Immoral behavior

[nChrist]

Hello Sister Barbara and All!

First, AMEN! YES - there is spiritual warfare going on, and we aren't wrestling just with flesh and blood. Again, a beautiful Portion of Scripture covers this the best:

Ephesians 6:10-20  Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.  11  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  14  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;  15  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  16  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:  18  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;  19  And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,  20  For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.


Love In Christ,
Tom

Christian Quotes 155 -
This spirit from the pit
How SELF in its protean shapes -
self-will,
self-seeking,
self-elation,
self-assertion,
leaves its dents and stains on the shield of faith!
Happy the day when this spirit from the pit shall
be exorcized forever!
 -- John MacDuff  1895

[HisDaughter]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUEERLY BELOVED
'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten
Voters worry education mandates may reinforce homosexual agenda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A pamphlet set to be distributed by the California secretary of state warns voters that if they do not pass Proposition 8 in November to constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman, thay will face an unexpected consequence: children as young as kindergarten will be subject to mandatory teaching on the virtues of homosexual marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 8 are calling the education argument a smokescreen, a scare tactic and a fabrication.

Supporters, however, are saying it addresses a reality Californians will face if voters don't stand up and insist on a constitutional, traditional definition of marriage.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, told WND, "New California laws are pushing sex education further and further into younger grades, and school districts that provide sex education are mandated by law to teach children to honor marriage. Without Proposition 8 school children in the younger grades will definitely be taught to honor homosexual marriage between two men or two women as married role models."

Attorney Shannon Minter, who represented same-sex couples in the California Supreme Court case that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "This is pure fabrication. They are trying to inflame people by making up these falsehoods about kids."

Jennifer Kerns, a spokesperson for a Proposition 8 support coalition called ProtectMarriage.com, however, pointed WND to the specific section of California law mandating instruction on marriage in schools.

"The California Education Code clearly states that schools would be required to provide instruction to children as young as kindergartners that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage," Kerns told WND. "The code specifically states that the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage must be taught."

The voter guide, written by supporters and opponents of Proposition 8, citing arguments both for and against, will be printed and delivered to California residents' homes, barring any court ordered changes to the final wording, but is posted currently for public inspection before mailing.

The education argument, written by proponents of Proposition 8 in the official voter guide, states, "The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn't just about 'live and let live.' In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. … If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned TEACHERS WILL BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

"We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will" (all emphasis in the original).

The official rebuttal, published in the same voter guide, calls the education argument "scare tactics" and "a smokescreen," arguing that Proposition 8 doesn't have anything to do with education.

According to the Chronicle, opponents of Proposition 8 are now considering whether or not to sue over the issue, the only legal way an official ballot argument can be changed before an election.

As WND reported earlier, supporters of homosexual marriage had sued to block Proposition 8 from being on the ballot at all, but were defeated.

Proposition 8, if passed, would effectively overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage by adding the words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state's constitution.

[nChrist]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUEERLY BELOVED
'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten
Voters worry education mandates may reinforce homosexual agenda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A pamphlet set to be distributed by the California secretary of state warns voters that if they do not pass Proposition 8 in November to constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman, thay will face an unexpected consequence: children as young as kindergarten will be subject to mandatory teaching on the virtues of homosexual marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 8 are calling the education argument a smokescreen, a scare tactic and a fabrication.

Supporters, however, are saying it addresses a reality Californians will face if voters don't stand up and insist on a constitutional, traditional definition of marriage.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, told WND, "New California laws are pushing sex education further and further into younger grades, and school districts that provide sex education are mandated by law to teach children to honor marriage. Without Proposition 8 school children in the younger grades will definitely be taught to honor homosexual marriage between two men or two women as married role models."

Attorney Shannon Minter, who represented same-sex couples in the California Supreme Court case that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "This is pure fabrication. They are trying to inflame people by making up these falsehoods about kids."

Jennifer Kerns, a spokesperson for a Proposition 8 support coalition called ProtectMarriage.com, however, pointed WND to the specific section of California law mandating instruction on marriage in schools.

"The California Education Code clearly states that schools would be required to provide instruction to children as young as kindergartners that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage," Kerns told WND. "The code specifically states that the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage must be taught."

The voter guide, written by supporters and opponents of Proposition 8, citing arguments both for and against, will be printed and delivered to California residents' homes, barring any court ordered changes to the final wording, but is posted currently for public inspection before mailing.

The education argument, written by proponents of Proposition 8 in the official voter guide, states, "The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn't just about 'live and let live.' In health education classes, state law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. … If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned TEACHERS WILL BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

"We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will" (all emphasis in the original).

The official rebuttal, published in the same voter guide, calls the education argument "scare tactics" and "a smokescreen," arguing that Proposition 8 doesn't have anything to do with education.

According to the Chronicle, opponents of Proposition 8 are now considering whether or not to sue over the issue, the only legal way an official ballot argument can be changed before an election.

As WND reported earlier, supporters of homosexual marriage had sued to block Proposition 8 from being on the ballot at all, but were defeated.

Proposition 8, if passed, would effectively overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage by adding the words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state's constitution.

This is disgusting and must not be tolerated. Decent people either need to take back their state or leave. I would encourage TAKING BACK THE STATE! There will definitely be a "domino" effect. If California falls to the devil - other states will follow. There is no sense in waiting to draw a line. Let's all fight it NOW, and we can fight it together!

[Barbara]

Amen, again, blackeyedpeas!

It's time for the American people to begin fighting their elected officials which we put into office and are totally ignoring the people of the United States. We need to begin taking responsibility for our children, our money and our freedoms! We may lose income, because we'll have to homeschool or send our kids to Christian school, but isn't it all about the kids and God? Our possessions have to take a back seat - we need to wake up and take back our 'One Nation Under God'. It's sin, pure and simple, but out government officials have decided that they're not accountable to our God, they are however following their own god, Satan!

We were watching Chuck Missler, speaking about our accountability. He said this:

"Let me talk about another accountability we have while we're talking about signs of the times. I just re-did our Genesis commentary and I was startled to realise how jealous God is of His role as Creator. As New Testament Christians we tend to focus on Redemption and that's fine. We tend to take for granted His role as Creator. I was startled to realise that there is a specific judgment pronounced on a culture that fails to acknowlege God as Creator.

The Creation itself is adequate testimony to hold him accountable to recognise God as Creator, and there is a specific judgment pronounced on a culture for failing to acknowledge Him as Creator, and that judgment is homosexuality. I've always considered homosexuality a sin, an individual choice. I was startled to realise in Romans 1:20 to the end, that 4 times it emphasizes that because they didn't recognise Him as Creator, God gave them OVER to their lusts. And so as we look at America for example, we have a culture in which anyone with any competence in science can demonstrate that evolution is no longer a viable explanation for our origins. And yet, in spite of that, we inculcate our children with obsolete information in textbooks, etc., to sell this evolutionary concept which is false, and then we wonder why they have no sense of destiny, no sense of commitment, and we have all these bizarre gun shootings in school and so forth.

The point is the decay that we're inheriting, the departure from our roots, results in the condition of our culture. Part of our problem is vocabulary. The homosexuals have pawned off this fraud saying, 'we're gay...'. We can think of about 3 or 4 other descriptors of that way of life, but they've sold this idea that they're gay. There's nothing gay about that lifestyle, it's life shortening.

We have the same problem in our politics. We keep calling our adversaries 'liberals'. There's nothing liberal about them. They are totally intolerant unless you agree with them. They have an agenda, and that agenda is to separate us from our heritage. The term is not 'liberal', that term is 'SUBVERSIVE'. And the tragedy is that there isn't anyone in either party that represents what we used to know as 'Patriotism'. "

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen, Barbara! You have the point in issue right on the spot. We are all accountable for those things that we allow to happen. Inaction on our part is the same as condoning it and we will be held accountable. Allowing our children to be put through the fire (taught the garbage that is in many schools today) is definitely a part of this. We are turning out a generation that no longer recognizes God as the source of all there is. It is way past time for us to stand up to our responsibilities and to stand up for Christ.

[HisDaughter]

The point is the decay that we're inheriting, the departure from our roots, results in the condition of our culture. Part of our problem is vocabulary. The homosexuals have pawned off this fraud saying, 'we're gay...'. We can think of about 3 or 4 other descriptors of that way of life, but they've sold this idea that they're gay. There's nothing gay about that lifestyle, it's life shortening.

We have the same problem in our politics. We keep calling our adversaries 'liberals'. There's nothing liberal about them. They are totally intolerant unless you agree with them. They have an agenda, and that agenda is to separate us from our heritage. The term is not 'liberal', that term is 'SUBVERSIVE'. And the tragedy is that there isn't anyone in either party that represents what we used to know as 'Patriotism'. "

Sister, it looks like you've had you Wheaties this morning and you're ready to kick some behind!  And you have hit the nail on the head!

[HisDaughter]

Gunman Opens Fire in Tennessee Church, 1 Dead, 8 Wounded
Sunday, July 27, 2008

 KNOXVILLE, Tenn. —  Police say one person has been killed and eight others wounded after a gunman entered a church and opened fire with a shotgun.

Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen says a longtime church member was killed during the Sunday morning shooting. He identified the man killed as 60-year-old Greg McKendry, an usher at the church.

Police say the gunman is in custody.

A hospital spokeswoman says five of the wounded are in critical condition.

A church member who arrived moments after the shooting says the gunman opened fire as congregants watched a youth performance. He says none of those injured were children.

There were about 200 people in the church at the time of the shooting watching a youth performance being put on by 25 children.

The church's minister was on vacation in western North Carolina at the time of the shooting but returned Sunday afternoon.

"We've been touched by a horrible act of violence. We are in a process of healing and we ask everyone for your prayers," the Rev. Chris Buice said in a statement outside the church.

The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church is a community that meets to worship and work together for social change, according to the church's Web site. Since the 1950's, the congregation has worked for desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights, according to the Web site. The congregation also has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the ACLU.

(I wasn't sure if I should put this here until I read the last paragraph!  I thought for a minute that they said a "church".)

[Shammu]

‘Harassed for being a Christian': Policeman who objected to gay ribbons takes force to tribunal

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 8:58 AM on 20th July 2008

A policeman is taking his force to an employment tribunal, claiming that he has been harassed because of his Christian beliefs.

Constable Graham Cogman says he has been persecuted since he objected to wearing ribbons to mark a gay event.

The controversy echoes the case of Lillian Ladele, the Christian registrar who successfully took on Islington Council in London over her refusal to conduct civil-partnership ceremonies for gay couples.

PC Cogman, who attends his local Church of England church with his family in Sea Palling, North Norfolk, said he had been subject to a series of investigations over complaints that he is homophobic, turning his life into a ‘nightmare’.

The 49-year-old father-of-two, who joined the Norfolk force in 1993 after 12 years in the RAF, insists he loves his job but said: ‘Internal politics are making it difficult to do what we should be doing.’

He added: ‘We get more flak from inside the force than outside these days.

'The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult.

‘I am not undertaking this action lightly but I have to make a stand when things become so blatantly biased against me just because I hold a faith.’

The officer – who claimed he enjoyed a good relationship with most of his colleagues and has been commended twice for his police work – said the stress was also affecting his wife Elaine, 46, and his children Natalie, 15, and Ryan, 12.

He blamed a small number of officers for using the police’s internal investigations procedures to intimidate him, and claimed his complaints were sidelined.

PC Cogman was working at the force’s eastern headquarters in Great Yarmouth in early 2006 when gay liaison officers circulated an email encouraging staff to pin a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month.

He said the station was ‘bombarded’ with gay posters, information about gay events, including a quiz at a local pub, and pink ribbons.

PC Cogman felt he should be allowed to express an alternative view, so he sent round an email in response, quoting biblical texts suggesting that homosexual sex was
sinful.

He was then accused of failing to show respect and tolerance to fellow officers and barred from using the internal message system.

The following year he again objected by email when officers were urged to wear a rainbow ribbon during Gay History Month.

Replying to the sender of the request and copying it to several other officers, he wrote that it was ‘inappropriate, thoughtless and insensitive’ as the rainbow symbolises God’s faithfulness.

He then sent one of the liaison officers a five-page document about the symbolism, which included a few paragraphs criticising homosexuality.

The officer complained and PC Cogman was called before a full disciplinary hearing, which included an interview with the force’s professional standards department.

During the investigation, he was also accused of victimising another gay liaison officer by saying in her presence: ‘Love the sinner, hate the deed.’

But the only charge he admitted was losing his temper with a third officer in an argument over his disciplinary case.

On the advice of lawyers, who said he could lose his job, he pleaded guilty to a breach of the police code of conduct and received the maximum fine, around £1,200 or 13 days’ pay.

A few months later, he was further questioned after he put a biblical text on his computer screen, reading: ‘Jesus is the light of the world, only the enemy kills, steals and destroys.’

And in April, he was interviewed again about his beliefs after he circulated a link to an American Christian helpline on the internal communication system.

PC Cogman said he was trying to help by offering a counselling service for people struggling with their sexuality which a friend had found useful.

But a diversity adviser from the force’s headquarters in Wymondham said the website connected to the helpline was offensive.

He was also accused of breaching the ban on using the internal communications system, and breaching the force’s tolerance policy by sitting near another officer, who found his views offensive, in an ‘intimidating manner’.

Mr Cogman now faces another full disciplinary hearing and says he fears losing his job.

In his claim to the tribunal, being prepared by barrister Paul Diamond – who defended Nadia Eweida after she was suspended by British Airways for wearing a cross – he will argue that the police force, locally and nationally, has become obsessed with inclusiveness to the detriment of those who adhere to Christian beliefs.

But a spokesman for Norfolk Police said: ‘We welcome people of all beliefs and races into the workforce and fully respect everyone’s views.

'However, the force will not tolerate any form of homophobic behaviour.

'While we fully respect the officer has strong beliefs, it is only correct that he respects the beliefs and wishes of others.’

‘Harassed for being a Christian': Policeman who objected to gay ribbons takes force to tribunal

[Shammu]

Tolerance has become a one way street. You either believe in what the world tells you or you are intolerant and hateful. Stories like this make you want to vomit. Tolerance has to be a two way street. You have to be able to accept something that you completely disagree with while having what you believe in respected as well. I hope this cop sues the heck out of these guys and wins.

In America, we really have no idea what persecution is yet. Let's hope that, when it comes down to losing our jobs, and consequently our livelihoods, because of taking a stand against the things God deems sin, we'll stand firm on the solid rock of Truth, whose name is Jesus.

As for my view on this, please see my post on C.U.'s Re: Offend a homosexual ... Go to prison for 5 years

[HisDaughter]

Tolerance has become a one way street. You either believe in what the world tells you or you are intolerant and hateful. Stories like this make you want to vomit. Tolerance has to be a two way street. You have to be able to accept something that you completely disagree with while having what you believe in respected as well. I hope this cop sues the heck out of these guys and wins.

In America, we really have no idea what persecution is yet. Let's hope that, when it comes down to losing our jobs, and consequently our livelihoods, because of taking a stand against the things God deems sin, we'll stand firm on the solid rock of Truth, whose name is Jesus.

As for my view on this, please see my post on C.U.'s Re: Offend a homosexual ... Go to prison for 5 years

You are so right.  As I read this it made wonder if BEP ever had any problems?  Maybe he will comment.
I know that when I worked at Microsoft I wasn't allowed to talk about the Lord, but I we had to have "gay pride" posters hung all over the place once a year!

[Soldier4Christ]

I thank God that I never worked in a place where I would have gotten in trouble for being outspoken against homosexuality.

[Shammu]

TV rabbit preaching hatred and telling  young Muslims to 'kill and eat Jews'

By Daily Mail Reporter
23rd July 2008

An Islamic TV station using a Bugs Bunny lookalike to preach hatred to children has been slammed by religious leaders in the UK who fear it could brainwash vulnerable British children.

Assud the rabbit, who vows to 'kill and eat Jews' and glorifies the maiming of 'infidels' appears on Palestinian children's show, Tomorrow's Pioneers.

The rabbit is a number of characters who is punished by viewer's vote when he breaches Sharia law.

In one episode, Assud admits stealing money and is seen begging for mercy after young viewers and parents phone in demanding his hands are cut off as punishment.

At that point the 11-year-old presenter intervenes - and rules that the bunny should only have his ears severed because he has repented.

The rabbit is played by an actor in fancy dress and is one of the main characters on the show broadcast in Gaza by the al-Aqsa channel - known as Hamas TV.

Religious leaders across the UK have today spoken out against the controversial show which can be viewed via satellite.

The programme is also easily viewed on internet sites such as YouTube, sparking fears that British children could be subjected to the radical Islamic message.

The Association of Muslim Schools, which represents the UK's 143 Muslim schools, said it was opposed to any shows that incite violence.

Spokesman Dr Mohamed Mukadam said: 'It goes without saying that any programme which promotes the killing or injuring of human beings is wrong.

'Regardless of religion, shows that incite or inspire others to inflict violence of any kind should be condemned.

'Such shows are against the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, and we would urge people of all ages not to watch them.'

Set up as a regional station prior to the Palestinian elections in January 2006, al-Aqsa TV now airs on a satellite slot.

It broadcasts what many call a mixture of news of Islamic propaganda, but has picked up a substantial following across the Arabic-speaking world.

Tomorrow's Pioneers was first aired in April 2007, and features young host Saraa Barhoum and her co-host, a large costumed animal.

The show originally featured a Mickey Mouse-style character called Farfur who urged children to fight against the Jewish community and form a world Islamic state.

Farfur was later replaced by a bumble bee called Nahoul, who told viewers to 'follow the path of Islam, of martyrdom and of the Mujahideen'.

He was 'martyred' earlier this year and replaced by Assud, who tells children in his first episode: 'I, Assud, will get rid of the jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up.'

In a discussion with 11-year-old host Saraa Barhoum, the young viewers are referred to as 'soldiers'. 

Assud asks Saraa: 'We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not?'.

To which she replies: 'Yes, we are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland.'

The phone-in show accepts calls from children as young as nine on topics about life in Palestine.

During one show broadcast in February, Assud vows to kill and eat all Danish people over the cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad which appeared in a newspaper.

He also pledges to assassinate the illustrator and Saraa also agrees that she would martyr herself for the cause of Palestine.

Saraa, who has seven brothers and sisters, was invited to host the show after entering a singing competition.

But speaking last year, she defended the programme - and insisted it was not responsible for spreading extremism.

She said: 'We are not terrorists. We do not support terrorism. We are normal people, but we are defending our homeland.

'The Israelis hit next door to my house with a shell. I was wounded on my feet and my little brother Youssef was wounded in the legs.

'We, as Muslims, are against suicide bombers. We are against the death of civilians on all sides. We are only the enemy of those who took our land and kill us every day.'

The show is regularly translated and posted online by The Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent media monitoring group based in the United States.

Al-Aqsa was today was unavailable for comment.

TV rabbit preaching hatred and telling  young Muslims to 'kill and eat Jews'

[Shammu]

Drunken passengers force flight to land in Germany

Sat Jul 26, 11:47 AM ET

BERLIN - Two drunken British women went on a rampage on a charter plane, hitting one flight attendant with a bottle of vodka and trying to open a cabin door as the aircraft was cruising over Austria at 10,000 meters (32,800 feet), police said Saturday.

The staff on the flight from Greece to England eventually forced the women back to their seats and the pilot made an emergency in Frankfurt on Thursday, police told The Associated Press, confirming a statement they had issued on Friday.

The identities of the women, aged 26 and 27, were not released, but police said the 26-year-old may be charged with attempted assault and interfering with air traffic.

Both women were released, police said.

The rampage occurred when a flight attendant denied the women alcohol because they were visibly intoxicated, police said. The 26-year-old took a swipe at a cabin attendant with a bottle of vodka, then attempted to open a cabin door.

"Apparently the 26-year-old wanted to catch some fresh air," the statement said, in an effort to make light of the altercation.

The two women were taken into custody by police at the Frankfurt airport and given a breathalyzer test. Both were legally intoxicated.

After an hour in Frankfurt, the flight continued on to Manchester, England.

Drunken passengers force flight to land in Germany

[nChrist]

You are so right.  As I read this it made wonder if BEP ever had any problems?  Maybe he will comment.
I know that when I worked at Microsoft I wasn't allowed to talk about the Lord, but I we had to have "gay pride" posters hung all over the place once a year!

Hello Grammyluv,

I was very fortunate to serve 25 years on a police department that was nearly all Christian. I only experienced a few problems in that 25 years in determination to remain true to my convictions. Overall, Christian conduct was the norm on my department. We did have rules that we had to follow if we wanted to pray or do other Christian activities on duty, but they were nothing but common sense. Others had to be given a cordial opportunity to leave or otherwise not participate. All of the shifts had prayer before the briefings that started the day, and prayer was common before dangerous assignments. I don't remember anyone not wanting to participate. Further, there was never any attempted promotion or defense of anything immoral, including alternative lifestyles.

Sister, we had all of the rules that are common for public employment, and those rules included just about everything - including the kitchen sink. We just didn't have those problems. The worst I can remember happening is someone getting in trouble for telling some improper jokes in the presence of some women clerks. At least one was offended and complained. The officer was WRONG and did receive disciplinary action. However, this was just common sense, and the officer should have known better. We also had heavy rules about discrimination or mistreatment of minorities in hiring or on the street. We also did not have this problem during this 25 years in my opinion. We had a nice mix of races and gender on the department, and we all worked well together. We did have some suits filed regarding false arrest and discrimination, but this is common on all departments whether they do anything wrong or not. Some were even filed in Federal Court, but all of them that I know about were dismissed. As a Watch Commander, I was involved in the investigation of many complaints about race. Most of them were nothing more than pitiful attempts for a criminal to get even over the arrest. Quite a few of those years involved videos of the incident that we regularly captured from our cars and in the jail. They showed the complainer to be a cheap liar. NO - they were not like the rare few that have been shown on television. Our practice and policy was to take no further action against the obvious liar. The thinking was that action against liars might discourage persons having REAL complaints. Our policies and procedures were much stronger than the law, so the vast majority of all disciplinary actions didn't involve a violation of rights or the law at all - rather a violation of department policy and procedure. The very few I remember being a violation of rights or the law resulted in firing and prosecution. Let me give you an example. Lying during an internal investigation was a firing offense, and it didn't matter how minor the original offense was (i.e. unauthorized coffee break, 10 minutes late for duty). Lying involves a matter of trust. If a person will lie on something minor, they will certainly lie on something major. SO, the person was fired because they could no longer be trusted, and I agree 100% with this practice. Police Officers must be trusted with life and death issues every single day. They are worthless if they can't be trusted. I'll just give thanks that I served on a professional and Christian department. We did have some bad apples, and they were dealt with harshly, so please don't think that I was trying to paint my department as anywhere near perfect. If you can't tell, I'm proud of my department, and I give thanks that I was able to serve with some outstanding officers. It's a hard way to earn a living, but I would gladly do it all again.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 203 - Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed
against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against
thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the
servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the
LORD.

[HisDaughter]

Mass. House votes to let out-of-state homosexuals 'marry'
Associated Press - 7/30/2008 6:30:00 AM

BOSTON - The Massachusetts House voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law that had been used to block same-sex "marriages" involving out-of-state couples, all but assuring that the state will allow those couples to wed regardless of where they live. The 119-36 vote came after the state Senate approved the repeal earlier this month, and Gov. Deval Patrick has said he will sign the bill. The measure requires one more procedural vote in each chamber before it is sent to the governor.

"Sometimes what you hope and pray for actually happens, which is kind of overwhelming," Michael Thorne, 55, of Cape Elizabeth, Maine, said after telling his 6-year-old son his parents could soon get married. Thorne and his partner of 25 years, James Theberge, have an Aug. 18 wedding planned in Provincetown, although the repeal will not take effect until 90 days after Patrick's signature.

Opponents recoiled at the outcome. "With that protective barrier removed, out-of-state same-sex couples who marry here will sue to seek recognition in their home states, creating a flood of costly lawsuits and further eroding the people's right to define marriage democratically," the Massachusetts Family Institute said in a statement.

Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage in 2004, but then-Gov. Mitt Romney ordered city and town clerks to enforce the long-dormant 1913 law to bar out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying. The law prohibits couples from marrying if the unions would be illegal in their home states. Romney had argued that repealing the ban would turn the state into the "Las Vegas of gay marriage." Since then, California has begun allowing same-sex marriages to both residents and out-of-state couples.

Some proponents say that repealing the law would allow Massachusetts to share in some of the economic boon California is enjoying. Patrick, the state's first black governor, and other supporters also say the old law carried racial undertones from a time when interracial marriage was discouraged or illegal in some states. "The 1913 law is outdated and discriminatory. Repealing it is the right thing to do," Patrick said in a statement after the vote. But Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute claims race was not a factor in that law. "Massachusetts legislators voted to abolish a ban on interracial marriage in 1843 -- a full 70 years before the 1913 law was written," he points out.

Opponents said the reasons behind the 1913 law are unclear, and repealing the ban amounted to meddling in the affairs of other states.

Rep. John Lepper, R-Attleboro, said sanctioning a marriage that is illegal elsewhere would "create a relationship and then set it adrift to settle in a disapproving state." He spoke of a homosexual couple from Rhode Island that married in Massachusetts and now is seeking a divorce, saying it was typical of the "legal nightmare" a repeal would create. "They can't divorce in Rhode Island because the law does not recognize [the marriage]," Lepper said. "They can't divorce in Massachusetts because there is a one-year residency requirement for filing."

The repeal effort passed after a relatively quick, 40-minute House debate free of the massive protests that accompanied other homosexual marriage debates in the state. Only seven legislators spoke on the issue, four in favor of the repeal, three who wanted to maintain the ban.

Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston, said continuing to ban out-of-state homosexuals from marrying was unfair after the state's highest court ruled in 2003 that homosexual couples have a constitutional right to be married. "This is question of fairness, and it is a question of equity," Rushing said.

Rushing said the 1913 law undoubtedly has not been applied in many cases of marriages by first cousins. Massachusetts allows first cousins to marry, but half the states in the country do not. "The fairness in this question is that we have allowed people to marry in Massachusetts who could not legally marry in their own state for decades, and now we want to change our way we are applying a bit of law we have never enforced. That, I think, is unfair," Rushing said.