I found this interesting. My maternal Grandmother cohabitated for the very same reason listed below. She was a Army widow and did not want to lose her benefits. It forced her to live in sin;) for many years until her partner/boyfriend Bill died in 1987. She wasn't too worried about the living in Sin part, she too is an unbeliever. She is now 96 living in a home, with no memories.
This brings up another question, since she did live in sin and now does not remember it, does this mean she will go to hell. She can't confess to sins she doesn't remember commiting. Does a minister write her off and then tell his or her congregants this can happen to them if they do not accept Jesus into their hearts this very moment or risk eternal damnation.? Crazy huh. Poor, sweet Granma in Hell at almost 100.... Bummer
This is why I reject the whole concept of Hell in the first place.
I did notice this article doesn't bring up why there was a law like this in the first place.
Its called fornication or pre-marital sex which was a huge no-no back then.
My parents humoroulsy call cohabitation "Shacking Up'.
N. Dakota legislation targets anti-cohabitation law
By JAMES MacPHERSON Associated Press Writer
BISMARCK, North Dakota (AP) - Don Polries and Helen Vetter don't look like outlaws. She's 82 and nearly blind, and he is an 87-year-old World War II veteran whose only brush with the law was a traffic ticket or two, decades ago.But the retired farmers _ and thousands like them _ are considered criminals in the U.S. state of North Dakota because they are not married and live together.It makes Polries chuckle and Vetter steam."I will not have the state ruling us old people," Vetter said. "All we're trying to do is help each other out. ... Boy, I'd like to see the state come and try and split us up."Without each other, the Bismarck couple say, they'd be in a nursing home. They have lived together for about a year, after dating and living in separate apartments for more than a decade."I am legally blind," Vetter said. "I can't read and I can't drive _ Don does that for me. ... And when Don had his hip replaced, I helped him out. What's wrong with that?"
North Dakota is one of seven states that bar a man and woman from living together "openly and notoriously" as if they were married. The states of Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia have similar laws.The North Dakota law has been on the books since statehood, and lists cohabitation as a sex crime, along with rape, incest and adultery."It's misguided and a stain on North Dakota's Century Code," said Tracy Potter, a Democratic state senator who has sponsored legislation to repeal the anti-cohabitation law.The House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill Tuesday.Tim Mathern, also a Democratic state senator, has opposed attempts to repeal the anti-cohabitation law, which failed in the last two legislative sessions."I think the majority of people think they ought to be married if they're living together," Mathern said.He said the present law was written to prevent fraud, not to prevent people from living together. The North Dakota Supreme Court has specifically rejected that interpretation, most recently in May 2001.The North Dakota Senate, with Potter's approval, changed his proposal to relabel cohabitation as fraud if a man and woman pass themselves off as being married when they are not. The bill keeps the punishment at a maximum 30 days in jail and a $1,000 (?760) fine.Jennifer Ring, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the Dakotas, said the law has never been enforced, and she called it "unconstitutional and silly." The new version, if passed by the North Dakota House of Representatives, also could be challenged as unconstitutional, and is not needed, she said."Defrauding someone through a lie is already a crime," she said.Census figures from 2000 show 23,000 people in North Dakota living in de facto relationships, Potter said. Census figures from that same year show 5.2 million people nationwide lived in an "unmarried partner household."Representative Louise Potter, a Democrat who is not related to Tracy Potter, said her elderly mother-in-law and longtime partner wanted to move from Florida to a senior home in North Dakota a few years ago. They were not allowed to move in because they were not married, Potter said.Potter's mother-in-law, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, now lives alone in a seniors home in the state of Minnesota. Potter's husband, Tom, a Presbyterian minister, said he and his family never objected to his 78-year-old mother living with her partner for many years."One of the reasons she and her companion didn't get married is because she was receiving veterans' benefits after she was widowed," Tom Potter said. "She would have lost them had she remarried."Polries and Vetter met at a dance a dozen years ago. Both had divorced after more than 40 years of marriage. She has two children; Polries has seven, all of whom are married.The couple said none of their children object to their living arrangement. "We're never going to get married _ for what?" Vetter said. "You get married one year, and die the next."
Feb 26, 2007
The Lost Tomb of Christ
Anything like this is great for stimulating debate in the public eye about the history behind the Jesus story. Which is what it is, a story. I find it amuzing the critics of this film claim the burial site names were very common back then. To me thats exactly why one can't claim a man named "Jesus" rose from the dead. Which Jesus?
Archaeologists, scholars dispute Jesus documentary
POSTED: 1:49 p.m. EST, February 26, 2007
Story Highlights• Documentary claims to have found bones of Jesus' family
• Film suggests Jesus may have had son
• Archaeologists, religious scholars skeptical
• Oscar-winner James Cameron directed film
More on CNN TV: Director James Cameron tells Larry King why he believes the tomb found is that of Jesus. Watch tonight, 9 ET.
Adjust font size:
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by the Oscar-winning director James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets.
"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries -- small caskets used to store bones -- discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. (Watch why it could be any Mary, Jesus and Joseph in those boxes )
Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.
In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.
"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.
The claims have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.
"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem. The documentary, he said, "contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to."
Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.
"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."
"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."
Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."
Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.
"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."
Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary -- the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel -- might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.
"I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."
Although the documentary makers claim to have found the tomb of Jesus, the British Broadcasting Corporation beat them to the punch by 11 years.
Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, declined to comment before the documentary was aired.
Archaeologists, scholars dispute Jesus documentary
POSTED: 1:49 p.m. EST, February 26, 2007
Story Highlights• Documentary claims to have found bones of Jesus' family
• Film suggests Jesus may have had son
• Archaeologists, religious scholars skeptical
• Oscar-winner James Cameron directed film
More on CNN TV: Director James Cameron tells Larry King why he believes the tomb found is that of Jesus. Watch tonight, 9 ET.
Adjust font size:
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by the Oscar-winning director James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets.
"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries -- small caskets used to store bones -- discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. (Watch why it could be any Mary, Jesus and Joseph in those boxes )
Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.
In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.
"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.
The claims have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.
"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem. The documentary, he said, "contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to."
Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.
"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."
"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."
Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."
Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.
"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."
Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary -- the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel -- might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.
"I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."
Although the documentary makers claim to have found the tomb of Jesus, the British Broadcasting Corporation beat them to the punch by 11 years.
Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, declined to comment before the documentary was aired.
Feb 21, 2007
Church and State per Mr. Matthews
Church and stateIn the spirit of Presidents Day, consider the differences between the intentions of our Founding Fathers and those of the religious right regarding the separation of church and state.“Christian values should dominate our government ... Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” — Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” — President James Madison“As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ... it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.” — 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (approved by President John Adams and ratified by the Senate without objection)The religious right disrespects the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they attempt to undermine the separation of church and state. The wall between church and state has allowed the U.S. to develop a long history of tolerance, diversity, and freedom of religion. We should be proud of, and protect, this legacy.Jonathan Matthews1601 N. Benton Ave.
Compulsory Attendance
Keep compulsory attendance
By IR Staff - 02/21/07
Often politicians tend to focus on their lofty ideological philosophies, quite forgetting the effect those ideas would have back here on the ground. Such would seem to be the case in a bill by Constitution Party Rep. Rick Jore to abolish compulsory school attendance for Montana's children.House Bill 404, heard in committee Monday, comes prefaced with a "whereas" list that fails to glance down from the clouds and check out the world as it really is.The bill says that "the responsibility, both legally and before God, for the education of children lies with the parents and guardians, not with the state." It adds that there is no constitutional provision warranting compulsory attendance, and it asserts such attendance laws "are doubtful contributors" to the literacy rate anyway.This collection of philosophical positions, high sounding as it may be, ignores the inconvenient fact that all too many parents are really bad at their job.As Bud Williams, deputy superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction, told the House Education Committee, "the right to an education belongs to a child." When neglectful parents are too ignorant, too irresponsible, or just too drugged out to make sure their children show up for school in the morning, their kids are in danger of falling through the cracks. Who is going to catch them if not the schools?Compulsory attendance, be it at public schools or in private or home-school settings, does not exist to tweak the ire of political extremists. It's there for the children, and thank God for that.
By IR Staff - 02/21/07
Often politicians tend to focus on their lofty ideological philosophies, quite forgetting the effect those ideas would have back here on the ground. Such would seem to be the case in a bill by Constitution Party Rep. Rick Jore to abolish compulsory school attendance for Montana's children.House Bill 404, heard in committee Monday, comes prefaced with a "whereas" list that fails to glance down from the clouds and check out the world as it really is.The bill says that "the responsibility, both legally and before God, for the education of children lies with the parents and guardians, not with the state." It adds that there is no constitutional provision warranting compulsory attendance, and it asserts such attendance laws "are doubtful contributors" to the literacy rate anyway.This collection of philosophical positions, high sounding as it may be, ignores the inconvenient fact that all too many parents are really bad at their job.As Bud Williams, deputy superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction, told the House Education Committee, "the right to an education belongs to a child." When neglectful parents are too ignorant, too irresponsible, or just too drugged out to make sure their children show up for school in the morning, their kids are in danger of falling through the cracks. Who is going to catch them if not the schools?Compulsory attendance, be it at public schools or in private or home-school settings, does not exist to tweak the ire of political extremists. It's there for the children, and thank God for that.
Feb 18, 2007
God's Creatures
God’s creatures
In response to the Feb. 15 letter from Conrad Eklund I have to say “shame on you!” You are the epitomy of “social intolerance” and the “me, me, me” attitude that is so pervasive in our society today.Look where you live — on the edge of town, encroaching ever so slowly into more wildlife habitat! If you think God is going to keep the deer deep in the woods as people like you continue to build and move deeper into their habitat ... I think God has better things to do. And when you speak of God, Conrad, remember that deer are part of the master plan ... God’s creatures!You can guess that I am in favor of doing nothing at all. I do not think the deer are much of a problem. Property damage can be prevented rather cheaply and with little effort! I like to look at them, watch them, appreciate them, they are beautiful creatures — one of God’s creatures!
Judy Groombridge725 Cedar Street
I find it interesting how this issue is so big, gets more press than anything else going on in Helena. Or it seems that way anyway. If this is one of our biggest problems, then those of us living here have got it good.
Oh, and it almost the time of year for the annual complaints about pot holes. Can't wait
In response to the Feb. 15 letter from Conrad Eklund I have to say “shame on you!” You are the epitomy of “social intolerance” and the “me, me, me” attitude that is so pervasive in our society today.Look where you live — on the edge of town, encroaching ever so slowly into more wildlife habitat! If you think God is going to keep the deer deep in the woods as people like you continue to build and move deeper into their habitat ... I think God has better things to do. And when you speak of God, Conrad, remember that deer are part of the master plan ... God’s creatures!You can guess that I am in favor of doing nothing at all. I do not think the deer are much of a problem. Property damage can be prevented rather cheaply and with little effort! I like to look at them, watch them, appreciate them, they are beautiful creatures — one of God’s creatures!
Judy Groombridge725 Cedar Street
I find it interesting how this issue is so big, gets more press than anything else going on in Helena. Or it seems that way anyway. If this is one of our biggest problems, then those of us living here have got it good.
Oh, and it almost the time of year for the annual complaints about pot holes. Can't wait
Feb 12, 2007
Constitution Party
Trout farmer is country’s first Constitution Party lawmaker
By SARAH COOKE, Associated Press Writer - 02/12/07
HELENA — The pressure on Rep. Rick Jore these days is intense. The polite trout farmer from northwestern Montana is the ultra radical religious right wing wacko(my words) conservative Constitution Party’s highest elected official in the country.
And hopefully the last
By SARAH COOKE, Associated Press Writer - 02/12/07
HELENA — The pressure on Rep. Rick Jore these days is intense. The polite trout farmer from northwestern Montana is the ultra radical religious right wing wacko(my words) conservative Constitution Party’s highest elected official in the country.
And hopefully the last
Feb 11, 2007
Equal Protection by Cynthia
Equal protectionThere seems to be some confusion on the bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the Montana Human Rights Act (SB 371- primary sponsor Sen. Christine Kaufmann). Civil rights are not a popularity contest and given only to groups the majority likes. Protecting members of minority groups in our community is not a new idea. In fact it has been with us throughout the entire history of our country. James Madison stated in Federalist Paper #51, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”SB 371 follows the long history we have in this country of protecting the rights of minorities. This bill is not about individuals having to accept anyone else’s sexual orientation, just like the protection in the Human Rights Act for religious people does not mean that I have to accept religious texts like the Bible as the literal word of God. It just means that every one has equal protection under the law.Cynthia Wolken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
