Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins
"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Mark Tooley August 22, 2003
When arguing for church acceptance of homosexuality, most advocates talk about monogamy. But others are bolder.
“I am a strong ally of those in healthy, polyamorous relationships,” declared Debra Kolodny. She argued that having multiple sexual partners can be “holy.” Kolodyn was leading a workshop at the WOW (Witness Our Welcome) 2003 convention, an ecumenical gathering for “sexually and gender inclusive Christians.”
Hundreds of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people gathered under the “queer” banner in Philadelphia August 14-17 to urge religious acceptance of non-traditional sexual behaviors.
According to WOW’s schedule brochure, it was sponsored by the homosexual caucus groups in most mainline Protestant denominations and Dignity USA (for Roman Catholics). Other supporting groups listed in the program included People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, McCormick Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), Episcopal Divinity School, Chicago Theological Seminary (United Church of Christ), and Wesley Theological Seminary (United Methodist).
According to the president of Wesley seminary, Wesley paid a fee for a table with promotional material at WOW 2003. But Wesley did not endorse or give financial support to WOW beyond this fee.
Kolodny, an author and former national coordinator for The National Bisexual Network, was leading a workshop called “Blessed Bi Spirit: Bisexual People of Faith.” Although focusing mostly on bisexuality, Kolodny, who is Jewish, explained that she could not conclude the session without discussing polyamory.
“There can be fidelity in threesomes,” Kolodny said. “It can be just as sanctified as anything else if all parties are agreed.” But she was careful to stress that polyamory is unacceptable “if there is deceit.”
Kolodny said polyamory does not usually involve simultaneous group sex. But there are exceptions, she admitted, as she recalled a friend of hers who shares a bed with his wife and male partner. When asked by a workshop participant how polyamory was different from “recreational sex,” Kolodny responded that consensual recreational sex could be a part of polyamory. But polyamory usually involves some level of commitment and intimacy.
Noting she herself had never been polyamorous, Kolodny explained that as a busy attorney she simply did not have time to conduct the complicated “negotiations” necessary for “holy” polyamory. But she expressed admiration for persons with the time to organize.
Most of Kolodny’s talk was about bisexuality, not polyamory. “I disagree with the queer movement [when it claims] that sexual orientation is predetermined,” Kolodny said, asserting that the existence of bisexuality “challenges all that.”
“I know a lot of women who chose to become lesbian,” Kolodny said. “Love between two people is always beautiful,” she added, and should be regarded as part of free choice.
“I’m not sure we can make the case for genetic predetermination,” Kolodny stressed, saying sexual preference depends on opportunity, support, and spiritual experiences.
Kolodny lamented that the “queer” movement insists on the “party line” of genetic predetermination as part of a “political strategy.”
“The queer movement relies on, ‘We can’t help it. We’re born this way,’ Kolodny said. “It feels so safe. If you don’t say it you’re thrown to the lions and you’re evil.”
She contrasted the insistence on genetic predetermination with the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, which say: “God gives us choices.”
“Free will is essential to our humanity and essential to our being created in the image of God,” Kolodny said. She charged that denying free choice in sex preference was “perpetuating the hetero-patriarchy,” helping the “radical right,” ignoring bisexuality, and making it easier for “hate” to continue.
Rather than creating “absolute poles” of sexual preference, Kolodny said the world includes a wide spectrum of choices. She recalled the hostility of her “dyke” friends when she abandoned her strict lesbianism for bisexuality. Many homosexuals suspect bisexuals of trying to gain the “privileges” of the hetero-patriarchy by seeking sexual partners of the opposite gender.
Another workshop leader who addressed a sexual minority sometimes forgotten by the “queer” movement was the Rev. Erin Swenson, formerly Eric. Swenson is a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) minister and family counselor whose sex change operation made Swenson the first post-operative transsexual minister in a major denomination.
Swenson was married with children. But after suffering for years from a desire to be a woman, Swenson finally divorced and had the operation. “I don’t recommend that any one become transgender,” Swenson said. “It’s a very painful process.”
“Some people accuse me of not being a woman,” Swenson complained, citing “ultra-feminists.” Swenson prefers being called simply “Erin and a child of God” to any label. “High heels are very uncomfortable,” Swenson playfully admitted.
“Transgender people won’t come to your church unless they truly know they are safe there,” Swenson warned. Even ostensibly “gay” friendly congregations are sometimes not prepared for transgender people. “Get your church to be trans friendly,” Swenson urged. One need is for bathrooms not marked male or female.
Swenson described the United Church of Christ as “miles ahead of anybody” in making itself open to transgender people. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in contrast, declined Swenson’s offer to volunteer in the creation of church resource materials for transgender church members.
“Transgendered people threaten communities because they threaten our assumptions,” Swenson concluded. “It is threatening but also freeing.”
Leading a workshop on “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Issues in the Roman Catholic Church,” Mary Louise Cervone complained that tolerance rather than justice” is the norm in America today. A former president of Dignity USA, Cervone, with her same-sex partner at her side, wondered how many “nameless men and women” must die before this country moves beyond tolerance to freedom for all people.
“Our best hope for change rests not with bishops and the pope but with Catholic people,” Cervone insisted. “Change won’t come form the top down. The Catholic people must demand freedom.
Cervone affirmed her lesbianism as a “gift of God.” She confessed she has a hard time attending the Catholic Church, because the “church is not where we find freedom. It’s where we go to hide.”
“But you can’t kick me out,” Cervone declared defiantly. “Where in religion did we get the idea that some people are more worthy than others?” she wondered.
The Rev. Jorge Lockwood, who is Global Praise Coordinator for the United Methodist Church’s Board of Global Ministries, led a workshop called “Redeeming Our Bodies, Congregational Song as a Path of Liberation.”
“As queer people, we have another way of looking at the body,” Lockwood said. He complained that churches too often are uncomfortable with the human body and suffer from “liturgical constipation.” He observed that too often people think the “desire of a 25 year old gay man for another 25 year old man is a beautiful thing,” but the desire of a 65 year old for a 25 year is “dirty.”
“We have all learned to challenge Romans,” said the Rev. Mari Castellanos, referring to St. Paul’s letter that, among other Scriptures, is critical of homosexual behavior. Castellanos leads the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ. “We must do likewise with all texts that go against our brothers and sisters that are being claimed as the unerring Word of God.”
But Castellanos also urged the WOW 2003 audience to embrace “justice” issues beyond their own. “When we leave this earth, queer bishops won’t matter as much as whether the hungry are fed,” she insisted, to applause.
“This president and this Congress have systematically torn down the social net that sustained all of us,” Castellanos mourned. “We must lobby our government on behalf of the poor of the world. Our experience of exile has taught us compassion.”
Castellanos promised that “we will take on scary proposals such as the Marriage Protection Act. We will turn the tide that threatens to obliterate the social contract.” Echoing the name of a radical homosexual group, she insisted: “We must continue to act-up!”
Rev. Yvette Flunder, a United Church of Christ pastor from San Francisco, celebrated a string of political victories for pro-homosexuality advocates, including the election of an Episcopal Church homosexual bishop, the arrival of legalized same-sex unions in Canada, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against anti-sodomy laws.
“The Holy Ghost can break loose in an atmosphere of injustice and give us more justice in three weeks than many years!” Flunder enthused. “These wouldn’t have been miracles under Bill Clinton!” she exclaimed, citing the irony of pro-homosexuality strides under a conservative government.
The Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches, asked all the heterosexuals at WOW 2003 to stand and receive applause. “Thank you!!... I know what people do to you,” he told them, saying they pay a price for solidarity with homosexuals.
Perry said he “just got married” to his male partner of 18 years, who has had AIDS for several years. He likened the plight of homosexuals who cannot legally marry to slaves who also had no legal right to marriage.
“I will not give up until every one of us can marry,” Perry insisted, comparing Heaven to attending the WOW 2003 conference.
A brief skit produced for the WOW 2003 audience showed three troubled disciples in a storm-tossed boat. One, a young woman, declares: “I am bisexual and can’t find acceptance in the gay community.” A man says, “I am a 19 year old gay. Or am I queer? And I’m Presbyterian. But I’m not sure what that means!” A third person complains she is age 22 but cannot “find a voice” in the gay community.
Then a figure representing Jesus appears, played by a young woman wrapped in the rainbow flag, which is the emblem of the homosexual movement. “Take heart, it is I,” she says. “Do not be afraid.”
Strike 2, The points I have made are neither gnostic nor Pelagian. There seems to be a weakness for those who have begun their studies in systematic theology from Calvinist leaning doctrines to hastily label any understanding of Scripture other than Calvinism to only fall into the camp of Pelagian, Arminian, Gnostic, or Univeral theologies.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. He can win, you see.
"I have no sexual standards in my head that say this is good or this is bad. Homosexual-that only means to me that he enjoys sex with a man and I enjoy sex with a woman. It's all legitimate to me." A. Schwarzenegger
All of the Calvinist leanings to declare universally that man has no righteous work, are only supportted by Scripture referenceing the unregenerate man, the natural man, the degenerate fallen man.
Again, the statement that all men are unrighteous does not apply to the work of those who are believers, acting in fellowship with God. The universal statement applies to all persons who are within the set of 'man', including Jesus Christ Himself who is God incarnate and is now resurrected.
Schwarzenegger's outlook can best be summed up in an interview he gave to The Sunday Telegraph magazine in November 1999 in which he admonished his party members to alter their approach.He's the Hillary Clinton of the Republican Party.The Republican Party, Schwarzenegger said, "is going to lose until you become a party of inclusion." He went on to say, "that you love the foreigner that comes in with no money, as much as a gay person, as a lesbian person, as anyone else -- someone who is uneducated, some who's from the inner city."
Good post, we agree on this.
"...does (Is a) man today born with a free will(?). Clearly the answer is no. "
Man is not first born regenerated in spirit, but has a range of choices within his sinful nature, all degenerate, until he receives common grace from the Father in His call by understanding the Gospel message, inbreathing it, and then man may choose in free will whether or not to believe in Him and accept Christ with faith. (Followed by the Holy Spirit making that faith effective, efficacious grace, for salvation, ...there is nothing man can do, alone by himself, to effect salvation.)
Good post, although if I may offer some constructive criticism. Man was created with volition, although after the fall in the Garden of Eden we are dead in the spirit, a soulish people if you will also referred to as the natural man. We do have the ability to choose good or evil, but without Divine good, our good is merely a human good, which is parlayed into evil by the devil.
We are judged first by our name in the book of life and then by the Book of Works. Sin was judged on the cross. God is looking for righteous works in the coming jusgment. If one fails to have salvation, their works are good for nothing and burnt up. Those not saved are then discarded into the Lake of Fire.
Universal salvation, remember? Not even theories go to hell anymore :)
Polyamorize, of course ;-)
Well, count me out! We've got too much love in this world already! ;-)
...until he receives common grace from the Father in His call by understanding the Gospel message, inbreathing it, and then man may choose in free will whether or not to believe in Him and accept Christ with faith.
So your reformed friends have been making some progress in at least you see that the natural man hates God, so a change has to take place first. I am intrigued, though by this new hypothesis that the Paraclete breathes in this "understanding" but not enough understanding where the person "chooses" positively for Christ - in other words, there is a chance that not enough understanding was breathed in and the person could still rebel against the command to repent.
It sounds real lame. If you really had understanding that you were worthless scum deserving eternal torment, that there was absolutely nothing to love about you, and that every breath you drew was offensive to a Holy God, but yet "choosing Christ" would mitigate this animosity and you would be released from sin, Hell and bondage and spend eternity in a love relationship with the Creator of all things - now why would anyone choose eternal damnation? Yet, you are saying that the overwhelming majority of people, once enlightened prefer utter eternal destruction. How exactly is that rational or evidence of understanding? To me, it looks like in light of all this alleged understanding, a refusal to "choose Christ" would seem like prima facie evidence of a will still bound to sin and death.
You also introduced a new element called "Common Grace". The presbyterians invented that term a century or so ago, and applied it to explaining why man isn't as wicked in his works as he could possibly be.
Let me say I hate the concept of "common grace" because first, it is an oxymoron in that grace means "unmerited favor", and if everyone receives "favor" then "favor" sort of loses its defining characteristic since there is no one who doesn't receive favor, the favor is gone and it becomes a standard entitlement.
Second, the very idea that there is a non-salvific form of grace is disturbing because a grace that does not save is not worth anything, and does nothing to further the Kingdom of God. Let's say we adopted the presbyterian form of "common grace" that talks about material provision that bothe the regenerate and the reprobate enjoy. Consider Christ's words record in Matthew 16:26 "For whatr profit is to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?"
But let me take the time to directly attack your hypothesis that the spirit gives man some understanding, but not necessarilly efficacious understanding. I call this hypothesis the Forced Reprobation Policy. In that the person is given exactly one chance to "choose Christ", after that the person is reprobated to Hell forever. There is no reject Christ this Sunday and choose Christ the next. For we have Hebrews 6:4-6 that says that if a person has received this understanding of the holy spirit and rejects it, that it is "impossible for those who were once enlightened...to renew them to repentance." In Christ, there are no second chances.
The Hebrews passage has harmony with Calvinist views towards irresistable grace and perseverance, BTW.
For me, I struggle with a non efficacious grace that is handed out to anyone - it is defective grace, grace without purpose, and if anything, to the reprobate is worse than any grace at all.
I am doing no such thing. You're trying to avoid the issue.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Mat 18:15-17)
You refuse to acknowledge that you did me wrong. Your pride prevents you from admitting that you spoke that which was not right. You can justify in your own mind and by deceitful words here that which you did, but there are witnesses who know what you did, and have also publicly asked for your apology to me.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1Jo 1:10)
What's it going to be? Will you publicly retract your false judgment of me, or will you persist in your lie?
You're being disengenuous. Bad judgments are bad judgments, regardless of the subject. To suggest outcome-based judgments are preferable is antithecal to the rule of law. You do know how our system works, right?
"somehow somebody has wronged you"...Interesting spin. YOU are that somebody, and YOU in fact, DID publicly call into question my salvation, solely because I withstood you in false doctrine. I have assembled the salient posts here:
From the FR thread "Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism"
Then perhaps you aren't saved yet. 395 posted on 08/17/2003 11:11 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) ___________________________________________ The entire posting might make sense to the soulish man, one not yet a believer, for such a person is dichotomous and things of the sirit are foolishness to him. ...... You are on the right track to study Scripture. Now study it after returning to righteous relationship with Him and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you where one's soul may have been previously scarred. 401 posted on 08/17/2003 11:59 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) _______________________________________ My, that is an incredible leap of logic. An observation by no means is a judgment. Discerning between soulish things and things of the spirit are foolishness to those not yet saved. If this is foolishness to you, then perhaps you are not in fellowship with Him. Man is originally born with only soul and body, so those unsaved will not understand these things. Also, one who has been saved, but has fallen without repentence and acting out of human good, rather than divine good, also might not see them. Do you understand them? 402 posted on 08/18/2003 12:02 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) ________________________________________ No, I'm not arrogant, I am deeply offended. To a level you have no way of understanding. You were challenging my salvation, and you haven't got the decency to admit it. 540 posted on 08/19/2003 3:36 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) ____________________________________________ Tough 542 posted on 08/19/2003 3:42 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) ______________________________________________ I made an orthodox confession of faith and have defended that confession. You questioned my salvation, called me "soulish", speculated that I might in fact not be saved, impuned my posts, and even now are hinting that you believe I have a fallen nature, which is tantamount to saying that I am not a Christian. How dare you make such accusations, such slander, and such false statements?! Who gave you the right? 694 posted on 08/20/2003 2:11 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) ________________________________________________ This is orthodox, this is Truth, and this is my confession of faith, that the Father chose me (I did not first choose Him), and saved me by His Effectual Grace which enabled me to believe, by the power and work of Jesus Christ, Who died, was buried, and rose the third day for my justification, and Who shall come again to receive me into His Glory at His Blessed Return. This I believe and affirm with all my heart. 758 posted on 08/21/2003 1:45 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) _________________________________________________ A statement of orthodoxy is not necessarily an evidence of faith. If such a statement is made while not in fellowship with Him, then it is merely human good, lacking divine good and good for nothing, lacking in faith. 768 posted on 08/21/2003 2:46 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) __________________________________________________ Spirit-filled response? Hardly! Questioning a person's salvation because they aggressively disagree with your doctrine is NOT a Spirit-filled response. And your subsequent obfuscation and avoidance is all the more telling. 769 posted on 08/21/2003 2:49 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) _____________________________________________ I render you no insult. If a person is insulted by application of Bible Doctrine, then this is an indication of degeneracy. 771 posted on 08/21/2003 2:54 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) __________________________________________________ No, it's not. That is the dodge you employ to avoid admitting that you questioned my salvation unjustly, and have continued to do so by implication. I am offended by your questioning of my salvation. Your doctrine is not the issue here. We disagree doctrinally, that is plain for all to see. You crossed the line when you called into question my salvation, or the status thereof. Either way, that was offensive, uncalled for, and indicative to me and many others here of the sin of pride. What you may think in your own thoughts of me is of no concern to me. But when you make it public, it becomes a matter of public record, and that does concern me. It is a matter of honor, sir. You have impuned my honor, and my standing before God in the eyes of others who read these threads. If you cannot see that, and refuse to show the grace and humility that is encouraged of us by God, then you impune your own honor and reputation. 776 posted on 08/21/2003 3:08 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) ________________________________________________ The Great Commission mandated such communication. If you are insulted. Tough. 777 posted on 08/21/2003 3:11 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^)) _________________________________________________ Your judgment means nothing. You have wronged me, and you know it. God gave you no such command to slander those who don't agree with you. That is ultimately what this is about. I withstood you because you erred doctrinally, and you in turn began to call my salvation into question publicly. You think to impress by the use of "high" language, and want to be seen as "learned" and "mature". All you have succeeded in doing is to make a buffoon of yourself. 778 posted on 08/21/2003 3:22 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...) _________________________________________________
Now then, shall we discuss your apology?
"somehow somebody has wronged you"...Interesting spin. YOU are that somebody, and YOU in fact, DID publicly call into question my salvation, solely because I withstood you in false doctrine. I have assembled the salient posts here:
From the FR thread "Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism"
Then perhaps you aren't saved yet. 395 posted on 08/17/2003 11:11 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))___________________________________________
The entire posting might make sense to the soulish man, one not yet a believer, for such a person is dichotomous and things of the sirit are foolishness to him. ......
You are on the right track to study Scripture. Now study it after returning to righteous relationship with Him and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you where one's soul may have been previously scarred.
401 posted on 08/17/2003 11:59 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))
_______________________________________
My, that is an incredible leap of logic. An observation by no means is a judgment. Discerning between soulish things and things of the spirit are foolishness to those not yet saved. If this is foolishness to you, then perhaps you are not in fellowship with Him. Man is originally born with only soul and body, so those unsaved will not understand these things. Also, one who has been saved, but has fallen without repentence and acting out of human good, rather than divine good, also might not see them.
Do you understand them?
402 posted on 08/18/2003 12:02 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))
________________________________________
No, I'm not arrogant, I am deeply offended. To a level you have no way of understanding. You were challenging my salvation, and you haven't got the decency to admit it.
540 posted on 08/19/2003 3:36 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
____________________________________________
Tough
542 posted on 08/19/2003 3:42 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))
______________________________________________
I made an orthodox confession of faith and have defended that confession. You questioned my salvation, called me "soulish", speculated that I might in fact not be saved, impuned my posts, and even now are hinting that you believe I have a fallen nature, which is tantamount to saying that I am not a Christian. How dare you make such accusations, such slander, and such false statements?! Who gave you the right?
694 posted on 08/20/2003 2:11 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
________________________________________________
This is orthodox, this is Truth, and this is my confession of faith, that the Father chose me (I did not first choose Him), and saved me by His Effectual Grace which enabled me to believe, by the power and work of Jesus Christ, Who died, was buried, and rose the third day for my justification, and Who shall come again to receive me into His Glory at His Blessed Return. This I believe and affirm with all my heart.
758 posted on 08/21/2003 1:45 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
_________________________________________________
A statement of orthodoxy is not necessarily an evidence of faith. If such a statement is made while not in fellowship with Him, then it is merely human good, lacking divine good and good for nothing, lacking in faith.
768 posted on 08/21/2003 2:46 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))
__________________________________________________
Spirit-filled response? Hardly! Questioning a person's salvation because they aggressively disagree with your doctrine is NOT a Spirit-filled response. And your subsequent obfuscation and avoidance is all the more telling.
769 posted on 08/21/2003 2:49 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
_____________________________________________
I render you no insult. If a person is insulted by application of Bible Doctrine, then this is an indication of degeneracy.
771 posted on 08/21/2003 2:54 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))
__________________________________________________
No, it's not. That is the dodge you employ to avoid admitting that you questioned my salvation unjustly, and have continued to do so by implication. I am offended by your questioning of my salvation. Your doctrine is not the issue here. We disagree doctrinally, that is plain for all to see. You crossed the line when you called into question my salvation, or the status thereof. Either way, that was offensive, uncalled for, and indicative to me and many others here of the sin of pride. What you may think in your own thoughts of me is of no concern to me. But when you make it public, it becomes a matter of public record, and that does concern me. It is a matter of honor, sir. You have impuned my honor, and my standing before God in the eyes of others who read these threads. If you cannot see that, and refuse to show the grace and humility that is encouraged of us by God, then you impune your own honor and reputation.
776 posted on 08/21/2003 3:08 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
________________________________________________
The Great Commission mandated such communication. If you are insulted. Tough.
777 posted on 08/21/2003 3:11 AM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))
_________________________________________________
Your judgment means nothing. You have wronged me, and you know it. God gave you no such command to slander those who don't agree with you. That is ultimately what this is about. I withstood you because you erred doctrinally, and you in turn began to call my salvation into question publicly. You think to impress by the use of "high" language, and want to be seen as "learned" and "mature". All you have succeeded in doing is to make a buffoon of yourself.
778 posted on 08/21/2003 3:22 AM EDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
_________________________________________________
Now then, shall we discuss your apology?
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.