markomalley

Here is a link to a chapter in the book that _Passion_ was based upon: Mary during the Flagellation of our Lord The child scene may be explained by the text at this link (I haven't seen the movie yet, but this MAY be what you are referring to. If not, you may be able to find it by looking at the book, The Dolorous Passion of the Christ Interruption of the Visions of the Passion by the Appearance of St. Joseph under the form of a Child (edited to replace the text with a hyperlink) [This message was edited by Mark on March 04, 2004 at 4:47.]

Dual Income No Kids

The Stations of the Cross are a devotion that helps Christians re-live Christ's passion along the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. It represents what is the fulcrum of his life; the fulfilling of the prophecy of old. Christians have always been encouraged to make a pilgramage to Jerusalem in order to walk in His footsteps; this devotion, which can be done at home, as well as in Jerusalem, provides an opportunity to do so at home. It traditionally consists of 14 "stations," which represent particular moments along the way of His passion: 1. Christ condemned to death; 2. The cross is laid upon him; 3. His first fall; 4. He meets His Blessed Mother; 5. Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the cross; 6. Christ's face is wiped by Veronica; 7. His second fall; 8. He meets the women of Jerusalem; 9. His third fall; 10. He is stripped of His garments; 11. His crucifixion; 12. His death on the cross; 13. His body is taken down from the cross; and 14. He is laid in the tomb Recently, the current Pope has added another "station" to the devotion: 15. He rises from the dead. (although not technically part of the passion, it is, obviously, inseparable from it). Here is a web site that has some interesting reflections on the Stations that you may enjoy, particularly after having seen "The Passion:" via Crucis For many Catholics, this is a particularly popular devotion on Fridays in Lent. (Why do you think Mel Gibson decided to have his movie open on Ash Wednesday? -- it's the perfect time of year for it) Hope that helps and isn't too much overkill ;)-->

What gets me, Ginger, is the claims of some relatively young denominations (including some cults which will remain nameless) who claim to be "the first century church." Remember the Bible Lands tour, where these sites that have been recognized for 2000 years were identified as false? Yeah, right. I especially like the signs of this one denomination which has prominently posted on their signs, "Established 33 A.D." --> -->

Dot: This passage from Issiah may help tie it together a bit.

Thank you. Anybody who has prayed the Stations of the Cross (and understood what they were praying) will understand this movie. Anybody who has prayed the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary (and understood what they were praying) will understand this movie. Anybody who hasn't, won't have the requisite understanding to "get" more than about 50%.

Actually, I did answer the question. What the court says is what the constitution says. They are incapable of being wrong, even if they reverse themselves from time to time. They are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent ;)--> I personally agree with what you're trying to say, but my opinion doesn't matter, as I am a marginalized leper. Oh, by the way, the individuals are the individuals that are a member of the class. The members of that class will state that just as interracial bans were ruled unconstitutional, sexual diversity rules in the marriage laws are also unconstitutional.

You're right, it doesn't explicitly say that. However, I think you could find an analogue with the issue of "affirmative action," school bussing, and so on. A class of people said that they were being discriminated against. Those solutions wre either upheld or mandated by the courts. In this instance, I can picture one of two scenarios happening: 1. A class of people bring suit against a state because members of that class were discriminated against illegally by the state, because the state refused to issue a marriage license. 2. A class of people bring suit against a state or against a state-licensed agency (such as an insurance company) for illegal discrimination, because they did not recognize a marriage legally licensed, contracted, and registered in another state. Once this is ruled upon (in favor of the plaintiffs) and the computer databases and state regulations are updated, then another suit will be brought alleging unequal protection. I have a feeling that, in the current court, the end result will be, on a 5-4 ruling, a mandate for all states to remove the distinction "one man and one woman" from their statutes.

Well, I pray I am wrong, as well. But, I am not particularly comforted by my own prayers.

Rocky, Although I can tolerate something as legal, I refuse to consider accepting something as moral. I am more than happy to tolerate something but will not accept it. No, I don't try to justify a constitutional amendment -- that's why I didn't advocate it in my previous post. No, I figure we are going to be entering fully into the "post-Christian" era within the United States. Oh well. I may as well get over it.

You know something...I messed up. I was working on this eloquent post to refute Trefor and, in doing so, I re-read the 14th Amendment. It says, in part, I always equated that amendment with race, creed, etc. But, that's not what it says. It says all persons and doesn't qualify that statement.So, I am officially saying "oops." Unfortunately, Trefor is right. It's legal, or will be shortly. And those states where it is illegal will, before long, have their laws overturned. I say unfortunately because I don't like the concept and it is offensive to me. But, my opinion doesn't count for much in this case. The law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. There's nothing that any of us that are opposed to homosexual marriage can do about it. So, sorry if I posted inaccurate information on this thread. (see, I can admit I'm wrong)

Excath/Dot: Thanks for your thoughts. It was a long time ago and it all worked out. Like I said, I'm not complaining -- got a nice family -- but the only thing I wondered about was "what if?"

Good Luck on it!

Tough question because I've moved on. The closest thing I could possibly say would be my first wife. She had epilepsy. She was a Way College grad. She wanted to go in the Corpse the worst thing in the world (before we got married). She was medically disqual'd because of her epilsepsy. So she decided to practice "believing" and stopped taking her medicine. She had a grand mal seizure in her sleep, swallowed her tongue and stopped breathing. I woke up next to her and found her cold. Tried CPR, but it was way too late. Paramedics did what they could do, transported her and she was declared DOA at the hospital. The terrible thing is that, because her seizures were starting to get worse, I had finally gotten her to agree to see a neurologist and had an appointment set so that she could get back on her meds. Having said that, I'm perfectly happily married now. Have been for years. No, I don't wish to swap wife 2 for wife 1. But, you always wonder what if??? Her belief in their teachings (not any particular teacher, leader, or whatever -- I'm not blaming any person for that) took that "what if" away from me.

I know what you mean. If I remember the party line, we were supposed to minister the Word to them and then God would take care of them. How arrogant was that belief. What angers me so much now is the thought of how much good we could have done if we would have devoted our youthful energies to actually doing some good for other people. Just imagine with the degree of faith we had and the love in most of our hearts what kind of "Habitat" homes we could have built. What kind of money could we have gone out and raised to feed the hungry and then did so? Think of the kind of teachers for the young and for the illiterate we could have made? Can you imagine what we could have done had we walked the walk of Christ as well as talked the talk? But no. We were taught to simply go speak the Word and let God handle the rest. This arrogant little clique. Why didn't we see that a big way to show them "Christ in you" was to act Christ-like. He didn't act like a way-brained cultie. When he saw hunger, he fed the poor. When he saw sickness, he healed the sick. When he saw despair, he comforted. The "ministry" said "all 9 all the time." So, most of us used that as a cop-out. If we get the "word of knowledge," we'll help the poor or heal the sick or whatever. Duh. The Bible gave us a bigger "word of knowledge" than any private revelation. It said to do that. Look at Acts. They sold plurality and distributed to those that had need. We took plurality and distributed to whom? When I finally realized how misguided I was by this, I was too darned old to do what I really wanted to do. I had my family to take care of and responsibilities. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but there is only so much energy available. (Mind you I still do what I can -- but that amounts to only a couple of days a month, nothing compared to the amount of energy I had in my 20s and 30s.) I do have some stories to tell about panhandling...but that's another post.

Trefor: I certainly don't think you're an ignorant "furriner." If I did, I wouldn't waste my time corresponding with you. As to Nationalist parties in Germany, the "National Socialist" (Nazi) party is illegal. Nazi symbols and actions are illegal. But nationalist parties are alive and well. One that I am familiar with is the "National Democratic Party (NDP)." I am aware of nationalist parties in the UK (The British National Party), France (National Front), Austria (Freedom Party), Switzerland (Swiss People's Party), and Germany. Italy still has a form of fascist party (the name surprisingly escapes me) that has some significant srength up in the Northern regions. The Greeks have an anti-Albanian movement, although I'm not sure if they've organized into a political party or not. I realize that none of these movements are yet close to gaining power in any national government, but there have been some surprises. The one that stands out in my mind was the almost 20% of the popular vote gained by the National Front in France's 2002 elections. As far as comparisons between the Weimar Republic and the EU, you are, of course, correct. There are few comparisons. But, as you rightly said, nobody expected Hitler to stage a coup upon Hindenburg's death. My concern with the EU is the fact that the three biggest economic powerhouses are the home to the most viable nationalist movements in Europe. Two of those countries dominate the monetary union. If the trend of immigration continues and a recession hit, there could be some ugly repercussions. After all, as you rightly point out, economic chaos following the excesses of the reparations owed by Germany as a result of Versailles drove a large enough minority of that country into the Nazi camp. That's why the analogy with the Weimar Republic.

Sorry, thought it was ALL public facilities, not just schools Ask a Muslim girl whether its racist or not. You might get a different response. Actually, the last time I was in Germany (around the 1999 time frame), I saw quite a few political posters up for the "Nationalist" party in Germany, as well -- I've also read quite a few articles in Spiegel about the subject. Remember, when Hitler's crowd took over there, they only had about 20% of the populace. I am not calling these nationalist parties Nazis in the literal sense, I am using Nazi as a metaphor to compare the level of xenophobia that is growing, particularly in France and Germany. This consituency is being represented by those Nationalist parties (just Nationalist, not National Socialist) Oh, and by the way, there is no anti-Pakistani feeling in the UK? The growing number of mosques is not causing any concern in your country? Yeah...right. The Weimar Republic was well constructed as well. The electoral college is divided to equal the number of senators plus the number of representatives. Thus, a sparsely populated state like Wyoming has three electors, even though their population would justify only one elector, if that, if a truly proportional system was used. This, and the fact that all legislation must pass both houses of Congress, ensures that densely populated states, such as New York and California, cannot marginalize the interests of the sparsely populated states, such as Wyoming and South Dakota. One thing that a lot of foreigners don't fully appreciate is that the US is made up of 50 states that have 280+ million people, not simply 280+ million people. [This message was edited by Mark on February 22, 2004 at 18:39.]

Trefor: ...and as France and Germany are currently afflicted with their nationalist political movements. Didn't France just make the wearing of a headscarf in a public place illegal? They are unmustachio'd Nazis minus the swatzika; their Jews are Algerians and Turks. Oh, and by the way, the majority of Americans live in "flyover country." The concentration is a whole lot less, but because of our proportional representation scheme they have even greater political clout than their population represents.

Trefor: Well, I was not trying to imply that all of us Yanks are rednecks. My take on the situation is that most people in this country are, deep down inside, quite conservative, particularly with sex. Most of those who aren't are doing so out of some sort of rebellion -- many of those have an incredible amount of guilt (often deeply supressed). Then there are some who are "European" wannabees. They want to prove how "sophisticated" they are. Very few folks over here are truly liberated from their sexual hangups. (BTW, I personally would fall in the conservative category, but having spent a decade living in Europe, I can see things from other points of view) This is not to say that everybody in Europe is a total slut, but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot more laissez-faire attitude, even if one chooses personally not to participate. Are we likely ever to change? Honestly, I really don't think there will ever be a fundamental change over here. I think that the changes in this country are tangential to the fundamental issue. We may, in some epochs, be "purer" that the Europeans. In others, we may be "badder." But, I think we will constantly be skirting the issue (no pun intended). As far as "rearguard" actions...You, on the surface, are probably correct. But, the fundamental issue addressed above in my post have to change before the tension just below the surface will dissipate. It goes from tolerance to acceptance to integration. The country right now is barely at the tolerance stage. It will take a lot to get to the acceptance stage. The integration stage, where you want to be, I, honestly, can't ever picture over here. The media isn't this country. The East Coast and the Left Coast are not this country. Flyover country is this country.

Trefor: ROTFLMAO!!! :D-->

JL: was that question to me? or to Abigail? I just quoted and responded to her post. Please clarify.

First, (not to you Abigail, but for others who may not know) the state is the sovereign, not a city, county, or township. If they choose to engage in civil disobedience then they, like the civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 1960s, need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. There is one big difference between the civil rights protesters of the last century and the current battle...the civil rights protesters had the 15th Amendment of the Constitution on their side. Clearly. I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that guarantees people their rights regardless of their sexual preference or activity. That is why I advocate an amendment to append sexual preference or proclivity as a basis for non-discrimination specified in the 15th Amendment. In this way, up or down, it can be voted on. Then there will be some law to back this movement up.

mj: My intent was not to sound gloomy. I actually look forward to when that happens. I know that sounds strange, but I actually believe that this will be a new renaissance for the Church. One that is desparately needed. jezusfreaky: I don't think that anybody would say otherwise. Frankly, from past experience, dealing with the "field/combat" situations is usually the least problem. You never hear about problems with race or problems with sex when in the combat situation. Honestly, there have been a number of times where we had to put up a separate tent for females out in the field, by decree of the muckity-mucks, not the females. The females would be happy with a tarp between a men's and women's section, if that at all. When building a base camp, forward staging base, or tactical site, people are almost inevitably too tired to think about any extra-curricular activity. But, we had to do what we had to do. The problem is when the folks are not in combat. Then people have time to think and may actually get a little bored. That is when the differences start creeping in and becoming issues. I cannot count the number of females who have gotten pregnant in order to get out of a long and boring deployment. Having said that, let me stress that the vast majority of females are top-notch professionals and want nothing more than to be a member of the team. But, the vast minority cause negative stereotypes to be applied to the group as a whole. Honestly, I have no reason to suspect that the same would not hold true for LGBT folks, as well. The point I was trying to get at was that it gets REALLY complicated. Trefor: There are two points with which I'd like to take issue. First, You are absolutely correct when saying that there have not been the dire results predicted. Keep in mind that I am not one who is predicting dire results in this country as well. I give the military far too much credit for that. They will do as ordered. Those who don't like it will be unceremoneously drummed out of the service, much as Truman drummed out segregationist officers from the service when he racially integrated it back in 1947(?). You must recognize that this is not Europe and this is not Canada. This is the backward, unsophisticated US of A we're talking about here. Society as a whole is not ready to accept it. There is a huge difference between Amsterdam and Kansas City. Unit cohesion is a big function of the culture from which people come. If you stick out like a sore thumb, you are going to be hard on that cohesion. European and Canadian culture always has been a lot more sexually open and tolerant than us rednecks down here in Podunk. After all, what's the quickest way to detect a male, American tourist on an Italian beach full of German women? My primary concern, though, is one of logistics. As I said before, either the moral standards established by the muckity-mucks for barracks people will have to be abandoned, totally, or some new sleeping and changing arrangements will have to be made. Maybe some poof in Her Majesty's Army can make a casual pass at his straight roomie, or stare at his straight roomie's nice a$$ and get away with a casual "sorry, mate, it's not my thing," but I can guarantee that if that happened here in a US Army barracks, there would be a "blanket party" scheduled for that evening with the poof as the guest of honor. I'm not saying it's right; I'm not saying that any more than the smallest minority of homosexuals would be so crass as to do that, but it would happen. Our society is simply not ready for that close a contact. For those who may disagree, keep in mind that the majority of well-educated, open-minded enlightened social liberals are not likely to enter the military in the first place. For the most part, it is a very conservative organization. The American military is not unionized, nor will it ever be. I DO believe that openly homosexual males and females will be fully accepted into the US mlitary at some point in the future. But, there are far too many sexual hangups that plague our society for that day to be now. Maybe when we grow up and have our sexual mores resemble the Netherlands rather than Saudi Arabia, then maybe we'll be ready.

There was, as most will recall, a major scandal in the country when one of the first things done by the Clinton administration was to attempt to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the US Military. This was attempted as a response to campaign promises made to the homosexual community by Clinton. He simply was not able to do it. There was a hew and cry let out by the entire nation, including from within the military community. These arguments were divided into two basic categories: unit cohesion and practical issues. Unit cohesion: They were concerned that openly gay/lesbian people would rip apart unit cohesion. What does this mean? The concern was that military units would no longer be able to effectively operate as a team: living together, fighting together, partying together. The level of trust between unit members would be reduced significantly. This would reduce their combat effectiveness. Practical issues: Despite what the perception of the effects on unit cohesion, there would be some serious practical issues that would have to be dealt with. Some issues that are, on the surface, dumb. But issues that would have to be dealt with, never the less. 1. Dormitories/Barracks. Right now, single enlisted servicemembers are housed in barracks, ranging from single rooms sharing a bathroom, to open bay barracks that can house 26 to 52 members per bay. Under no circumstances are male servicemembers housed in the same sleeping space with female members. Why is that? It isn't because of the difference in plumbing requirements, it is to preserve modesty and a sense of propriety (I know that males and females shack up together in barracks all the time, but it is strictly prohibited -- if discovered, both members are in deep trouble). Do the math. How would you house homosexual men, heterosexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual women, while maintaining the same standards? No matter how open minded I am, I would probably feel somewhat uncomfortable with a homosexual roommate (in the same bedroom). Is the answer to house homosexual males in the same barracks room with homosexual males and homosexual females in the same barracks room with homosexual females? No...that would be roughly equivalent to housing heterosexual males in the same barracks room with heterosexual females.? The latter is already deemed inappropriate and against all service regs. For consistency, some similar standard would be needed in the former case. 2. Bathrooms, locker rooms, medical examinations, etc. There are a number of other issues that would be difficult to deal with. The same issues that would have to be dealt with regarding sleeping arrangements would also apply to these situations. These practical issues seem sort of silly to those who have not had to deal with the issues in a male/female military. But, they are real issues that must be considered, solved, and overcome. The Clinton administration decided, after valiant efforts, that they couldn't be effectively dealt with. That is, in large part, why they reneged on their promise to the gay community to eliminate the "ban" and came up with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been with us since. My commentary: There have, as Trefor has accurately pointed out, always been homosexuals in the military. Many have served with distinction. Those who did had to keep their sexual preference to themselves and, if they wanted some "nooky," had to do so with the upmost discretion, so as not to be found out. In a civilian job, there is no place for discrimination based on a person's sexual preference. Everybody, homosexual or heterosexual, has the obligation to keep his or her pants zipped and keep the mind on the job, not on other employees. The military isn't that way. As a 21-year veteran, I am speaking from experience. Uniformed military people are "members," not employees. People operate in extremely close quarters within military units. They literally live together, eat together, and must have a high degree of trust. Issues that may tend to limit that trust between members are extremely harmful to that level of trust. I'm talking thieves, adulterers, gossips, etc. Concern whether a member is going to make a pass at another member is a potential breach of that trust. This is not a homosexual thing. It also applies to heterosexual relationships. IMHO, unit cohesion has been impacted by the increasing prevalence of females within military units as well. In many cases, particularly in combat support and combat service support units where the percentage of females is higher, people need to be very careful of their language and mannerisms to avoid a potential sexual harrassment allegation. This would, also IMHO, be greatly exaggerated if homosexual members are allowed to "come out of the closet." The practical issues, also, would have to be dealt with. They are not small issues. Probably, the only solution would be to provide single enlisted people with private rooms, from basic training on. (The only other solution would be to totally eliminate housing segregated by sex) That is not an insignificant cost. Now, that works while people are "in garrison." How about in the field, or at sea? I have NO idea how to deal with that one. The logistics would be a nightmare. The bottom line is that the military has been used for social engineering for decades. Racial integration was largely forced upon the military...in most cases, that has worked out rather well, after about three decades of problems. But, there are still problems that are below the surface. Male/female integration is still in the process of development. The problems are starting to subside from that little experiment. At some point in time, homosexual integration will occur. I dread to see the problems when that actually happens (I am glad I'm retired and so its somebody else's problem). Society will follow, eventually. Those who are traditional Christians had simply better recognize that they are going to be relegated to the dung heap of society. The moral standards that they have accepted for their lives have no place in modern society. Eventually, their civil rights will be legally eliminated by the courts because they interfere with the rights of others to pursue the lifestyles they want. They may as well get used to it and either compromise their standards, or be prepared to be marginalized and perhaps hunted down and forcibly excluded. That is the way of the future. Deal with it.

. [This message was edited by Mark on February 14, 2004 at 20:05.]