T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
425.1 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Tue May 16 1995 16:16 | 12 |
| The Cook, the Thief, the Wife and Her Lover, Bad Lieutenant and
Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer, were all really good movies.
My brother and I grew up on a steady diet of punk rock, Monty Python
and computer text adventure games. Today we both hold down real jobs,
and pay more in taxes than anyone with a house and kids.
I'm officially incorporating the Church of Elvis right now, so that I
can put tacky Elvis memorabilia on the Hatch Shell as a sign of my
faithfulness to the one and only King.
Lisa
|
425.2 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 16:22 | 3 |
| Lisa:
Only single people or DINCS can reply here??
|
425.3 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 16 1995 16:27 | 4 |
| > Today we both hold down real jobs,
> and pay more in taxes than anyone with a house and kids.
You pay more in taxes than William Weld?
|
425.4 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 16:55 | 15 |
| What I find interesting is that Lisa doesn't site the PC crowd when it
comes to defying independent thought.
I was listening to David Brudnoy last Friday and he had a writer to had
an article in Playboy called, "The Safe Generation...Preparing our
Children for a PC World". It focused solely on our Colleges and
Universities and the atrocities going on...how free thought is
squelched and debate is at a standstill in our secondary schools...lest
we offend somebody in speaking the truth.
It is well documented over the last few years that the bent on
liberalism is to squelch free thought and implement PC talk. I find it
amazing Lisa, that you seem to show a blind eye to this!
-Jack
|
425.5 | | PCBUOA::LEFEBVRE | A Repo Man is always intense | Tue May 16 1995 16:56 | 1 |
| Rat-on, Lisa!
|
425.6 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue May 16 1995 17:07 | 16 |
| I honestly don't care if people have a "Mary on the half shell"
anywhere they want. If it's important to them, and it gives
them comfort, let it be.
The problem with independent thought is that we've stopped
teaching people how to think to begin with. If we were still
teaching thought, most of the stupid stuff would fall through
the cracks where it belonged, and people would watch a whole
lot less television. We don't encourage debate, individuality,
creativity or independent thought anymore. We encourage
teamwork, political correctness and right-thinking. We heard
people into groups and use peer and societal pressure to
ensure they are all thinking the same thing. Yes, life
in the nineties is truely boring if you enjoy good conversation.
Mary-Michael
|
425.7 | The material girl ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue May 16 1995 17:09 | 3 |
|
Madonna is appearing in Lexington ? When are tix on sale ? bb
|
425.8 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue May 16 1995 17:11 | 11 |
| RE: .6
Mary-Michael,
I daresay you have summed up what I've been thinking better
than I could have hoped to!
And Jack is 100% correct in pointing out that the Christian
Coalition hardly has a lock on such nonsense.
-b
|
425.9 | Wisdom to One Is Foolishness To Another... | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Tue May 16 1995 17:14 | 10 |
| In trying to be as generic as possible, I think that to be loving
is the only thing that makes any sense in this world and to be
unloving makes no sense whatsoever.
For me, the above may be the beginning of wisdom and to try
to suggest anything else to be worthy of attainment is foolishness.
Far from the mark, but hopefully getting closer to it...
Tony
|
425.10 | Aw, c'mon - don't tell me he's a voyeur | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue May 16 1995 17:19 | 4 |
| I wasn't aware of the fact that Newt was casting a watchful eye on
those who were doing the nasty with their SO while watching NC-17
movies.
|
425.11 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue May 16 1995 18:20 | 5 |
| >Madonna is appearing in Lexington ?
Barring an earthquake, yes, Madonna will be appearing
and I hear that the opening act is supposed to be
second to none.
|
425.12 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 18:24 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 425.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| It focused solely on our Colleges and Universities and the atrocities going
| on...how free thought is squelched and debate is at a standstill in our
| secondary schools...lest we offend somebody in speaking the truth.
Jack, guess it would depend on what one perceived the truth was, and if
it equalled reality.
|
425.13 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 16 1995 18:28 | 1 |
| You can see Madonna at Our Lady of the Battle Green in Lexington.
|
425.14 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Tue May 16 1995 18:30 | 6 |
| >Barring an earthquake, yes
As you have probably heard, this is much more likely to happen this
year then last.
...Tom (trying to add some Thumperism to this quite boring topic.) :)
|
425.15 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Tue May 16 1995 18:34 | 6 |
| RE: 425.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"
> What I find interesting is that Lisa doesn't site the PC crowd when it
> comes to defying independent thought.
Site, Cite.
|
425.16 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 18:40 | 1 |
| uhhh....sorry
|
425.17 | specificity prevents aliasing | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Tue May 16 1995 18:43 | 6 |
| Perhaps, Lisa, you should modify the title to reflect the fact that you
are venting at the "Christian Coalition's Contract on Independent
Thought" as opposed to the Clinton/Schumer Contract on Independent
Thought, the Political Correctness Movement's Contract on Independent
Thought, or any of the others.
|
425.18 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Tue May 16 1995 18:48 | 3 |
| The Bad Lieutenant was rubbish.
|
425.19 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue May 16 1995 18:52 | 8 |
|
>> The Bad Lieutenant was rubbish.
'twas a bit rough, shall we say. ;> keitel was good, as usual,
though.
|
425.20 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue May 16 1995 19:37 | 3 |
| >The Bad Lieutenant was rubbish.
I agree. The Good Mother was much better.
|
425.21 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue May 16 1995 19:37 | 3 |
|
Yeabut, the Good Son sucked.
|
425.22 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue May 16 1995 19:40 | 1 |
| He was just a Bad Seed.
|
425.23 | | POBOX::BATTIS | Land shark,pool shark | Tue May 16 1995 19:40 | 2 |
|
Goodfellows, was good.
|
425.24 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue May 16 1995 19:42 | 3 |
|
Did he have a Good Morning Vietnam?
|
425.25 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue May 16 1995 19:42 | 1 |
| And who could forget the GoodFather.
|
425.26 | | POBOX::BATTIS | Land shark,pool shark | Tue May 16 1995 19:54 | 2 |
|
As well as the Goodfather parts II & III.
|
425.27 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 16 1995 19:55 | 3 |
| > Yeabut, the Good Son sucked.
Whom? Bill Todman?
|
425.28 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue May 16 1995 19:59 | 1 |
| Ever see The Nasty Girl?
|
425.30 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Tue May 16 1995 20:08 | 11 |
| RE: 425.17 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"
> Perhaps, Lisa, you should modify the title to reflect the fact that you
> are venting at the "Christian Coalition's Contract on Independent Thought"
That's the only one that's having a big impact on Merrimack, New Hampshire.
Perhaps your mileage may vary, but multi-month long debate on "is teaching
critical thinking a good thing?" was pretty educational.
Phil
|
425.31 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 16 1995 22:39 | 6 |
| What's this about a statue of the Mother of God appearing on the Lexington
Battle Green?
I'd be rather surprised if the Christian Coalition had anything to do with it.
/john
|
425.32 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 23:04 | 3 |
| Tom --
Does this topic add to your thumper index?
|
425.33 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Tue May 16 1995 23:38 | 5 |
| No, it is difficult to determine whether non-thumper topic titles are
indeed thumper topics. If anyone has a spare man-year they can do an
evaluation. :)
...Tom
|
425.34 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Wed May 17 1995 10:50 | 3 |
| >That's the only one that's having a big impact on Merrimack
So I've heard. And heard. And heard.
|
425.35 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Wed May 17 1995 11:09 | 11 |
| RE: 425.34 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>
> So I've heard. And heard. And heard.
Very little of this has been in Soapbox. Topic in New Hampshire notefile
is only 307 replies: hardly close to the standard of the hunting debate.
I'd like to know where you have heard about this so much, if you don't
mind.
Phil
|
425.36 | what a mess | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Wed May 17 1995 11:24 | 3 |
| The Telegraph has been covering the goings on in Merrimack for months.
Sounds like you guys got yourselves on heap of trouble out there;
creationism science? Sheesh.
|
425.37 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Wed May 17 1995 11:53 | 8 |
| RE: 425.36 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"
> what a mess
Nothing a few thousand votes can't cleanup.
Phil
|
425.38 |
| SUBURB::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Wed May 17 1995 16:57 | 9 |
| Can`t say I find Monty Python very funny to be honest.
What`s all that "Ministry of silly walks" and "dead parrott joke" all
about? What a load of rubbish.
Give me Benny Hill or Syd James any day.
|
425.39 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Indeedy Do Da Day | Wed May 17 1995 17:02 | 1 |
| {look of astonishment}
|
425.40 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Wed May 17 1995 17:19 | 3 |
|
{thud}
|
425.41 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed May 17 1995 17:22 | 51 |
| Well, typical of the hyperbole I've come to expect from the
base-noter, it seems serious discussion on the topic has
been quashed. However, there are a few elements of the
Contract with the American Family that are worthy of note.
While I cannot claim to remember all of the elements, the
important ones include:
- Prayer in Schools
The moment of silence. I am against this, on the ground
that it is unnecessary. The moment of silence will have
no effect on the overwhelming problems facing our
educational system. It is purely symbolic, and in my
opinion, without merit.
- Public display of religious symbols
A Pandora's box... while this paves the way for the
seemingly innocuous nativity scene on the town common,
I wonder how the Christian contingent would feel about
the Wiccans erecting a pentagram? The Christians can't
have it both ways... either they must tolerate all
manner of religious symbols, or such symbols must
be prohibited from public lands.
- Abortion
The only abortion provision in the contract is one that
cancels federal funding of abortions. This one I support.
While pro-choice, I'm not keen to pay for anyone's
abortions.
- Remove funding from PBS
Part of the overall conservative agenda, I support this.
- Remove funding from the NEA
I also support this, on the basis that the NEA actually
hurts art, not helps it. With a Republican congress, will
the liberals who support the NEA be willing to let the
Repubs decide what art should be subsidized? Helms approved
art something you want? Didn't think so. Removing funding
means that art is not controlled by anyone's political
agenda, and this strikes me as a good thing. Same thing
applies to PBS.
- School Choice
Reaffirmation of the voucher concept. I have yet to
conclude whether I support this or not.
|
425.42 | Basicall yagree. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 18:27 | 33 |
| Re: 41
The base note, as seems to be obvious to most respondents, was a poor
attempt to start another bashing topic. Not much else to say about
such drivel.
As far as your enumeration of the items I guess, overall, I tend to
suppport them with certain caveats.
The Prayer in School issue gets more blown out of proportion with each
passing year and the rantings of "Christian conspiracy" fringe. My
basic take on the subject is, if it's voluntary, what difference does
it make. If a school believes that starting the day with prayer may be
beneficial to the students, then let's give a try. the absence of any
moral teachings in school have certainly not provided a better society.
It may just be worth letting schools try something radical on their
own. Would like to see some real discussion on this instead of the
knee-jerk No.
Religious displays should also be encouraged and recognize all "major"
religious sects. I realize that this may result in some fringe groups
left out, but then fringe groups in all walks of life aren't always
accomodated. I personally would like to see the local Municpal Center
display the images that reflect the essential beliefs of the major
groups within a community. I would certainly enjoy seeing people
prepare and present the images of their holidays. I'm not sure if all
religions have a particular display, but it would be interesting.
All of these need to be discussed, but for many people the mere voicing
of a religious belief should be outlawed.
the rest of the points and your evaluation seem rational as well.
|
425.43 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed May 17 1995 18:38 | 13 |
| Re: .42
>If a school believes that starting the day with prayer may be
>beneficial to the students
Then tell kids to pray when they get out of bed.
>the absence of any moral teachings in school have certainly not
>provided a better society.
School prayer does not provide any moral teachings, unless you read the
prayer of the day over the loudspeaker. That would surely fail any
test on separation of church and state.
|
425.44 | Rantings, but hardly fringe | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Wed May 17 1995 19:30 | 33 |
| RE: 425.42 by POBOX::ROCUSH
> The Prayer in School issue gets more blown out of proportion with each
> passing year and the rantings of "Christian conspiracy" fringe.
"Fringe"!?! You have got to be nuts. In Merrimack, we had nice, smiling
faces, running for school board, making vague conservative type noises,
claiming to be concerned parents, and denying any connection what so ever
with the Christian Coalition _before_ the election.
AFTER the election, one of them gets an all expense paid trip to be the
KEYNOTE SPEAKER at the National Convention of the Christian Coalition,
they voted in school prayer, they tried to vote in teaching biblical
"scientific creationism", they tried to vote in passing out New Testaments
to all the students, You gotta be nuts.
It's not like they ran as Christian Coalition members and won. They ran
Stealth. Under radar. I repeat, YOU GOTTA BE NUTS!
This sort of trash is the most damaging thing possible for conservatives in
general. Any conservative running for office that is a concerned parent,
makes vague conservative type noises and denys membership in the Christian
Coalition will be suspected by large numbers of voters of being just that.
> My basic take on the subject is, if it's voluntary, what difference does
> it make.
Calling it voluntary is bogus. It is as voluntary as death and taxes,
unless you got the money for private school.
Phil
|
425.45 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed May 17 1995 19:33 | 13 |
| Mr. rocush,
Calling one of the oldest religions in the world "fringe" is offensive
to many people. I truly believe that any religions younger than 4000
years of age should be considered upstart, cultish and "fringe" and
should not be promoted in schools or public forums.
Or are you saying that obscure shristian sects should also be banned
from having input?
Buddhists. moslems, hindu's?
Inquiring minds ywould like to know.
|
425.46 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Wed May 17 1995 19:41 | 10 |
| .9
hear hear - very Taoist except for this bit:
>to suggest anything else to be worthy of attainment is foolishness.
one must learn to live with opposites but be possessed by neither -
truly a difficult thing to do
ric
|
425.47 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed May 17 1995 19:51 | 5 |
| Re: .44
That's nothing. When I was in high school, we had someone running on
the platform of eliminating humanism and Satanism in the schools.
("Darn, there go the virgin sacrifices at lunch.")
|
425.48 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Wed May 17 1995 20:01 | 8 |
| RE: 425.47 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."
Chelsea,
Would you please tell us exactly how many virgins you sacrificed at lunch?
Enquiring Minds Want To Know.
|
425.49 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Wed May 17 1995 20:02 | 5 |
|
More importantly, how many could you find in high school??
Kindergarten, maybe. High school? Nah.
|
425.50 | Ancient joke... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Wed May 17 1995 20:07 | 5 |
|
I remember the line, "If every Vassar student were laid
end-to-end..."
bb
|
425.51 | What's the name of that song? | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Wed May 17 1995 21:00 | 6 |
| I went to a school that was near a town called Vestal.
When the song that has the line "Vestal virgins" was played, the joke
was that there were no Vestal virgins.
ME
|
425.52 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Wed May 17 1995 21:30 | 2 |
|
Whiter Shade of Pale
|
425.53 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed May 17 1995 22:08 | 6 |
| Re: .48
>Would you please tell us exactly how many virgins you sacrificed at
>lunch?
Me? None.
|
425.54 | Phew, that feels better | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Wed May 17 1995 22:35 | 142 |
| I see that five minutes yesterday at lunch was not sufficient to
clearly organize my thoughts.
The reason I have singled out the Christian Coalition in my basenote is
because I see them as having the political clout at the moment to
affect my personal life. Yes, my personal life. If I cannot go down
to my local vid store and choose an NC-17 tape because CFV has
determined that such things are not suitable for 5 year olds, my life
is affected. If I can't go out and see a Mapplethorpe exhibit at the
ICA because a Christian group was offended by six out the hundreds of
photos displayed, my life is affected. If I can't turn on my radio and
hear what I want to listen to because Focus on the Family has deemed
that music unhealthy for 10 year olds, my life is affected. If I can't
go to my local library and borrow the books I want to read because
they've been labeled heretical, my life is affected. If I have to sit
through prayers to Jesus at a public gathering, even though I do not
believe in that god, my life is affected.
As for the other extremes, excessive "political correctness", I don't
care for that either. The original idea of PC was admirable, to make
people aware that actions stemming from long held stereotypes could be
hurtful many people, especially in the workplace, where all colors and
persuations of people earn their livelihood. Things like responding to
a female co-workers presentation with "Have I told you your make-up
looks especially nice today" or "Go get me some coffee", or "When are
you going to get pregnant and quit". Or purposely scheduling some big
business dealing on a Jewish holiday to dissuade the Jewish workers
from taking the responsibility. Or making sure to tell "fag jokes" in
front of an acquaintance who you saw out with his boyfriend the weekend
before.
The extreme elements of the "PC" movement have alienated people by
invading into areas that don't concern them, and trying to eradicate
things that weren't causing problems to begin with. Likewise, the
extreme elements of the "anti-PC" backlash, are using the current
popularity of the movement to justify downright rude behavior. Walking
the line between the two requires one to engage their brain on both
sides of the equation. One needs to think out what the bottom line is,
and dea lwith situations that affect that bottom line. Example:
At the workplace, the bottom line is to provide an enviroment where
everyone can contribute to the team and get the product out the door.
The concern is that while your employees are in the workplace, they are
producing results, and working with other people regardless of color,
gender, sexual persuasion, religion, etc. What they do once they walk
out the door is none of your business if it doesn't impact their
ability to perform tasks. Example: You have an apartment to rent.
The bottom line is that you want someone who pays their rent on time
and keeps the place in good condition. Why should it matter what god
they pray to or who spends the night in their bedroom?
The problem is, that deciding what's really important requires
independent thought. The American Way for years has been to identify
an unpleasant problem and then to a) ban it, b) look the other way,
c) put a band-aid on the most easily curable symptom.
Learning to deal with the problem has never been a popular solution
because it requires looking at something you find ugly, probing it, and
generally thinking for oneself. I've already been labelled a liberal
PC lunatic in this string. Maybe I am, because I believe that
pornography, action movies, sex, bad words, unwanted pregnancy, hate
radio, daytime talk shows, enviromentalists, and condo developers are all
parts of today's society, and they're not going to go away. Nor would
I really want them to under forced conditions. Take pornography.
Degrading to women, bad for my kid, etc. Why is there a need? What is
missing that people need pornography? Are all people who partake in
the activity doing harm to others? Are a couple who use it to jump
start their sex life in the same category as someone who abducts people
off the street to force them to participate in a scene that they saw in
Torture Unlimited? Will outright banning it remove all the bad side
effects from our society?
Will banning all "non-christian" activities from American society
really solve the problems we face in real life? Will a return to the
nuclear family and traditional sex roles really bring back the
"good-old-days"? Will removing everything that's not acceptable for a
toddler from the airwaves really protect our children? Will "not
talking" about ugly things make them go away? Will not associating
with "people like that" make them disappear?
No, it won't. Looking at root causes of unpleasant things, deciding
what's a necessary evil and what's an acceptable risk, and what are
really the societal taboos will help, but it requires seeing in shades
of gray, and not digital black and white.
Welfare: Those welfare queens are sapping society. (Black) Cut off
the funding. (White) There are some bad apples who take advantage of
the system. There are others who made poor choices when young, or were
forced into hard situations. They want to improve their life, but lack
the education or the means to get a real job (one with a living wage
and health benefits). Separate the two kinds and help the ones who
want to better their life. (Gray) But hey, I'm a working stiff and I
can barely afford my mortgage and I can't afford to send my kids to
school, why should some welfare queen <other minority> get an
opportunity that I don't have USING MY TAX DOLLARS? As long as I don't
have it, you can't have it either! (Black and White). Is the fact that
your wages have gone down, there are fewer jobs to be had, or that health
costs are spiralling really the fault of those minorities? Or is one
of the causes Late 20th Century Business Practices? Or a changing
marketplace? Or greed? Or a number of other things? (Gray)
The dumbing of kids and their atrocious behavior: Is it really ALL the
NEA's fault? Or "stupid courses"? Or does it have to do with
boredom? Or the fact that afternoon activities that previously kept
kids out of the malls are all being eliminated? Could the fact that
greedy ad executives are more often targeting younger kids be affecting
society's preoccupation with material goods? Is banning advertisements
the way to stop this? Or is teaching the kids to see through the
advertiser's glitzy images a better way to deal with it?
My take on the whole thing is that as few things as possible should be
"banned" outright. Let people use their brains and figure out how to
deal with them. End the preoccupation with what people are doing
behind closed doors. If it's not preventing you from obtaining your
goals in life, what business is it of yours. Don't perpetuate the
"neat little boxes" syndrome. People don't come in convenient
categories. Everyone has good and bad in them. Look for the good and
the bad and then judge whether this person is someone you want in your
life. The whole Rush thing feeds off of people's desire for easy
classification. Why do they want easy classification? Is it too
overwhelming to deal with the gray areas? Why is it overwhelming? why
can't we as a society deal with the gray?
FWIW, I can't stand Rush, daytime talk shows, hate radio, the Christian
Coalition, militant Hassidim, any religious fanatics out to convert
the world. But I will never deny them the right to exist or to ban
them. They are part of the world and we have to learn to co-exist with
them. There are of course limits. When snipers attack the house of a
black person, that is unacceptable. No one will argue. There are
certain mores that are accepted throughout our society regardless of
religion or political views. Murder of an already born person,
rape, physical assault, stealing, lying, causing another person harm,
these are the things we have legislation for. When a person is
ensouled (if they even have a soul), who you should have sex with,
what religion one practices, what you read at home or watch in the
movies, how many kids you should have, what you drink or smoke in the
privacy of your own house, these are things you can't legislate because
there are no universal societal agreement.
I could go on, but I have work to do (that work ethic, you know) and
I'd like to get out of here before midnight.
Lisa
|
425.55 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed May 17 1995 23:27 | 4 |
| > "neat little boxes" syndrome
Er, that's the "scummy_little_boxes" syndrome, Lisa.
|
425.56 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu May 18 1995 02:06 | 13 |
|
Frankly, as a conservative Christian, I'm not entirely sure I support
this "Christian Coalition" contract. I haven't seen the whole thing,
however. However, while there is much in this world that I find quite
offensive, legislating it away is not the answer, in my opinion. Certainly
is not going to win a lot of folks to Jesus Christ. Hearts must be changed,
and that can't be done by legislation.
Jim
|
425.57 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 18 1995 13:17 | 3 |
| re .51:
Vestal, NY?
|
425.58 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Thu May 18 1995 13:26 | 6 |
| re: .54
You've said much of what I've been trying to say, and far
better than I could have said it. Thanks.
Mary-Michael
|
425.59 | Does it work both ways. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu May 18 1995 13:40 | 20 |
| Boy, I've seen a lot of convoluted reasoning in these topics before,
but none like the last few. Somebody complains that a conservative
Christian won office without making a mjor point of their deepest
feelings. Well, I suppose it has never happened that someone paraded
as a conservative and once in office showed their true liberal stripe?
I thappens on both sides and it's wrong, but I don't recall you ever
complaining when it went the other way.
When I talked about major religions I realized that there are many
fringe, and I do mean fringe groups that might not be generally
recognized. The age of a religion does not make it a mjor religion.
Complaints about the side issues never address what the irreversible
harm might be. History does not support your crisis mode.
If the idea that every opinion and personal feeling, belief or life
style is equally valid and should be protected then you negate your
argument about the laws restricting what can and can not be said, done,
etc in the workplace. You want it one way and argue for it, but the
same argument to the other side appears to be invalid to you.
|
425.60 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 13:57 | 28 |
| ZZ Example: You have an apartment to rent.
ZZ The bottom line is that you want someone who pays their rent on
ZZ time and keeps the place in good condition. Why should it matter what
ZZ god they pray to or who spends the night in their bedroom?
Lisa, I had the privelage of leasing a townhouse to a couple a few
years ago. They were not married, yet my feeling was they have to
determine their own destinies.
I do however vehemently state the following. IT IS MY RIGHT to be
discriminatory in these matters, and it IS NOT YOUR RIGHT to tell me
how I am going to conduct my personal affairs. Just like the abortion
issue, I reserve the very same right to self determination and it is
NOT the peoples business to determine how bigoted or discriminatory I
will be. As long as it affects MY wallet, you keep out.
Same goes with other things you mentioned. The Maplethorpe exhibit for
example. As long as they keep their dirty laudry to themselves, they
can exhibit their non art wherever. Demand will determine their
success. However, when I have to fund such garbarg, then I as a
citizen have the right to squawk and have the right to be heard.
Bottom line is, if the left element of our society had not foisted all
this crap upon the masses in the first place, then the Christian
Coalition would not be is a position of prominence. You did it to
yourself!
-Jack
|
425.61 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Thu May 18 1995 14:06 | 9 |
| >If I cannot go down to my local vid store and choose an NC-17
>tape [...], my life is affected.
>What is missing that people need pornography?
Well, Lisa, what's missing? :-) Imagination, or proper instruction?
:-)
|
425.62 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Thu May 18 1995 14:09 | 2 |
|
Um...since when is NC-17 pornography?
|
425.63 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 18 1995 14:11 | 3 |
| Jack, suppose you wanted to rent an apartment in some town, and no landlord
would consider you because you're Christian. Would you slink away to the
next town?
|
425.64 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 14:39 | 4 |
| Personally, yes, I would. I don't force myself where I am not
wanted...except here that is! :-)
-Jack
|
425.65 | | TROOA::COLLINS | must ipso facto half not be | Thu May 18 1995 14:40 | 8 |
|
Note 425.60
>I do however vehemently state the following. IT IS MY RIGHT to be
>discriminatory in these matters
No it's not.
|
425.66 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu May 18 1995 14:42 | 3 |
|
.64 Am I the only one who has trouble believing that?
|
425.67 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 14:45 | 12 |
|
While everyone is rushing up to Lisa to give her the "yeah yeah,
bravo bravo" -- and far be it from me to ruin her parade -- but
her little diatribe has virtually nothing to do with the Contract
with the American Family. I tried to point this out to her earlier,
but was ignored. Apparently, I'm dealing with a write-only
device.
Now back to your regularly scheduled load of uninformed bull
feces.
-b
|
425.68 | re: .66 | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu May 18 1995 14:45 | 2 |
| No.
|
425.69 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 15:40 | 5 |
| Well, let's put it this way...you will have to prove discrimination and
with me, let's just say you would have an ice cubes chance in hell of
doing so!
-Jack
|
425.70 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu May 18 1995 15:45 | 3 |
|
.69 why would anyone have to prove it when you'll freely admit to it?
|
425.71 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 15:47 | 6 |
| Re: .67
>her little diatribe has virtually nothing to do with the Contract
>with the American Family
Did she say it did? I guess I overlooked it.
|
425.72 | ...or A right, for that matter. | TROOA::COLLINS | must ipso facto half not be | Thu May 18 1995 15:50 | 9 |
|
.69:
Proving discrimination is OFTEN very difficult. That doesn't mean:
- that it doesn't happen, or
- that it is right
|
425.73 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 15:51 | 6 |
|
Why did she title this note "Contract on Independent Thought"
if she was not making an association with the Contract with
the American Family?
-b
|
425.74 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 16:08 | 1 |
| See replies .0, .17, and .30 for a few clues.
|
425.75 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 16:11 | 4 |
| I wouldn't admit it. I would tell the powers that be that it is my
business!
-Jack
|
425.76 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 16:13 | 8 |
|
Lisa:
A warning. Chelsea has decided what you meant. Attempt to correct
her at your own peril; she'll make like a poodle and grab onto
your leg and you'll never get rid of her.
-b
|
425.77 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 16:42 | 6 |
| Re: .76
>Chelsea has decided what you meant.
So did you. Unlike you, I have not made any pronouncements about what
Lisa meant.
|
425.78 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 16:48 | 7 |
| > The reason I have singled out the Christian Coalition in my basenote is
That's from .54 Chelsea. Now if the direct reference to the Christian
Coalition and the title are not an indication of the subect matter
Lisa intended to address, I would be most happy to apologize.
-b
|
425.79 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 17:10 | 3 |
| You have established that her subject is the Christian Coalition, but
you have not established that her subject is the Contract with the
American Family.
|
425.80 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 17:11 | 3 |
|
YAWN.
|
425.81 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 17:20 | 15 |
| Of course, we could just wait for Lisa to come back and tell us what,
exactly, her subject is.
One entirely possible scenario is that she will come back and say,
"Hell, yes, I'm talking about the Contract with the American Family."
At which point, you might be tempted to say something like, "Chelsea
was wro-ong, nanny nanny boo-boo." At which point I would be obliged
to point out that I was not. I didn't say, "Hey, you peabrain, she's
not talking about the Contract with the American Family." What I said
was (and I quote):
"Did she say it did? I guess I overlooked it."
So you decided to get into a pissing contest that you can't possibly
win. Good job.
|
425.82 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 17:29 | 5 |
|
Chelsea, you seem to think I care. Serious re-evaluation of
this conclusion is in order.
-b
|
425.83 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Thu May 18 1995 17:40 | 5 |
| RE: .57
That's the place!
ME
|
425.84 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu May 18 1995 18:31 | 4 |
| OK - so what's this Contract with the American Family?
Some peabrained boo-boo that I've missed in recent notes?
|
425.85 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 18 1995 18:35 | 2 |
| The Christian Coalition's roadmap for Newt's 2nd 100 days. It's got the
Newt stamp of approval.
|
425.86 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 19:14 | 6 |
| Re: .82
>you seem to think I care
If you didn't care, why'd you bother with that little warning to Lisa?
You decided you wanted a pissing contest, and look where it got you.
|
425.87 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 19:25 | 7 |
|
Because Chelsea, it's sometimes a bit of fun, in a predictable
sort of way, to pull your chain and watch you go off. "Winning"
this argument was not a consideration. Thank you for a bit
of free amusement. Maybe I can make it up to you sometime.
-b
|
425.88 | ;> | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu May 18 1995 19:29 | 3 |
|
.87 cow doots.
|
425.89 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 19:33 | 6 |
|
Whatsa cow doot? I mean, I think I get the general idea,
but I've never heard that expression before you used it...
Doot's not in my dictionary.
-b
|
425.90 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 18 1995 19:40 | 1 |
| I believe Dave Barry uses it.
|
425.91 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 19:41 | 6 |
| Re: .87
So, you find it amusing to make yourself look stupid in order to "pull
my chain."
I find that amusing.
|
425.92 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Thu May 18 1995 19:42 | 1 |
| Right on, .54, right on!
|
425.93 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu May 18 1995 19:42 | 4 |
|
yes, it's a dave barry thing. or at least that's where i
first saw it, lo these many years ago.
|
425.94 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 19:44 | 4 |
|
So, is it akin to "BS"?
-b
|
425.95 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 18 1995 19:49 | 1 |
| See HYDRA::DAVE_BARRY notes 223, 251, 322, 688, 852 and 926.
|
425.96 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 19:51 | 4 |
|
Oh like, don't anyone _dare_ just answer the bloody question! :-)
-b
|
425.97 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu May 18 1995 19:56 | 8 |
|
no, bri, it's nothing at all like BS. it's short for
"cow duties" - all those little tasks that cows must perform
before they can go out and laze around in the fields.
hope this helps.
|
425.98 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 19:59 | 6 |
|
Yes, Lady Di, that helps immensely. It is Chelsea's Cow Duty
to keep going on about how I might be misinterpreting what
Lisa said.
-b
|
425.99 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Thu May 18 1995 20:01 | 4 |
|
Somehow that brings to mind cows wearing overalls and straw hats hoeing
the fields, slopping the hogs, feeding the chickens, mucking out, etc.
8^).
|
425.100 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Indeedy Do Da Day | Thu May 18 1995 20:03 | 1 |
| Doot snarf.
|
425.101 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu May 18 1995 20:44 | 45 |
| You'll have to excuse my strange noting hours. I work split shift EDT,
and like to keep the long diatribes to a minimum during my working
hours. Since it is not dinner yet, I'm going to keep it short.
From my position as an observer, Contract for American Family, Focus on
the Family, Colorado Family Values, and others of their ilk, exist to
"strengthen and re-introduce the concept of family" in american
society, where family is defined as a male father unit who works
outside the house, a female mother unit who cares for children, and
whatever offspring the Christian God has blessed them with. To
"reintroduce the family concept" the goal appears to be to eradiacate
all household units who don't fit into a narrowly defined concept of
"the proper family as defined by the Bible". To protect our children,
the goal appears to eradicate everything that could damage the mind of
a three year old. To bring up our children as "moral" human beings,
institute prayer.
None of this fosters independent thought in future generations. Instead
of teaching how to develop interpersonal relationships, just make
everyone the same so that there won't be disagreement. Instead of
teaching children problem solving and survival skills, just get rid of
everything you don't want them to see, or would be embarrassed about
having to explain to them. Instead of teaching them how to be at peace
with themselves and develop a firm sense of identity, just tell them
"God says this so you do it".
Eventually, this train of thought affects me, because the proponents of
these movements want me to live in the same world and be exposed to the
same things as their toddler. I am not a toddler. I am an adult, and
I deal with adult things. I am not my parents. I share some of the
same opinions as they do, but I have developed my own life on my own.
I have been brought up to be helpful to others when I can, and to treat
others as I would have them treat me, but I have come to understand the
point when my needs absolutely have to come before someone else's.
And that point is not cut and dry, nor is it in the same place for
everyone. Which is why you need to have the ability to think and be
able to differentiate the shades of gray. This ability is not
developed by simply following to the letter what your deity, or Newt,
or Camille Paglia, or Oprah, or Gloria Steinham tells to you do.
Listen to everything, sort it out, and draw upon your experience to
guide you.
Lisa
|
425.102 | :^) | TROOA::COLLINS | must ipso facto half not be | Thu May 18 1995 20:47 | 3 |
|
Never mind that, Lisa...just tell us who was right: Brian or Chelsea?
|
425.103 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Thu May 18 1995 20:57 | 22 |
| I agree with what Lisa is saying.
The Nehemiah Scudders of the Christian Coalition are bound and
determined to impose their narrow and sadly ignorant view of the world
on everyone who falls into their clutches, and those clutches reach
everywhere throughout this country. The CC are not even above outright
lies to get their agenda made into law; they field stealth candidates
for public office who blithely deny any such agenda until in office.
What the CC's agenda will ultimately do if carried to fruition is to
return us to the Dark Ages, when having an original thought could be,
and often was, deemed heresy, punishable by excommunication or even
death.
If "Scientific Creationism" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is put
on a par with physics, geology, and other natural sciences, can it be
much later that "God did it, and don't try to figure out how" will
become the standard explanation for whatever is not understood? For a
quick start, let's set the calendar back 500 years and forget the
discoveries of bacteria, viruses, and rickettsia and how to deal with
them. You're sick because you're wicked and God is punishing you.
It's a terrifying prospect, people.
|
425.104 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu May 18 1995 21:01 | 21 |
|
Who is right is less important than the fact that they're arguing over
what I wrote, because sometimes arguments can bring new viewpoints
that one may not have considered before.
To tell the truth, they're both right, and they're both wrong. I wrote
what I wrote, I was happy with it, and no matter how carefully I choose
my words people are going to interpret it through their own filters.
I can't change that, nor do I feel it's proper to do so. I can say my
mind, and perhaps someone might store my words in the attic of their
brain, and maybe draw on what I said when they think about things in
the future.
I also realize how ludicrous the last paragraph is in the Soapbox
enviroment. Soapbox is very similar to the enviroment I experienced as
a child during large family get-togethers during the holidays. Everyone
talks at the same time, and either the loudest or the most offensive gets
heard. I am trying to undo my years of training....
LIsa
|
425.105 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu May 18 1995 21:03 | 14 |
|
What disturbs me, and again, I am a conservative Bible believeing, Baptist
Church attending, Christian, is that this Christian Coalition is associated
with Pat Robertson. And while I may agree with some of the tenets in this
contract, I don't care for Mr. Robertson's brand of theology, nor of the
politicizing of Jesus Christ. I would love people to know the joy of coming
to know Jesus Christ and the power that lies in the Word of God. But, that
cannot be legislated.
Jim
|
425.106 | | TROOA::COLLINS | must ipso facto half not be | Thu May 18 1995 21:05 | 7 |
|
.104:
Stop being reasonable, Lisa. There's no room for that here.
;^)
|
425.107 | | NASAU::GUILLERMO | But the world still goes round and round | Thu May 18 1995 21:08 | 2 |
| Maybe a return to the Dark Ages is just what we need to usher in a "true"
Renaissance.
|
425.108 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Thu May 18 1995 21:11 | 10 |
| So, Dick, where do you draw the line? There has to be some place in
between your scenario (of what you think the end result of the CC's
plans), and the current status quo that has only contributed to the
demise of our social structure.
The pendulum has swung too far to the left. How do we stop it from
swinging back too far to the right, without locking it in place?
-steve
|
425.109 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu May 18 1995 21:16 | 9 |
| Personally, I think we're currently in a "mega-Renaissance". New
information is pouring in from all sides at a blinding rate, which has
never happened before in history. Traditionally, change has been slow
enough to give people/society time to deal with it. Not so now.
Humans have to learn to deal with the rapid change of today's world or
perish. Perhaps acceptance of our current situation would be a first
step in the right direction...
Lisa
|
425.110 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Indeedy Do Da Day | Thu May 18 1995 21:40 | 4 |
| But Dick, the people who don't see things their way are precisely the
ones responsible for the unraveling of the fabric of American society.
;-)
|
425.111 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu May 18 1995 21:45 | 13 |
|
The same thing continues to bug me here... wild generalizations
are being made about the people and motives behind the CWtAF,
instead of any meaningful discussion of its contents. I'm sorry
I picked on Lisa for this... it seems it's the bloody lot of you! :-)
Overall, the CWtAF has some elements I support and some I
don't. Calling the drafters of the CWtAF names has very little
to do with the contents... Feel free to bitch (I know you will
anyway), but for Gawd sakes, put away the 300psi pneumatic
paint guns and get out something with a little finer stroke...
-b
|
425.112 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri May 19 1995 02:13 | 13 |
|
Interestingly I read tonight that Gary Bauer, President of the Family Research
Council and associated with Focus on the Family, is less than enthusiastic
about the Christian Coalition, stating something similar to what I said in .105
"There's nothing really new here...legislation is not likely to solve all of
society's problems, either. the larger question of what's happened to our
culture and our families is really a matter of the heart and soul"..
Jim
|
425.113 | Haven't seen a text. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Fri May 19 1995 11:58 | 6 |
|
Pardon my ignorance, but this just doesn't get much coverage in
the media. If somebody has a text of this proposed CWAF, could
you post it ? If short enough.
bb
|
425.114 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Fri May 19 1995 12:31 | 13 |
| From what I read in the newspaper last night, it appears that spokespeople for
most of the major religions in the U.S. have come out against this contract.
Seems like the CC is going it alone on this one. From what I've read, I have
to agree that for the most part, these are very misguided pieces of
legislation, many of which would be found unconstitutional if enacted. As far
as the ones that I agree with, my reasons for supporting them are not the same
as the CC. For example, the one to do away with the agency that supports art.
I don't want to do away with it because I don't think the federal government
should be sponsoring Maplethorpe's (sp?) art. I want to do away with it because
I don't think the federal government should be sponsoring ANY art, whether it
be a tour of the great classics or pictures of crosses soaking in urine.
Bob
|
425.115 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Fri May 19 1995 14:03 | 4 |
|
I found a copy of it in =wn=. I'll post it in the next reply; it's
1,075 lines long if you want to skip it 8^).
|
425.116 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Fri May 19 1995 14:03 | 1081 |
425.117 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 19 1995 14:16 | 2 |
| Is a super good man allowed to post in =wn=? I thot they don't recognize
male perchilden as capable of being super good.
|
425.118 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri May 19 1995 14:34 | 10 |
| Re: .98
>It is Chelsea's Cow Duty to keep going on about how I might be
>misinterpreting what Lisa said.
Since every note I've entered has been in response to one of yours, one
might likewise infer that it's your Cow Duty to keep yammering about a
subject you purport not to care about.
The deal is, I don't get off your case 'til you get off mine.
|
425.119 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Fri May 19 1995 14:54 | 1 |
| >male perchilden?
|
425.120 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 19 1995 15:00 | 1 |
| Whoops, that should have been male perchildren (perSONs is sexist).
|
425.121 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Fri May 19 1995 15:08 | 62 |
| > Restoring Religious Equality
Oh yes, and why do I suspect that one religion is more equal than others?
> Returning Education Control to the Local Level
> Parents are distressed over the failure of schools to teach children
> basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
The real problem seems to be more like that schools also teach things like
critical thinking and science.
> Promoting School Choice
After watching the debate over a local and "liberal" school choice proposal
that was voted down at town school meeting, I'm convinced the only school
choice the Christian Coalition wants to allow is the kind of school choice
they want to require.
> Protecting Parental Rights
> The child shall have the right to freedom of expression;
I see why this is a problem for the CC: Adults having freedom of expression
is probably even worse, but harder for the CC to attempt to get put into law.
> Family-Friendly Tax Relief
Good idea.
> Restoring Respect for Human Life
I'm pro-choice and I vote.
> Encouraging Support of Private Charities
Tax funding of charities? No thanks.
> Restricting Pornography
Removal of all "Pornography" from the internet and cable TV? Propose that,
as that is the intent of these sections. Fails the honest intent test.
> Privatizing the Arts
I support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Arts? No. Education.
> Crime Victim Restitution
A better idea would be to decriminalize drugs.
Phil
|
425.122 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Fri May 19 1995 15:23 | 3 |
| >(perSONs is sexist)
Aw, gawahn.
|
425.123 | Couldn't let this go uncommented | DECWIN::RALTO | It's a small third world after all | Fri May 19 1995 15:55 | 17 |
| re: .104
>> Soapbox is very similar to the enviroment I experienced as
>> a child during large family get-togethers during the holidays. Everyone
>> talks at the same time, and either the loudest or the most offensive
>> gets heard. I am trying to undo my years of training....
You have mis-characterized this conference; in fact, it is precisely
the opposite in here, and that's one of the great things about this
conference. Everyone can be heard, no matter what your opinion is,
no matter how much or little you want to say, no matter how politely
or rudely, and no matter how loudly or softly. It's all here, nice
and sequential, so your message can be read without anyone else
interrupting, without being forced to be quiet, and without being
forced out of the room.
Chris
|
425.124 | | NASAU::GUILLERMO | But the world still goes round and round | Fri May 19 1995 16:04 | 5 |
| re:.-1
and endlessly recycled...
:-)/2
|
425.125 | Law of Beholding...Placing Less Benefits On Education | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Fri May 19 1995 17:17 | 62 |
| Just a couple thoughts...(slight rise in thumper index)
I believe there is a principle at work in existence that goes
something like "by beholding, we become changed."
I agree Lisa that we ought not legislate against these things
although if we got a little more specific, we might have some
disagreements such as why is Mapplethorpe (or any other art)
funded in the 1st place?
I heard from some person who was in (I think) Montana and there
was just NOTHING around. The place could have come from the
1800's. While he was there, there was some gangland violence
and he thought it totally impossible. How could this happen
here? But, then he saw the TV's...
Concepts that people would never think of (or at least think
of less often), but there they were right in front of their eyes.
And now this quaint town in Montana was enjoying the same mindset
as urban areas plagued with real life things to behold (or at least
much more like urban areas).
They beheld and they were changed.
And I appreciate your suggestions to not ban anything, I under-
stand where you're coming from. I'm just addressing the reality
(as I believe it to be) that as a society we are bathed with some
ugly things to behold and we do get desensitized to how bad things
can be. Never see a person get killed and watch your reaction when
you do see it. See 10,000 murders on TV and maybe even when seeing
it in real life, you're aversion to the evil of the act is somewhat
desensitized.
You stressed education. I don't know. This earth has gotten so much
more educated than centuries previous (as a generalization). Those
Germans in the 1940's weren't dumb. They were the top dogs so far
as philosophy was concerned - not to mention science. But, just look
at them! And as a famous Jewish person who was at Nuremberg said
when he saw one of the monsters, "I saw myself."
Education ain't gonna do NOTHIN!! Oh sure, it might stifle the
outward act (might), but it ain't gonna change the heart. We are
selfish by nature. We need a heart-change and man hasn't demonstra-
ted a whole lot of success where thats concerned. We've had quite
a long time to figure it out if it was within our capabilities.
I guess I'm taking exception to the merit you're placing on educa-
tion. I'm not saying its worthless, but I am saying that education
alone doesn't change hearts.
So, yeah, I am part of an ilk that sees merit to beholding divine
love and to hoping that as I do, I am changed.
But, I'm not in that Christian camp that seeks legislation.
By God's grace, I want to be part of that camp that would be willing
to relinquish my eternal salvation even for one who wants me eternally
lost.
Nothing else makes sense to me.
Tony
|
425.126 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Indeedy Do Da Day | Fri May 19 1995 17:30 | 21 |
| ___ ~----._
_______ ~~---.__ `-.
--~~ ~~-----.__ `-. \
_,--------------._ ~---. \ `.
'~ _,------------. ~~- `.\ |
_,--~ _____ ` _____|_
_,---~~ ----- `-. /##
,-~ __,---~~--. `._____,',--.`. ,'##/
,' _,--~ __,----. ` () '' ()' : _,-' `#'
,~ _,-' ,' ,-- `---' \ `.__,)--' ,'
,-' - ( _,'
.' _-~ ,' `-- ,-'
/ ,-' ,' __ ___,--' _______________
,' ,'~ ,-~ / ___.ooo88o | ,' `.
/ ,' ,-' / ' 8888888888,' _| |
/ / / ' `888888888.`. \ TONY!!!!!! |
/ / / / ' `888888888 | | |
' / / ' `888888',' `._______________,'
/ ' ~~~,'
/ / / ' ,-'
/ / ,'
|
425.127 | | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Fri May 19 1995 18:29 | 4 |
| nothing else makes sense to me...
...except Spiny of course!!!
|
425.128 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Mon May 22 1995 11:37 | 15 |
| RE: 430.176 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"
> The Religious Equality Amendment (as proposed in the May 1995
> Focus On The Family newsletter):
> "In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to acknowledge
> God according to the dictates of conscience;
I'm sure agnostics, atheists and Buddhists will be happy to know that
their rights don't need to be mentioned, or don't exist.
Which is it, by the way?
Phil
|
425.129 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 23 1995 20:53 | 6 |
| <<< Note 425.128 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>
>I'm sure agnostics, atheists and Buddhists will be happy to know that
>their rights don't need to be mentioned, or don't exist.
In what way were their rights not mentioned?
|
425.130 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Tue May 23 1995 21:03 | 10 |
| .129
> In what way were their rights not mentioned?
>> "In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to acknowledge
>> God according to the dictates of conscience;
This does not provide for people NOT to acknowledge God or, shock
horror, to DENY God. That omission violates the rights of everyone who
does not believe in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God.
|
425.131 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 23 1995 22:16 | 13 |
| <<< Note 425.130 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>
> This does not provide for people NOT to acknowledge God or, shock
> horror, to DENY God.
I disagree. If that is the dictates of their conscience, they
are covered.
> That omission violates the rights of everyone who
> does not believe in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God.
I see the word "God" as "deity". Maybe a better wording is in
order.
|
425.132 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed May 24 1995 14:39 | 10 |
| .131
Denying something is not the same as acknowledging it in any manner.
Denying something is REFUSING to acknowledge it.
I'm all for changing the wording - something like "to acknowledge
whatever deity or deities they choose, or to deny all deities,
according to the dictates of their consciences." You and I both know
that there are exactly three chances for such wording to be adopted by
the CC: fat, slim, and none.
|
425.133 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Wed May 24 1995 17:04 | 7 |
| It's not the CC that has to adopt it, Dick. It's the nation
that does. The CC is only the catalyst to get this ball
rolling.
Or are you suggesting that the CC is so powerful and representative
that it is the CC that has to adopt it and not the nation as a
whole...
|
425.134 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed May 24 1995 17:16 | 9 |
| .133
The CC is the organization proposing it, and the CC has devised the
phrasing of it. I do not believe that the CC would accept an altered
phrasing such as I propose because I do not believe that the CC is
honestly willing to tolerate freedom of nonChristian worship or
thought despite whatever CC members may say when questioned. Members
of the CC have too frequently demonstrated a casual willingness to
prevaricate if doing so will further their theocratic agenda.
|
425.135 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Wed May 24 1995 17:26 | 20 |
| <<< Note 425.134 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>
> The CC is the organization proposing it, and the CC has devised the
> phrasing of it.
You are wrong. What is under discussion here (I'm not sure why)
is the wording of an amendment which was proposed in the May
1995 newsletter from Focus On The Family. It was posted in
430.176. In fact, what is being proposed is intended to
replace a drive for organized prayer in school, counter
to alleged CC motives.
As for accepting altered phrasings, the FotF newsletter clearly
states that this is not the final or precise wording of the
proposed amendment. You still have time to get your changes
to them! Send your suggestions to:
Dr. James Dobson
Focus On The Family
Colorado Springs, CO 80995
|
425.136 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed May 24 1995 18:10 | 5 |
| Since the Amendment needs to be officially worded by Congress before
passage and ratification, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about whatever
words CC or FotF might have in mind, but I'd be keeping a close eye
on my congresscritters.
|
425.137 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Wed May 24 1995 20:48 | 3 |
| re: .136
We certainly agree on this one.
|