian" country. > > > This has nothing to do with freezing history, it couldn't be done even if > one wanted to. The fact that the U.S. are a Christian Country, is > essentially why it is as good/great as it is. The further we get > away from > that, the worse things get. Has Bill Clinton really lived in > vain, that you > wouldn't have noticed this? > > > >Further, I believe a Constitutional Republic could operate with Moslem, > >Confuscian > >and/or Hindu moralities. > > > But not for long, nor could they create such a Republic on their own; It > would have to be enforced upon them from without, and they would > soon be at > each others throats again for other reasons. Multi-Culturalism > is meant to > kill, not enhance our Republic. If we went to their Countries > and tried to > tell them that they had to accept our culture, or Religion, we'd > be laughed > off the planet. For more and better detail on this, check out, "The > Morality Of The Marketplace", and, "America's Real War", by Rabbi Daniel > Lapin. The above mentioned Religions and their various Countries, just > haven't got what it takes. While its true that many differences > are window > dressing, and many principals and morals appear similar if not universal, > the fact remains that our Country is nevertheless unique in history. Even > though they received a good helping hand getting started, would > you want to > move to Liberia? > > > >It obviously will have to, as these are rapidly increasing groups. > > > And are vastly in need of aculturation to the values we hold. > > > >Sorry, I like my definition better: Ethics is the fundamental level. > >Morality > >is specific to social groups. > > > >In any case, the chances of freezing our country's social mix is > zero. We > >will > >continue to have an influx of Hindus and Moslems and ... > > > And no one can freeze that either. But we should stop, or at least slow > down immigration, legal or otherwise, long enough to acculturate those we > now have, otherwise we're heading for the crapper. > > > >I believe the situation calls for emphasizing shared values > underlying the > >Constitution. > > > Which is why we shouldn't be trading those _Christian_Values_ for multi- > culturalism. > > > >Lew Glendenning > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > >> [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance > >> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 5:35 PM > >> To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > >> Subject: RE: 'Scouts' & 'Gay-Gene' (fwd) > >> > >> > >> On Aug 5, Lew Glendenning wrote: > >> > >> >One more point. > >> > > >> >Judging from the opinions of my homosexual friends and business > >> associates, > >> >you are mistaking the agenda of leftists (divide us into > competing groups > >> >with > >> >differing privileges) for the agendas of the majority of > >> individuals in what > >> >you > >> >consider the "class" of homosexuals. > >> > >> No I didn't, I simply refered to them without specifying that > others, too, > >> exist.. > >> > >> >I know homosexuals who are socially conservative, others who are quite > >> >leftish. > >> > > >> >My friends tend to be Libertarian. > >> > > >> >>From discussions at parties, ..., there are as many social, > >> class, race, and > >> >gender differentiations withih the "class" of homosexuals as > >> within social > >> >conservatives, Libertarians, ... > >> > > >> >I find it useful to treat everyone as individuals, not as > >> representatives of > >> >"classes". Rather more Constitutional, IMHO. > >> > > >> >Ethics I take seriously : personal honesty, concern for individuals, > >> >adherence to > >> >the Constitution. These things unite us as humans. > >> > > >> >"Morality" is personal belief, the things which separate us > into groups. > >> > > >> >Don't mistake the two. > >> > >> > >> Apperently you just did. Morality is not personal belief. Morality is > >> correct behavior in the society one exists in, not atempting to > >> change what > >> works well for a given society, into something destructive. Some 90-95 > >> percent of the people in the United States regard themselves to be some > >> variety of Christian. It's _the_ main thing that has kept us > united since > >> the start, the understanding being, that the things which > divide us into > >> various sects, are not those which make us Christians. A loud > vocal Anti- > >> Christian minority, having seized the reigns of the > >> entertainment/news media > >> is attempting to force their _lack_ of morality down _our_ > throats, _not_ > >> the other way around. No matter how shrill they get, they > cannot change > >> that fact. The Judeao-Christian morality in this Country has > >> meant that we > >> were all working on the same basic page. It is our > >> Constitutional Right to > >> stay that way without interference. There is _no_ > Constitutional Right to > >> _force_ unwelcome change upon us. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** > RKBA! > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | > sword.--Jesus Christ > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+----------- > ---------- > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Aug 00 13:58:52 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: AG vs 2nd Am ? (fwd) On Aug 6, NFLEEK@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Bill: This is from George Peabody ("victim of the gun laws of Hawaii"), who will be in court this Tuesday, 08 AUG 2000. Nancy Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 13:17:38 -1000 To: NFLEEK@aol.com From: Molokai Advertiser-News Subject: AG vs 2nd Am ? Hi Nancy: I actually got a Deputy AG to reply to me in a hypothetical case, how he would attack my pleading below, and this is what he said to me. You or anyone else out there you know can help me with this? The AG wrote that: > The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State >of Hawaii also protect the citizens right to own property and yet it has >never been held that the government does not have the right to impose taxes >and regulations concerning ownership and use so long as those laws do not >constitute a taking without just compensation. The same analysis holds true >with respect to firearms. Firearms are no different. And there are plenty >of cases upholding the right of government to tax and regulate the use of >property. What is the constitutional basis to treat firearms any >differently? (ala "I'm an American, therefore I should be able to own a t-43 >tank and the necessary bazookas to take out the criminals in their tanks if I >want to). George Peabody wrote: Here is part of what I plan to tell the court at my hearing on Tuesday 8-8-00 on Motion for New Trial or Set Aside Conviction. HAWAII gun laws totally disregard the writings of the Founding Fathers, with respect to the Second Amendment and the need for the "whole body of the people" to be armed, not just for hunting or protection of family and property, but most importantly, to protect themselves from the tyranny of government. See the 1982 "Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session." The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch of Utah was the Chairman. "The United States Supreme Court has only three times commented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our constitution." The first comment, in DRED SCOTT, indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold free blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went. "The second, in Miller, indicated that a Court cannot take judicial notice that a short - barreled shotgun is covered by the second amendment -- but the Court did not indicate that the National Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amendment, and indeed, defined "militia" to include all citizens able to bear arms". "The third, a footnote in Lewis V. United States, indicated only that 'these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms' -- a ban on possession by felons -- were permissible." The report goes on to say that "These three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court." Under "20th Century Cases", I find the following of interest: State V. Blocker, 291 OR. 255, -- -- --P.2d -- -- -- (1981) "The statute is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession , insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected." State V. Kessler, 289 OR, 359, 614P.2d, at 95, at 98 (1980) "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as (p.15)a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment." "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several hand carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens." Next, is a collection of quotations from the men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." Richard Henry Lee "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason "...The said Constitution be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams So you see, Mr. Small, we are in a quandary here. The Founding Fathers of this nation made it quite clear that they intended for the "whole body of the people" to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers also made it very clear that the "whole people" are the "militia" and, most certainly not a government military agency. The following quote seems to describe the relationship between the honest people of this State and this Republic, versus the governments, thereof: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance." --Alexander Hamilton: 28 pg206 - Federalist Papers Now, Your Honor, would you dare to suggest that the Constitution, or the Second Amendment has been rewritten since 1982? Do you dare to suggest that the United States Senate Sub-Committee, made up of legal scholars, did not know of what it wrote in the report? The courts have made it clear that NO government, not even the State of Hawaii, has the right to take that which is a God-given and / or Constitutional Right such as the 2nd Amendment, try to turn it into a "privilege", and then license and tax it. HRS 134, and all other restrictive gun laws of Hawaii are un-Constitutional infringment on my right to keep and bear arms, and therefore I am not bound to comply and this Honorable Court must not attempt to enforce such null and void statutes. Therefore, pursuant to Section 604-7(a)(6), Haw. Rev. Stat., which provides: "The district courts may: (6) In a criminal case, alter, set aside, or suspend a sentence by way of mitigation or otherwise upon motion or plea of a defendant made within thirty days after imposition of the sentence, " I hereby move this Court to dismiss the charges with prejudice against me. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #375 *************************