Worthy News: 'Under God' pledge protection measure fails - MSN

[anti-hillbilly]

Since you are back once again anti-Hillbilly, I have a couple of things to ask you. First of all, why of all things are you a bigot against hillbillies? I don't know any personally, but have never had any quarel with them. Could it be you are stereotyping them? What would your liberal buddies think?

On to a more serious question. You said you used to be a conservative and have since become a liberal Democrat. Who was the last Republican you voted for in a Presidential race? What views were you holding to that you believe were conservative you no longer believe and what happened to transform your thinking?

Just so you will know that I would not ask anything I am not prepared to answer myself, I became a Republican at heart before I could vote. I had a Reagan bumper sticker on my bicycle during the 1980 campaign and while too young to vote, worked rounding up voters. I had just watched this nation come through 4 horrible years under Jimmy Carter and knew we needed a change. The funny thing is, that my parents were both registered Democrats at the time and even today are Independents, not Republicans, so they cannot be blamed. While they are relatively conservative, they are not nearly as far to the right as I am politically or in matters of religion.

I explained why I'm called anti-hillbilly on another thread. I'm a hillbilly that doesn't like GWB anymore and someone on another forum called me an anti-christ for that view. Then another poster said they'd never heard of a hillbilly that didn't like Dubya and did that make me an anti-hillbilly (making a joke because of the anti-christ remark). SOooo, it's a joke not a jab.

Until the 2004 Presidential election I'd only voted for a democrat one time and that had been for a senate race in the early 1980s. I voted for Bush of Course and Dole and Bush Sr. twice, Reagan twice...and every other office always republican. I switched parties a few years ago when I woke up and realized what was happening. I thought Carter was a terrible president but in retrospect I think he was truly an honest Christian man.

I have to stop here and get supper ready.

Edited July 12, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

Hi I'm back.

My transformation wasn't over just one thing but a lot of things. I think this administration is the most corrupt one in history, Cheney and Rumsefeld are worse than Bush and when you start really tracking down their connections it's so disturbing I just can't stay in that party; they're just too immoral for me. I've always been a liberal Christian but where politics were concerned I was conservative, small government, right to own guns, against govt waste, I'm an isolationist too...don't like the UN and am sick to death of getting involved in foreign problems and even sicker of the fact that our govt has stirred up or instigated many of those foreign problems to begin with. The more I became aware of that last part the more I began to loathe my precious republican party. Basically I think they've tricked us all with their "conservative talk" and as I've grown older I've started to compare "idealogy" with "reality". I'm very, very disillusioned with Ronald Reagan too; I wish I'd paid more attention when he was President, I thought he was wonderful but now the bloom is off that rose for me too.

Anyway I don't think the republican party is conservative; they're on a mission of world domination I think. I don't think they care about the rule of law and I think their motto is "might makes right". It is apparent to me that Christianity is simply a tool for them to use to achieve it. If this were a Muslim country or some other religion was in the majority that would be the religion they'd "court". Whatever it takes. They'll ruin or bankrupt the country in this endeavor and if you get your wish with that theocracy thing this could turn out to be a repeat of the dark ages.

The Christian angle; like I said I've always been a liberal Christian but my husband was an evangelical and I had to suffer thru listening to James Dobson and watching the 700 Club. I can honestly say that when I hear James Dobson's grandfatherly voice I think of the wolf dressed up in grandma's clothes trying to get little red riding hood to come closer so he can devour her. I told my husband back in the 1980s to just look at Pat Robertson's eyes, I think the man is nuts and a crook. Jerry Fallwell, why on earth anyone would take him seriously is beyond me. They tell so many lies and mistruths, some obvious and some subtle. That one guy they used to have on all the time named David Barton, the one that writes about the U.S.'s "christian history", has been caught on SO many lies and yet the Christian leadership continues to quote him even though he's been "called out" on his lies.

Now you have these two entities combined so God help us all. They'll steal all the money they can, and discard their supporters when they no longer need them. And don't count on the church to help you when you're starving or need medical attention; they'll pray for ya but that'll be about it when you find yourself down and out.

This is just scratching the surface, but more reality and I've covered some of that already. We're being taxed against our will, it won't change, so spend it on programs to take care of Americans, not military contractors or corporate welfare, they've got enough already. I have to say here that old people have had a big influence on reshaping my world view. Many used to come into the place where I worked and during the 2000 election many, to my surprise, vocally said they'd never vote for anyone but a democrat...they were all Christians too. That reminded me of my grandparents and my great-grandparents saying that if it weren't for Roosevelt they would have starved to death in the 1930s. That got me to thinking, you can't always just pull yourself up by the bootstraps and money isn't necessarily a "blessing" or "punishment" from God. I also started noticing from the am radio that all the talk was geared toward defending the rich and pitting the middle class against the poor. But when you start to read it becomes apparent that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is disappearing. But look at how it's the poor and the powerless that gets blamed. Some people are on welfare but those welfare checks aren't that big, neither are social security checks.... so where is the money going......it's going in the pockets of the rich; it's going to foreign aid; it's going to faith based iniatives. Sorry but I think that's just wrong. I don't even think they're spending much on science these days. If you mention science the "pundits" start putting the word "out there on the airwaves" that science should be privately funded. The only way they can get people to go along with this massive theft is to convince them that they're the "good people", the people who are on "God's side".

Neither political party is perfect and you're gonna have some crooks but at least the democrats don't make hypocrits out of themselves by talking about God all the time then being crooks and adulterers and theives; the republicans talk about morals, family values and God all the time and get caught stealing, lying, cheating, and killing just like everybody else only worse. Better to leave God's name out of it cause nobody likes a hypocrit.

Is there anything specific you want to ask me?

[anti-hillbilly]

A few more things that caused me to "switch sides"

embryonic stem-cell research -- I'm all for it; I think it's inhumane not to do it since those embryos will be thrown away anyway, they're not viable they stall out after two weeks in a petrie dish -- no pregnancy involved at all. I don't think the "soul" begins at conception (another man-man marketing phrase) everytime someone had a miscarriage it would be another soul killed and I just don't believe that God is killing a soul when somebody miscarries.

I don't think it's right for people to push their religion on other people using the "law" to do it. It's suppose to be a free-gift but the religious right is shooting for a theocracy.

I don't care about gay-marriage. I'm not gonna do it; it's not gonna hurt me or my family.

Abortion - not at the top of my list of "things to gripe about" for reasons already listed.

I'm against tax-payer funded faith based iniatives -- as already stated.

I'm against wars of aggression.

I'm against world domination.

I'm against "squashing" all opposing viewpoints by manipulating the law or by demonizing or villifying those voices.

These are all things that the republican religious right represent for me today; the republican party isn't "what I thought it was". Now that I know that I don't want to be a part of it anymore.

I think every person in this country, whether they're a believer or not, has the right to choose their own path. I realize and accept the fact that some people do not believe in God and I think those people should not be mistreated because of that. They have morals and ethics too despite the way they've been portrayed.

I too think your side will win the "under God" debate but I don't think it's right. To me that means the majority can bully over the minority and it will embolden the far-right to do just that and we'll see court case after court case pushing the envelope on these matters.

As for Jesse Helms, why does it not surprise me that you'd like him Butero. I think that man was awful, in word and deed. Disgusting all around. A bigot but with a secret half black illigitimate daughter; then marries some sweet young thing when he's old enough to be her grandfather; gross!

[anti-hillbilly]

I liked Kerry a lot. He surprised me because via the husband's choice in radio stations I'd heard absolutely nothing good about him on the Christian airwaves.

We're veterans and we both thought it would be better to have someone in charge of a war that had actually fought in one. In 2000 my sister and I talked our father into voting for Bush and it wasn't easy even though he was a republican. He kept saying Bush was a coward and we poo-pooed it and talked him into it. It became apparent soon after that he regretted it because he kept saying he thought they were cheating Gore out of the Presidency down there in Florida with Jeb being govenor. I wish I'd voted for Gore; he'd have been better choice than Bush and you never know, we might not have been attacked at all. Have you ever wondered if there was some personal revenge in the 9/11 attack? Because of Osama bin Laden's brother's financial dealings with the Bush family? My husband's uncle had some big position with the republican party in his state and he couldn't stand the elder Bush and said that was Reagan's biggest mistake because the Bush family was like some sort of political mafia family or something; and some more stuff about his running the CIA. He always thought Bush Sr. was orchestrating a lot of things behind President Reagan's back but I don't know the particulars of that. I wasn't that interested in politics way back then (that was in 91 when he was saying all that).

I did read somewhere that more people had been convicted of crimes in the Reagan administration than in any administration in American history. That doesn't speak too well of Reagan but I now see that a lot of the admiration we all had could have been photo-ops and charisma. Everybody loves a charasmatic person. I couldn't stand Clinton but at least he did apologize for his adultery and I think he and his wife were cleared of any wrongdoing in all those things they were accused of doing. Maybe a lot of that was just lies to keep them from getting universal health care or doing other things the right opposed.

I think the people at Guantanamo Bay are being mistreated' the ones at Abu Graib were and they had the pictures to prove it. I don't think everyone at GB has been a terrorist. I think they made a big mistake by not letting humanitarian groups come in there in the first place. At the very least it would have prevented false accusations of abuse against our soldiers. When WWII was going on the German POWs that were imprisoned here were treated so good that many of them have returned with their families over the years on vacations. I've seen many stories about this in Reminisce Magazine and just local papers from time to time. That's how you win hearts and minds and it depresses me that this generation has fallen so far below that of the WWII generation. Have we really become so barbaric that we condone torture....while claiming to be Christian??? It's wrong and all the 'political speak' in the world is not gonna make it right. MIGHT does not make right; we're suppose to be the good guys.

Just so you know Butero, not all Christians are evangelicals and as that preacher in your part of the country learned not all Baptists are republicans. Last I read he's an ex-preacher working at a fast food joint. (I'm referring to that minister that kicked the democrats out of his church during the last presidential election).

The democratic party is not the worse one; the republican party is. You'd better wake up quickly and realize that the democrats depite their faults are the best bet we common people have of maintaining any freedom or political voice in this country. The republicans have broken their contract with America and it's time to vote the bums out.

It is okay for Christians to vote democrat. I did it last time and I'm voting a straight democratic ticket this time as is my husband and I can name two other republican family members who are doing the same. It sounds to me like you are much more impressed with republican jingles than the democratic ones that you keep mentioning; the republicans do have the better marketing I have to agree. I don't remember those two religious instances you mention with the Clintons but why would I, obviously they didn't make a habit of throwing God's name out there like a baited hook. But Clinton isn't President anymore and hasn't been in years; Bush is and he does it all the time; it's almost like code with the bible verses and such; quite unscrupuluous. Some people will stoop to any level I guess.

[anti-hillbilly]

It is amazing to me how you defend homosexuals and the killing of unborn children and then attack someone with gossip about an affair that led to an illigitimate daughter. You condone homosexuals and condemn a man marrying a young woman? To me, homosexuality is groce, not an old man marrying a young woman. Did you attack Tony Randall for his wife who was in her 20s? I didn't. They seemed happy together. Then there is Art Bell who is 60 who married a woman in her 20s. Do you condemn him? Unatural sex acts are fine with you but heterosexual sex in marriage you condemn because of age differences? That's amazing to me.

Hold on there just a minute, I do not condone homosexuality; I don't commit homosexual acts; I think those are gross too. BUT, I don't obsess on homosexuality any more than I obsess on the old guys, young chicks thing either. Both bring rather unpleasant images to mind. I only mentioned that because of the bigoted anti-black statements while producing a child in secret of mixed race; the hypocrisy was my point but you obviously didn't get it. However, I think I was thinking of Strom Thurmond and got him confused with Jesse Helms; did I?

I point it out because the republicans are suppose to be the party of family values and christian morals; they point the finger at homosexuals and abortion (which the bible doesn't even forbid) but do any darned thing they please in their own lives. Helms did make the following bigoted quote:

I've been portrayed as a caveman by some. That's not true. I'm a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners or niggers.

-- Jesse Helms, North Carolina Progressive, February 6, 1985, quoted from the Democratic Alliance,

Didn't Randall Terry abandon his wife of 20 years for that second wife? He's another one that like to tell others to "do as I say not as I do". Randall Terry is not someone I'd want as my representative but we've been getting solicitations to contribute to his political campaign for congress (I think) down in Florida.

Randall Terry quotes:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

--Randall Terry, The News Sentinel, (Ft. Wayne, IN.), 8/16/93

"America is under the judgment of God. And if we are ever going to rebuild this country, it must be under God's law. Our goal must be simple: We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No apologies."

--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue, address to "Cities of Refuge" campaign, Willoughby Hills, OH, July, 1993

"What this is coming down to is who runs the country. It's us against them. It's the good guys versus the bad guys. It's the God-fearing people against the pagans, and some of the pagans are going to church."

--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue, speech in Jackson, Miss., 4/92,

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."

--Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, speaking of doctors who perform abortions, in an address to the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance, 8/08/95

Sorry Randall, you won't be getting any cash from me. Find somebody else to beg it off of.

Oh you said Tony Randall and Art Bell. Are they always acting "more moral" in public while doing different in private too?

[anti-hillbilly]

I don't think old guys marrying young women should be against the law or be punished anymore than homosexuality, fornication, adultery, smoking or a whole host of other things. People should be free to do what they want as long as it's consensual and not endangering someone else's life even if I personally find it to be gross and disgusting. That's why it's called a free country......for now.

I don't think Robert Byrd should have made that comment; that's just nasty.

You type so much I can barely keep up. Let's talk about this one:

The embryonic stem-cell research issue is nothing but a political smoke screen on the left. There is no law against it. The only prohibition is regarding federal funding of a practice many, including myself oppose. Any private research place can do it, and if people spent all the money they used on ads to condemn Bush for opposing it on research, how much further along would they be? This issue is pure leftist propaganda. In addition, if the soul doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? You can give no absolute answer to this question. Also, God himself said he knew Jeremiah by name before he was formed in the womb and it is obvious John the Baptist was a human being as he leaped within his mother's womb. You can believe what you will, but don't really know when the soul begins.

It is NOT a smokescreen it's about people's health and possibly finding cures for diseases like juvenile diabetes and parkinson's disease and 72% of the population approves of federally funding it. There is no law against it but research is expensive and lengthy and federal tax dollars should be used to further this research. It is not leftist propanda and when you say that you are are affecting the very lives of real people out here; millions of them are children. I don't know when the soul begins but according to the bible which you say is innerrent it begins when someone breathes air in; I personally think it starts with the quickening but I don't know that for sure. I will say I'm reasonably convinced it does not occur at conception; that's just stupid since most fertilized eggs don't "take" anyway. I answered the Jeremiah thing and John the Baptist was a little further along in the pregnancy when he leap in his mother's womb; that's womb... not petrie dish, you can't have a pregnancy with a petrie dish. So Butero, if they ever find some cures from embryonic stem-cell research and you or one of your children needs it; would you get it? Or refuse it because it was discovered from the use of discarded embryos?

Okay let's see...

I know of nobody but myself pushing a theocracy. I know Rush Limbaugh is not. He isn't even a Christian by my definition of the word. What you would call a theocracy was the norm until people at places like the ACLU got involved in things. We had prayer in school when I started there and it had been going on probably since the beginning of public education. We had 10 commandments plaques in court houses and manger scenes in parks since the beginning, till some good for nothing groups like People For The American Way got involved. It is actually the leftists changing things, not the religious right.

Lots of people are; you're just willing to admit it and say the words. You can still pray in school. You can pray anywhere, Nobody can stop you from praying and to be quite honest, if you're doing it right, nobody should even be able to tell that you are praying even if you do it without ceasing. Forced and in-your-face public prayer flys in the face of what Jesus said to do which is keep it private so you don't look like a hypocrit or look like you're trying to get 'fake pious attention'. The 10 commandments aren't even displayed inside or outside churches so why put them in judical buildings, violating the 1st amendment? That one is pure politics especially since only 2 and sometimes 3 are actually against the law. The churches in my town have better visual access from the road than the courthouse but not a single one, no not one, displays the 10 commandments on a sign or monument. They have the freedom to do so but I've never seen it done. Chances are only the 7 day adventist would if approached.... for obvious reasons. The religious right isn't being persecuted here; they have plenty of venues for getting their ideas out there to the public and "under God" and the 10 commandments are pure militant politics at it's worst; it's their way of "pushing the envelope"...."pushing a theocracy"....what a shame.

God destroyed nations because of this sin. I have no reason to doubt he will do so to America if we allow such wickedness as homosexual marriage. This of course is coming from a fundamentalist.

Homosexuality has always existed and always will; it's not going away. And yet, countries fail and countries rise, and the world goes on.

BUTERO's REPLY:

This will always be a top priority with me. I have been involved in the pro-life movement since I was a teenager. I have attended the March for Life in Washington D.C. and protested outside abortion mills. To me, abortionists are assasins for hire killing defensless human beings. They are no better than the Natzi prison camp butchers.

I used to support National Right to Life with my donations but stopped when they came out against the day after pill and against stem-cell research. As far as abortion and the bible goes you as a fundamentalist should know that out of 613 commandments in the old testament not a single one forbids this practice. That's just the way it is; like it or not. Plus there are many scriptures that indicate the unborn are killed at God's direction which I don't understand how you can "accept" as God's doing yet oppose so vehemetly today. It leads me to believe that you too are affected more by cultural norms and issues than you're willing to admit; that perhaps deep down you do not believe every jot and tittle is "divine" either.

There's a difference between defensive wars and wars of aggression. I'm not a pacifist but I think most wars can be avoided thru proper diplomacy or just minding your own business.

Gotta wrap it up now. I didn't get much done today because of typing here so I don't know if I'll be around much the next few days.

You are right about us canceling out each other's votes though. But I'm hoping more people will start to "see the light and move left".

[anti-hillbilly]

What I don't understand is what took you so long to realize you were a Democrat based on your views? You basically were left-leaning all along. As far as others following your lead to the left, the problem you face is that most Republicans actually are conservative. As such, you can bring out your list of things you support and say that is why they should vote Democrat, and they will just realize they are Republican by conviction. If I had your views, I would be a Democrat as well, but I don't.

NO I was not left-leaning all along; why is it so hard for those on the right to realize that people change their minds? Why is a right-winger becoming liberal so threatening to some people that they have to form some sort of denial in order to accept that it does indeed happen?

I thought I'd explained why my worldview changed (post #23). Let me try again with fewer words. If I had to put it in one word that word would be "information". The more information I got the further left I started to move. I wasn't always left-leaning at all. You see Butero, already you can't separate your religious beliefs from the republican party; they're one and the same to you....and it is that way these days. The GOP and the evangelical church are pretty much one and the same anymore. Moving along, people do sometimes change their minds about things thru information, life experience, observation. The more I read about conservatism in history the less I admired it too. It was always the conservatives that fought against social change like freeing the slaves, giving women the right to vote, desegregation, decent worker's rights. Historically it is usually liberals that do the "great things" that we remember with conservatives fighting them tooth and nail all the way. Abe Lincoln was a republican but freeing the slaves was a liberal action. The parties have flipped somewhat over the years in regards to who is conservative and who is liberal.

The republican party wasn't always an evangelical church either; people need to remember that too. And some issues like stem-cell research and the day-after pill have only been around 7 or 8 yrs. I used to be appalled at the idea of gay marriage then I realized it really didn't affect me and while it's not my choice everybody doesn't share my beliefs. Keeping religion separate from politics here.... on a religious level I see no difference between the divorcee that remarries and sits in the church pew with their new spouse and the two gay guys that sit there together; but double standards prevail in most churches. I prefer not to pass judgement on either but I will point out the double standards and the hypocrisy when I see it; that bugs me.

It sounds like you just want everyone on the left to sit down and shut up Butero; you say not to make waves about the "under God" phrase in the pledge and now you say the democrats shouldn't have spent money to speak out against the President on the stem-cell issue donating the money for the research instead. But you totally sidestep the fact that even churches do not display the 10 commandments on their own property while spending millions of 501c3 dollars to try and force them into judicial buildings. You also didn't tell me whether or not you would turn down a cure for yourself or your child if it came from discarded embryos. How do you feel about invitro fertilization in general?

You know, it takes lots of money to do research; a lot more I'm sure than what's been spent on ads. I can barely remember them anyway so there couldn't have been too many. The President and the right is flat out wrong with their position on embryonic stem-cell research. But fear not Butero, if the Senate approves the stem-cell package the President, according to Karl Rove, will use his first veto on it; even though this new bill makes it clear that only those left-over embryos that are donated will be used...so nobody is being forced to do anything against their conscience. That veto ought to make you happy but it'll leave millions of kids and their parents and other desperately sick people angry and disheartened and I want you to think about that when it happens. Look around you, you live in a world of science fiction. Dreams do come true sometimes but you have to try.

I'm glad we can at least agree on Robert Byrd's comments; what'd you think about Randall Terry's comments. There are SO many hateful quotes I could give you from seemingly "good Godly people" but I need to get back to bed. Plus I'm sure you really don't want to see them anyway.

Edited July 13, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

Butero you are so wrong buddy but we are starting to circle and repeat here.

If you want revisionist history here's the guy to check out:

David Barton [link]

Barton's excuses for making false quotations

[link]

Baptist Joint Committee Critizes Barton

I'm well aware that in the past the democratic southern states were extremely bigoted. That's old news and I did mention how the parties have "flipped" somewhat in my post. I think it's safe to say that the democratic party is pretty inclusive these days; much more so than the republican party.

My view is that if you cannot trust one book, you can't trust any, and I believe they are all from God.

Who came up with that idea? I've heard that one "put out there" quite frequently too obviously to intimidate everybody into at least "saying" they believe every last word or else be labeled "not a true Christian". Well, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it but once again you're wrong.

They have been written by lying liberal professors and slant everything to their viewpoint. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of today's history books. While I am not promoting the John Birch Society, they have some early history books available that were written before the liberal re-writes began.

Well that's the spin and I did used to believe that one; until I started verifying and refreshing my memory on what the founding fathers did have to say. The John Birch Society? They wouldn't be biased now would they Butero [link]

You're a victim of false propaganda my friend; just like I was. Time to rub those grey cells together and start thinking critically.

[anti-hillbilly]

Actually one of the things I prefer about the democratic party so far is that they do allow more dissention among the ranks. The republicans keep driving home that they're unified on the issues and if you check their voting records you'll find that they usually all vote the same way on almost everything. That might help them win elections but if every republican from Maine to Southern California is gonna vote the way a committee or a handful of people at the top of the GOP tells them too then why even have a representative at all.

Part of the reason the democrats keep losing is because they can't agree on a set of "talking points". Even those on the right keep pointing this out in an accusatory tone. As far as the pro-choice, pro-life issue is concerned you can pretty much say the same thing about the republican party. Only a few pro-choicers like John McCain are able to survive and get reelected holding a pro-choice view.

Here we are talking about the abortion issue again and my guess is that it'll be the primary issue 20 years from now; just as it has been for the past 25 years or so.

There are other important issues to discuss and think about. This one has been a distraction long enough.

Those who do that are going by their own whit in guessing what is right and what is wrong. I believe it is you that is wrong on this and not me, but again, more going around in circles.

I think the only difference between you and me if we got right down to it is that I'll admit I don't believe all of it is "divine" and that I think some of it is definitely outdated and should not be followed today. You have to resort to elaborate excuses to convince yourself it means something different then what it says so you can disagree with the parts you disagree with and still say you believe it is innerrent. Then you try to tell other people "you just don't understand the bible". That's pretty much what the Catholic Priests used to tell the people as the "reason" they weren't allowed to read the bible for themselves. -- Your position on the abortion issue is a primary example of you contradicting what the bible either says outright or is silent on... I've already touched upon this. If I tell someone I think abortion is wrong I will explain it in relevent terms instead of trying to pretend I got my position out of the bible when I know for a fact that the bible is neither pro-life, pro-child, or pro-woman in the way we think of those things today.

So really we're not that different as far as the bible is concerned. Christianity has it's own "political correctness" these days and the dogma that everyone has to be a bible literalist and a bible innerrantist (sp?) has literally caused many Christians to lose their faith. That's just sad and totally unnecessary. Bible bullies are bad for the faith imo.

Edited July 13, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

Wow I could write a book in response to that but the other posters are gonna start to call you and I Peat and repeat or butt and rebutt or just those two buttheads that can't agree on anything lol.

I might send you a pm on one thing you wrote when I get a chance; don't want to rebutt that one publically.

Gotta run...or try to for now. This place is downright addictive and I'm not getting anything done again today. I've got to try.