RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs Some may argue that an amendment cannot be passed because it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses and ratification of three-fourths of the states. I hope that is not true because if it is, then the battle is lost. If we cannot pass an amendment, then our goose is cooked. I pray that it is not so. My guess is that it won't be approved by Congress. The danger in a drawn out, bitter campaign that ultimately loses is that it will absorb so much political and financial captial there won't be much left over to shape how (or if) same sex marriage is presented in the schools. A destructive to the winner goes the spoils mentality could rule the process. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Steve Farrell on the Marriage Amendment
Who is Steve Farrell and, if it's not obvious, why should I pay attention to what he writes? RBS -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Steve Farrell on the Marriage Amendment Many of you know that Steve Farrell and I are best friends. Best friends or not, we are somewhat divided over whether or not an amendment is the best way to defend traditional marriages. While Steve is in favor of a Marriage Amendment, I am in favor or protecting traditional marriages by limiting the jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Anyway, in the interest of balance grin, here is Steve Farrell's latest, taken from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml: Marriage the Constitution: Time for an Amendment? Steve Farrell Wednesday, Mar. 03, 2004 Do we need to amend the Constitution to defend the age old tradition of marriage? Professor Richard Wilkins, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International), believes so. A little over a week ago, he asked me to join Defend Marriage as their press director. I accepted; and why not? Is there a more vital cause? The traditional family is the transmission belt of the values of a free society. You know this. I know this. Our enemies know this. Destroy the family, and a nation is ripe for revolution. Let's not mince words. The family is key; and there are forces that would like to take the traditional family out, forever. We can't let them. Despite the settled belief that this is true, however, Wilkins notes, many are confused as to why the federal constitution needs to be amended to save marriage. Isn't this an issue for the states? they ask. Won't this diminish the 'sacred nature' of the Constitution? others wonder. These are substantial concerns, he says. However, these very concerns rather than suggesting that we 'leave the Constitution alone' now impose upon the people a duty to provide a constitutional definition for marriage. Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution. Good points. Professor Wilkins suggests we consider the following: # Although it appears the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the states, this has not stopped federal courts from intruding where the Constitution gives them no license to tread. The United States Supreme Court has decreed that states can not 'demean' any adult consensual sexual relationship. Lawrence v. Texas. This new rule nowhere supported by the text of the Constitution nor by the history, traditions or practices of the American people will shortly require all states in the nation to recognize any and all consensual sexual relationships as 'marriage.' The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in mandating homosexual 'marriage,' merely applied the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court to its state constitution. The Mayor of San Francisco, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, similarly relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions. # Therefore, whatever the Constitution once provided, all rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a 'constitutional analysis' previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive 'constitutional analysis' adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will not be guided by either the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. . In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words 'marriage' and 'constitutional amendment' need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself. He makes good sense. He continues: 1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because America operates under a written Constitution that is as binding on the courts as on
RE: [ZION] Genetic Republicans
-Ron- REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN This is about as funny as the Hillary Clinton joke posted a few days ago, and in about as good taste. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs
RB Scott wrote: My guess is that it won't be approved by Congress. The danger in a drawn out, bitter campaign that ultimately loses is that it will absorb so much political and financial captial there won't be much left over to shape how (or if) same sex marriage is presented in the schools. A destructive to the winner goes the spoils mentality could rule the process. Just an additional argument for home schooling. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Steve Farrell on the Marriage Amendment
At 10:54 AM 3/6/2004, you wrote: Who is Steve Farrell and, if it's not obvious, why should I pay attention to what he writes? RBS Steve Farrell is a bloke who lives in Henderson Nevada (soon to be moving to Preston Idaho however), who is an independent journalist who writes for both Meridian Magazine and Newsmax among others. Seems as if he has also joined Defend Marriage as their Press Secretary. I suppose you don't *have* to pay *any* attention to what he writes. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Editor, The Constitutional Banner Newsletter http://www.thecbn.net // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Farrell, Hatch and Redelfs RB Scott wrote: My guess is that it won't be approved by Congress. The danger in a drawn out, bitter campaign that ultimately loses is that it will absorb so much political and financial captial there won't be much left over to shape how (or if) same sex marriage is presented in the schools. A destructive to the winner goes the spoils mentality could rule the process. Just an additional argument for home schooling. --JWR Or private schooling. But, that hardly addresses the real needs of most people. Honestly, I think the forthcoming campaign will draw attention and resources that would be better spent addressing related issues that will truly affect all of us. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Steve Farrell on the Marriage Amendment
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Steve Farrell on the Marriage Amendment At 10:54 AM 3/6/2004, you wrote: Who is Steve Farrell and, if it's not obvious, why should I pay attention to what he writes? RBS Steve Farrell is a bloke who lives in Henderson Nevada (soon to be moving to Preston Idaho however), who is an independent journalist who writes for both Meridian Magazine and Newsmax among others. Seems as if he has also joined Defend Marriage as their Press Secretary. I suppose you don't *have* to pay *any* attention to what he writes. I'm familiar with Meridian, but not Newsmax. Is it another front for far-right Mormon opinions? Sounds like he's ceased to be a journalist, at least for the time being (assuming that he ever was one). RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] An Answer to the World - Chapter 3
This will be the chapter I think I will need the most help with. I really would appreciate hearing feedback from you all. I was a kid when all of this happened. I've since seen a lot of movies on the subject and done some reading, but I could really use feedback from people who were actually there experiencing it. - - - - - 3. The Vietnam War, the Hippie Countercultural Movement and the Mass Challenging of Taboos I found the following poem when I did a search on Yahoo for the keywords Hippie and Taboo. Flowers by Mick Davis Forth we came in innocent youth With butterfly wings unfurled We spoke of peace We lived in love Bestowing it over the world Over shattered ruins of joy and truth Our beautiful flowers appeared We cast off war We threw aside hate And all of mankind we revered We opened our eyes We opened our minds We offered to open theirs too We took joy in living And honestly giving And freeing our souls of taboo Come join us in love! Come with us in joy! Unto the whole world we'd exclaim Our music rang forth As our rainbow sublime Illumined idealism's flame Some heard us not Some didn't care Some sneered and called us insane We handed them flowers We offered them peace They rewarded our efforts with pain But still to this day Although we now know This world is not ready for love We circle together Yes we'll work forever To manifest joy from above We know we are strong We'll still sing our song Should Babylon crumble and fall With strength of Spirit We never will quit Until we've enlightened them all So come take my hand Become part of the band And sing that our love will not die Sing loud and sing long Our euphoric love song For love is the ultimate high And thus joined as one we can rise to the sun Knowing at last we are free Above pain and strife Beyond this last life Eternal in bliss we shall be Mick Davis I found the following article when I did a search on Yahoo for the keywords Hippie and Counterculture. It was written by a homeless man named Ace Backwords. The entire article can be found at: http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/backwards/ace05.html Counterculture Casualties I haven't driven a car in 25 years. I haven't been to a doctor or a dentist in twenty years. I haven't had a bank account in fifteen years. I haven't watched a TV show in ten years. I haven't lived in anything that would remotely be considered a home in six years. (Which reminds me of the old street person joke: What does the street person do when he gets sick? He dies. Ha. Ha.) (snip) In a radio interview, cartoonist R. Crumb talked about coming to the Haight-Ashbury in '67 right before the so called Summer of Love. He mentioned what a beautiful city San Francisco was then: the streets were clean and safe, the people were friendly, housing was cheap and plentiful, living was easy, etc. And he mentioned an idea that was very much in vogue then amongst the countercultural set: How much more wonderful the city (and the world) would be when the Age of Aquarius set in and all the old farts died off and all the groovy hippies took over. Well, I'm here to tell you, all the old farts did in fact die off, and all the hippies (including me) did in fact come tramping through the city. And it was hardly improved by our presence. But here's the funny part. These '60s icons seem to think it's still 1967 and that they should be judged on all the groovy, idealistic things they intended to do, as opposed to the actual effect they've had. I think it's getting a little late in the game for that. In the '50s, Oakland was averaging about twelve murders a year. After the '60s it started averaging about 150 murders a year. What would we have done without all the love the hippies invented in the '60s? I think we all could benefit from an honest appraisal of what actually went down in the '60s. Lord knows we still haven't sorted it out. Lord knows this society is schizo in its attempts to assimilate the counterculture into the mainstream. (Snip) My opinion? LSD is garbage, Jerry Garcia was an idiot, and the '60s was b***s***. The '60s was basically a dead-end we went staggering down. The '60s impacted on the modern street scene in several devastating ways: 1. Drugs (need I say more?) 2. The sloppy sexual unions that came out of the so-called sexual liberation movements - and the shattered family structures and the generation of orphans (especially in the black community) that resulted from that. 3. The romanticized notion of being
RE: [ZION] Martha Stewart Guilty
-Original Message- From: Stephen Beecroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 3:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Martha Stewart Guilty -JWR- Martha Stewart is guilty on all counts. On all remaining counts, perhaps. Several (the most serious, I think) were dismissed a week or two ago. I think it's a pity. If she's guilty, then she needs to pay the penalty, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence. I think it was part witch-hunt to put the successful woman down, part cautionary tale to other Rich Famous People that We Will Come After You Too. They're having a tough time with the really big crooks who cost people jobs and fortunes. So they went after foolish one, who though she cost no one anything, was very visible. Again, we see the high cost of fame. Sounds like a year in the slammer deal at most. Perhaps a suspended sentence. I think she'll end-up in Danbury, which at least is near her home in Westport, Ct. and is comparatively relaxed. Ron // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Martha Stewart Guilty
Who is Martha Stewart? Is she rich and famous? I thought she peddled linens for Sears, or something like that. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Martha Stewart Guilty
She does peddle linens and things. More precisely she lends her name to a brand. In addition, she owns a magazine, delevision show. She's the maven of home decor, fashion and entertaining -- a self-made woman from a very ordinary blue collar New Jersey family. -Original Message- From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Martha Stewart Guilty Who is Martha Stewart? Is she rich and famous? I thought she peddled linens for Sears, or something like that. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Trial by Media
What cracks me up, and would make me laugh if it weren't so pathetic, is the way people suppose they know whether someone is guilty or innocent because of the media coverage of a high profile trial. Consider the Martha Stewart trial, for instance. She was found guilty of all four counts given to the jury. The jury saw all the evidence in court and unanimously found her guilty even though each juror had passed the veto of the defense during jury selection. Yet a CNN poll on the website showed that only about 60 percent of the website visitors thought she should have been convicted. Another 40 percent thought she should have been acquitted. On what basis? They weren't on the jury. They didn't see the evidence or hear the witnesses. All they have to go on is media coverage. What is the point of having a trial if guilt or innocence can be determined without one, without hearing the evidence or both sides of the story? The mob mentality, driven by the media, would be laughable if it weren't so sad. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Genetic Republicans
I have an amazing tolerance for perversity, which perhaps explains why I abide your insufferable sanctimony with grin and a groan. My friends, I've had enough of taking (and witnessing) abuse in what is supposed to be a friendly forum. If I were more mature, I would follow the example of Tom, Jim, Johnna, and a few others, and ignore it, seeking instead to help those who promulgate such hatefulness. But I'm not, so there you are. Sincere best wishes to the many here whom I consider friends. See you around. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Trial by Media
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Trial by Media What cracks me up, and would make me laugh if it weren't so pathetic, is the way people suppose they know whether someone is guilty or innocent because of the media coverage of a high profile trial. Consider the Martha Stewart trial, for instance. She was found guilty of all four counts given to the jury. The jury saw all the evidence in court and unanimously found her guilty even though each juror had passed the veto of the defense during jury selection. Yet a CNN poll on the website showed that only about 60 percent of the website visitors thought she should have been convicted. Another 40 percent thought she should have been acquitted. On what basis? They weren't on the jury. They didn't see the evidence or hear the witnesses. All they have to go on is media coverage. What is the point of having a trial if guilt or innocence can be determined without one, without hearing the evidence or both sides of the story? The mob mentality, driven by the media, would be laughable if it weren't so sad. You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? Ron // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Trial by Media
RB Scott wrote: You mean, sort of like the OJ trial? Ron Which trial? Tom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
