Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    While I have little truck with outfits like NOW and others of similar
    political bent, there are still many people out here who will have
    something to say about this "battle to regain the soul of America."
    
    In my opinion, a secular American body politic is the best way to
    ensure the rights of all.
    
    Mike

Excepted from an article in the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1992, by
Barry M. Horstman:

Christian Activists Using "Stealth" Tactics

	Conservative Christian activists, melding the religious zeal with
political savvy, have become a potent force in Southern California politics,
winning stunning victories that have established the so-called "San Diego
model" as a harbinger of their growing clout...Many of the victories come
via "stealth campaigns" in which Christian candidates quietly promote
themselves through extensive church networks...which are all but invisible
to the public.  Some fundamentalist candidates fail to attend most or all
public forums...while others typically downplay the depth of their religious
convictions when they are before non-church audiences.

	"That's just good strategy," said Ralph Reed, executive director of
the Virginia-based Christian Coalition, an out growth of Pat Robertson's
1988 presidential campaign, which has offered tactical guidance to the
San Diegans.  "It's like guerilla warfare," Reed said.  "If you reveal your
location, all it does is allow you opponent to improve his artillery bearings.
It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night."

	Fundamentalists have voted against school breakfasts and self-esteem
programs on the grounds that they undermine parental authority, have sought
to prevent students from being exposed to books and plays that they perceive
as promoting immorality, and have used their posts to magnify their impassioned
denunciations of homosexuality and abortion rights.

	Critics express caustic disdain for the religious right's conservative
social agenda and its tactics - notably, the stealth-like campaigns and
harsh character attacks on opponents that are disavowed after the damage
is done.

	The Christian Coalition conducts periodic 14-hour weekend training
sessions for conservative candidates and activists, and also has launched
an innovative new "in-pew" voter registration program.

    
    I have seen these tactics work.  And I am very excited about the
    potential for Bible-believing Christian Americans to be voted into
    office.  Of course the results of a significant influx of Godly men and
    women is what really excites me.  Honesty, integrity, wisdom and
    accountability before God for their actions - this is exactly the
    traits our leaders should possess.  It can do nothing but improve the
    lives of all Americans.
    
    jeff

    I have no problem with responsible moral Christian people being in
    public service.
    
    Just so they don't start doing things like re-introducing school
    prayer, injecting Christian dogma into the classroom, censoring our
    libraries, or inhibiting our rights to privacy and speech, and so on.
    
    Mike

    I, like Mike, have no problem with responsible moral Christian people
    being in public service. In fact, I will go further and say that I
    enourage people to act on their faith and to run for office. I had and have
    great admiration for Jimmy Carter, for example, and wish there were more 
    people like him in government.  However,it is my understanding that some of
    the agenda of the religous right includes finding ways to get women out of
    the work place and limit their access to education, as well as making it 
    difficult or impossible to buy contraceptives. No matter what the faith of
    the person involved I would fight someone who was running for office under
    that platform with all the effort I could. Bonnie

    
    Hi Bonnie,
    
    I am as familiar with the "religious right" as anyone can be (I
    think- people don't include skinheads and Aryan Nation types in the
    term "religious right" do they?). 
    I have heard nary one word concerning ways to get women out of
    the work place or limiting their access to education.  In fact, this
    seems so far out that it can only be propaganda.  Maybe its a spin on
    the beliefs Bible-believing Christians hold concerning the roles of men
    and women in marriage.
    
    jeff

    
    Bonnie,
    
    Again, I know no Protestant Bible-believing Christians who hold the
    view you mention concerning contraceptives.  Of course promoting the
    use of such, giving them away in public schools and  having the
    taxpayer pay for it well, that's clearly opposite the views of
    potential Bible-believing Christian elected officials.
    
    jeff

    Hi Mike,
    
    As much as I know that you dislike the idea, your and many others
    assumptions and beliefs concerning "separation of church and state" and
    its intent is wrong.  Its much more honest to know the facts about our
    founders' intent and then to reject them as outdated or inadequate than
    it is to say they meant what they did not mean.  It is clear that our
    forefathers were very religious Christian men who believed that the
    Christian religion was fundamental to our purpose for existing and for
    prospering.  I would say they are 100% accurate just by looking at the
    data.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I recently finished reading Suzan Faludi's book Backlash, and she
    very clearly documents statements by members of the religous right
    that make it clear that one goal of at least some people is to
    'return women to the home'. and I beg to differ with you on the
    religion of the men that founded the United States. Many of them
    were not strictly Christians, Jefferson and Franklin are two 
    obvious examples.
    
    Bonnie

Yes, the founding father were religious, landing-owning white males, all.

Many were deists.  Some were Unitarians, like Thomas Jefferson, who is
the quintessential "pick and choose" religionist.  Jefferson discarded the
parts of the Bible he objected to and created what is known as the Jefferson
Bible.

Doesn't sound to me like the kind of company most fundamentalists would keep.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .8

    Hello Jeff,

    I understand what you are saying, I think.  However, the legal doctrine
    of separation between church and state comes from no less a founding
    father than Thomas Jefferson.  

    You see, what I am concerned about is that, while moral, ethical, and
    righteous political leaders are desperately needed in this country, 
    and being a Christian is not a disqualification in that regard, we must
    all understand that a political leader works for his/her entire
    constituency, not just his/her Christian constituency.  As such, those
    values that are solely Christian in nature (as opposed to more
    universal moral values) have no place in the public sector, or in
    making public policy.  To do otherwise is to deny the franchise of
    non-Christians.

    For example, a common Conservative Christian complaint is the lack of
    prayer in public schools.  As a parent, I can assure you that I had no
    interest in letting my children be exposed to religious beliefs that
    are seriously inimical to my own.  I expect the public school
    environment to be as completely neutral as possible in regards to
    religious practice or preferment, without sacrificing good scholarship.  

    As an aside, there are many Conservative Christians who would like to
    see artificial birth banned again.  Randall Terry is one who comes       
    immediately to mind.

    Mike                

	Mike, a VERY good note. It does tell it like it is.



Glen

    The so-called "Religious Right" hasn't adopted the tactics of ACT-UP
    and Queer Nation.  Do you want that to be the model of political
    activism?

    The "Religious Right" wants to win elections.  How's about that for a
    threat to democracy?

    As for the religion of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc., I thought the
    operating principle of CP was an inclusive definition of Christianity.

    Jesse Jackson is an ordained Christian minister.  James Garfield
    (R-20th president) was an ordained minister.  William Bryan (D), a
    religious authority, ran for president three times.

    There's a difference between a theocracy and a democracy of believe who
    have Christ as the center of their lives.

    Oh, Pat.  You do carry on so. 
    
    Mike

    The legal doctrine is religious freedom and non-establishment of a
    religion.  It is "no less" and no more than that.
    
    The vague and over-used phrase "separation of Church and State" has
    quite a different meaning when used by the ACLU today from when it was
    used by Jefferson.
    
    There is no "separation of Church and State" when it comes to advocacy
    of public policy that supports Christian morality.  The "public
    square", and all political dialog is free to all.
    
    What a country it's become when it's an act of courage to end a
    patriotic public school assembly  with "God Bless America" or "America
    the Beautiful".
    
    Pat Sweeney
                                                     

Brother Patrick,

	I've no objection to anyone becoming involved with politics.
In fact, I encourage it.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .15
    
    Pat, I don't have much problem with this reply.  However, as I
    indicated earlier, I would expect a public official to remember the
    difference between moral values that are common to the Christian and
    non-Christian experience, and moral values that are exclusively
    Christian, and to act in such a way that any public policy he/she
    creates reflects the former and not the latter.
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    I challenge you (nicely) to name one "moral, ethical, righteous leader" 
    today that does not hold to Christian belief.
    
    Again, there were many more men involved in the founding of our country
    than Thomas Jefferson.  I also believe that regardless of Jefferson's
    tilt toward Deism that he did not reject, but wholly embraced, most, if
    not all, Christian Biblical tenets concerning morality.
    
    It is also important in my opinion for us to be honest concerning the
    issue of "legislating morality".  Anyone passing laws is legislating
    morality of some sort.  I prefer Christian morality and not only do I
    prefer it but I believe that it is far superior to any other morality
    going today.  Again, look at the secularization of our society and the
    results.  
    
    Bible-based Christianity is about, first, salvation of the soul and then
    sanctification of the person into a Christ-like image.  The emphasis is
    on personal holiness.  I believe that the Bible-believing Christian in
    public office has and is developing the characteristics of honesty, 
    integrity and the other virtues described in the Bible (fruits of the
    Spirit).  This is not the type of person that is interested in lording
    their beliefs on others (constituents) but in bringing their personal 
    qualities to bear on government activities.  Of course there are
    divisive social issues (but how many really?) that must be addressed. 
    And the Christian, since elected, will use Christian belief to make
    decisions on how s/he should vote.  And this will often be against the
    wishes of some of the constituency.  If Christians run for office as
    Christians and are elected they have been elected to use their
    influence in the system.  This is surely appropriate.
    
    jeff_who's_sorry_for_rambling
     

    RE: .3 Jeff
    
    
    >I have seen these tactics work.  
    >Honesty, integrity, wisdom and
    >accountability before God for their actions - this is exactly the
    >traits our leaders should possess.  
    
    This really confuses me.  The tactics as described in the article
    don't sound honest and full of integrity to me.
    
    Is it ok for the ends to justify the means?
    
    Also, there are many non-fundamentalists who are honest, wise,
    accountable to God and have integrity.
    
    Carole

    RE.18


     Jeff:

            This is a different Mike, but I'll take up your challenge.

             And the answer is.......
    

             The Dali Lama


                                                               Mike

    re: .18  (Jeff)

    Let's see now, I just love a challenge.  How about Shimon Perez?  He is
    as good and moral a leader as most, and quite a bit better than the
    rest, and he assuredly is not a Christian.  I have risen to your
    challenge, and have won! :)  

    In any case, your challenge is sort of insulting to the many
    non-Christian civil and religious leaders in the world who are as
    moral, ethical, and righteous as any American Fundamentalist leader you
    care to name.  Although I'm willing to accept an explanation that you
    did not mean it that way.  

    As regards your opinion as to which moral values are the best for this
    country, you are certainly entitled to hold them.  However, for all
    that you believe in them so strongly, that does not make them the
    be-all-to-end-all, morality-wise.  I simply do not believe that
    Christianity offers the final or best system of morality available on
    this planet.  I know you don't believe me, but then that is my opinion,
    and surely I have as much right to mine as you do to yours.  Not only
    that, but mine is as completely as valid as yours, as well.
                                                    
    In my experience, Fundamentalist (which is what I assume you mean by
    the term "Bible-believing") Christians are the people most likely  to
    do just what you say they won't, and that is "lording their beliefs on
    others."  (A revealing turn of phrase, by the way.)  How can I say such
    a thing?  Well, it is because those people believe so strongly in the
    Bible, and are absolutely convinced they are walking in the path of the
    Lord, that they can hardly do otherwise.  One only has to look at that
    town in South Carolina (or is it North) wherein some Christian
    preachers have taken on themselves to preach on the city streets as
    loudly as they can, regardless of the feelings of the people around
    them, because they believe they were called on to do so by God.  Which
    is the ultimate justification for Fundamentalists to do whatever they
    please.  

    Now, if you will read an entry a few replies ago (reply .2, to be
    specific), it was a news report, I believe, that spelled out the
    strategy that some Christian political candidates are using.  That is,
    they are keeping their religious affiliation and motivations a secret
    so that they will not scare away any voters who are not Christians. 
    Not that such tactics aren't in the grand American electioneering
    tradition, but don't you think that a Bible-believing Christian who
    wants to be completely moral, ethical, and righteous, ought to seek
    office from a higher moral plane?  That is if they really want to gain
    the necessary moral authority to convince the public of their beliefs?

    Now please, Jeff, I don't have any particular quarrel with
    Fundamentalist Christians, nor do I wish to prevent them from
    practicing their faith.  However, I do not wish to be made to follow
    them on their chosen path through life, nor do I wish to have my
    children be made to do so either.  And under our system of government,
    that is my God-given right.

    Mike
              

    re: .20
    
    Good Choice!

    
    More later on this subject...work is calling.  Mike(s) can you name one 
    in this country? 
    
    jeff

    Sure, pick most any good leader in the American Jewish, Islamic, and
    Buddhist communities, for starters.  While I am unaware that there is
    an atheist "community", people who claim no religious affiliation are
    every bit as capable of being moral, ethical, and righteous as anyone
    else.   I am not a member of any of those communities, nor do I pay
    much attention to the religious affiliation of our national leaders, so
    at short notice, I am unable to name names.  But you seem to be trying
    to tell me that only Christians can be moral, and if so, you are quite
    wrong.  More than that, such an assumption is not at all edifying. 
    
    Mike
                                                                       

Note 497.18

>    Again, there were many more men involved in the founding of our country
>    than Thomas Jefferson.

Brother Jeff,

	Here's an opportunity for you to educate me.  How many fundamentalists
were there among the founding fathers?  Who were they and what were their
affiliations?

Peace,
Richard

    
    .-1 Richard
    
    What do you mean by fundamentalist?  It is only in the modern era that
    such disagreement concerning the moral authority of the Scriptures has
    arisen.
    
    jeff 

Insight on the first amendment from one closer to the source:

Joseph Story (1779-1845), Associate Justice of the United States Supreme
Court.

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to 
advance, Mahomedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity;
but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national
ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive
patronage of the national government.  It thus cut off the means of religious
persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the
rights of conscience in matters of religion which had been trampled upon almost
from the days of the Apostles to the present age...."
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first
amendment to it...the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was
that *Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State*, so far as
was not incompatible with the previous rights of conscience and the freedom
of religious worship.  *An attempt to level all religions and to make it a 
matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created
universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation*".

*emphasis mine*


jeff

    Yes, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that was
    undoubtedly true.  That is, there would have been "...universal
    disapprobation, if not universal indignation." had the state ever
    considered leveling the playing field for the various religions.  In
    any case, though, it seems obvious that this quote attributed to Judge
    Story was not addressing a point of law, but rather he was recognizing
    the state of the body politic in existence at the time.  In other
    words, he was making a political judgment.

    However, some 200 hundred years have passed, and there is every reason
    to believe that today's body politic in America would view any attempts
    to return to those halcyon days of yesteryear in which Protestant
    Christianity received such "encouragement" from the state will be met
    with something other than universal approbation, or nothing even close
    to it.  Indeed, I would expect the sort of outcry that the good judge
    predicted, but for quite the opposite reason.  
                                              
    Mike

    Hi Mike,
    
    The point I was hoping to make was in response to comments concerning
    the intent, mood, beliefs and so on of early U.S.A.  
    
    I agree that times have changed.  I'm not so sure (as you seem to be)
    that a signficant majority of Americans are opposed to legistlated
    morality based upon Scriptural authority.  I see the clamor and disgust
    with our amoral and immoral politicians and institutions as a clear
    sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo.  The qualities of a
    Christian who acts on his faith in Jesus Christ according to the Bible
    are exactly the qualities that both made our country great and could make 
    it great again.  It does imply distasteful change for some though.
    
    jeff
    
    
    
    

    re: .29
    
    I am reasonably certain that I am right, but I don't insist on it.
     :)  Only time will tell, I guess.
    
    I say that because, while I know there are millions of people in the
    United States who call themselves Christians, yet I don't think they
    are willing to let the Bible replace the Constitution.  Which I think
    is what you are advocating. 
    
    Mike
                              

Re:  .30

Mike,

What Jeff is talking about is a far cry (as I hear it)
from the Bible replacing the Constitution.  In fact, there
are such groups around (several in Texas, I believe).
Perhaps it's just that looking from the outside in, you
don't see all the divisions.  Looking from within, I see
vast differences between those who would replace the
Constitution with the Bible (something that, in my opinion,
would be a dreadful mistake) with Christians representing
their God-given values through a democracy (something that,
in my opinion, is our God-given responsibility which,
unfortunately, we have not been nearly as successful as
doing as we should have been).  The two are *miles* apart,
as I see it.

Collis

    
    .-1 Mike,
    
    Absolutely not!  I am in no way advocating that the Bible replace the
    Constitution!  Is this propaganda?  We do not need to replace the
    Constitution for its principles are based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. 
    It's the way it is being interpreted today that is the problem - 
    the mere notion that Christians and Bible-based thought should be
    excluded from public life is but one excellent example.
    
    jeff
    

    Hi guys.  It rather looks like we are in agreement, then.  You don't
    want to replace the Constitution with the Bible, and neither do I.  Nor
    do I want to exclude Christians or Bible-based thought from public life
    (although public policy is quite a different thing.)  I am not
    advocating hanging up a "Christians need not apply here" sign at the
    polling booth.  However, if we are going to allow Christian Bible-based
    thought in public life, may I assume that you will have no problem with
    allowing Jewish-based thought, or Buddhist-based thought, or
    Islamic-based, or atheist-based thought in public life either? 

    Mike

    
    Well good Mike.  It seems that we agree somewhat about some important
    things.  However, we still differ on what moral authority should dominate
    our country.  I prefer that our Christian heritage be revitalized
    through Christians (or even non-Christians) holding public office and
    enacting legislation that reflects Biblical morality. I prefer that
    Christianity be given preferential treatment by the state as long as 
    freedom of conscience and religion be maintained.  I believe that our
    institutions should reflect our Christian heritage.  This will lead
    inevitably to a rejection of "atheist-based thought" and will prevent
    such thought from being institutionalized, for example.
    
    jeff

Re:  497.33

  >However, if we are going to allow Christian Bible-based thought in 
  >public life, may I assume that you will have no problem with allowing 
  >Jewish-based thought, or Buddhist-based thought, or Islamic-based, or 
  >atheist-based thought in public life either? 

Don't forget humanistic.

Hmmm.  I thought it was there already.  Or is there something I've
missed?

Collis

Jeff .26,

	Hmmm.  Let me rephrase the question.  How many of the founding
fathers would you say had a religious perspective congruent with say
Jerry Falwell?

	You see, I'm only familiar with the religious perspectives of
Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine.  It was my understanding that no small
percentage of the founding fathers were at the moderate to liberal end of
the scale in religious matters.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .34
    
    Okay, we seem to be close enough to let it go for now.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Mike

    re: .35
    
    Never having had anything to do with secular humanism ( I assume that
    is what you were referring to) I don't know enough to judge whether or
    not such philosphies ought to be considered in making public policy.  
    
    Well, that statement isn't quite true.  I know enough about secular
    humanism to know that conservative Christians abhor much of anything to
    do with it.
    
    Mike

>It was my understanding that no small percentage of the founding fathers
>were at the moderate to liberal end of the scale in religious matters.

Two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were
Anglicans.

    .39  That's what I was looking for.  Thanks, John!
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    The last ten or so replies miss the point that Pat Robertson has been
    making:

    The state _has_ imposed a religion in schools. It is based on
    humanistic values.

    Humanism is a little bit like Japanese Mini-vans.  When the Japanese
    wanted a lower tariff, they were passenger cars, when the Japanese
    wanted lower safety standards to apply, they were light trucks.

    When it comes to the religious freedom clause of the first amendment,
    humanism is a religion.

    When it comes to the establishment clause of the first amendment,
    humanism is not a religion.

    Schools teach that all people are equal, because the state, represented
    in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence says they are.
    Schools are prohibited from examining one word, namely "Creator" which 
    appears in the Declaration.  Schools teach that the planet must be
    respected because the Earth is "Our Mother".

    Schools with such humanistic philosophies drive a wedge in between
    children and parents who want the values of their children to be
    Christ-centered.

    Patrick .41,
    
    > Schools teach that the planet must be respected because the Earth is
    "Our Mother." <
    
    There have been _many_ Christ-centered theologians over the centuries 
    who, with deep affection, refered to the Earth as "Our Mother:"  
    St Francis of Assisi, Hildegard of Bingen, Teilhard de Chardin, and 
    Matthew Fox (forgive spelling please) are four that readily come to mind. 
         
    Caring for and respecting the earth, metaphorically, as "Our Mother"
    is for many people an acknowledgement and honoring of _God_ and God's 
    Creative Power as it is reflected through Nature.  There's nothing
    "humanistic" about it. 
    
    Karen

What is humanistic is extolling the earth as our mother while denying
the creator as our father.

    Actually in the Christian faith there are two allegorical "Mothers" of
    far greater precedence and more frequent mention in Christian writing:

    The Church as Our Mother and the Bride of Christ.

    Mary the Mother of Jesus as Mother of All Children, the second Eve.

    The idea that the Earth is a Mother and denying the Creator is either
    an old paganism or a New Age assertion.

    Oh Patrick and John, you two DO carry on so.
    
    I'm glad you're both having so much fun here.
    
    Karen

    re: .41
    
    Pat, humanism is not a religion.  Anyway, those parents who have
    special needs for their children's education have three options:
    
    1. Send them to a private school.
    
    2. Teach them at home.
    
    3. Put up with what is taught.
    
    You see, once you let our public schools teach uniquely Christian
    ideas, you must allow them to teach other religious ideas as well.
    
    I know you don't believe that Christianity is equivalent to Islam, for
    instance.  But from an outside perspective, it most certainly is.
    
    Mike 

    Don't argue with me, argue with the Supreme Court. They gave
    recognition to secular humanism in a decision called "Torasco" and
    several since then.
    
    You just don't get it, Mike.  Schools should stay out of the business
    of teaching humanism.  I don't want schools to teach Christianity
    either.
           

    Yes, I'm familiar with that.  In a generally inconsequential footnote
    to the decision, someone said simply that "secular humanism is a
    religion" or words to that effect.  Hardly a definitive statement, if
    you ask me.  
    
    Now, if you were to say secular humanism is a philosophical system, I
    might agree. 
    
    Mike

    .42 Karen,
    
    	What you've said is not to be taken lightly.  Indeed, Francis of
    Assisi referred to the Sun and the Moon as his brother and sister.
    Even water and fire shared such a kinship with this mystic saint.
    
    	Were he alive today, Giovanni Bernardone (aka St. Francis) would
    probably be labeled a New Ager for such talk.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I believe I know what the difference is between a philosophical system
    and a religion, but more importantly the Supreme Court knows and has
    called humanism a religion.

    Humanism competes for the hearts and minds of America and theistic
    religions do, and the groups which espouse are more than happy to claim
    full religious status when it is to their advantage.

    Also see topic 504, "Humanism / Humanists"
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Well, Richard .49,
    
    Apparently some in this file would brand Saint Francis a "humanist," 
    or even a heretic for such talk.  
    
    How anyone would see Christian theology as needing to exclude such a 
    kinship approach to God's Creation, that it somehow runs counter 
    to Christian theology is, admittedly, well beyond my comprehension.  
    
    Karen                    

    Saint Francis of Assisi is honored throughout the world as a great
    Roman Catholic who founded an order of priests and religious brothers
    and sisters.  He was faithful and held fast to his Catholic faith.
    
    In LYCEUM::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY  I've added the keyword FRANCISCAN to notes
    which discuss him and the order he founded.

    re: .50
    
    Very well, Pat.  The point concerning the difference between a
    "religion" and a philosophical system as applies to secular humanism is
    not of sufficient importance to me to enter into a debate. 
    
    However, your statement about competition "...for the hearts and minds
    of America..." is very revealing.  Are the two systems of thought that
    diametrically opposite?  Is there no way to achieve some sort working
    relationship?  Is Christianity, as you understand it, so mistrusting of 
    the need that people have to feel good about themselves? 
                                                 
    Mike

Following is from George Washington's "Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of
Congress," April 30, 1789.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public
summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to
omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty
Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations
and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction
may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United
States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes....
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which
conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every
step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation
seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and, in
the government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many
distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared
with the means by which most governments have been established without some
return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future 
blessings which the past seem to presage.... We ought to be no less
persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a
nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven
itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty
and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered
as deeply, perhaps fully, staked on the experiment...."

Now, what conflicts do you see between Washington's words and those of our
day who say Christianity should not be mixed with civil affairs?

jeff

    Unless you consider that George Washington is a divinely inspired
    prophet speaking to us directly from the mind of God, I would say that
    he made a nice political speech that played well to the body politic as
    it was constituted at that time.
    
    But, to answer your question, I see no conflicts between what
    Washington said and the desireability of a secular form of government.
    Nowhere did he suggest that the government should prefer a Christian
    basis.  He did opine that the people should all be grateful to God, as
    he felt that Divine Providence was responsible for the successful
    process to date.  Unless you think that the only valid form of
    "...eternal rules of order and right..." are the ones professed by
    Christianity.  I'm here to say that this is not true.  
                  
    Anyway, we cannot go back in time.  All we can do is go forward. 
    
    Mike

    Mike, you just don't get it.  George Washington isn't participating in
    this conference and for you to call it a "nice political speech" is
    just a cheap shot and a code word for insincere.

    I believe that Washington was sincere, and did ask the blessings of God
    upon the United States.  The United States was formed on the principles
    that the right to govern people originates in the people who do not
    have people-given rights but God-given rights.  For truly secular
    governments we have only the examples of Nazi Germany and the Communist
    Soviet Union and China. 

    We don't have religious tests in our Constitution.  The government is
    prevented from establishing a state religion.

    What we have is religious freedom, and people holding to Christian
    views such as the last three presidents explicitly are part of the
    political dialog.  People advancing Christian values will not be
    silenced in debates on public policy.

    Conservative politics and cultural conservativism are the "forward"
    direction in any case.  The youth of America hold more conservative
    views that similar aged groups ten and twenty years ago.

| <<< Note 497.57 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Will I make it to my 18th Anniversary?" >>>



| Conservative politics and cultural conservativism are the "forward"
| direction in any case.  The youth of America hold more conservative
| views that similar aged groups ten and twenty years ago.

	Pat, was there a study that you were referring to when you say that
todays youth is more conservative?



Glen

    
    Mike,
    
    You missed the point (and slapped Washington in the face at the same
    time).  The point is that American government and Chrisitanity are
    intertwined - a reflection of each other, so to speak.  It is clear
    from endless documentation that our form of government is based upon
    nothing else but the Bible - God's Word.  So many of our problems today
    are directly tied to our rejection of God's Word and the adoption of
    unrighteousness as the law of the land.  Chrisitians in public office
    will make a significant and positive impact on all Americans because of
    their understanding of God's Word and God's intent for a nation.
    
    To your relief Mike I'm not sure that Christians shall get the chance
    to act on their beliefs.  But I'm sure praying and working on it to the
    extent that I can.
    
    jeff

    When two people tell me I missed the point and slap an icon of
    Americanism in the face in the process, I guess I must be wrong.
    But I don't think so.   I do know that I am not trying to prevent
    anyone from practicing their religious faith, or even to speak out on
    their beliefs.  But it does seem to bother you both when someone speaks
    out in opposition to your ideals.  I am sorry if that is true, but not
    too much beyond the requirements of common courtesy.
    
    Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are simply speaking from
    completely different frames of reference, and therefore are not able to
    effectively communicate.  Based on that thought, I will stop trying, at
    least for now. 
    
    Incidentally, it may interest you to know that I am quite a
    conservative person, politically speaking.  However, I am not a
    subscriber to the Conservative ideology that you two guys seem to
    represent so well.  Not that there is anything wrong with that,
    especially.
    
    Mike
                 

    
    Mike,
    
    The truth is what I'm after.  My frustration is with the system of thinking
    that you seem to represent.  If you respond with a document that shows
    the exact opposite or an even remotely different supposition than the
    ones I have posted then I appreciate that.  But the predictable cynicism
    which serves to keep you from accepting any changes in your beliefs -
    even in the presence of reasonable evidence - this is what bothers me.
    
    It is frustrating to be in a "Christian Perspective" conference where
    we should share Christ yet be ineffective, and uninterested even, in 
    honestly pursuing truth and the result of finding truth - freedom.
    
    Aside from challenging my patience and debating skills (which are both
    sorely lacking) I too can see no need for further "discussion" at the
    moment.  
    
    jeff
    

Lets take a look at some of Jefferson's own words on religious freedom:

Whereas Almighty God has created the mind free, so that all attempts to
influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations,
tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure
from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of
body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was
in His almighty power to do; ...

Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to
frequent of support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,
nor shall be inforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods,
not shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief;
but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their
opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish,
enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

-----

Thus we see that in Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom,
Almighty God is strongly invoked!

    RE: .57  Mr. Sweeney
    
    			   Do opinions different from your's ALWAYS have to
    solicit the kind of verbal attack as your first paragraph in .57?  
    
    
    Dave 

Christian colonization of the various colonies:

The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth established a form of govt. that has come
to be named the Mayflower Compact. B.F.Morris in his monumental
work, THE CHRISTIAN LIFE AND CHARACTER OF THE CIVIL INSTITUIONS OF THE 
UNITED STATES (1863), writes, "The form of govt. was instituted in the cabin
of the Mayflower, before they landed on Plymouth Rock, and signed and ratified
under the solemnity of prayer and the most sacred sanctions of the Christian
religion: 'In the name of God, Amen.  We whose names are underwritten,...having
undertaken [this task], for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian
faith...'"  "This Constitution invokes a religious sanction and the authority
of God on their civil obligations; for it was no doctrine of the Puritans
that civil obedience is a mere matter of expediency."

The Mayflower Compact, from William Bradford's HISTORY OF PLYMOUTH PLANTATION:

"In the name of God, Amen.  We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal
subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God, of 
Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having
undertaken *for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith*, and
the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in
the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually
in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together
into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and
furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitue
and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and
offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for
the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and
obedience.  In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape
Cod the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign lord King James
of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty-
fourth.  Anno Domini, 1620."

* emphasis mine *

What is the first reason for their voyage?


jeff

    Re: .79
    
    There reason for the trip was to find a place to practice their form
    of religion. Simple enough.
    
    Marc H.

    Indeed, the pilgrims were quite an intensive lot in the way they
    practiced their religion.  This in a period of history when religious
    bigotry ran rampant.  However their sense of self-righteousness was so
    overweening that they found themselves forced out of first England,
    then Holland.  Once they arrived in the new world, they promptly set up
    a form of government based which allowed for no other form of social
    expression other than that which was considered correct. Transgressors
    were treated to the ducking chair, the whipping post, the stocks,
    expulsion, and possibly the gibbet.  Their attitudes were directly
    responsible for the formation of the Rhode Island colony, a place to
    which one of their own had to flee to escape persecution from a group
    whose reason for being in the new world was just that.

    Anyway, Jeff, what point do you wish to make as you present these
    little vignettes of history before us?

    Mike                                            

    Relgious intolerance was practiced throughout New England.  One has to
    go to Pennsylvania and Maryland to see evidence of religious tolerance
    in colonial times.
    
    Pat Sweeney

497.59 -- FATBOY::BENSON

>>  It is clear from endless documentation that our form of government is
    based upon nothing else but the Bible - God's Word.

    I would have to differ with you on this point.

    In his letters, journals, and notes on the Constitutional Convention, 
    James Madison indicates that the American government is based upon 
    English common law and the philosophies of John Locke.  In fact, if 
    you read John Locke's plan for government, you can see the system of 
    checks and balances and the interaction of the executive, legislative,
    and judicial branches. 

Rick

Christian colonization of the various colonies:

New England

In 1643, a confederation between the colonies of Massachusetts, New Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven was formed, in which it is affirmed that "we all
came into these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to
advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties
thereof with purity and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and
liberties of the gospel."

The synod of the New England churches met at Cambridge, Massachusetts,
September 30, 1648, and defined the nature of civil government, the functions
of the civil magistrate, and the duties of the citizens, as follows:

"I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil
magistrates to be under him, over the people, and for his own glory and the
public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword for
the defense and encouragement of them that do well, and for the punishment of
evil-doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of magistrate
when called thereunto.  In the management whereof, as they ought especially to
maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of the 
Commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament,
wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful
power, or the lawful exercies of it, resist the ordinances of God,...may be
called to account and proceeded against by the censure of the church and by
the power of the civil magistrate.

IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their
persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and
to be subject to their authority for conscience's sake."


Who empowered and motivated these men?  


jeff

    They did it for themselves.  Unless you think they were divinely
    inspired like the writers of the Bible.
    
    Mike

    This has drifted off topic.  I shall create a new topic called
    "Christianity and American Heritage" for future postings in this vein.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

                      * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

Subject: Is Christian Coalition non-partisan?
 
	VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (UPI) -- The Christian Coalition, the conservative
political action operation founded by religious broadcaster Pat
Robertson, now wields more clout than the Moral Majority ever did, its
director says.
	Prime examples: President Bush will address the group Friday, and its
members played a prominent role in crafting the Republican Party
platform. It's also raising more money than the Moral Majority did
before it was disbanded.
	Robertson's organization, which says it has 250,000 members, has
raised $13 million for political uses this fall. In addition to working
for Bush, the group wants to elect ``pro-family Christians'' to
Congress. It also opposes homosexual-rights iniatives in Colorado and
Oregon, and an equal rights amendment in Iowa.
	``I don't want to belittle Jerry Falwell or the Moral Majority,''
Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed Jr. said. ``But the
Christian Coalition as a model represents a more mature, more developed
and more politically sophisticated vehicle for Christian political
activism.''
	Activities this year include in-pew registration at churches, the
distribution of 40 million voter guides on family issues, and a massive
phone bank operation on behalf of favored candidates.
	Robertson's views have long drawn opposition, but critics of the
Christian Coalition are taking a sharp look at its tax-exempt status. To
keep that status, it must be non-partisan and educational, focusing on
issues, not candidates.
	Nonsense, according to Robert Boston for the group Americans for the
Separation of Church and State. Boston told Thursday's Washington Post:
``Their only existence as far as we've been able to determine is to take
over the Republican Party from the ground up. They're running the
Republican Party in certain parts of the country, and they are doing it
all with a tax-exempt status, and the IRS is doing nothing.''
	Reed and the IRS confirmed auditors have been looking at financial
links between the GOP and Robertson's group. The coalition filed for
tax-exempt status in 1989, but it has not officially been granted. That
means the coalition may operate like a tax-exempt group but can be
forced to pay back taxes if the exemption is denied.
	In addition to finances, there are also comments from Robertson and
other actions. At last year's Christian Coalition convention, officials
passed out manuals on Republican Party delegate selections procedures
and state-by-state rundowns of upcoming conventions.
	Robertson also told the group in a speech last year: ``We want ... to
see a working majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-
family Christians by 1996.''

    On the radio this morning it was alleged that a letter went out from
    Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition warning that if the Democrats
    are not defeated in this year's elections, women will leave their
    husbands, kill their children, and become lesbians.
    
    On the surface of it, this kind of fear-mongering might be easily
    dismissed as the ravings of a fanatical fringe.  I'm not so certain.
    
    Richard

    It's fear-mongering to report this as fact coming from a source that is
    clearly not objective.

	Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition has developed an elaborate system
for identifying and motivating like-minded voters.

	They phone voters in a targeted precinct, asking for their party
affiliation and which presidential candidate they voted for in 1988.  If
the voter answers "Democrat" or "Dukakis", they discontinue the call because,
as Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition's Executive Director says, "...we don't
even want them to know there's an election going on....".

	If the voters are Republicans, or voted for George Bush, they are
asked about abortion, or another key issue in the "family values" platform.
They are then asked what they feel is the most important facing their
geographic area.  There issues are coded into 43 "issue burdens".  The
identified voters subsequently receive a computer-generated letter from the
Christian Coalition candidate in their area, which includes a stock paragraph
tailored to their stated issue of concern.  And, if the voter is pro-choice,
their letter does not mention abortion for, as Ralph Reed admits, "I'll take
the votes of pro-abortion Republicans" to get anti-abortion candidates into
office.

Richard

re Note 497.88 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     warning that if the Democrats
>     are not defeated in this year's elections, women will leave their
>     husbands, kill their children, and become lesbians.
  
        Isn't that right in the godless liberal Democrat's platform?

        Bob  (a smiley face, but it isn't really funny)

California's Traditional Values Coalition (which has direct ties with the
organization promoting Colorado's Amendment 2) has distributed flyers and
bulletin inserts statewide urging voters to support the "Judeo-Christian
ethic" by voting against "half-baked, so-called Christians" who support
national health care, advocate higher taxes for the rich, and oppose the
use of the death penalty.

TVC supports only those candidates who favor legalized discrimination against
gay and lesbian people and wish to outlaw abortion.

Richard

    Every time I think I understand the logic of the religious right, I
    find something else perplexing:  *what* is the religious objection to
    national health insurance?  Is that going to get us closer to a
    one-world government, or what?
    
    Nancy

    What are you talking about?

Just because an organization calls itself "The Traditional Values Coalition"
doesn't mean that there is a religious basis for every position they take!

Maybe they merely object to national health insurance based on its high cost.

/john

    I suspect the objection to national health care is because it smacks
    of socialism and governmental "interference".
    
    Richard
    

    I've read criticism here of a position that hasn't even been presented
    here.
    
    How can we have a discussion if there's not even an explanation of the
    position you disagree with?

I've got some more of that "fear-mongering" information that comes "from
a source that is clearly not objective" (as defined in .89):

The Washington Post
-------------------
Thursday, September 10, 1992

Christian Coalition Steps Boldly Into Politics
Tax-Exempt Robertson Group Has Raised $13 Million, Eyes GOP Takeover

CHESAPEAKE, Va. - Television evangelist Pat Robertson, using a tax-exempt
and supposedly nonpartisan "citizen action" organization, has raised more
than than $13 million for an ambitious and largely unheralded foray into
electoral politics aimed at electing "pro-family Christians" to Congress
and achieving "working" control of the Republican Party by the 1996 election.

	Since it was founded in 1989, Robertson's Christian Coalition has
in many ways eclipsed the impact of the defunct Moral Majority, tapping
state and local affiliates to achieve majorities or near majorities on
Republican central committees in more than a half-dozen states and by
placing 300 members as delegates to last month's Republican National
Convention.

	Now Robertson, an unsuccessful GOP presidential candidate in 1988,
is planning a massive, get-out-the-vote effort in this year's November
elections, including "in-pew" registration at churches, the distribution
of up to 40 million "voter guides" on "family" issues and the use of
computer-assisted telephone banks to help elect favored candidates in
key races.

	"I think this will be the most effective coordinated activity of
evangelical Christians that we've ever seen," Ralph Reed Jr., executive
director of the Christian Coalition, said of the group's electoral
activities.  "I don't want to belittle Jerry Falwell or the Moral Majority.
But the Christian Coalition as a model represents a more mature, more
developed and more politically sophisticated vehicle for Christian political
activism."

[The next paragraph is too potent to leave at the end of this entry, so I'm
 giving it it's own posting - Richard]

The Washington Post
-------------------
Thursday, September 10, 1992

Christian Coalition Steps Boldly Into Politics (continued)

	The group -- which claims 250,000 members in 49 states -- is also
aggressively backing initiatives against gay rights in Oregon and Colorado
and working to defeat a proposed equal rights amendment in Iowa that
Robertson wrote in a recent fund-raising letter would advance "a feminist
agenda...that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yours not objectively,
Richard

	Or course what he is doing differs little, except in goals, from
	what NOW, the NAACP, the Democratic party or any other orginazation
	does and is doing.

			Alfred

    Re: .100
    Agreed...every group has it's "wacko's" in it.
    
    Marc H.

>    Re: .100
>    Agreed...every group has it's "wacko's" in it.

	That's not what I said. I may agree that some of his goals are wacko
	but his methods are very mainstream.

			Alfred

    RE: .102
    
    I'm missing the difference I quess. 
    
    Marc H.

>    I'm missing the difference I quess. 

	It's the difference between what one is trying to do and how one is
	trying to do it. Pat Robertson is doing things that the most normal
	and accepted groups in America do to affect policy. It's just the 
	type of change he is trying to make that seems a bit extreme to many
	people.

			Alfred

I am saddened that the language used is so inflammatory.

Collis

    I've got to get something off my chest.
    
    I just have to say I almost *screamed* when I read .99 yesterday...
    
    >The group...working to defeat a proposed equal rights amendment in 
    >Iowa that Robertson wrote in a recent fund-raising letter would 
    >advance "a feminist agenda...that encourages women to leave their 
    >husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy 
    >capitalism, and become lesbians."
    
    It disturbs me so deeply and brings up so much, I almost don't know 
    where to start.  One, it is clear to me that equal rights and those 
    who advocate such for women are considered to be nothing less than 
    the embodiment of evil by this group.  It astounds me on one hand, 
    and frightens me on the other, that any one person, nevermind 250,000 
    people, could be so incredibly... <I better not say it> as to believe 
    the utter nonsense that Robertson spews out.  
    
    And this idiocy about equal rights encouraging women to kill their 
    children.....  Give me a ******* break!  The deplorable and 
    horrifying truth of the matter is that women and children are being 
    battered and murdered by men in increasing and record numbers today!! 
    And these are in domestic situations -- i.e. *FAMILY* situations!!!!  
    You know, that place where we're supposed to give and receive *love* 
    and *nurturance*, to support and protect each other, to hug each 
    other.  I heard an estimate on the news last week that 1 MILLION 
    women, (women alone) in domestic situations are being physically 
    battered.  And this figure does not even include the children!!  
    
    If that's not bad enough, we know now that children suffer just as 
    much psychological damage when they *see* and *hear* domestic 
    violence, even though they may not physically endure it themselves.   
    We also know that most adults who are batterers (and granted, some 
    women are batterers too) were victims of it when they were children.
    ....
    
    While some may question and debate whether or not this estimate of 1 
    million women being battered in their homes is accurate, what is NOT 
    an "estimate" is the record number of women and children in 
    Massachusetts alone who have been *murdered* this year by a 
    husband/father or boyfriend.  Hardly a week goes by when you don't 
    hear about another woman and/or her children being murdered.  It is 
    horrific!
    
    The rest of Robertson's claims are just as dangerous and outlandish.
    
    Rev. Robertson should be retired to a maximum security rest home and 
    receive intensive rehabilitation and counseling.
    
    Karen

    >advance "a feminist agenda...that encourages women to leave their 
    >husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy 
    >capitalism, and become lesbians."

Looks like hyperbole to me.  Excessive hyperbole, I might add.

But: "leave their husbands" -- permissiveness towards divorce
     "kill their children"  -- have abortions
     "practice witchcraft"  -- wiccan religious rites, goddess worship
     "destroy capitalism"   -- advocate socialism (esp. feminist socialism)
     "become lesbians"      -- permissiveness towards homosexuality

/john

    
    I heard Robertson say that he would not have written that paragraph the
    way that it was written - that it did make him look foolish.  I am
    confident that the stuff that was mentioned is documented and
    confirmable by reading radical feminist material.  And generally the
    ERA is supported and promoted by radical feminists.  I'm quite sure
    that radical feminism is disgusting to most American women.  There are
    more women members of groups which oppose NOW's agenda for example than 
    there are in favor of it.
    
    Feminism, like gay rights, as it is practiced today is generally 
    overwhelmingly anti God and at war with traditional values.  You should
    not wonder why women and children suffer at the hands of men.  Men are
    stronger.  Modern feminism has produced many of the situations it
    abhors.  Children are killed in the womb by a woman's choice.  Men
    are battering women and children by their choice.  Children are
    committing crimes by choice.  So what's the difference?
    
    jeff

    You can't "encourage" women to become lesbians.  Either a woman is a
    lesbian or she isn't; the sexual orientation of individuals is not
    something that feminism or anyone else has any control over.
    
    -- Mike

    
    I disagree Mike.  A woman who might have a tendency to desire sex with
    another woman could be encouraged any number of ways to become a
    lesbian.
    
    Sexuality is enforced and reinforced by sexual activity.  
    
    jeff

    > Feminism, like gay rights, as it is practiced today is generally
    > overwhelmingly anti God 
                     ^^^^^^^^
    
    	By who's definition?  I don't consier myself "anti-God" and
    I'm an agnostic.  There are numerous g/l/b religious organizations
    devoted to bringing their members closer to God.
    
    	I will grant you that many activists protest against organized
    religion, but that isn't the same thing as being "anti-God."
    
    FWIW - The ERA was supported by nearly 70% of the people in this
    country (more men than women, in fact).
    
    /Greg

    Then why didn't it pass?
    
    jeff

    Jeff, a tendency or desire for a woman to be involved romantically or
    sexually with another woman is either there or it isn't.  The
    expression of a romantic/sexual desire could theoretically be
    encouraged or discourage by society or by other people, but that is
    not, in my view, what makes her a lesbian.
    
    -- Mike

Ah, another homosexuality note.

Mike, what you claim may certainly be true in some
cases, I don't believe it is true in all cases.

    >    Then why didn't it pass?
    
    Because elected officials in state houses in a few states decided
    not to ratify.
    
    Majority support is no guarantee a proposal will be made law.
    
    /Greg
    

re Note 497.107 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Looks like hyperbole to me.  Excessive hyperbole, I might add.
> 
> But: "leave their husbands" -- permissiveness towards divorce
>      "kill their children"  -- have abortions
>      "practice witchcraft"  -- wiccan religious rites, goddess worship
>      "destroy capitalism"   -- advocate socialism (esp. feminist socialism)
>      "become lesbians"      -- permissiveness towards homosexuality

        There is no more potent weapon against the truth than to mix
        a little truth, or verisimilitude, into a batch of error.

        As II Corinthians 11:13-15 states:  "For such [are] false
        apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the
        apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is
        transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no
        great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the
        ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to
        their works."

        We see the same thing in note 91.1684 where bold-faced lies
        (e.g., "98% of children molested are molested by
        homosexuals") are mixed with superficially plausible
        statements (e.g., "Homosexuals MUST recruit young people. 
        Since they can't reproduce...") and statements that are
        already accepted as true by the target audience (e.g., "God's
        own law says they are an abomination").

        Bob

re: Note 497.108 by jeff "CLEAN THE HOUSE!" 

>    You should
>    not wonder why women and children suffer at the hands of men.  Men are
>    stronger.  

Jeff, 

Perhaps I am missing your point here, but while men in general are physically
stronger than women, I still DO wonder why women suffer at their hands, and
children at both men and women's hands.  (And sometimes vice versa.) 

The freedom that such strength allows also required responsibility to use it 
properly.  Can you explain you meaning to me please?  Thank you.

Peace,

Jim

    Hi Jim,
    
    Let me see, women have the right under law to kill the children in
    their womb.  They justify this as a choice that they have the right to
    make.  They are stronger than the child and thus can do this quite
    easily.  Men are stronger than women and children.  If they choose
    (though not yet protected under law) to abuse them, then they can
    because of their strength.
    
    The stronger will oppress and even destroy the weaker.  What, but a belief
    that the weak have unalienable rights to life, shall protect them? 
    Laws help and will save some.
    
    In a nutshell the feminist ideals have helped to destroy the
    strongholds that used to protect them.  I think its too late for women
    and children to plead mercy when women are not granting mercy to their
    unborn children, for example.
    
    jeff

.119> ...the weak have unalienable rights ...

	What is an "unalienable" right?  Is it akin to inalienable?

	Thanks,
	Jerry

Hi jeff,

Thanks for your reply.  I'm still a little puzzled though.  It sounds like you 
are saying it's okay to throw the first stone, because everyone has thrown 
stones, re your second sentence in the paragraph:  

>    In a nutshell the feminist ideals have helped to destroy the
>    strongholds that used to protect them.  I think its too late for women
>    and children to plead mercy when women are not granting mercy to their
>    unborn children, for example.

Or perhaps it's too late for an individual woman to plead mercy of violence at 
the hand of her spouse because some other women have not granted such mercy to 
their unborn children?

In any event, I should not wonder that this suffering is so?  If it is not 
questioned, what will be done?

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm truly trying to understand 
your perspective.  Thanks.

Peace,

Jim

    Jim,
    
    The idea I am trying to convey is that the state of affairs concerning
    the abuse of women and children is largely the result of the
    abandonment of Biblical morality as the standard for what is right and
    wrong.  Along with the elimination of prayer and ten commandments in
    school, for example, have come abortions, child abuse, teen pregnancy,
    suicide, crime, etc.  If one looks at these statistics over five
    decades there is an amazing increase of all after 1963.
    
    Furthermore, as a generalized statement, the same immorality that
    justifies abortion encourages the destruction of the weak by the
    strong.
    
    jeff 

    Jerry,
    
    It's a twin, just spelled a little differently.  I often get "in" and
    "un" prefixes confused.
    
    Thanks for the reminder.  I shall never forget again.
    
    jeff

   Jeff,

   I was abused before 1963 and after, the abuse was the same.  The
   difference is in the last 30 years we stopped keeping it secret
   as if it were something to be ashamed of.  That's you remarkable
   increase.  The only morality I saw was lies and keeping the peace
   at all costs.

   Pax Roma,
   Allison

    Allison - 
    
    I'll second that.  I too was abused before 1963 and know of many people
    who were also abused before that.  It was only after 1963 that the
    victims of abuse braved the secretiveness and fear of confrontation of
    the 1950's morality and made their pain public in order to try to
    prevent the same thing happening to others.  I don't think there is
    actually any difference in the percentage of abuse and criminal
    behavior.  We've just gotton out of the "we don't talk about things
    like that" denial-based mindset.
    
    Nanci

re Note 497.119 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     Men are stronger than women and children.  If they choose
>     (though not yet protected under law) to abuse them, then they can
>     because of their strength.
  ...  
>     In a nutshell the feminist ideals have helped to destroy the
>     strongholds that used to protect them.  

        Unfortunately, Jeff, that stronghold never did protect them. 
        In fact and often in law it was true that men (husbands)
        could virtually abuse wives at will.

        Bob

    True enough.  There was a time when American society held that men not
    only had the right, but the moral duty to chastise their women if they
    strayed from proper forms of behavior.  But the men were expected to
    take care, lest they abuse the privilege. 
    
    Mike

    RE: .127 How true. There were once laws that said a man could not 
    beat his wife after a given hour least her screams disturb the
    neighbor. But I don't know of Scripture that supports this activity.
    Perhaps someone who does will show me the error of my way.

    			Alfred

    jeff .119,
    
    Your thoughts imply that violence against women and children is now 
    either inevitable and/or deserving.  
    
    Karen

Hi jeff,

Like Allison and Nanci, the abuse at the hands of my parents (emotional, 
sexual, and more) started in the mid-50s.  .-(  What has changed in the last 
decade or so is the acknowledgement by society that these things happen.  Look 
at the great number of cases recently involving sexual abuse by clergy.  The 
acts of abuse were decades ago.  Only now is it safe for a person to broach 
the subject.  (I heard a case about such abuse and when it happened, the 
priest told the *victim* to confess their sin to other priests.)

I don't think you're advocating the abuse, jeff, but it does sound like you're
blaming the victim. 

Peace,

Jim

    
    I'm sorry folks but this is such a difficult medium to communicate in.  If
    you will reread my note you will see that where I mentioned 1963 I
    mentioned several areas of moral decline, not just child/wife abuse. 
    Surely some increase of reported abuse is due to cultural fear of the
    subjects being removed.  But that does not explain its dramatic
    increase, nor does it explain its parallel increase with other issues
    such as crime, teen pregnancy, abortion and so on.
    
    I, a father, husband and Christian, abhor child/spouse abuse (as it
    is commonly understood) of any kind.
    
    Ideas have consequences.  My point is that when women believe it is a
    personal choice to kill their own unborn children, thus violating the
    most intimate physical reality that exists in humanity, they are
    opening the door wide to being violated in lesser intimate
    relationships.  In other words, when the common idea is that a
    defenseless child may be killed through abortion, on demand, for
    whatever reason this idea devalues life and its worth.  Women do not
    live in a vacuum.  Ideas have consequences.  One of the consequences of
    abortion is the cheapening of life altogeher.
    
    jeff
    

    Jeff - 
    
    I don't know if this is possible, but try looking at this from another
    perspective.  From a woman's point of view who is pro-choice, I don't
    believe a fetus is a child since I don't believe it has a soul at that
    stage of it's development.  So, abortion has nothing to do with an act
    of violence upon a child.  It is a choice of how I choose to spend my
    body's resources for the next 9 months as well as how I choose to spend
    my financial and emotional resources for the rest of my life.
    
    I understand how you can equate what you see as violence perpetuated by
    women who are pro-choice which then attracts violence.  Like attracts
    like.  However, I don't perceive abortion as being a violent act.
    
    As far as sexual and violent crimes against women and children are
    concerned, I don't think they have actually increased proportianally
    that much.  I think that is may *seem* as if they have only because it
    is no longer thought to be bad form in our society to bring these
    issues out in to the light of day instead of hiding them under a
    blanket of denial.  Sorry, I don't have any statistics to back this up
    with.  I wish I did.
    
    Nanci

   Jeff,

   Yes it is a difficult medium.   It has one value though, we can review
   our words.

   You in you note associated moral decline and the year 1963, Why?

   Later you associated abortion, which was not available on demand
   until 1973 with moral decline. 

   Obviously there is a chronology here your trying to point out but,
   it's circular and unclear.

   Is this in defense of Pat Robertson's assertions that the feminist
   movement is out to make lesbians, witches, and baby killers of us all?
   Personally I don't think you do.

   Now I don't think many would disagree, crime and morality are issues
   in this country, but the assignment of blame is a moral issue too.

   Pointing blame is not absolution from responsability and Pat Robertson
   needs to blame less and examine and discern more.  As an influencial
   person he can help or hinder as any leader can.  Leading can be
   destructive or productive, his leadership is very unproductive and 
   derisive as it divides people to seperate camps of them and us.

   Peace,
   Allison








            <<< Note 497.131 by FATBOY::BENSON "CLEAN THE HOUSE!" >>>

    
    I'm sorry folks but this is such a difficult medium to communicate in.  If
    you will reread my note you will see that where I mentioned 1963 I
    mentioned several areas of moral decline, not just child/wife abuse. 
    Surely some increase of reported abuse is due to cultural fear of the
    subjects being removed.  But that does not explain its dramatic
    increase, nor does it explain its parallel increase with other issues
    such as crime, teen pregnancy, abortion and so on.
    
    I, a father, husband and Christian, abhor child/spouse abuse (as it
    is commonly understood) of any kind.
    
    Ideas have consequences.  My point is that when women believe it is a
    personal choice to kill their own unborn children, thus violating the
    most intimate physical reality that exists in humanity, they are
    opening the door wide to being violated in lesser intimate
    relationships.  In other words, when the common idea is that a
    defenseless child may be killed through abortion, on demand, for
    whatever reason this idea devalues life and its worth.  Women do not
    live in a vacuum.  Ideas have consequences.  One of the consequences of
    abortion is the cheapening of life altogeher.
    
    jeff
    

    Nanci,
    
    I fully appreciate your perspective and can understand your reasoning. 
    I'm not sure that what one "thinks" about the subject of abortion is
    relevant anymore.  There are enough biological facts to support the
    pro-life stance that a human being is dieing when an abortion is
    performed. This is the fundamental basis for the pro-life view.  
    
    I recently finished reading "Frontiers: The epic of South Africa's
    Creation and the Tragedy of the Khosa People".  It is fascinating and
    now I can truly understand the nature of South Africa's struggles
    today.  At any rate, many of the English and Dutch (but not all, mind
    you) did not believe the "Hottentots" or the Khosa people were worthy
    of being deemed fully human.  They were "savages" and had no desire, it
    seemed, to become "civilized".  Well, it is clear that they are human
    and always were.  The point is that the same belief which the Europeans
    held about the indigenous peoples of South Africa (and other colonies)
    preceded their actions toward them.  They were wrong.  Their actions
    were wrong.
    
    Abortion is the same, in my opinion.  You may believe what you like but
    an unborn child is a human and has rights and should be treated as
    such.  Someday (before the return of Christ), I pray, the world will
    acknowledge this.  And like South Africa's European missionaries and
    England's Evangelical Christian movement which led to the freedom and
    granting of rights to the Khosa peoples, Christians are the primary 
    voice for the unborn child today.
    
    jeff

re Note 497.134 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     I'm not sure that what one "thinks" about the subject of abortion is
>     relevant anymore.  There are enough biological facts to support the
>     pro-life stance that a human being is dieing when an abortion is
>     performed. This is the fundamental basis for the pro-life view.  
    
        I've got to hand to to you, Jeff.  First you suggest that
        'what one "thinks" about the subject of abortion' is
        irrelevant.  Then you offer your thought "There are enough
        biological facts to support the pro-life stance..." as if it
        were VERY relevant.

        Can't you see, Jeff, that you can't offer your thoughts as
        highly relevant and then deny the relevance of the thoughts of
        your opponents?

        Bob

    Jeff - 
    
    But the existence of a soul is not a biological issue.  I have not yet 
    seen any biological evidence to substantiate your belief that a soul does 
    in fact exist in a fetus.  Have you?  If so, what?  I'd be interested
    in hearing how biology can prove the existence of something that is
    non-physical.
    
    Nanci

    
    Nanci,
    
    I've seen no proof that there is a soul in anyone - fetus or old fart!
    
    jeff

    Precisely!  How does one know, then, if anyone has a soul?
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    It's one a them "faith" thangs.
    
    :-)
    
    Karen

    
    Mike,
    
    I know there is a soul.  I can't prove it by the scientific method. 
    But who would leave their destiny to a scientist or a method anyhow (I
    know, alot of people)?  My life (and yours I imagine) cannot be
    explained or described (except for the physical body part) by science.
    
    jeff

    RE: .139
    
    Oh, I see!  Actually, I knew that, but I was just wondering if anyone
    had any new ideas in this area.
    
    Mike

                       * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: GOP activist calls Robertson 'Christian Ayatollah'
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 10:13:17 PST

	FARMVILLE, Va. (UPI) -- A Republican activist calls Pat Robertson a 
``Christian Ayatollah'' and wants party members in the religious
broadcaster's home state to distance themselves from the televangelist,
saying otherwise ``we're down the tubes.''
	Don Moseley, a former Virginia 5th District GOP chairman, made his
comments in a letter to 500 state party leaders. He is pushing a
resolution for the next party gathering that ``repudiates Robertson's
intolerance and restates the founding principles of our party.''
	The letter added: ``The public perception that the Republican Party
of Virginia goose steps to the commands of the Virginia Beach preacher
and his fanatical followers will lead to certain defeat in next year's
statewide elections.
	``If the public thinks they (the Christian Right) are in charge,
we're down the tubes. If we don't do something to change it, we might as
well pack it in,'' Moseley said.
	Robertson, through the Christian Coalition, has wielded increasing
clout inside the party on the local, state and national levels. The new
state party chairman, Patrick McSweeney, landed the job with Robertson's
support after a bitter intra-party battle.
	Ralph Reed, the executive director of the coalition, called on
Moseley to apologize for his ``anti-Christian bigotry.'' He said
comparing Robertson to the Ayatollah Khomeini was ``destructive and
divisive'' and said ``it is Mr. Moseley who is dividing our party, not
us.''
	Moseley has a reputation for being outspoken. But Mike Salster, a
former GOP state spokesman who has retired to the life of a small town
newspaper publisher, said ``Don has put on paper'' what a lot of party
members have been saying for a long time.
	``This is not the party of David Duke, an avowed Klansman, or of
avowed Nazis or other intolerant organizations,'' Salster said.
	Moseley's attack is the first public one against Robertson from the
party's moderate wing, and Moseley is playing on the party's deep hunger
for a statewide win. Aside from two victories by entrenched U.S. Sen.
John Warner, Republicans have lost every statewide race in the past 11
years.
	Moseley used a fund-raising letter Robertson wrote against the Equal
Rights Amendment in Iowa this year as a prime example. That letter said
``the feminist agenda encourages women to leave their children, kill
their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become
lesbians.''
	Asked Moseley: ``What planet is this man from?''

                       * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Robertson group to hand out 40 million voter guides
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 92 12:25:37 PST

	CHESAPEAKE, Va. (UPI) -- Pat Robertson's political organization plans
to distribute 40 million voter guides to people attending 100,000
churches nationwide Sunday, guides that are expected to help President
Bush.
	In addition to the church bulletin-size voter guide, the Christian
Coalition has printed a 16-page, tabloid-size guide on newsprint.
	The literature spells out the views of presidential and congressional
candidates on ``family values'' issues considered important to many of
the nation's estimated 40 million evangelicals.
	The brochures will be distributed to the churches through the
organization's 522 nationwide chapters, said coalition Executive
Director Ralph Reed. He refused to say how much the effort cost.
	John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron and an
expert on the religious right, said that if the coalition distributes
even half the voter guides it ``would have a potentially major impact on
politics.''
	The South is considered crucial for Democrat Bill Clinton. He is
hoping to cut into the strong support Bush received in the region in
1988.
	Exit polls showed that Bush carried between 75 percent and 83 percent
of the evangelical vote in 1988. If Clinton could get 40 percent or more
it would be ``a real triumph for the Democrats,'' Green said.
	The voter guides do not tell people how to vote. But the Democratic
National Committee has filed a Federal Elections Comimssion complaint
charging that the technically non-partisan coalition is illegally
supporting Republicans. The coalition denies the charge.
	The tabloid guide compares the platforms of both political parties
and presents the views of congressional candidates on six issues: taxes,
abortion, educational choice, a balanced budget amendment, homosexual
rights, and public funding of ``obscene art.''

Re: .143

>	The tabloid guide compares the platforms of both political parties
>and presents the views of congressional candidates on six issues: taxes,
>abortion, educational choice, a balanced budget amendment, homosexual
>rights, and public funding of ``obscene art.''

Evangelicals should favor raising taxes so that more charity can be given
to the poor, right? ;^)

				-- Bob

re Note 497.144 by GRIM::MESSENGER:

> Evangelicals should favor raising taxes so that more charity can be given
> to the poor, right? ;^)
  
        Evangelicals like to pick and choose which morality to impose
        and which to leave to the free choice of the individual.

        Of course, the same can be said of liberals.

        Bob

>Evangelicals should favor raising taxes so that more charity can be given
>to the poor, right? ;^)

    Many evangelicals do not believe that charity is a proper role for
    the government. I for one have long believed that it is the proper
    role of the church. However a cycle of the government taking on more
    has lead to many churches feeling they needed to do less combined
    with taxes that mean that those who would voluntarily support charity
    having less to give. So the churches can do less and government tries
    to do more. And on.

    And of course when government takes over it is the interest of the
    people who work for government to create programs that perpetuate
    poverty rather than help people back on their feet.

    		Alfred

re Note 497.146 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     And of course when government takes over it is the interest of the
>     people who work for government to create programs that perpetuate
>     poverty rather than help people back on their feet.
  
        I wonder if this were also true when charity was one of the
        principal responsibilities of the churches?  It isn't just
        bureaucrats who like to keep things going the way they always
        have gone.

        Bob

        P.S. This is one reason I have a strong disagreement with
        contemporary US conservative political opinion that casts
        government as somehow a uniquely vile institution. 
        Government tends to be big and pervasive, but the same
        problems arise in other big and pervasive institutions.

                        * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (KIM A. LAWTON)
Subject: 1992 saw resurgence of Religious Right
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 14:14:33 PST

                          UPI 1992 Yearender
	
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- God made a political comeback in 1992 as religious
issues became campaign issues and hundreds of members of the Religious
Right won election to public office.
	The demise of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in 1989 led some
analysts to declare the political part of the evangelical movement dead
and buried, yet in 1992 Republicans held a convention that Falwell
himself likened to a Baptist revival meeting.
	The tenor of that convention, and of public discourse throughout the
1992 campaign, actually represented the first fruits of a reorganized
Religious Right that is now concentrating on a grass-roots battle plan.
	``There has been a strategic reorientation of the Religious Right,''
says University of Maine professor Matthew Moen, author of the book 
``The Transformation of the Christian Right.'' ``These folks have left
the Washington scene and headed out into the hinterlands where they are
pursuing different kinds of strategies.''
	These strategies include applying more sophisticated political
techniques to state and local politics, volunteering for local
Republican committee posts, showing up for any and every party caucus
meeting, and flooding the local ballots with candidates.
	Much of it has been done in a low-profile manner that opponents have
dubbed the ``stealth strategy,'' but it has led to increasing Christian
clout within the Republican Party apparatus.
	``In the '80s we tried to change Washington when we should have been
focusing on the states,'' says Ralph Reed, executive director of Pat
Robertson's Christian Coalition. ``The real battles of concern for
Christians are in the neighborhoods, school boards, city councils and
state legislatures.''
	The Christian Coalition has emerged as one of the key organizations
of the new Religious Right. Founded in 1989 out of the remnants of
Robertson's ill-fated campaign for the presidency, the group now has 31
statewide affiliate organizations and some 600 local chapters in 49
states.
	The effectivieness of this new ``from the bottom up'' strategy was
highlighted in several primary races this spring. For example, the
California primary in June saw an unprecedented grass-roots mobilization
of conservative Christian activists.
	And hundreds of ``pro-life, pro-family'' candidates won at all
levels, from school boards to Congress.
	The climax was the Republican National Convention, where the Bush re-
election campaign said more than 40 percent of all the delegates claimed
evangelical beliefs.
	Christians were at the forefront of ensuring adoption of a
conservative GOP platform that included acknowledgment of a belief in
God, a staunch anti-abortion plank, opposition to gay rights, support
for educational choice and school prayer, and a pledge to fight
pornography.
	Two days after the convention closed, President Bush addressed 10,000
Christian leaders in Dallas. He criticized Democrats for leaving the
letters ``G-O-D'' out of their platform.
	In the closing days of the campaign, religious political activism
heated up even more. Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry mailed
thousands of churches a brocure that said, ``To vote for Bill Clinton is
to sin against God.''
	The activities and rhetoric of much of the Religious Right drew sharp
criticism from many quarters.
	Just before the election, a diverse coaliton of 50 religious leaders
-- mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and even evangelicals --
released a statement proclaiming that God is not a Republican.
	The group called Terry's brochure a piece ``of spiritual arrogance
and political extremism that has no place in our public discourse.''
	But criticism also came from within the conservative Christian
community. Writing in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today,
former Ronald Reagan aide Don Eberly took the Religious Right to task
for employing a divisive ``crusader-like'' mentality. ``Crusades drive
people from our faith and our politics,'' he wrote.
	The future of the Religious Right beyond 1992 remains uncertain. The
next few months will be a test of how committed members of the movement
are in the face of discouraging national defeats.
	A second and perhaps greater challenge will be to reconstruct a
winning coalition in the Republican Party. Many Republicans are making
evangelicals the scapegoats for Bush's defeat.
	``It was the embracing of their platform at the convention that
sealed the president's doom,'' said Peter Smith, president of the
moderate Ripon Society.
	Reed, of the Christian Coalition, categorically refused to accept
that the blame lies anywhere other than at Bush's poor handling of the
economy. ``I think the election demonstrates the indispensibility of the
evangelical vote to the rebuilding of the Republican Party as we move
into the future,'' he said.
	Other Republicans disagree. On Dec. 15, Senators Warren Rudman, R-N.
H., Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., and Arlen Spector, R-Pa., were scheduled to
officially announce the formation of the Republican Majority Coalition,
whose stated goal is to stop efforts by the Religious Right to take over
the party.
	And while many analysts are saying the election results rendered the
Religious Right irrelevant, others caution against being quick to write
it off yet again.
	Moen says the Religious Right is ``better positioned now'' than it
was during its formation in the late 1970s: ``Now the Christian Right is
again in the opposition. But this time they are much better organized,
they are better led, and they have a clearer vision of what they are
trying to do.'' He says the movement's emphasis on state and local
levels will continue to reap rewards.
	In state and local elections in November, candidates with Christian
ties appeared to do well. The liberal lobbying group People for the
American Way said the Religious Right won in about 40 percent of the
state and local races where they were involved.
	A PAW report released in October identified some 500 candidates in 33
states with ties to Religous Right groups. ``We can't afford to write
off the Radical Right's significant victories in 1992,'' says PAW
President Arthur Kropp.
	Moen expects some kind of success to continue: ``It is just
extrordinarily short-sighted to proclaim them dead on the basis of the
Nov. 3 election results,'' he says.
	John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied
Politics, agrees. ``All political movements prosper in opposition, and
religious-based movements do particularly well in opposition because
what makes them work is appeal to transcendent values,'' he says. ``I
wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these groups didn't double in
size in the next four years.''

The following are excerpts from an article which appeared in the Colorado
Springs Gazette Telegraph on Friday, January 8th, 1993.

My comments will be enclosed in brackets [ ].

Operation Rescue runs anti-gay rally
------------------------------------

Veteran's group denies link to protest

by Genevieve Anton

	A protest to gays in the military - promoted locally as a grass-roots
effort by veterans - actually is being organized by national anti-abortionists
and Christian evangelical activists.

	The protest, dubbed "Just say NO to Homosexuals in the Military," is
scheduled for today in Colorado Springs in front of the City Administration
Building and in dozens of cities across the country.  The message is aimed at
President-elect Bill Clinton, who has pledged to permit homosexuals to serve
in the armed forces.  [which, of course, they already do anyway]

	The notice sent to local media listed the event's sponsors as two
area American Legion posts and the Veterans Opposed to Homosexuals in the
Military.

	However, Bill Williams, commander of American Legion Post 39, said
Thursday that "somebody made a mistake," since his organization cannot back
a political event amd specifically declined to sponsor this protest.

	.....

	In reality, the Colorado Springs protest is being staged by two
people: June and Phil Harrison.  They are associated with Operation Rescue,
a group known for blocking abortion clinics with human chains and prayer
vigils nationwide.  They claim the national leadership asked them to contact
local veterans groups and asked them not to use the organization's name.
[stealth tactics]

    Also see 91.2468.
    
    Richard

I've noticed that Pat Robertson has added "multi-culturalism" to his list
of "things to hate today," along with humanism, feminism, environmentalism,
and a host of other -isms.

Richard

    Richard, why should you care about the opinions of Pat Robertson.  Is
    this an obsession for you?

    I disagree with your characterization of "things to hate today", these
    are just political and social movements he opposes aspects of.

    "Multi-culturalism" in some places are kids in costumes of their
    parents countries, singing songs in the languages of their parents, and
    ending with "God Bless America".

    "Multi-culturalism" in other places is the denigration of ideas and
    beliefs that conceived America and developed the world's greatest
    democracy and economic power.

    I think that what is dangerous about Pat Robertson is that the general
    perciption among people is that *HE* is the spokesman for the
    religious right. The right and left both have good idea's.....
    but having someone like Pat Robertson tends to group the right with the
    "fringe" and "slightly wacko" bunch.
    
    I can also think of people on the left that tend to make the publics
    perciption of the left as "fringe" and "slightly wacko".
    
    Personally, I tend to like Jerry Falwell ...but....thats another
    story( I don't agree with all of Jerry though).
    
    Marc H.

Note 497.153

>    I think that what is dangerous about Pat Robertson is that the general
>    perciption among people is that *HE* is the spokesman for the
>    religious right.

Marc,

I realize Robertson is not an official spokesman, but it's my perception
that a spokesman for the religious right Robertson, nevertheless, is.

Peace,
Richard

    PAt Robertson is certainly a valid person to discuss....he has openly
    admitted that he hopes to control over 800 delegates at the next
    Republican convention.
    
    I think anyone, regardless of political or religious leanings, is an
    open realm for discussion when he/she seeks that much influence in the
    political system.
    
    Daniel

    What is "openly admitted" supposed to mean? "hate"... "control"...
    
    Come on now, Dan or Richard, what did Robertson say that you want to
    discuss or am I supposed to argue with spin that you automatically
    put on views that you oppose?

    
    This is kind of funny.  I'm considered one of the "fundamentalist"
    of this file, the "religious right" and I have no clue what Pat
    Robertson or Jerry Falwell stand for.  I've usually only heard
    them names being sworn about by liberals.  They have absolutely no
    influence on my life.  It's sad that people think they represent
    me.  I feel this is just stereotyping a group by an extreme element.
    It would be like me saying an Adolf Hitler's beliefs are the basis
    for anyone who believes in abortion.  Totally ludicrous.
    
    Jill

    Jill, then who is a public figure who advocates changes in attitudes
    and public opinion and policy that most closely represents your point
    of view as a fundamentalist.
    
    If you claim to have no knowledge of Robertson or Falwell then why do
    you characterize them as "an extreme element"?

    .156
    
    Pat,
    
    "Openly admitted" means just that: Pat Robertson has publically,
    openly, in the light of day with witnesses all around him stated that
    he hopes/intends/expects to control 800 delegates at the next
    Republican National Convention.  "Control" meaning he expects that they
    will vote uniformly on proposals and policies of which he approves.
    
    What is there to not understand in that?  I don't particularly care to
    discuss him myself, but since exerting this much influence over a major
    political party is his goal, why shouldn't people discuss him?  He's
    made himself into a public political figure, and that warrants
    scrutiny.
    
    Daniel

    RE: .158
    
    Robertson is an extreme element....besides being slightly "wacko".
    
    Mixing the right into the Republican party helped elect Slick last
    time, and if the right continues to get into the republican party,
    we will have Clinton for 4 more years.
    
    Richard is correct that Robertson is percived as the rights spokesman,
    and thats wrong.
    
    
    Me? I find that Rush Limbaugh comes closest to being the person in
    politics that I agree with.....and that is without the Pat Robertson
    factor.
    
    Marc H.

    And another thing....the *MAIN* problem with Pat Robertson is that he
    demonstrates a religious intolerance towards others.....its the same
    type of *smuggness* that turns off many good people to the "right".
    
    Marc H.

    It's disingenuous to claim that "openly admitted" and "control" are not
    spin words.  One doesn't speak of Jesse Jackson in "control" of
    delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention.  Let's stop the
    word game.
    
    Conservative Christians represent a large voting block. Groups have the
    right to organize voters.  Or do you oppose that when the organizing
    groups are Christian?

    How is Robertson extreme?  If you don't have anything to back up your
    opinion, then why bring it up here?

    As for smugness and intolerance, I can encounter it here in CP.

    Since Robertson has the power to steer the course of hurricanes, it
    ought to be a piece of cake to control 800 delegates.
    
    -- Mike

>Note 497.162          Pat Robertson and the Religious Right           162 of 163
>SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York"        13 lines  23-FEB-1993 09:44
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    It's disingenuous to claim that "openly admitted" and "control" are not
>    spin words.  One doesn't speak of Jesse Jackson in "control" of
>    delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention.  Let's stop the
>    word game.
 
    It's not a word game -- it's political fact.  Paul Tsongas "controlled"
    delegates at the Democratic Convention.  Jerry Brown "controlled"
    several hundred delegates.  Jesse Jackson did not directly control any
    dlegates although it would be silly to deny that he exerted
    considerable influence over the platform committee.
    
    All of this is open to discussion, although, for the purpose of this
    string, I can't imagine why.
    
    It is tiresome to hear the scream of "AGENDA!!!!" everytime one open's
    one's mouth regarding Mr. Robertson.  You've used it other strings,
    claiming my use of the terms "B.C.E" and "C.E." are part of an "agenda"
    when I use them because they are theologically neutral.  It's getting
    too east to shriek "P.C!!!!!" whenever you feel uncomfortable.  You
    want to debate?  Then debate.  But I don't think constantly questioning
    people for merely *making observations* and dismissing them as "spin
    doctors" is particularly honest.


>    As for smugness and intolerance, I can encounter it here in CP.
    
    
    The ability to question and discuss differing viewpoints is the
    lynchpin of freedom of thought and speech.  But if people question you,
    it is not "intolerance."  It is exercising free speech.  Who is
    censoring you here?  Are you not allowed to express your views? And if
    you don't like the fact that your opinions are subjected to discussion
    and questioning, why continue to aggrevate yourself?
    
    You question me.  I question you.  That's how this works.  But if I
    were to screech "AGENDA!!!" every time I was questioned, it'd be a
    pretty poor time.
    
    Daniel

    Ah, Daniel, join the club.  You have experienced first hand Pat
    Sweeney's inimical and endearing New York charm, which serves as such a
    powerful witness for the loving virtues of the Christian faith.
    
    -- Mike

    E: .162
    
    You are certainly correct about the smugness occuring here in C-P!
    Our only disagreement would be around just *who* is smug.
    
    I really like the separation of Church and State.....thats why I am
    very uncomfortable about "Conservative Christians" organizing.
    I just don't agree with all the elements that the "Conservative
    Christians " believe in. 
    
    I find the same thing with the NRA. Members are united on only a 
    couple of principals ( like the second amendment) and differ
    widely over lots of social issues.
    
    Keep Religion separate from Government.
    
    Marc H.

    Actually Patrick...it's not that I've never heard of their names.
    I've just never heard their beliefs.  My point was not so much
    that they are extremist (I said the only mention of them I've
    heard is liberals swearing their names), but rather that it's an
    assumption that they represent me.  I might very well agree with
    them, but I don't like being stereotyped or grouped with someone
    I've never heard personally express their beliefs.  I feel
    that's a dangerous practice.
    
    A couple of shows I listen to regularly on my local station is
    "Table Talk" with Rich Muller and "The Bible Answer Man" with
    Hank Hanegraff.  Rich's show is more of a counseling show.
    Hank's is based on apologetics.  For those in Colorado Springs,
    these are on KGFT, 100.7 FM.
    
            Table Talk      2:30-3:30 or 4:00 pm MST
            Bible Ans Man   4:00-5:00 pm MST
    
    I might have a guide at home that can give stations for other parts
    of the country for the Bible Answer Man.  It's my favorite.  They
    usually have 3 Scripturally sound guys on who field questions either
    on a specific topic or in an open call atmosphere.  It's sponsored
    by CRI (Christian Research Institute) whose goal is to equip Christians
    with the Word of God and to show the flaws in cults and how to
    recognize cults and the occult.
    
    I believe similarly to the Navigators, Campus Crusade, Focus on the
    Family, HCJB, Billy Graham.  I'm somewhat familiar with Chuck Swindoll,
    Tim & Beverly LaHaye, David Jeremiah, Dennis Rainey.
    
    Jill

    
    RE: 497.166
    
    Actually Marc, I think that's taking Church and State completely out of
    context.  All kinds of groups of people with common beliefs ascend
    on Washington.  It's discrimination not to allow me to do the same.
    I have a view.  I should be able to voice it.  I'm not even get into
    lobbyist, the whole topic makes me ill.
    
    Jill

    RE: .168
    
    What makes you ill?
    
    Marc H.

    
    The whole lobbyist thing.  It should be illegal.  I don't believe
    someone should be able to buy the vote of a senator who is supposed
    to be representing me and my neighbors in our home state.  If they
    want to lobby, they should lobby at our level and let us influence
    our senators and congressman.  I feel lobbyists are stealing our
    voice.  They pay big bucks to influence those in power and they
    are generally getting what they want.
    
    Jill

    Re: .170
    
    What they technically buy is "time" with the elected officals.
    Lobbyists are produced because government controls much of are
    lives, via the laws and policies it establishes.
    
    As long as we have a government that legislates rules and regulations
    for business, we will have lobbyists.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 497.171 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     As long as we have a government that legislates rules and regulations
>     for business, we will have lobbyists.
  
        Do you really believe that lobbyists only represent
        businesses?

        Bob

    RE: .172
    
    You are correct Bob! Of course, the lobbyists also represent other
    things besides business. I should have added that, but, I was just
    trying to make a point on *why* the lobbyists are present today.
    
    By the way.....if you are *really* interested in what the NRA 
    represents...without the bias that you get from the national
    media( i.e. the Powerful Gun Lobby), let me know.
    I will not use this forum.
    
    Marc H.

    Also see 613.84
    
    Richard

As a native of Arizona, I've heard the name Barry Goldwater repeatedly over
quite an expanse of time.  The term "conservative" and "Goldwater" have
been considered practically synonymous.

I was tickled to see Goldwater in an interview on 20/20 last Friday evening.
It seems he it at odds with his own party in the state of Arizona because
he endorsed a Democrat instead of a Republican for a particular office in a
local election.  The Republican candidate was from the "religious right,"
claimed Goldwater, who has earned a reputation for his candidness.  Said
the retired Senator, "The Religious Right scares the Hell out of me!"

:-)

Peace,
Richard

    Perhaps the senator is a supporter of freedom.

    He saw communism as a threat to freedom.
    He saw socialization as a threat to freedom.
    He saw North Viet Nam as a threat to freedom.

    Perhaps he sees the religious right in the same light.

    The threats to freedom come from all sides.

    Tom

    I've always found Goldwater to be a refreshing change. He is a straight
    shooter, and doesn't hold back his opinion........heck, he has even
    had some kind words for Senator Ted Kennedy!
    
    I happen to agree with him, with regard to most everything he says.
    
    Marc H.

  "You say, 'You're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the
Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that and the other thing'
-- nonsense!  I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the anti-Christ!
I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't have to be
nice to them."

					- Rev. Pat Robertson
					  Christian Coalition

	I watched a debate last night on PBS regarding religion and politics,
produced by William F. Buckley's organization, I believe.  I cannot recap the
whole thing, nor even remember all the names of the panelists for either side.

	But a highlight for me was when Pat Robertson asked of his worthy
opponent, "How much money has the ACLU brought in by portraying me as the
bogey-man?"

	"Not nearly as much as you have brought in by portraying the ACLU
as the bogey-man!"

Richard

re Note 497.179 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	But a highlight for me was when Pat Robertson asked of his worthy
> opponent, "How much money has the ACLU brought in by portraying me as the
> bogey-man?"
  
        The ACLU was a conservative bogey-man long before political
        involvement was a glint in Pat Robertson's eye!

        Bob

re.179

I found the exchange informative. Good program.

ace

"Multiculturalism is an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-Saxon
heritage.  Our Culture is superior to others...Robert Frost will be
remembered when Maya Angelou is forgotten."

					- Pat Buchanan
					  in a speech to the
					  Christian Coalition

    
>"Multiculturalism is an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-Saxon
>heritage.  Our Culture is superior to others..

    	Arguable to be sure. I wouldn't try and support it. On the other
    hand:

>.Robert Frost will be
>remembered when Maya Angelou is forgotten."

    	This part is probably true.

    			Alfred

    
    
    > another worried white guy
    
    
    .. Yeah really, where do they come off being worried? It's not like you
    can hit them in the head with a brick and get away with it.
    
    
    flame-off,
    David

    Regarding Robert Frost, Maya Angelou.
    
    Was Edward Manet superceded by Mary Cassatt?
    
    Was that rebellious Martin Luther forgotten for Martin Luther King, Jr.?
    
    Is George Washington Carver remembered over George Washington?
    
    Please, spare me criticizing my selections.  The point I'm trying
    to make is that we've not had to discount or dismiss any of them.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    
    
    -1
    
     The entire white race is being discounted by political
    revisionists(sp).. Look at what we are being blamed for.
    
    1.) Sexism
    2.) Racism
    3.) Black on black violence
    4.) Crime ( even race against race)
    5.) Exploiting the Indians
    6.) Whatever else I forgot
    
    
    David

>    1.) Sexism
>    2.) Racism
>    3.) Black on black violence
>    4.) Crime ( even race against race)
>    5.) Exploiting the Indians
>    6.) Whatever else I forgot

    Yes, we of the white race are responsible for many of these things.
    If you oppress a people and take away their self respect many of
    these things come out.

    I also believe it is the tendency of any dominant group to do
    these things.

    The African races did it to each other.  The American (North and South)
    Indian races did it to each other.  The Monguls did it to *everybody*.
    And so on....

    We, as the white race, just happened to get good at it and became dominant.

    But, just because everyone else does it, doesn't make it right :-)

    What's important is "where do we go from here?"  (preferably from
    a Christian point of view)

    Tom

    
    
    -1
    
      Quick, get to the Dentist right away, it might not be to late to get
    the hook line and sinker out :-)
    
    David

>                          -<  We civilized the world >-

    Not according to the Chinese  :-)

	RE: .186 There was a quote on the front of the library where I
	went to college "All books are divided into two groups. The books
	of the hour and the books for all time." My comment was a personal
	opinion that Frost's work is for all time while Angelou's work is
	less likely to be remembered. It has nothing to do with race or
	gender - but literary criticism. I wouldn't like her stuff any
	more if she was a white male. :-)

			Alfred

    
    
    > Not according to the Chinese
    
     Well if we had only listened to Mcarthur:-)
    
    
    David

    A conservative is one who supports yesterday's radicals and visionaries,
    but not today's.
    
    Falwell and other conservatives now embrace Martin Luther King.  They
    didn't always, you know.  At one time, King was considered an uppity
    trouble-maker.

    In politics, the biggest supporters of Social Security are conservatives.
    They didn't always, you know.  At one time, Social Security was next to
    godless communism.

    Richard

    RE: .193 Generally speaking a conservative is one who would prefer
    that things not change. Once change happens and a settling in takes
    place a conservative doesn't want it to change again. This is one
    reason that I don't think conservative is a label that fits me. :-)

    			Alfred

    .194
    
    I'd agree with this... statement.  It doesn't fit me either... though I
    know I am a conservative moralist... :-)  Basics of God, etc.
    But because of Christ's work in my life, I am every-changing.
    
    

re Note 497.193 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Can we see if we can carry on this discussion without
        labeling people?

        As has been pointed out, one-word descriptions of people are
        seldom accurate.

        Bob

    .196 Bob F.,
    
    	Sorry about that.  I suppose .193 sounded a bit like it came out
    of the blue.  It was actually in response to some labeling going on
    in another string, which no longer has anything to do with the original
    topic.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

"I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't
have any public schools.  The churches will have taken them over and
Christians will be running them.  What a happy day that will be."

					- Rev. Jerry Falwell
					  Liberty Alliance

"Hollywood and the theater world is heavily influenced by Jewish people...
This anti-Christian programming is intentional and by design."

					- Rev. Don Wildmon
					  American Family Association

Several conservative Christian groups have formed a nationwide group,
the Alliance Defense Fund, to raise money for new legal cases involving
"religious liberties, human life, and family values throughout America."
National evangelical leaders include Dr. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade
for Christ, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs),
Dr. D. James Kennedy of Florida's Coral Ridge Ministries, and Rev.
Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association.  The group expects
to have a budget of $6 million by 1995.

Richard

   Amen!






   Jim

    Well, I happen to think that government run schools are counter
    democratic. But I'd like to see lots of organizations running
    schools not just Christian churches.
    
    			Alfred

 My amen was to .200..


 


 Jim

RE:          <<< Note 497.199 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>

>"Hollywood and the theater world is heavily influenced by Jewish people...
>This anti-Christian programming is intentional and by design."

>					- Rev. Don Wildmon
>					  American Family Association




  What was the context of this quote, and from what publication was it taken
 from?  I subscribe to the AFA journal and have never seen such a statement
 by Don Wildmon.




 Jim

    (.204 Henderson)
    
    The publication is called Freedom Watch, which is produced by
    Citizens Project.  You may write them at Box 2085, Colorado Springs,
    Colorado, 80901.  Or you may call 719-634-2836.
    
    Richard
    

    
    I've seen other comments written by the head of Citizens Project.
    He basically describes his group as a Christian Watchdog group.
    His goal is to stop Christian organizations from having any kind of
    influence in our laws, schools, and whatever else he deems off limits
    for Christians to speak out about.  I've seem him slam Dobson several
    times saying that he has a hidden agenda.  I've never heard Dobson be
    anything but blunt about what he teaches.  He doesn't pull any punches.
    
    In closing, the only use I have found for this organizations material
    is to find out who not to vote for in the last school board election.
    I voted for everyone they hated.  :-)
    
    Jill
    

    .206  As a member of Citizens Project, I thank you taking such a
    hardline stand against the organization.  It demonstrates that
    they must certainly be doing something right.
    
    It is erroneous to say that Citizens Project is anti-Christian,
    however, as I am a Christian and I know well several other Christian
    members of Citizens Project and none of us feel the organization
    is oppositional to Christianity or Christians.
    
    Dobson does have an agenda.  But I don't think it's hidden very well.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

  What is Dobson's agenda, in your opinion?



 

  Jim

    .208  Take a gander through the rest of this string.  Dobson's agenda
    is not very different from Robertson's, Falwell's or Kennedy's.
    
    Richard
    Who lives in Dobson headquarters, USA
    

 James Dobson is an honorable man of God who has devoted 20+ years of his
 life the preservation of the American family and ensuring that the message
 of Jesus Christ is kept alive in this country, which seems intent on 
 eliminating it.  How one can find fault with such a man, or organization
 is beyond me.


 Jim

re Note 497.210 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  James Dobson is an honorable man of God who has devoted 20+ years of his
>  life the preservation of the American family and ensuring that the message
>  of Jesus Christ is kept alive in this country, which seems intent on 
>  eliminating it.  How one can find fault with such a man, or organization
>  is beyond me.
  

        How can one *not* be able to find some fault with *any* human
        being, no matter how honorable?

        (Except Jesus, of course)

        Bob

    .210  I don't doubt Dobson is well-meaning.  He probably
    doesn't kick his dog or beat his wife.  But nobody is either
    0 or 1, black or white; convenient as it would be to think of
    people in those terms.
    
    I never said he was evil.  I just said he has an agenda.
    
    Richard
    

    .212
    
    What is the one thing all these men have in common?
    
    A *MORAL* agenda which defines family. That is what most people find
    fault with.  The bottom line is that it is consistent with the last
    days.  Changing right into wrong and wong into right.
    
    

re Note 497.213 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     A *MORAL* agenda which defines family. 

        I would guess that I have nothing against, in principle, a
        group trying to define "family".

        However, as practiced by the conservatives in this country
        this definition of "family" quickly turns into a program to
        punish those whose families do not fit the definition.

        You can't build up the family by tearing down people and
        families with which you don't agree.  Yet that seems to be
        their program.

        Non-traditional families and living arrangements have always
        existed -- they are not the result of some fiendish plot by
        the NEA, Democrats, or the Clintons.  Certainly one of the
        problems of the inner cities (and really, all of an
        increasingly violent America) is the breakdown of the family. 
        The dominant form of breakdown, in inner cities as elsewhere,
        has nothing to do with gays and lesbians -- never has, never
        will.  It has to do with materialism, hopelessness, and
        failures of marriages.

        The religious right does little to attack these problems, and
        the little that they do (which is preach the Christian
        message) is discredited by their shrill attacks on
        non-problems and insignificant problems and their strong
        identification with only certain political ideologies.

        Bob

re Note 497.212 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     I never said he was evil.  I just said he has an agenda.
  
        As you imply, there is nothing wrong with having an agenda. 
        In fact, any person or group with a sense of purpose has an
        agenda.

        The question, especially when ostensibly religious and moral
        leaders take strong political stands, is whether their
        agenda, their primary objective, is what it first appears to
        be.

        Just last night I read a "Focus on the Family" newsletter
        (dated May 1994) sent to us by a friend that lives in
        Colorado.  It is signed by Dobson.

        The number one agenda I see is political.  They are against
        federal involvement in education.  They are against the NEA
        (National Education Association).  They don't trust Congress
        or the Clintons.

        They certainly have some interest in education yet that seems
        secondary to me.  The newsletter is almost entirely about how
        the political and governmental arrangements for education now
        in vogue are terrible and how the old fashioned way of doing
        education (local school boards in complete control) would
        bring about good education.  There is hardly even one
        specific non-political recommendation for education.

        I believe that they are using the education issue as a means
        to a political end, rather than the other way around.

        Bob

        P.S.  I especially find their implication that local school
        board control will result in better education ludicrous.  I
        have a special-needs daughter in public school in town here. 
        My wife and I informally network with about a dozen other
        special-needs parents.  Many of us have to fight the local
        school board even to get the minimum state- and federal-
        specified services and rights.

        If those state and federal regulations weren't in place, I
        know that my daughter and many like her would get an
        old-fashioned education.  I shudder to think what an
        old-fashioned education was like for special needs students.

        (For a good discussion on this topic I would recommend the
        lstark::education_issues notes conference, especially Note
        86.25 and following.)

    .214
    
    Baldersash! :-) 
    
    The fundamentalist church that I belong to rarely mentions
    homosexuality... it most mentions interpersonal relationships and
    sin's root issues.  We discuss marital, parental and friendental
    [word?] conflicts.  My Pastor just finished an 12 week series on
    marital affairs..adultery.  He has now started another 8 week series on
    "How to Get Along" with others.
    
    And to top it off I'm only 40 miles from San Fran... you'd think that
    in this area my Pastor would be mentioning gay/lesbian issues a lot! 
    But I'd gander he's mentioned it 6 times in the last year. For a church
    that has 3 services per week that's very little.
    
    

 What Nancy said..I've mentioned before I go to a conservative, fundamentalist
 independant Baptist church..I've heard homosexuality mentioned at the absolute
 most, 5 times in the year and 3 monthgs I've gone to this church, 3 times/week.
 I hear more sermons on marriage, materialism, gossip and loving my neighbor
 than I do anything else.


 Try attending one of these churchs, rather than listen to the Robertson's, 
 et al.  It is an extremem rarity my pastor even mentions what can be considered
 a political issue.  The emphasis is *always* on our living the life that
 speaks to the Christ for whom we live.




 Jim

re Note 497.217 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  Try attending one of these churchs, rather than listen to the Robertson's, 
>  et al.  It is an extremem rarity my pastor even mentions what can be considered
>  a political issue.  The emphasis is *always* on our living the life that
>  speaks to the Christ for whom we live.

        But the topic of this notes string *is* the Robertsons et al!

        It is very likely that your church isn't anything like the
        image portrayed by the political/religious right.  I certainly
        didn't mean to imply that all conservative Christians are
        motivated by and pursue a primarily political agenda.

        However it is the Robertsons of this world who give the
        public much of its image of religious conservatives.  In so
        doing they are in opposition to you, they are in opposition
        to Christ.  Stand up to them!  Don't let the image they paint
        cover you if it isn't true!

        I think that one problem shared by both the right and the
        left is that the shrillest members of those sides are the
        ones most in the public eye and hence establish the
        stereotype for the entire group.

        Bob

    In that case you don't mind if we break the stereotypical, do you?

re Note 497.219 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     In that case you don't mind if we break the stereotypical, do you?
  
        I have no problem when what you do and say breaks the
        stereotype.

        Bob

Note 497.219

>   In that case you don't mind if we break the stereotypical, do you?

Personally, I would be grateful if more actually would.

Richard

Religious right shows its power
-------------------------------
Nomination of North reveals serious divisions in Republican ranks

Associated Press (From Rocky Mountain News, 6/6/94)

Richmond, Va  --  Eugene Delgaudio has an answer to those who say his faith
has no place in his politics.

	"Maybe they haven't been to church in such a long time they forget
what it's like; they forget the backbone of this country is values," Delgaudio
said.

	Once again this weekend, religious conservatives like Delgaudio showed
their power in Republican politics, boosting Iran-Contra figure Oliver North
to Virginia's GOP Senate nomination.

	The latest victory of more moderate forces in the Republican Party
exacerbates a perhaps chronic schism just as the party hopes to focus its
energy on making gains in November's midterm elections.

	North's convention victory is a case study of both the Christian
right's power in GOP politics and the quandary it can create.

	His support among evangelicals helped him withstand opposition by
establishment Republicans who tremble at the prospect of North serving in
the Congress he once lied to, and the image problems that might create for
the party.

	"They don't care about winning," James Crigger said as he left in
disgust.  "It's like they want to run a religious crusade.  Now you know
why they call us the stupid party."

	....

	Similar battles are under way in state and county GOP organizations
across the country, as Christian conservatives use church networks to turn
out voters.

    Go Ollie!

    Re: .223
    
    Really? I had a higher opinion of you, Nancy. North is dangerous, but
     he has the needed credentials for a politician ( lies under
    oath).
    
    Marc H.

Hopefully Ollie North will hurt the Republican party in November by
alienating moderates.  All the same, I'm sorry to hear that he won the
Republican nomination for Senator.  He's as bad as David Duke as far as
I'm concerned.  He'd be in jail if Congress hadn't blundered by giving him
immunity.

				-- Bob

    RE: .225
    
    We agree, except that I hope he does not hurt the republicans!
    
    Marc H.

re .225 and .226:

        My fear is that persons like this could hurt the Republic!

        Bob

        (Worse than harm to the secular order:  a lot of Christians
        will hitch their hopes to this candidacy.  This is not a good
        kind of association for Christ's people!)

	Pat Buchanan did a great job at hurting the Rebublicans, and I really
think he was one (of many) reasons why Bush was not reelected. I know several
Republicans who were appaulled at his speech at the convention. I think Oliver
North will hurt Republicans, but only in a different way. Jay Leno had a great
joke last night. He said that North will be elected as they need someone
convicted of a crime to replace Dan Rostentowski. :-)


Glen

    I'm hoping the nomination may tend to have a reforming influence on
    Christianity itself.
    
                                 Patricia

 "let he that is without sin cast the first stone"


 "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
 and forgive us from all unrighteousness"





 Jim

    RE: .228
    
    Get your facts right. North was not convicted......
    
    Marc H.

    Speaking of dangerous...
    
    Intelligence profiles of Clinton from our biggest European allies all
    state that he is emotionally unstable.  Because of his dwindling
    popularity on the domestic front, these same intelligence groups are
    expecting him to engage North Korea in war to improve his ratings. 
    Sort of akin to Desert Storm making Bush a hero.
    
    Mike

        RE: .232

    What is the source of that information?

    RE: Ollie North

    I'm pretty sure he was convicted and then the conviction(s) was/were
    overturned on a technicality (something about the testimony used
    to convict him being thrown out because of an immunity-from-prosecution
    agreement made earlier by the government?)

    In any case, you have to either believe him or believe Ronald Reagan.
    One of them is lying.

    Pick your conservative hero.

    /Greg

re Note 497.232 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Intelligence profiles of Clinton from our biggest European allies all
>     state that he is emotionally unstable.  

        I think you are confused.

        As far as I can tell Clinton is not on the Religious Right
        (the topic of this string).


>     Sort of akin to Desert Storm making Bush a hero.
    
        Clinton would have to have a *very* short memory to think
        that such a gamble would pay off at election time!

        Bob

    RE: .233
    
    Neither one is *my* conservative hero.
    
    Marc H.

    >    What is the source of that information?
    
    As I said in CHRISTIAN...
    
    As for my source, I've posted Chuck Missler's extensive credentials in
    one of the prophecy topics.  In summary, he served in U.S. Navy
    Intelligence for decades and still has contacts there.  He's also been
    on the board for several companies as well as the ex-Chairman for
    Western Digital.  In addition, he's one of Hal Lindsay's
    consultants/right-hand men.  I find his prophetic insights from a
    Biblical, financial, and military aspect fascinating.
    
    Mike

    And what of King David... adultery and conspiracy... yet he is one of
    the most prominant figures in the Bible.  I believe I said this before,
    because God needs for us to realize that perfection is only through 
    Christ.  Oliver North showed loyalty to his country... this may have
    been misguided loyalty, but nonetheless loyalty.  He was granted
    immunity because he had done nothing wrong.. except follow the
    commandments of a President that had lost his way.
    
    Oliver North suffered public humiliation and loss of position.  I don't
    believe he was involved in drug running... I believe in many ways he
    was misinformed and lied to in order for our intelligence [oxymoronic]
    officials to use him at what he was good.
    
    IMHO,
    Nancy

    Note 497.232 by FRETZ::HEISER

    I always thought all countries held intelligence inform rather close to
    the vest. I'd be interested to know how I could gain access to European
    intelligence profiles. Are they published some place? Could you share
    your sources please. I'd like to read this for myself.

    Thanks,
    	Eric

    Ahhh, yes.  King David and Oliver North.  Now there's a handsome duo.
    
    Richard
    

    Let's unite Christianity and morality by Electing King Oliver.  Will he
    represent the "moral majority"?
    
                                    Patricia

    And what of Queen Patricia?  Perhaps one day when she stands before the
    judgement seat of God, crowns may adorn her.  That is my prayer.
    
    All of us who will receive the crown of life in heaven will do so, not
    because of our righteousness, but the righteousness of our Savior,
    Jesus Christ.  Perhaps you'll feel the same about your own crown as you
    do in making fun of King David and "King" Oliver.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    If only we could all be so Christian.
    
    Richard
    

    .242
    
    And what was that supposed to mean?  Was it directed at me or as a
    response to another note?

Ollie and I do share one thing in common.  Ollie and I are both willing
to break a law for what we believe to be a higher good.  Of course, I
haven't lied to the U.S. Congress about it and then tried to get elected
to the very body I lied to, but I guess that's not such a big deal.

It's not unusual to exalt military heroes to office in our country.  I
mean, he did wear that Marine uniform a lot during those hearings.  And
it was unmistakable that North was devoted to his Commander-In-Chief.
He referred to God a lot when he spoke.  And his attractive, well-dressed
wife always sat silently behind our latter-day patriot, right where she
should.

Richard

    .244
    
    And just where was she supposed sit during the hearings, in front of
    him????
    
    Much of what you said in comparison to you and Ollie has some merit,
    but that last statement was your failing point.. it showed your real
    agenda.

    > but that last statement was your failing point.. it showed your real
    > agenda.

    For those of us unable to see hidden agendas in everything, can you
    spell out what his "agenda" is? I thought he was only saying that
    Ollie's wife - her appearance and presents - was a theatrical device,
    just like his uniform (which hadn't been part of his work attire for
    years).
    
    Eric

    Re: .244
    
    Finally, A reply I can totally agree with Richard on!
    
    Marc H.
    

 Richard    1 wrong



 Ollie      2 wrongs


 Ollie is more wrong than Richard, therefore Ollie is not to be trusted.




 Jim

"Patriots" like Ollie North can be more dangerous than traitors.

Jim, if Ollie is really twice as wrong as Richard, do you agree that he
shouldn't be elected to the Senate?

				-- Bob

 To be honest, I have no position one way or the other on Ollie North, other
 than I do believe he is a Christian.  Whether or not he should be elected
 to the Senate is something I haven't decided.  During the time of the
 Iran Contragate hearings the last thing I was concerned about, unfortunately,
 were politics and what was going on in Washington or elsewhere, as I was 
 in a drug induced fog most of the time back then.


 I do have to understand more about what took place at that time.



 Jim

    Nancy,
    
    Make it either "King" or nothing.
    
    Patricia

    .251
    
    NOW that's an interesting request/response.... 
    
    

The following story, from the L.A. Times-Washington Post News Service, ran in
The Florida Times-Union on June 18, under the headline "Controversy sours
Citrus Commission on Rush":

        MIAMI -- Four months after a furor erupted over the decision to pay
radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh $1 million to tout Florida orange juice,
stagnant sales and a stepped-up national boycott have put the squeeze on the
state Citrus Commission to can the outspoken conservative.
        "I have not seen any outstanding results from Mr. Limbaugh's
promotions," said William E. Owens, one of 12 commissioners who will meet
next month to consider renewing Limbaugh's contract. "I don't think the
members of the commission realized how controversial he turned out to be. I
am going to vote no."
        In more than 26,500 telephone calls, letters and faxes received by
the Department of Citrus through last week, opposition to Limbaugh is running
4-1.
        Known for calling women "femi-nazis" and bashing gays,
environmentalists and Democrats, Limbaugh is being compared to two past
spokespersons who became equally controversial: Anita Bryant and Burt
Reynolds.
        Bryant, a singer, pitched orange juice 12 years until her opposition
to gay rights got her fired in 1980. Reynolds' one-year contract to hawk
orange juice was not renewed after his split with wife Loni Anderson turned
nasty and went public.
        The boycott of Florida orange juice -- labeled the "Flush Rush
campaign" -- is being spearheaded by the National Organization for Women and
has received support from the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People and the National Federation of Business and Professional
Women's Clubs, among others.
        "In the future," Owens says, "I kind of think we should not use a
personality to promote our product. I think we could do just as well without
it."

>Rush Limbaugh, prophet or hot-air balloon

Well, this is the "religious right" topic, and Rush is definitely not
religious.

So if he's a prophet, he's not a religious prophet.

/john

    You may not realize how readily folks like Robertson publicly
    embrace Limbaugh.  Robertson has hosted Limbaugh on the 700 Club
    more than once as political commentator.
    
    Richard
    

    and RIGHTfully so... :-)

re Note 91.4168 by TFH::KIRK:

> 	Republicans are the party that wants minimal government control 
> 	over people, so why are they so keen on controlling gays?  (I 
> 	think the abortion issue was included, as well.) 
  
        Both liberals and conservative want government to fix
        societal problems by controlling and/or changing certain
        aspects of society.  Liberals are those whose fix is to
        change to something new, whereas conservatives are those
        whose fix is to change (back) to something (supposedly) old.

        Yes, they both practice social engineering.  But they sell
        their changes in very different ways.

        Bob

    Not 100% true Bob.  Liberals typically want a change that has been
    proven to either fail dismally or has had detrimental consequences in a
    society.  Conservatives are saying, "We're for change but we're not
    going to prostitute ourselves in the name of change".
    
    -Jack

re Note 497.258 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

        Balderdash!  What self-serving rubbish!

        I could just as easily say that conservatives are those who
        want to return to the "solutions" that are already proven
        failures -- but I won't.

        Bob

    Conservatives are the ones who hang on to yesterday's revolutionaries,
    but oppose today's.
    
    Social Security and the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., for
    example, faced monumental opposition by conservatives of an
    earlier time.  Today's conservatives now defend them with a zeal
    comparable to patriotism.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    There are two basic mindsets in the world. One is those who realize
    that virtue and vice exist within themselves and the other is those who
    through self-serving definitions declare that everything that they do
    is good and virtuous, and export the bad onto society.
    
    One engages in self-engineering, and the other (for obvious reasons)
    engages in social-engineering. One operates by internal laws, the other
    needs to enforce their mindset through external laws.
    
    One aspires to self-esteem, the other to social-esteem, or sex-esteem,
    or self-image. One aspires to self-responsibility, the other to 
    social-responsibility.
    
    One accepts responsibility for their lives, the other whines that they
    couldn't help themselves, because society made them do it. Society is
    defined as bad and if we only allow them enough controls they will 
    expurge the bad from society.
    
    One believes that morality works from the inside-out the other believes
    that things work from the outside-in. For example, that if they behave
    as though they are in love, then that will filter inward and actually
    become love. They don't have to develop the moral character required for
    love, or its characteristic attributes, such as integrity, honesty, and
    fidelity. All they have to do is click their heels together three times
    and chant their holy liberal-mantras, and their wishes, and whims will
    come true.
    
    The first group is willing to make sacrifices for their children.
    The second group is willing to sacrifice the children of the nation so
    that they might feel-good about themselves and their lifestyle.
    
    Because they were promiscuous, then need each generation to be
    promiscuous as well, so that they can say that they were not so bad.
    
    If sexual disease threatens to inhibit sexual promiscuity, they promote
    the external patch (condom) rather than an internal solution (inner
    values).
    
    They have effectively issued an ultimatium to the populace, 
    "You will make our socialist policies work or we will destroy
    the country."
    
    -Jack

re Note 497.261 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

        Your contrasts are quite interesting, but I don't see how
        they map into the "liberal/conservative" dichotomy.

        On every dimension you propose, I know of liberals and
        conservatives on both sides.

        I think what you are trying to say, but didn't have the
        economy of words to say it, is that one side is "good" and
        the other "bad".

        How many guesses do I get as to which side you think is the
        "good" side and which side is the "bad"? :-}

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    The democrats have been in power for over 50 years now.  Congress
    writes bills and passes legislation and they have in turn maintained
    the status quo.  
    
    You call it bulderdash.  Hmmmm, name one policy the republicans have
    continually gone back to that has been a dismal failure.  It is
    blatently obvious that our social programs are more dysfunctional than
    productive, the inner city is a tribute to that.  We know that a gutted
    out defense weakens the moral of the citizenry, those in the service,
    and our perception as a world leader.  Socialism....don't even need to
    waste time on that one.  We know state funded abortion is another 
    mandate perfumed with the odor of false compassion.  We know that
    George Bush is always ridiculed for caving in on his pledge, yet taxes 
    has always been a ploy by the libs in the name of fairness.
    
    So tell me a policy the pubs keep going back to that has failed.
    
    -Jack

    re:  Note 497.263 by AIMHI::JMARTIN
    
    > Hmmmm, name one policy the republicans have continually gone back to
    > that has been a dismal failure.
    
    The entire Republican party platform of 1992. :^)
    
    Eric

re Note 497.263 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     It is
>     blatently obvious that our social programs are more dysfunctional than
>     productive, the inner city is a tribute to that.  

        The inner city, and impoverished communities in general, have
        been a problem for a lot longer than any social problems. 
        Few would have proposed, few would have supported, and no
        majority would have enacted social legislation unless there
        were a problem.  By definition that problem was the result of
        "traditional" policies.

        (I'm sure a part of our dispute is in what is meant by
        "social programs".  I include foremost among them basic civil
        rights legislation.  Liberalism isn't all entitlement
        programs, or even mostly.  Of course, conservatives now claim
        that they were all for such basic civil rights all along.)

>     We know that a gutted
>     out defense weakens the moral of the citizenry, those in the service,
>     and our perception as a world leader.  

        And we also know that a bloated defense establishment weakens
        the moral values of the citizenry, distorts priorities,
        weakens the nation's (and individual's) ability to address
        other issues, may lead to ruinous deficits (if defense is
        considered *so* important that you will spend what you don't
        have to get it), and biases our options for world leadership
        to those based on force.

>     We know state funded abortion is another 
>     mandate perfumed with the odor of false compassion.  

        Find someone whose daughter or sister died from a botched
        illegal abortion and tell this to their face.

>     So tell me a policy the pubs keep going back to that has failed.
  
        If it's one they are going *back* to then *by definition* it
        failed.  It was changed because it failed.  *Of course* the
        change may have failed, too, but that doesn't mean that if a
        starving man doesn't respond to the type of food you're
        giving him then the answer is to go back to starvation!

        (It's as plain as the nose on your face, but like the nose on
        your face, it may be very hard to see clearly!)

        Look:  I'm not some total liberal who praises every liberal
        program -- *many* have failed and *many* need improvement. A
        *few* probably are not ever going to be effective enough to
        be worth it.  On the other hand, it is patently obvious that
        a doctrinaire across-the-board "the old days were good" and
        "liberals are bad" has got to be balderdash!  Even worse is a
        belief that conservatives don't believe in social control --
        that's just a delusion.

        (And even if it were true that liberalism is the root of all
        evil, then it is obvious that the previous state of affairs
        in this country led to entrenched liberalism, and therefore
        the previous state of affairs was inherently corrupt!)

        Jack, you can't win this argument on logic.  You do stand a
        pretty good chance based upon emotion and "comfort", however.

        Bob

	When I think of Republicans I think of a CLASS of people that will ONLY
use ideas that have worked in the past as they are afraid of making any type of
mistake. The sad part is the ideas of the past don't always work in this world
today. The end result is failure in a lot of cases anyway. Not all plans will
work, but to turn down new ideas because they are, in my opinion, afraid of
failure is stupid. To just say it won't work, but won't even try to help it
work, is stupid. If the Republicans of this country spent as much time trying
to get plans to work, even ones that don't come from their own party as they do
trying to denounce it, we probably would be a much better country.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Specifically what ideas are you referring to?  We know alot of repubs
    are squemish regarding economic policies of today because they have
    been proven to be ineffective, if not, bringing us backward.   Since
    both the Bush and Clinton budget deals, both strongly endorsed by the
    dems, the debt has not been reduced, the value of the dollar has
    plummeted, we are on the verge of inflation and higher interest rates.
    This isn't made up.  This is common knowledge with the Fed and Wall
    Street.  Okay, so once again the congress has raised taxes under the
    guise of an empty promise and like sheep we have followed it.  So where 
    do we go from here?   It Doesn't Work Glen...Deal With It!
    
    But Glen and others, I don't believe fiscal policy is the heart of the
    matter in our dialog.  I believe you are referring to social change
    and that the repubs fear social engineering; that they have set up a
    paradigm that things should remain the way they are.  Glen, we have
    been intruded upon and legislated up the gazoo with social engineering.  
    The libs want to tamper with the constitution on many points repubs are
    looked upon as religious bigots.  Okay, so dems and pubs base platforms
    on ideologies and not common sense.   It appears something is going to
    be forced upon the other so the best thing to do is stand your ground.
    
    I am a firm believer in property rights, I am a firm believer in
    government staying out of the private sector, they have been a proven
    detriment.  I believe individuals have the freedom to do as they see
    fit as long as it doesn't interfere with the well being of others.
    I believe citizens should have the right to excell and to succeed.
    I believe government can play a useful role in this if they'd use their
    brains.  
    
  >>     Social Security and the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., for
  >>      example, faced monumental opposition by conservatives of an
  >>      earlier time.  Today's conservatives now defend them with a zeal
  >>      comparable to patriotism.
    
    Hmmmm, I would choose to opt out if they wouldn't hold a gun to my
    head.  Mandate...Mandate...Mandate!!!
    
>>       The entire Republican party platform of 1992. :^)
    
    Yeah, we did that on purpose so you'd get Clinton...Ahhaaa.  It 
    backfired...I got Clinton too!
    
   >>         The inner city, and impoverished communities in general, have
   >>         been a problem for a lot longer than any social problems.
   >>         Few would have proposed, few would have supported, and no
   >>         majority would have enacted social legislation unless there
   >>         were a problem.  By definition that problem was the result of
   >>         "traditional" policies.
    
    My wifes grandfather was an immigrant in the early 1900's, settled in
    Boston and opened a butcher shop.  The poor of the inner city back then
    had a very strong sense of cohesion and family values.  Why wouldn't 
    they, it would only make sense as they only had each other in a 
    strange world.
    
    Truth is bitter but let's deal with it.  Inner cities today are crime
    ridden and dangerous.  The impoverished who are decent human beings are
    being held captive in their homes out of fear of the thugs.  Jesse
    Jackson stated 5 months ago that black on black crime is the biggest
    problem facing the inner city...He's right.  Businesses are moving away 
    from the inner city and inner city youth lack opportunity.  It is a
    self perpetuated problem.  Welfare and drug dealing are the two biggest
    sources of income in South Boston today.  Third is probably Boston City
    Hospital.  Wake up folks!  Digital and Stride Rite just left Roxbury. 
    There is little left there!!!
    
     >>      (And even if it were true that liberalism is the root of all
     >>       evil, then it is obvious that the previous state of affairs
     >>       in this country led to entrenched liberalism, and therefore
     >>       the previous state of affairs was inherently corrupt!)
    
    When Moses went up to Mt. Sinai, did the Israelites become corrupt
    because Moses lead them to it, or because they freely chose to disobey
    God?  They did not corrupt themselves because of previous corruption.
    They were just rebellious as the United States is.  I don't say that
    liberalism is the root of all evil.  I do say that liberalism is deeply
    flawed in, ironically what you accused me of, emotion and symbolism
    over substance.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, please correct me if I am wrong. I think you would like a
government that never bothered you, never took your money. Is this a true
statement? 


Glen

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
    
    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect all taxes, duties,
    Inposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
    Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
    Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I honor the power of the Congress to impose taxes of the public for
    these purposes.
    Throwing money down the toilet is not Constitutionally binding. 
    Funding the National Endowment for the Arts is not Constitutional. 
    Furthermore it is no less felonious than robbing a bank or shoplifting,
    certainly no more honorable.
    
    -Jack

re: Note 497.267 by Jack

>  We know alot of repubs are squemish regarding economic policies of 
>  today because they have been proven to be ineffective, if not, bringing 
>  us backward.   

At least Bush *knew* that he was dealing in "voodoo economics".   .-)

>    ... I believe government can play a useful role in this if they'd use 
>    their brains.  

Agreed.
    
> >> Social Security ...
    
>    Hmmmm, I would choose to opt out if they wouldn't hold a gun to my
>    head.  Mandate...Mandate...Mandate!!!

Agreed.
    
>   The poor of the inner city back then had a very strong sense of 
>   cohesion and family values.  

I think intolerance of "alternative families" contributes to the difficulties
of such families and the good values they try to impart upon their children. 
    
Peace,

Jim

re: Note 497.269 by Jack

>    Funding the National Endowment for the Arts is not Constitutional. 

I think art adds to the General Welfare of the United States.  Even art that 
upsets people and the status quo.  You say it is not Constitutional (a fairly 
neutral statement; would you go so far as to say it is anti-Constitutional?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just seeking understanding.

Peace,

Jim

    >> At least Bush *knew* that he was dealing in "voodoo economics".   .-)
    
    Jim:  I agree.  George Bush was fired for espousing to the fiscal
    policies of the democrat leadership, amongst other things.  I don't
    defend the guy.  I think he should not have even run for office.
    
    >>I think intolerance of "alternative families" contributes to the
    >>difficulties of such families and the good values they try to impart 
    >>upon their children.
    
    I assume you are referring to one parent families, or gay couples.  One
    parent families are the norm in society these days and three out of
    five minority children will be born in the city of Boston in a one
    parent family.  This was taken from census statistics and published in
    the Boston Herald last January.  Trends don't lie.   Therefore, the
    difficulty is economic, not social acceptance.  Children of one parent
    families can be successful; however, they are more at risk to drop out
    of school, end up in jail, have illigitamate children, and go on the
    state dole.   Dan Quayle was right...Donna Shalayla says so!!!
    As far as gay couples, that is not the issue in South Boston or D.C.
    The issue there is the drug market and again, broken homes.  Any gang
    member will tell you that the gang is their family.   If a gang is an
    alternative family, then I stand on the side of opposition.  I do not
    consider a gang a family unit.
    
    >    Funding the National Endowment for the Arts is not Constitutional.
    
    >>I think art adds to the General Welfare of the United States.  Even art
    >>that upsets people and the status quo.  You say it is not Constitutional 
    >>(a fairly neutral statement; would you go so far as to say it is
    >>anti-Constitutional? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just 
    >>seeking understanding.
    
    I thought you might say that, and I agree with you on the general
    welfare aspect.  I believe arts and sciences are one of the hingepins 
    of a society.  I endorse it and enjoy all forms of what the 
    Constitution refers to as, "...Promoting the use of science and useful
    Arts..." Article 1, section 8 (this actually refers to patents or
    trademarks.)  I am a lover of art, so why do I down the NEA.
    
    Jim, you are sitting at a theatrical play.  There is an actual HIV
    positive man on stage.  This man takes a knife and actually cuts
    himself on the stage.  He then takes handkerchiefs and smears blood on
    them.  He then quickly puts them on a roller clotheshanger and they are
    rolled out suspended over the audience.  Audience is panicked and hence
    the point is made that people don't understand HIV.  What a wonderful
    display of art and what a way to get the message across...all paid for 
    with your tax dollars.  Totally inappropriate, inexcusable.  
    Again as stated before, I also don't consider a crucifix in a glass of
    urine to be art or even resembling art.  If I were in the Worcester
    auditorium and we put 20 living dogs out on the floor, then I came out
    in a race car and ran over each dog repeatedly, would you consider this
    a form of art?  I don't consider defaming a religion a form of art,
    hence they are a counterfeit organization pushing an agenda.
    
    -Jack  

| <<< Note 497.272 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>




| I assume you are referring to one parent families, or gay couples.  One
| parent families are the norm in society these days and three out of five 
| minority children will be born in the city of Boston in a one parent family.  
| This was taken from census statistics and published in the Boston Herald last 
| January.  Trends don't lie.   

	Depending on how one takes the statistics can prove any point. Only
when statistics are taken by a large variety and a large population will they
really reflect the truth.

| Therefore, the difficulty is economic, not social acceptance.  

	OK Jack, you own a store. A black person comes in from Roxbury and from
the looks of the way he is dressed you assume he is in a gang. Are you going to
hire him? Economic acceptance is PART of it Jack, but let's not kid ourselves
into thinking it is the whole thing, as by appearances alone can make it hard
for someone to get ahead. Can you see this?

| Children of one parent families can be successful; however, they are more at 
| risk to drop out of school, end up in jail, have illigitamate children, and 
| go on the state dole.   

	Jack, are you saying that it is the economic part that causes this or
the acceptance part?

| As far as gay couples, that is not the issue in South Boston or D.C.
| The issue there is the drug market and again, broken homes.  

	I only kept this because I was really trying to figure out how you can
bring up gay couples, but then go off on a tangent about gangs and broken
homes. How do the 2 connect? If they do not connect, how about addressing the
gay couples portion for us, as in why it is wrong. Economically it would seem
to be fine according to you, which would bring us to social acceptance, doesn't
it?




Glen

>>           Depending on how one takes the statistics can prove any point.
>>    Only when statistics are taken by a large variety and a large population
>>    will they really reflect the truth.
    
    Glen, this has been a city trend.  If you are out sick a total of six
    days per year over the last five years, it stands to reason that this
    will most likely be the case next year.  I agree with you that
    statistics can be skewed.  For example, South Carolina is ranked 50th
    in education; however, this is based on SATs and everybody there is
    required to take them.  Mass. doesn't require all students to take,
    hence you compare apples to oranges.  Until the incentives to have
    illegitamate children are removed, Boston will continue to wallow in
    the mud.
    
    >>        OK Jack, you own a store. A black person comes in from Roxbury
    >>and from the looks of the way he is dressed you assume he is in a gang. 
    >>Are you going to hire him? Economic acceptance is PART of it Jack, but 
    >>let's not kid ourselves into thinking it is the whole thing, as by 
    >>appearances alone can make it hard for someone to get ahead. Can you see 
    >>this?
    
    Yes I can and I have always been able to.  I believe there are moms out
    there doing the best they can, jugling a job and a family...Alone.  
    Unfortunately, latch key kids in the inner city are receiving little
    direction because of economic factors, i.e. the mom is working.  In
    general, the inner city is a consortium of gangs, drug dealers, and
    crime.  This is corroberated throughout the US.  Major cities in the US
    have become a squalor and law abiding citizens are leaving in droves.
    If a kid approaches me looking for a job, I would definitely give him
    an interview.  Believe me, the interests of the business are my sole
    motive and if through the interview process I find the youngster to be
    a detriment to the business his credentials are questionable.  Maybe he
    needs a big brother type like me to explain to him what the proper
    attire is, punctuality, all those ingredients required to make him
    successful.   
    
    I still believe that bad economics effect the social.  Drug dealers are
    created because it is economically more expedient or tempting to a
    youth than getting a job.  The pay is better.
    
   >> I only kept this because I was really trying to figure out how you can
   >> bring up gay couples, but then go off on a tangent about gangs and
   >> broken homes. How do the 2 connect? If they do not connect, how about
   >> addressing the gay couples portion for us, as in why it is wrong. 
   >> Economically it would seem to be fine according to you, which would bring 
   >> us to social acceptance,doesn't it?
     
    I addressed this very briefly because I was addressing that gay
    discrimination is not a big issue in South Boston.  Jim mentioned
    alternative families.  The only Alternative Families I can think of:
    
    Gay families
    One parent Families
    Gangs
    
    One parents are predominant so that isn't an issue.
    Gangs a family?  I don't agree with that.
    Gay families isn't an issue in South Boston.  Black on Black violence
    is, drugs, crime, etc.  I was only addressing Jim's statement.
    
    -Jack                                              

    Jack,
    
    The problem with your response is that it is a typical blame the victim
    kind of respond.  Until every person is willing to acknowledge that we
    are individually part of the problem, the problem will not go away.
    
    There is a systematic pattern of oppression in this country(in the
    world today) that pretty regularly determines who will succeed and who
    will fail.  Those who have succeeded with this pattern of oppression
    generally want to maintain it while the problems in the city get worse
    and worse.  Those are our problems.  We each contribute to them.
    
    Children who grow up in substandard houses, with little to eat, and
    inadequate supervision have little chance of becoming successful
    adults.  The Republicans have also limited funding to such programs as
    head start and WIC which provide early educational intervention and
    nutrition to our poorest and most vulnerable children.
    
    Patricia

re: Note 497.272 by Jack

>    Jim:  I agree.  George Bush was fired for espousing to the fiscal
>    policies of the democrat leadership, amongst other things.  

Reagan didn't seem to have any problem with it though.  .-)

>    I assume you are referring to one parent families, or gay couples.  

Yup

>    Therefore, the difficulty is economic, not social acceptance.  

I know some gay parents who are leaving Colorado because of the death threats,
harrassing phone calls and the like.  Sure, economics are a difficulty as
well, especially to people who are denied employment for various reasons.

>    I do not consider a gang a family unit.

Nor do I.
    
>    Jim, you are sitting at a theatrical play.  ...

Haven't seem it.  Where is it playing?

>    I also don't consider a crucifix in a glass of urine to be art or even 
>    resembling art.  

Ah, the old "Piss Christ".  Have you actually seen it?  Do you know that the 
other half of the piece is an essay about how religiousness has corrupted 
faith?  Most people only know half the story.

>    If I were in the Worcester auditorium and we put 20 living dogs out on 
>    the floor, then I came out in a race car and ran over each dog repeatedly, 
>    would you consider this a form of art?  

For one thing, just as religious practices in the U.S. are not allowed to 
break the law, so it is for art.  Jack, how do YOU define art?  I don't think 
there is any absolute definition, but my best take on it is something that 
creates a dialog between the artist and the viewer or forces the viewer to 
think.  One of the best pieces of art I've seen was an American flag placed on 
the floor in front of a notebook where people were invited to write down how 
they think the flag should be treated.  The catch was that they had to trample 
the flag in order to write in the book.

Peace,

Jim

    Patricia:
    
    Points well made.  By the way, Bill Clinton's policy on Haitian
    refugees is equal in stature to republican oppression.  I think there's
    plenty of blame to go around.  Remember, Congress is the group that
    signs bills into law.  The dems have had control for fifty years.  
    By the way, are you familiar with Reverend Bob Jackson from the
    Roxbury/Dorchester area?  You will hear him on WHDH from time to time.  
    
    Reverend Jackson was raised in Roxbury in a single parent home.  On his
    own initiative, he got his degree in law from Harvard and is now
    Pastoring a church in South Boston, as well as practicing law.  He is
    black and his opinion is that the civil rights movement in this country
    is dead..and it is time to bury it and move on.
    Patricia, The Jesse Jacksons of the world are the ones holding on to
    the oppression in the inner city.  Without it, he has no constituency.
    Black on black crime at its core.
    
    Jim:  I'm sure Reagan did have a problem with it. (Raising taxes).  He
    may not have voiced it, but I'm sure it ate away at him and probably
    annoyed him to no end.  
    
    Re: Threats to gay couples in Colorado.  I'm with you all the way on
    that one.  It serves no useful purpose.  But this doesn't preclude they
    are from the religious right either.  I was actually addressing South
    Boston when I wrote about the inner city.  
    
    -Jack

re: Note 497.277 by Jack

>    Jim:  I'm sure Reagan did have a problem with it. (Raising taxes).  He
>    may not have voiced it, but I'm sure it ate away at him and probably
>    annoyed him to no end.  

That sounds like arguing from silence.  .-)  At the time, vice-president Bush 
voiced his opinion on the subject, but finally gave into to it and apparently 
embraced it during his presidency.  From his actions, I believe Reagan truly 
believed it would work.

BTW, if you break the population down as democrats and republican, I wonder 
who has the higher income per capita?  My guess is republicans.

Peace,

Jim

    Jim:
    
    There isn't one non-millionaire in Clinton's cabinet, but I hear you.
    Yes, Bush referred to Supply side as Voodoo economics.  Bush was not a
    supply sider.  We see what happened didn't we.
    
    If the dems are so virtuous on the subject of wealth, then why do they
    constantly use class warfare or class envy as a tool to try to win 
    support?  I just doesn't make sense.  If the pubs are richer than the
    dems, then the dems actions only tell me they want to have what the
    pubs have, hence they are really any more virtuous.
    
    Furthermore, doesn't it stand to reason that if the pubs are richer
    than the dems, the fiscal policies of the pubs are the way to go!!
    Jim, let's face it, the pubs and dems are self serving beurocrats.
    It's a matter of which criminal is going to serve my purposes better.  
    Kennedy...Truman...they all had links to organized crime.  LBJ and 
    Nixon were Woremongers, Coolidge, Harding, Hoover...Hahahahahaaaa.
    
    Talk to you Monday.  Have a great weekend!!
    
    -Jack   

Another tidbit on the _Piss Christ_

The actual work does NOT incorporate a crucifix submerged in a bottle of
urine. It is a *photograph* of a crucifix submerged in a bottle of urine. 

To some that may be too subtle a difference, but if you did not know 
how the image was produced you'd simply see a crucifix within a soft, 
almost effervescent golden aura.

FWIW, YMMV,

Jim

| <<< Note 497.274 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| If a kid approaches me looking for a job, I would definitely give him
| an interview.  Believe me, the interests of the business are my sole
| motive and if through the interview process I find the youngster to be
| a detriment to the business his credentials are questionable.  Maybe he
| needs a big brother type like me to explain to him what the proper
| attire is, punctuality, all those ingredients required to make him
| successful.

	This was what I am looking for. I like what I read Jack. Thanks fer the
info.

| I addressed this very briefly because I was addressing that gay
| discrimination is not a big issue in South Boston.  

	Really now.... Jack, what makes you think this? Living just outside SB,
I can tell you that it is a problem. There are very few gays who will even
attempt to live in SB because of the discrimination that goes on there. You may
not hear a lot about it on the news, but that is more because gays just avoid
the whole part of the city. Get a clue man!

| Gay families isn't an issue in South Boston.  Black on Black violence
| is, drugs, crime, etc.  I was only addressing Jim's statement.

	Jack, me thinks you need to readdress things a bit.


Glen

| <<< Note 497.277 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| Re: Threats to gay couples in Colorado.  I'm with you all the way on
| that one.  It serves no useful purpose.  But this doesn't preclude they
| are from the religious right either.  I was actually addressing South
| Boston when I wrote about the inner city.

	Jack, let me ask you. Are you one who think that the RR has never
threatened gays? Before you answer remember this, one of the authors of A2
stated in court that some of what he wrote for the literature which was being
sent around to support A2 was nothing but lies. Ok, please answer.


Glen

>The actual work does NOT incorporate a crucifix submerged in a bottle of
>urine. It is a *photograph* of a crucifix submerged in a bottle of urine. 

Let's not get confused with semantics here.  Serrano was a photographer;
the work was a photograph which showed a plastic crucifix in a jar of
urine.  I saw it on display in Boston.

/john

re: Note 497.283 by /john

>Let's not get confused with semantics here.  Serrano was a photographer;
>the work was a photograph which showed a plastic crucifix in a jar of
>urine.  I saw it on display in Boston.

What did you think of the accompanying essay, which provides context for the
photograph?

Peace,

Jim

The doctrine of God's sacrificing himself on the Cross and taking upon himself
all of the evil and imperfections of humanity was well understood by Serrano.

Photographing a crucifix submerged in urine was obviously more likely to annoy
people than to convey that concept and help spread the gospel.

/john

re Note 497.285 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Photographing a crucifix submerged in urine was obviously more likely to annoy
> people than to convey that concept and help spread the gospel.
  
        Interestingly, many non-Catholic Christians seem to think the
        same thing about Catholic preferences for the crucifix (as
        opposed to crosses without a body).

        Bob

	"Our pastors don't know anything and most of them are wimps."

					- Robert Skolrood
					  National Legal Foundation, a
					  conservative advocacy group

	"By the end of the decade, the whole earth will view the church in
a different light.  The church will no longer be mocked and despised, but
either loved or feared."

						- Paul Cain, evangelist

I thought the title of this string was "Pat Robertson and the Religous Riot".

Hmmmmm,  .-)

Jim

Note 91.4429

>    I would have to respectfully disagree for the following reasons.

None of your "reasons" actually addressed the central issue of the remark
you're supposed to be in disagreement with.

However, just out of curiosity:
    
>    - A watchdog organization in the media called FAIR (For Accuracy in
>      Reporting), cited 40 discrepancies in Limbaughs reporting of facts
>      vs. falsehood or conjecture.   I submit to you that based on these
>      stats, Limbaugh puts the networks to shame in the area of accuracy.

Since when is the factual accuracy of political commentary (which deals with
news after the fact) comparable to the factual accuracy of news reporting
(which often tries to deal with news as it happens)?

Perhaps you and others actually perceive Limbaugh as a journalist.  I don't
think even Limbaugh would be so foolish as to categorize himself as such.
But, I could be wrong.

Look, Limbaugh has every right to state his views.  (Views are not news)

My concern is the popularity of his mean-spirited rhetoric.  I believe that
in time, history will expose the Limbaugh phenomenon to be almost pure
backlash.

Shalom,
Richard

    Of course.  I stated not a few months back that Limbaugh is an
    entertainer...that's all.  However, what the mainstream did was make
    the mistake of thinking this guy is was in fact, ineffective.  And it
    took the four years to wake up.
    
    Whether he be a reporter, a commentator, or just a conservative
    demigog, the fact is that he has been a major thorn in the side of the
    democrat party.  His "entertainment" if you will, still portrays what
    the main media refuses or neglects to report...
    
    The bottom line is this.  Under the precept of love or hate, sincerity
    or cynicism, Limbaugh is making fools out of the mainstream media.  
    It would be foolhearty at this point to poo poo his effectiveness.  
    Alot of people see through his paumpous garbage but they take alot of
    his commentation seriously.  
    
    -Jack

    You still don't get it, Jack.  It's not Limbaugh, the man, the mind (?),
    and the message, who concerns me.  It's the popularity of his message.
    
    Hitler was nobody until people started listening to him.  McCarthy was
    nobody until people took him seriously.  It's not the man.  It's the
    supposedly thoughtful people who are glued to his mean-spirited
    diatribe.
    
    This, m' friend, is no Mort Saul.  This is not the Smothers brothers.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Rush cracks me up.  Especially those little outtakes they sometimes
    have near the breaks.

    Richard:
    
    Okay, now I understand.  What exactly does he say that is mean
    spirited?  Apparently you have seen some things.  Is it the jokes about
    feminists?  Is it the Hillary and Bill parodies?  
    
    Personally, I believe Limbaugh for the most part is echoing how alot of
    Americans have felt for years.  His ideas are nothing new, it's just
    that we've been fed the nonsense of Rather, Koppel, Jennings, and other
    misfits so long that Limbaugh is refreshing to alot of people.  
    
    So now it comes down to who is thinking for who.  You may be concerned 
    that the hate message is mesmorizing Limbaugh followers.  Keep in mind
    though that the networks have for years been putting a liberal slant on
    the news...it's getting old and crusty if you ask me and alot of people
    simply don't take the networks seriously anymore.  This is why I am a
    CSPAN junkie!!
    
    -Jack

Note 497.294

>    Okay, now I understand.  What exactly does he say that is mean
>    spirited?  Apparently you have seen some things.  Is it the jokes about
>    feminists?  Is it the Hillary and Bill parodies?  

Yes, this and more.  When will Limbaugh do a Dole or Helms parody?  How
about making David Duke or Oliver North jokes (or are these self-evident)?

>    Personally, I believe Limbaugh for the most part is echoing how alot of
>    Americans have felt for years.

This is the scarey part.  It's straight, white male backlash.

When you say "for years" are you including the Reagan-Bush years?  Convince me.

>    His ideas are nothing new, it's just
>    that we've been fed the nonsense of Rather, Koppel, Jennings, and other
>    misfits so long that Limbaugh is refreshing to alot of people.  

Here you go making Limbaugh a news anchor again.  Is he or isn't he?

>    So now it comes down to who is thinking for who.  You may be concerned 
>    that the hate message is mesmorizing Limbaugh followers.

Just the opposite.  Limbaugh is merely exploiting what's already there.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    I agree.
    
    Straight, white, Male backlash.
    
    That is the scary part.  Too many people even if they call themselves
    "Christian" are willing and ready to abandon all notions of equality,
    fairness, justice, love, mercy if it threatens there economic well
    being.
    
    That is what  I believe as I read the quote.
    
     it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven than
    for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
    
    
    

    You two are making me laugh.  White male backlash?  Come on.  Patricia
    my dear, I have been a DECCIE for 6 years now and have reported to
    women ever since I can remember.  So I can speak as an authority who
    doesn't mind taking direction from a competent female who has a clue.  
    It is the clueless charity cases, both male and female I have a problem
    with.  I have met some real beauts at DEC...clueless and mediocre...
    and 11 straight quarters of net losses to boot.
    
    Liberal political slants in the world have nothing to do with equality
    but it has everything to do with conformity.  Conformity is
    evil...conformity robs people of individuality, the concept of critical
    thought, definitely devalues diverse thinking, and purports to molding
    society to think in single mode.  I hate it not because of any of this
    white male garbage.  I hate it because it trains you to accept the
    addage, "You think my way or else..."  Jocelyn Elders for example, says
    "You purport to my ideas on sex education or YOU are a member of the
    unchristian, unreligious right."  or "You accept this lifestyle or else
    you are a homophobe" (utter nonsense by the way).  How about this
    one..."You will follow Affirmative Action policies or else you have no
    regard for equality in the workplace..   No that has nothing to do with
    it, I expect my employees to be able to read, write, and be
    creative..and have a vague clue about the business.
    
    White backlash isn't it although you may want to think it is.  What it
    is is the idea that I find government meddling intrusive and evil,
    always have and other than that of protecting and defending the
    Constitution, it has no further place in my life.  
    
    So get off this Limbaugh Soapbox and please stop telling me that
    government is supposed to be fulfilling the role of the local church
    because most people aren't buying it!
    
    -Jack

    .297  Yeah, Jack.  The right is into individuality and the left is
    into conformity.  And pigs fly.
    
    Richard
    

    I don't claim either side is lilly white, but I definitely see more
    freedom to the country under the republicans more so than the democrat
    party.  I concur that all I've seen is alot of pork, alot of back room
    legislation, alot of tax raising, and alot of nonsense and waste.
    
    I believe in a balanced budget ammendment, I believe there needs to be
    severe cuts across the board, and I believe we need to get rid of this
    nonsensical paradigm that we will always commit deficit spending.  I
    find Washington intrudes on my life far more than they are worth.
    
    -Jack

    "Tolerance" seems to be a popular buzzword these days.  The only
    problem is that "tolerance" in the context it is being used today
    really means "acceptance."  In the truest sense of the word, I've been
    tolerating things for years without accepting them.  I will not accept
    what defiles God and His name no matter how you try to sugarcoat the
    buzzwords.
    
    Mike

    .300
    
    I tolerate the Ku Klux Klan when they hold a rally locally.  I do
    not accept their far right-wing outlook and objectives.
    
    Let's consider a few other popular buzzwords:
    
    "Family Values"
    
    "Special Rights"
    
    "PC"
        
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I tolerate them too, but that doesn't mean I accept them just because
    they're right-wing.  There's no way they should think what they do is
    Biblical.  
    
    The same goes for the far left-wing.
    
    Mike

Note 497.302

>   There's no way they should think what they do is
>   Biblical.  
    
    They do though.  White-supremacists/separationists think their stance
    is just as Biblical as you think yours is.
    
>    The same goes for the far left-wing.
    
    Ah, but at least one Christian on the far left disagrees with this
    rather sweeping assessment.
    
    Salaam,
    Richard

| <<< Note 497.297 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| You two are making me laugh. White male backlash? Come on. Patricia my dear, 
| I have been a DECCIE for 6 years now and have reported to women ever since I 
| can remember. So I can speak as an authority who doesn't mind taking direction
| from a competent female who has a clue.

	Jack, you simply amaze me. When we talk about AA, Bob mentions how he
has never had to compromise on who he hired. Yet you continously blow that fact
off and talk about how we have mediocre people working today because of AA. Now
you come up with a one person example of yourself, and now it is supposed to
wipe away what others have talked about. Uh uh.... it don't work that way. When
Germany was at it's strongest, you would still find Germans who did not agree
with Hitler. I think your scenerio comes into play here. You MAY be one of a
few people that are different, but that doesn't change the reality of the
situation.

| It is the clueless charity cases, both male and female I have a problem with.
| I have met some real beauts at DEC...clueless and mediocre... and 11 straight 
| quarters of net losses to boot.

	Jack, if it's BOTH male and female, then could the males be attributed
to the white male backlash? I mean, the good ole boys may have put them in that
position. 

| "You purport to my ideas on sex education or YOU are a member of the 
| unchristian, unreligious right."  or "You accept this lifestyle or else
| you are a homophobe" (utter nonsense by the way).  

	Apples and oranges. ANYONE can say anything, but it doesn't make it
true. I think Joyce Elders may go against fundlementalism, but I don't think
she goes against christianity as a whole. I know many christians who have a lot
of the same views about her sex education programs. So yeah, it is utter
nonsense to you, but what she said was a fact. And about the homophobe thing. A
lot of people say it. For *me*, hate has to be part of the factor. If someone
is afraid of gays, and it's based on misconceptions, for *me*, anyway, I would
think they were confused, not homophobic. If they took that fear and lashed out
at gays, then they fit the homophobic mold. But I am only one person.....

| So get off this Limbaugh Soapbox and please stop telling me that government is
| supposed to be fulfilling the role of the local church because most people 
| aren't buying it!

	Jack, would you consider Limbaugh a Christian?

	Who is telling you that government is fulfilling the roll of the local
church?


Glen

| <<< Note 497.299 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| I don't claim either side is lilly white, but I definitely see more freedom to
| the country under the republicans more so than the democrat party.  

	Jack, look at what has happened since th 68 election. Republicans have
been in office for every term except 2. Carter came in with a huge deficit and
a recession going on. Clinton came in with a huge deficit and a small recession
going on (small compared to the one Carter walked into). The republicans come
in, use bandaids to get by the problems, and then when things go sour the
democrats come in and try and turn things around. Which then the republicans
turn around and say, "see, we told you they can't handle it! Look at what has
happened since Clinton took office. Each time he has submitted a budget, Dole
screams more pork needs to be cut! Each time, Clinton has said he has left the
budget open for more to be cut, just suggest what needs to be cut and add it
on. Dole's response has been, "it's his budget, he should make the cuts!" The
republicans are interested in one thing only. Themselves. They could care less
about the country. The democrats come out with a plan. Before anyone hears
about it the usual stuff spews out of the republicans mouth. Pork, pork, pork.
The can't offer suggestions to fix the plan, they have to have their own. I do
know that Democrats do this also. We have both parties who want control. Until
we can get them to put us back in the drivers seat, it will be this way. I
myself am an independant. I will vote for Kennedy for the Senate, but Weld for
governer. I think we need to do away with party lines, and vote for who we
think is the best candidate. I'd like to clean house and start all over, but
that ain't gonna happen. :-)

| I believe in a balanced budget ammendment, I believe there needs to be severe 
| cuts across the board, and I believe we need to get rid of this nonsensical 
| paradigm that we will always commit deficit spending.  

	Dole and the other republicans could make the cuts. Clinto offers them
the chance, but they won't do it. It sounds like they are just trying to
railroad the guy.



Glen

I heard Ralph Reed, executive director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition,
last Sunday morning on National Public Radio (public supported radio; often
accused by the right of having a left-wing bias).

On mixing religion and political action, Reed spoke glowingly of the
work of Rev. Martin Luther King, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rev. Jesse Jackson,
and also of the outgrowth of the women's rights movement from the churches.

Can anybody besides me see the almost humorous irony of a contemporary
conservative holding up yesterday's liberals and revolutionaries as models??

Shalom,
Richard

    >>On mixing religion and political action, Reed spoke glowingly of the
    >>work of Rev. Martin Luther King, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rev. Jesse
    >>Jackson, and also of the outgrowth of the women's rights movement from 
    >>the churches.
    
    Hillary Clinton was a member of the National Republican Committee when
    attending Wellesley College.  People change.  I hope they find a cure
    for amnesia soon!!
    
    -Jack

    It's as simple as Hillary's background, eh?
    
    At one time I was a member of the Republican party myself.  However,
    it was simply for the purpose of being able to vote in the Republican
    primaries.  I've never voted Republican in a national election.
    
    I really don't believe even today's conservatives would join yesterday's
    liberals if the liberals' causes were as fresh and as intensely sought
    today as they were 20, 30, or even 40 years ago.  I see the tendency of
    conservatives to embrace the cause primarily after the fact.  Change
    is hard won.
    
    Richard
    

    What I see Richard is that there were things that happened 45 years ago
    that were necessary.  What I am seeing now is that these once fresh
    implementations are now just stale old ideas suited for another time.
    
    Whenever I see a governing body usurping their authority to save the
    masses from themselves, this makes a red light go off.  Furthermore,
    we must keep in mind that the Revolution was fought to battle tyranny.  
    You would think we would learn from history but we don't.  
    
    All you proved by stating the Christian man/pastor/whatever his
    position is, embracing the idealogues like Jesse Jackson, it only tells
    me that one individual changed their ideology...just as Hillary Clinton
    did.  Then again, I can understand Hillary hating JFK...he was a supply
    sider too.
    
    -Jack

    .309
    
    Reed is a spokesperson for the Christian Coalition, a group which is
    presently backing James Danforth Quayle for president in '96.  Reed
    was not simply representing his own views on this national broadcast.
    
    The Revolutionary War was not over high ideals and principles, though
    it is commonly construed to have been so by latter-day flag wavers.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, I call tyranny and freedom from government intrusion in church
    and private matters a high ideal to aspire toward.  
    
    Mr. Clinton...
    
    Leave
    
    Me
    
    Alone!!!

    In those days, you'd have been known as an anti-federalist and probably
    opposed to the ratification of the Constitution.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    On the contrary, I would have been against King George.  Our government
    has run amuck and it would be sheer denial to say otherwise.
    
    -Jack

    On the contrary, anti-federalists were *not* English loyalists.  Time
    to bone up on your American history, Jack.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

"Primetime Live" this Thursday evening, ABC, is to feature a segment on
a side of Pat Robertson, the television evangelist and political leader,
that most people don't know about - Pat Robertson, the salesman.

Shalom,
Richard

    Oh goody, I can hardly wait.

    A fan, eh?
    
    <no signature either>
    

    No, not really.  

******************************************************%^%******************

                * * *  F R E E D O M   W R I T E R  * * *
                        P R E S S   R E L E A S E

             Religious Right Issues 'Hit List' of Democrats

     The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert, a Washington, DC-based Religious Right
organization, is urging its members to petition God to bring evil upon a
published list of 25 Democratic candidates. The so-called "Philistine
List" includes two governors, seven senators, and 16 members of the
House.
     According to Harry Valentine, one of the group's founders, the list
comprises "particularly objectionable candidates, mostly incumbents who
have demonstrated themselves to be enemies of Christianity and Biblical
morality."
     "Don't hesitate to pray imprecatory Psalms over them," wrote
Valentine in the group's newsletter. "Imprecatory" means to "call down
evil upon."  Imprecatory Psalms include: "Let his days be few; and let
another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife
a widow" (Psalm 109:8,9). "Let death seize upon them, and let them go
down quick into hell:  for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among
them" (Psalm 55:15). "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the
vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" (Psalm
58:10).
     The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert meets in a town house across the street
from the U.S. Supreme Court. It is understood that Justice Clarence Thomas
visits the ministry on occasion.
     The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert operated a booth at the Christian
Coalition's national Road to Victory conference, held in September at the
Washington Hilton. During that conference, Rev. Pierre Bynum, another
leader of the Prayer Alert, told The Freedom Writer newsletter that he
believed that abortion is a capital offense and that doctors who perform
abortions should be executed. Bynum also called homosexuality a capital
offense.
     For years, anti-abortionists have used imprecatory prayers against
doctors who perform abortions. Coupled with wanted posters of doctors,
this type of activity has taken its toll. Repeated imprecatory prayer
can be auto-suggestive, especially to unbalanced members of the prayer
groups.  According to Skipp Porteous of the Institute for First
Amendment Studies, "After continual reinforcement it doesn't take much
for a religious fanatic to 'hear the voice of God' and then go out and
shoot someone."
     The Institute for First Amendment Studies, founded in 1984, defends
First Amendment freedoms with particular emphasis on the separation of
church and state. Based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, the group is
national in scope. For more information, contact frdmwriter@aol.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        |
|                          THE PHILISTINE LIST                           |
|                                                                        |
|   GOVERNORSHIPS:                       HOUSE:                          |
|   Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY)              Rep. Tom Foley (D-WA)           |
|   Gov. Ann Richards (D-TX)             Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO)       |

|                                        Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO)    |
|   SENATE:                              Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)        |
|   Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)              Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL)    |
|   Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)          Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)        |
|   Sen. Bob Kerry (D-NE)                Rep. Vic Fasio (D-CA)           |
|   Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)              Rep. Leslie Byrne (D-VA)        |
|   Sen. Jim Sasser (D-TN)               Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN)        |
|   Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)            Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY)     |
|   Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA)           Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX)         |

|   -------------------------------      Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)         |
|   "Give special attention to the       Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA)        |
|   enclosed Philistine List. Don't      Rep. Henry Gonzales (D-TX)      |
|   hesitate to pray imprecatory         Rep. James Moran (D-VA)         |
|   Psalms over them."                   Rep. Karan English (D-AZ)       |
|                                                                        |
|                 Capitol Hill Prayer Alert * October 26, 1994           |
|                                                                        |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 What utter nonsense...once again, as a conservative, Bible believing,
 Independant, Fundamental Baptist, I completely disavow any connection
 with this bunch, as will thousands upon thousands more.  To accept this
 bunch as representatives of Christianity is a grievous error.




Jim

re Note 497.320 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  To accept this
>  bunch as representatives of Christianity is a grievous error.
  
        Well, there's no doubt that many if not most non-Christians,
        as well as a good number of unthinking or uncritical
        Christians, will regard such campaigns as representative of
        at least some major strains of Christianity.

        As bad as the actions of the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jim Bakkers
        may be for the image of Christianity, it is these much more
        "subtle" problems, which can mask much more successfully as
        "true Christianity", which misrepresent Christian thought and
        doctrine to the masses.

        So what should Christians do to respond?

        How about very public calls for prayer for *guidance* and
        *wisdom* for leaders whom Christians think are misguided or
        unwise?

        A question for both the liberals and conservatives:  have you
        been praying that God would grant Bill Clinton *wisdom* and
        *lead* him into wise choices?

        Bob

RE:<<< Note 497.321 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO3-3/L16)" >>>
              -< such leaders do need prayer, but not that kind >-


>        So what should Christians do to respond?


     Keep telling folks about Jesus Christ and His love for them, and
     make sure their testimony is pure.


      
      >  A question for both the liberals and conservatives:  have you
      >  been praying that God would grant Bill Clinton *wisdom* and
      >  *lead* him into wise choices?

       
   When I do pray for the President and other government officials, which
   I'll confess is not a daily occurance, this is precisely what I pray for.
   How any Christian could pray that God bring harm, etc on any one is beyond
   me.



Jim

Note 497.320

> What utter nonsense...once again, as a conservative, Bible believing,
> Independant, Fundamental Baptist, I completely disavow any connection
> with this bunch, as will thousands upon thousands more.

Do you think this would put you in the majority or minority with like-minded
(fundamentalist) believers?

> To accept this
> bunch as representatives of Christianity is a grievous error.

I don't, but neither is it likely that these folks would accept me as a
representative of Christianity, either.

Shalom,
Richard

RE:            <<< Note 497.323 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "God's rascal" >>>



>> What utter nonsense...once again, as a conservative, Bible believing,
>> Independant, Fundamental Baptist, I completely disavow any connection
>> with this bunch, as will thousands upon thousands more.

>Do you think this would put you in the majority or minority with like-minded
>(fundamentalist) believers?



In my opinion, based on those fundamentalists with whom I am acquainted and
whom I've observed (via radio/TV etc), I am in the majority.


Jim

    Richard:
    
    I concur with Mr. Henderson.
    
    -Jack

    Actually, I wonder if *anyone* would not deny embracing .319 in total.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .326 Richard

>    Actually, I wonder if *anyone* would not deny embracing .319 in total.

Presumably Harry Valentine and Pierre Bynum would not deny embracing the
Prayer Alert's "Philistine List", although they probably wouldn't agree
with the statement made in .319 that "After continual reinforcement it
doesn't take much for a religious fanatic to 'hear the voice of God' and
then go out and shoot someone."

I hope Clarence Thomas denounces the "Philistine List", or is at least
privately opposed to it.

				-- Bob

	Re: .319 and all following.

	Actually, I would think that Jim is right in being part of the
	majority of those addressed who reject the rubbish espoused here.
	It is not merely non-Christian; it is out-and-out anti-Christian.

	My concern is that, regardless of the size of the majority, there
	remains a minority who will not reject it. And some, if not all
	of this minority could be mentally instable enough to try to help
	their prayers to be fulfilled.

	Greetings, Derek.
                                                      

re: several replies to the prayer alert bunch...

	To accept this
 	bunch as representatives of Christianity is a grievous error.

        Well, there's no doubt that many if not most non-Christians,
        as well as a good number of unthinking or uncritical
        Christians, will regard such campaigns as representative of
        at least some major strains of Christianity.

Sorry folks, but they ARE representative of some major strains of Christianity.
Simply becuase they don't agree with your view doesn't make them any less, you
ALL believe that you are doing what you are doing in the name of Jesus. 

Steve

    Steve:
    
    That was an equivocal remark.
    
    All Germans live in Germany
    Nazi's are German
    Therefore all Germans are Nazi's
    
    Okay, if these individuals come from strains of Christianity, it
    doesn't mean all Christians adhere to this thinking.  
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S. I concur that quite a few on the list are scum but I pray more
    that God will straighten out their demented thinking!!
    
    

 Interesting, one who rejects Christianity telling us what is and what is
 not representative of Christianity.




Jim

    I learned a few things about Mr. Robertson this weekend which is
    starting to explain why he's involved in these sort of things.  The
    biggest reason is that he embraces Dominion Theology (aka Kingdom Now
    theology).
    
    Mike

re: .330 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    Okay, if these individuals come from strains of Christianity, it
    doesn't mean all Christians adhere to this thinking.  

Absolutely, and I don't believe that they are a majority. I apologize if that is
the impression I left. However, they are Christians. In a lot of ways, I think
that the difference is not one of belief, but in the methods chosen to spread
the belief. You agree with the belief (according to your P.S.) but disagree with
the method of dealing with this particular problem. Since belief is everything
to a Christian, this also makes them Christians. (OK, the explanation is a bit
convoluted, but it makes sense to me :^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .331 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper"

 Interesting, one who rejects Christianity telling us what is and what is
 not representative of Christianity.

Well, you can't seem to decide among yourselves :^) I have no more right
rejecting the claims of this group to being Christian than I have to reject your
claims. 

Does your remark mean that because I am American I cannot tell if something is 
representative of Canada?

Steve

    .332
    
    I don't know what Dominion Theology teaches, but I, too, tend to
    emphasize the Sovereign Realm at hand, as did Jesus.  I don't think
    this is one of the points over which Robertson and I would depart.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 >>   You agree with the belief (according to your P.S.) but disagree with
 >>   the method of dealing with this particular problem. Since belief is
 >>   everything
 >>   to a Christian, this also makes them Christians. (OK, the explanation
 >>   is a bit convoluted, but it makes sense to me :^)
    
    Actually, this isn't a problem per sae.  It is actually democracy at
    work.  Each of these individuals were duly elected by the majority of
    their constituents.  I celebrate their position and the ability to
    exercise their 1st ammendment rights.
    
    The only thing I could recommend is to convince the constituents that
    they can do better.  Of course, Massachusetts hasn't learned yet as
    they are still the charity cases they are, why should any of these
    specific districts?!!! :-)
    
    -Jack
    

Note 497.330

>    All Germans live in Germany

Not all Germans live in Germany.

>    Nazi's are German

Not every Nazi is German.

>    Therefore all Germans are Nazi's

Many Germans did nothing to inhibit Nazism.
        
>    P.S. I concur that quite a few on the list are scum but I pray more
>    that God will straighten out their demented thinking!!
    
This is what I was referring to when I said in .326:

>>    Actually, I wonder if *anyone* would not deny embracing .319 in total
[as a whole].

I do believe quite a few embrace the mindset behind .319 while denying it
as it is presented in .319.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    You proved my point that equivocal argument are fallacious.  Not all
    Christians are bigots...not all Christians are carnal...
    
    As I stated, I don't believe in the need to pray for their demise, but
    I do have the right to voice my opinion and I just happen to believe 
    some of the people on that list are bad apples....just as you would
    believe the same if the list had Rush, William F. Buckley, and 
    William Bennett.
    
    -Jack

    Yes, and I imagine there were plenty of people who didn't agree with
    the way in which Nazi policies were carried out and yet agreed with
    the underlying premises of those policies.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes Richard.  Proposition 187 is a very good example of this.  I agree
    with the premise of it but not the way it is being implemented.  
    
    -Jack

    >    I don't know what Dominion Theology teaches, but I, too, tend to
    
    Dominion theology (aka Kingdom Now) is the stance where Christians
    believe that we are currently in the millenial reign of Christ and the
    Second Coming of Christ has already occurred, but in the spiritual
    realm.  They believe that Christians are responsible for setting up
    earth to a point where it is acceptable to present to Christ for Him to
    come down and physically rule over us here on earth.  
    
    This is one of the reasons why Mr. Robertson is so active in politics
    through the Christian Coalition.  The faster we can get our land back
    in order and restore morality, the faster Christ will join us in His
    "millenial" era.  When he sold the Family Channel, he put all the money
    into an escrow account that matures in 2025.  Part of the reason was so
    that he could continually finance the political efforts.
    
    A pastor I know talked about this at our men's retreat this weekend. 
    He typically sits in the middle seat on flights so that he can witness
    to the person on either side (as God leads).  On a recent flight, he
    sat next to a man reading one of Hal Lindsay's new books.  Pastor John
    didn't reveal who he was but just asked, "Are you interested in that
    stuff?"  The man replied, "No, I don't believe this.  I only read it to
    learn about the enemy."  It turns out that he was a Dominion theology
    believer as Mr. Robertson is.  This man said, "The Rapture Christians
    are the ones who are preventing Christ from coming down now to join us
    in His millenium."  Pastor John said to him, "What about when Jesus
    told of 2 men being in the field, one was taken the other left?  What
    about when Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah and Lot?"  The
    man replied, "You mean the passage in Matthew?"  Pastor John said, "No. 
    The one in Luke 17."  This man said, "Well, we've never been really
    able to explain that passage."
    
    They may be saved, but what they believe doesn't follow what Jesus
    taught in scripture.  When Christ raptures His church, I'm sure He will
    take them anyway.
    
    Mike

 Eeeesh

    First must come the abomination of desolation...
    
    "For there will be great tribulation, as the world has never seen
    before nor will ever see again"  Matthew 23 I believe.
    
    Also see Daniels prophecies of the little horn and how he will sit on
    the throne uttering blasphemies toward God.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, Jim,
    
    Isn't this millenium great?!  I just love all the peace between
    brothers and sisters of all nations.  The extermination of all forms of 
    violence and abuse.  The lions no longer eating the lambs!  The
    complete absence of sin!  
    
    Mike

    Hahahahahaha!!!

 Its wonderful, Mike...and as soon as I get my cable company to remove the
 soft core porn channel from my cable system, and install the burglar alarm
 on my car, make sure my rental insurance is up to date on my apartment,
 and talk to my ex about the garbage she allows my son to watch on TV,
 I'm going to enjoy it!




Jim

    .340
    
    Dominion Theology (aka Kingdom Now) as you've elaborated upon it is
    certainly not what I had pictured.
    
    I'm really not very much into eschatology.  Eschatological concepts
    are not a dominant part my theology.  It doesn't surprise me that it's
    more integral to Robertson's.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .339
    
    I'm taken aback that you would recognize, acknowledge and even embrace
    the parallel, Jack.
    
    Richard
    

re .343

Mike,

;Isn't this millenium great?!  I just love all the peace between
;brothers and sisters of all nations.

It is obvious that millienium has not started. But why do you
imply that peace between brothers and sisters will only happen
then?. Jesus gave a new commandment to his followers nearly
2000 years ago, that a brother should be willing to lay down
his own life on behalf of his fellow brother in the interest of
peace. John 13:34,35 RSV "A new commandment I give you to you,
that you love one another just as I have loved you, that you
also love one another. By this all men will know that you are
my disciples, if you have love for one another." The peace that
comes from the type of love Jesus showed would be evident amongst
his followers before the millenium for it would be "By this all
men will know that you are my disciples", and these are Jesus'
words and not mine so it's not just wishful thinking on my part.
Jehovah's Witnesses in all lands of the earth as a whole enjoy
such peace, refusing to be pitted against each other. No doubt
you have heard me cite this on numerous occasions but it is a
very important command from Jesus to follow for 1 John 4:19-21 
RSV reads "If any ones says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, 
he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has 
seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment 
we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother
also." With this Scripture in mind, a sobering thought is
would we allow national or personal interests to put oneself
in opposition so as to wage war with God ?. Because of the love 
we have for God the answer would be no. Therefore, the same should 
be true of ones brother whom one has seen no matter what nationality
they are. By following Jesus' command, these sentiments of the 
of the Psalmist can be experienced Psalm 133:1 RSV "BEHOLD, how good 
and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" and verse 3 "It is 
like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountain of Zion! For there 
the LORD has commanded the blessing, life for evermore." Known as
the song of the ascents, it would be something the Jews would sing
as the ascended on their way to worship in the temple at Jerusalem.
It would remind them of their need to live in unity with their 
fellow brother or sister which in turn when observed would be a sweet 
smelling odour to their God.

Phil. 

    Phil, while I agree with you, perfect peace won't happen until Christ
    returns and sets up His kingdom.  As long as believers have their flesh
    to war with, we won't be able to perfectly model Jesus Christ in our
    lives.
    
    Mike

Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, November 22, 1992, pp.A1, A22-23

HOUSING, RELIGIOUS RIGHTS CLASH IN RENTAL DISPUTE

Laws:  State high court to review Chico landlady's refusal to rent to couple
because they are unmarried.

by Maura Dolan, Times legal affairs writer.

        Gail Randall and Ken Phillips fell in love with the Chico duplex.
It had pale yellow clapboards trimmed in brick, a high, steep roof, hardwood
floors and a fireplace.  The tree-shaded home reminded Randall of a
gingerbread house.
        But there was a hitch.  The landlady, a conservative, devout
Christian, refused to rent to unmarried couples.  When she learned Randall
and Phillips lived together outside of marrieage, she canceled the rental
agreement and mailed back their deposit.
        "It was real disappointing," said Randall, 31.
        The couple filed a complaint against the landlady, sparking a
constitutional dilemma over the competing rights of religious freedom and
fair housing, property and privacy, and, peripherally, over what constitutes
sin.
        Backed by onetime presidential candidate and television evangelist
Pat Robertson, the landlady maintains that her religious convictions entitle
her to discriminate.  She and a handful of other landlords around the nation
have been prevailing in courts with the help of a legal aid group started by
the conservative preacher.
        California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the state's top law enforcement
officer, recently refused to continue representing a state fair housing
agency against the Chico woman.  Lungren said he supported a Court of Apeal
ruling in her favor, forcing the state agency to obtain a private lawyer.
        The California Supreme Court agreed to review the dispute even
though it had failed to reaach a decision in a similar Southern California
case.  The justices, who rarely drop a case after voting to accept it, were
belived to have been deeply torn.  Now the case is considered the most
important constitutional test on the issue because most other state high
courts have avoided ruling directly on the religious freedom issue.

        "If it means the homosexuals and the fornicators can't find a place
to live," said Evelyn Smith, 62, the Chico landlady, "well, I am sure there
are enough sinners who would rent to them.  I am not saying people should be
homeless."
        The ruling, expected next year, could have widespread ramifications,
allowing the deeply religious to discriminate against gays and heterosexual
couples in housing, employment and other business transactions.
        About 500,000 unmarried couples live together in the state, and the
majority of people who married in Los Angeles County in 1993 lived together
previously.
        Discrimination on the basis of marital status is barred by
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, which also prohibits
discrimination by race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry,
disability and familial status.  Landlords who rent rooms in their homes are
exempt.
        About 11% of the housing complaints lodged in California in 1992-93
alleged discrimination because of marital status.  The bulk of the
grievances came from renters who believed they were denied housing because
of race or because they had children.
        Chico, nestled near the Sierra Nevada foothills north of Sacramento,
is an eclectic community best known as the home of Chico State, which
Playboy magazine once christened the top party college in the nation.
        But the predominantly white, middle-income town also shares the
conservatism of the rest of Butte County.  Farmers tend almond and walnut
orchards, and retirees from elsewhere in the state are attracted by Chico's
mild winters, its two well-regarded hospitals and a relatively low cost of
living.
        Smith, who raised her family in Chico, lives in a different
neighborhood from her rental units.  The widow said most prospective tenants
go away quietly if they do not like her rules on "hanky-panky."
        She once explained her feelings to a gay man who wanted to rent from
her.  "He said, 'I respect you for that,'" and decided not to pursue the
vacancy, she said.
        But Randall and Phillips were indignant.  He was 28 at the time, she
24.  They had lived together for about three years after meeting in her
hometown of Atascadero in San Luis Obispo County.  She went to school and
worked with Phillips in his landscaping business.
        When Phillips called Smith about the vacancy seven years ago, she
told him she preferred to rent to married couples.
        "That shouldn't be a problem," Phillips, now 35, remembered replying
at the time, and now says, "which it shouldn't be.  It was a bit of spin
control on my part."
        Before meeting Smith later that day, the Chico landscaper called the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and was told that such
discrimination was illegal.
        But the couple continued their pretense when they met Smith at the
duplex, in a neighborhood where the couple had long wanted to live.  She
accepted a deposit, and the couple signed a rental agreement.
        Neither Randall nor Phillips wanted to continue the charade.
Phillips called Smith later that day and told her the truth.  She put their
deposit in the mail and cancelled the agreement.
        Randall, an aspiring nurse who goes to school at night and works two
jobs, said she was "tired of the issue coming up."
        She and her boyfriend had previously rented from a landlord who
assumed they were married, and rather than risk losing their home, let him
believe as he wished.  She did not like the subterfuge.
        "We didn't like being put in the position of having to lie," she
said, "and we certainly did not want to keep up the lie every month."
        Smith remembers the couple as "absolutely thoughtless, careless
young people."

        The mother of three grown children, Smith rents out the two duplexes
to supplement the pension of her late husband, a mail carrier.  She wears a
crucifix around her neck, has a Christian bumper sticker on her car and
marches in an anti-abortion rally once a year.
        After the unmarried couple filed a complaint against Smith with the
state housing commission, her friends put her on "the prayer chain," so that
many people would be asking God to send her an attorney.
        Jordan Lorence, who was representing a conservative Christian group
at the time, took the case.  He now is being paid by Pat Robertson's
Virginia-based American Center for Law and Justice, whic has represented
landlords in similar cases.
        At a hearing of the California Fair Emplyment and Housing
Commission, a representative of Smith's church, the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), testified that she would not be committing a sin if she rented to
an unmarried couple.
        Smith is still riled about that.  "This man can't tell me how I am
going to get to heaven," she said.
        A representative of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church testified that
the Bible supported her views.
        The judge ruled for the tenants and ordered Smith to pay them $900
and to post a notice on her units that she had unlawfully discriminated.
The commission later reduced the fine to $454.
        "There is no way I am ever going to rent to fornicators," Smith
said, and appealed the decision.
        The California court of Appeal, ruling in her favor, cited "the
state's interest in promoting the marriage relationship."
        Courts in Minnesota and Illinous also have sided with landlords, but
unlike California, those states have laws that prohibit fornication.  They
cited those laws in their rulings.
        A Wisconsin court held that unmarried couples did not fall under a
local ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status.
        Massachusetts' highest court told the state it had to show
compelling reasons for forcing a landlord to rent to someone in violation of
his religious beliefs.
        Bucking this trend, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
tenants in a dispute with a religious landlord.  The U.S. Supreme Court on
Oct.31 declined to review the case, leaving Smith's as the pivotal test of
the issue.
        Smith's lawyer noted that unmarried couples are treated differently
from married couples under the law.  State colleges, he said, are exempt
from the anti-discrimination regulation and can reserve housing for a single
sex or for married couples.
        "So the state is prosecuting Mrs. Smith for what the state is doing"
in public colleges, Lorence complained.
        Beyond college, some men share lodgings with women without being
romantically involved.  Lorence confessed that he did not know how religious
landlords would treat such couples, but he added the situation probably was
rare.
        Marian Johnston, a private attorney who has been rpresenting the
state commission since Lungren withdrew, said people who do buisness in
California must comply with the state's regulations.
        "If she doesn't like the way the state tells her to run her
business," Johnston said, "she shouldn't be in the business."
        A victory for Smith would allow landlords and employers to use
religion as an excuse to discriminate in all kinds of ways, she said.
        "I am sure there are religious groups that don't believe in
interracial couples," she said.  "I would hate to think the state is
required to accept discrimination against an interracial couple in the name
of freedom of religion."
        Gays would be particularly affected by the court's ruling, said Los
Angeles lawyer Thomas F. Coleman, who is representing Phillips.
        "Some emplyers may not want to employ homosexuals," he said.  "It is
against the law, but they can use this theory that it is a sin in their mind."
        Smith said she told her husband on his deathbed eight years ago that
she would try to join him in heaven.  She fears she might not get there if
she rents to sinners.
        "I am not saying everybody who rents to fornicators is not going to
go to heaven," she said.  "But my god won't let me do it."
        Randall and Phillips no longer live together, but remain friends.
Like Smith, they plan to attend the Califonria Supreme Court's oral
arguments in the case, which have not yet been scheduled.
        Phillips said the episode with Smith upset him because he felt she
was intruding into the privacy of his sex life.  But he did not think of the
rejection as discrmination until many months later, when he saw a television
program about landlords who refused to rent to African Americans.
        "Being a white male, I don't think of these things that often," he
said.  "Usually I am not the victim of them - usually."

    Property rights...one of the strongest hingepins of American freedom!
    
    -Jack

    
    jack,
    
    i believe you're thinking of linchpin...
    
    i'm familiar with John Locke and his arguments about private
    property and would no doubt agree with some of your statements
    about its place in our economic/ethical system here in the U.S.
    
    however, in this case we are not dealing with the house that
    this woman lives in. we are talking about commercial real estate.
    
    tell me, if this woman believed that interracial marriages were
    a sin would you support her ability to discriminate? 
    
    peter

re Note 497.353 by RDVAX::ANDREWS:

>                -< can we do better than one-line non-sequiturs? >-
  
        Perhaps, but recent political events in the U.S. have
        demonstrated how successful one-liners can be!

        Bob

    Hi There:
    
    I wouldn't support it because the Bible doesn't condemn interracial
    marriages.  But it does condemn fornication!!
    
    Cordially,
    
    -Jack

.355

AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

Jack,

So the Bible is OK to use as a basis of discrimination? How about the other holy
books, can we use them too?

This is a tough one for me. I tend to agree that people should be able to do
with their property as they see fit, but if you leave that wide open, it leads
to blatant discrimination in all areas, for whatever personal bigotries you may
choose to harbor. 

My comprimise around this issue is based on personal vs. commercial rights. I
believe that you have a right to discriminate on your own property if you so
choose, if you are not using it to conduct commercial business. Once you begin
using that property for commercial gain, you become accountable to the law of
the land in discrimination cases. The exemption for renting a room in your
primary residence is a reasonable exception, but renting property you do not
live on is not. 

If we allow unchecked discrimination based on personal belief for commercial
ventures we will wind up splintering our society into a thousand different
cliques, which can't be good for any of us.

And it works both ways, as folks are also not allowed to discriminate publicly,
against you, for your beliefs.

Steve

    "And, God bless poor old President Clinton, he's not right.  Hillary
    Clinton is not right.  But she will be right after she gets a good
    dose of the Holy Ghost."
    
    				- Cincinnati City Councilman Charles Winburn
    				  at a Road to Victory Conference
    

    Steve:
    
    Hmmm...good point.  Let me muddle over this awhile!
    
    -Jack