Nightline

[Jedi Master Carr]

I was turning the channels and they have a Nightline town meeting in Roanoke Virginia, isn' that your home town, Jedieb? I was just curious because the issue was about homosexuality(I am not going to get into that discussion so please nobody say anything about it) but the people seemed very religious, is that a very religious area, Jedieb or is no different then the rest of the south?

[Jedieb]

Good grief I'm so ashamed...

While I live in Roanoke, VA, I'm a Yankee through and through. Born a Yankee, but unfortunately I'll probably die in the South. But, I digress... Roanoke is a southern city and I think, not a bad place to live and raise a family. Most of the southerners I've known are decent, polite, hard working people. Are some a bit slow? Yeah, but you can find dimwits North of the Mason Dixon line as well. Religion happens to be a very important part of Southern culture. Now, it's fairly common knowledge that religion and homosexuality aren't exactly the best of friends. So I'm sure some of the participants on that panel are religious leaders who don't have an open mind about homosexuality.

Roanoke isn't too far from the home of Pat Robertson. He's got such an influence here that our local ABC affiliate decided not to air a recent episode of the Sela Ward show Once and Again because it featured two young teenage girls who have strong feelings for one another and share an onscreen kiss. We were the only affiliate in the nation NOT to air the show. Again, I'm so ashamed...

The irony is, Roanoke has an active and vocal gay population. We're a small city (about 100,000), but the biggest in this part of the state. My wife knows several gay people in her job and I've heard stories of a few "couples" in my job as well. I believe one of the reasons Roanoke was chosen as the site of this Nightline special was because of a hate crime we had here last year. Some idiot named Gay (I'm not making this up) went into a well known gay bar and starting shooting people. It seemed he was tired of people making fun of his last name so he thought it would clear things up if he just started shooting a bunch of gay people. Moron.

My wife reminded me about the Nightline special earlier tonight. I wasn't even interested in watching. It's not something I'd like my town to be known for (gay bashing, religious zealots, etc) so I just tuned it out. Funny that somoene on this board would notice it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I only noticed by switching station, I would have never known it was on, and then I remembered your address from the figure you sent me. I think it is a little embarrasing but not anymore then having the book burning in our town (I think I mentioned that too) I am in the south too and I am also a yankee so I understand your predictment, most people around here are fine its the ignorant ones (like the ones burning Harry Potter books, SW tapes and empty Beer cans:P) that I don't like, luckily I don't know any of those people.

[Jedieb]

I hope someone like Doc doesn't take offense to anything I said. I know that many religious people have no ill-will towards homosexuals. The ones that bug me are those that think its their job to convert people whose sexual orientation doesn't match their own. I say mind your own business.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is my point of view tolerance, that is what the US was built on by our founding fathers at least and I would like to keep it.

[JMK]

I agree, people should mind their own business about the whole thing. And living in Montreal, I'm no stranger to "the gay community". It's massive here and they even have a gay pride parade in the summer, which is absolutely HUGE, like a half million people turn out. Of course, they're not all gay, but in Montreal, anything goes and people just show up because it is a pretty good party.

[Doc Milo]

I don't take offense to what you said, Jedieb. But I do think the "mind your own business" should work both ways.

As a religious person, I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. I bear no ill-will against homosexuals, though. Hate is morally wrong as well.

I just wish that people (and the media is very guilty of this) wouldn't label people who have religious views where they believe homosexuality is a sin, and morally wrong, as "closed-minded" or "homophobic." If I, as a religious person, am "supposed" to be tolerant of a homosexual's preference and belief, shouldn't people also be tolerant of my beliefs?

And, what I meant by "work both ways" on the "mind your own business" end is pretty much this: In NYC, we have an annual Saint Patrick's Day parade. Every year this parade is marked with controversy because the founders of the parade refuse to let homosexuals march under their own banner ("under their own banner" is key here, because homosexuals can march in the parade, under any other banner. For example, if O'Neill's Restaurant has a banner in the parade, it can choose anyone it wants, gay or not, to march in the parade, and there would be no problem. It's just under their own banner where the problem exists.) Now, this is just outrageous to most people in the media, and the founders and organizers of the parade are always demonized for being homophobic, anti-gay, etc...

But tell me, why should homosexuals be allowed to march under their own banner when (1) No group marching is marching under a banner that proclaims their sexual orientation (there is no "Proud to be Hetero" banner) and (2) The parade is a Christian (and more specifically, mostly Catholic) celebration, and Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Why should a Christian group (a private group, which organizes the parade) be forced to allow a voice to a life-style it believes is morally wrong? Should the Klu-Klux Klan be allowed to march in the Black Pride parade? Should an Anti-Gay group be allowed to march in the Gay Pride parade? Wouldn't you find it odd if you were watching the Gay Pride parade and you saw a banner that read "Homosexuality is Morally Wrong" or something like that, marching openly in the parade?

So, while I bear no ill-will against homosexuals, I do have a problem with the groups that so-called "represent" them trying to force acceptance of their life-style on the rest of us. I can care less if someone is gay or straight. I have enough problems trying to live my own life according to my morals (for everyone is a sinner) I don't need the headache of keeping track of someone elses morals. What I don't need is someone telling me that I am a homophobe, or maligning my character, merely because I believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Why do they need this "acceptance" anyway. Tolerance, yes. Everyone should be tolerant of one another, regardless of who you are or what you believe. But I can be tolerant and not accept that what you are doing is morally right. For some reason, though, that isn't enough. According to mass media, and these political activist groups, my being tolerant of someone else is not enough. I also have to accept them. Well, to them I ask, where is the acceptance of my beliefs? Where is the tolerance of what I believe?

Well, my rant is over. Sorry guys....

[BUFFJEDI]

Very well said Doc.

The bad thing is though,Doc in alot of circles would be called a gay basher,which is sad.(well for the gay's I know)

Homosexuallity is a sin,and I personally think it is nasty and wrong BUT who would I be to point a finger.I being a chrisitan am SOOOOO far from being perfect that I would never dare say a word, as such.


But I do dislike groups that like to throw there Gayness in your face.Those are the type of groups that if the gay community a bad name.

I personally take each and every person for who they are not what they are . Jeasus christ died for us all, why, because he knew we ALL fall far from in grace's one way or another.In my case Women, and sometimes I have a potty mouth.Is my sin any beeter than other's,No.But I do realize what I do is wrong and do ASK for forgiveness and TRY to restrain from it.

[JMK]

No prob Doc, a little intensity is refreshing at times.:thumbup

[BUFFJEDI]

Also do keep in mind.It is the job of EVERY christian to try and let other's know of the greatness Jeasus.So it really Is Christian's business to try and Convert. BUT I feel that some groups go WAY!! to far and try and Cram theere beliefs down others throat,which in turn , Turn those away from christ.I have no qualms of telling all That I meet about my savoiur Jeasus christ BUT i so do not try and come off as a better than thou holy roller.

a. because I so Ain't (I sin as much as anyone)
b.Because that is the fastest way to Turn someone agian GOD and that in it's self is a sin.

[Jedieb]

and Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong.
Not all Christians believe homosexuality is wrong or something that one needs to be converted from. That also implies that there are no gay Christians, which isn't true. Now as for the parade, I hate parades so I don't much interest in the matter. The reason they need acceptance is because they don't have the same rights and benefits that straight couples do. It's ludicrous that couples who've been together for decades can't take advatage of the same benefits that people who've been married for a short time. I've got a gay cousin. She and her partner have been together for over 20 years. I can't even count the number of straight relationships I've seen crash and burn in that time. They'd make better parents than many of the people I know. But things are changing. There's more acceptance now than there was 50 years ago, and 50 years from now things will be even better. It's a grind, but change is coming slowly but surely.

[Doc Milo]

Not all "Christians" believe that homosexulaity is morally wrong. But that's not the point. Christianity isn't defined by what Christians believe. Right and wrong isn't an individual choice. Just because a Christian doesn't believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, doesn't mean that Christianity doesn't state that it is. Christianity defines marriage as a sacrament where a man and a woman are bound as one, brought together to vow theirselves to each other, foresaking all others, until death do them part, before God. Any sexual activity that takes place by unmarried individuals is morally wrong from the viewpoint of Christianity. Since homosexuals cannot be married in a Christian way -- since their relationship does not fit the definition of what a marriage is -- then any sexual behavior between them is morally wrong for the same reason that premarital sex between a man and a woman is morally wrong (sorry Buff.) But it goes beyond that. The book of Leviticus states, specifically, that homosexuality is an aberration to God. And Saint Paul, in his various letters, underscores this point.

Now, remember, this is talking only about the behavior, not the people themselves. Everyone is a sinner. Even me. Judge not, lest ye be judged, Christ said. But that doesn't preclude one from bringing the Word to people. But even Christ was against shoving his Word down peoples throats. He instructed the apostles, if anyone didn't want to hear what they had to say, to brush the dust of the town off their feet as they left...

Now, you see, with the Rights and Benefits, that's a different matter all together. In the United States of America, all people should be afforded equal protection under the law. But we've run into a lot of problems because the Government has gotten into the game of not just protecting peoples rights, but stealing the power to create special rights and privledges and benefits. This is just further evidence of the slippery slope we have gone down. It's no longer a question of whether or not to treat one person the same as another. Now all these benefits that the government shouldn't have the power to grant in the first place are matters of contention. Only further proof that the government has exceeded its boundries. A government that has the power to give has the power to take. These issues are not so much about equality as it is about power. There is no one that wants to find a solution -- a workable solution, at least -- to any of these problems, because as long as the problem exists, there remains a voting block for people who are for it or against it. All people in power have an interest in keeping the status quo on all these issues.

It is clear to me the Republic no longer functions. :)

[Jedieb]

Aren't there passages in the bible that condone slavery and the selling of one's own children? Using biblical passages to prove homosexuality is immoral and another "slippery slope" IMO. Then why not pick the Koran or the Tora to get our what's moral and immoral checklist? Premarital sex? We're suppose to feel guilty for engaging in premarital sex? Damn, that means there are a lot of Catholic priests out there who've got something ELSE to feel guilty about on top of commiting hideous crimes and hiding behind the protection of the churh to avoid prosecution.

I for one hope the government continues to push boundaries. By pushing boundaries we've managed to make all of the following changes since the time of the founding fathers:
Women have the right to own property and vote
Child labor is illegal
Social Security is in place
Slavery, illegal
Seperate but equal is a thing of the past
Jim Crow laws, GONE
Civil Rights have been extended beyond white males who own property to the ENTIRE population. (Remember if you were white and poor, you often had NO chance to take part in the Democratic process in the late 1700's.)

Allways in motion is the future..

[Jedi Master Carr]

Man this thing is going farther away from what I attended to go, I really don't want to get into a debate over homosexuality, I am very tolerant of gays and don't care what they do it is there choice. I guess I also very liberal thinking, similar to Jedieb I guess, when it comes to Christianity and the Bible, I don't see everything so literal and understand that the book was written by men so somethings are flawed like the whole Slavery thing for example and other things are meant to be just stories to teach a lesson, Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Jonan and the Whale, etc. Now here I go discussing something I didn't want to, I would rather not discuss it I guess I don't want to make anybody mad at each other, I guess if the discuss remains civil thats fine, but if it turns nasty, I might close this thread to end it.

[Doc Milo]

Passages in the Bible don't "condone" slavery. There are passages in the Bible that describe the accepted norm of the times, yes, but that is a far cry from condoning slavery. There is a difference between those passages and passages where the Law of God is passed down.

And I'm not trying to say that our government should make laws based on anyones moral code. You see, this has gotten to the point where it usually goes when discussing this. I can care less what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. What I'm trying to say is -- I can be tolerant of another person, and still not accept that homosexuality is moral behavior. Just because I believe someone is acting immoral, doesn't mean I am predisposed to hating them, or enacting laws that preclude them from society. Far from it. We've discussed it before, Jedieb. To me, the government that governs least governs best. I have nothing against the government stepping in to make sure that the laws on the books effect and are enforced to effect everyone equally. I do have a problem with the government seeing an unequal law, or unequal enforcement of a law, and creating another unequal law to balance it out. That is what has been going on. Benefits don't apply to everyone equally? The answer isn't to create other benefits that apply to the people who were excluded from the first batch. It's to eliminate the inequity in the first batch. The same thing goes with criminal law. Why should the murder of a gay man have more weight under the law ("hate crime laws") than the murder of any other person? You want to increase the penalty for murder, hey, I'm right there with you. But to increase the penalty for murder based on the motives of the person is wrong (ie: is it really more heinous for a man to murder another man because he hates gays, than it is for a man to murder another man because the other slept with his wife, or because he wanted that other man's pair of shoes? or, if both murderer and victim are both straight white males, but the murderer hates his victim for any other reason other than the "hate crime" reasons, isn't it still a crime of hate?)

My only point was that a private function like a parade, even if it uses the public streets, is still a private function, and the organizers of the function have the right to say who can and who can't march based upon their own private beliefs. The fact remains, even without the moral question, NO ONE in the St. Patricks Day parade marches under a banner announcing their sexual preference.

I can tolerate gay people, and still believe that their actions are morally wrong. I can tolerate them, and not accept homosexuality as morally equal to heterosexuality. But when I do, and I state my beliefs, I am called a gay basher, or "closed-minded." Then I ask, where is the tolerance for my beliefs, for my point of view? Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. Government acceptance and individual acceptance are two different things.

In our country, in this world, it seems, although my country is all I'll speak for, tolerance of everyone beliefs is expected -- except if you're Christian. Then, it's all right to bash; then it's all right to not be tolerant.

(Sorry, Jedieb, if this comes off as an attack or something, it's not meant that way ... I'm not saying you're bashing or not being tolerant of my beliefs ... just commenting on society as a whole ...)

(BTW, I have a cousin who is gay too. I am tolerant of her. I love her. I would never turn my back on her or excommunicate her from my family or ostracize her or anything like that. To me, it's her personal life. She knows what I believe -- she doesn't ask me to not believe it just like I don't ask her to stop living how she lives. She grew up with the same beliefs as I did. Now, her morals and how she adheres to them is between her and God. Just like my own private battles with morality are between me and God. Her sin is between her and God just like my sin is between me and God.)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Thats okay Doc, I don't have a problem how you feel, I am myself am very tolerant except for hate groups that is why I disagree with you about Hate crime laws I am all for these laws I guess because I despise these racist groups if they be the Aryan Nation or Nation of Islam they are both wrong and to me they are terroists most likely they breed these people into doing things like killing gays, blacks, jews etc. My problem is not really their views though it is there actions, and that is why I just don't like them. I wish we could put them all on a boat and ship them to some island somewhere.

[JMK]

Always in motion is the future.

In a nutshell, that's bang on. Sure there's the written word of the bible that everyone is "supposed" to try and emulate, but given the world we live in, it's simply not possible. More and more now, people are forming their own relationships with God, and the biggest thing about God is that he loves everyone. Gay or not. That's seems to be the sentiment nowadays, and I'm not so sure I disagree with that.

[BUFFJEDI]

Well lets put it this way. We all are sinner's . homosexuallity is wrong.Telling a lie is wrong. False witnessing is wrong etc...Just remember HATE THE SIN, BUT LOVE THE SINNER.

[Doc Milo]

I have no doubt that God loves everyone, gays included. Like Buff said, everyone is a sinner. But to say that such and such isn't morally wrong because the world is changing doesn't cut it. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter how much the world comes to accept wrong as right and right as wrong. God still loves you, no matter what. Of course, a father loves his child, and because of that love, sets rules for that child to live by, and when the child breaks those rules, he doesn't make believe that there were no rules, or that how the child acted was the way the rule read -- he punishes the child for breaking the rules. The rules don't change because people can't live by them -- otherwise the rules are worthless.

If people can't live by what God has commanded, it means that sin has taken a stronger hold in the world (and I believe it has.) The good news is, God still loves us, and, if we seek it, God still forgives us. And, just as he sent his Son to save the world from sin once -- he shall do so again, but this time in more dramatic fashion -- and it will be the ultimate defeat of evil, and the birth of a new world.

But this is a far cry from what I was saying.

As for hate crimes -- JMC, why should there be special laws on the books for crimes of hate -- and only specifically defined hate? Why can't we just make the punishments for the existing laws stronger and apply it equally thorughout? Why is it a greater crime for Tom, a white male, to kill Jerry, a black male because Tom hates black people than it is for Doug, a white male to kill John, a white male, because Doug hates John for owning a Lexus? What a hate crime is doing is essentially adding a layer of punishment because of the way a certain individual thinks and believes. How far is it from that, to making it against the law to think and believe a certain way? Not far. Not far at all. If you look at some of the EEO regulations, you will find that punishment for a person's beliefs, regardless of whether or not he or she actually acts on those beliefs, can be punished.

Hate Crime legislation is in the same vein. We have laws against murder, assault, robbery. Why do we need stronger laws just for a specific kind of murder, assault, or robbery? Why not just strengthen the existing law? For example, remember that guy in Texas who dragged that other guy to death and everyone criticized GW Bush because he vetoed Hate Crime legislation? Well, the guy who did the dragging was sentenced to death for his crime under normal murder laws. How could the Hate Crime legislation have punished the man more? Make him die three deaths? Torture him first? Hate Crime legislation is just another way to add another layer of government bureaucracy, another way for the government to steal another dollar from the pockets of taxpayers for redundant laws. And a step in the direction of punishing people for their thoughts.

[Jedieb]

That homosexuality is wrong is your opinion buff, not some moral certaintude that you can use to judge other people. People act as if its an unnatural act. Scientist have observed homosexual behavior in hundreds of species. Are they sinners to?

Again, different gods, different religions can view different acts in different lights. No one religion has the right to label something like homosexuallity as immoral IMO. If you think your heaven is going to full of straight people then so be it. I find the idea preposterous.

[BUFFJEDI]

I think you have missed my point. WE all are sinners,heaven is full of sinners.No sin is greater than the other.Are there homo's in heaven ? I'm sure there are . I hope my sister makes it , i hope my cousin makes it, i hope my great aunt made it. I hope my uncle makes it. I hope a good friend of mine who was mr gay usa in 95 (i think 95, makes it)


I think you are taking it as we are attacking gay(0r other's belief's).I know I'm not,and i'm sure Doc' isn't. We all have our believe's. I attend a southern church. southern church's have a certain way of looking at thinks. I do not alway's agree with what is said, Like drinking. I do NOT drink But I know DRINKING is not a sin.Getting DRUNK is.

The world want's to think the Bible is out dated. that the idea's brought in it do not apply anymore.If you look around you will see the world in in Moral decay.I can tell you for a Fact I"M GUILTY of my share of morally doing wrong.

If more people followed the Bible the world would be a Much Much better place.less killing's less, Less hate Just plain less evil on all plains. IF I followed the Bible that IMO has it all, I'd be a much better person.

I for one am NOT going to say what is right what is wrong for the world, But I have strong feeling's on what is right and wrong(but I'm NOT GOD so).


One day we will all know.Who is right and who is wrong. If people like Doc/myself are right than I feel for those who followed a different path. IF we are wrong than atleast we can say we lived a pretty descent life.

Thing is love everyone Don't GET upset because someone's belief's are different from your's/mine/other's. Share what you beleave ,they hear it Great. if not well move on.



Also I do NOT like the fact that sex before marriage is a sin.But I know it is and IF(andI truely feel I am),I'm right I'll have to answer for it one day.

[Doc Milo]

Again, Jedieb, you're misunderstanding what we're saying. Just because you do something wrong doesn't mean you're not going to heaven. When we say all are sinners . . . we mean ALL are sinners. No one deserves heaven, on their own. That's why, accoding to Christianity, we need Christ, the savior, who makes the forgiveness of sins possible.

And just because science observes a behavior in other species doesn't mean that that behavior is morally right for humans. Scientists have observed animals killing other animals -- like a cat kills a mouse, not for food or for any other reason than to kill it because they are natural enemies, or whatever. does it mean that the killing of others is okay, as long as we view them as our enemies?

You see, Jedieb, you seem to think we're attacking homosexuals because we believe their lifestyle is morally wrong. We're not. We're trying to say that, just as we tolerate them, even though we think they're wrong, they should tolerate our beliefs, even though they think our beliefs are wrong. We have two separate beliefs. Why should it be acceptable to tolerate one belief and not tolerate the other? As long as I tolerate gay people, as long as I believe they deserve every right and protection that any other person gets -- not because their gay or straight, but because they're human -- why is that not enough? Why do I also have to accept the behavior as somehow morally equal to heterosexual behavior? Why do I have to change my religious beliefs to suit their lives?

Like I said, I don't want to pass laws restricting ANYONEs rights. I believe in equal protection under the law. Equal meaning that everyone has the same rights, and the government protects those rights equally. Equal doesn't mean that if a law is biased against one group, then the group that the law is biased against gets another law that is favorable to it, and biased against the groups the other law was favorable to. That is not equal. If a law is biased against a group, then the law should be changed so as not to be biased (if the problem is with the enforcement, then the government has a right, no, a duty, to make sure the enforcement of the law is equal and non-biased) or, if the law or enforcement cannot be changed into an unbiased form, then the law should be stricken from the books and a better law created to deal with the same issue in a non-biased way.

For example, with slavery, the Constitution was changed, through amendment, to extend the same protections to blacks as it gave to whites. The provisions about slavery in the Constitution were changed, and they are no longer functional. That is the proper way to do it. Now-a-days, with the way the government works, if we were faced with the same problem, the solution wouldn't be to eliminate slavery, it would have been to allow black people to hold white people as slaves as well. That's the difference between enforcing a law equally, or creating two unequal laws to balance each other out. The former is right. The latter is wrong.

But back to homosexuality. I don't want to pass laws that restrict their rights. I don't care if the law redefines what marriage is to include them so that they can have the same benefits as any married couples. But if they do, it's all the more reason for the Church not to recognize any civil marriage (the Church doesn't recognize a civil marriage now, they only recognize the legality of the contract, they don't consider a civil marriage a marriage. . . . that's because, to the Church, marriage is a scarament where a man is bound to a woman for life, bound not by law, but by God. A civil marriage is a bond by law, not by God, so the Church doesn't recognize the marriage as a sacrament. If the law changed to include gay marriages, then the Church would be even more correct not to recognize any civil marriage (from the POV of the church, of course.) The only thing I would worry about is if the government, because it allows gays to marry, would try to force the Chruch to do the same, in violation of its beliefs. If that doesn't happen, then it doesn't matter to me if the government recognizes gay marriages on a purely legal basis.

But, Jedieb, we're not "gay bashing" when we say we believe homosexuality is morally wrong. We've said it before -- we all do things that are morally wrong, because we are all sinners. We all fall short of glory in the eyes of God. But God loves us anyway (yes, he loves gay people too) and he will accept anyone into his arms, anyone into heaven, he will forgive anyone, regardless of when that person comes to him for forgiveness.

You see, morality is not defined by individual choice. We don't get to say what is and what isn't moral. We get to live our lives, and make our choices, but morality is not relative. Once we start thinking that morality is relative, then we lose any way of making any rules to live by. Then all those laws on the books have to be eliminated, for who's to say that any of those laws don't violate the rights of someone who has a different morality than someone else? How can we say that stealing is wrong, legally, if someone else has his own morals and believes that stealing is not wrong? Who are we to judge his morals? How can we make laws against prostitution? Who are we to judge the morals of the prostitue or the morals of the prostitute's customer? In the end, it comes down to the fact that morality is not defined by the individual. There are somethings that are morally wrong, but we have no right to legislate against the behavior. And there are other things that we must legislate against the behavior. That is where government must make its choices (and we as a self-governing people, have to make our choices.) It is also where government can easily go astray and grow too powerful if we let it.

[BUFFJEDI]

Once we start thinking that morality is relative, then we lose any way of making any rules to live by

Very true.


We have been talking about what we find Immoral EVERYONE I think has a point of view.But it seems there are those that will jump on the band wagon(NOT EB(S) ) just people in general. They will go Hey it's not right to call Homosexuallity wrong, I think you are bashing.

What if I said I think (I DOOOO NOOOTTTTTT) that it is OK for a 27 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old girl?? How many people out there WOULDN"T call that immoral??But yet there are those out there that think that is FINE and feel It is NOT Immoral.
It's just sex, if the girl agreed no harm no foul.Are they right is it NOT Immoral??

There are also those that feel having sex with animals is fine,Nothing Immoral about that.Sex is sex.But I bet noone in here would feel that way.



What if I decided to just kill all that I feel are agian me??There are some that would say THAT"S not Immoral.Is it wrong??now it's agian the law But is it immoral??



it's easy to put other's down for there belief's , but let you say something about there's they get upset about it (Not aimed at EB(s) whom I hold IN HIGH regard's Period!!