Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Pat.  I don't really define myself as a Christian, because I am not
    comfortable with defining myself that way.  I don't accept most of the
    traditional Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, the virgin birth,
    etc.  However, like you, and perhaps because of my Christian
    upbringing, Christianity has helped to define my own religious
    impulses.  So perhaps I can offer some comments.

    In my own denomination, Quakerism, there is a broad theological
    spectrum.  Among Quakers, here are evangelical Christians, liberal
    Christians, and even many non-Christians who would more properly be
    defined as humanists.  Some of these differences parallel the various
    groupings within Quakerism (Friends General Conference, Friends United
    Meeting, Evangelical Friends Alliance), but not always very clearly.  A
    given Friends meeting within the Friends General Conference may have
    many non-Christians, while another may have many Christians.

    When my Significant Other joined the Friends Meeting in Framingham, she
    was asked if she would be bothered by the fact that only about half of
    the members were Christians.  Although she was (and still is) a
    Christian, not only did this not bother her, it in fact convinced her
    that she had made the right choice; having come from a Catholic
    upbringing, she really appreciated being in a religious environment
    where the members were allowed that kind of theological freedom.

    There is a movement within Quakerism, known as Quaker Universalism,
    that shares your belief that "there is truth in all religions that
    affirm human rights, all these religions pointing to a mystery that
    humans cannot understand."  There has been some tension between Quaker
    Christians and Quaker Universalists (many Quaker Christians are
    unhappy with the Universalist movement within the denomination.) 

    So, I think it is safe to say that you will definitely find many
    liberal Christians, and religious liberals in general, within
    Quakerism.  But because Quakerism is such an umbrella faith, with
    many diverse theologies diverging from its common (and originally
    radically Christian) traditions, you have to be aware that there are
    also Quakers who are religious conservatives.

    -- Mike

    Hi, Pat!
        
>    I was a member of the UCC as a child and left the church in my late
>    teens because I could no longer literally believe the apostles creed.
    
    Yeah, when I no longer took it literally, that bothered me a bit.  But
    now I find it meaningful as it links me to centuries of Christians gone
    before.  Centuries from now, *my* understanding should be superceded by
    the growth of those who come after me.  But we are all part of one
    covenant community, just different links in the chain!
      
    > ...or are liberal Christians a faction within
    > established churches.
    
    This is true of the mainline denominations, especially UCC and UM.
    It's probably true also of Presbyterian, American Baptist, and
    Episopalian, but I don't have personal knowledge of those.
    
    Also, a congregation may vary from liberal to conservative according to
    who the current pastor is.  This can become quite a problem in United
    Methodism, when the cabinet sends a new pastor to follow one of the 
    "opposite persuasion!"  (IMO it's not fair to the congregation, either.
    Let each congregation be whatever it is.  But I digress...)
    
    >    Is there a spectrum of conservative/liberal
    > churches.
    
    This is *also* true.  For example, *most* Southern Baptist churches
    are conservative, while *most* UU churches are liberal.
    
    > ...the feeling that I would be considered a heretic in all
    > Christian Churches because I feel Jesus' humanity is the compelling
    > feature and that there is truth in all religions that affirm human
    > rights, all these religious pointing to a mystery that humans cannot
    > understand. 
    
    I think that most of the liberal congregations within the mainline
    denominations would not particularly care what your theology is -- if
    *you* are comfortable within those congregations!  They might think
    you "different" but I don't think "heresy" would be a big deal with
    most of them.
    
    > I would chose Christianity to point me to that truth
    > because it is my culture and a better starting point than someone
    > else's culture.
    
    I identify with you here. I would describe myself as liberal but our
    differences would put you "more liberal" than I.  I think that God
    has revealed Divine Love through many religions.  I also happen to
    think that Christianity is the "best" expression of that revelation.
    But, anyhow, it's the expression that fits *my* culture and I love
    it -- even with its issues of interpretation!
    
    Hope this helps a little,
    Nancy

                                          
    Re.0
    
    Hi Pat,
    
    Yes, I know of the dove experience, for that's what happened to me.  
    There was a very simple dove in one of the stained glass windows in 
    the Episcopal church we attended for several years while I was 
    growing up, and I used to stare at it constantly.  
    
    Mine has been a very interesting road these last 4 years.  Within this
    last year I transcended religion altogether and have become simply a
    lover of God.  Like you, I attend the UU church, however beyond that, 
    I also have stumbled upon the path of yoga.  Back in the earlier part
    of this century, a yogi named Paramahansa Yogananda came to this
    country to assist in reconciling Hinduism and Christianity.  He was
    actually at the UU headquarters in Boston, when he was in this area, so
    there is some connection.  Additionally, he founded the
    Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF), of which there is a group that meets
    every Thursday evening for 2 hours of meditation in the UU church in
    West Newton, MA.  I have friends who are members, and I joined them 
    for a couple of hours of the 7-hour meditation at Christmastime.
    
    To read about his life, pick up a copy of "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by
    Yogananda.  You can find it in just about any bookstore for $3.95.  If 
    you read it, you will understand Christianity like you never understood 
    it before.  On the first page he talks about the guru/disciple
    relationship.  This is the same as Christ as the guru and his 12
    disciples, so that is a key connection.
    
    Beyond that, if you'd like additional information, pointers, etc., feel 
    free to contact me directly.  I'm also associated with the Kripalu
    Center for yoga and holistic health based in Lenox, Mass.  (I think you
    may know this already....).
    
    Cindy

Pat,

	It has been my experience that liberal Christians may be found
in one of 4 categories of churches.  Briefly, they are:

	1.  Safe Haven
	--------------
	Into this category I would place UU's and many Quakers.  The
	churches in the "safe haven" category are more likely to encourage
	you to seek for yourself and to supply you with questions rather
	than to indoctrinate you with answers.

	2.  Pluralism
	-------------
	United Methodists, United Church of Christ, the so-called "mainline"
	churches.  These collectivities tend to embrace some basic tenets
	of the Christian faith, but allow room for personal understanding
	and revelation.

	3. Theologically Conservative
	-----------------------------
	Mennonites, some Roman Catholic, Metropolitan Community Church, many
	others.  While these churches are likely to be theologically
	conservative, a significant number would likely embrace a liberal
	posture on many issues.

	4.  The Forbidden Zone
	----------------------
	The so-called "fundamentalists" and a few others (Mormons, for example).
	Yes, even here there are liberal Christians.  But here they are few
	and far between.  Liberal thought or action in this category is
	practically never encouraged, supported or sanctioned.

Peace,
Richard

    re .2 (kind of "re"):
    
    Nancy,
    
    regarding:
    
    >Yeah, when I no longer took it literally, that bothered me a bit. 
    >But now I find it meaningful as it links me to centuries of Christians
    >gone before.  Centuries from now, *my* understanding should be
    >superceded by the growth of those who come after me.  But we are all part 
    >of one covenant community, just different links in the chain!
    
    One of the things I've found really super about the formation of the
    UCC was that during the very first Synod when the four mainline
    denominations came together, they stood and recited the "Statement of
    Faith" as one united and uniting body.  The interesting thing about
    this is that it was done prior to the existence of the UCC
    Constitution, the set of rules and purposes of the new formation.
    
    This was only able to be done thru faith that when Christ was declared
    to be the Head of the Church and thus the Head of the body of the UCC,
    all else was known to be possible.  This is to me an outstanding
    testimony that such a large and complex group with such diversity in
    the theological understandings of Christianity knew it was possible not
    to "compromise" their positions but that they could reconcile their
    beliefs thru the reconciliation of God unto Godself.
    
    And imagine a world that believed in peace and that could engage with
    others toward that end first without the need for claiming "rights" and
    "territory" and "possession."
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    I wanted to thank you all for your answers. They all provided me with
    something to think about.  I had been separated from all churches from
    College times until about five years ago when I began attending the UU
    church.  It took me three years to decide to become a member of the UU
    church and it took me those three to decide that the church was
    important to me.
    
    Today I find it very important to me to understand myself from a
    spiritual and theological perspective.  I am my Church's chair of the
    Adult Education Committee and it has been great developing a program
    for the church and as a by product getting to attend some really super
    programs.  I guess I also cherish the "Safe Haven" of the UU church
    right now.  I am fully encouraged to develop my own personal faith
    without the limitations of any dogma or doctrine.
    
    I realized as a result of one of the courses I took that  I was running
    away from the Christianity of my childhood and have been embracing what
    it is I was running from.   I was running from a fundamental
    interpretation of the Bible and the God as interpreted in that Bible. 
    It did come as a revalation that there are other interpretations of
    this book.
     
    In addition to staying actively involved in the UU church I think I
    will continue to explore other churches as well particularly those
    where I can find a significant body of religious liberals.
    
    I am finding this notes file very helpful in helping me define that
    personal theology.
    
    Pat

    Pat, I suspect that you share an experience that many refugees from
    fundamentalism have undergone.  Maybe sometimes people have to go to
    the other extreme for a while and work out their own theology, once
    they have escaped the dogmatic constraints in which they were raised. 
    In my case, I left the conservative Christianity of my upbringing when I
    was in my late teens, and had no interest in religion after that for
    many years.  Like you, I later realized that I *was* interested in
    religion, but could not accept the form of Christianity I knew from my
    childhood.  Having mistaken the conservative Christianity I had known
    with Christianity per se, I initially felt that I wanted to have
    nothing to with Christianity at all.  It was only after I was able to
    rediscover and reformulate my own theological views (in part thanks to
    my experience in the UU denomination) that I finally came to accommodate
    myself with my Christian background, and to see the faith in a more
    positive light.  
    
    -- Mike

This liberal Christian went conservative.  :-)

    Mike, 
    
    I never really thought of my childhood religion as fundamental before. 
    I did enjoy my church and found it a very accepting place.  I was a
    allowed to doubt as a child but I somehow learned to think of religious
    questions as an either/or.  A yes or no.  If I accepted the apostles
    creed, I was a Christian, if not I was an atheist.  For 18 years I
    considered myself an atheist.  I'm not sure that my beliefs have
    radically changed but Its been a long while since I have considered
    myself an atheist.
    
    I'm learning to marvel at the mysteries of life.  I feel a
    force greater than me playing a profound role in my life.  The UU
    church has encouraged me to give myself permission to doubt and even
    weave that doubt into my own personal theology.  "I am who I am".  If
    God could not articulate who she/he was, I certainly can relate to that
    mystery without giving it human  characteristics.
    
    I am finding this to be a wonderful journey to be on.
    
    Pat
    
    

    
    just my 2 cents for what it's worth...
    
    i'm not entirely comfortable with the labels..liberal and conservative
    as they have come to be applied.
    
    to my way of thinking a conservative Christian is one who follows the
    traditional forms of worship and traditional theology. for example,
    the liturgical churches, the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox and
    the Anglican communion and the Lutheran church. they are conservative
    in that they adher to the ways that Christians have worshiped for the
    last 2,000 years (reciting the Creed, singing the Mass, and holding
    to the sacraments..etc.)
    
    i think of the other Christian churches as being liberal in that they
    allow for the various other forms of worship and non-traditional
    theologies. for example, the fundamentalist movement of the last (and
    current century) which maintains a belief in Biblical inerrancy, a
    new doctrine..and which does not sing the Mass or follow any of the
    other traditions of the Church.
    
    i understand that the terms are generally used to refer to political
    beliefs and that perhaps it would be better for me to refer to these
    differences as traditional and non-traditional. still it always sounds
    strange to me when i hear what i consider very non-traditional people
    refer to themselves as "conservative" when to my way of thinking they
    are extremely radical and in no way maintaining the ancient ways of
    the Church.
    
    peter
         

    I think that we first label ourselves and then apply the "conservative"
    and "liberal" labels to those who are "right" and "left" of us on
    the spectrum.
    
    

Some may be interested in reading Note 409.30 in GRIM::RELIGION.  The
article examines a Christian organization which has identified Bush as
a "liberal"!

Much too long for cross-posting here, the following excerpts are simply
those paragraphs which caught my eye:


          At this gathering, I quickly learned, a denunciation of "the
      liberals" usually referred to George Bush, California Gov. Pete
      Wilson and the Republican National Committee.  "The far left"
      meant the Democratic Party.

			    ......................


          What does all this mean?  The Christian Coalition provides a
      militantly sectarian--only Christians of the "right" sort are
      welcome--political vehicle for Robertson and his allies.  It also
      provides a convenient, if unstable, umbrella group for a strange
      range of opinion.  It is home not only to strains of back-to-the-
      Bible social conservatism but also free enterprise (even
      libertarian) economics and a kind of nativist fascism.

			    ......................


          The Coalition is held together by agreement on a few issues,
      charismatic leaders like Robertson and Reed, an inclusive
      grassroots strategy and periodic denunciations of "The Evil One,"
      who, of course, is represented by the group's enemies, from "Teddy
      Kennedy" to George Bush.


(:-}>+-
Friar Richard

re Note 388.12 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Some may be interested in reading Note 409.30 in GRIM::RELIGION.  The
> article examines a Christian organization which has identified Bush as
> a "liberal"!
  
        Well, the whole point of Pat Buchanan's campaign against Bush
        was that Bush was too liberal.

        Bob

    Re .13

    Can I just interrupt and ask for clarification about something?
    
    What is so awful about being a Liberal? Here it's even a political party.
    Fairly inoffensive and middle-of-the-road, but not a bad thing. Why are
    the Liberals so anti-Christian to some people?

re Note 9.1252 by SUBURB::ODONNELLJ:

>     What is so awful about being a Liberal? Here it's even a political party.
>     Fairly inoffensive and middle-of-the-road, but not a bad thing. Why are
>     the Liberals so anti-Christian to some people?
  
        Mostly because, in the U.S., the major activist conservative
        religious groups have found that portraying "liberals" as the
        source of all contemporary evils has been relatively good for
        their public image and power (when allied with conservative
        political groups).

        It's almost always a good political move to pick a group or
        movement that can be portrayed as the source of society's
        problems.  Some of history's worst atrocities have started
        out that way.

        Bob

    .1255
    
    Amusing... 
    
    Julie,
    
    The liberal platform includes the sanction of abortion, the removal of
    God from everything in this country [USA, prayer in schools, In God we
    Trust off our coins and bills, etc.].
    
    It includes the sanctioning of same sex marriages...
    
    All of which is clearly anti-Christian.
    
    That is why.

    .1256 is part of the propaganda campaign that never says, but
    intimates, that one cannot be a liberal and a Christian at the
    same time.
    
    It is a lie.  It is a lie of such proportion that even the liars
    believe it.
    
    Richard
    

    .1259
    
    It is not a lie... it is a question of believing the Bible to be the
    inerrant Word of God and doing your best to uphold its principles. 
    It's statements such as yours that take ignorance to its fullest and
    most harmful potential, changing the Truth of Jesus Christ and His
    commandments into a lie.
    
    A person can technically be a Christian and uphold the liberalistic
    point of view... that does not make the view Christian.
    
    Nancy

    
    It is not a lie.  It is believing Jesus Christ to be the Word of God
    and upholding his principles.  It's statements such as yours that take
    ignorance to its fullest and most harmful potential, changing the Truth
    of Jesus Christ and His commandments into lies.
    
    A person can technically be a Christian and uphold a far Right
    point of view.  That does not make the view, nor the person, Christian.
    
    Richard

    .1261
    
    How does sanctioning abortion and same sex marriages promote
    Christianity???  Where do you find such behavior condoned in the Bible?
    
    

We don't need no steenking bible.

We imagined God, and we can re-imagine.

Sophia?  Or Sophism.

/john

    Thanks for your replies. It's rather different in this country, as I
    expect you can appreciate.
    For a start, the Liberals aren't left-wing here... 

>    How does sanctioning abortion and same sex marriages promote
>    Christianity???  Where do you find such behavior condoned in the Bible?

Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible at all.
    
Same-sex marriages are not mentioned in the Bible, though there appears
to be some evidence that the early church did solemnize such covenantal
dyadic relationships.

How does denouncing abortion and criticizing same-sex marriages promote
Christianity?

Incidentally, I do not promote abortion and I do recognize same-sex marriage.

Richard

    .1265
    
    1.  Why do you not promote abortion?
    
    2.  Same sex marriages is an abomination to God... Romans 1
    
    

    re. 9.1256 

    An astonishing display of ignorance of the liberal Christian and the US
    constitution. It is important to point out that the author of 9.1256
    has, in the past, eschewed and belittled "intellectual exegesis."
    Hardly the foundation for insightful sociopolitical commentary.

    Eric

    "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
    dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."

    					Sir William Beveridge

    re. 9.1263

    John, 

    So that I don't make any false assumptions, could you tell my whom you
    think is promoting the views you state in this note.

    Eric

The liberals at the "Re-Imagining" conference.

    What is this be rude to Nancy day? :-)
    
    Eric,
    
    Intellectual egesis on spiritual matters is fruitless imho. 
    Intellectual exegesis on non-spiritual matters can be qui revelatory.
    
    Nancy 

        I am taking the liberty of moving the recent discussion under
        the "Processing" topic (9.*) regarding "liberals" to this
        string.

        Bob

re Note 388.26 by SUBURB::ODONNELLJ:

>     Thanks for your replies. It's rather different in this country, as I
>     expect you can appreciate.
>     For a start, the Liberals aren't left-wing here... 
  
        Most liberals in the U.S. aren't "left-wing", either.

        Bob

    .33
    
    Right! %-}

re: Note 388.18 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    The liberal platform includes ... the removal of God from everything in 
>    this country [USA, prayer in schools, In God we Trust off our coins and 
>    bills, etc.].
    
Some people call this following the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Many people believe that personal, private prayer in school is okay, but
MANDATORY prayer in school is not. 

We've already discussed that the "In God We Trust" is a fairly recent 
invention, and again, some people believe it is a breakdown of the separation 
between church and state.

Your Milage May Vary,

Jim

	Nancy, where in Romans I does it say anything about same sex marriages?


Glen

>We've already discussed that the "In God We Trust" is a fairly recent 
>invention,

On coins about 130 years ago -- clearly believed to be our motto 182
years ago when the National Anthem was written -- not "fairly recent"
at all.

The country is less than 220 years old.

/john

    I am a liberal Christian.
    
    As a liberal Christian I believe that forced religioun is not religion
    at all.  It is meaningless to have a phrase "In God we trust on coins." 
    In fact it is hippocrital.  Materialism is perhaps the worst sin in
    Middle Class and Upper Class America.  I am a materialist.  I am as
    influenced by this sin as others.  I acknowledge that.  
    
    Putting In God we trust on Coins is similiar to Moses coming down from
    the mountain and finding the people had created the Golden Calf.
    
    I believe that no woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a
    Baby that she does not fully love and accept.  To force a women who
    does not want to give birth to continue a pregnancy and give birth is
    using that woman's body as property.  I also know that the decision
    that a woman makes to have an abortion is the most difficult decision
    that a woman makes.  
    
    What I would like to see is.
    
    1. Christianity affirm the beauty and sacredness of sex between
    committed partners.
    
    2.  Christianity affirm and promote safe sex.
    
    3.  Adequate access to birthcontrol for all women and men.
    
    4.  Men taking as much responsibility for birth control as women.
    
    5.  Proper, neutral counselling for every woman who is pregnant without
    wanting to be pregnant.
    
    6.  An affirmation of the right of every woman to make her own choice
    regarding her own  childbearing .
    
    I believe that fundementalist Christians worship the Bible and not the
    Living Word of God.  This allows fundementalist Christian an excuse to
    promote their conservative agenda.  The Bible when read literally and
    uncritically can be used to promote a rascist, "Chosen People", anti
    woman, anti gay agenda.  To make this message the central message of
    one's faith is an outrage to the richness that is the Bible and is in
    fact unbiblical.  Biblical Faith is nowhere defined as faith in a book
    but Faith in a living God that writes God's word on one's heart.  Life
    in Christ is defined as a real physical, spiritual attachment within
    the body of Christ.  A person in Christ knows what is expected of
    him/her and does it.   
    
    The most important message in the Gospel is to love God with all one's
    heart soul and mind and to love one's neigbors as themselves.
    
    As a liberal Christian my emphasis is in living in Christ, loving God
    and others, opening my heart to the word of God written their, and
    inviting Goddess/God into every aspect of my life, moment by moment.
    
    Without even knowing me, fundementalist Christians are offended that I
    call myself a Christian.  That is outrageous.
    
    Patricia
    

Abortion cannot be reconciled with "love thy neighbor as thyself."

It is impossible to affirm that anyone has the right to terminate a
neighbor's life, a human life, a child in the womb.

Our bodies do not belong to ourselves -- they belong to God.  When they
are occupied with the task of sharing in God's creative power, we may
not destroy that which he has created.

Those who consider themselves Christians must not abort their babies;
those who consider their pregnancy difficult must throw themselves at
the feet of the cross (this includes the father of the child) for
strength to deal with the responsibility God has given them.

Those who have had abortions (including the men who have talked women
into having them) must repent and ask for forgiveness.

/john

    John,
    
    I acknowledge that you and I have differing opinions regarding
    abortion!  I support your right to your own opinion.
    
                                     Patricia

>On coins about 130 years ago -- clearly believed to be our motto 182
>years ago when the National Anthem was written -- not "fairly recent"
>at all.

Okay, however that is irrelevant to my point, the Constitution and Bill of 
Rights still predates the national anthem.

Peace,

Jim

p.s.

This was note 388.38, I wanted to be a bit clearer.

What do you think Our Lord's opinion is about killing babies?

    > What do you think Our Lord's opinion is about killing babies?

    	Old Testament or New? 

    Eric

>Old or New

It was clear in the Old Testament that the People of God were not to
kill their babies.  Christians today must also not kill their babies.

It was also clear that those babies killed in the Old Testament were
killed for the transgressions of their parents for rejecting God.
This is consistent with the principle that when a nation turns away
from God, it suffers, and particularly the weakest members of that
nation or society suffer the most.

The New Testament offers membership in the People of God to all nations,
to everyone who will follow God.  Christians cannot support the killing
of babies.

/john

    So the Lord's opinion would be that it's OK to kill the babies... of a
    Godless nation?
    
    Eric

Prior to the coming of Christ, it was nation against nation.  The People
of Israel had a special mission, to prepare for the birth of a Saviour.

The Saviour has now arrived to call all nations back to himself.

All the earth belongs to him and is to become his people.

/john

	John, if it ain't in the NT, why do gentiles have to follow it? I
thought we were only to follow the 10 +2 commandments?

>    1.  Why do you not promote abortion?

If I perceived this was a question genuinely asked, I would answer it.
    
>    2.  Same sex marriages is an abomination to God... Romans 1

I've read Romans.  You're twisting Scripture to fit your agenda.
    
Richard

>    What is this be rude to Nancy day? :-)

Dish it out, but expect pleasantries in return.

    .50
    
    Excuse me... this reminds me of the old argument about what came first
    the chicken or the egg?
    
    

    It is a genuine question.... it's the only kind I ask.
    
    It seems that instead of trying to have a conversation with me and come
    to an understanding, you would rather continue in antagonism... this is
    my perception.

>   this is
>   my perception.

I know it is.

Richard

re .48

Babble babble?

/john

    It seems that instead of trying to have a conversation with me and come
    to an understanding, you would rather continue in antagonism... this is
    my perception.
    
    How sad that this statement above has to be correct.  Richard,
    regardless of our opposite ends, I do love and care for you.  May your
    life be filled with richness, peace, love and joy.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

	Nancy, you still haven't shown how Romans I fits into your analogy. Why
is that?


Glen

    .56
    
    Glen,
    
    If homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible, homosexual marriage is
    not permitted... 
    
    Again, I don't wish to go round robin over this... simply accept this
    is what the Bible says.  This scripture was posted by Mike Heiser I
    believe in another topic.. but am not completely sure.  If you wish me
    to post it  in here so that it can speak for itself, let me know.
    
    Nancy

    .57
    
    oops I forgot the little IMPOV on the previous message. :-)
    
    Please forgive me.

| <<< Note 388.57 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| If homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible, homosexual marriage is
| not permitted...

	I suppose if Romans I was about homosexuals then you might have a
point.

| Again, I don't wish to go round robin over this... simply accept this is what 
| the Bible says.  

	I do NOT believe this is what the Bible says Nancy and I will NOT
accept what I do not believe JUST because you told me to. It don't work that
way Nancy.

| If you wish me to post it in here so that it can speak for itself, let me 
| know.

	Go for it. Oh... if you would, put the whole thing in and not just a
one liner? It makes it easier to see what it is being talked about. And maybe
in note 91 would be a better place to talk about it.


Glen

    .59
    
    See .58
    
    and I do believe it is already posted in 91.*
    
    

>    How sad that this statement above has to be correct.

It is only correct in that it is your perception.

>    Richard,
>    regardless of our opposite ends, I do love and care for you.

It's mutual, I'm sure.

>    May your
>    life be filled with richness, peace, love and joy.

It is.

Richard

    Thanks Richard for responding ... you can call it just *my* perception
    if you like, if that absolves you in some way of contributing to very
    antagonistic banter [for which I take 1/2 the credit].
    
    And while mutually we may agree to love and care for each other in
    words, I, for one, would like to see more demonstration of said love
    and care.  
    
    I know that you may have hard time believing that this is a genuine
    desire... I can only try my best to demonstrate it myself regardless of
    your responses and/or reactions.
    
    Sincerely,
    In His Love,
    Nancy

re Note 936.40 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     As I stated in the past, I believe we all have the choice to do as we
>     deem fit.  My bone of contention is as follows.
>     
>     1. Propogandizing gayness as an acceptable lifestyle, in our schools,
>        workplaces, etc.  This subject is morally relative and its 
>        acceptance is based on individual mores.  Subjecting my children to 
>        the teachings of liberal thought put forth by our national
>        leadership is violating my space as an individual and a parent.
  
        Jack,

        Would it be OK to subject children to the teachings of
        *conservative* thought put forth by a conservative national
        leadership?  Would that violate the rights of liberal
        parents?

        Bob