QUICK LINKS
Mayor creates outrage with an apology
Last week, Mayor Jim Naugle issued a public apology on the steps of City Hall that has created an outrage in Fort Lauderdale.
He apologized for underestimating the problem of men having sex with each other in public restrooms, and urged people to call police to complain when they came upon it.
Since sex in public is illegal, the outrage that followed is both frightening and unbelievable.
The Fort Lauderdale newspaper, The Sun-Sentinel, joined the homosexual community attacking the mayor for his stand against the lawbreakers, using the term “homosexual” instead of gay, his apology to “the children and parents of our community” for “not being aware of the problem” and for telling the truth about homosexual activities in the city.
The problem? A website about “cruising for sex” directs people to two city parks. Although the mayor asks, “responsible members of the homosexual community” to work with him to get those public parks off the website, they instead have organized and are attacking the mayor and demanding his resignation.
There is much to know about this, so I am giving you links to two different Sun-Sentinel stories. I think you should take three minutes or so and read them.
“Fort Lauderdale mayor issues apology”
“Fort Lauderdale still appeals to gay visitors”
Clearly, the homosexual agenda is not about benefits and a live-and-let-live philosophy. It is an aggressive, perverted appetite for more and more.
Whether it is the lesbian gangs or the predatory nature of lawbreaking in Fort Lauderdale, or the tireless attempt to normalize homosexuality through public education and the legislature, the response is always the same. When exposed – attack. Call those who disagree, bigots.
I thought it was right for a mayor to take a stand against illegal public sex. Instead of asking whether the laws against such activities should be obeyed, the newspaper, which is a pawn for the local homosexual community, is asking if the mayor should resign.
Mayor Naugle has also come under attack for saying, “Dr. D. James Kennedy is a great man.”
Thank God, Seattle and other Washington communities have not gotten to that point – yet.
Have they?
Fort Lauderdale is a result of a continuing accumulation of power – political and economic by the homosexual community.
It has been said that Washington State is seen as a leader in homosexual’s rights.
The question then would be how far are the citizens of this state willing to go down this path?
Ronald Reagan once said, “A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens.”
_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
77 Comments:
Gary,
You are an extremist... a right-wing, bigotted extremist.
Connect the dots Gary. Men who have sex with men in city parks are primarily sexually repressed "heterosexual" men who like sex with men but who won't come out of the closet. They don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to lose their family. They don't want to lose their community. They don't want to be hated by people like you. So one of their options is to break the law and have sex in heinous places like public restrooms.
I am lesbian. I am out. I am out to my God, my mother, my father, my brother, my employer... I am out to my community. I am happy, healthy and wiser than you will ever be because of your inability to accept differences in humanity.
My homosexual agenda continues to be one of caring for my partner, caring for my family, remaining productive in my job, paying my taxes and providing service to my community in ways the fulfill me and make my community, which includes heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals, better and stronger.
My sex does sell when it comes to blogs, doesn't it? The apology of course wasn't about what Gary says, the controversy wasn't about what Gary says, and basically the entire story is so distorted there's no real reason to even refute it - Gary is telling a fairy story, as it were.
As usual Randall leaves out key elements of the story.
1) Naugle called the press conference to offer an apology, which before he spoke most people took it mean that he would apologize about previous anti-gay comments he made earlier about sex in public restrooms. So when he instead apologized for underestimated the problem, it amounted to him taunting his critics and gay Floridians.
2) The police of Fort Lauderdale and the community have said nothing about a problem of public sex in city parks, that is whole an issue invented by Naugle.
3) Gay activists are not trying to push for public sex in parks. They are taking Naugle to task for base anti-gay remarks he made.
As usual Randall gives us a half-truth. And like my grandpa often said, a half-truth is a whole lie.
2:49 nailed it!
Why would anyone want to have sex in such a god awful place? Gays don't have a lock on bad taste or promiscuity, but they are often in an odd pyschological place from living a life pretending to be someone they're not in order to survive in a world full of self righteous bible thumping bigots.
Rather telling that Gary decries the Editorial opposing Naugle's antics, but fails to provide a link to it. What's the matter Gary, afraid that if your followers had the full story, they'd realize you are full of it?
Fort Lauderdale Mayor is at it again
July 26, 2007
Oh, that clever Jim Naugle must feel like he really pulled a fast one.
The Fort Lauderdale mayor had his assistant send out an e-mail that he was going to issue an apology Tuesday for his incredibly stupid and tasteless remarks about the gay community on the steps of City Hall. Figuring Naugle would issue some kind of apology, the media and activists gathered for the press conference.
Ah, but all it really did was feed the mayor's ever-expanding ego. Anyone who's followed Naugle's publicity-craved antics never expected a heartfelt apology, because that would have required class and humility from someone who has become a serial insulter.
Instead, the press conference gave Naugle another chance to go on one of his homophobic rants. He did apologize — for underestimating the problem of men having sex with each other in public restrooms. He also urged people to call the police to complain when they come upon it.
The good news is that Naugle can't seek re-election. The bad news is that Fort Lauderdale is stuck with him until 2009. Protesters mean well, but that does little but increase Naugle's feeling of self-importance. Don't expect Naugle to step down, and trying to recall a term-limited official who has about 20 months left in office probably isn't worth the time, effort and money.
The best thing would be for the gay and lesbian community — and all residents who don't like their city being nationally embarrassed by their mayor's antics — to work toward identifying and electing a mayor who is considerate of the entire community and its diversity, rather than someone who just wants to use the position as a podium to push a misguided agenda of bigoted bile.
BOTTOM LINE: The clock is ticking on Naugle's tenure — thankfully
like Gary said, attack the bigot.
Just aweful......Pastors of Washington State Mega-Churches having sex in the restrooms of Florida parks.
It must stop!
Gays don't have sex in parks because they are repressed and won't "come out" because of their jobs etc. They have sex in parks and restrooms because they are indifferent to society! When they are found out in the restrooms etc., they set themselves up to be exposed to the public ridicule!
There is a popular park in our area that one of the restrooms in particular was known to be frequented by gays for sex. Children have gone in there and been approached and alarmed in the encounters! You wonder why police have had to use surveillance methods to curb or stop the activity! By the way, ANY sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual should not be allowed in parks and restrooms (even in cars on the freeway)! It may seem exciting to the people involved, but shows a total lack of responsibility.
Yes, even pastors of Washington State have been caught in the activity! This is just as wrong as a banker, ditch digger, teacher, or whatever their occupation! For any person to point a finger at another who should practice better life relating with others means you recognize that the church does hold to a higher standard and therefore a pastor should be held acocuntable. Just as a banker, ditch digger, teacher or any other person practicing same sex behavior! Don't look for excuses for defending gay sex!
Just because a person pays their taxes, and all else listed above, doesn't endorse nor make right the same sex practice! There are probably a lot of murders and child abusers that also pay their taxes etc.! That is like saying, "Do you walk to work or take your lunch?!"
Anom 809.
Thanks for those comments . Regardless if it sex in public restrooms , or any behavior regardless of the person's orientation there is no excuse for it . To blame others, the left or right , for the lewd behavior of other people shows dogma is alive and well in the secular world as well in the religious world .
This behavior is just wrong , and the first people condemning it should be gay activists . I would hope they would .
The time when bigots, who compare homosexuality to murder and child abuse, can dictate the actions of the gay community are long past. If you folks were honestly looking to solve a problem, you would have the right to expect co-operation. Since your primary motivation is to attack and smear gays, only a gay activist, who's an idiot or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome would work with you.
This behavior is just wrong , and the first people condemning it should be gay activists . I would hope they would .
just like Christians go out of their way to condemn snake handlers and the like?
1) Very very few people actually do this kind of thing - those that do might do it a lot but but their aren't huge numbers of them. On topic since 2005 there have been 2 arrests for this sort of thing in Fort Lauderdale, yet the mayor wanted expensive automated toilets installed to 'fight the problem'.
2) A huge percentage of them aren't gay - a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who has handed these cases for years says about 50% are heterosexual married men - they aren't gay they are just looking for an instant gratification thrill. And wasn't it Daytona Beach where Rev. Moorehead of the local mega church got caught?
And then there are differing priorities - two scenerios: you'd want someone to happen upon 2 people having a violent fight or two people having sex? I know which one I'd prefer if I had to choose - which one would you?
So, the comments on this whole blog just show the perversion of the homosexuals.
When will we wake up and once again start pushing for the homosexual acts to once again be made illegal, since the more they "come out" the more perverse, aggressive, and disgusting they become.
On a side note, it seems that what Gary and others have said, marriage is down once again....people are living together more and more, as predicted by Gary and others when homosexual "marriage" is being pushed for and passed by radical legislatures.
"Marriage is declining, according to the annual “State of our Unions” report. The study from Rutgers' National Marriage Project also shows cohabitation is sharply on the rise.
David Popenoe, the report's author, said the long-term trends do not look very optimistic. Half of unmarried women ages 25 to 39 are living with or have lived with a partner without being married. The average first marriage has a 43 to 50 percent failure rate. He said it spells danger for society."
Dear Anon 11:24 am - July 31,
The most "perverse, aggressive, and disgusting" are you heterosexual hypocrites who rape and abuse girls/boys and women.
Look within your own self-righteous flock for the wife beaters and child rapists.
Public sex is wrong -- gay or straight. And the vast majority of the gay community does NOT support or endorse public sex.
But Gary (again) undermines his argument by making such a preposterous leap from the actions of a few to smear an entire population of people.
If he can search the news for instances of "immoral" or "perverted" gays and then peg the entire gay population for the actions of the few, then can we do the same for straights? Of course not.
Straight perverts trolling rest stops for kids to molest is not indicative of a "problem" with straight people. It's indicative of a problem with those perverts.
There will always be immoral, perverted, horny, dishonest, evil gay people -- just like there will always be immoral, perverted, horny, dishonest, evil straight people. So, Gary, your point is???
I'm gay. I'm in a monogamous lifelong relationship. I've had one partner in my entire life (the one I'm with). We've never had public sex.
Gary, tell me again why I shouldn't have equal rights in this country? Because someone out there who is also gay has sex in parks?
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
So, the comments on this whole blog just show the perversion of the homosexuals.
More that your statement shows that you will see perversion no matter what the facts are.
Oh and as you should know 'civil marriage' is just a contract, 'just living together' is the primary way people have been married through out recorded history - they know when they are married, not the state.
And considering marriages are UP in the only US state that allows marriage equality once again its obvious you see what you want to see regardless of the facts.
Ohstur said
And wasn't it Daytona Beach where Rev. Moorehead of the local mega church got caught?
Yikes , what you speaking about ? Of course that is pathetic . In public ?
Which would rather come upon , two folks having sex or a fight ? Well I guess that might depend if I had my grand kids with me , but either one would be a bad experience .
Asj a gay married couple with children , they sure would not like taking their kids to the public restroom and finding sex going on . Good parents anyway .
Condemning snake handlers , different kind of mis conduct , but that is apples and oranges . Its like talking about the horrors of the Iraq war and saying well Clinton did something wrong . It makes no sense to me .
Tony said
Public sex is wrong -- gay or straight. And the vast majority of the gay community does NOT support or endorse public sex.
Thanks Tony , your ther man !
"'just living together' is the primary way people have been married through out recorded history-they know when they are married, not the state...."
So when is someone going to answer why homosexuals want to get married anyway? The civil contract thing gave them all the state bennys, and few of the penalties, like the marriage tax penalty. If they are going to totally disallow God's law (a MAN shall leave his FATHER and MOTHER and shall cleave to his WIFE) why do they want God's institution of marriage?
I am sensing gays like to pigeon hole their behavior.
Gay sex is not natural by physical design. So, no matter how committed one gay couple might be (or many) is missing the point that the practice of male to male sex or female to female sex is wrong period. The committed nice gay couple does not negate that the practice is not normal.
Good friendship between males or females is perfectly normal. See, it is the sex part that makes it abnormal, perverted, queer, unnatural, socially wrong, etc. etc. etc..
Then to add children to the mix still does not make it right.
That all said, we do have enough problems with HETEROSEXUALS being vile, predatory, licentious, lewd, deviant, lustful, etc. etc. etc.!
To tit-for-tat between gays and heterosexuals is not the issue to debate, discuss, argue, defend etc. etc. etc.. The point is, the gay practice no matter if it is between women, men, drag, transgendered, etc. etc. etc. indicates there is something wrong with that line of thinking. It is not normal. Why is this so hard to understand???
See, that is where the pain, anger, disapointment, abuse, deep longing, etc. etc. etc. comes in to play. Not everyone who claims the gay proclivity has experienced the exact same situation that every other gay experienced that led them to follow the practice.
So, when one gay says he/she was not abused and had a very loving family so therefore cannot be compared to others that have, stll does not make their following the gay lifestyle valid. There are many situations and combinations that can lead a person to follow this practice.
And, yes, there are those who follow the gay path from whatever their early life experiences did to them yet, some people who in whatever bad experience(s) they endured, turn to other antisocial manifestations like murder, rape, drug/alcohol abuse, pedophile, hoarding, compulsive anything! The varying degrees of harm do add to our antisocial problems! That is why heterosexuals also can practice antisocial behaviors and yet not be gay.
I heard a young man tell his experience. He was adopted by a couple. The couple had a child by non adoptive means (natual). Both boys were subject to rape by the father. The natural born son, as he grew into teenage, started raping others as he released his anger at being violated. The adopted son made a choice, he said, to not rape others as he had been raped. He did control himself and was headed on a path of resisting the urges to get back as the fact of being hurt - especially by someone who was his father! Both boys made choices based on their internal conscience or lack thereof. Nothing genetic, just choice.
People vent their anger, feelings, reaction, responses, etc. etc. etc. in different ways. The trend toward the more outing of gays has also produced as "ok" for anyone who wants to rebel, as many who get to college/university may well do! Their first time on their own and in an environment that adventures in drinking, partying, and yes sexual experiences of probably many kinds abound! They are also taught, sad to say, by our liberal higher education institutions, how to rebel!
Some who take up the gay experience in college/university eventually come to their senses (grow up) and go the heterosexual way. Sadly, some that do that have already created "families" including having children and now make a mess of a bunch of people's lives including the children when they "break up" and go heterosexual. A case locally I would say, fits that situation. (Garvin v. Britain)
Condemning snake handlers , different kind of mis conduct , but that is apples and oranges . Its like talking about the horrors of the Iraq war and saying well Clinton did something wrong . It makes no sense to me .
You are expecting a group to condemn the bad behavior of a tiny minority of their group, why is it nonsensical to wonder why another group shouldn't be expected to do the same?
Yes all public sex is annoying and I can honestly say I've seen more of it performed by heterosexuals than homosexuals - but why should either group have to go out of its way to officially 'condemn' it? Do we see straights routinely condemning illegal prostitution out of the blue? Or does everyone just realize that the activity of a minority doesn't really have anything to do with the majority?
So when is someone going to answer why homosexuals want to get married anyway?
Same reasons heterosexuals license the contract.
why do they want God's institution of marriage?
They don't - they want license to the totally secular civil contract of marriage that two atheists can get a copy of. Has nothing to do with the religious rite of the same name.
The point is, the gay practice no matter if it is between women, men, drag, transgendered, etc. etc. etc. indicates there is something wrong with that line of thinking. It is not normal. Why is this so hard to understand???
Because it is only true in the sense that being left handed isn't normal, or being red-headed isn't normal, i.e. normal as being average. Now in the sense of normal as being a predicatable biological occurance sure being gay has relatively simple biological underpinnings and would be an expected variation from the majority as empirical observations of the rest of the animal species illustrates.
In a country based on the rights of the individual being paramount then there would have to be strong reasons to try and proscribe an individual's exercising of their basic human rights. You haven't and most likely can't produce any such reasons, and without them there is no way to justify not allowing people to fulfil their rights of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Really how can someone have a 'right to the pursuit of happiness' and not have a right to the pursuit of love? Why is that so hard to understand?
ov - you are so twisted you can not see the forest for the trees! you twist every thought to what you want.
you intertwine and interject WORDS into what you say as if they are valid! you equate one thing with something that is totally different!
you already have the "right" to pursue "love" - but, you want to do so with someone of the same sex. it is like someone wanting to ride a bicycle. there is a normal way to ride a bicyble. by design the seat faces toward the handlebars. the handlebars steer the front wheel. the pedals allow a person to move the bicycle.
so, to get on and ride, the normal way is to face the handlebars as the bicycle is designed to be ridden. that is normal. now there are those who want to ride the bicyble backwards or any other odd way! they even may modify the design to fit what they want to do!
the basic design of bicycles has always been to ride forward. the majority of bicycles sold do so. so when we see someone riding a bicycle different, we laugh, we innatly readily recognize the "perversion", if you will!
the person on the odd bicycle can believe all he wants to that this is normal! if he says it is for him so let it be, WHY does he FEEL the need to ride contrary to the original basic design?
Hey guys,
None of the above diatribes are really relevant.
What is relevant is whether Gary dealt honestly with the data. First glance appears that he did not - not surprising, I have seen his deviousness, twisting and spin many times (see ACLU letter several mos back).
HOWEVER, I have also not thoroughly evaluated his statements so there is small benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, the focus should be on Gary's honest or lack thereof. That is the only meaningful issue here -
Sincerely,
Human
What's twisted you think that in this country people wouldn't have a right to 'ride the bicycle backwards' and if that's how they did it why would it make a whit of difference to you?
Again, common sense - pair-bonding attraction has it roots in genetic information and all men have all the information of a woman just as women of almost all the information of a man. Further we know that the neurological wiring differences between the two pair-bonding responses are done late in the fetal development. Many factors could influence the strength and nature of that development where the mechanisms that enable pair-bonding with a male or a female could ultimately be present in either a male or a female.
So to use your analogy the reason some people ride their bicycles backwards is because they are designed to, and some bicycles are build TOO be ridden backwards. And in a nation where the rights of the individual are paramount and they have an inborn right to ride, why in the world would it make a difference to anyone if another rode their bicycle forward or backward as long as they were happy doing it?
(bar none - the 'sexual orientation as a bicycle riding style' has got to be the silliest rationalization analogy presented in this forum so far)
human
I had hoped you had gone away to more enlightened digs.
So you are now evaluating Gary's honesty in his reporting while telling us you have not evaluated it.
You have an uncanny ability to approach a subject and be focusing on yourself before you finish the first sentence.
Why would Gary give us the links to read for ourselves, with related stories at the links as well, all in an attempt to mis lead?
Also, let me restate what you already know. Faith and Freedom is not a news service--it is a ministry. They have and give their opinions. Gary feels strongly about biblical principles being followed in society. I agree with him and support what these people do and stand for.
Why do you contine to hang out here. I realize there are few to none other Christian websites that give guys like you the oppurtunity to come on the site and try to slander Gary and others who share his beliefs, but is there no ability on your part to discuss the issues in the freedom and access that this orgaization gives you and others like you who oppose such things.
You need to get a little class and quit blaming Jesus for your twisted view of things. Better yet, just find some other benevolent organization to attack, if indeed there are any who will give you the access that Gary gives you.
" Faith and Freedom is not a news service--it is a ministry."
FFN is NOT a ministry, it is a political special interest group.
"Better yet, just find some other benevolent organization to attack"
FFN is NOT a benevolent organization. Benevolent organizations do not demonize, attack and smear their fellow Americans. Red Cross = Benevolent ogranization, FFN does not.
As for the open comments here, yes that is quite unusual for conservative organizations, but par for the course with liberal ones. Seems that should tell you something about the two movements.
OV, you still haven't answered the question, and neither has any other homosexual. Why do homosexuals want to get married? Why are they not happy with the civil contracts?
It just seems to me as if they are really trying to "moon" God and Christians. That or just trying to ease their guilty consciences, which "marriage" for them will not.
"Why do homosexuals want to get married? Why are they not happy with the civil contracts?"
Simple, because civil unions, domestic partnerships etc, do not carry with them ALL the rights and privledges of civil marraige! Now, theoretically, it is plausable that a federal civil union could be devised that would grant same-sex couples all the rights and privledges (as well as the portability) of civil marriages, but given that groups like FFN oppose ANY government recognition of same-sex couples whatsoever, why go through all these battles to create a copy of civil marriage under a different name?
Frankly, I have wonder why you think this question is so significant, given that anti-gay groups like FFN are equally opposed to civil unions.
What rights and priviledges are excluded? You keep saying that....expound please.
Here you go. Of course, if you really cared, you'd educate yourself on this issue.
Pag e 3
APPENDIX 1
Table of Statutory Provisions Involving Marital Status Added to the United States Code
Between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003, by Category
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD
STAMPS
Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 6A—Public Health Service
Subchapter II
Part D—Primary Health Care
Subpart I—Health Centers
§ 254d National Health Service Corps
Subchapter IV—Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and
for Child-Welfare Services
Part B—Child and Family Services
Subpart 2—Promoting Safe and Stable Families
§ 629a Definitions
Subchapter XI—General Provisions, Peer Review, and Administrative Simplification
Part A—General Provisions
§ 1320a-7
Exclusion of certain individuals and entities from participation in Medicare and state
health care programs
§ 1320b-17 Recovery of SSI overpayments from other benefits
Part C—Medicare + Choice Program
§ 1395w-22 Benefits and beneficiary protections
§ 1395w-23 Payments to Medicare + Choice organizations
§ 1395w-27 Contracts with Medicare + Choice organizations
Part D—Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 1395x Definitions
§ 1395ff Determinations; appeals
Chapter 35—Programs for Older Americans
Subchapter III—Grants for States and Community Programs on Aging
Part C—Nutrition Services
Subpart III—General Provisions
§ 3030g-21 General provisions—nutrition
§ 3030s Definitions
Chapter 46—Justice System Improvement
Subchapter XII—F—Public Safety Officers’ Death Benefits
Part A—Death Benefits
§ 3796d Purposes
§ 3796d-1 Basic eligibility
Subchapter XII—H—Grants to Combat Violent Crimes against Women
§ 3796gg-1 State grants
Chapter 84—Department of Energy
Part A—Establishment of Compensation Program and Compensation Fund
Subchapter XVI—Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
§ 7384s Compensation and benefits to be provided
§ 7384u Separate treatment of certain uranium employees
Part C—Treatment, Coordination, and Forfeiture of Compensation and Benefits
§ 7385c
Exclusivity of remedy against the United States and against contractors and
subcontractors
Chapter 110—Family Violence Prevention and Services
§ 10410 Grants for state domestic violence coalitions
§ 10421 Definitions
Pag e 4 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
Chapter 129—National and Community Service
Subchapter I—National and Community Service State Grant Program
Division F—Administrative Provisions
§ 12639 Evaluation
Chapter 130—National Affordable Housing
Subchapter I—General Provisions and Policies
§ 12704 Definitions
§12713 Eligibility under first-time home-buyer programs
Chapter 136—Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Subchapter III—Violence against Women
Part C—Civil Rights for Women
§ 13981 Civil rights
§ 13992 Training provided by grants
Chapter 143—Intercountry Adoptions
Subchapter V—General Provisions
§ 14952 Special rules for certain cases
CATEGORY 2—VETERANS’ BENEFITS
Title 38—Veterans' Benefits
Part II—General Benefits
Chapter 17—Hospital, Nursing Home, Domiciliary, and Medical Care
Subchapter II—Hospital, Nursing Home, Or Domiciliary Care and Medical
Treatment
§ 1710B Extended care services
Subchapter VIII—Health Care of Persons other than Veterans
§ 1781 Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
Chapter 18—Benefits for Children of Vietnam Veterans
Subchapter III—General Provisions
§ 1821 Definitions
Chapter 19—Insurance
Subchapter III—Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
§ 1967 Person insured; amount
§ 1969 Deductions; payment; investment; expenses
Chapter 23—Burial Benefits
§ 2306 Headstones, markers, and burial receptacles
Part III—Readjustment and Related Benefits
Chapter 30—All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program
Subchapter II—Basic Educational Assistance
§ 3020
Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance: members of the Armed Forces
with critical military skills
Chapter 42—Employment and Reemployment Rights of Members of the Uniformed Services
§ 4215 Priority of service for veterans in Department of Labor job training programs
Part IV—General Administrative Provisions
Chapter 53—Special Provisions Relating to Benefits
§ 5302 Waiver of recovery of claims by the United States
§ 5313B Prohibition on providing certain benefits with respect to persons who are fugitive felons
Part V—Boards, Administrations, and Services
Chapter 77—Veterans Benefits Administration
Subchapter II—Veterans Outreach Services Program
§ 7721 Purpose; definitions
Pag e 5
CATEGORY 3—TAXATION
Title 26—Internal Revenue Code
Subtitle A—Income Taxes
Chapter 1—Normal Taxes and Surtaxes
Subchapter A—Determination of Tax Liability
Part IV—Credits Against Tax
Subpart A—Nonrefundable Personal Credits
§ 24 Child tax credit
§25A Hope and lifetime learning credits
§ 25B Tax imposed on individuals
Subchapter B—Computation of Taxable Income
Part III—Items Specifically Excluded from Gross Income
§ 101 Certain death benefits
Part VII—Additional Itemized Deductions for Individuals
§ 138 Medicare + Choice MSA
§ 221 Interest on education loans
Subchapter D—Deferred Compensation, Etc.
Part I—Pension, Profit-Sharing, Stock Bonus Plans, Etc.
Subpart A—General Rule
§ 408A Roth IRAs
Subchapter F—Exempt Organizations
Part VIII—Higher Education Savings Entities
§ 529 Qualified tuition programs
§ 530 Coverdell education savings accounts
Subchapter K—Partners and Partnerships
Part IV—Special Rules for Electing Large Partnerships
§ 774 Other modifications
§ 775 Electing large partnership defined
Subchapter O—Gain or Loss on Disposition of Property
Part II—Basis Rules of General Application
§ 1022 Treatment of property acquired by decedent dying after December 31, 2009
Subchapter W—District of Columbia Enterprise Zone
§ 1400C First-time home-buyer credit for District of Columbia
Subtitle B—Estate and Gift Taxes
Chapter 11—Estate Tax
Subchapter A—Estates Of Citizens Or Residents
Part IV—Taxable Estate
§ 2057 Family-owned business interests
Subchapter C—Miscellaneous
§ 2210 Termination
Chapter 12—Gift Tax
Subchapter B—Transfers
§ 2511 Transfers in general
Chapter 13—Tax on Generation-Skipping Transfers
Subchapter D—GST Exemption
§ 2632 Special rules for allocation of GST exemption
Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration
Chapter 61—Information and Returns
Subchapter A—Returns and Records
Part II—Tax Returns or Statements
Subpart B—Income Tax Returns
§ 6015 Relief from joint and several liability on joint return
Part III—Information Returns
Subpart B—Information Concerning Transactions with Other Persons
§ 6045 Returns of brokers
Pag e 6 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
Chapter 62—Time and Place for Paying Tax
Subchapter A—Place and Due Date for Payment of Tax
§ 6159 Agreements for payment of tax liability in installments
Chapter 63—Assessment
Subchapter C—Tax Treatment of Partnership Items
§ 6230 Additional administrative provisions
Chapter 66—Limitations
Subchapter B—Limitations on Credit or Refund
§ 6511 Limitations on credit or refund
CATEGORY 4—FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS
Title 5—Government Organization and Employees
Part III—Employees
Subpart A—General Provisions
Chapter 23—Merit system principles
§ 2301 Merit system principles
§ 2302 Prohibited personnel practices
Subpart B—Employment and Retention
Chapter 33—Examination, Selection, and Placement
Subchapter I—Examination, Certification and Appointment
§ 3301 Civil service; generally
Subpart D—Pay and Allowances
Chapter 57—Travel, Transportation, And Subsistence
Subchapter II—Travel And Transportation Expenses; New Appointees, Student Trainees,
And Transferred Employees
§ 5737 Relocation expenses of an employee who is performing an extended assignment
Chapter 59—Allowances
Subchapter III—Overseas Differentials And Allowances
§ 5922 General provisions
Subpart G—Insurance and Annuities
Chapter 90—Long-term Care Insurance
§ 9001 Definitions
§ 9002 Availability of insurance
§ 9003 Contracting authority
Title 6—Domestic Security
Chapter 1—Homeland Security Organization
§ 331 Treatment of charitable trusts for members of the armed services and other governmental
organizations
Title 10—Armed Forces
Subtitle A—General Military Law
Part I—Organization and General Military Powers
Chapter 2—Department of Defense
§ 118a Quadrennial quality of life review
Part II—Personnel
Chapter 55—Medical and Dental Care
§ 1108 Health care coverage through federal employees’ health benefits program: demonstration
project
Chapter 73—Annuities based on Retired or Retainer Pay
Subchapter II—Survivor Benefit Plan
§ 1448a Election to discontinue participation: one-year opportunity after second anniversary of
commencement of payment of retired pay
Chapter 88—Military Family Care Programs and Military Child Care
Subchapter II—Military Child Care
Pag e 7
§ 1798 Child care services and youth program services for dependents: financial assistance for
providers
Title 37—Pay and Allowances of The Uniformed Services
Chapter 7—Allowances
§ 403 Basic allowance for housing
§ 407 Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance
§ 411f Travel and transportation allowances: transportation for survivors of deceased member to
attend the member’s burial ceremonies
§ 427 Family separation allowance
CATEGORY 5—EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Title 29—Labor
Chapter 30—Workforce Investment Systems
Subchapter I—Workforce Investment Definitions
§ 2801 Definitions
Subchapter IV—National Programs
§ 2918 National emergency grants
Title 30—Mineral Lands and Mining
Chapter 25—Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Subchapter VII—Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 1304 Surface owner protection
Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 46—Justice System Improvement
Subchapter XII—Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits
Part B—Educational Assistance to Dependents of Civilian Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Killed or Disabled in the Line of Duty
§ 3796d Purposes
§ 3796d-1 Basic eligibility
Chapter 84—Department of Energy
Subchapter XVI—Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
§ 7384s Compensation and benefits to be provided
§ 7384u Separate treatment of certain uranium employees
§ 7385c Exclusivity of remedy against the United States and against contractors and subcontractors
CATEGORY 6—IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS
Title 8—Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12—Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter II—Immigration
Part II—Admission Qualifications fFor Aliens; Travel Control of Citizens And Aliens
§ 1183a Requirements for sponsor’s affidavit of support
Part IV—Inspection, Apprehension, Examination, Exclusion, and Removal
§ 1227 General classes of deportable aliens
§ 1229a Removal proceedings
§ 1229b Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status
§ 1229c Voluntary departure
Part IX—Miscellaneous
§ 1367 Penalties for disclosure of information
§ 1375 Mail-order bride business
Pag e 8 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
Chapter 14—Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens
Subchapter IV—General Provisions
§ 1641 Definitions
Chapter 15—Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
Subchapter V—Foreign Students and Exchange Visitors
§ 1761 Foreign student monitoring program
Title 19—Customs Duties
Chapter 24—Bipartisan Trade Promotion
§ 3805note United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
CATEGORY 7--INDIANS
Title 25—Indians
Chapter 18—Indian Health Care
Subchapter II—Health Services
§ 1621h Mental health services
Chapter 24—Indian Land Consolidation
§ 2206 Descent and distribution
§ 2216 Trust and restricted land transactions
Chapter 43—Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
§ 4103 Definitions
Subchapter VIII—Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians
§ 4221 Definitions
CATEGORY 8—TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Title 12—Banks and Banking
Chapter 13—National Housing
§ 1701q Supportive housing for the elderly
Subchapter II—Mortgage Insurance
§ 1707 Definitions
§ 1713 Rental housing insurance
§ 1715e Cooperative housing insurance
Chapter 17—Bank Holding Companies
§ 1841 Definitions
Chapter 31—National Consumer Cooperative Bank
Subchapter I—Establishment and Operation
§ 3015 Eligibility of cooperatives
Chapter 32—Foreign Bank Participation in Domestic Markets
§ 3106a Compliance with state and federal laws
Title 15—Commerce and Trade
Chapter 14A—Aid to Small Business
§ 632 Small business concern
Chapter 14B—Small Business Investment Program
Subchapter V—Loans to State and Local Development Companies
§ 696 Loans for plant acquisition, construction, conversion, and expansion
Chapter 41—Consumer Credit Protection
Subchapter IV—Equal Credit Opportunity
§ 1691 Scope of prohibition
Pag e 9
CATEGORY 9—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Title 7—Agriculture
Chapter 50—Agricultural Credit
Subchapter VI—Delta Regional Authority
§ 2009aa-1 Delta Regional Authority
Subchapter VII—Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
§ 2009bb-1 Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
Subchapter IX—Rural Strategic Investment Program
§ 2009dd-3 National Board on rural America
CATEGORY 10—CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
Title 18—Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I—Crimes
Chapter 46—Forfeiture
§ 983 General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
Chapter 110A—Domestic Violence
§ 2261A Interstate stalking
Title 20
Chapter 28—Higher Education Resources and Student Assistance
Subchapter VIII—Miscellaneous
§ 1152 Grants to combat violent crimes against women on campuses
Title 28—Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Part V—Procedure
Chapter 115—Evidence; Documentary
§ 1738C Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
Title 42—The Public Health And Welfare
Chapter 135—Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Subchapter III—Violence against Women
Subpart 3—Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement
Part C—Civil Rights for Women
§ 13981 Civil rights
Part D—Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act
Subpart 1—Education and Training for Judges and Court Personnel in State Courts
§ 13992 Training provided by grants
CATEGORY 11—LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE
No new provisions in this category of statutes.
CATEGORY 12—FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND RELATED STATUTORY PROVISIONS
No new provisions in this category of statutes.
Pag e 10 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
CATEGORY 13—MISCELLANEOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Title 20—Education
Chapter 70—Strengthening and Improvement of Elementary and Secondary Schools
Subchapter II—Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals
Part C—Innovation for Teacher Quality
Subpart 1—Transition to Teaching
§ 6674 Participation agreement and financial assistance
Subchapter VII—Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language
Acquisition Programs
Part B—Native Hawaiian Education
§ 7512 Findings
Title 22—Foreign Relations and Intercourse
Chapter 75—Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation
Subchapter I—General Provisions
§ 6713 Civil liability of the United States
Pag e 11
APPENDIX 2
Tables of Statutory Provisions Identified in 1997 Report as Involving Marital Status
That Have Been Repealed or Amended to Remove Reference to Marital Status
Category 1—Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Regulations pertaining to
garnishments
42 U.S.C. §§661-662 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 104-193,
§ 362(b)(1), effective February 22,
1997, 110 Stat. 2246.
Category 3—Taxation
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Collapsible corporations 26 U.S.C. § 341 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 108-27,
§ 302(e), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 763.
Rollover of gain on sale of
principal residence
26 U.S.C. § 1034 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-34,
§ 312(b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 839.
Tax on excess distribution from
qualified retirement plans
26 U.S.C. § 4980A Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-34,
§ 1073(a), Aug. 7, 1997, 111 Stat. 948.
Category 4—Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Employment of retired members of
the uniformed services; reduction
in retired or retainer pay
5 U.S.C. § 5532 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 106-65,
§ 651(a)(1), Oct. 1, 1999, 113 Stat. 664.
Assistance to separated members to
obtain certification and
employment as teachers or
employment as teachers’ aides
10 U.S.C. § 1151 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 106-655,
§ 1707(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat.
823.
Military child care employees 10 U.S.C. § 1792 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-261,
§ 1106, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2142;
reference to marital status removed.
Job training partnership,
application of federal law
29 U.S.C. § 1706 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-220,
§ 199(b) (2), effective July 1, 2000, 112
Stat. 1059.
Rights, benefits, privileges, and
immunities; exercise of authority
of Secretary of Commerce or
designee (National Ocean Survey
employees)
33 U.S.C. § 857a Repealed by Pub. L. No. 107-372,
§ 271(2), Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3094
and replaced with similar provisions that
omit any reference to marital status. See
33 U.S.C. 3071 (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Commissioned Officer Corps - Rights
and benefits).
Pag e 12 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
Category 5—Employment Benefits and Related Statutory Provisions
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Youth training program for the
disadvantaged
29 U.S.C. § 1644 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-220,
§ 199(b)(2), effective July 1, 2000, 112
Stat. 1059.
Job Corps—Allowances and
support
29 U.S.C. § 1699 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-220,
§ 199(b)(2), effective July 1, 2000, 112
Stat. 1059.
Labor market information 29 U.S.C. § 1752 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-220,
§ 199(b)(2), effective July 1, 2000, 112
Stat. 1059.
Category 6—Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Suspension of deportation of aliens 8 U.S.C. § 1251 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 104-208,
§ 308(b)(7), Sep. 30, 1996, 110 Stat.
3009-615.
Category 9—Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Alternative Agricultural Research
and Commercialization
Corporation—Board of Directors,
Employees, and Facilities
7 U.S.C. § 5903 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 107-171,
§ 6201(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 418.
Category 10—Crimes and Family Violence
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Interstate violation of a protection
order
18 U.S.C. § 2262 Amended by Pub. L. 106-386, § 1107,
Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1464; reference
to marital status removed.
Narcotic addict rehabilitation—
definitions
42 U.S.C. § 3411 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 106-310,
§ 3405(b), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat.
1221.
Model state leadership grants for
domestic violence intervention
42 U.S.C. § 10415 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 108-36, § 410,
June 25, 2003, 117 Stat. 827.
Category 11—Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Paul Douglas Teaching
Scholarships—exceptions to
repayment provisions
20 U.S.C. § 1104g Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-244, §
501, October 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1581;
reference to marital status removed.
Faculty Development Fellowship
Program—exceptions to repayment
provisions
20 U.S.C. § 1134r-5 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-244, §
701, October 7, 1998,112 Stat. 1581.
Pag e 13
Category 13—Miscellaneous Statutory Provisions
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Vocational education state plans 20 U.S.C. § 2323 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-332, §
1(b), October 31, 1998,112 Stat. 3076;
reference to marital status removed.
Vocational education definitions 20 U.S.C. § 2471 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-332, §
1(b), October 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3076;
reference to marital status removed.
Agricultural Hall of Fame 36 U.S.C. § 977 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-354, § 1,
Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 3238; reference
to marital status removed.
Audits of Federally Chartered
Corporations
36 U.S.C. § 1101 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 1,
Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1253; reference
to marital status removed.
Gold Star Wives of America 36 U.S.C. § 1602 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 1,
Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1253; replaced
provision’s reference to “gold wives”
with “corporation”. (The name of the
organization continues to be the Gold
Star Wives of America.)
Navy Wives Clubs of America 36 U.S.C. § 2802 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 1,
Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1436; replaced
provision’s reference to “Navy Wives”
with “corporation”. (The name of the
organization continues to be the Navy
Wives Clubs of America.)
Aviation Hall of Fame 36 U.S.C. § 4307 and § 4309 Amended by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 1,
Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1312. These
provisions’ references to “survivors”
were deleted.
Membership of Martin Luther
King, Jr., Federal Holiday
Commission
36 U.S.C. § 169j-3 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 6,
Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1253.
Testing and other early
intervention services for state
prisoners
42 U.S.C. § 300ff-48 Repealed by Pub. L. No. 106-345,
§ 301(a), Oct. 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 1345.
Programs for older Americans—
Demonstration projects
42 U.S.C. § 3035a Provision was omitted by Pub. L. No.
106-501, Nov. 13, 2001, 114 Stat. 2257.
Pag e 14 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
APPENDIX 3
Tables of Statutory Provisions Identified in 1997 Report as Involving Marital
Status That Have Been Relocated in the United States Code
Category 1—Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Alien’s eligibility for benefits 42 U.S.C. § 615
Relocated to 42 U.S.C. § 608(f)
Category 2—Veterans’ Benefits
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Medical care for survivors and
dependents of certain veterans
38 U.S.C. § 1713 Relocated to 38 U.S.C. § 1781
Category 4—Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
House of Representatives Child
Care Center
40 U.S.C. § 184g
Relocated to 2 U.S.C. § 2062
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration commissary
privileges
33 U.S.C. § 857-4 Relocated to 33 U.S.C. § 3074
Gratuities for survivors of deceased
House employees; computation
40 U.S.C. § 166b-4
Relocated to 2 U.S.C. § 125
Senate employee child care
benefits
40 U.S.C. § 214d Relocated to 2 U.S.C. § 2063
Category 5—Employment Benefits and Related Statutory Provisions
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Job training partnership—
definitions
29 U.S.C. § 1503 Relocated to 29 U.S.C. § 2801
Category 6—Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Deportable aliens 8 U.S.C. § 1251 Relocated to 8 U.S.C. § 1227
Category 7—Indians
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Indian land consolidation—
Descent and distribution
25 U.S.C. § 2205 Relocated to 25 U.S.C. § 2206
Pag e 15
Category 9—Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Appalachian Regional
Commission—personal financial
interests
40 U.S.C. § 108 Relocated to 40 U.S.C. § 14309
Category 10—Crimes and Family Violence
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Family violence prevention and
Services—definitions
40 U.S.C. § 10408 Relocated to 40 U.S.C. § 10421
Category 13—Miscellaneous Statutory Provisions
Subject 1997 Statutory Citation Status
Marine Corps League 36 U.S.C. § 57a Relocated to chapter 2301
§ 140102
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States
36 U.S.C. § 113 Relocated to chapter 2301
§ 230102
Legion of Valor of the United
States of America
36 U.S.C. § 633 Relocated to chapter 1303
§ 130302
Veterans of World War I of the
United States of America
36 U.S.C. § 763 Relocated to chapter 2303
§ 230302
The Congressional Medal of Honor
Society of the United States
36 U.S.C. § 793 and § 799 Relocated to chapter 405
§ 40502 and § 40506
Blinded Veterans Association 36 U.S.C. § 859 Relocated to chapter 303
§ 30307
National Woman’s Relief Corps,
Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the
Republic
36 U.S.C. § 1005 Relocated to chapter 1537
§ 153703
Gold Star Wives of America
36 U.S.C. § 1601 Relocated to chapter 805
§ 80502
American Ex-Prisoners of War 36 U.S.C. § 2103 Relocated to chapter 209
§ 20903
Catholic War Veterans of the
United States of America, Inc.
36 U.S.C. § 2603 Relocated to chapter 401
§ 40103
Navy Wives Clubs of America 36 U.S.C. §2801 and § 2803
Relocated to chapter 1545, § 154502
and §154503.
Army and Navy Union of the
United States
36 U.S.C. § 3903 Relocated to chapter 229
§ 22903
Non-Commissioned Officers
Association of the United States
36 U.S.C. § 4003 Relocated to chapter 1547
§ 4003
Retired Enlisted Association,
Incorporated
36 U.S.C. § 5103 Relocated to chapter 1903
§ 190303
National Fallen Firefighters
Foundation
36 U.S.C. § 5201 Relocated to Chapter 1513
§ 151302
Public Health Service grants for
services of substance abusers
42 U.S.C. § 280d Relocated to 42 U.S.C. § 290bb-25
Programs for older Americans—
state plans
42 U.S.C. § 3035 Relocated to 42 U.S.C. § 3027
Pag e 16 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
APPENDIX 4
CATEGORIES OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING,
AND
FOOD STAMPS
This category includes the major federal health and welfare programs, particularly those
considered entitlements, such as Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food
stamps, welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these provisions are found in Title 42
of the United States Code, Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title 7,
Agriculture.
CATEGORY 2—VETERANS' BENEFITS
Veterans' benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the United States Code, include pensions,
indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right
to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of
veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital relationship.
CATEGORY 3—TAXATION
While the distinction between married and unmarried status is pervasive in federal tax law,
terms such as "husband," "wife," or "married" are not defined. However, marital status
figures in federal tax law in provisions as basic as those giving married taxpayers the option
to file joint or separate income tax returns. It is also seen in the related provisions prescribing
different tax consequences, depending on whether a taxpayer is married filing jointly,
married filing separately, unmarried but the head of a household, or unmarried and not the
head of a household.
CATEGORY 4—FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS
This category includes statutory provisions dealing with current and retired federal officers
and employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which marital
status is a factor. Typically these provisions address the various health, leave, retirement,
survivor, and insurance benefits provided by the United States to those in federal service and
their families.
CATEGORY 5—EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED PROVISIONS
Marital status comes into play in many different ways in federal laws relating to employment
in the private sector. Most provisions appear in Title 29 of the United States Code, Labor.
Pag e 17
However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining; Title 33, Navigation and
Navigable Waters; and Title 45, Railroads. This category includes laws that address the
rights of employees under employer-sponsored employee benefit plans; that provide for
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits after events like the death or divorce of
the employee; and that give employees the right to unpaid leave in order to care for a
seriously ill spouse. In addition, Congress has extended special benefits in connection with
certain occupations, like mining and public safety.
CATEGORY 6—IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS
This category includes federal statutory provisions governing the conditions under which
noncitizens may enter and remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens. Most
are found in Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. The law gives special consideration to spouses
of immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens in a wide variety of circumstances. Under
immigration law, aliens may receive special status by virtue of their employment, and that
treatment may extend to their spouses. Also, spouses of aliens granted asylum can be given
the same status if they accompany or join their spouses.
.
CATEGORY 7—INDIANS
The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a special legal relationship with
the federal government through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25, Indians.
Various laws set out the rights to tribal property of “white” men marrying “Indian” women,
or of “Indian” women marrying “white” men. The law also outlines the descent and
distribution rights for Indians’ property. In addition, there are laws pertaining to health care
eligibility for Indians and spouses and reimbursement of travel expenses of spouses and
candidates seeking positions in the Indian Health Service.
CATEGORY 8—TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
This category includes provisions concerning foreign or domestic business and commerce, in
the following titles of the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and Banking,
Title
12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights, Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19. This
category also includes the National Housing Act (rights of mortgage borrowers); the
Consumer Credit Protection Act (governs wage garnishment); and the Copyright Act
(spousal copyright renewal and termination rights).
CATEGORY 9—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Federal law imposes obligations on members of Congress, employees or officers of the
federal government, and members of the boards of directors of some government-related or
government chartered entities, to prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interest. These
individuals are required to disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions. Many of
Pag e 18 GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act
these requirements, which are found in 16 different titles of the United States Code, apply
also to the individual's spouse.
CATEGORY 10—CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
This category includes laws that implicate marriage in connection with criminal justice or
family violence. The nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with spouses as
victims of crimes, others with spouses as perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in
Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, but some statutory provisions, dealing with crime
prevention and family violence, are in Title 42, Public Health and Welfare.
CATEGORY 11—LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE
Under many federal loan programs, a spouse's income, business interests, or assets are taken
into account for purposes of determining a person's eligibility to participate in the program.
In other instances, marital status is a factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to
which a person is entitled or the repayment schedule. This category includes education loan
programs, housing loan programs for veterans, and provisions governing agricultural price
supports and loan programs that are affected by the spousal relationship.
CATEGORY 12—FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND RELATED
PROVISIONS
Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions
involving federal lands and other federal property. These transactions include purchase and
sale of land by the federal government and lease by the government of water and mineral
rights.
CATEGORY 13—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This category comprises federal statutory provisions that do not fit readily in any of the other
12 categories. Federal provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status
are included in this category. This category also includes various patriotic societies chartered
in federal law, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the Gold Star Wives of America.
Now then, would you support a federal law to enact civil unions granting same-sex couples all of these rights? If no, then just what is your point re civil unions vs civil marraige?
Condense please. Just a summation will do. What are your biggest issues?
99% of the above says nothing about families, except the marriage and taxes, which only causes the tax rate to go up....if the current President Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire as all the current dems presidential wannabes are crowing.
What exactly specifically do the homosexuals see so odious as to rant and rave and fight for, other than to just be the contentious people that they are?
Oshtur said
are expecting a group to condemn the bad behavior of a tiny minority of their group, why is it nonsensical to wonder why another group shouldn't be expected to do the same?
Many ministers have been disciplined by their respective denominations , and many people have spoken out against them . But your right , some Ministers get a free pass because of other issues , Revernd Al Sharpton comes to minf right off.
OV said
but why should either group have to go out of its way to officially 'condemn' it?
one group doesn't have to , so those who use that group as an example of doing it a normal activity are the only ones speaking .
One of the best examples of the Japanese Americans in during WW 2 was the Regiment that fought that was entirely made of Japanese . They earned the respect of the enemy and the repect of the men and women in the armed forces . They were not traders or spies as made out by many . They did not have to do this , but doing so help stopped some of the negative stereotypes .
When Muslims speak out against suicide bombers it is awesome , and sends a message that this is not universally accepted in Islam . This has begun to happen , and it is a good thing . They don't have to , but it is effective .
When Christians speak out against violence against gays it sends a message to the community this is not acceptable and you receive no pat on the back for it . I don't have to stand up for rights of gays , or others don't , but its the right thing to do , and in doing so it sends a message that negative stereotypes are wrong when thrus upon a group .
When I am in a circle of co workers and a racial joke is told , it sends a message to my other white friends that this kind of behavior is not acceptablewhen I do not laugh and mention it was offensive to hear that . It sends a message that all whites do not find racial jokes humor filled , and makes that person think twice the next time . Yeah I have ridiculed for being "sensitive" actually I don't think I am .
God is .
Martin Luther King Jr spoke out against violence and using it for social justice . He did not have to , but he did , And the movement gained support for it .
Dear anon @ 2:24 & 2:28,
Before I respond to any further questions from you, you will have to do me the courtesy of responding to my questions to you.
Now then, would you support a federal law to enact civil unions granting same-sex couples all of these rights? If no, then just what is your point re civil unions vs civil marraige?
"When Christians speak out against violence against gays it sends a message to the community this is not acceptable and you receive no pat on the back for it ."
Just when do Christians speak out against violence against gays? Individual Christians may do so, but last time I checked most Christian organizations in this country were pulling out all the stops to spread lies about hate crimes laws in an effort to deny gays and lesbians the same protections from bias crimes that these Christians themselves enjoy.
Speaking of denouncing violence and fringe groups, Gary and FFN completely failed to denounce the fringe Christian groups that planted a pipe bomb at an abortion clinic a while back, or those, who sought to use bombs against other Christians for protesting Falwell's funeral.
anon 12:39
So because Gary is the only conservative or Christian site that allows open comments make him pay for his openness. Don't address the issues. Go after the messenger. Slander him. Every time you people attack, it reminds me why I believe what I believe and why I support the conservative movement even though I would not consider myself a part of the faith group.
I swear if someone gave you people an icecream cone you would rather see it melt than to eat it. I can only imagine what you would do with "marriage" if you were to receive it.
Read and consider - again:
"Aurelio Mancuso, president of Arcigay, Italy's largest gay rights group, hit back at the Pope. "Ratzinger pretends not to understand that gay unions are no threat to heterosexual marriages," he said in a statement."
* * * * *
Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
7:45 AM, August 02, 2007
Wow, you mean gays do not all share the same opinion about marraige or any other topic. Shocking!
OF course, there are many Christian groups in this country that still think gays should be put to death. So, I guess by your "logic" that means we should dismiss the statements of any Christian, who claims to think otherwise.
anon 10:37
"of coursre there are many Christian groups in this country that still think gays should be put to death"
Name one besides the Baptist guy who pickets funerals, etc.
I don't believe you.
"The Death Penalty for Homosexuality
Among the hardest core of the Religious Right are those who embrace "reconstructionism," which advocates imposing a radically fundamentalist interpretation of "Biblical law" onto American society. On the September 4, 1998 Armstrong Williams talk show, Colorado talk-radio personality Bob Enyard called for the death penalty for gays and adulterers. Last year, a Christian radio talk-show host in Costa Mesa, California said, "Lesbian love, sodomy are viewed by God as being detestable and abominable. Civil magistrates are to put people to death who practice these things." The announcer urged listeners to contact legislators and ask that they enact capital punishment for homosexuality. The station manager called the program "an honest dialogue concerning Christian beliefs." Congressional candidate Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue, extends this view of "Biblical law" to include "Biblical slavery" and capital punishment for rebellious teenagers."
There you go Toots.
"September 12, 1997
On the August 29 show of Crosstalk on Christian-owned KBRT-AM in Costa Mesa, California, host Rich Agozino suggested that homosexuality should be punishable by death. According to his interpretation of the Bible, Agozino said that, "Lesbian love [and] sodomy are viewed by God as being detestable and abominable....Civil magistrates are to put people to death who practice these things." He also urged listeners and callers to write to state legislators calling for laws that would sentence lesbians and gay men to death. When asked to comment on his host's execution-style morality, KBRT-AM station manager Ed Personius claimed Agozino was just encouraging people to follow the "word of God." Don Crawford, Jr., general manager of Crawford Broadcasting West, of which KBRT is a subsidiary, was unavailable for comment, but an assistant confirmed that Crawford Broadcasting was "Christian owned and operated." "
Here's another one, sweetie.
"September 12, 1997
On the August 29 show of Crosstalk on Christian-owned KBRT-AM in Costa Mesa, California, host Rich Agozino suggested that homosexuality should be punishable by death. According to his interpretation of the Bible, Agozino said that, "Lesbian love [and] sodomy are viewed by God as being detestable and abominable....Civil magistrates are to put people to death who practice these things." He also urged listeners and callers to write to state legislators calling for laws that would sentence lesbians and gay men to death. When asked to comment on his host's execution-style morality, KBRT-AM station manager Ed Personius claimed Agozino was just encouraging people to follow the "word of God." Don Crawford, Jr., general manager of Crawford Broadcasting West, of which KBRT is a subsidiary, was unavailable for comment, but an assistant confirmed that Crawford Broadcasting was "Christian owned and operated." "
Here's another one, sweetie.
So again, you've asked and I've responded. Now will you do me the same courtesy in return?
Now then, would you support a federal law to enact civil unions granting same-sex couples all of these rights? If no, then just what is your point re civil unions vs civil marraige
What rights?
Typical lib speak. Whenever backed into a corner, through a book of irrelevant material at them, and assume that something will stick, or accuse them of not spending 20 days to read all of it.
What rights?....150 words or less.
Mr. Agozino and others that talk that way are just as incorrect in their interpretation of the Scriptures and "God's will" regarding homosexuality/gay/lesbian/etc. as many others who teach non truths about many other subjects of importance in the Bible!
I think gays even get "excited" when the gay topic is continually parlayed in this blog! So, they enjoy agitating people to argue with them!
The EXACT same rights accord two people in a marriage! That's what rights. I've provided you with an extensive list of them, and still you play this pathetic game. I want the same legal rights with regard to my partner and our children that any married couple in this country have with regard to their spouse and children.
Seems to me that the one backed into the corner would the one, who dances around and refuses to answer a direct question. So, again I'll ask:
Would you support a civil union giving same sex couples all the legal rights afforded married couples?
If not what rights would you deny same-sex couples and why?
If you oppose granting any legal recognition whatsoever to same-sex couples, just what is the point of this pathetic little charade of yours?
"Mr. Agozino and others that talk that way are just as incorrect in their interpretation of the Scriptures and "God's will" regarding homosexuality/gay/lesbian/etc. as many others who teach non truths about many other subjects of importance in the Bible!"
Then why don't we hear "Christian" groups like FFN spending even a tiny of percentage of them condemning them that they spend condemning, smearing and attacking gays?
OK, if you insist.
I would not allow homosexuals ANY rights. The rights that are granted to married couples are for the good of the state, according to our Constitution which was written that the government was formed to "provide for the common defense, to PROMOTE (not provide) the general welfare..."
1000's of years show that one man and one woman is the most stable form of foundation for a society, and while you may point out a short lived exception, this has been born out in society over the life of the earth.
If our government sees fit to grant it to every Tom Dick and Harry who plan to shack up together, then it has lost its original purpose (unconstitutionally) and is worthless as a promotion of the general welfare, and ALL "rights" should be rescinded.
The point of my asking is I have no idea why the homosexuals keep up this pathetic charade of theirs. They first ask for "equal protection" for housing, which gives them special protection that not everyone has.
Then they ask for "civil ceremonies" so they can be with their friend when they die, and the other "rights" that they feel are so important. But still they are not happy when that is granted. I really do believe that nothing will make you truly happy other than coming to Jesus as the sinner that we all are and asking for his forgiveness for your sins and asking Him to be the Lord of your life. That is the only source of true happiness.
"The point of my asking is I have no idea why the homosexuals keep up this pathetic charade of theirs. They first ask for "equal protection" for housing, which gives them special protection that not everyone has."
Hmm seems to me the folks conducting the pathetic charade would be the one's asking what rights gay couples want, then whining because the list was to long for their limited reading skills, when it's entirely irrelevant. Their bigotry precludes the granting to homosexuals of ANY rights they currently enjoy. Take equal protection in housing; right now you have equal protection in housing, with the addition of "sexual orientation" to the existing law you STILL have equal protection with regards to housing, employment etc., and you have it on an additional basis, sexual orientation.
But keep believe the lies if that makes you feel better about your bigotry.
They first ask for "equal protection" for housing, which gives them special protection that not everyone has.
What are you talking about? State civil rights protects sexual orientations of which being gay is just one of the list. What makes you think you aren't covered.
he rights that are granted to married couples are for the good of the state, according to our Constitution which was written that the government was formed to "provide for the common defense, to PROMOTE (not provide) the general welfare..."
You aren't seriously trying to say its better for society that its gay citizens AREN'T married are you?
Try and let go of your hatred and think rationally for a moment.
I am saying that it is better for society and for homosexuals if they deal with their perversion, and admit it to the Lord Jesus Christ, and allow His forgiveness to make them free indeed.
So, in your opinion, it would be better for society if everyone believed in your religion. Nice bigotry that.
Well, nice judgemental call there.
Actually, if it is true what Jesus said, and you don't believe it, you and all the homosexuals (and all other sinners....ie everyone) we don't tell will spend eternity paying for it in terrible agony.
If it is not true...nothing changes. We still fight, hate, and die to no end.
Are you willing to chance that? Eternity in agony for your pride?
And is it not a loving response to want to spare people from that?
I'm certianly not about to live my life based on fear of what your imaginary sky daddy might do to me once I'm dead. Trying to get other people to believe in your sky daddy too, isn't a loving response, it's really a selfish response, because your primary motivation is to reenforce your beliefs.
The idea that your tribe, and your tribe alone has all the answers to life, the universe and everything, and that everyone else will suffer in eternal agony if you don't attempt to foist your beliefs on them is bigotry, plain and simple.
That is an interesting point of view...and quite valid if it held up to the light of examination. If my beliefs were not backed up by anything more than superstition, I would agree with you.
However, there is 100 times more evidence that Jesus Christ was born, died, and ROSE AGAIN than there is that Julius Ceasar was emperor of Rome.
The Old Testament has never been proven wrong....and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the Old Testamnet has not changed in over 200 years of rewriting.
Archeological evidence has backed up many items in the Bible proving it to be very factual indeed.
Then there is many persons stories of what God is doing in their life, healing them, saving them from disasters...etc. Read Daily Bread or Guideposts for wonderful 1st person stories of what God is doing.
And last but not least, there is what God is doing in my life. He answers my prayers. He gives peace and joy in my life (all without drugs, illicit sex, or any other worldly stimulant) and He directs my paths. Why in the world would I not want to share such a wonderful Creator as God to those around me?
Make that 2000 years of rewriting!!!!
You believe those things because you choose to.
"However, there is 100 times more evidence that Jesus Christ was born, died, and ROSE AGAIN than there is that Julius Ceasar was emperor of Rome."
Cite some examples of said evidence, not Christianists claiming such evidence exists, but the actual evidence. Just what constitutes evidence that Christ "rose again"? IMO an empty tomb simply doesn't cut it.
"The Old Testament has never been proven wrong....and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the Old Testamnet has not changed in over 200 years of rewriting."
Nor has A tale of two Cities, The Illiad, or Harry Potter for that matter! The OT makes extraordinary claims (world-wide flood, parting of seas etc) the onus is on those, who believe in these things, to prove them, not on the doubters to disprove them. If the Flood is a true story, where did all that water go?
Daily Bread and Guideposts provide stories of people, who attribute coincidence and luck to God, they could just as easily and logically attribute these things to Vishnu, or the Easter Bunny for that matter. There are countless first person accounts of Middle Ages Ireland attesting to experiences with the "Little folk" does that mean these strange small people actually existed?
You've clearly abandonded logic for faith.
Please give some examples of the "countless first person accounts of Middle Ages Ireland attesting to experiences with the "Little folk".
Turn about is fair play.
OK, Now, about evidence that Christ "rose again."
An ATHEIST (not Christianist) did some research to "disprove" Christianity once and for all.
In his researching, he became a born-again Christian, because the facts are irrefutable.
You mentioned the Illiad, so I will make comparisons to the Illiad.
Of the Illiad, there are 643 surviving ancient copies, of works about Caesar, there are 10 surviving copies. Of the New Testament, there are 24,633 surviving ancient copies.
The time interval from when the actual event took place until the oldest surviving anciet copy is 500 years for Homer's Illiad, 950 years for Caesar, and a mere 35 years from the time some of the New Testament text was origionally written until the oldest surviving manuscript.
The rate of distortion or errors between existing copies of the manuscripts is 4.9% error rate for Homer's Illiad, but only .2% for the New Testaments. So you see, the Illiad has changed over 2000 years of rewriting, but the New Testament is virtually the same.
The flood left a flood layer over most of the world. Check your geological studies.
Your turn. Let's have some info on the "wee folk" or the Easter Bunny: )
Nice try, but you didn't even come close to answering my questions.
I asked for evidence, not unsupported and unresearchable anecdotes about some unnamed (and likely non-existent) "ATHEIST". I also asked what would consititute proof that christ has risen, which you completely dodged.
Your original claims were with regard to the OLD testament, responding with yet more unsupported claims about the NEW testament doesn't really cut it.
I asked where the water went, not for your interpretation of geology. BTW: if it was a world-wide flood, the flood layer would be EVERYWHERE, not "most" places. There are many flood layers, to corroborate the OT, the layer would have to be world-wide and at the same time.
When you answer my questions directly and substantively, I'll educate you on the wee folk of Ireland
Don Bierle's "Surprised by Faith" is an excellent example of "proof" beyond a "reasonable doubt." Since no one from them is alive, we cannot prove anything from them for certain, just like we cannot "prove" evolution or Creationism. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is what is necessary in our current courts of law, and has been deemed by fairly astute minds to be acceptable.
So, the information is as requested about Jesus Christ rising from the dead, proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" because the writings are so numerous with so small an error factor and so close a time to when persons WERE ACTUALLY LIVING that really did know what happened. If it was false, there would have been volumes....nearly as many, refuting the lies. Since there is no refuting evidence, it leads to the conclusion that yes, it really did happen, as opposed to the evidence that Julius Caesar was the emperor of Rome. You believe that don't you? Way less evidence of that you know.
Jesus dying and rising again happened in the New Testament, so that was why the big discussion on the New Testament. As far as the Old Testament, they have found a Hebrew camp at the base of MT Sinai, they have found the seven pools in Jerusalem, they have found what they believe to be Jericho, and some think they even found Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing has ever been found to put the Old Testament in disrepute. Again "beyond a reasonable doubt...."
A Great Disappointment, January 14, 2000
Reviewer: A reader
It is always a pleasure to come across unexpectedly clear and concise arguments on a topic typically laden with poor and wishful thinking. "Surprised by Faith" is no such pleasure. It is most of all a demonstration that the title "scientist" is without meaning if the person in question only feigns scientific rigor. The arguments in this book are so disappointing, so easily refuted --- and their refutations have in some cases been sounded by far more articulate voices for over a century. Bierle makes errors not even a student of science should make, embracing unexamined assumptions that therefore lead to his predetermined hypotheses. Example: on p. 13 the author begins an especially weak argument by positing a universe in which only "soil" exists, then asking, "What is its purpose?" --- as if purpose is a necessary condition of existence. The argument proceeds through additions to this closed universe until all elements have purpose --- eventually necessitating God. This caracature of reason is not science. Unfortunately, Bierle knows that many of his potential readers have little experience with the deconstruction of argument. They trust his pose as a "scientist" and follow him into absurdity after absurdity.
One of the most serious breaches of the scientific method is his refusal to address the long history of counterarguments. Since he cannot refute them, he pretends they do not exist, depriving the reader of a truly enlightening search for the truth.
One of the finest articulations of many of the counterarguments is A.N. Wilson's "Jesus." Works such as Wilson's are an excellent tonic for the illogic and misrepresentation in Bierle's book. One particularly good comparison is their respective treatments of text reliability for the New Testament. Bierle's charts and graphs are mighty impressive to the impressionable and lend a certain aura of "science" --- until it is utterly laid waste by Wilson's mere facts.
The bibliography, filled with like-minded sources only, leaves the reader nowhere to go for a real dialogue. The greatest disservice done by the careful omission of all dissenting voices is that most readers will think there is no more to hear. There is a great deal more, including many far better Christian apologetics texts.
While I did not comment on that part, and I have not read "Jesus" (if you want more factual evidence on Him, read "Evidence that demands a Verdict")
The numbers of manuscripts etc. that I have quoted are factual, which you managed to sidestep. That is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part that even you can not explain away.
As for where the water went from the flood, I will ask God about that when I get there. In the meantime, asking unanswerable questions, where are the missing links?
I see no indication that Bierle was an athiest at any point. I want to know who the unnamed atheist is from your earlier post.
Also, you say that all of these accounts are so similar, but what of the Gnostic gospels? They are not as similar as the cannon, but as contemporary to events, you seem to be ignoring them in your claims. Face it, if it were provable "beyond a reasonable doubt" there would be know need for faith. You can chuck and jive all you wish, but you can't change that simple fact.
Evidence: Jesus vs. Socrates
By DOUG SHAVER
May 15, 2005
It is sometimes suggested that the evidence for a historical Jesus is at least as good as the evidence for other figures whose existence is never questioned by anybody. Typical examples are Socrates, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Abraham Lincoln. In this essay, we limit our attention to Socrates.
Let us assume for a moment that the evidence is in fact equivalent. In that case, consistency would demand that we believe either that Jesus and Socrates were both real or that neither was real. A person who questioned Jesus' historicity while insisting that Socrates was real, or vice versa, would be guilty not of fallacious reasoning but of intellectual hypocrisy.
It is a fact that most of the presumptive facts of history do not get questioned the way Christianity's claims about its origins get questioned. But there is a good reason for that. To my knowledge, nobody claims that anyone who doubts Socrates' existence is just looking for an excuse to live an immoral life. Nobody is saying that Socrates died for anyone's sins and that anyone who thinks differently is going to burn in hell forever. A person who thinks Socrates never lived might be considered odd, but he is not considered unrighteous.
For no other historical figure is belief in his or her existence considered a test of character. It might sometimes be considered a test of wisdom. Someone skeptical about Socrates might be called a fool in need of knowledge. He will not, however, be called a sinner in need of salvation.
Most of us are content to accept whatever we were told by our history teachers about who was real and who was not in times past, and about what the real one did or did not actually say or do. Some of us also discover in due course that our teachers were wrong about a few things. Schoolteachers are not infallible, and neither are the professional experts whose knowledge they are passing on to their students. Just because historians all agree about something does not mean they cannot be wrong.
The equivalent-evidence argument is supposed to prove that skeptics are using a double standard. It is claimed that a standard of evidence that works for Socrates and everyone else mentioned in the history books doesn't work for Jesus. We'll see about that in the following discussion, but in the meantime we can ask about the consistency of the Christian apologists' own standards of evidence.
Let us suppose that historians were to convene a Socrates Seminar to take a fresh look at all the evidence about that philosopher. Let us suppose that after several months of study they were to call a press conference to make an announcement like this.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a humbling experience for the historical community. Our research has compelled us to conclude that we have been working under several unjustified assumptions. With those assumptions cast aside, a careful and imprtial review of the evidence forces us to conclude that Socrates was nothing but a figment of Plato's imagination.
If this were to happen, and supposing again for a moment that the evidence for Jesus really is equivalent to the evidence for Socrates, would Christians ever make a similar announcement about Jesus? Shall we say, Probably not?
What is evidence?
Let us begin with some observations on what is meant by evidence.
Evidence for some proposition P is a fact (or set of facts) that we justifiably believe would probably not be true if P were false. If a murder defendant's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, we consider the fingerprints evidence of his guilt if we justifiably believe that, were the defendant innocent, his fingerprints would not have been on the murder weapon.
If our belief is to be justified, we must rule out as too improbable any alternative explanation for how the defendant's fingerprints got on the weapon. We can usually never be certain that no other explanation is even possible. The issue ultimately becomes one of likelihood. We are looking for the most plausible explanation for the prints being on the weapon. The prosecutor will argue that the most credible explanation is that the defendant used the weapon to kill the victim.
A fact is said to be conclusive evidence for a proposition if it is logically impossible for the fact to be true while the proposition is false. For any piece of historical evidence, alternative explanations are always possible. Most alternatives might not have much credibility, but as long as they are not impossible, the evidence is not conclusive.
What we can reasonably hope for is strong evidence. A fact is strong evidence for a proposition if it is extremely difficult to explain the fact's existence except by supposing the proposition to be true. The strength of historical evidence usually lies in volume. A large number of facts constitute stronger evidence than any single fact, provided the individual facts are independent. For example, several documents attesting to some event comprise stronger evidence than one document, unless they were written by the same author or there is reason to believe that the later authors based their writings on the earlier documents.
The strongest documentary evidence is from primary sources, meaning actual witnesses to the events being reported. Sometimes we might give high credence to a secondary source — a person who reports that he heard about an event from someone who witnessed the event — but such evidence can never be as strong as the witness's own report. And a document by a writer who does not identify his sources at all is weak evidence. It might justify a belief that the reported event happened, but not a strongly held belief. Even absent contrary evidence, unidentified sources can never provide strong evidence for anything.
In historical research, an examination of documentary evidence is basically asking: How did these documents come into existence? Of course the obvious first answer is: Somebody wrote them. But we try to go a couple of steps beyond that. We want to know whether we should believe what they wrote. To answer that question, it is usually very helpful to know who the writers were. Identification of the authors is contingent on knowing when the documents — or their originals, which we usually don't have — were produced. If we don't have the originals, we have to answer more questions about the reliability of extant copies. To do that, we need to know a few things, if possible, about who did the copying.
Another observation: Any judgment about "most likely explanation" will unavoidably depend on some preconceptions about what is likely. We don't all have the same preconceptions about what things are likely to happen, what people are likely to do in certain situations, or what people are likely to believe in the absence of whatever we consider good evidence.
A key desideratum of any scientific inquiry is parsimony, which among other things means keeping one's presuppositions to a bare minimum. Of course that then begs the question of what constitutes a bare minimum. What I have tried to do in the following is to limit the presuppositions on which I base any argument to those that I and the average Christian can both accept. I have not presupposed that no miracle has ever happened, and neither have I presupposed that some miracles must have happened. I have not presupposed that the church fathers were either liars or fools, and neither have I presupposed that they were incapable of making mistakes.
And now, who is this Socrates about whom we ask, Was he a real person?
The evidence for Socrates
The real Socrates, if there was one, was born in Athens around 470 BCE, lived in that city almost his entire life, acquired a reputation as a philosopher, and was executed by the city government when he was about 70 years old. Many other details about his life are probably true if that much is true, but the question of his historicity will be settled if we have strong evidence for a man by that name having lived at that time, acquired such a reputation, and died in that manner.
Socrates is mentioned in documents written by three people who were alive during his purported lifetime. Whether the three writers worked independently of one another cannot be known with certainty. On the face of things, it is not obvious that any of them influenced the others, but it is hardly inconceivable that they could have. Socrates appears as a character in at least two of Aristophanes' plays. He appears as an interlocutor in a substantial portion of Plato's writings, and he plays a similar role in some of Xenophon's work. Xenophon's material is similar to some of Plato's but not entirely consistent.
Aristophanes' work is clearly satirical, not biographical. From the play itself, we cannot know whether he was making fun of a real philosopher known to his audience or ridiculing certain ideas that were much discussed at the time and using a fictional character to embody them. The former does seem prima facie more likely, but the latter cannot yet be ruled out.
Aristophanes produced his plays while Socrates (if he existed) was still alive. Plato and Xenophon did their work after his purported death, both of them including Socrates' defense against the charges that led to his execution. Both writers give the impression that they had known Socrates and studied under his tutelage.
These writers are our best evidence for Socrates' historicity. If they do not suffice to overcome reasonable doubt, then no other documents in which he is mentioned can make up for their lack.
We are not concerned here with the accuracy of any particular detail in any of the documents. Plato's dialogues are certainly not transcriptions of actual conversations between Socrates and other people. The occasional autobiographical comment attributed to Socrates might or might not be factual. The modern historical consensus is that, especially in the later dialogues, the Socrates character is speaking Plato's mind more than Socrates' own. But we're asking whether the man was real, never minding for the moment how accurately Plato and the others portrayed him.
A writer who falsely portrays a certain individual existing in a certain place at a certain time may have one of three mind sets. He might think his portrayal is truthful and want his readers to believe it. In that case his writing is simply erroneous. He might know his portrayal is not truthful but want his readers to believe it anyway. In that case his writing is fraudulent. He might know his portrayal is not truthful but not expect his readers to think otherwise. In that case his writing is fictional.
We're probably safe in dismissing as absurd the possibility that all three of these writers made a mistake. They were not passing on legends or oral traditions. They were writing of a man who achieved fame and was executed in their lifetime. They could have misquoted him. They could been mistaken about a lot of things. It is unlikely they could all have made a mistake about his existence.
There is no apparent motive for fraud and no way it could have succeeded. The documents were produced in Athens for Athenian readers. Those readers would have known whether Aristophanes's Socrates was parodying any real philosopher. They would have known whether Plato and Xenophon were writing about any execution that had really occurred within living memory. Barely a generation after Plato wrote the Apology, though, Athenians were talking as if they took Socrates' historicity for granted. Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, made straightforward references to him. There is also a reference to Socrates' execution and the reasons for it in a speech attributed to an orator called Aechines less than half a century after the event.
For about the same reason, it is improbable that Socrates was simply a fiction. People can believe and have believed in the historicity of fictional characters even when the characters' creators did not intend such. The setting has to be somewhat removed from the readers' own lives, though. Athenian trials were very public, and their juries had 500 members. If Socrates was not real and Plato expected his readers to know he was not real, he had good reason. Athenians would indeed have known that their city had not actually executed any famous philosophers within recent memory. (The same reasoning could be used against the error hypothesis if it were not already so implausible.)
The most parsimonious accounting of the evidence, then, says that Plato and the others were writing about a real man who really was executed, and that his name was Socrates.
That is, unless some fact not yet mentioned is inconsistent with this accounting. Socrates is supposed to have been executed in the year 399 BCE. There was presumably an official record of the proceedings. It has not been found, but neither have any other of the city's records from that period. If we did have those records and had reason to believe they were complete, but they did not mention Socrates, then his historicity would be more questionable. Another example of negative evidence would be a contemporary document in which the author criticized people for thinking Socrates was real. It would not prove his nonexistence, but we would have explain why, if Socrates was real, anybody living at that time might have thought otherwise.
We can still ask how we know that the documents attributed to Plato and the others were actually written by those people. If they are not authentic, then the case for Socrates' historicity will be greatly weakened.
I have not had an opportunity yet to research the evidence for the authenticity of Plato's dialogues or the works attributed to other famous Greeks of his era. For the time being, I note only the apparently unanimous consensus of professional historians and assume that there is a good reason for such a consensus.
Generally speaking, I do not believe in conspiracies. There is potentially big money to be made in challenging academic orthodoxies. Heretics don't even need strong evidence or good arguments. All they need is a hint of evidence and some arguments that sound good to people who enjoy believing that the experts don't really know anything.
There are a handful of scholars who have challenged Socrates' historicity, advocating the fiction hypothesis, but nobody to my knowledge doubts that Plato's dialogues were written by a philosopher named Plato who lived in Athens during and after the time that Socrates would have lived there if he had been real. Nor does anyone seem to doubt that the works attributed to Aristotle were written by a philosopher named Aristotle who was a student of Plato.
That nobody questions these things does not mean they must be true. The question is whether we laymen are justified in believing them on the grounds that no expert doubts them. Absent compelling evidence that the experts have made a mistake, the answer is that we are justified in a tentative assumption that they know what they're talking about. The emphasis must be on tentative, though. We are never justified in supposing that the experts are infallible. If we have evidence against the authorities, we are justified in doubting the authorities. But we do need that evidence.
To summarize: We have apparently primary sources for Socrates. We have documents whose existence is not easily explained except on the supposition that Socrates was a real person. It is strong evidence for a historical Socrates.
The evidence for Jesus
The real Jesus of Nazareth, if there was one, lived in Galilee almost his entire life, acquired a reputation as a religious sage and miracle-worker, and was executed in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate early in the fourth decade of the Common Era. A few other details about his life are probably true if that much is true, but the question of his historicity will be settled if we have strong evidence for a man by that name having lived at that time, acquired such a reputation, and died in that manner.
There is no primary evidence for Jesus. No document is known to have been written by anyone who knew him. Eyewitness authorship has been attributed by church tradition to some documents, but the scholarly consensus is against those attributions.
The earliest known references to Jesus are in letters attributed to a missionary called Paul. By scholarly consensus they were written sometime around 50 CE, give or take a few years. Their author could have known Jesus but gives no indication that he did. He instead claims to have learned nothing about him except by divine revelation. He does not identify any other source for anything he said about Jesus, and in one letter, to the Galatians, he explicitly denies having any other source.
Paul states that Jesus was crucified. He does not tell us who did it or where it happened. He does not tell us anything about Jesus before his execution — nothing about where he lived, when he lived, or what he did, and nothing about public opinion of the man. Paul mentions no sermons, no healings, no teachings, no exorcisms, no parables, no debates with Pharisees or Sadducees. There is an apparent reference to a meal that Jesus shared with some disciples shortly before his death, but aside from that, Paul seems to know nothing about Jesus' life before his death. Which is to say that as far as we can tell from reading Paul, Jesus had no life — not in Nazareth, not in Galilee, not in Jerusalem, not anywhere in this world.
Paul wrote, as noted, around the middle of the first century. Possibly beginning around 20 years later, four men wrote four books now known as gospels. They contain accounts of Jesus' birth, public ministry, trial, and execution. Their authors are unknown. Traditions first attested in the late second century attribute them to disciples or acquaintances of disciples, but no evidence supports those traditions. As the authors are unknown, so are their sources. The scholarly consensus is that the authors recorded oral traditions about Jesus that were circulating in the Christian community during the late first century, but the authors themselves do not say this. They say nothing explicit about where they got their information..
Other Christian documents that could have been written contemporaneously with the gospels are even weaker as evidence. Their authors and sources are unknown, and they say no more about Jesus' life than Paul does except for a single reference to Pilate's role in Jesus' death.
The earliest references to Jesus outside the Christian community do not appear in the historical record until the second century. None of them is of uncontested authenticity, but giving all of them the full benefit of doubt, they are not evidence about Jesus himself. If authentic, they are evidence about what Christians in the second century believed about Jesus, because there is no indication in any of them that the authors relied on any sources except Christians themselves.
Two ostensible first-century references appear in Josephus's Antiquities, which he wrote in the 90s. Concerning one of those references, the Testimonium Flavianum, there is almost universal agreement that at least part of it was forged by Christian copyists. (The oldest surviving manuscript is from around the 10th century.) If it is accepted that Josephus was tampered with at all, then at least the possibility exists that the remainder of the Testimonium as well as the other reference were tampered with as well. The best that can be said about them is that they cannot be proven inauthentic, but strong evidence has to be better than just "not provably false." The Josephan references prove nothing about Jesus' historicity.
If there is a strong case to be made for Jesus' existence, then, it must come from Paul or the gospel authors.
As already mentioned, Paul cites no source besides divine revelation for anything he says about Jesus. Now, we could assume that we should take Paul's word for it if says God told him everything he knew. To make that assumption, though, is to presuppose the entire truth of Christianity, and if we presuppose that, then there is nothing further to discuss. The whole point of this exercise is to examine the evidence without having made up our minds about what it is supposed to prove.
For the time being, then, we have to set Paul aside, and that leaves us with the gospels.
A majority of scholars explain the gospels' origin in terms of a historical Jesus. Some think the gospels are 100 percent factual. Most think that they include some nonfactual material but are nonetheless based to a greater or lesser extent on the actual life and teachings of a real Jesus of Nazareth.
If there was no historical Jesus, then as with Socrates we're back to error, fraud, or fiction, but there are some vital differences. With regard to Socrates, we have a very strong consensus among historians as to who wrote the source documents, when and where they were written, and for what readership they were intended. The consensus about the gospels' provenance is much weaker. There are church traditions. A minority of scholars accept the traditions, the majority do not.
We can peremptorily dismiss the fraud hypothesis on grounds of parsimony. Notwithstanding the gospels' contradictions, a conspiracy of some kind would have to have been operating, and conspiracy theories can almost never withstand Occam's razor.
What about error? This would imply only that the authors heard some stories, believed them without good reason, and wrote them down. It is not exactly a far-fetched scenario. It does not address how the stories originated, but untrue stories of all kinds get told all the time in all cultures.
The fiction hypothesis is not very different. We need not suppose, and probably should not suppose, that the authors invented the stories themselves. Like parables, they could have originated anyplace where somebody with a gift for narrative had a point to make about righteous living. In this scenario, the gospel authors thought they were good stories and passed them on with a few embellishments to make some points of their own about righteous living as they understood it, never expecting anyone to suppose that their central character had been a real person.
The plausibility of either error or fiction depends greatly on what the Christianity community as a whole believed about Jesus during the first and second centuries, and we have little or no direct evidence for that. We have the works of a few writers who recorded their personal beliefs, but we cannot confirm that those beliefs were widely shared among Christians in general. They could have been, but the documents themselves do not prove it.
My point here is not to argue for either hypothesis or to weigh its credibility against the scholarly consensus. It is to argue rather that neither one is as incredible as its counterpart with regard to Socrates. The evidence for Jesus, in other words, is not as strong as the evidence for Socrates.
That is not to say that the evidence is insufficient to justify belief that Jesus was a real person. There are those who say there is no evidence for Jesus. I think they are very wrong. There is evidence for his existence. Reasonable people may disagree about how good the evidence is, but it does exist, and even weak evidence can justify belief if there is no contrary evidence.
The claim that there is no more evidence for Julius Caesar's existence than for that of Jesus is nonsense. We have coins issued by Caesar, some with his head on them, we have a bust of him created the year of his assassination (44 BCE). We have writings by the man himself (for example, Gallic Wars), we have many mentions of him by contemporary historians and those immediately following, and the history of Rome in the following century, as recorded by multiple historians, can make no sense without him. Such histories are secular works by writers who have no religious axe to grind, unlike the Gospels—the sole evidence for Jesus' earthly existence in almost the first hundred years of Christian record, uncorroborated by outside historians—which are products of faith intended to promote faith in a polemical atmosphere. They contain all sorts of supernatural and miraculous elements, and almost all of their details can be shown to be midrash based on the Old Testament. Like many apologetic claims by Christians, this one is simply erroneous and the product of wishful thinking.
I was surprised to read such ill-informed comments at the end of Scott Murray's review of 'The Passion of the Christ' ... One could refer him to Josephus and Tacitus (Jewish and Roman historians of the time that Jesus lived) among others and he might find that there is more historical evidence for Jesus having lived than Julius Caesar. Reviewers should find out their facts before moving out of the realm of just commenting on the movie production.
Mignon Goswell, Box Hill North (Melbourne Age Green Guide, 20 Apr. 2006)
I suppose I read a letter like this in the media every month or so. I used to grind my teeth and churn out two-page replies that rarely made it into print. When I finally grasped the principle that responses should be very concise - certainly no longer than the initial letter - I found myself with other concerns. In particular, I began to undervalue the significance of always challenging ignorant viewpoints like this one. Goswell's argument is riddled with flaws and we owe it to the public to point these out, briefly but clearly.
Imagine my surprise when the very next issue of the Green Guide (27 Apr.) contained not one refutation of Goswell, but two:
Mignon Goswell ... claims there is more historical evidence for Jesus' existence than that of Julius Caesar. He cites two contemporaneous historians to corroborate his claim, thereby comparing two single, disputed passages versus the huge archaeological record of Caesar. May I point out there are coeval coins bearing Caesar's likeness, busts and the extant writings of Caesar himself - none of which could be said about Jesus Christ.
Brendon Wickham, Hawthorn
This was very good, but the second one was even better:
Scott Murray is quite right to say ... there is no proof of the existence of a Jesus Christ, and he deserves our thanks for having the courage to say so. Mignon Goswell's references to the historians Josephus and Tacitus are meaningless. Most bible scholars believe the Josephus paragraph referring to Jesus is a forgery inserted by the early church. As for Tacitus, he merely mentioned how Christians got their name. Bible scholars also tell us that there is not one eyewitness author in the entire New Testament. Sounds like a myth to me.
Domenic Listro, Ringwood East
A feast for the eyes, isn't it? Of course, you could say a lot more, but if you want to be published it's much better to keep it short and punchy. And if a couple of people can land a one-two combination like this, so much the better.
Religious Right speakers and authors love to harp on about the unique historical basis of their religion - or should I say, a toxic version of their religion which really only developed over the last century. But there is no firm historical basis for Christianity. Nobody can say with any certainty that such a person as Jesus ever existed. And on balance, it's most probable that he did not.
This simple truth should be pointed out to the public as often and as succinctly as possible. The entire Christian edifice is built on sand and there is thus no basis for excrescences such as the Religious Right.
Sorry, Mignon Goswell, no foundation, no cornerstone, no nothing.
Of course, even if we accept the existence of an historical figure named Jesus of Nazereth, we still have to find evidence for the rest of your claim:
"However, there is 100 times more evidence that Jesus Christ was born, died, and ROSE AGAIN than there is that Julius Ceasar was emperor of Rome."
Emphasis your own. So I am still waiting for you do produce ANY evidence that Jesus "ROSE AGAIN", let alone 100 times more than the amble evidence supporting the existence of Julius Caesar. Since you haven't even shown that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure than there is for Caesar (there isn't), I don't have very high expectations.
Rose again.
People as recorded in the gospel of John, over 400 people saw that he rose again. This was written in over 24,000 ancient manuscripts. They were written within the lifetime of some people who lived when it happened (even some without a religious ax to grind). If it was not true, it would have been refuted, much like the gnostic gospels were. They were admitted to be fakes even by the people who wrote them.
You state coins by Caesar.... Christians can point to the catacombs, the fish symbols etc. Your point?
Gospel of John was written at least 25 years after the death of Jesus, and contains only hearsay accounts.Since there were MANY non-believers, in Christ's rising again at the time, your claims of having never been refuted, are as bogus as the rest of your pathetic apologetics.
As for the coins, busts and writings of Caesar, they are all from the time he was alive, not "within a generation", and unlike catacombs and fish symbols point direct and irrefutably to the existence of one Julius Caesar.
Face it, you've mindlessly reguritated some crappy aplogetics, you aren't going to proving your patently false claim any time soon.
I never claimed to prove it, just beyond a "reasonable doubt." Yours is obviously unreasonable doubt....which is your choice. I hope that you will delve into it more, and realize that you are missing out on a wonderful relationship with the living Lord Jesus Christ.
Why would you think that the gospel of John contains only hearsay accounts. John was there. That is not heresay....that is fact....eye witness account.
Most scholars agree that the Gospel of John was not written by John, but was written at a later date, perhaps based on oral history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date_and_authorship
As for the claim that my doubt is unreasonable, no have presented no evidence for that claim, not that you believe in having evidence for your claims.
Wikipedia is not written by authoritative persons....anyone with an ax to grind can make up anything and put it on there.
Most scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written by John, which is why it was named that, and we have copies of it from a mere 25-35 years after it was written originally by John himself.
Most scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written by John, which is why it was named that, and we have copies of it from a mere 25-35 years after it was written originally by John himself.
When truth is determined by majority vote that might be a point. Few scholars today will definitely say that any of the books of the bible attributed to a person were actually written by that person which isn't a shock - few books attributed to a person WERE actually written by that person themselves in Roman times.
What we do know with modern linguistic study techniques is that John I is relatively unique in it seems to have been written by one person, as opposed to John II which is not.
It is very probably that Jesus did exist, and that he was crucified. And having been crucified for mere hours rather than days as was the custom survived and lived for about a month before sepsis from his woulds ultimately claimed his life.
It wasn't until Paul crafted a Mystery Religion version of the true Christ cult being taught by the original apostles in Jerusalem that was attractive to the modern Roman that it took off and became the 'New Age' hit that history documents.
Wrong.
Most scholars today agree that John was written by John, as he identified himself several times.
And the letters of John, I do not know what you smoke or where you read your misinformation, but the 2nd letter of John is 13 verses long. How in the world could it be written by more than one person?
You have been reading too much gnostic mystic stuff and not enought of the Bible. Better go read a good study Bible and it will clear up the nonsense you have read who knows where.
Boy you really aren't very bright, are you?
The earlist known fragment of the New Testament is a piece of the Gospel of John dating from between 125 - 150 C.E. I got this from a Christian website: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/rylands.php
Since you aren't even within a factor of five in your claims fo what "most scholars agree", one can only assume that you haven't done the slightest bit of research on the subject and are merely parroting incorrect information someone else fed to you. What a sad way to go through life.
Most scholars today agree that John was written by John, as he identified himself several times.
Yes and there was only one person named John :) Come on, do a bit of research. Virtually no scholars think that anything other than 1 John could even possibly of been written by John the apostle. 2 and 3 are probably Revelations are attributed to John the Presbyter, an early bishop.
Seriously you know from your studies (or should) that it was common in the Roman era to have works written by other authors presented in an autobiographical style. Just as Matthew was not written by him but a group of his followers it is at best most likely that John was written by a group that either knew or had known him.
But then this discussion has drifted far afield. Please do some biblical research sans the kool aid and open up your mind a bit.
Post a Comment
<< Home