Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Woman Murdered After Witnessing to Homosexual; TEEN STABS DEVOUT CATHOLIC TO DEATH
Various | 11/21/02 | Various

Posted on 11/21/2002 4:58:51 PM PST by Polycarp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 last
To: Gary Boldwater
Check out the entire website, Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War .

It is objective and seemingly unbiased by ideological viewpoints. It contains a wealth of information on Democide, by RUDOLPH J. RUMMEL, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii.

Regarding your question, see Statistics Of Pre-20th Century Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources and these two tables especially:

Table 2.1A, lines 1-308 and Table 2.1B, lines 310-750, Pre-20th Century Democide Estimates, Sources, and Calculations

181 posted on 12/05/2002 4:57:45 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
I was raised Catholic, but now I'm Christian. I believe that...

...With al due respect, brother: who cares what you believe? By what authority do you decide what is the Truth and what isn't? By abandoning the Church, you have set yourself up as the only infallible authority on matters of faith and morals -- a Papacy of One. Well, pardon me if I don't give what you believe much credence, because what you believe is not taught by Scripture or Tradition nor by the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

If it comes down to what you believe vs. what Our Lord, St. Peter, St. Paul, and the Holy Father teach, you'll please pardon me if I go with them instead of you.

I'll be praying for you, for the murderer you defend, and most especially for the family of this innocent, martyred woman, who died with the Gospel of Christ on her lips and who is most certainly rejoicing in Glory at the feet of Our Lord right now.

B-chan

182 posted on 12/05/2002 5:11:45 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #183 Removed by Moderator

To: Polycarp
Thanks much for the references and for taking the time. I'll go through them.
184 posted on 12/05/2002 9:24:12 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line; Polycarp
You probably consider yourself a religious person, but I want to point out that you are the one who started calling names. That wasn't Christ's style. That's why I dislike you dogmatic fundamentalists; so sure that your view of G_d is correct that you think its okay to abuse others who see things differently.

Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

So I guess Jesus won't win any style points with you;

Matthew 23:
25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Cordially,

185 posted on 12/06/2002 8:25:37 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: What is the bottom line
Our Nation's laws against homosexuality go back beyond it's founding. In every single civilized nation since the beginning of time, homosexuality was considered immoral, a crime against nature, and usually was a capital offense. Let's look at a few quotes:

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."

The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17

No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:

Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:

Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws,  1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).

"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553

Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.

These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable.

Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral.

What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case:

This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.

Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.

Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...

No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.

Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.)

Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral. It cannot be tolerated period.

Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.

186 posted on 12/07/2002 8:53:24 AM PST by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: monday
>>You realize that she would be alive today if she had minded her own business.<<

So, staying alive is the prime directive? Glad you weren't there to tell Jesus, or all our military that died in wars..
187 posted on 12/11/2002 3:12:52 PM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
"So, staying alive is the prime directive? "

If staying alive isn't important, then why is everyone so upset that she was killed? At any rate I was only pointing out that her fate shouldn't be surprising given the cercumstances. Just as soldiers going to war should expect to be killed, people who council crazy homosexuals to repent should expect a similar fate.

188 posted on 12/12/2002 9:28:14 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
This story has been reported and commented on here before. But your title, saying she was "witnessing" to him, intrigued me.

I'd call it witnessing when someone talks about, or better, demonstrates, how their beliefs have changed their life for the better, how they came to understand the truth of it, etc.

I'm not sure I'd call it witnessing when a person condemns another, telling them going to hell, how they're living a sinful, evil lifestyle, etc.

I once worked with a fellow who was always upbeat - always positive, always friendly, a hard worker, and very conscientious. He kept a positive attitude regardless of the stupidities and rudeness he ran across. He was above politics, and always seemed very happy. He was the guy who always brought doughnuts to meetings.

One day I asked him - "Ken, why is it this crap never gets you down?" His reply? "It's my personal relationship with Jesus Christ." I have never seen a more powerful witness for Christian faith than he was.

On the other hand, I've also worked with people who were constantly chanting "praise the Lord", etc., telling people what God's plan was, condemning use of booze as sinful, yada, yada. They were generally not very happy folks at all. They were also very poor witnesses for Christianity, oozing self-righteousness, constantly judging others, and pissing off everybody around them.

There's no excuse, of course, for this lady's murder. But could she have been "witnessing" in the second way rather than first?

189 posted on 12/12/2002 10:56:25 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FF578
You seem to be a classic example of the second type of "witnessing" I discussed. Is this effective? Do more people come to your point of view because of this means of expressing it?

Particularly, does it help when you insult libertarians?

190 posted on 12/12/2002 11:15:27 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: monday
We agree. I will add, life IS very important, it is just not the MOST important...
191 posted on 12/13/2002 9:24:21 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: jimt
There's no excuse, of course, for this lady's murder.

Then why did you spend so much time trying to rationalize the murder? You really don't know what she said, but you speculate the worse in your blame the victim attempt. It doesn't really matter though what was said.

192 posted on 12/13/2002 9:34:24 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson