Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

YES!!!!!..........i was there for the entire glorious thing!.......got there early........wednesday before, and stayed at a friends father's retreat camp............which was being used by an hassidic jewish congregation.......who did not "mix" with the wild, music jammin', naked hippies who invaded the empty owner's quarters..........we were "evicted" thursday evening, and showed up at yasgur's farm late thursday night...........where we stayed until the following monday evening, celebrating the entire four days of love peace, music, drugs, rain, mud, and a moment in history never to be repeated in this country!..........one of the greatest times of my life..........unforgettable and life-altering!............can't believe it's been 40 years!!!!!!!!............woodstock, though much shorter in time, was worth more than all my years in twi!.....................peace.

Before her kids were old enough to take her in. When they were just little. So it would be hard for a woman to leave her husband, with several small kids; don't know what support if any would have been available. Her own family? But...if she knew he was plagiarizing the work of others, and didn't say anything, that makes her an accomplice. Maybe he did keep her in the dark; he refers to discussing things with Ros Rinker. Hard to think that he didn't discuss with Dotsie. Or did VPW scam Dotsie, too? Any early Corps want to weigh in here?

HCW claimed he was always treated well by vpw himself. I think that vpw was a lazy stereotyper. It's always easy to make disparaging comments about, say, a n1gger or a spear-chucker, but not QUITE so easy to make disparaging comments about HCW, a fellow working on periodicals. It was a LOT easier just to regurgitate (plagiarize) what he was getting from the Liberty Lobby and other conspiracy sources (just as he did much the same with Christian sources) than to make any kind of real correction for any accuracy. Big surprise lcm pulled much the same stuff with conspiracies. Everyone else out there remember hearing from lcm that the Pope bought an aircraft carrier and was getting ready to force conversions to Roman Catholicism at bayonet-point?

We were at that meeting, what a blast from the past this brings up, wowzers. (hey, why are we all in bold in this thread?_

Yeah.. well, the comment I remember was.. "why can't we just take care of the people in the fellowships.." and that was it. The goon and goons were on him faster than a texan on a pork chop.. Honestly.. I hope he ran like hell from new knoxville and it's vile cretans..

Mark, it was a guy named J*m*l McGhee. He was shameless. But my wife sure scared the crap outa him, and then I showed up! It was funny, but really sad too. Down deep, he was a good guy, but he was following the "party line" so to speak, and trying to "save my wife" because it was evident that I was not going to follow him and Panar*llo on the glorious path of enlightenment through Martindale... And thanks Mark, for a DemocRat, you have your nice side as well! :)--> But speaking of priceless Corps moments, I have another. May I share? Thank you... Once I bout three whole boxes of Earth Grain brand donuts for my twig. I put them in a brown grocery bag in the fridge on the "garden level" (remember that? Not "basement"?) of the Hallowed Halls Of Uncle Harry Highrise. Well, the night that we were going to have a twig, and I was going to spring the surprise and give out the goodies, when I went to the fridge, the fricken donuts were all but gone! Yeah! there was three and a half donuts left in one of the three boxes, and the two empty boxers were still in my grocery bag!!! Oh! I was furious! The thievin' bast*rd even had the gall to leave a half eaten donut in the box! Well. Immediately, I got a piece of paper and left a note on the fridge that said something to the effect: "To the lowdown no count thievin scumbag who stole my donuts! Are you really in the Way Corps?!?! And you made a comittment to live a lifestyle of It Is Written?!?! What about "Let him that stole, steal no more...da da da...?" If you have any honor whatsoever, you'll fess up and tell me who you are! And then you'll pay me back!!" And then I went to twig to tell them that the surprise I had been talking about had been stolen. They were truly bummed, for we all loved those Earth Grain donuts... Well, a couple of days later, a friend of mine who had started in the ninth Corps, but ended up with the Tenth Corps came up to me and asked if he could have a word with me. I said; "Sure ****, what's up?" Ya see **** had been my WOW brother in 1976-77, and we were tight. We were bro's. We'd been through some .... together. I knew he had had some trouble with tuition, so I thought it had something to do with that. So I'm thinking that I am going to minister to his needs or some such "lofty" condesencion..(sp?) And so he says; "Jonny", uh concerning those umm, uhh, well...Well, ya know those donuts? Umm, I umm I ATE YER DONUTS MAN! It was me! I am a piece of crap! I'm sorry man! But I saw 'em in there, and they just kept starin' at me, and I couldn't help it and I ate 'em!" And he burst into tears! And I hugged him, and I told him I loved him and I forgave him, and then I just burst out laughing too, and then so did he, and then everything became ok then. I felt soo bad for him! But I punched him in the shoulder, and then laughed again, and the tears just rolled as we laughed about it. But then again, I guess he shouldn't have stolen them either. But shoot, that was kinda wild. He still paid me the money for the donuts though, and I very gladly accepted it as well! Then I went out and bought three more boxes of donuts and I ate every single one of them by myself!!

Trefor, I am sorry, I am not sure, but I was not trying to imply that my husband and I got married for financial reasons. It is that the state and government put all these prices on all these licenses etc. so that they can make money. Sorry if I wasn't clear with that. outofdafog Thats my story and I am sticking to it :D-->

Dmiller, (I love one-liners like this. 'Cause with even a cursory examination illustrate the flaws of that statement, and dumbfound those that use it.) Neither does the phrase 'speedy trial'. But the lack of those specific wordings is irrelevant, because the concepts, both of a speedy trial, *and* of separation of church and state, are in the Constitution. Surely you can do better than that. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

:)--> Mark. Thanks for telling your story! Life is pretty cool and wierd and messy huh?

God Hi Mark That did bless me thanks And about trinity in some Churches I like to visit other Churches but I never bring up trinity when I visit I just try to love them were they are and I never had to deal with it Most of them are not ready to think about it one way or another But If ever I Am ask I would tell them what I believe and tell them to believe what they want but by the time I would be like a brother to them and they would be like a brother or sister to me Now I am not saying go to a Church just trying to share with you how I deal with Churches I believe the Way push their doctrines but I believe its better to love people into change with love Roy

Thanks, Abi. Heh heh CW...no offense taken. And you're pretty darn smart your ownself. Linda

Exactly. I originally wrote "right" instead of "privilege" but was concerned that someone might quibble over the two different usages of "right" I was employing. Now we're quibbling over "privilege?" :)--> Not exactly. Society specially values and honors (traditional) marriage, and grants people who marry special rights (aka privileges), in order to encourage, promote, and protect (traditional) marriage. Homosexuals have the choice of entering into the sort of relationship (traditional marriage of one person of each gender) society has set apart as being particularly worthy of encouragement, promotion, and protection. If they do, they will be entitled to the corresponding privileges, but might not be very happy. Sure they do. They can choose to marry a person of the opposite gender or they can choose not to marry. I pretty much agree with you here, but these things are beside the point. The point is that society values a particular family arrangement above others, and chooses to encourage it. Yes, the majority rules. Not by taking away rights or freedoms, but by granting special privileges (additional rights) to those who choose to meet the conditions. And again, homosexuals have exactly the same freedom to choose to meet those conditions (traditional marriage to someone of opposite gender) as do heterosexuals. Why do you assume that "we" are afraid of anything? I'm not. I have two homosexual brothers. I have had several homosexual friends, associates, and teachers. One of my daughter's favorite teachers when she was in high school is homosexual. With one exception, all of them are wonderful people. Their sexual orientation is not an issue with me at all.I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage. I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. What I'm opposed to is a few judges taking away the right of society to offer special incentives and protections for particular conditions (traditional marriage in this case) that it values and wants to promote, by redefining other conditions (similar though they may be) to be identical, and by defining corresponding privileges to be inherent rights, with no support of precedent, common law, case law, or the constitution. If the Massachusetts Supreme Court had allowed civil unions that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages, except in name, there would have been little opposition. I think they inadvertantly dealt a heavy blow to gay rights advocates and to the Constitution. I pretty well agree with Mark. I think that a Constitutional amendment is probably inevitable now. Thirty-eight States have passed DOMA laws. That's the same number needed to ratify an amendment. I think it will be ratified. I don't like it, but I think it will happen.

People keep wanting to make this an equal rights issue. It's not. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences. Unmarried people are free to join in relationships, cohabit, have children, build homes together, buy personal or real property together, etc. They are free to enter into contracts together, name others of their choice as beneficiaries, heirs, medical decision makers, and other such things. They are free to open joint accounts with rights of survivorship with whomever they please. They can confer almost every privilege and power of a spouse, and even more, upon whomever they choose. There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage. So what is marriage? It is a special, privileged institution designed to encourage, support, and protect a particular family structure that is overwhelmingly viewed as advantageous to society. From a governmental point of view, it's essentially an incentive program. In that sense, it's not unlike Zixar's military example. We offer incentives to people to encourage them to join the military, and support for them that is not offered to others. We offer even more benefits to encourage them to remain in the military through retirement. It is not illegal to not join the military, or to not make it a career, but for those who do, there are special privileges and special responsibilities. Similarly, we offer incentives to people to encourage them to marry and remain married, and support for them that is not offered to others. It is not illegal to not be married, but for those who are, there are special privileges and special responsibilities.

It also supports the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. And that gay parents can be (and usually are) just as loving, supportive and capable of raising well-adjusted children as any other parent. ?????????????

I'm not by any means agreeing with everything Zixar and Cynic have posted, but both bring up some good points, IMO. (Speaking only of the topic, not the sidetracks.) A few disclaimers: The Bible is not even a rule of faith and practice for me. I don't look upon this as a religious issue, and certainly not a church vs. state issue. I don't care about people's sexual preferences. Now... Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals (people with no sexuality or sexual desire, if such people exist) have exactly the same marriage rights, privileges, and responsibilities as do heterosexuals. Any of them can marry a person of opposite gender, subject to certain restrictions. Unmarried people, no matter what their sexual preference may be, have legitimate concerns that have been brought to light by gay rights activists. (I mean nothing negative by "activist.") Other than official societal sanctioning of homosexual unions, most of those concerns can be addressed through wills, powers of attorney, and contracts. To the extent that they can't, there seems to be fairly broad support in many locations for changing laws to address those concerns, to the extent in some locations of establishing civil unions that are, within the corresponding jurisdiction, essentially the same as marriage. This issue is about none of the above things. It is about forcing society to legally recognize homosexual partnerships as being the same as, or at least indistinguishable from, heterosexual marriages. They are not, and never will be, even if the drastic changes in technology and practice that I mentioned earlier become reality. For all the societal faults that have weakened many marriages, and perhaps the institution of marriage itself, I and many others believe that the traditional marriage and family structure of one man and one woman marrying for life and together raising a family is an ideal worthy of special societal promotion and protection. We recognize also that many people's lives don't conform to that ideal. Heck, mine doesn't. I intended to marry for life, and did my utmost to make that happen, but I ended up as a divorced father, raising my daughter on my own. I don't care for the way Zixar presented his argument, but I think the thrust of it is similar to the above paragraph. The traditional marriage and family is an ideal that is clearly beneficial to society and worthy of its promotion and protection. From a societal point of view, other arrangements may be worthy of some legal protection, but probably not of promotion, and neither to the same extent as traditional marriages. I'm opposed to gay marriages. I'm very open to considering extending some, if not all of the protections afforded through marriage to others. I'd want to consider those individually. Note that nothing I've said has been religiously based.

. [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:42.]

OK...I said I would try to be read only...but I can't stop myself...sigh... Anyway, in this country the discussion of "legalizing" anything (or not) should not include religious beliefs and/or doctrines...unless, of course, the purpose is to promote one's own beliefs/doctrines...imo. ????????????? [This message was edited by CoolWaters on February 07, 2004 at 1:00.]

Yes Garth, something like that.

You don't seem to be able to stand seeing Trefor being challenged on his arguments. I'm not stopping.

No. I'll talk how I want. If this discussion disturbs you, pass on to some other one.

question peas what is written in the Constitution about marriage ? as to polygamy and the constitution.... were africans given any voice ? did they believe in polygamy ? (mormons weren't around yet, were they?) how 'bout the native americans ? was marriage based on the christian background of the Constitution guys ? what is the basis of all of this and the laws instituted or built on after this ? can we keep it secular ? religion rules !!!!!!!!! ?

zix's analogies get more mysterious The armed forces and sales privileges are not a matter of society at large. Both hetero and homo soldiers are entitled to them because they are in the forces. They have voluntarily entered into the service of their country. As to polygamy. You can at least argue that there is biblical precedent for it but it appears to have been practiced by the few rather than the many. Whereas the Utah Mormon fundamentalists may have several whom they call wives as far as the state is concerned they have only one legal wife. It is not illegal to cohabit with as many women as one wants as long as one has not attempted to enter into more than one legally recognised marriage. The state authorities can therefore only intervene when there is underage sex or benefit fraud or some other such reason. Yet there is still no recognition of even one legal same sex spouse. I do not hear of many calls for gay polyandry - like the polygamists of Utah, any number of gay men could live together and cohabit but you don;t hear much about that kind of arrangement - gays who want multiple partners can pick them up by various ways wihtout any intention of living with them or having a meaningful relationship. But there are many gay people who want a meaningful relationship - they want to have one legally recognised partner. They can already find churches who will marry them in a religious ceremony but as far as the state is concerned it has no legal meaning or validity. This is the area of argument that one part of the population may have one legally recognised partner if they wish to and another section may not. How one defines rights as opposed to privileges can be difficult, I agree. Even if you think marriage a privilege rather than a right, the inequality nevertheless remains that one part has this privilege and another does not. Looking at a level playing field any adult citizen who fulfils their obligations of citizenship, pays their taxes etc, contributes to society should expect the same privileges to be accorded to them as each other. When it comes to framing documents the general rule of thumb is normally that what is not specifically forbidden or covered must be allowed and where the language is not watertight or capable of more than one interpretation, that is when the courts have to be brought in. This can happen in any country where the legislation is unclear and the judiciary is called in to rule upon points of law - it happens here in the House of Lords just as much as it does in the Supreme Court. It is unfair to accuse the judiciary of interference - they are making rulings upon points of law that are brought before them precisely because the law is unclear. It is for the legislators to ensure that the laws being made are not flawed and unless they do then the judgements must stand until overruled by legislation or by a reversal. There are literally whole libraries of case law precedents on all kinds of matters precisely because the legislation was badly framed and they remain in force unless or until fresh legislation replaces it. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

i didn't want to say anything tommy but i didn't get the new analogy either (sorry zix) ?

Oh, good grief! What is it with you people and analogies? All right, fine. Here's another one that's entirely secular, and government-based, to boot. Scene: Outside an American Air Force base GUARD Good morning, sir. May I see your military ID? MAN I haven't got one. GUARD What is the nature of your visit today, then, sir? MAN Oh, I heard that you can buy things cheap at the BX, so I came to do some shopping. GUARD Sir, the base exchange only sells to active or retired military personnel. MAN Oh. You won't make an exception for me? I'm a citizen after all. I pay your salary, and the subsidy on that merchandise so you can buy it cheap at the BX! GUARD Military personnel only, sir. MAN Well, how do I become one, then? GUARD You could enlist, but... MAN But what? GUARD How old are you, sir? MAN 60. What's it to you? GUARD I'm afraid that's too old to enlist. MAN Isn't that age discrimination? GUARD Well, can you run an 8-minute mile with a full backpack? MAN Not any more. GUARD Well, there you go. MAN So I can't shop at your store because I'm not military, and I can't join the military because I'm too old. That means I can't shop at your BX just because I'm too old? That certainly is ageist! GUARD Well, indirectly, that's correct. MAN There ought to be a law! GUARD As soon as they pass it, I'll defend it, sir. Until then, it's off to Wal-Mart with you. MAN I don't want to go to Wal-Mart! I want to shop at the BX! Since when did this become Nazi Germany? GUARD If this were Nazi Germany, I'd have shot you by now. Now please clear the gate area, sir. MAN (driving off) I'll suuuuuue...

and another thing, i can't remember what was said about sheep and children but that is so unbelievably mean and nasty. try to put yourself in foggie's daughter's shoes or tref's shoes or anybody else you love and guess what, i'm no friggin saint. i've even made jokes about gay people. i'm trying to stop that. takes a while to get over years of brainmolding ?

"cystic fibrosis or downs syndrome" ohmygosh what in the heck are you talking about M&A ? ** i don't understand so much about religion and government and politics ** i do know i sure as hell wouldn't want to be gay since there doesn't seem to be true liberty, justice, happiness for gay people i still fight a prejudice and sometimes do not even realize it. it's like ingrained (sp?) in me and as far as the priest crap and pedophile nonsense goes, i personally know pedophiles who like different sex children and same sex children and i am really really disgusted when someone talks about homosexuals in the same breath ?

i didn't get it, zix ?

Let's change the words a bit and see how this sounds: Place: The Vatican A young man walks into St. Peter's and goes up to a cardinal. CARDINAL What can I do for you, my son? YOUNG MAN I wish to become a priest. CARDINAL Splendid! You have a noble heart. If you just go down the hall, we can start the process. YOUNG MAN There's one thing, though. CARDINAL What is it, my son? YOUNG MAN I'm heterosexual. CARDINAL Well, that's irrelevant. In order to become a priest, you must take a vow of celibacy anyway. YOUNG MAN No, I'm not about to do that. I am all about the beaver, if you know what I mean. CARDINAL Oh. Well, the priesthood isn't for everyone, you know. Sorry. YOUNG MAN Hey! I still want to be a priest! CARDINAL Why don't you just get married and become active in your local church then? Nothing wrong with that. YOUNG MAN No, I want to be a priest, and I want to have sex with women! CARDINAL Like I said, if you want to become a priest, you have to be celibate. That's how it's always been. It is a sacred institution between a man and God, and the vow of celibacy is the man's commitment not to put earthly lusts ahead of zeal for the Lord's service. YOUNG MAN Fascist! You need to change to let priests get some! CARDINAL Why? If you cannot contain, marry. YOUNG MAN You oppressive bastard! I should have every right to wear a black cassock, conduct a Mass, and tap some a**, if I want to! CARDINAL Have you tried the Lutherans? YOUNG MAN No, I don't want to be any "Lutheran", I want you to make me a Catholic priest, and chop chop! I've got a date! CARDINAL Forget it. Now Pax Vobiscum the hell out of here! The Swiss Guards grab Young Man and drag him towards the door YOUNG MAN You'll be hearing from my lawyer! Heterophobe!

M&A How could you possibly have been marked and avoided when you or so clearly in agreement with Craigipoos upon this issue? Fred Phelps would welcome you with open arms as would any group who believes in hatred and discrimination against millions of Americans. Why not form your own version of the Klu Klux Klan in order to enforce heterosexual purity? Why not do the Nazi thing of forced expulsions and concentration camps? Why not turn the USA into the equivalent of the Taleban rule in Afghanistan? Why not have special centres for treatment where you can administer electric shock treatment and other forms of torture? If you think that you are angry then remember the anger of those of us who have to face discrimination and hatred, ignorance and bigotry every day. The right to discriminate is not in the US Constitution and it still took nearly two centuries for that to be established. Don't hold your breath about being able to change it back in your lifetime. I am glad that posts such as yours will only serve to show people the dangers and implications of what you propose. I rejoice that it sticks in your craw - you are only having to put up with what gay people have had to endure for centuries. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

"Log" Cabin Republicans? Just what "was" the reasoning behind the choice of that name for gay Republicans?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court should not forget those other Democrats who might want official legitimacy for a sexual relationship with a sibling, a cousin or that favorite sheep. http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm

Trefor, The Massachusetts legislature proposed civil unions similar to the British partnerships. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled such arrangements unconstitutional.

ok. you're probably correct on that. if I recall correctly, that was Scalia's point in his dissent on the big ruling last year. However, at this point, incest can be outlawed (still or again) on the citizenship argument because we are generally talking about at least one of the participants being a child. Children do not have ALL of the rights or responsibilities of citizenship, and therefore are not capable of granting legal consent. (which takes us back to Jonny's concern, I know). And on polygamy, it may be true that such a thing would be difficult or impossible to keep outlawed, but there are plenty of other problems associated with the closed subcultures currently practicing polygamy in the US, and those include (but may not be limited to...) forced compliance (which is not valid consent), child sexual abuse, and welfare fraud. Those items are being used to prosecute polygamists now, but it is still difficult.

Rocky: No, that's insufficient reason for opening marriage to any two individuals. The reason why I say that is that the same argument can be used for polygamy and consensual incest, all of whose downsides to society outweigh any personal upside.

Rocky: I should have been more clear. The context was two heterosexuals of the same gender entering into a marriage of convenience. Currently, they are prohibited under the same restrictions as homosexuals from doing so.

Datway - nobody is claiming special rules etc for homosexuals, only equal ones otherise logic dictates that heterosexuals get special treatment. And Zix, homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else. They only have to prove that they are citizens of their country and have a right to equal treatment under the law. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jonny, Are you sure that he was a homosexual and not a pedophile? there is a distinction. And I am very sorry you had to experience it... No homosexuality is not so say no pedophilla...they are two different things. And as a side note, many cultures still consider a 14 year old the right age for marriage....as these cultures blend in with our society, it is harder to enforce our laws...

6er... I really don't get the direction of that question... what's it a litmus test of again? I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

One of my concerns is... IMO, Law's and leglislation should be done in congress (either at the state or federal level) instead on the court room. Courts are to inforce exsisting law not to make new laws.

Same sex marriage??????? That to me --> is the ultimate oxy-moron

Watered Garden said This guy is an idiot wrapped in a moron encased in an anal orifice. ROFL :D-->

I do remember an event similar to what CC posted. I have been thinking about this since the original post. Maybe I so long held the supression of the event that I have minimized its relevance. I do remember my wife and I exiting the tent and glossing over the occurance as 'The Man Of God has spoken', and left it at that conclusion. Looking back...The real Man of God walked off that stage. Just thots

What year was this infamous meeting? Was it ROA 91 or 92? Was it the same year that the nightly teachings focused on a different ministry program? (Family Camps, WOW, etc.)

I remember our WOW branch being screamed at by the roving WOW coordinator during my WOW year. That and other things I kept seeing from the "leadership" discouraged me from going in the Way Corps. Thank God. Kevlar - Not thick, just impenetrable.

Yea* JT "* woulda jo*ned t*e army........" *f * t**nk about *t we really s*oulda... we'd *ave been pa*d, more and better food, a cons*stant set of rules and regulat*ons, a recognzable c*a**n of command, etc etc. o** and d*d * ment*on t*at we'd *ave been pa*d?

That was absolutely rediculous and totally uncalled for. What a way to attract and keep people. --> ____

If I remember correctly, the guy at the microphone talked about love. His (abbreviated) topic definitely dealt with the lack of love he saw and we needed to get back to that. BTW, I was in the front row at that meeting. Mr "I'm so anxious to go in the Corps." Well, we never did end up going in the corps. That meeting had a lot to do with it. If I wanted screaming, I would have joined the Army.