text:
Love thy neighbour, if he/she is straight.
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Love thy neighbour, if he/she is straight.
You seem to quote quite selectively there....how about Romans 1:21-32? If you make these quotes because you believe in the God of the Bible, then kindly note He (God) did set the ever abiding precedent when he first created man- Adam in the garden of Eden and ...from his rib formed eve his wife......and in Christ's reference to marriage in one of the gospels, He did say......''and man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife'' and the two shall be one........''
It could also be that your quotes are for argument's sake and if so, I will rest my case because the God of the Bible and His commandments is believed by Faith beyond where reason wont touch...... J.K
That's right, religion and reason aren't bedfellows either!
People who believe that Eve was made out of one of Adam´s ribbon, seem to ommit the fact, that most men have the same number of ribbons as do women. Those who believe litterally everything in the Bible, are not believers. They are supersticious. They should not be allowed to be lawmakers, and no more be allowed the right to vote than people, who have served time in prison. Christian fundamentalists are fundamentally the same as muslim funtamentalists: A menace to society.
Be careful, that is getting a might Risqué [pardon my French].
For the record, I would point out that you are all ignoring the historical reality... the breadwinner and homemaker angle
Marriage was always about property... and 'property' meant a FARM... and a marriage consisted of a FARMER AND HIS WIFE managing a farm together... assuming reciprocating life roles... Marriage is all about GENDER ROLES
Come the Industrial Revolution, and the farmer and his wife morphed into a breadwinner and homemaker, each supporting the other and dependant on the other... the homemaker (wife usually) subordinated her own career to her husband's... which gave her a clear moral and properly legal right to the family farm
There is the moral basis for spousal benefits and survivor's pensions
A wife cannot have 'equality in the workforce' and retain her husband's benefits... That's double-dipping, as we say in Canada... A farmer's wife cannot be a farmer... If straight working couples can freeload off the system, gay couples can freeload off the system... That's a no-brainer
Bazillions in spousal benefits and survivors' pensions turn on the definition of marriage
The real issue is not whether to extend spousal benefits to gay couples, but how to cut them off to straight working couples
The nasty solution is to make a legal distinction between '1st rate' breadwinner and homemaker marriages and '2nd rate' companionative marriages... and only homemakers in 1st rate marriages are entitled to spousal benefits... and gay couples would only qualify as 2nd rate marriages... as a rule... and at a guess
The nice solution is a HOMEMAKER ALLOWANCE, conditional on the homemaker having no more than a part-time job... Proper homemaking is at least a part-time job in itself... and a homemaker (i.e receiving the allowance) would have a legal right to spousal benefits... and we can recognise the principle of the single-income marriage in that wise
Now what is it you lot were saying about gay marriage?
Your neat scheme ignores the fact that in even modern two bread winner families, one or both of the spouses usually limit their career to help manage the household. Under those circumstances it is reasonable for the sacrificing spouse to expect compensation after the other spouse calls for a divorce. The sacrifice is also made with the expectation that the other persons survival benefits will be there after their spouse dies.
With a little imagination, DDApe, a homemaker allowance would cover the points you raise
Most divorces are initiated by the lower-paid wife/ spouse... I don't know whether your personal history is different
And most women are only in the workforce out of financial necessity... They would much rather be homemakers... So relieve them of the necessity, with an allowance... It's purely voluntary!
Women live longer than men, and marry older men with greater incomes... So allowing working spouses to retain their partner's survival benefits is... DISCRIMINATORY... FRAUD... DOUBLE-DIPPING... UNAFFORDABLE... a BRIBE... and plain WRONG
It should never have been allowed for straight working couples, and should not be extended to gay couples
And the way out of the mess is to define marriage as a breadwinner & homemaker... Then only a homemaker spouse would be entitled to spousal benefits... Only rarely do gay couples wish to commit to public marriage... and freakily rarely do they wish to commit to the B&H relationship... A homemaker allowance should neatly resolve that issue
There is a job shortage, DDApe... The last thing we want is to offer illicit inducements to get women into the workforce
1) I really doubt that you could estimate the dollar amount of sacrifice of a particular person in a marriage.
2) I know women who prefer work to staying at home, your statement sounds like an over generalization.
3)Fraud is when someone deceives someone else, usually for profit. Both the government and the participants in social security are told up front that their contributions will eventually generate a benefit, some of which can be passed down tot their survivors, thus no fraud is involved in survival benefits.
4) The high unemployment rate is not a reason to keep women out of the work force. It would be better for employers everywhere if the best men and women, both, entered the work force.
So some women would rather work... Many more women would rather be homemakers... Don't they count?
And there's no deception in a Ponzi scheme, DDApe, but it is still fraud... Honest housewives are defrauded when working wives are allowed to keep their husbands' pensions
And a homemaker allowance isn't payment for a housewife's contribution, but a little ThankYou... But it implies recognition of the homemaker role and the single-income household... which gay marriage flouts, as presently proposed
With high unemployment and a job shortage, we should be looking at one good job per household i.e going to the 'breadwinner'... which assumes a 'homemaker'
Pretty neat, eh?
Women have always been in the workforce. In fact they were the majority in the "oldest profession" according to many sources. I disagree with that. The oldest profession is the one including priests, pastors, witch doctors, fortune tellers, televangelists and other reprobates.
To all believers:
Your reasoning leaves me with the obvious question, so who created gays and don't tell us it is acquired.
Without getting into heavy Genetics or theology, the general belief is that a bunch of things God never wanted have been appearing in the world, ever since the fall from Eden. As creation was meant to be subdued by Mankind, our disobedience affects the rest of it. Without getting into this specific argument, that's the general answer for "If God created this it must be good"
Who says there is a God?
The genetics are simple, too much oestrogen/testosterone at a particular time of gestation.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways, HE, whoever that should be, gave us allegedly Free Will????? Maybe that is the reason why we make such a mess of almost everything?
You sure are a true believer.
"It is only a matter of time when Americans get totally liberated from their hang-ups, and Bigamy rights, Oedipus rights and zoophilia rights will be equally accepted as Gay rights and human rights." People will be free to marry their pet dog or pussy cat.
Like I said before: There is no fundamental difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist muslims. Both are relics from medieval times. Jesus Christ was the incarnation of love. Noone is as fundmentally distant from the teachings of Jesus and the example he made by his way of life, as the selfrighteous fundamentalist Christians, evangelicals and catholics alike. Their main preoccupation is judgeing their neighbour. Allah made us all, gay or straight! He must have a reason to make some people gay, since people are definitely born like that. It is not a choice we make. To liken gay people with evil, like one Christian fundamentalist does in one of the comments here, tells me a lot about him.
Uh, no. Marriage will always be between humans, and putting up that BS strawman about marrying barnyard animals and inanimate objects is just that - BS.
The salient point is consent. Animals and inanimate objects can't consent. Children, in law, are not free to (refuse to) consent. Therefore marriage is limited by law to consenting adults. Limits beyond that, whether based on sexual oridentation, race, class, or anything else are simply attempts to cloak bigotry in legal clothing.
A Ventriloquist can overcome that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in being gay, just as there is good in loving more than one person and to have more than one husband or more than one wife. We don't need Jesus to tell us how to love nor God to make us gay or otherwise.
It is good to love more than one person, you are right about that. Like Jesus said: You should love your neighbour more than yourself. As for polygamy, opinions can differ. I´m against it because I don´t think that a man married to multiple women can treat all of them equally. Thus in my opinion, the prophet Mohammed did not endorse polygamy and all muslims who have multiple wifes are not abiding to the teachings of Mohammed. The same does apply to multiple husbands for one woman. If there is a God, He made some people gay and some people straight. People are not gay by choice.
Late to the party, but loving the "turtles, all the way down" amount.
Personally, I don't understand why anyone cares what consenting adults do with other consenting adults. None of their damn business.
What boggles my mind is that the people most concerned with the love life of gay people simultaneously, sanctimoniously, and self-righteously preach the Gospel of Freedom and Liberty.
Irony deficiency much? (I think there's an ointment for that...)
Isn't that the whole point of a working democracy? We're all responsible for what the Government does? No one's trying to stop gay men having sex, but if someone believes it's harmful, and one's government decides to condone it, it's their duty to try to stop it. Otherwise, you could use the same argument to legalise suicide pacts, or even fraud (who's the government to tell us we shouldn't give money to con men if we so wish?)
Hey Heimdall or TE,
what the heck did the turtle line mean. This is not an expression used in american english. Is this a britishism?
Was it a part of a working democracy to allow slavery, keep women from voting, and uphold segregation in schools? Just because the majority votes for it doesn't mean it's right.
Damn Dirty Ape: American here. The turtle thing refers to creation myth (not sure from which culture) in which the earth is held up on the back of a giant turtle -- which begs the question, "well what's underneath that turtle...and underneath that one..etc.?" The expression wad made famous by a Stephen Hawking anecdote.
Thanks Heathen123, I have seen those turtles in architecture but thought it had something to do with time/eternity.
It's a reference to a line from an argument about cosmology.
As I heard it, a scientist was giving a public lecture (in late 1800s, as I heard it), and at the end a lady came up to him and explained that, on the contrary the world was resting on the back of a giant turtle.
Rather than just brush her off, he tried to gently work her thru the illogic of her position: "And what does that turtle rest on?" "The back of a larger turtle." "And that larger turtle?" "It's no use, professor. It's turtles all the way down!"
You talk about "Nature of God's Design" as if it were written only in the bible. As christians believe God created the world, His design is found in the order of nature. In nature we can see that children are born from a male and a female, never from two males, or two females. So nature dictates that a family is born out of a woman and a man. Marriage is simply a formal institution of a natural family.
insert here then the issue of childless couples or one where one or both parties are sterile.
marriage is also about love and lifetime devotion.
otherwise change the law so that every child is given a paternity test on birth. the father and the mother are then declared married to eachother until the child reaches majority, at which point the marriage ends.
A couples intention is to create a family is enough, whether or not it happens is out of our control. So I do not believe that infertile couples, or childless couples have invalid marriages. However as far as the law is concerned if everyone in the world were infertile there would be no need for marriage as a legal status. The interest the law has in marriage is that it wants to protect the upbringing of its future citizens. and that is best done in a stable environment. That is an environment with a male and a female who are different but complementary through their diversity in sex, and ideally their biological parents.
(marriage is also about love and lifetime devotion.)
I agree totally.
(otherwise change the law so that every child is given a paternity test on birth. the father and the mother are then declared married to eachother until the child reaches majority, at which point the marriage ends.)
Once children grow up and leave home, they still have a father and a mother.
Rearing is done. Once the child is independent the State has no interest. And same sex couples may include a child via adoption or other means.
And still you have yet to give a substantial reason for the *law* to deny same sex couples the same opportunity, stability, the societal affirmation of their bond, and all the legal rights that come with them.
Men and women marry to affirm their desire to devote themselves to each other without having children as well. The recognition of a lifetime bond which is also an aspect of our species is also core to part of being human.
Affirming gay marriage does nothing to thwart *anything* of what is done between hetero individuals will do or not in their own lives.
The Constitution speakes of Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. Not Breeding policy.
A couples intention is to create a family is enough, whether or not it happens is out of our control.
Well, either a gay couple's intention to create a family is enough, or couples that know that they cannot have children (hysterectomy comes to mind, in addition to advanced age, etc.) should not be allowed to marry. Pick one or the other. Or find a different rationale.
(Men and women marry to affirm their desire to devote themselves to each other without having children as well. The recognition of a lifetime bond which is also an aspect of our species is also core to part of being human.)
I agree totally that part of being human is the desire to devote yourself to another. Taking children out of the equation, religion would have marriage for this reason alone because it deals with the deeper realities of life. However the state has not interest in your personal relationships. For example we do not write to the state to declare that I have a new best friend. The state does not delve, and should not delve into this part of our personal life. The state only cares about marriage because it wants to protect the relationship that raises its future citizens.
The argument is really about how children are best raised. I believe that two homosexual men could be wonderful fathers, but can never be a mother and a father, two homosexual women could be wonderful mothers, but never a mother and a father. Women and men are different, their differences are complementary, and make for a good environment for children to grow.
Many will then argue that they know a heterosexual couple who is abusive and a homosexual couple who are wonderful. This may be the case that an individual homosexual couple could do a better job than an abusive heterosexual couple. So if there were only one child in the world, and only these two couples, the homosexual couple would be better to raise the child. But this is an exceptional example. There is no shortage of good heterosexual couples who want to adopt. And the fact is that our legal system is based on the norm, not exceptions.
Marriage as far as the state is concerned would not be needed if everyone were infertile and there were no children. As far as only allowing fertile couples who intend to have children to marry, this would be impractical, and there is always the option to adopt. So marriage between one man and one woman is a balanced nest, with the potential to raise children.
The legal system is also based on equal protection and the rights of all the life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Regardless, if marriage or fully vested civil unions increase the financial and social stability in the population regardless of orientation, then you can argue the population as a whole has an interest in offering marriage or civil unions as broadly as possible and ALSO that it is antithetical to deny such opportunities to same sex couples.
"A couples intention is to create a family is enough, whether or not it happens is out of our control. So I do not believe that infertile couples, or childless couples have invalid marriages."
People who believe the variations of this fit the definition of "fertility cult." Some history books say the Fertility Cult of Magna Mater disappeared or was destroyed in the late classical period, other [Protestant?] histories say it merged with Roman Catholicism, but it is interesting to know that currently Fundamentalist "Christians" are true fertility cult believers.
At the end of the day, marriage in the modern Western societies is a legal, not a religious or political institution. Therefore same-sex marriage should be a legal issue, not a religious or a political one. And if all people are equal, then all adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want, regardless of their sexuality, race, religion, etc.
Let us be better friends to truth than to opinion or political correctness. There is a fundamental difference between homosexual and heterosexual relations -- the former cannot result in pregnancy, while the latter can. Some, though clearly not the author of this article, would look to the first chapter of Genesis for the Biblical sanction of marriage, that is, of heterosexual marriage. Marriage, even in its most bizarre and offensive Biblical forms (concubines, slaves, and brother's widows, oh my!) has always been about procreation. Homosexuality is viewed favorably now as never before (to the extent that marriage itself is being redefined as a romantic/emotional/sexual relationship, rather than a procreative relationship) simply because we have developed contraception to the point where it is relatively easy to have heterosexual intercourse with almost no risk of pregnancy. (Indeed, we have come to the point where we habitually but unconsciously speak of pregnancy almost as if it were a disease -- as I just have.) Now, certainly these advances have had some wonderful effects: ask any woman who would like to have a career, and the independence and dignity that it entails, without denying her sexuality. But the consequences are wide-ranging, and we are still not very far along the road, historically speaking. One need not be a puritan at heart to recognize the transformation that has occurred, and the sudden, concomitant elevation of sexuality (sexual activity, sexual identity) from a fact of life to a crucial and defining issue. I don't disapprove of homosexuality at all; I merely disapprove of those (whatever their orientation -- straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, whatever) who elevate sexuality itself to the level of identity: that is, to the extent that it defines them. Human beings are nothing special insofar as we are sexual beings: everything f***s.
It is worrying to see questions of sexuality take on an importance equivalent to that of, say, the real struggle for real civil rights which African-Americans undertook in the last century, demanding their equality before the law as it was memorably proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Yes, we must ask what the meaning of marriage is today, when we have conquered nature to the extent that we have brought control of the perpetual of our species under the power of our will and fancy. Nevertheless, it is absurd to argue that opposition or indeed reluctance towards the redefinition of marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, rather than a reproductive institution sanctioned by a community and its religious and civic institutions, should be dismissed as simply illogical. Perhaps opponents of gay marriage too often preach to the choir (of bigots? of believers?) in their arguments against it. But let us by no means think that its proponents have routinely put forward the best arguments, with a full account of the matter, in their own sermons.
Well phrased, but your key arguments are simply false. First a quibble - while I too dislike those who treat their sexual orientation as their personality, but for many homosexuals, that paradigm was put on them by others, by those who thought homosexuality so abhorrent that they should be condemned for it.
More importantly, marriage was redefined as a contract between two consenting adults long before it was granted to homosexual unions. I, as a straight man, can marry a woman who is barren, post-menopausal, unwanting of children or otherwise not likely to produce a child. If I have a vasectomy, I can still get married. This has been true for decades, centuries. Yes, the primary purpose of marriage is the production and raising of children - but it's not the only one, and hasn't been for a long, long time.
Regarding the quibble: I don't disagree, and I did not mean to condemn certain orientations or those who identify with them. If anything, I meant to condemn the wider culture which has elevated sex and sexuality to such a pinnacle. Forgive the melodrama, but decadence cometh before the fall.
I am unsure how long this "long, long time" has actually been. It seems to me that a real, widespread change could only have come after a practical change in the means of most people: that is, the widespread availability (and social acceptance) of (cheap) birth control. Of course people have been preventing birth since the beginning, and of course the romantic aspect of marriage began to develop long ago, but how prevalent do you think the total divorce of reproduction from marriage was "centuries" ago?
The acceptance and codification of homosexual unions is clearly the most visible manifestation of a shift that has been going on for some time, as we both agree. I simply meant to point to the bigger picture -- and, I suppose, the deeper picture. To speak of "redefining marriage" gives the impression that marriage is wholly conventional -- that society determines what it is totally independent of anything but its own will/consensus/majority opinion. But shouldn't it at least be recognized that there is a natural (biological or anatomical) basis for distinguishing heterosexual marriage from homosexual union/marriage? Shouldn't we stop to ask what this means? Or must we think of homosexual *marriage* specifically as a life-or-death, freedom-or-oppression question of "rights" comparable to those codified in the greatest documents to deal with such matters, or to those over which great battles were waged during the last century?
What is government doing getting involved in something religious? Despite a number of people believing otherwise, America was not founded as a Christian country. It was founded by people wanting religious freedom and that would include the freedom not to be forced to follow the tenets of someone's holy book. Marriage is a religious function and if yours and your same sex mate's religion permit marriage then who am I or the government to say no? Governments can expound on civil unions since that is a legal function but marriage goes beyond government's authority.
But, of course: a) government does sanction (and has always sanctioned) (heterosexual) marriage; because, b) marriage (not merely civil unions -- something with the full weight of religious institutions and the beliefs they seek to support) is useful to society.
The Constitution of the United States of America [I presume even you have heard of it] is the only source of law in the US*, argue back to Hammurabi if you like, the ratification of the Constitution puts paid to all such nonsensical historical arguments.
Don't argue Bible law either because in the US Constitution how much do Christianity, Moses, Jesus or the Ten Commandments get mentioned? Nada, nil, zip, none. Establishment of Christianity is just as prohibited as establishment of any other religion, and equality and freedom of religion means [thank God!!!] that Christians can not impose their dogmas on anyone.
Every argument against same sex unions is either frivolous or Bible based, and put forward by only the most fanatical Talibanlike Christian sects. To date they have lost every appeal to the US Constitution. They will keep trying, and we will have to keep thwarting them until they move to an unenlightened corner of the globe where they can live their lives undisturbed and without disturbing others.
*Don't quibble about states rights, either:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Note these last 3 lines. Bye bye NC Biblebigot laws on appeal.
Sir or madam, first: As you quoted, the Constitution, etc., is "the supreme law of the land," not "the only source of law in the US." If it were the only source of law, we would not be living in a federal republic built up from the sovereignty of the people, of townships, of municipalities, of cities, and of states (something which impressed Tocqueville so long ago) -- we would be living in a top-down, center-out nation wherein the provinces are administered and ruled by the capital (e.g. France, both before and after the Revolution, which impressed Tocqueville in another sense of the word). This is the reason for the Tenth Amendment (which reserves all power not vested in the federal government to the states and the people). Please do not startle at its mention. Federalism is probably the reason why we have only had one civil war, and one constitution, in the time that some other advanced Western nations have had several of each. As it has been phrased by one great American city, Municipal Freedom Gives National Strength.
Second, I did not argue against same-sex unions. I pointed to an institution which government (in the US, state governments) has and does support, and for good reasons. I did not state an opinion as to whether homosexual civil unions would have any effect, negative or positive, or none at all. I did not state my opposition or support of homosexual civil unions or, for that matter, homosexual marriage.
Third, "establishment of religion" is a tricky phrase.
Fourth (and here, forgive me for 'getting personal'), by regarding every opinion which does not enlist in your own cause as that of an enemy, and by going so far as to compare said opinions to those of "fanatical Talibanlike Christian sects" (itself an offensive phrase), you have closed your own mind and worked to destroy the necessary foundation of conversation (and thus, some might argue, of free thought): civility.
I accept the criticism of becoming too heated, and that calling people names is hateful. I admit that the Opposition to equal rights in marriage of GLBT Americans by fundamentalist "Christians" is different from the Taliban because they do not appear to insist on the Biblical injunction to kill them, only to deprive them of equal civil rights.
Your point about the 10th amendment is valid only until it collides with the post Civil War amendments imposing the previous prohibition of federal violation of civil rights on to the states as well. The federal government has had to use its power in places like Little Rock to ensure compliance by states.
I admit to my mind being closed on these issues:
equality before the law of every one
separation of church and state
opposition to theocracy
fair and equitable laws
protection of the Constitution
enforcement of all rights guaranteed [because inherent] by the Bill of Rights
Be so kind as to tell me which of these I should be more flexible on [i.e. which I should be prepared to have taken away or weakened] or the support of which makes me extreme.
Finally, not being of a minority, my cause, in which I do demand every citizen to enlist, is protection of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by it. I have also, as a young man, sworn to preserve, protect and defend that document [by implication everything it stands for], and will not betray that oath.
If I was too harsh, yes I have allowed myself to become too worked up. But I see my country and the Constitution under attack by enemies foreign and domestic, and the greater attack is by those who are American.
Regarding your final comment: while I agree that America is strong enough to suffer its greatest attacks from within rather than from without (as has always been the case), in this context that comment seems to be a great exaggeration. The extremity of the external enemies which America faces is, well, extreme in comparison to the specific opposition to a change in traditional law regarding marriage which many religious and culturally conservative Americans advocate. Or, to put it another way, there are miles between the effort to destroy our nation, kill our citizens, and replace religious law on the one hand and, say, the preservation of the status quo (or what was until a decade ago the status quo) in state laws regarding marriage.
The greatest case which ought to be made for gay marriage is that it is a civil rights issue. I would be more easily convinced that civil unions are matter of equal protection under the law, but even this must be established. Many proponents of gay marriage seem perfectly content to assume that "equal marriage rights" are a civil rights issue, and that this must be clear to everyone, and that therefore any who raise questions or express doubts on the matter ought to be attacked as bigots. To do so is proving to be an extremely powerful rhetorical device, but we citizens must recognize that it shares more in common with the intolerance of religious dogma than with the rationality which is sometimes exhibited in deliberation.
I agree with you. I don't care what the religious extremists do as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on others.
1. They don't believe in evolution. If they want to teach Creationist Dogma to their kids they have a right to do so. However they wage a continuous war against science by trying to insert the religious mythology into public schools.
2. They don't believe in family planning, sex education [in some cases], prophylaxis, or birth control on religious grounds; and wage continuous war to force their views on everyone. They have a right to forswear these for themselves, but not to forbid them to others.
3. They oppose abortion which would not be unacceptable if they did not oppose exceptions for the health of the mother or in special circumstances such as under-age rape victims. They try to push the extreme views on everyone.
4. They insist that marriage must be restricted to categories of citizens approved by them, but not to others. They can offer no rational, scientific arguments, ONLY Bible ones, for this.
Call it a culture war, but these people are determined to destroy the secular republic established by the founding fathers in our clearly secular Constitution. They are enemies of the Constitutional order that I swore an oath to protect. If we are become like the Taliban within, why resist the Taliban without?
"No country falls to external force unless it first falls within."
The question of "gay marriage" aside, this blogger's strenuous mockery of Christianity leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is as shrill and dispiriting as any fundamentalist preacher threatening sinners with fir and brimstone. I read The Economist for intelligent commentary, not second-rate polemics. More Olympian reserve, less Dawkinsery, if you please, sirs.
Hi, can you please point to any incorrect or unfounded argument in the text?
I believe Christianity deserves to be mocked as any other ridiculous dogma, and more so if it provides ammunition for people arbitrarily willing to curb other people's rights. The Economist is doing a good job.
Anyone who subscribes to a belief on irrational grounds must be prepared to take criticism in their stride.
I hardly think so. The blogger isn't condemmning Ms Fitzgerald to hell or telling her she is less than a person.
People have the right to believe what they want, but that isn't the same as the right to not be mocked or criticised. Clearly if this was in the print edition there would be an issue of tone, but this is a blog post.
A lot of Christians would disagree with M.S.'s view of the purpose of the Bible. He writes as though the Bible is a list of "do this in order to go to Heaven, don't do that or you'll go to hell" dictates based on question-begging assumptions. When one goes to the Bible as a reference book, as one would a dictionary, that sense is easy to pick up.
However, many, who read and believe what the rest of it says, disagree with that premise entirely. Not in a cherrypicking, "I like this part but not that part" way, but in the understanding of the point of the whole book. The Bible is a guide to Heaven, sure enough, but it functions as a history of human civilization, in a limited third person voice.
It shows many illustrations of the fallibility of mankind when left to his own devices, and the resulting need for God's assistance. It builds in philosophical sophistication as civilization develops. For example: there is no mention of the Earth being round, or of it going around the Sun, because there is simply no way the ancients could have understood those concepts. Not a lie, just something that was not revealed because it was too advanced - we wouldn't teach a third-grader about calculus yet, either.
As the "story" progresses, people come to have a better-and-better understanding of God, and the relationship between them. Ultimately, the world is ready for God to come and present the gift of salvation; not a promise of it someday, but a tangible, visible intervention that anyone afterward can receive, by following God's guidance. The whole story is about man being unable to save himself, and needing God to do the work. Each part of history has different levels of micromanagement, but the ultimate gift is really rather simple - believe and you will be saved, and God restricts Himself to honoring that faith for eternity, not continuing to judge on personal merits.
Just as a child must be managed with hard rules at first, then gradually allowed to understand more complex rules, and finally given the freedom to be a member of society, so human civilization is guided through the story of the Bible.
There are obviously many who still believe salvation can be taken away, if you try hard enough to "un-earn" it, but there are many more who believe that salvation is about what God does, not what we do. The guidelines are now about how to conduct your life with more or less hardship. It isn't that one won't sin, but that the consequences of sin have changed - you may make your life a living hell, but it hasn't any bearing on your afterlife. It's a fair solution that should prevent us judging each other - which the Bible says many times in many ways - and the morality based on it should be held for those who share their faith, not for the government. That is a big part of the meaning of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
It is a self-contained philosophy, so rejection of its foundation (existence of God, validity of the Bible, etc) will naturally lead to rejection of any premise within. And that is your right. And unfortunately, there are many, perhaps a majority of adherents, who misrepresent all or part of it. But just as we shouldn't hate a group because of a few bad apples, it's unfair to judge a faith for the people who use it incorrectly.
Thank you very much for your reply, I really appreciate your attempt to explain your point of view to me. It's refreshing that people are becoming more open-minded about the interpretation of the Bible and think twice before following any of its literal precepts.
However, I still cannot accept most of your arguments.
First, why has God given us a book which is so easy to misunderstand and use as an argument to justify the most heinous acts? Surely there must have been a simpler and safer way of conveying His message?
Second, I don't find the idea of the Earth being round and revolving around the Sun complicated at all. It's taught to 4-year-old-children nowadays. It's certainly less complicated than a theory that contends that we are all guilty of an original sin passed from one generation to another, but that luckily enough God has forgiven us, although He couldn't simply forgive, He had to send His son and crucify him in order to do so... And even if I grant you all this, you still have to explain not only why God doesn't tell us the truth, but also why he actually tells us the lie about the Earth being flat and resting on pillars. Because He does so. And if it should be only a metaphor (metaphor for what, by the way?), how were the old folks supposed to tell it from a literal truth?
Third, mankind in the Bible was fallible without but also with God's assistance. I think we can agree that genocide is the pinnacle of all crimes - God orders it many a time throughout the book.
Fourth, as for "believe and you will be saved": in which kind of ethical system is credulity ever regarded as a virtue? I hope you'll at least grant me that there are good reasons to be suspicious about the veracity of the Bible. Why should then God, who has endowed us with reason to distinguish us from other animals, punish us for our scepticism about Him, while making scepticism in general so healthy and desirable in all other aspects of our life? What can His motives be for not giving us enough evidence of His existence?
Even if you don't interpret the Bible literally, you still have an awful amount of difficult questions to answer. Whereas if you suppose that the Bible was written by mere men without any supernatural supervision, everything I've mentioned (and so much more!) makes perfect sense. It must be really difficult to retain your faith in view of so overwhelming evidence.
Sounds like you are cherry picking.
The simplest way I can answer all those questions is to suggest that it's a matter of scope. So many try to take the Bible for a science book, when that goal is outside its scope, or at least tangential to it. At risk of sounding mysticist, the Bible is meant to be a spiritual guide, and concerns itself with matters of faith and the spiritual realm, not the little details of the mechanism of the world.
We allow children to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc., because they are basically harmless ideas that make some things in their world make sense and be enjoyable. Perhaps they can be teaching aids (be good so Santa will bring you something), while their minds develop. Mankind didn't stumble upon the heliocentric idea until pretty far down the road in development - but is it perfectly relevant to perceiving God, or to following His spiritual guidance?
I suggest that such scientific details are not relevant, because it's all supposed to be simple. When we were ready, we discovered the complex ideas of science - largely led by Christian thinkers who believed God was finally allowing us to discover the universe as it really is. In short, the point of the Bible is a simple guide to Heaven and to the properly lived life while one waits. Introduce too much gobbledegook, as many Christians and others do, or try to stretch it beyond its bounds, and you will run into problems, as we can all easily see. It's a matter of faith, and nothing more; all the other stuff is the source of the cognitive dissonance that trips everyone up.
If Christians are mocked it is because of the unChristian, bigoted behavior of fundamentalists, so put the blame where it belongs.
I believe that the verse quoted is from the "New International" version of The Bible.
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
I looked this, 1 Corinthians 6, up in the Authorised Bible (often called, the "King James version").
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
I am not a religious person and I read this only as a piece of literature. The New International is without poetry or artistry. The Authorised is a glory of English culture. It also does a much better job of conveying the meaning and the feeling of what is said. The Authorised was required reading on my university English literature course. No one would ever use the New International to teach literature.
Time to stop bothering with the newer, down-market translations. Far better work was completed in 1611.
I agree that the KJV is very beautiful writing, but I much prefer to use the NIV because I can understand it.
And that is a very good reason why "dififcult" works like the Authorised Bibble, Shakespeare and the like should be taught. People ought to be able to understand their own culture.
There is too much tendency for people today to say that things are "too hard to understand" so we must simplify. I disagree. Other than instructions, safety warnings and things that must be unequivocal, literature should challenge. And whatever happened to dictionaries? Nowadays everyone has all the rreferences needed on a computer.
Some works are so difficult that people can't spell "dififcult" and "Bibble".
I have no personal interest in this issue. It doesn't affect me. However, I am very much in favour of same-sex marriage because the very mention of it offends exactly that segment of society that should be offended at every opportunity.
I have no personal interest in this issue. It doesn't affect me. However, I am very much in favour of same-sex marriage because the very mention of it offends exactly that segment of society that should be offended at every opportunity.
Hey, Varq!
You beat me to it! I would add: Good reason to move if you see them in Heaven.
THAT was brilliant!
I'll be quoting you on that for some time.
Funny, they probably think the same about you and your segment of society.
I think the difference being we don't care as long as they (religious folk) mind their own business and don't tell us how to live, but they can't help but not mind their own business.
Thanks for the comment/reply! :)
A much better quote:
Exhorted on his deathbed at least to repudiate the devil, unbeliever Voltaire replied, "Is this a time to be making enemies?" I read it somewhere so it is itself a quote from the original writer.
"Heaven for climate, Hell for company".
Attributed to various people, especially Mark Twain.
Thanks, I had not heard that one either. Though I think it was Voltaire who said "Religion started when the first scoundrel met the first fool" (though that has also been attributed to Mark Twain).
Best Regards!
That's a good one. Actually, it is not that difficult to tell (1) a scoundrel and (2) a fool, from (3) a genuine person v. a fake.
(1) is always after some material gain in the bottom line [in the present world environment, that usually takes the form of straight $$]; (2) can't think for himself PLUS is in the end also after the same material gain whether known or unknown to himself, and therefore easily swayed or seduced by (1) who is, ironically, the real "devil" himself; (3) his words and his deeds are ONE - for example, if words say love, deeds say love; if words say hate, deeds say hate.
At least the last batch is honest.
People put a lot of stake on being "right". Few focus on being HONEST. I shun Heaven if the ticket for entrance is dishonesty. ALso, "Heaven" is looking like it is getting awfully crowded, with people everywhere all saying they were "right" even as a mere moment before they were all saying the others were "wrong".
Read history. Look up all the people who said, before they parted, they were guaranteed a place in Heaven. They are now all there. Join if you are brave.
Always nice to exchange ideas with you. It is an experience in symmetry, in mind and in deeds (in blogs, words are the deeds), in that it is bully-ism-free*.
*"Bully-ism" - a brainwashing technique using a unilaterally and a-priorily declared Higher Power to browbeat the unaccepting into submission. Punishment for non-compliance is hell after this life. Reward is hell in this life. By "hell in this life" I mean this and this only: Stripped of the right to think and to be as one chooses.
Ashbird, your descriptions of rogues etc reminded me of an old radio show from the BBC which I used to enjoy; The Goon Show (Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan and many others). It was a comedy, but the characters were exactly as you describe; I think the whole point was to make credible stereotypes of fools and scoundrels, and they did a great job!
And then your last paragraph took me back to Catechism class at my old Catholic school; teachers with rulers to whack us over the hands when we got it wrong. It's odd that I should look back on that with some affection. I even encounter many others who went to the same kind of schools, and even though they now disavow the indoctrination and its rigid enforcement, they still retain some fondness for the whole experience. So today, when I sit with Catholics and ex-Catholics and talk about all those times, Monty Python's 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch comes to mind...
But you're right again, especially about hell in this life. And it's depressing to think of all the centuries over which that has been going on. It's why I find those first sentences in the Declaration of Independence to be perhaps the most important part of it, in that they define the rights that are indeed unalienable, yet they are now being routinely denied by the very governments that are supposed to be securing them. This whole gay marriage issue (among others, of course), brings this out. But I alluded to all that in my earlier post.
Thanks again, and best regards as always!
Hamakko, Thank you very much indeed for your reply. You know something? You brought to my attention how I myself, in describing what scoundrels, etc. are, committed the offense of stereotyping. I, the one who spoke vociferously about the evil of labels, used labels. Perhaps I deserve one lash fewer for trying to draw a caricature of dishonesty. The truth is, people are not one-dimensional. Broad-brushing with epithets is unfair.
Funny I attended Catholic school too. I remember memorizing the Catechism in Chinese in the 4th grade. The class was taught by a nun. She was very mean to the boys. There was one boy in class who must have some kind of allergy condition, as he had a sniffle all the time. Somehow his sniffles upset the nun greatly. She would walk up and slap him on the face each time she caught him with a loud sniffle. Her increasing slapping resulted in his increasing sniffling as at some point he would break down crying. I remember I felt so badly for him. One day at the end of the class the nun asked us to raise our hands if we didn't believe in the Holy Ghost. I raised my hand. Her face turned from red to blue and red again. Being the prefect of the class, I was not supposed to say "no" to teachers. She asked me why I didn't believe. I answered, "Sister L---, if there really is a Holy Ghost, It would have told you not to slap people for having a sniffle." So she sent me to the Principal. I told the Principal, "Sister L---has taught us all year how important it is to be honest. And to be honest means not lie. I was just trying not to lie."
I don't want to leave the impression that I have no respect for folks who are Catholic. On the contrary. I think any religion that teaches a person to love his neighbor is a good religion. My objection is when a person representing any religion talks love and practices hate as a matter of justified course. It gives me a headache to try to reconcile those two irreconcilables. One of my best friends is a devout Anglican. For many years she was the principal of a girl school. She was an excellent educator and one of the best human beings I have ever known. I have never heard her talk Jesus or Heaven to anyone. But in everything she does, she exemplifies the teachings of the historical Jesus. To me that is a true Christian.
My view on the inalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence is inextricably bound to my view on mental health. I totally believe that the ability to think and feel independently is the foundation of good mental health. Denied the right, a person suffers malaise of the mind, a society suffers malaise of it citizenry (a whole nation tuning in to Limbaugh and Fox News) . Both the main effect and side-effects of this illness are insidious and far reaching.
Very well said! I don't think you were stereotyping though... People can be defined - or, more usually, described - by their obvious individual characteristics. The stereotyping I oppose is that which attempts to tarnish individuals by characteristics broadly applied to a whole class of people (and we've seen a lot of that in this discussion). But your descriptions fit perfectly all the cads, knaves, bounders, fools and scoundrels I have met!
You are exactly right on the meaning of a true Christian. I had a friend at high school who founded the school's Christian Society (which still flourishes), and when I reunited with him over 30 years later via Facebook, I found that he was bi-sexual (but still very much a Christian). He's as devout as ever, but he rails regularly against the sycophants of the so-called Religious Right.
I've started to believe lately that old conservatives like Reagan and Goldwater would be rejected if they applied for membership of today's Republican party. I'm now beginning to wonder if Jesus would be excommunicated by the Pope, or disavowed by Pat Robertson et al for the same reasons. And as for Limbaugh... I really shouldn't go there.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Ashbird!
Best Regards!
Rights are created and defined by constitutions, so everyone had their rights voted on whenever the federal or state constitutions were ratified or amended. No one had their rights taken away yesterday because no one had the right to gay marriage in this state in the first place. And if you believe that right and wrong are determined by culture, then with 61% of the vote, 93 counties and (if the polls were correct) a majority of Republicans, Independents and Democrats voting in favor, I think our society made it pretty clear what cultural standards it prefers. Also, all laws are discriminatory in the most basic sense of the word, in that they divide and distinguish between things.
Yes, discrimination has two meanings but they are separate. Can you discriminate two points close together with a microscope? Yes but if you don't let the scientist vote, you are discriminating against him. Is there anyone who thinks that right and wrong are determined by culture? Is that some sort of an oblique accusation of moral relativism on behalf of the people you disagree with?
Again: People once voted to allow slavery, keep women from voting, uphold segregation in schools, and ban interracial marriages. Just because the majority votes for it doesn't mean it's right.
I really do not know why M.S. is so worked up over Tami Fitzgerald of Vote for Marriage NC. I read that "Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million." The opposition to the NC ammendment raised twice as much money to opposed the passage of the ammendment, yet the ammendment passed 61% FOR and 39% AGAINST.
I voted FOR the ammendment and I never even heard of Tami Fitzgerald or Vote for Marriage NC. If you attend any Church in NC regularly, you would have heard of the upcoming vote on the ammendment and reasons for voting for the passage of the ammendment.
Incidently, I'm Roman Catholic. Here is a link regarding the Catholic Church's position on the subject "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons" -> http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
But the amendment also prohibits civil unions and partnerships between heterosexual people. With all the blind homophobia, many people seem to have overlooked this (also, gay marriage had already been outlawed in North Carolina, so why would you need an amendment of the state constitution?)
By chance are you also for illegalizing divorce? I can get you the Catholic position on divorce if you would like?
You do realize that it was never intended to make gay marriage compulsory for everyone, right?
Jiang Tai, I am also a Roman Catholic and yesterday was a day on which I was frankly ashamed of that fact.
The Diocese of Raleigh spent $50,000 promoting the passage of this amendment. That money could have funded a substantial amount of assistance to those in need, of whom I know there are many in NC in 2012; alternatively, it could have provided a year's salary for a professional liturgical musician or two; or, it could have funded aid to the poor abroad via Catholic Relief Services.
In short, almost any conceivable use of those funds would have been more in the spirit of the Gospels than that to which they were actually put.
Why is our Church dabbling in lawmaking? Is ours not the Christian denomination with the longest historical memory, the one that knows with the greatest certainty that association with power drowns holiness in a sea of iniquity? Why is my Church spending resources to keep people from caring for one another??
I'm equally against "civil unions and partnerships between heterosexual people" as well.
If it reduces the "value of fatherhood and marriage", I'm against it. We should be adding "substance" and "promise" to the "value of fatherhood and marriage", not taking away from these values.
See --> http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/04/inequality-and...
If you wish you can provide me with the Catholic Church's position on divorce. However, I would prefer you source your information from the Vatican's web site. And also, please read the information you find in its entirety before posting.
Regarding your question, I am for making it more difficult to get a divorce. Divorce has become to casual of an event in the USA. I am for reasserting the "value of fatherhood and marriage".
"I am also a Roman Catholic and yesterday was a day on which I was frankly ashamed of that fact."
Why are you ashamed???
How can you feel it is more important to spend $50,000 for the salary of a couple of liturgical musicians for a year? We do not go to Mass to be entertained.
And the poor, "The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them...". Administering to the poor is an ongoing affair. We will administer to the poor forever.
Missing the point.
His point was that the most powerful religious institution in the world is squandering resources discriminating against those who make them feel uncomfortable.
Quite frankly, never mind being ashamed about being a Catholic, everyone with any semblance of an open mind should be ashamed to share the same species as the likes of you, the kind who would willingly subject the LGBT community to second-class citizenship.
Sir, the Anglican church's formation under Henry VIII should inform you enough on the Catholic stance on divorce. There is no outcry on the ease of divorce in the US. Why? Catholicism is the largest single religious group in the US after all.
"most powerful religious institution in the world"
The person was referring to the Diocese of Raleigh.
"… discriminating against those who make them feel uncomfortable."
The Diocese of Raleigh was simply adhering to, and proclaiming the Doctrine of the Faith regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. Why should the Diocese of Raleigh be quiet regarding issues of Faith? Is your strategy to win over minds by silencing those who oppose your point of view? Is your argument that weak? Did anyone try to silence you? Are you not discriminating against people of Religious Faith?
"…everyone with any semblance of an open mind should be ashamed to share the same species as the likes of you…"
Open mindedness means to have a mind receptive to new ideas and arguments – it does not mean that one has to either accept the new ideas as worthy or arguments as valid. You accuse me of not having an open mind because I don't agree with you. Surely, you do not include yourself amongst the open minded. And, you have resorted to attack me personally simply because I have a different point of view.
You can't fully understand the Catholic Church's stance on divorce without understanding its stance on marriage.
"most powerful religious institution in the world"
I was referring to the Catholic church as a whole.
"The Diocese of Raleigh was simply adhering to, and proclaiming the Doctrine of the Faith..."
So your argument boils down to doctrine. Well if that's the case, why don't we stone adulterers, or breakers of the Sabbath? Because we as a civilisation have moved on from such barbarism.
"Why should the Diocese of Raleigh be quiet on issues of faith?"
They have an opinion, fine. That is their right. But it is not their right to infringe on the rights of minorities just because the majority demand it. The constitution is ABSOLUTELY clear: all men are created equal. America is a secular republic with a division between church and state: the clergy have NO PLACE to legislate to make society fit their own biases.
" You accuse me of not having an open mind because I don't agree with you. "
No, I accuse you of being close minded because you voted to remove the rights of a minority who want nothing more than to share the same rights as us.
I'm sorry if my attack was personal, but imagine being a homosexual North Carolinan this week. You have just been told that the state does not recognise your love for your partner as real? Imagine how that must feel.
Nobody has any business with what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, and the state has no business in saying who can and cannot marry. It is that simple.
A Doctrine is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. It is not an "opinion".
And the clergy does not "legislate" - Legislators "legislate". The clergy proclaim the Doctrine of the Faith. And voters vote according to their beliefs or in the direction their conscience leads then.
I assume you voted according to your beliefs, why am I not allowed to vote according to my beliefs or conscience? You consider yourself to be open minded because you voted according to your beliefs, yet you consider me "close minded" because I voted according to my beliefs. You write about the "constitution", yet you appear to be against "Democracy in America".
And I state again -> Open mindedness means to have a mind receptive to new ideas and arguments – it does not mean that one has to either accept the new ideas as worthy or arguments as valid.
If you want to vote on taxes, on defence spending, on who should be president etc., of course you can vote, as can I. We can also argue and debate the various points, come to our own conclusions and cast a ballot.
But you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT vote on the rights of other citizens. All men are created (born) equal, and all deserve the exact same rights. If 61% of people voted that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other (sound familiar?) does that make it right? Of course not. The majority mustn't be allowed to dictate the rights of minorities. What they do in their time is none of your business, and none of the government's business. After all, isn't America supposed to be land of the free?
It could also have been used to pay off the millions of dollars in judgments against pederasty priests [like the one I encountered-briefly thank God]. Yes, the Catholic Church still has its priorities wrong. Persecuting people is much higher on the to do list than helping them, not to mention reformation so that the crimes stop.
Why am I not surprised that the RCC joined with the Fundamentalist bigots it considers heretics and who consider the Pope the Antichrist. Expediency in pursuit of evil ends!
What, pray tell, did child abusing priests add to the "value of fatherhood?" Was this part of the Pastoral Mission mission statement? The anti-gay support is just another sex crime of the Catholic hierarchy to grace their rap sheet [er history books].
I am not gay, but if I were I would lay the blame squarely on the RCC for the abuse that might have caused it.
As a proud Catholic I am sure you have read the church's rap sheet, here are a few of the many entries:
Forgery: Donation of Constantine
Scam: sale of indulgences [i.e. get out of hell card]
Persecution: Albigensians, Byzantines, Martin Luther [and
protestants in general], gays, democrats, republicans etc.
Torture: Spanish Inquisition
Murder: Spanish Inquisition
Sorry, there are many, many more entries, not all of which have yet been apologized for with crocodile tears. Yes, I became a Protestant when I escaped from the RCC's embrace.
Coming from a standpoint of someone who lives in North Carolina, and someone who read the bill inside and out before VOTING AGAINST IT, This bill had very little to do with gay marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnerships in general. The bible belt jumped on it though, because they say the words 'gay marriage.' Half the people who voted didn't even know what they were voting for.
Thank you! I thought the same! I am not from the US but have been following the vote in NC and when I read the text, I was wondering how many people will realize that this might bite them in their hypocrite straight bottom since homo- and heterosexual partnerships are heavily affected.
How typical! No wonder the nation is in such a perillous bind.
Yupppp! The law now no longer recognizes ANY civil unions or domestic partnerships PERIOD, no matter who they're between. So these couples who have decided it's cheaper NOT to get married? Oh well. An it takes away rights to health benefits and such from single parents and their children, as well as causing issues between divorced parents and their kids. I heard something about if something happens to a spouse, the living one will lose some rights to say what to do about it, though I'm not too clear about that one. I haven't read anything about that part yet.
The main purpose of Jesus' mission to the Jews was to rehabilitate those who were excluded from communion with God. He performed acts of healing and forgiveness for prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors and others who the religious authorities of the day had judged unclean and excluded from temple sacraments.
Ironically today's Christian religious leaders are excluding homosexuals from the sacrament of marriage. Their reasoning is that homosexuality is in breach of God's laws.
This is exactly the behaviour that Jesus condemned. Today's Christian leaders are the new pharisees.
Yes, Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan did teach us to reach out to those who are different from us, but Jesus also spoke out strongly against sinful practices in his own day. For example, when he was asked about divorce in his own day, Jesus pointed back to God's design in Genesis, and reminded those listening that God created us male and female, and that marriage itself is based upon the duality of male and female. He also spoke out against adultery in the Sermon on the Mount, when he said that if a man looks with lust at a woman, he's already committed adultery. Elsewhere, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, so if Jesus were among us today, he would say that God loves gays, but that they need to repent of their sinful behavior.
"Elsewhere, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong"
Yes, according to modern mistranslations.
...the new phariees.
Indeed. And the most amazing thing is they don't see it that way even as they spew love from their mouth and ooze hate from their pores.
The key thing that Jesus did that you are missing is that the "untouchables" repented. Christian churches ought to marry formerly gay or struggling gay people not just people who want to wallow in it.
Ever since the war, the South has been subjected to anthropological tourism by Northerners and those of the foreign persuasion. That's what happens when you are invaded, lose, and are occupied for over a century. The winners control the narrative.
Yes, and the rest of us have to live with the winner's curse. Which in this case is being attached to a region that takes more in taxes than it contributes, bitches about it, and votes against our liberties. But let's pity the South.
What used to be your working class now works here. No rustbelt in Dixie.
Clever idea; make economics tough for black people in the south to make them migrate up north to get work, then drop your wages low enough to bring the jobs black people had up north back south, leaving the north with the unemployed black underclass rather than dealing with them yourselves after slavery was outlawed. Well played sir!
I thought North Carolina's textile industry had been hollowed out by Chinese and Bangladeshi competition? Don't worry, you'll eventually advance enough to be post-industrial.
Yes, it has. Textiles, shoes, furniture, all gone to China. But when the US gets FDI, it goes to right- to-work states, not blue states. Job growth in the South has been positive during the recent depression. Drive east from Erie to Albany and tell me how prosperous it is. And compare state's bond ratings. New York is Greece with bad weather.
I beg to differ. Judging by actions in NC and elsewhere in Dixie the southern rust belt is in your minds and education system.
Very clever argument. Now just take out the "agin'" (which reads like "aging" until one realizes you mean to demean "the ignorant" by mimicking them) and you just may convince someone.
Its not a biblical issue its a moral one. Homosexuals by defination are deviants to natural make up of society. We don't revere ax murders child molesters and a host of other depraved actions. There is no natural reason for the unions let alone society sanctioning them.
The folks in NC also oppose Bigamy but that on a its face is a more normal social position than gays.
Gays have 1 agenda and 1 agenda that society embrace their behaviour and make it acceptable its nor and never will be
Sorry that this may be graphic, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the issue.
Is a married man who sodomizes his wife (consensually) the equivalent of an ax murderer as well?
What a LOON
@mandinka1 So it's not marriage between two people of the same sex you are against. It's homosexuality. Correct? So, hypothetically, if two women, let's say two elderly women, who like each other - but don't plan to have sex - were to get married, you'd be OK with that?
OK, seems reasonable to me. Maybe it allows the two of them to secure their small savings together. It helps make sure that when one of them goes in the hospital, the other can make end-of-life decisions for the ill one. And when one dies, there isn't a big hassle over what happens to the estate. It just passes to the spouse.
Why do the people in North Carolina care so much about keeping these two elderly women from simplifying their life, their last few years together?
It seems to me the moral issue here is how do we allow people of all kinds, in all the rich diversity of life, to have the best and most fulfilling life possible. The moral thing to do is to accept people who love each other, treat each other and their children well, and want to be contributing members of society, without interfering in their lives.
Isn't that the golden rule?
No I'm opposed to any marriage that isn't between a man and a women.
What you propose as an argument is infantile a they can currently do any thing that you propose without being married. Marriage has a special meaning in society and your premise is that you want society to bless a union any union.
There is nothing stopping from those 2 women from sharing savings a home etc right now so what is your point??
The golden rule doesn't mean as your really intend to debase society.
"Its not a biblical issue its a moral one. Homosexuals by defination are deviants to natural make up of society."
So are rich people, politicians, the destitute, evangelicals, and the NRA.
So Bob and Barry marry. How is it society is debased? We now have Christian churches preaching that money, cars, houses and jewelry, social climbing and loud proclamations of faith in the street == God's love and approval.
I rather think that this is the real debasement. Evangelism is Satan's flock.
@Melissia: WTF R U talking about?
You're right, marriage does have a special meaning in society. Which is why Rush Limbaugh can marry and divorce three times, Britney Spears can get married and divorced in less than 24 hours, and Kim Kardashian can turn her wedding and subsequent divorce into a media circus.
She means just because something is unusual doesn't mean it's bad. Your statement is just, "It's a minority, lets get 'em".
For example, I am unusually beautiful and intelligent :P, and I suppose that makes me deviant to the natural moronic trollish order of society. Everyone is a minority in some way, this just happens to be my cross to bear.
I guess in your Bizzaro world that may be true, but in the US its the norm
name 1 society where this has been a good idea?? from the ancients marriage was always between a man and a women.
Just like the repeal of DADT. When the soldiers requested shared showers and communal sleeping arrangements the women went crazy yet they were in the majority wanting the repeal. Looks like libs LOVE to talk out of both sides of their mouths
How ?? Because it will never stop there. In CA they are requiring schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and fine. They already have more school immersion programs to insure kids are indoctrinated. That's always the problem with the left it never just ends until everyone is forced to agree with them Just like the reeducation camps of Mao.
Personally I don't give a hoot what they do in the privacy in their own homes but FORCING society to approve of their perversion is the issue and to sanction it
Ho hum. Indoctrinated with what? That at the age of 16 they shouldn't start beating somebody to death?
Like I've stated elsewhere, I had the occasion of gym staff stating he was freaked out that a gay man looked at him like a piece of meat. Flatly I told him, "this is what it's like being a woman". If you are so freaked out by dealing with being on the receiving end of that look, then I suggest you reconsider your attitude towards the opposite gender and get over it.
name 1 society where this has been a good idea??
you live in it buddy, the freest country. pretty liberal use of the word indoctrinated. we are not "indoctrinated" to not shit in public, same thing with not discriminating against gays. it's part of not being a troll.
You are conflating the religious definition of marriage with the legal status of a civil union. They're linked, but they are not the same thing. The point of the article is that the religious definition is, at best, muddy. People who fall back on the bible to justify or rationalize their opposition to same sex marriage are using wobbly religious arguments to explain their opposition to a legal status conferred by a government that is, and should be, free of organized religion.
My premise isn't that society should "bless any union". My premise is that your apparent aversion to homosexuality shouldn't be a basis for preventing two adults from having the legal and financial benefits of marriage.
No it's not. Republicans aren't normal. They're only ~30% of the population!
Evangalists aren't normal. They're only ~28% of the population!
The rich aren't normal, they're only 1% of the population! There's more of "the gays" than there are rich folk, so homosexuals are more "normal" than rich folk.
Doesn't that make you stop and think about the ethics of attacking the one percent, because they are a minority and they have things that other people want. That isn't so different from attacking another one percent, gay people, because it makes the rest of feel superior.
You know, civil rights were put into the Constitution by some very rich property owners who wanted to make sure their rights were protected against the "tyranny of the majority". I think these anti-democratic measures have proven their worth, and I'd be suspicious of any argument that comes down to the many against the few.
"Doesn't that make you stop and think about the ethics of attacking the one percent"
Not really. The percentage of the population that does or believes something doesn't really matter to my ethical stance. Normalcy has no real value to me.
And I'm not getting in to a class warfare debate here, so your hook is ignored :D
But I want to marry money!
Sir or madam, on behalf of all loons I must protest that the average loon [Gavia, Gaviidae] is far more evolved, intellectual, and beneficial to society than Biblebigots. Mocking Gavia, Gaviidae by invidious comparison with Homo, Insapiens, Bigotens is a vile canard [no offense to ducks].
Thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville's study of American politics and society
The Amanda Knox verdict: Innocente
Harry Reid's retirement: Republicans get their wish
Democracy in America
Emerging markets: Predicting the next crisis
Free exchange
Nuclear talks with Iran: Distrust and verify
Middle East and Africa
Scientology film: Hammering at the walls
Nigeria's election: A powder keg
Graphic detail
The first televised "debate": Why the prime minister resisted
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
I haven't been blogging for quite sometime now. I think I've lost my mojo and not only that, I have been uninspired lately. I guess for me to go back to the grind and be able to keep my positive disposition, I should force myself to write every single day even if it means writing just a short blog entry. You see, writing has always been and will always be my solace and if there is anything that keeps me going, that would be writing and a little bit of music. This is why I am investing on these quality DiMarzio straps for my mini-studio. It is always nice to have some good music while I write.
I will be back for more updates, this I promise!
Posted by Administrator at 4:27 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Online shopping is a very popular activity on the internet. Nowadays, you can shop for almost anything online, shoes included. Below are some reasons why you might want to do your shoe shopping online.
- No closing time. For those who get the urge to shop for shoes in the middle of the night, online shoe shopping is the answer. The internet never closes so you can shop any day and any time.
- No crowds. Online shoe shopping is also for those who hate crowds that you will often encounter in malls.
- More shops. While you get very limited shoe choices if you go to a particular shop, the internet allows you to go to as many shops as you want. This means you can view more shoe options without getting tired.
Posted by Administrator at 1:42 PM 0 comments Links to this post
And because of this, I thought of sharing some spots a tourist should go to when in NYC. Feel free to add yours to my list, I would highly appreciate it :).
- Statue of Liberty Island Tour
- Serendipity
- Radio City + L-O-V-E Sign
- Greenwich Village
- Chinatown
- Brooklyn Bridge
- Ground Zero
- Strawberry Fields
- Belvedere Castle
- Financial District
- Wall Street-Raging Bull
- Plaza Hotel
- 5th Avenue
- Empire State Building
- Madison Square Garden
- Central Park
- Rockefeller Center
- St. Patrick's Cathedral
- Bethesda Fountain
Posted by administrator at 3:31 PM 0 comments
Posted by administrator at 11:54 PM 0 comments
Have you all noticed the sudden drop of temperature? I just hate it when that happens especially when my dear son gets sick and then the virus passed on to me, then I have one million things in my hand to do. That is exactly what happened to us all weekend, we were just at home, nursing our coughs, colds and fever. Is it too early to be shopping for fireplaces? I really feel this Winter season was not enough to warm me before the colder seasons come. I feel like I needed more time for Summer before I could brace myself for the colder seasons. Oh well, I gotta deal with this now if I want to be well for the busier months to come.
Posted by administrator at 8:15 PM 0 comments
Oh the birthday blues are coming and then there is this task: I need to Read Full Review I have to worry about. Well, to be exact it has actually come and it has taken toll on my personal day to day social interaction. I feel more aloof and withdrawn to people. I dislike interacting people for almost 3 days now and I do not care about anything.
Argh! The adult life is simply a challenge. Most of the time, I am left with nothing to dream about anymore. But then again, when I think about the life ahead as a non-government employee, I can only think of all the possibilities I could make to create and contribute to the change in this world but still, I lose track of what I want with my life. Nevertheless, wherever the tides bring me, I will never ever stop chasing my dreams.
Posted by Administrator at 11:06 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Neumann KH-310 Monitors and most of all, I have not become this less productive all my life. I cannot wait for my life to be back to normal again once my little boy starts going back to school and I can have some peace and quiet time while doing work from home. But then again, I also dread the cold and chilly breeze that Autumn and Winter bring. Yes, I am start to feel it in my fingers and I am dreading it. Should we get an fireplace?
Posted by Administrator at 11:03 AM 0 comments Links to this post

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Terms & Conditions.
Price matching does not apply to this or any promotion. Offer is valid through 4/1/15 at 11:59 pm PST. May not be combined with any other offer/discount (unless specified), including invitation credits, promotional gift cards and/or special discount links. Discount applied upon checkout. Log in to your account to see your savings.
Braaaaains. Braaaains!! Heart? Zombie like heart, too. Whole assortment of puffy felt heart designs, you say? Yum, zombie like surprise tasting menu! What wine pairing you suggest?
Includes random assortment of 25 puffy felt hearts. Each heart measures approximately H 2.5" W 2.5" D 1".
This product has no reviews yet. Be the first to review this product. Write a review
Sign Up & Enjoy 20% Off*


text:
De Pere, WI
• Over 30 years of business experience encompassing capital equipment, commodity trading and hedging, foreign currency hedging, and international trade.
• Sales and shipping, foreign business development on several continents, all forms of capital equipment and technologies including construction equipment, pipeline equipment, drilling equipment, and all types of computer hardware, fertilizer process plants and thermal/process equipment for mining industry.
• Business start-ups, including business financing to SEC filings, and manufacturing company management, including manufacturing offshore, including India and China.
• Concluded business in South America, Pacific Rim, Russia, Mongolia, most of Ivory and Gold Coast African countries, most of European countries, and parts of Central Asia. (47 countries)
• Started and ran mining operations for precious metals and gem stones in several worldwide locations.
• Expertise in negotiating contracts with senior business and government officials from many cultures.
• Exim Bank financing, government negotiations, developing country financing/deal structuring
• Letter of Credit and international finance specialist.
International Business:
• Consulted for and became CEO of mining equipment manufacturing company, marketing equipment to business/government entities worldwide.
• CEO of a high-tech trading company, with leasing company and engineering company, with offices in Luxembourg and USA and partnerships in UK.
• Specialized in trading of product between various European and Emerging Mkt. countries and USA.
• Negotiated trade agreements with major Russian companies and USA entities.
• Marketed and sold capital equipment, products and commodities that shipped to nearly every continent.
Financial Management:
• Traded and hedged commodities-Chicago Board of Trade.
• Hedged foreign sales of capital equipment sold in various currencies.
• Developed funding for several small businesses, from startup stage to first SEC filing.
• Developed trade into Western African countries with financing funds from European governments.
• Specialist in trading/counter-trading agriculture equipment for natural resources in developing countries.
• Structured Financing for Emerging/Developing Country projects
• Started and owned capital equipment leasing company with office in Europe.
• Offshore organization and setup experience in several global locations, Willis Black Resume'
Recent (7) Years of Business
• Managed capital equipment sales and finance structuring to Morocco, Brazil, Rep of Congo, China, Colombia, Peru, Canada, Philippines, China, with services to Venezuela, Jordan, Egypt, at times utilizing US Commercial Service Advocacy
• Structured Strategic Alliance with USA and European firm for mining project participation in West Africa
• Developed and managed business in Venezuela with credit and financing.
• Organized International Business Department for USA manufacturer encompassing working capital lines, contract structuring, US Advocacy, staffing, sales management.
Trade Negotiations:
• Negotiated mining equipment sales to government officials of Mongolia.
• Negotiated mining contracts with indigenous and government entities in South America.
• Traded high tech and computer product between Mid Eastern countries and Europe.
• Negotiated equipment sales into Central Asia and facilitated sales into most West African countries.
• Negotiated sales of capital equipment in many countries, including process equipment for manufacturing fertilizers and ore processing, with successful sales in African. South American and Pacific Rim countries, with financing/risk mitigation arranged.
• Joint Venture/strategic alliances in South America, Europe, Canada
Consultant-specialty in technology transfer/process/manufacturing
1998 to Present
equipment sales and structured financing developing countries
CEO/Managing Director- WBBINTL
Trade Consultant
1983 to Present
1992 to 1998
Mining and Heavy equipment into developing countries, primarily minerals and metals
Concentrators for platinum, silver and gold industry.
1980 to 1983
1976 to 1980
Computer trading and Engineering; First Northern Computer-Offices in Europe
1971 to 1976
Specializing in Feed Ingredients, including soymeal, cottonseed meal, oils, ag. crops
Consulting Designer/Engineer for electronic packaging
1966 to 1971


text:
Search Results for /s riflescope rings
- Narrow by Brand
Narrow by Category
- Showing only AR15 Rifle Scopes category.
- See all categories
Additional Useful Links
- U.S. Optics Riflescope Mounts, Rings...
- Best Rated U.S. Optics Riflescope...
- U.S. Optics Riflescope Mounts, Rings...
- U.S. Optics Riflescope Mounts, Rings...
- Nikon 6-18x40mm Buckmaster Riflescope with...
- Best Rated DNZ Products Riflescope...
- Best Rated Global Military Gear...
- Best Rated Redfield Mounts Riflescope...
- Best Rated JP Enterprises Riflescope...
- Best rated LaserLyte Riflescope Mounts,...
- Related Searches
Showing all 5 results.
BSA Optics Tactical Weapon Series 4 X30 mm RifleScope w/ Rings, AR and SKS Mount
requirements. The TW4X30 Rifle Scope from BSA Optics includes mounting hardware compatible for AR's, ... with tactical style fire arms. These BSA Optics Rifle Scopes can be used for rapid target acquisition, ... SKS and any rifle equipped with a weaver style rail. Tactical Weapon Riflescope 4x30 mm recommended ... for semi-autos and rifles where you can use a compact designed riflescope. Compact scopes such as BSA ... scopes of equal quality. Specifications for BSA Optics Tactical Weapon 4 x30mm Riflescopes ... Rings: Fully multi-coated optics for increased light transmission Has mil-dot reticle Includes mounting ... Contents: BSA Optics Tactical Weapon Series Mil-Dot 4X 30 mm Scope 2 piece weaver style ring mounts AR...
Nikon P-223 3x32 BDC Carbine Rifle Scope
Nikon 3x32 P-223 Rifle Scope 8496 is a powerful close-range rifle scope that combines ... high-brightness optics with quick adjustment capabilities. These effective Nikon rifle scopes feature a 3x ... for the trajectory of a 5.56 NATO round, the Nikon P223 3x BDC Carbine Reticle Riflescopes are ... Ballistic Match Rifle Scope as easy as dialing in the appropriate range. All these adjustment possibilities ... Scope. Not only is the Nikon P 223 3x32 Matte Black Rifle Scope precise and accurate, it is also ... comfortable to use, easy to mount, and as durable a rifle scope as you'll find anywhere else. Nikon has ... harsh shooting angles, and lighter rifles. For a close-range rifle scope that combines fast target...
Sightmark Triple Duty M4 1-6x24 Riflescopes
Duty M4 1-6x24 Riflescope Set of 30mm Rings Limited Lifetime Warranty ... Sightmark Triple Duty M4 1-6x24 Riflescopes are designed to excel at tactical shooting matches, ... three-gun matches, tactical training, and a variety of other applications. This rifle scope represents ... for speedy sighting at any range. The Sightmark Triple Duty Circle Dot Duplex 1-6x24 Rifle Scope ... a single 30mm tube, the SightMark Triple Duty Fully Multi-Coated Riflescope has a wide field of view ... turrets, the Sightmark M4 1-6x24 Lightweight Riflescope is a versatile, effective modification ... to your firearm. Specifications for Sightmark Triple Duty M4 1-6x24 Riflescope: Reticle: Circle Dot...
Starts at $239.97
Nikon M-223 1-4x20 Riflescope w/ Point Blank Reticle
The Nikon M-223 1-4x20 Riflescope w/ Point Blank Reticle offers high quality and peace of mind, ... for accuracy when it matters. These AR15 riflescopes by Nikon are all engineered for the 223 ... technologies, the Nikon M-223 1-4x20 Waterproof Riflescope integrates great quality and is waterproof, ... fogproof as well as shockproof. The Nikon M-223 1-4x20 AR15 Scope is nitrogen filled and O-ring sealed, ... Specifications for Nikon M-223 1-4x20 Waterproof Riflescope: Reticle: Point Blank Actual ... and durability Waterproof, fogproof, shockproof: Nitrogen-filled and O-ring sealed Package...
NcSTAR Octagon Scope Series 3-9x40 Scope
constructed octagon shaped design. This Rifle Scope by NcSTAR features an octagon shaped rubber armored scope ... eyepiece and integrated flip-up lens covers. The NcSTAR Octagon 3-9x40 Shockproof Rifle Scope includes ... 30mm scope rings, scope centerline set at AR15 1 1/2" scope height. The NcSTAR Octagon Series 3-9x40 ... Flip-Up lens covers Includes 30mm Scope Rings, Scope centerline set at AR15 1 1/2" scope height ... Includes batteries Package Contents: NcSTAR Octagon 3-9x40 Rifle Scope...
Showing all 5 results.


text:
Our Mission Statement:
Tullamore College works to create a secure, caring environment based on respect.
Here, self-belief and a love of learning lead to the achievement of excellence.
Good note taking is a vital part of studying.To help you improve your note taking skills click here to watch a helpful tutorial on how to take Cornell notes.
Latest News:
We are immensely proud of our Senior Football team who put in a great perfomrance to beat De La Salle, Dundalk 2-10 to 2-08 in the North leinster final. Congratulations to the team and coaches Mr. Begley and Mr. Dalton. Click here to find out about the match and the teams road to the final.
Our 2nd Years had the time of their lives on the Ski slopes in the Dolomite mountains in Italy. Thanks to Mr Doolan, Ms Gallagher, Ms Geoghegan and especially to Mr Meehan who organised yet another brilliant trip.
Subject Choice - Qualifax Guide
Recent Posts:
For up to date news from Tullamore College visit our new Facebook page.
Click here to be directed to the page.
Staff ePortal login: click here...


text:
2011 Peterbilt 387
Newnan, GA
2006 Chevrolet 3500HD
New Hampton, IA
2014 Chevrolet EXPRESS 3500
Orlando, FL
2007 International 9400i
Lake Butler, FL
2010 Freightliner CL120
Des Moines , IA
Trailer for 2013 CONST TRLR SPEC Frameless Steel Dumps
Voorhees, NJ
2011 Freightliner CA11342DC - CASCADIA
Healdsburg, CA
2010 Volvo VNM64T670
Ocala, FL
2007 International 9200I
Phoenix, AZ
Description: Caterpillar 3208, Engine Brake, 13 Speed, Manual Transmission, Beam Type Suspension, Dual Fuel Tanks, Volumetric Mixer. The engine started and ran. The drivetrain engaged in forward and reverse. The park brake is inoperable. The Isuzu mixer engine could not be started. The main components appear to be in placeMore Information
Description: Ford, 210F, 7.8L Engine, 210 Adv Horsepower, Eaton Fuller, Manual Transmission, Beam Type Suspension, Dual Fuel Tanks. The engine started and ran. The drivetrain engaged in forward and reverse, but the transmission would not shift into low range. The hydraulic system could not be operationally checked.More Information
Description: International, 250 Adv Horsepower, Engine Brake, Eaton Fuller, 8LL Speed, Manual Transmission, Spring Suspension, Dual Fuel Tanks, 7 yd. Capacity, Composite Water Tank, Air Conditioning, Dual High Back Seats. ***Mexico does not require a title for this vehicle. A registration card is the titling document. Check with your local agency for your state?s titling requirements. A Bill of Sale will be provided if requested.***More Information
Description: Cummins 10.0L Engine, 285 Adv. Horsepower, Eaton Fuller 7 Speed + Lo & Lo-Lo Manual Transmission, Beam Type Suspension, 10 1/2 yd. Capacity, Sun Visor. ***Please click on Maintenance Record link below for additional information regarding the Mixer Drum.***More Information
Didn't find what you were looking for? Click here to request availability from our dealer network.


text:
Wild edge first-place Blackhawks
ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Wild got just enough offense via first period goals by right winger Jason Pominville and left winger Matt Cooke to outlast the Chicago Blackhawks 2-1 on Thursday.
Minnesota goaltender Darcy Kuemper, making his fifth consecutive start, stopped 33 shots as the Wild improved to 8-3-0 in their last 11 games.
Get the full story
Subscribe or Log In
Are you a newspaper subscriber but you don't have a Digital Access account yet? Activate your account.
You will need your subscription account number and phone number. Not sure if you have an account? Email us or call 320-214-4364 and we can help you.


text:
Greenville County
Greenville County News
Local, regional, and statewide news continually updated from thousands of sources on the web.
Questions surround Amber Alert issued in Greenville County
9 hrs ago | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
Master keys stolen from Furman University employee
15 hrs ago | WIS-TV Columbia | Comment?
Community fights to save historic school house
Yesterday | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
Amber Alert issued for South Carolina toddler
Yesterday | WCNC-TV Charlotte | Comment?
Elizabeth Haynes Canales - Ware Shoals
Wednesday | GwdToday.com | Comment?
Roy Metal Finishing Comes Out On Top
Wednesday | Products Finishing | Comment?
Why Do You Think The German Co-Pilot Crashed The Plane ...
topix 18
You Won't Believe These Celebs Are the Same Age!
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Something Wrong?
politics 226
Community rallies to save park, other green spaces
Tuesday | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
Deputies: 3 boys accused of forcing teen girl into sex acts
Sunday Mar 22 | WMBF | Comment?
Greenville County, South Carolina, Republican Party Loses Lawsuit over Open Primary
Saturday Mar 21 | Ballot Access News | Comment?
Suspect evades deputies in 2 counties; Public asked to assist
Thursday Mar 19 | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
AFL Associates Volunteer for Take Root Tree Planting
Thursday Mar 19 | WebWire | Comment?
Greenville Sheriff's Deputy Dragged by Car
Wednesday Mar 18 | WLTX-TV Columbia | Comment?
SCDOT to widen part of Woodruff Road to 5 lanes
Wednesday Mar 18 | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
DOT considers widening a stretch of Woodruff Road
Tuesday Mar 17 | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
Deputy dragged by car during arrest; Suspect, driver wanted
Tuesday Mar 17 | WYFF-TV Greenville | Comment?
SC rescue who saved heartworm positive beauty with 7 puppies needs donations
Monday Mar 16 | Examiner.com | Comment?
Super urgent: Injured beauty only has a few hours left at upstate SC shelter
Monday Mar 16 | Examiner.com | Comment?
Trending Now
Updated: Thu Mar 26, 2015 07:40 pm
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC


text:
Glee's resident superstar Lea Michele rocks her bangs at the season 2 premiere of her hit show.
Lea michele looks amazing with bangs
she kinda reminds me of a man….
Thought "she"was one?
[quote=psychokittyd]she kinda reminds me of a man….[/quote]
Your freaking mean! lmfao!
The bangs suit her but I dont like the lighter bits in her hair, they look awful x


text:
Skip to Main Content
A 2-Gb/s integrating decision-feedback equalization (DFE) receiver was implemented for a four-drop single-ended DRAM interface channel by using a 0.25- mum CMOS process. The receiver combines both DFE and integration operations in a single receiver circuit so that the DFE operation reduces the intersymbol interference and the integration operation reduces the high-frequency noise. The DFE operation was implemented by switching the capacitance values of the two output nodes of a differential integrator, depending on the previous decision data. A look-ahead scheme was used to reduce the DFE loop delay. A MUX-embedded D flip-flop was used in the look-ahead circuit to further reduce the DFE loop delay and latency. The DFE operation enhanced the voltage margins by 110% and 90% at the 2-Gb/s stubless channel and the 1.2-Gb/s stub series terminated logic channel, respectively. The chip area and the power dissipation of the proposed receiver chip were 220 times 120 mum2 and 10 mW, respectively, at the data rate of 2 Gb/s.
A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology.© Copyright 2015 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.


text:
(skip this header)
30 people evacuated from apartments after fire
Top Stories in Local
International court welcomes Palestinians as 123rd member
Top Stories in US & World
Rackspace settles dispute over HQ project
Top Stories in Business
Gregg Popovich does not care for your half-court 3, Mario Chalmers
Top Stories in Sports
Stone Oak restaurant opening mid-April
Top Stories in Food
'Downton Abbey' Stars invade Hollywood as series ends
Top Stories in Entertainment
Things today's kids will never do
Top Stories in Lifestyle
Markets on the right side of history
Top Stories in Opinion
2014 Toyota Avalon — virtually the same as the 2015 model
Top Stories in Cars
Gloomy China, Japan data add to pressure for stimulus
Top Stories in Jobs
Real Estate
Inside a Dallas Cowboy's Texas mansion
Top Stories in Homes
Presidential vacations have held the public's attention as long as their have been presidents. See where the chief executives spent their summers.
Associated Press
© Copyright