Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Also see (for starters) topics:

	497  "Pat Robertson and the Religious Right"
	87   "What is Fundamentalism?"
	908  "Fundamentalism: The problems with inerrancy"
	1083 "The Christian Coalition"

Shalom,
Richard

    So, I would assume there are only "certain" elements of the religious
    right that are flawed.  That being Robertson, The Moral Majority, The
    Christian Coalition....basically any Christian group that voices an
    opinion in politics.
    
    By the way, our distinguished former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders
    was very much down on the religious right in this country.  I believe
    the rhetoric was very much abused and misused by the Clinton
    Administration.  The way I see it, a good religious right person in
    their eyes was somebody who shut up, pay your taxes, and don't make
    waves.  I'm sorry but I find apathy equally bad to radicalism.
    
    -Jack

>    ...That being Robertson, The Moral Majority, The
>    Christian Coalition....basically any Christian group that voices an
>    opinion in politics.
 
    This can't be correct, Jack.  Christians on the left of the political
    spectrum are involved in politics with equal intensity and conviction.
    
    jeff
    

    Yes but they're misguided souls!

	No, they just have a little more compassion. 

    Misguided compassion Glen.  I actually wrote what I did just to be 
    annoying...invisable smiley face and all that.  But I have to 
    comment to this beauty:
    
    ZZZ     No, they just have a little more compassion. 
    
    It is a blanket statement to assume such a thing.  From what I've seen
    of the condition of the inner city and the evils of multiculturalism
    (Not diversity mind you)...multiculturalism, if there is more
    compassion, then I submit to you the current policies of our government
    that are supported by the left are in fact misguided.  Not because of
    their intent but because they never took into account the human
    condition, that opportunists are going to want more more more.  Hence
    we have created a wefare mentality.  Now that the unfeeling religious
    right is attempting to put checks and balances into the system, it
    appears to have been met with resistance.
    
    Paul the apostle told the Thessolonians that if one does not work, he
    should not eat.  Would you find him to be a uncompassionate right
    winger for making such a statement?  Perhaps, but no welfare state
    right Glen?!
    
    -Jack

    
    My hit parade...

    o The belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible.
    
    o The assertion that they are *the* Earthly arbiters of who may call
        themselves Christian and who may not.  
    
    o Their anti-homosexual stance. (The disrespect and vilification of
        an individual's sexual orientation.)
    
    o Their politics of character assassination and guilt by association
        (e.g. Henry Foster.)
    
    o The insinuation of the Christian Coalition that they are *the*
        representatives of American Christians. 
    
    o The assertion by some (certainly not all) that Catholics are not
        Christians.
    
    o The desire to impose religious themes such as creationism into public
        school curriculum.

    o The cries of "we're being oppressed, we're being oppressed" that I
        feel are unfounded and ironically similar to the "victimization 
        mentality" I've heard them rail against when it is professed by 
        a minority group.

    o The criticism of the government for "social engineering," and then
        calling on the government to enforce and impose their values on all
        American citizens. (e.g. banning all abortion, scorning homosexuality,
        or at least pushing it into the closet, favoring one family
        construction over another.) 

    o The cavalier desire to amend the Constitution.
    

    There is much that I can agree with the religious right. This is more a
    complaint of ultimate goals and the mean and rhetoric by which they
    operate. 

    Eric

re Note 1088.6 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Paul the apostle told the Thessolonians that if one does not work, he
>     should not eat.  Would you find him to be a uncompassionate right
>     winger for making such a statement?  Perhaps, but no welfare state
>     right Glen?!

        Many people say that when the government gets out of welfare
        then religious organizations, and in particular Christian
        Churches, will step in an take up the function of providing
        for those in need in a much more efficient and humane way.

        Why do people (including a lot of Christians) say this if
        Paul teaches that those who do not work should starve?

        Bob

    I agree with Eric's list.
    
    I would add the identification of women as the "weaker sex".
    
    The support of oppressive Hierarchical Structures.
    
    The intentional interference in the spiritual journey of others.

    ZZZ    The intentional interference in the spiritual journey of others.
    
    Patricia:
    
    Was Stephen also guilty of this...just before they stoned him to death?
    How about Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and all the beloved martyred
    Hebrew prophets?  
    
    Just what do you mean by the above??
    
    Regarding the necessity for government to take a back seat to the local
    church...The local church has a better grip on holding people
    accountable as individuals than that of the Federal government.  There
    are prisoners collecting welfare for crying out loud.  
    
    -Jack

    
Hi Eric,

Thank you for the following list.  These are what you describe as problems
you have personally with the religious right, correct?  I have a few more
questions for you.  Will you be so kind as to provide answers?

>    My hit parade...

>    o The belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible.
 
     What specifically is the problem with this belief?
   
>    o The assertion that they are *the* Earthly arbiters of who may call
>        themselves Christian and who may not.  
 
     What specifically is the problem with this assertion?
   
>    o Their anti-homosexual stance. (The disrespect and vilification of
>        an individual's sexual orientation.)
 
     What specifically is the problem with this stance?  Is it the "anti-" part
     and/or simply the "disrespect and vilification" of individuals?
   
>    o Their politics of character assassination and guilt by association
>        (e.g. Henry Foster.)
 
     What methods would you consider acceptable in opposing political policy
     or appointments?
   
>    o The insinuation of the Christian Coalition that they are *the*
>        representatives of American Christians. 
 
     How do they insinuate this?  
   
>    o The assertion by some (certainly not all) that Catholics are not
>        Christians.
 
        Aren't a very large number of Catholics considered a part of the
        religious right?
   
>    o The desire to impose religious themes such as creationism into public
>        school curriculum.

	How is this different or worse than the non-religious right who imposed
        secular values/ethics into the school curriculum?

>    o The cries of "we're being oppressed, we're being oppressed" that I
>        feel are unfounded and ironically similar to the "victimization 
>        mentality" I've heard them rail against when it is professed by 
>        a minority group.

	What would have to happen for their claims of oppression to be
        valid?  What minority groups specifically have you heard them rail
        against?

>    o The criticism of the government for "social engineering," and then
>        calling on the government to enforce and impose their values on all
>        American citizens. (e.g. banning all abortion, scorning homosexuality,
>        or at least pushing it into the closet, favoring one family
>        construction over another.) 

	What is the problem here?  Is this a criticism of hypocrisy?

>    o The cavalier desire to amend the Constitution.
 
	Why is their desire cavalier?  What precisely is your definition of
        cavalier and how would you characterize other non-religious right 
        desires to amend the Constitution?   


	jeff

| <<< Note 1088.6 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Misguided compassion Glen.  I actually wrote what I did just to be
| annoying...invisable smiley face and all that.  But I have to
| comment to this beauty:

| ZZZ     No, they just have a little more compassion.

	Jack... apply what you wrote above to what I wrote please..... thank you

    Ahhh....got it!  Thank you!!
    
    - ack

    
    > I would add the identification of women as the "weaker sex".
    
    No, I'm ok with that.... :^)
    
    
    I'm kidding, already!
    
    	Eric

    
    Jeff,
    
    I hope this answers your questions.
    
>    My hit parade...

>    o The belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible.
 
>>     What specifically is the problem with this belief?

          I don't think it's literal or inerrant.
            
>    o The assertion that they are *the* Earthly arbiters of who may call
>        themselves Christian and who may not.  
 
>>     What specifically is the problem with this assertion?

         It is a false assertion.
   
>    o Their anti-homosexual stance. (The disrespect and vilification of
>        an individual's sexual orientation.)
 
>>     What specifically is the problem with this stance?  Is it the "anti-" part
>>     and/or simply the "disrespect and vilification" of individuals?

         The disrespect and vilification of individuals part I find
         troubling. I don't have a problem with someone not liking it.
   
>    o Their politics of character assassination and guilt by association
>        (e.g. Henry Foster.)
 
>>     What methods would you consider acceptable in opposing political policy
>>     or appointments?

         With truth, fairness, honesty, balance.
   
>    o The insinuation of the Christian Coalition that they are *the*
>        representatives of American Christians. 
 
>>     How do they insinuate this?

         Contract with the American Family and speeches by Ralph Reed.
   
>    o The assertion by some (certainly not all) that Catholics are not
>        Christians.
 
>>        Aren't a very large number of Catholics considered a part of the
>>        religious right?

         Large numbers? Compared to the entire American Catholic
         population? I didn't think so. Perhaps on some issues like
         abortion. 

         I intentionally used the word "some" and not "many" or
         "most." I have had unsettling experiences with such people
         who identify themselves as conservative Bible- believing
         Christians.
   
>    o The desire to impose religious themes such as creationism into public
>        school curriculum.

>>	How is this different or worse than the non-religious right who imposed
>>        secular values/ethics into the school curriculum?

         Honesty, responsibility, respect, work ethic are not
         exclusively religious issues. Creation of the Earth in six
         days is. Organized prayer is, student initiated or not.

>    o The cries of "we're being oppressed, we're being oppressed" that I
>        feel are unfounded and ironically similar to the "victimization 
>        mentality" I've heard them rail against when it is professed by 
>        a minority group.

>>	What would have to happen for their claims of oppression to be
>>        valid?  What minority groups specifically have you heard them rail
>>        against?

         1. Any actual legal repression of belief. Remember, however,
            prohibitions of certain *activities* at certain times does not
            necessarily violate the first amendment. 

         2. Welfare recipients. Unwed mothers. Blacks.

>    o The criticism of the government for "social engineering," and then
>        calling on the government to enforce and impose their values on all
>        American citizens. (e.g. banning all abortion, scorning homosexuality,
>        or at least pushing it into the closet, favoring one family
>        construction over another.) 

>>	What is the problem here?  Is this a criticism of hypocrisy?

         Hypocrisy and breech of civil liberties.

>    o The cavalier desire to amend the Constitution.
 
>>	Why is their desire cavalier?  What precisely is your definition of
>>        cavalier and how would you characterize other non-religious right 
>>        desires to amend the Constitution?   

         Cavalier: Offhanded, leaning toward reactionary, with a hint
         of pomposity or inflated sense of righteousness. The Term
         Limits amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment, the
         Religious Equality Amendment, not to mention the lesser
         talked about constitutional amendments of the right to ban
         abortion and the burning of the American Flag. I find this a
         tremendous concentration of amendments to the American
         constitution. I find this legislation through amendment to be
         cavalier.


         Regards,

         	Eric

    >>     What methods would you consider acceptable in opposing political
    policy
    >>     or appointments?
    
    ZZZZ         With truth, fairness, honesty, balance.
       
    
    Would somebody please consult Patricia Ireland et al to do the same? 
    Everytime I see clippings from a NOW convention...I cry!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    	Is the "religious right" solely a Christian phenomenon?
    	I was under the impression that it was a more universal
    	religious thing.

    re .16
    
    True enough. But if you think that discomfort with the religious right
    means that I'm all warm and fuzzy with the farther reaches of the left,
    you are very much mistaken. I'm not a switch.
    
    Eric

         While I do find I agree with a fair portion of the religious
    right's political views, I find myself very uncomfortable with them in
    general. I am a life-long Republican, a Goldwater Republican. I felt
    that Buchanon and Robertson all but read me out of the party at the
    1992 convention.
    
         My differences are few but significant:
    
    	I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can believe in the
    existence (if you consider something that doesn't exist in the knowable
    universe as "existing") of a supernatural supreme being.
    
    	I can't understand how you can derive a moral philosophy from the
    belief in a supernatural supreme being. And how can you call it an objective
    moral philosophy when it depends on an interpretation of a "devinely
    inspired" Bible? And how can they believe that any moral code not
    derived from "faith" cannot be objective?
    
    	I do think that they do have the right to express themselves in	
    "the public square". Where they go wrong is trying to impose there
    views on society, whether it be organized prayer in public schools or
    teaching creation science nonsense in public schools. Instead of
    fighting against the separation of church and state, what they should be 
    fighting for is a separation of education and state.
    
    		Mike

    Z    I do think that they do have the right to express themselves in 
    Z    "the public square". Where they go wrong is trying to impose there
    Z    views on society, whether it be organized prayer in public schools
    Z    or teaching creation science nonsense in public schools. 
    
    Exactly Mike!!  So why does the society have this paradigm set up in
    their minds that we have to support public education.  Please lobby
    your congresscritter to either offer the option to not pay for the
    support of public schools, or at least offer vouchers and privatize the
    school system.   The concept today is old and is socialistic.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 1088.20 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Z    I do think that they do have the right to express themselves in 
>     Z    "the public square". Where they go wrong is trying to impose there
>     Z    views on society, whether it be organized prayer in public schools
>     Z    or teaching creation science nonsense in public schools. 
>     
>     Exactly Mike!!  So why does the society have this paradigm set up in
>     their minds that we have to support public education.  Please lobby
>     your congresscritter to either offer the option to not pay for the
>     support of public schools, or at least offer vouchers and privatize the
>     school system.   The concept today is old and is socialistic.  
  
        Although I send two of my three children to private school,
        and I would support some form of a voucher system, I find it
        VERY strange that the longest-standing and most-fundamental
        foundational element of our nation, and the one which the
        successful nations of the world have striven to emulate,
        namely the public school system, is itself reviled as
        "socialistic" (which perhaps it is; certainly free education
        for all is at least a dreaded "entitlement", certainly a form
        of welfare) when it is convenient to do so for political
        ends.

        I have no doubt that if Christianity itself were an
        impediment to right-wing political objectives, rather than a
        convenient tool to reach those objectives, that Christianity
        would be denounced by the right-wing as socialistic and
        un-American.

        Bob

    ZZ     successful nations of the world have striven to emulate,
    ZZ        namely the public school system, 
    
    Correct, and I don't mean to be so harsh on the public school system.  
    However, facts are facts.  In the areas of Science and Math, we are
    ranked almost last in the list of progressive countries.  Our school
    system in the inner cities are ghastly places and are in shambels, and 
    El Presidente and the other DC elitists are smart enough to keep their
    children out of the city schools...including Jesse Jackson.
    
    I believe our college system is the best in the world...mainly because
    there is competition.  The primary schools need to emulate this.  Until
    then, we are under the seige of socialist thinking.
    
    -Jack

    > Until then, we are under the seige of socialist thinking.
    
    Give me a break... public school is as socialistic a concept as garbage
    pickup and the department of public works. 
    
    	Eric

    Agreed Eric, but for five dollars a week I can have BFI pick up my
    trash.  The Dept. of Public Works does an excellent job maintaining our
    water systems, etc.
    
    Our public schools are failing Eric...and the NEA amongst others are
    not acknowledging this!
    
    -Jack

    
    But you said it was bad because it was socialistic, not because the NEA
    doesn't acknowledge the failings of the system when they occur. You
    tend to throw around the the terms socialistic and socialism as if
    anything tinged with such an accusation was worthy of utter contempt;
    to be rejected out of hand without any further thought. I think this is
    not a good thing to do.

    I have heard the rumors, stories and anecdotes regarding public school
    horror stories. However, with three children in the system, and a
    product of it myself, I have no major complaints. People cite a problem
    in Boston and a problem in Chicago and then link the two together as if
    they were some how relate, the product of some socialistic conspiracy.
    Never mind that they are administered by different school boards, in
    different districts, in different states, with different means of
    funding. 

    Are some people *looking* for a problem? Are some people exaggerating
    particular complaints? In some instances I think so. In one report I
    heard regarding a city public school, two students were found to
    have weapons in their possession. Later it was revealed that one was a
    can of mace, carried in the purse of a girl, and the other was a pocket
    knife carried by a boy (the knife was a gift from his father). Kind of
    brings the hysteria of weapons in school down a notch or two. 

    The problem schools tend to be "inner city" schools. This leads me to
    believe that the problems are largely due to the surrounding inner city
    society, the economic climate, and the value of education held by the
    parents rather than the fact that the schools are publicly funded or
    staffed by NEA members. It is beyond me how a $1,500 voucher is going
    to help a high school drop out, unemployed (or worse yet employed but
    poverty stricken) single mother pay for tuition, books and
    transportation to a private school. 
     
    Eric 

    P.S. > for five dollars a week I can have BFI pick up my trash. 

    Five bucks is cheap! I wish I could get such a deal.

I am not a Christian (surprise! :^), so I probably have a different perspective
on what scares me about the religious right. So, for what it's worth... (which
is probably zero to many of you since I am not a Christian)

Let me use the Christian Coalition as the spokesgroup of the r.r. I understand
that not everyone will agree with every thing they espouse, but they seem to
have reflect fairly well my vision of a religious rightist.

From their WWW pages:

They describe their contract with the American family as "A Bold Plan to
Strengthen the Family and Restore Common-Sense Values". This sure seems to imply
that they are the ones with common sense, and don't argue.

A few excerpts:

>>The message of the election was clear: the American people want lower taxes,
>>less government, strong families, protection of innocent human life, and
>>traditional values.

Well, their reading of the message was clear. It is a bit naive to believe that
everyone voting republican did so with this message in mind, I suspect that most
were simply tired of the status quo. 

>>Restoring Religious Equality
(Making it equal with what?)
>>A constitutional amendment to protect the religious liberties of
>>Americans in public places.

This needs a constitutional amendment just as much as homosexuals need to be a
protected class. The right to religious liberties anywhere are already there,
what they are pushing is for the STATE to endorse Christianity. They list
several cases of abuses of religious freedom, some of which I agree with. There
are always excesses on both sides of an issue like this, and they need to be
dealt with on a case by case basis. But this proposed amendment is a thinly
veiled attempt to remove the religious clause of the first amendment, and the
barrier between church and state. The Constitution was designed to protect
religion, all of them, from the state. The only real way to accomplish this 
is to maintain strict separation between the two. Or to put it another way, God
is too big to be confined to any one religion.

As an atheist, and a citizen, the thought of a sanctioned state religion is
frightening. I also believe that if such came to pass, it would not have the
result that most of the r.r. envision for it either.

In order to keep these notes short, and to get some real work done ;^) I'll go
into the other provisions at a later date.

Steve

     <<< Note 1088.19 by SALEM::PORTER "Mike Porter, 285-2125, NIO/A19" >>>

>    	I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can believe in the
>    existence (if you consider something that doesn't exist in the knowable
>    universe as "existing") of a supernatural supreme being.
    
    	Then why do you participate in a Christian notes conference?  So
    	that you can keep telling us all that we are wrong in our beliefs?
    
    	Fine.  Duly noted.
    
>    	I can't understand how you can derive a moral philosophy from the
>    belief in a supernatural supreme being. 
    
    	Given your inability to believe in a supernatural supreme being, 
    	this next statement is reasonable.
    
>    	I do think that they do have the right to express themselves in	
>    "the public square". Where they go wrong is trying to impose there
>    views on society, 
    
    	As part of society, I am as entitled to support (impose, if you
    	must) my viewpoint in society as you are.  Why should I be less
    	entitled than you?  (In other words, your interest in squelching 
    	my entitlement to press for my views is no less an imposition of 
    	your view on me, and likewise society.)
    
>    whether it be organized prayer in public schools 
    
    	Most Christians do not want public prayer in schools.  That is
    	a strawman of your own making.  Let me give you some examples:
    
    		Today we have lost our religious consensus that we 
    		had in the 1960s.  I do not believe that a majority
    		of people want the state to be in a position to daily
    		offer prayer to public school students.
    	
    			Atty Matthew Staver, the Liberty Council
    
    		A better idea ... is to legalize a moment of silence
    		in the classroom for students to use in whatever way
    		they wish.
    
    			Dr. James Dobson,  Focus on the Family
    
    		How can we prescribe prayers from such a diverse
    		population as will be resresented in our public
    		schools?  Any prayer would be addressed to a kind
    		of 'lowest common denominator deity' ...
    		And, it strikes me that if you are going to actually
    		formulate and MANDATE prayer verbally -- out loud --
    		you are making a mockery of biblical truths.
    
    			Dr. Vernon Grounds, Denver Conservative Baptist
    						Seminary.

    Call me ignorant, but could somebody explain to me the difference
    between the religious right and the far left? These are terms I have
    heard a lot lately, and haven't heard anyone define exactly what is
    going on.
    
    
    Ignorant Joe.
    

    
    
>    Call me ignorant, but could somebody explain to me the difference
>    between the religious right and the far left? These are terms I have
>    heard a lot lately, and haven't heard anyone define exactly what is
>    going on.
    
        
>    Ignorant Joe.
 
    Hi Ignorant Joe ;)
    
    The religious right and far left are political terms describing 
    conservatives who believe in God and the very liberal, respectively.
    
    jeff

<<< Note 1088.26 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>Well, their reading of the message was clear. It is a bit naive to believe that
>everyone voting republican did so with this message in mind, I suspect that most
>were simply tired of the status quo. 
    
    	And you are the one projecting the idea, not the CC or r.r.  But 
    	it *is* important to note that a full 43% of the votes garnered
    	by republicans in the 1994 election were from people who support
    	the religious right.
    
>This needs a constitutional amendment just as much as homosexuals need to be a
>protected class. The right to religious liberties anywhere are already there,
>what they are pushing is for the STATE to endorse Christianity. 
>But this proposed amendment is a thinly
>veiled attempt to remove the religious clause of the first amendment, and the
>barrier between church and state. 
    
    	Below is the proposed amendment.  FYI, it is not proposed by
    	any one organization like CC or Focus on the Family, though
    	many Christian groups endorse it.  (I suppose that's reason
    	enough for others to oppose it...)  As Dr. James Dobson from
    	Focus on the Family said in his May newsletter:
    
    		"Our vision is for a just and righteous society that 
    		protects religious liberties for people of all faiths.
    		We believe in the concept of pluralism... We believe
    		that the right to hold and express those diverse
    		convictions can only be assured by passage of a
    		broad-based amendment..."
    
    	The Religious Equality Amendment (as proposed in the May 1995
    	Focus On The Family newsletter):

    	"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the
    	United States of America in Congress assembled (two thirds of
    	the house concurring therein), that the following article is
    	proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
    	States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
    	part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
    	three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
    	the date of its submission for ratification.

    	"In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
    	acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience;

    	"SECTION I.  Neither the United States nor any State shall
    	abridge the freedom of any person or group, including students
    	in public schools, to engage in prayer or other religious
    	expression in circumstances in which expression of a non-
    	religious character would be permitted, nor deny benefits to
    	or otherwise discriminate against any person or group on
    	account of the religious character of their speech, ideas,
    	motivations, or identity.

    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
    	or traditions of its people.

    	"SECTION III.  The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms
    	under the First Amendment shall not constitute an establishment
    	of religion."
    
>As an atheist, and a citizen, the thought of a sanctioned state religion is
>frightening. 
    
    	As a Catholic, I agree.
    
>I also believe that if such came to pass, it would not have the
>result that most of the r.r. envision for it either.
    
    	Perhaps it is time for you to reevaluate what you think the
    	Religious Right envisions.  See reply .27 for some quotes.

Note 1088.16
    
>    Would somebody please consult Patricia Ireland et al to do the same? 
>    Everytime I see clippings from a NOW convention...I cry!!!!!!
    
Jack,

	This is not the first time you've mentioned this woman's name.
Where are you seeing her?  Something tells me it's from sources other than
the regular broadcast news.  I've yet to see her or hear her speak.

Richard

PS  It's hard to imagine you sobbing, ya' big lug! ;-}

re Note 1088.31 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	This is not the first time you've mentioned this woman's name.
> Where are you seeing her?  Something tells me it's from sources other than
> the regular broadcast news.  I've yet to see her or hear her speak.
  
The POLITICAL right (with which the religious right is so intimate)
is very good at finding all sorts of purported examples of liberal
excess that neither you, nor I, nor most of the dreaded liberals I know
know of or give any credence to.  How often have you seen NAMBLA mentioned
as some sort of serious threat by the right?  And in the area of education,
"Outcomes Based education" is the supposed liberal threat, but nobody
seems to know specifically what it means, not even members of the dreaded
NEA!  (And none of the recent education legislation mentions it.)

The right is good at portraying liberals as some sort of lunatic fringe
by focusing only on the fringe.

Bob

    Richard:
    
    I'll be honest....Limbaugh and National Review...two mediums you no
    doubt love!! :-)  
    
    Re: Outcome based education.  I admit I'm not passionately familiar
    with the workings.  I do know that it has been tried and scrapped in
    other countries.
    
    -Jack

    
    I have to conclude from the few serious responses to this note that
    any "problems" with the religious right are purely subjective. 
    Most, if not all, of the characterizations of "problems" are either
    unfounded or personal prejudices. 
    
    But thank you for your responses!
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1088.34 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I have to conclude from the few serious responses to this note that any 
| "problems" with the religious right are purely subjective.

	Did you really read .1,.7 & .19? 

| Most, if not all, of the characterizations of "problems" are either unfounded 
| or personal prejudices.

	You calling something unfounded or a personal prejudice does not mean 
this is the case. That kind of thinking does help us all see why the Right never
realizes how wrong they are sometimes. It also shows how they are good at
telling others what they mean when they say something, even though the meaning
the Right gives, never matches the persons who said it to begin with.



Glen

    
    I have to conclude that the conclusion cited in .34 was reached before
    the base note was entered. The exercise engaged in by the serious
    respondents merely served to strengthen their opinions.

    I'm glad a played this game. It was self-enlightening

    Eric
    

    
    No Eric,  I truly considered your note (and the others) one by one.  
    
    jeff

    Eric:
    
    It's true though.  For example, Patricia sees the right, from how I
    interpreted it, as a club that has a heavy price.  I read this to mean
    one would have to sell their common sense and sense of goodness.  This
    is her frame of reference if I read it correctly.  At the same time, I
    believe multiculturalism stinks for reasons already mentioned, that
    cutting welfare promotes self reliance, that gay acceptance has to come
    from each individual, that government dependence stunts personal and
    national growth, and that womens rights and liberal womens rights are
    two completely different animals...as I so aptly pointed out.  
    
    It is all subjective.  
    
    -Jack

re: .30 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"

    	And you are the one projecting the idea, not the CC or r.r.  But 
    	it *is* important to note that a full 43% of the votes garnered
    	by republicans in the 1994 election were from people who support
    	the religious right.

Uh, Joe, what idea am I projecting? It is also important to note that a majority
57% of the votes were from people NOT is support of the r.r. My point was that 
claiming sweeping mandates from an electoral victory (something both sides do)
is often not valid.

Regarding the amendment, I hadn't seen this version before, but it has far more
potential for damage than the ones I have seen.

    	"In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to
    	acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience;

I would add, ',or not,' between God and according. Would this offend you (this
is an honest question, not meant to be sarcastic)?

Section I is livable but uneccessary. Actually, Joe, it reminds me an awful lot
of the wording in most gay anti-discrimination laws that I've seen. I believe
that this right is already given, the key being the 'in which expression of a
non-religious character would be permitted'. I know that there are cases in
which this expression has been forbidden, and this should be fought. But this
does NOT make it allowable for public officials to use their office or position
as a pulpit.

    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
    	or traditions of its people.

This section is nothing less than an attempt to remove the principle of the
separation of church and state, and to do an end run around the first amendment.
As Christians are in the majority here it is quite obvious that this would
result in official government acknowledgment, and sanction, of Christianity. Ask
yourself honestly, if a judge, during the opening of court, asked everyone to
face east (west?) and offer a prayer to Allah, would this be OK?

    	"SECTION III.  The exercise, by the people, of any freedoms
    	under the First Amendment shall not constitute an establishment
    	of religion."

This is just to make sure that the first amendment is dead. Nice touch, though,
using it to kill itself. This basically says that no matter what we do it is not
an establishment of religion, so there. Joe, looking at world history, and at
our own early history, and as a Catholic (a definite minority) I don't
understand how you can support this.

    	Perhaps it is time for you to reevaluate what you think the
    	Religious Right envisions.  See reply .27 for some quotes.

As stated earlier, I was using the C.C. as the spokesgroup for the right. Some
of the quotes you refer to I agree with. However, it IS my understanding that
one of the basic tenants of the rr is prayer in schools, and the second section
of the proposed amendment would grant that as a right, even if lead by the
administration.

Steve

re: .33 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    Re: Outcome based education.  I admit I'm not passionately familiar
    with the workings.  I do know that it has been tried and scrapped in
    other countries.

Jack,

What other countries? How did it fail? What the #*$(& is it? 

As nearly as I can tell all OBE is is an attempt to measure a student's
competency through tests. 

What am I missing here?

Steve

    My understanding is that multiculturalism and self esteem have taken a
    front seat to knowledge as the goals for education.  Little children
    are taught to despise their country for killing Indians and ruining the
    planet.  High school students are the civilized worlds worst science
    and math students, yet such is the power of the systems "self esteem"
    training that they believe they are the best.  
    
    The universities have become bastions of political correctness,
    despising Shakespeare for his sexism while lauding banal works written
    by third world certified victims.  Sorry I see this...I wish I
    didn't...but I do!
    
    -Jack

<<< Note 1088.32 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>The right is good at portraying liberals as some sort of lunatic fringe
>by focusing only on the fringe.

    	I'm sure you'll agree that the left is equally adept at doing
    	the same thing to conservatives...

    Jack,
    
    What Universities do you see despising the works of Shakespeare?
    
    It is two bad that you do not see merit in studying the works of the
    oppressed.  I think it is vital for white middle class american men and
    women to learn that our priveledged condition is not universal and that
    it does in perpetuate itself at the cost of others.  20% of the world
    cannot continue to utilize 70% of the worlds resources without harming
    the rest of the 80% of the world.
    
    It is wrong to teach a diverse group of children that Columbus
    discovered America.  It is wrong to teach kids that everything white
    Americans did was good.  It is right to make kids aware that our planet
    is in jeopardy, and everyone, particularly the worlds biggest consumers
    have to do something about it.
    
    Your notes display a lot of anger.  It might be helpful if you could
    identify the real source of that Anger.  I don't really think it is
    the third world poet or the oppressed native american.
    
    Good luck in the journey though.  It is a difficult one.
    
    
                                 Patricia

    ZZZ    Your notes display a lot of anger. 
    
    This is a true bummer because this isn't the way I am at all!  I'm glad
    you pointed this out.  I am a nationalist to a point...I do believe in
    the American Flag and I shun those who burn it and applaud those who
    fought and died for our freedoms.  I recognize the crimes of the past
    and don't make excuses for them...just as Germany must move ahead and
    not have to endure the wrath of the world forever for their crimes
    against humanity.  
    
    I say this without anger.  I have seen the effects and fruits of
    multiculturalism...the evidence is there.  I see no benefit in
    brainwashing our children into conforming to a failed concept.  The
    United States doesn't need to take its lead from the Bosnias of the
    world.
    
    -Jack

<<< Note 1088.39 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>Uh, Joe, what idea am I projecting? 
    
    	You said:
    
.26>Well, their reading of the message was clear. It is a bit naive to 
    .26>believe that
.26>everyone voting republican did so with this message in mind
    
    	That is an idea of yor own making.
    
>It is also important to note that a majority
>57% of the votes were from people NOT is support of the r.r. 
    
    	Agreed.  My point was that 43% voted for a specific reason.
    	That is a significant block of voters that, while it may
    	not be a mandate, cannot be dismissed.  And just because the
    	remaining 57% did not vote for that specific reason, we cannot
    	assume that at least some of them (if not most) do NOT agree with 
    	that specific reason too.

>I would add, ',or not,' between God and according. Would this offend you (this
>is an honest question, not meant to be sarcastic)?
    
    	I see that as implied, but I agree that the amendment would be
    	more up-front were that added.  I would not be offended by it.

>I know that there are cases in
>which this expression has been forbidden, and this should be fought. 
    
    	Why should it have to be fought all the time?  Why can't a
    	clear amendment or law preempt illegal suppression before
    	the case ever occurs?  Why must court activity be repeatedly
    	invoked to exercise rights that are supposedly already granted?
    	Constitutional experts agree that up to 90% of religious
    	liberty cases would be moot under this amendment.
    
>does NOT make it allowable for public officials to use their office or position
>as a pulpit.
    
    	Again, you are projecting this idea.

>This section is nothing less than an attempt to remove the principle of the
>separation of church and state, and to do an end run around the first amendment.
    
    	Remove it from what?  Where is that principle written?
    
>As Christians are in the majority here it is quite obvious that this would
>result in official government acknowledgment, and sanction, of Christianity.
    
    	Again, it is you who is projecting that idea.
    
>This is just to make sure that the first amendment is dead.
    
    	Tell me how.
    
>As stated earlier, I was using the C.C. as the spokesgroup for the right.
    
    	And I've shown you why that was inaccurate.
    
>However, it IS my understanding that
>one of the basic tenants of the rr is prayer in schools, 
    
    	As long as you stick to this incorrect premise, you are destined
    	to make incorrect arguments.

    Jack,
    
    The price I see for acceptance into the community of Innerrantists is
    the unconditional acceptance of  the communities Dogma, the
    acceptance by women of their subordinate stature, the requirement to
    subordinate the rational pursuit of truth to the  communities definition of
    truth, the missed opportunity to appreciate the world of ideas and
    beliefs beyond the communities.  That is a price I would find much to
    high.  I do yearn for the sense of community and fellowship that that
    community can maintain.  I yearn more for the pursuit of truth using my
    God given talents to the best of my abilities.

    
    Patricia,
    
    It is unfortunate that you both yearn for truth, you say, while
    supporting the relativisim of truth at the same time.  The desire and
    action are self-defeating because they are logically contradictory.  
    There is a falsehood in your worldview which will always prevent you
    from realizing your desire for truth.  But the good news is that you
    can alter your worldview in all likelihood.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I don't support the relativism of truth.
    
    You and I have different worldviews.  That does not make my worldview
    false because you think it is false.  I don't accept you as my
    authority on truth.
    
                                           Patricia

    
    You misunderstand me.  There is a strong thread of relativism in the
    universalist creed.  Yet you desire to know the truth.  This is the
    basis on which your problem rests.
    
    jeff

    Exactly...which is an oxymoron in itself Patricia.  One of the tenets
    of world peace as you mentioned is the rational search for truth.  Yet
    from what I have heard from you, pure truth cannot be obtained. 
    Therefore, the search for truth is equivocal.
    
    -Jack

    
    Patricia,
    
    In .48 you state that you don't accept me as your authority on truth.
    What authority on truth do you accept?
    
    jeff

    The direct experience of the transcending wonder of a universal God who
    is available to all who truly search.  The living Word of God who is
    the living Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Great Spirit, The universal
    intuition of humanity created in the image of God.  
    
    Revelation questioned and tested in a principled community of women and
    men, using their hearts, souls, bodies, and minds, to discern truth,
    insight, and wisdom.
    
    Ultimately, I believe their is only one authority on Truth.  But then I
    am a monotheist.

>    The direct experience of the transcending wonder of a universal God who
>    is available to all who truly search.  

     Experientialism is not adequate as a methodology for testing for truth.
     Also, you are, in effect, saying that your experience is your authority.
     Your experience is a private matter and reduces to self-authority.
     
>    The living Word of God who is
>    the living Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Great Spirit, The universal
>    intuition of humanity created in the image of God.  

     Again, intuition is a private matter and reduces to experientalism. 
   
>    Revelation questioned and tested in a principled community of women and
>    men, using their hearts, souls, bodies, and minds, to discern truth,
>    insight, and wisdom.
 
     Again, experientialism.
   
>    Ultimately, I believe their is only one authority on Truth.  But then I
>    am a monotheist.

     Your argument shows the confusion you have on this issue: your statements
     identify your authority on truth as basically your experience and then
     you appeal to some implied objective Truth, as if they are the same.
     No sound epistimology can be realized or sustained under this worldview.

     jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Your answer shows a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit and
    the Living Christ to directly impact women and men.  You reduce that
    power to what you negatively call experientalism.
    
                                        Patricia

| <<< Note 1088.49 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You misunderstand me.  There is a strong thread of relativism in the
| universalist creed.  Yet you desire to know the truth.  This is the
| basis on which your problem rests.



	Errr.... Jeff..... that's the same thing..... herr belief is as it is.
You believe it to be wrong. It does not mean it is. She answers to a much
higher power that you. In short, her other answer applies.

| <<< Note 1088.50 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Exactly...which is an oxymoron in itself Patricia.  One of the tenets
| of world peace as you mentioned is the rational search for truth.  Yet
| from what I have heard from you, pure truth cannot be obtained.
| Therefore, the search for truth is equivocal.

	Wow Jack..... searching for pure truth is something we all search for.
Being human and all, it is impossible to know for SURE that it is pure. But it
doesn't mean we don't keep searching for it. We do our best as humans, and
that's all that can be expected. If we were God, then we could expect things
that are pure from ourselves. But we aren't.



Glen

         <<< Note 1088.53 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


	Gee Jeff, you say what you did about Patricia, yet you follow as your
truth a book written by humans. You believe that God could show them what to
write, but don't believe He could show Patricia. Hmmm.... at least she is
believing DIRECTLY in Him, and not using a book to believe. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1088.55 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| -< You're confused, Patricia >-


	Jeff, are you the pot or the kettle?

re Note 1088.58 by BIGQ::SILVA:

> 	Gee Jeff, you say what you did about Patricia, yet you follow as your
> truth a book written by humans. You believe that God could show them what to
> write, but don't believe He could show Patricia. Hmmm.... at least she is
> believing DIRECTLY in Him, and not using a book to believe. 

        It's a lot more efficient if God talks only to a few humans
        than all humans.  Besides, it opens up a lot of employment
        possibilities for persons who are specially qualified to
        reliably interpret the efficiently-delivered truth.

        Bob

                  <<< Note 1088.57 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>Being human and all, it is impossible to know for SURE that it is pure. 
    
    	Insisting on this reasoning imprisons you in a lifetime of
    	doubt.  And thereby relativism.  You may be content with that.
    	Sometimes it is easier because you can convince yourself that
    	it's OK not to listen to your conscience.  Understand, though,
    	that you never outwit your conscience.  You only convince
    	yourself that you do.

    

>	Gee Jeff, you say what you did about Patricia, yet you follow as your
>truth a book written by humans. You believe that God could show them what to
>write, but don't believe He could show Patricia. Hmmm.... at least she is
>believing DIRECTLY in Him, and not using a book to believe. 

>Glen
    
    Hi Glen,
    
    You're overlooking one very important fact and that is that the humans
    who wrote the Bible existed alongside the claims they made.  For
    example, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were eyewitnesses to what they
    wrote.  They have far more credibility than Patricia or myself or
    anyone else and it is appropriate to test Patricia's "direct"
    revelation with what the eyewitnesses testify to.  To the extent that 
    Patricia's revelation is contradictory to the eyewitnesses' account 
    it is therefore in all probability false.
    
    jeff

    Faith is the believe in that which cannot be proved.
    
    I cannot prove that God exists.
    
    I believe God exists by Faith.
    
    Religious Truth is a mystery beyond human understanding.  Humanity can
    intuit aspects of truth, but cannot know absolute truth.  What we
    believe about God, we believe by Faith.
    
    What I see as the problem of the religous right is in fact a crisis of
    Faith. 
    
     The Religious Right does not believe that God, the Holy Spirit,
    the Living Christ is able to impact humanity in a way radically
    different than the way revealed in the past as recorded  in the Bible.
     
    Because of this crisis of Faith, the religious right insists that God's
    activity in the world conforms to what is written in a book.
    
    This is idolatry.  It is a failing attempt to limit God.
    
    It is such an inability to believe that which cannot be limited and
    expressed, that it attempts to limit and confine God/ God's self.
    
    It is a crisis of Faith!.
    
                                    Patricia

| <<< Note 1088.61 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >Being human and all, it is impossible to know for SURE that it is pure.

| Insisting on this reasoning imprisons you in a lifetime of doubt. And thereby 
| relativism.  You may be content with that.

	Joe, accepting reality of any humans limitations is something I am
content with. I may not like the limitations, but they are there because of
free will. (imho) You may want to think you have the ability to know what is
pure, and can be content with that. But you are not dealing with reality.
Humans are limited, in understanding, knowledge, everything. Because we are
limited, we can't possibly know for sure. 

| Sometimes it is easier because you can convince yourself that it's OK not to 
| listen to your conscience.  

	Gee Joe, if I listen to my conscience, how do I know it's not the voice
of Satan? I know you often ask me how can I know who I am hearing what from.
But now you want me to listen to a voice in my head. Kind of hypocritical,
wouldn't you say?

	BTW, how can you say I don't listen to my conscience when you don't
have a clue as to what I do? 



Glen

| <<< Note 1088.62 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You're overlooking one very important fact and that is that the humans who 
| wrote the Bible existed alongside the claims they made.  

	Who was it that said the Bible is the Word of God? Who was it that said
what he was about to say wasn't from God, but His own opinion? What was the
name of the book where these BOTH appeared? Sorry Jeff. They might have been
around to quote what they did, but they obviously weren't sitting together when
they wrote what they did to prevent the obvious contradiction.

| They have far more credibility than Patricia or myself or anyone else 

	Then I hope you will now stop telling us that you have the correct
interpretation of what Scripture says, or that another has a wrong
interpretation. Because with what you wrote above, it shows you can't really
know what they really mean for sure.



Glen

re: .63

	Patricia.... very well written note. 

   ZZ     The Religious Right does not believe that God, the Holy Spirit,
   ZZ     the Living Christ is able to impact humanity in a way radically
   ZZ     different than the way revealed in the past as recorded  in the
   ZZ     Bible.
    
    On the contrary, Christ can and has impacted humanity in many different
    ways.  God impacted a nation by parting the Red Sea.  God impacted a
    nation by sending a prophet through the mouth of a fish.  God impacted
    a whole city by using Peter to preach in the middle of Jerusalem.
    
    The split I see between you and I is this Patricia.  A just judge must
    judge justly.  If a judge does not do this, then he/she is not a just
    judge.  It has been a recurring difference between us that you do not
    appear to recognize the holiness attributes of a loving God.  Sin is
    present and must be paid for.
    
    Therefore, I ask...and this was never clearly answered in Yukon.  How
    can a holy God justify sin in His presence.  The answer is put forth
    throughout the Old and New Testament...you already have heard my take
    on this.  I categorically reject the notion that eternal life can be
    obtained by our own merits...by good works....or by loving our
    neighbor.  Why?  Because regardless of the nobility of these
    activities, they never address the sin issue.  It is not idolatry to
    acknowledge this teaching.
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1088.64 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, accepting reality of any humans limitations is something I am
> content with. 
    
    	I accept that reality too.  The difference between us is that you
    	are content to succumb to those limitations.  I am not.  That is 
    	why I allow something bigger than myself to guide my life.
    
> You may want to think you have the ability to know what is
> pure, and can be content with that. But you are not dealing with reality.
    
    	The Resurrection was not "reality" either (as humans understand
    	reality.)
    
    	Dealing solely with human reality, I cannot know what is pure.
    	You are correct, I am not dealing with reality.  I am dealing
    	with faith in the history, tradition, and teaching of the
    	Church to know what is pure.  Faith transcends reality.  Faith
    	frees you from the limits of human logic and failings.
    
>Humans are limited, in understanding, knowledge, everything. Because we are
>limited, we can't possibly know for sure. 
    
    	We *CAN* know, but you've rejected the key, opting instead for
    	"reality".

>	Gee Joe, if I listen to my conscience, how do I know it's not the voice
> of Satan? 
    
    	Is this a straight-line, considering your p-name?
    
> But now you want me to listen to a voice in my head. Kind of hypocritical,
> wouldn't you say?
    
    	Incredible!   And sad.

>	BTW, how can you say I don't listen to my conscience when you don't
> have a clue as to what I do? 

    	I don't.  But I notice that you didn't deny it...

>    Faith is the believe in that which cannot be proved.
    
     So little is "proved" in this world as to make your statement meaningless.
     Furthermore, logically, anything is possible.

>    I cannot prove that God exists.

     But I have. 
        
>    I believe God exists by Faith.
 
     But is your belief unfounded in reality?  If so, your faith is blind
     and can have no certainty about it.
   
>    Religious Truth is a mystery beyond human understanding.  Humanity can
>    intuit aspects of truth, but cannot know absolute truth.  What we
>    believe about God, we believe by Faith.
 
     Absurd.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  This is the absolute truth.
   
>    What I see as the problem of the religous right is in fact a crisis of
>    Faith. 
    
>     The Religious Right does not believe that God, the Holy Spirit,
>    the Living Christ is able to impact humanity in a way radically
>    different than the way revealed in the past as recorded  in the Bible.
 
     First of all, the religious right as it is commonly used today is that
     portion of conservative religious people who are politically active.
     They do not view their religion differently than the non-politically-
     active, conservative religious people.  What you should say is that
     *orthodox Christianity* does not believe...  There is no sound reasoning
     that would suggest that God should behave any differently now than in
     history.  Any reasoning person would reject your fanciful idea.
     
>    Because of this crisis of Faith, the religious right insists that God's
>    activity in the world conforms to what is written in a book.
 
     You have no argument, Patricia.  There is no crisis.  Orthodox
     Christianity has not changed at all.  Heretics have come along and they
     have gone just as they will continue to do.
   
>    This is idolatry.  It is a failing attempt to limit God.

     You have a strange view of idolatry.  I believe that your remaking of
     God in strictly  political imagery is true idolatry.
        
>    It is such an inability to believe that which cannot be limited and
>    expressed, that it attempts to limit and confine God/ God's self.
    
>    It is a crisis of Faith!.
 
     I've never seen such twisted ideas and use of language, personally.
   
>                                    Patricia

.26>Well, their reading of the message was clear. It is a bit naive to 
    .26>believe that
.26>everyone voting republican did so with this message in mind
    
    	That is an idea of yor own making.

The point was supposed to be that claiming that everyone who voted republican
agreed with the basic tenants of the CC was incorrect. If they had said
something like 43% of them agree with us it would have been more honest. Do you
believe that every person that voted for a republican agrees with the CC?

    	Agreed.  My point was that 43% voted for a specific reason.

No argument here. I was attempting to point out that despite their claims to the
contrary, they do not speak for all that voted republican, or for that matter
not even the majority. This is a common problem with all political animals,
however, and is most certainly not exclusive to the RR. Everyone in politics
claim far reaching and broad mandates when they win, I just wish they would all
listen a bit harder to all of the voices...

     	Why should it have to be fought all the time?  Why can't a
    	clear amendment or law preempt illegal suppression before
    	the case ever occurs?  Why must court activity be repeatedly
    	invoked to exercise rights that are supposedly already granted?
    	Constitutional experts agree that up to 90% of religious
    	liberty cases would be moot under this amendment.

Joe, an amendment won't make any difference in having to constantly fight to
maintain your freedoms. If simply being in the Constitution were any guarentee,
there would be no need for a supreme court. Even if this amendment passed you
would have abuses.

I believe that the first amendment is quite clear. I also believe that the
amendment as proposed directly contradicts what the framers of the constitution
were striving for, i.e. to keep the government OUT of religion.

>does NOT make it allowable for public officials to use their office or position
>as a pulpit.
    
    	Again, you are projecting this idea.

Not really. I am sure that you are aware of the case of county judge Roy Moore
in Alabama. Beginning a government function with a prayer, in my opinion,
crosses the separation line. I have no problem with his praying in chambers
before court, or silently on the bench during the session. But I cannot see his
insistance on leading vocal Christian prayer before the session as anything but
an attempt to use his government granted position and authority as a pulpit. 

>This section is nothing less than an attempt to remove the principle of the
>separation of church and state, and to do an end run around the first amendment.
    
    	Remove it from what?  Where is that principle written?

Although the phrase 'separation of church and state', coined by Jefferson in a
letter to the Danbury baptists, is not in the Constitution the principle
certainly is. It is buttressed by the writings of Jefferson, Madison and others,
Supreme Court decisions, etc. Some of the most telling evidence is that despite
the theological beliefs of the framers, and long and spirited debate, the only
references to religion in the Constitution are exclusionary. This was hardly an
oversight. If they had wanted to make this country a theology they could have
done so with the stroke of a pen, why didn't they?

>As Christians are in the majority here it is quite obvious that this would
>result in official government acknowledgment, and sanction, of Christianity.
    
    	Again, it is you who is projecting that idea.

I agree that this is speculation, but it does not feel at all far fetched to me.
I need only look to our last republican president who stated that in his opinion
atheists should be considered neither patriots nor citizens, to see where my
concern comes from.

>This is just to make sure that the first amendment is dead.
    
    	Tell me how.

Again, from section II:

    	"SECTION II.  Nothing in the Constitution shall be construed
    	to forbid the United States or any State to give public or
    	ceremonial acknowledgment to the religious heritage, beliefs,
    	or traditions of its people.

The first amendment forbids the creation of an official state religion (the
establishment clause). Section II would allow government agents, acting in
official capacities, to give public or ceremonial acknowledgement (prayer) to
religious heritage (Christianity). When a public official in an official
capacity pushes an idea, it amounts to a government endorsement of that idea. 
For example, I could be technically held in contempt of court if I refused to
pray along with Judge Moore. 

Joe, assuming that you can actually pray silently any time, and you can always
express your views loudly on your own time, and as a private citizen you can
attempt to influence anyone elses religious views on your own time, why is it so
important that folks be able to do it while in an official role for a government
that is supposed to be neutral in these matters? The only reason I can see is an
attempt to make a particular religion or belief official.

>As stated earlier, I was using the C.C. as the spokesgroup for the right.
    
    	And I've shown you why that was inaccurate.

I must have completely missed that argument, to what are you referring? At any
rate, I don't believe that they speak for all Christians, but I do believe that
they are the most influential voice of the RR and will continue to use them as a
spokesgroup. (Do you have a substitute candidate?)

>However, it IS my understanding that
>one of the basic tenants of the rr is prayer in schools, 
    
    	As long as you stick to this incorrect premise, you are destined
    	to make incorrect arguments.

Joe, this may not be a basic tenant of yours, but it surely is of the CC. I can
supply numerous examples of this if you wish.

Steve

.67 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    The split I see between you and I is this Patricia.  A just judge must
    judge justly.  If a judge does not do this, then he/she is not a just
    judge.  It has been a recurring difference between us that you do not

It's funny, but one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity is that
there is no way that I can see God's actions, both as listed in the Bible and by
observation, as just.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.69 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

>    I cannot prove that God exists.

     But I have. 

Yeah, right, would you care to share?

     Absurd.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  This is the absolute truth.

Absurd. Jesus Christ as God is a myth. This is the absolute truth.

Boy, assertions can be fun!

     history.  Any reasoning person would reject your fanciful idea.

Any reasoning person would reject your faith as a fanciful idea.

     I've never seen such twisted ideas and use of language, personally.

I would like to say that I've never seen such twisted reasoning, but actually
you don't even make the top 10. Your notes tend to be very heavy on
self-righteous assertion and very light on facts. 


Steve

    
    Hi Steve,
    
>>>    I cannot prove that God exists.

>     But I have. 

>>Yeah, right, would you care to share?
    
    See the topic "Argument for Theism"

>   Absurd.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  This is the absolute truth.

>> Absurd. Jesus Christ as God is a myth. This is the absolute truth.
    
    Within the context of the Christian worldview, it is
    undeniable that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  Internally the
    Christian worldview is systematically consistent and it can explain
    everything known about the universe.  I was speaking to Patricia who I 
    assumed shares the Christian worldview and would thus agree that there
    is absolute truth.
    
    Back to my original point that there is absolute truth; there are no
    square circles.

>Any reasoning person would reject your faith as a fanciful idea.

    See Argument for Theism.  Now Steve, show me your argument for atheism,
    will you?
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1088.68 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >	Joe, accepting reality of any humans limitations is something I am
| > content with.

| I accept that reality too. The difference between us is that you are content 
| to succumb to those limitations. I am not.  

	Errr.... please show me where I have ever said or implied this. To want
to be like Him, one has to try harder and harder everyday. So please show me
where I said anything different. Oh... and please use the whole text, and give
the note number so I can see if you twisted anything again.

| That is why I allow something bigger than myself to guide my life.

	Yeah, a book. I allow God Himself.

| Dealing solely with human reality, I cannot know what is pure. You are 
| correct, I am not dealing with reality.  

	I gotta save this one.... :-)

| I am dealing with faith in the history, tradition, and teaching of the Church 
| to know what is pure. Faith transcends reality. Faith frees you from the 
| limits of human logic and failings.

	Blind faith can also hurt you in the long run. But we all pretty much
do it. But faith can not = pure, can not = absolute anything. That is the only
thing I have been saying. 

| >	Gee Joe, if I listen to my conscience, how do I know it's not the voice
| > of Satan?

| Is this a straight-line, considering your p-name?

	Please answer the question Joe. 

| > But now you want me to listen to a voice in my head. Kind of hypocritical,
| > wouldn't you say?

| Incredible!   And sad.

	Then answer the question and not do a side step. Either one listens to
their conscience, or they do not. If they do, how do you know it's from God?
These are the same things you have been saying to me for such a long time,
which was why I was surprised you would even tell me to listen to it. (or as
you put it, I don't listen to it)

| >	BTW, how can you say I don't listen to my conscience when you don't
| > have a clue as to what I do?

| I don't.  But I notice that you didn't deny it...

	I don't need to confirm or deny anything Joe. What you need to do is
answer the question, not side step.



Glen

    Jesus Christ is a descendent from David in the flesh and the son of God
    in the Spirit.
    
    By adoption each one of us can become sons and daughters of God, in the
    spirit!
    
    Interestly this would allow for Jesus to be both Son of Mary and Joseph and
    Son of God.   Conversely, it would also allow Jesus to be the illegitamate
    son of Mary and a unknown father.
    
    Unless of course we take the word "virgin" as both true and literally.

ZZ    Errr.... please show me where I have ever said or implied this.
ZZ    To want
ZZ    to be like Him, one has to try harder and harder everyday. So please
ZZ    show me where I said anything different. 
    
    Glen, you have disqualified yourself from being like him.  The Bible
    which is the source we have for knowing what he was like is fallable
    and written by fallable men; therefore, your foundation for measuring
    what he was like is faulty.  This is what you have implied to me over
    the years!
    
    -Jack

Z    Interestly this would allow for Jesus to be both Son of Mary and
Z    Joseph and Son of God.   Conversely, it would also allow Jesus to be the
Z    illegitamate son of Mary and a unknown father.
    
    Through the royal blood line, Jesus is a descendent of David via Mary. 
    By heritage and name, Jesus is a descendent of David via Joseph.  Any
    seed that Jesus came from via a bloodline would have to be without sin;
    otherwise the sin we need to be redeemed from would be inherent in the
    soul of Jesus.  This would make him unqualified as messiah.  The seed
    he came from alllllll the way to Adam would have to be of the state
    Adam was in before the fall.  Allegorical or fact, we know this to be
    impossible.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1088.75 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Glen, you have disqualified yourself from being like him.  

	No I have not.

| The Bible which is the source we have for knowing what he was like is fallable
| and written by fallable men; therefore, your foundation for measuring what he 
| was like is faulty.  

	Jack, it is your belief that states the Bible is what it is. So in your
eyes you are correct. You belief, like mine, may or may not be correct. We both
believe they are, but only He knows for sure. As you have stated before, the
belief in Him is what is most important. 



Glen

  ZZ   As you have stated before, the
  ZZ  belief in Him is what is most important. 
    
    I I don't deviate from that point.  What I am concerned about is...what
    are you doing with your talent?  are you investing them or are you
    burying them in the sand?  
    
    -Jack

<<< Note 1088.70 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>The point was supposed to be that claiming that everyone who voted republican
>agreed with the basic tenants of the CC was incorrect. 
    
    	But they never said EVERYONE.  Only you have.
    
>I was attempting to point out that despite their claims to the
>contrary, they do not speak for all that voted republican, 
    
    	Where are the claims to the contrary?
    
>or for that matter not even the majority. 
    
    	You do not know that.  Nor do I.  Nor do they.  We have the
    	43% who align themselves specifically with the RR, but how many 
    	of the remaining 57% agree, but do not consider themselves RR
    	by name?
    
>>    	Constitutional experts agree that up to 90% of religious
>>    	liberty cases would be moot under this amendment.
>
>Joe, an amendment won't make any difference in having to constantly fight to
>maintain your freedoms. If simply being in the Constitution were any guarentee,
>there would be no need for a supreme court. Even if this amendment passed you
>would have abuses.
    
    	Agreed there would still be abuses, and we would need the Supreme
    	Court for the remaining 10% of the cases that would not be moot
    	under this amendment.  Based on your statement above, I have to
    	ask you how many people have to fight for freedom from slavery
    	in this country?  How many women have to fight for the right to 
    	vote?  I disagree that adding an amendment would be a futile
    	effort, if for no other reason than many cases would be thrown
    	out in court long before they ever reach the Supreme Court.

>Beginning a government function with a prayer, in my opinion,
>crosses the separation line. 
    
    	You say that the framers would be against this, yet congress
    	starts each day with a prayer, and have done so since the days
    	of the framers.  If their action were to tell us anything, it
    	is that they approved of this practice from the very start.
    
>Although the phrase 'separation of church and state', coined by Jefferson in a
>letter to the Danbury baptists, is not in the Constitution the principle
>certainly is. It is buttressed by the writings of Jefferson, Madison and others,
>Supreme Court decisions, etc. 
    
    	Do you mean writings such as:
    
    	"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is
    	just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever..."
    
    					Jefferson
    
    	"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not
    	upon the power of government, far from it!  We have staked the
    	future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity
    	of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten
    	Commandments of God"
    
    					Madison
    
    	"Whoever introduces into public affairs the principles of
    	Christianity will change the face of the world."
    
    					Franklin
    
    	"Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political
    	prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports.
    	In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who
    	should labor to subvert these great pillars."
    
    					Washington (farewell address)
    
    	Supreme court, you say?  Consider:
    
    	"Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly
    	to the dissolution of civil government."
    
    			People vs Ruggles, 1811  (3 months prison and
    			$500 fine for blaspheming Jesus, God, and Bible.)
    
    	"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon
    	and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.  It is
    	impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and
    	to this extent our civilization and our institutions are
    	emphatically Christian."
    
    			Church of the Holy Trinity vs USA, 1892
    
    	"Why may not the bible, and especially the New Testament, be
    	read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools?  Where
    	can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly
    	and so perfectly as from the New Testament?"
    
    			Vidal vs Girard, 1844
    
    
> If they had wanted to make this country a theology they could have
> done so with the stroke of a pen, why didn't they?
    
    	They didn't want to make this country a theocracy, and that
    	is not the intent now, except to you and others like you who 
    	insist that it will be.

> I agree that this is speculation, but it does not feel at all far fetched to me.
    
    	We'll have to agree to disagree here. 
    
>The first amendment forbids the creation of an official state religion (the
>establishment clause). Section II would allow government agents, acting in
>official capacities, to give public or ceremonial acknowledgement (prayer) to
>religious heritage (Christianity). 
    
    	Acknowledgement is not establishment.  That's what the clause
    	is saying.  Your disagreeing doesn't make it wrong.  A national
    	debate on the issue is what is needed, and your voice will surely
    	be heard at that time.  So will mine.
    
> For example, I could be technically held in contempt of court if I refused to
> pray along with Judge Moore. 
    
    	I don't think so...

                  <<< Note 1088.73 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| I accept that reality too. The difference between us is that you are content 
>| to succumb to those limitations. I am not.  
>
>	Errr.... please show me where I have ever said or implied this. 
    
    	Glen, your entire thesis is this.  Specifics?  Too many to 
    	duplicate.  
    
>| Incredible!   And sad.
>
>	Then answer the question and not do a side step. 
    
    	Not a side-step at all.  First you reject the Bible, then
    	the Church, now conscience.  What is it that guides you, Glen?
    	I find this very sad.
    
>| >	BTW, how can you say I don't listen to my conscience ...
>
>| I don't.  
>
>	What you need to do is
> answer the question.
    
    	I did.

	Investing Jack.

| <<< Note 1088.80 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>



| >| I accept that reality too. The difference between us is that you are content
| >| to succumb to those limitations. I am not.
| >
| >	Errr.... please show me where I have ever said or implied this.

| Glen, your entire thesis is this.  Specifics?  Too many to duplicate.

	Wrong again Joe.


| Not a side-step at all.  First you reject the Bible, then
| the Church, now conscience.  What is it that guides you, Glen?
| I find this very sad.

	Never rejected the church, never rejected the conscience. You did that
for me. Why?



Glen

 ZZ   Never rejected the church, never rejected the conscience. You
 ZZ   did that for me. Why?
    
    Again, the man in 1st Corinthians...what's the diff between you and
    him?  He also followed his conscience.
    
    -Jack

.72 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

    See the topic "Argument for Theism"

See my reply. (If you posted that note before my challenge I hadn't yet seen it,
and I apologize).

    Within the context of the Christian worldview, it is
    undeniable that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Granted. But then your tag line should read "This is the absolute truth within
the Christian worldview". My point is that merely stating something as true does
not make it so. 

    See Argument for Theism.  Now Steve, show me your argument for atheism,
    will you?

Technically speaking there is no argument for atheism. (How can you formulate an
argument for the lack of belief in something?)

Interestingly, I find myself in the rather ironic situation of being in the same
place that the creationists are. I have no theory of my own to present to
account for all of reality, but am arguing against a theory that does cover all
known facts. 

I guess the difference is that the creationists are attacking the foundation of
the evolution theory, and I can't find a factual basis for religion to attack!

Steve

.79 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"

>The point was supposed to be that claiming that everyone who voted republican
>agreed with the basic tenants of the CC was incorrect. 
    
    	But they never said EVERYONE.  Only you have.
    
>I was attempting to point out that despite their claims to the
>contrary, they do not speak for all that voted republican, 
    
    	Where are the claims to the contrary?

OK, my wording may be imprecise but the point remains the same. The CC believes
that there was a message delivered in the elections and that they know what that
message was, to wit:

"The message of the election was clear: the American people want lower taxes,   
 less government, strong families, protection of innocent human life, and       
 traditional values."

(From Ralph Reed's speech in announcing his contract with the American family).

Notice that the majority does not want this, it is 'the American people'. I am
an American person, and I don't necessarily share this view. 

    	You do not know that.  Nor do I.  Nor do they.  We have the

My point exactly. They do not know, but they claim they do (see the above quote).

    	Based on your statement above, I have to
    	ask you how many people have to fight for freedom from slavery
    	in this country?  How many women have to fight for the right to vote?

They did not have those rights before the laws were changed. My claim is that I
believe you already have those rights guarenteed by the first amendment.


    	Do you mean writings such as:
	[...]

Joe, what is your point? You seem to have missed mine entirely. I do not
disagree that these men were religious, many of them deeply so. The quotes you
provide, however, have nothing to do with the mixing of religion and the
government. What we are talking about here is that they deliberately chose to
forbid the state to endorse any religion over another. If you wish I can provide
quotes to support this, but I am sure that you know them as well as I do.

The Supreme Court quotes are interesting. Are they from the arguments or the
opinions of the Justices, and was it a majority or minority opionion?

    	Acknowledgement is not establishment.  That's what the clause
    	is saying.  Your disagreeing doesn't make it wrong.  A national
    	debate on the issue is what is needed, and your voice will surely
    	be heard at that time.  So will mine.

Agreed. And I am afraid that mine will lose here, much to the detriment of us
all. As a Catholic, I am afraid that you to will come to regret it during your
lifetime. Only time will tell...

> For example, I could be technically held in contempt of court if I refused to
> pray along with Judge Moore. 
    
    	I don't think so...

Why not? I am in contempt if I don't rise. What if I sit during the prayer? At
any rate, this is all speculation. You're right, we'll just have to disagree.
Just remember the old adage, beware of what you wish for...

Steve

| <<< Note 1088.84 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ   Never rejected the church, never rejected the conscience. You
| ZZ   did that for me. Why?

| Again, the man in 1st Corinthians...what's the diff between you and
| him?  He also followed his conscience.

	Jack, let me spell this out for you so you will understand. Joes stated
I rejected <insert many things>. I said I never rejected those things. I also
never said I followed them either. 

    Well Glen, it comes back to the point I made...the one where Patricia
    thought I was oppressing you.
    
    I am admonishing you as a brother and colaborer in Christ to present
    your body as a living sacrifice...holy and pleasing to God.  I am
    admonishing you as a brother in Christ to be an imitator of Christ for
    the sake of the gospel and the testimony of the church.  I am
    admonishing you to to develop a conviction about your own personal
    life.  I believe very much in Jesus own words, "No one can serve two
    masters...for he must love one and hate the other; he must hold to one
    and despise the other.  You cannot serve both God and the world."
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I dare to bring up the unspeakable!
    
    
    There is some evidence to believe that Jesus himself may have been a
    gay man!
    
    There is some evidnece to believe that he may have had a homosexual
    relationship with the beloved disciple often assumed to be John.
    
    My use of the word homosexual does not necessary mean a sexual
    relationship, but I don't think that is impossible.
    
    I personally love Jesus and am inspired by him.  The thought that he
    could have been gay causes me no discomfort.  I feel fortunate that I
    have had the opportunity to confront my own homophobia!
    
    Most people I know value some books of the Bible over others. Most
    people I know value the four Gospels over the letters of Paul.  Most
    people I know value Jesus' own words over Paul's words.  Most people I
    know don't consider everything attributedd to Jesus in the Gospels to
    have been actually spoken by Jesus, especially when they study the same 
    piece of scripture as it is written in different Gospels.
    
    Jesus in the four Gospels says absolutely nothing about homosexuality. 
    The four Gospels say nothing about homosexuality.
    
    I do agree that Paul's letters do show that Paul thought the same sex
    relationships being practiced between women and women and men and men
    were unnatural and wrong.
    
    Because one man, Paul, thought these relationships were wrong does not
    mean that they are the same as homosexual relationships today, or that
    they were in fact wrong.  It means that Paul thought they were wrong.
    Paul mentions has opinion of these relationships in two different lines
    of scripture and the are lumped together with a lot of other things
    that Paul believes are wrong.  Paul does not emphasize these.
    
    If we used Paul's opinion of sexual morality, I would guess that the
    majority of the members of this conference and  the Yukon
    conference would be included as sexual sinners.  I certainly would.  I
    have a wonderful active sex life with my Fiancee.  My sex life is
    entirely consistent with my personal sexual ethics as Glen's sex life
    is consistent with his personal sexual ethics.
    
    Jesus made it very clear exactly what he felt about the pharisees
    condemning the sexual activities of the women caught in adultery.  It
    was clear to him that the pharasees were the greater sinners because of
    their self righteous judgementalism.  There are whole passages within
    Paul, where Paul tells the 'saints' not to judge another particularly
    those outside their community. The incident
    in 1 Corinthian 5 which Paul does make a big deal about I believe is about
    a man living with his fathers wife.  The implication is that his father was
    dead.  I suspect he would not have made such a big deal about a women
    living with her dead mothers husband.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Paul
    acknowledges that the practice is one culturally condemned by even
    pagans.  It is clear that culture impacts sexual morality.
    
    I believe that there is strong evidence to suggest that Paul himself
    was a celibate homosexual who hated his own sexual urges.  Bishop Paul
    Spong convincingly argues that point in his books.  It is obvious
    reading Paul, that he has lots of abnormal concerns about his own
    sexuality.  He says it is better to be celibate but if one cannot
    control there sexual urges then it is better to Marry than to burn. 
    What a great reason to get married.  Is this really the man to choose
    as a role model regarding appropriate sexual behavoir!
    
      That is why I suggest that people do not rely on what a
    person in such personal conflict wrote about sexual morality 2000 years
    ago.
    
    Jack, if you want to use the bible as your basis of morality do so.  If
    you are a member of a self contained group that agrees with the bible
    as a basis of morality, then edify, educate, and judge each other.
    
    But Jack, let us heretics be heretics.  I refuse to worship Paul or the
    Bible itself as God.  My sexual morality is between me, my fiancee and
    my God and my church.  The  sexual morality of my Gay and Lesbian friends
    is between them their partners, their God, and their churches as well.
    
    I am proud of the UU Church, Reconstruction Judaism, and the Episcopal
    church for the blessing and acknowledging in all three of same gender 
    marriages!  I eagerly look forward to other mainline churches following
    their lead!
    
                                 Patricia
    
    
    

<<< Note 1088.86 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

> OK, my wording may be imprecise 
    
    	Looking back, I think that is really the issue I was arguing.
    	And to be frank with you, I don't like it when people do that
    	to me.  I'm sorry I did it to you.
    
> The CC believes
>that there was a message delivered in the elections and that they know what that
>message was, to wit:
>
>"The message of the election was clear: the American people want lower taxes,   
> less government, strong families, protection of innocent human life, and       
> traditional values."

	I do not disagree with them that such a message *WAS* delivered.
    	EVERYONE who voted for the victors did not do so for the above
    	reasons, but I believe that MANY if not MOST of them did --
    	perhaps not for every one of the reasons listed, but the mix of
    	our government changed because of the reasons listed above.
    
    	Again, this appears to come down to an "agree to disagree" point
    	of view, for it's clear that you do not agree with me.  So be it.
    
> Notice that the majority does not want this, it is 'the American people'. I am
> an American person, and I don't necessarily share this view. 
    
    	I think that the majority did at the time of the election, and
    	still do today.  I think they are taking poetic license with
    	the phrase 'the American people' and that you are reading too
    	much into it.
    
>They did not have those rights before the laws were changed. My claim is that I
>believe you already have those rights guarenteed by the first amendment.
    
    	That's a good point.
    
>The quotes you
>provide, however, have nothing to do with the mixing of religion and the
>government. 
    
    	Then you didn't read them, for they clearly have EVERYTHING to
    	do with a morals-based government -- that government NEEDS both
    	morals and religion if it is to work.  They do not support the
    	government establishing any particular religion as we see in
    	England, but they clearly show that these men did not intend
    	for the government to operate in the absence of religion and
    	morals.
    
> forbid the state to endorse any religion over another. If you wish I can provide
> quotes to support this, but I am sure that you know them as well as I do.
    
    	I agree with you on this.  I hope you can see that.

> The Supreme Court quotes are interesting. Are they from the arguments or the
> opinions of the Justices, and was it a majority or minority opionion?
    
    	These were the majority opinions supporting the rulings made in
    	each case.  I can get you more if you want.

 ZZ   But Jack, let us heretics be heretics.  I refuse to worship Paul or
 ZZ   the Bible itself as God.  My sexual morality is between me, my fiancee and
 ZZ   my God and my church.  The  sexual morality of my Gay and Lesbian friends
 ZZ   is between them their partners, their God, and their churches as well.
    
    Patricia, that's fine.  That's the beauty of free volition...the
    ability to make your own choices and try to reconcile yourself with God
    in your own way.  I am unequivolcally stating however that this will
    only bring you to a point of defeat in your spiritual walk.  And
    incidently, I never used the word heretic...you did.  I was making the 
    argument for subjective hedonism or subjective morality.  I reject it
    because it assumes that the only parties effected are the ones who are
    directly involved.  I submit to you that your subjective outlook on
    morality IS in fact the direct cause for many of the social ills you
    and I are trying to alleviate in our world.  Subjective morality is the
    main cause of AIDS...it is the major cause of divorce, broken homes,
    suicide, misery, crime, infidelity, I could name much more.
    
    You ask me to be socially responsible...to not shun the poor and those
    treated unjustly.  I submit to you Patricia, that your request above 
    is socially irresponsible....and illogical.
    
    Re: Paul being gay...Why do you make the assumption that any male
    does that not have sex with a female is homosexual?  I mean, there
    really are celibates out there believe it or not.  Secondly, Paul was
    an expert in the Mosaic law.  His convictions stemmed from the Torah
    and not the society of his time.  Regarding Jesus being gay, this is an
    old horse that has been ridden many times.  See the first sentence of
    paragraph regarding John the Apostle.  Bottom line, if Jesus
    fornicated, this would disqualify him as the messiah...period.
    
    Re: Judging.  The pharisees who judged the prostitute did so with self
    righteousness...just as you indicated.  Notice in my last reply I was
    very careful to identify myself as a sinner, i.e. Guilty As Charged!"
    The prostitute had repented on her adultery and fornication...this IS
    what drew her toward the compassion of Jesus...nothing more!  Now I ask
    you...you ask me to let the heretics be heretics.  I take this to
    mean...stop admonishing my brother toward holiness.  I remind you
    Patricia that John the Baptist was THE GREATEST prophet of all.  He
    admonished many toward holiness.  "Oh you brood of vipers...who warned
    you of the wrath to come?"  These were his very words to the religious
    elitists who would not repent of their sin.  Consequently, he was
    beheaded for admonishing the Israelites to repent.  I see myself as
    doing what he did.
    
    God presented a warning I believe needs to be heeded by all believers.
    It goes something like this.
    
    "When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; and you give him
    not a warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked ways, to
    save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his
    blood will I require at your hand."  Ezekiel 3:18
    
    What do you think of this verse Patricia?  Remember, the nation never
    listened to this man and they went into exile for it!  What do you
    think of John the Baptist?
    
    -Jack   

        <<< Note 1088.89 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    There is some evidence to believe that Jesus himself may have been a
>    gay man!
>    
>    There is some evidnece to believe that he may have had a homosexual
>    relationship with the beloved disciple often assumed to be John.
>    
>    My use of the word homosexual does not necessary mean a sexual
>    relationship, but I don't think that is impossible.
    
    	Are you picking up this stuff in your seminary?  Have they ever
    	taught you Isaiah 5:20?
    
>    If we used Paul's opinion of sexual morality, I would guess that the
>    majority of the members of this conference and  the Yukon
>    conference would be included as sexual sinners.  I certainly would.  I
>    have a wonderful active sex life with my Fiancee.  My sex life is
>    entirely consistent with my personal sexual ethics as Glen's sex life
>    is consistent with his personal sexual ethics.
    
    	Simply because a certain sexual morality would make a larger
    	number of prople sinners is no reason to discard that morality.
    	Yes, most people in our society are sexual sinners, and the
    	increase in the violation of that moral code is directly related
    	to the social cancers we face today.
    
    	Paul Bernardo sexual practices were consistent with his personal
    	sexual ethics too.  (See Soapbox topic 432 for details if you
    	don't know about this case...)
    
>    I believe that there is strong evidence to suggest that Paul himself
>    was a celibate homosexual who hated his own sexual urges.  Bishop Paul
>    Spong convincingly argues that point in his books. 
    
    	I think that's Shelby Spong, and he is the embodiment of Isaiah 5:20.
    	Most Episcopals view him with embarrassment.  He also promotes
    	the idea that the Church ought to create a new institution called
    	"betrothal" whereby non-married couples can live together in a
    	sexual relationship with the expectation that it may not be a
    	permanent relationship that will lead to marriage, and that it
    	should receive full blessing and welcome by the Church.  
    
>    It is obvious
>    reading Paul, that he has lots of abnormal concerns about his own
>    sexuality.  
    
    	You would LIKE it to be considered abnormal...
    
>    But Jack, let us heretics be heretics.  
    
    	Thank you for your honesty.  And I suggest that you let us
    	who believe in the Bible and in the traditional teachings
    	and morality of the Church remain with that faith basis, and
    	you can keep your heretical judgements in YOUR little group.
    
>    My sexual morality is between me, my fiancee and
>    my God and my church.  The  sexual morality of my Gay and Lesbian friends
>    is between them their partners, their God, and their churches as well.
    
    	Then why must you make it an issue here?

    Jack,
    
    I have just spent the last two years studying the New Testament.  I
    think I have an excellent comprehension and understanding of that book.
    
    I have actively wrestled with the question of what is Biblical
    Authority.  My conclusions are significantly different than yours.  I
    believe that the Bible is inspired.  I believe that the Bible contains
    the revelation of God.  I believe that the concept of the Bible being a
    direct channeled message from God is ridiculous.  I believe that
    worshipping the Bible as a channeled message from God is idolatry.
    
    I have absolutely no problem with anyone beleiving anything they want
    about religious matters except when those beliefs begin to be pushed on
    others and when they cause injustice to others.
    
    I believe that the way the religious right is attaching the gay
    community is one of the biggest incidence of injustice in the world
    today.  My church  is committed to taking an active stand against this
    injustice.  I am deeply committed to taking a personal stand against
    this injustice.  I have two friends who are 30 year old Gay men in a
    committed partnership relationship with each other.  I love both of
    them and it is obvious to me that there relationship is wonderful and
    holy.  They are building a life together just as I am building a life
    with my Fiancee.  When we sat in a welcoming congregation meeting
    together at my church and passed around the time magazine with the
    picture and the sign that said "God hates fags"  I felt the evil of
    that sign with every ounce of my being.  My friend looked at the
    picture and passed it to me.
    
    Jack, from the perspective of the Christian Coalition, I am a heretic. 
    I am proud to be a heretic because I think the Christian Coalition is
    wrong.  
    
    I can't understand why you or any other Bible believing Christian would
    continue to try to force their beliefs onto people who reject those
    beliefs.  I further cannot understand why you would target
    homosexuality rather than divorce, premarital sex, rape, remarriage or
    any of those other sexual activities that the Bible spends a whole lot
    more time talking about than homosexuality.
    
    If the Christian Coalition spent as much time railing against
    remarriage as against gay marriage, then I might believe that the issue
    really was based on their understanding of the Bible.  Because I don't
    see you asking anyone divorced or remarried to leave their second,third,
    whatever marriage and desist from sexual immorality, but I do see you
    telling Glen to desist from what you determine to be sexual immorality,
    then I take objection to it.  It doesn't seem to be about the Bible at
    all.
    
    I am divorced about to be remarried.  I have never had anyone tell me I
    was a sinner or I was evil because of my choices.
    
    Why is the Gay community being targetted!
    
                                    Patricia
    
    
    

>    picture and the sign that said "God hates fags"  I felt the evil of
>    that sign with every ounce of my being.  My friend looked at the
>    picture and passed it to me.
 


     as one who is likely considered a part of the "religious right", I too,
     as do many others, find that sign to be evil.

   
      
  >  I can't understand why you or any other Bible believing Christian would
  >  continue to try to force their beliefs onto people who reject those
  >  beliefs.  I further cannot understand why you would target
 
    >homosexuality rather than divorce, premarital sex, rape, remarriage or
    >any of those other sexual activities that the Bible spends a whole lot
    >more time talking about than homosexuality.
    

     The problem is not homosexuality, divorce or any of the others you mention.
     The problem is *sin*.


    
>    I am divorced about to be remarried.  I have never had anyone tell me I
>    was a sinner or I was evil because of my choices.
    
 

    The problem is, we are *sinners* period.




   Jim    
    
    

    Re: The focus on gay rights.  Gay rights is a mainstream cause in
    politics today.  Gay rights encompasses alot more than just equality. 
    It focuses a whole new set of rules in society, a new way of thinking,
    a redefining of what is objective to what is subjective.  You will
    surely recognize, Patricia, that parents are removing their children
    from public schools to homeschooling and private schools.  They
    feel...and myself included that public schools are becoming modes of
    social engineering and rethinking of mores and subjective philosophy.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    So based on the letter to Philemon, if I were working on the
    underground railroad, 100 years ago, would you be admonishing me to not
    rebell against God's system of slavery for some and freedom for others?
    
    A strict following of Paul's advice to Phelemon would certainly suggest
    that course of action?
    
                                        patricia

ZZ    So based on the letter to Philemon, if I were working on the
ZZ    underground railroad, 100 years ago, would you be admonishing me to not
ZZ    rebel against God's system of slavery for some and freedom for others?
    
    Keep in mind Patricia, that not all forms of slavery were involuntary.  
    Onissemus could have owed Philemon a debt...or like Isaac, volunteered
    servitude as a dowry.  Considering they were both greeks, it stands to
    reason that it was not forced servitude but it was legal.
    
    Secondly, the slavery of 100 years ago was NOT God's form of slavery. 
    It was forced servitude based on prejudice and presuppositions...very
    similar to how we justify abortion in this country.  You know, the
    fetus is human but not a person...that sort of thing.  (Not to digress
    but I'm amazed you aren't vehemently opposed to the injustice of female
    fetus rights!)  
    
    My stand on slavery would be just as it would be in Nazi Germany.  Hide
    the slaves as Germans hid Jews.  We are to submit to the authorities
    over us but we must never succumb to the authorities when their edicts
    are contrary to Gods sovereignty.
    
    -Jack

    But according to the Bible, the authorities are appointed by God and we
    must respect them.
    
    (of course I believe that was written at the time that relations
    between Rome and the Christians were relatively good, and the writer
    wanted to demonstrate to the Romans that the Christians were not a
    threat to Rome.)  Just a little political maneuvering within the Bible!
    
    
                                Patricia

    Religious Right Snarf!!

    Patricia:
    
    Relations between Rome and Christians were never good...not even
    remotely.  There were certain Ceasers that were more tolerant of Jews
    and Christians than others.  But Christianity was definitely a threat
    to Rome...just as the Pharisees saw it as a threat.
    
    During Pauls ministry, Nero was Emporer.  Nero was probably the most
    vile of all of them.  It is said that Nero was a big fan of the
    Colloseum and particularly the chariot races.  He used to lament when
    dusk would appear. 
    
    One particular evening, Nero decided he needed to extend the games into
    the evening.  What he implemented was this.  He would round up
    Christians on a regular basis.  He would then crucify each of them,
    encircle them throughout and around the chariot race track...and light
    them on fire.   Nero was in my opinion a foreshadowing of antichrist!
    
    Christians were required to pay taxes to Ceaser.  Like Daniel who did
    not follow the ediicts of praying to the King of Babylon, Christians
    were not supposed to bow down to foreign gods...just as the Jews were
    also supposed to avoid.  
    
    Patricia, I have to leave...have a nice weekend.  See you surfing on
    the Net on Monday!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1088.88 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I am admonishing you as a brother and colaborer in Christ to present your body
| as a living sacrifice...holy and pleasing to God.  

	Here is where the problem is Jack. You will never believe I am doing
this. That is based on your belief. You live by your beliefs, I will live by
mine. In the end, ONLY God will know who truly loves, and followed Him. Let's
let the ONLY One who really can decide, decide.....

| I believe very much in Jesus own words, "No one can serve two masters...for he
| must love one and hate the other; he must hold to one and despise the other.  
| You cannot serve both God and the world."

	Oh please Jack. When I start serving the world, you will have a point.
Until that time, you don't.


Glen

| <<< Note 1088.91 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I submit to you that your subjective outlook on morality IS in fact the direct
| cause for many of the social ills you and I are trying to alleviate in our 
| world. Subjective morality is the main cause of AIDS...

	Lust for <insert desire> is.

| it is the major cause of divorce, 

	Lust is.

| broken homes,

	No communication or never should have married in the first place is.

| suicide, 

	Ashamed of letting others know what your problems is. Why this is here
is beyond me....

| misery, 

	Too many for this.

| crime, 

	Lust for the thrill, money, etc.

| infidelity, 

	Lust......

| I could name much more.

	And it would still come down to one thing Jack. Lust is the main
problem. 




Glen

| <<< Note 1088.95 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Anybody that is going to use the title "Christian" bears the utmost 
| responsibility.  

	And it's this kind of thinking that keeps getting many Christians into
trouble. They feel they are responsible for everyone. Then they try to run
their lives to be equal to their own. I always felt there was nothing wrong
with stating your beliefs, but then back off and let God take over. He will be
the one who gets it right. In other words, some need to come down from those
clouds they feel they are sitting on.



Glen

| <<< Note 1088.96 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Re: The focus on gay rights. Gay rights is a mainstream cause in politics 
| today.  

	Ensuring that gays have the same rights as everyone else is a
mainstream cause in politics. Until one can't say you didn't get the house,
loan, job, etc because you're gay, then we will be there to try and change
that. There are too many loopholes in the laws right now that allow people to
say no if someone is gay.

| It focuses a whole new set of rules in society, a new way of thinking,
| a redefining of what is objective to what is subjective.  

	Jack, in some churches you will see gays who are out attending. Some
even partake in the ceremony. In some churches you will hear the clergy talk
about you should love the homosexual, but hate the sin. In other churches, it's
stay away from gays. I think just based on the church, what you said above
applies to them as well, wouldn't you say?

| that parents are removing their children from public schools to homeschooling 
| and private schools.  

	A lot of it is based on religion, and some of it for many people is
based on fear. Case in point. The Gay World Series of Softball is going to be
in Seattle this year. Many parents feel they must keep their kids home while we
are there. Pretty sad if you ask me. 



Glen

    	re last few.
    
    	How nice.
    
    	All that contortion just HAS to hurt...
    
    	BTW, lust is but one driving factor for subjective morality
    	and relativism.  Please don't convince yourself that it is
    	the only one.

    Subjective morality is driven simply by a free will to live by it. 
    Coveteousness, lust, these are only the vehicles used to carry it out.
    There are alot more vehicles than lust Satan uses in his arsenal.  
    
    The Pharisees did in fact lust for power; however, it was their free
    will to live the way they did and this is what Jesus falted them for
    when he said, "it will be more tolerable on the day of judgement for
    Sodom and Gomorrah than it will be for you."  
    
    He was speaking to individuals who heard the message, heard what was
    right and what was holy, and yet by their own free volition chose to
    ignore the message.  This must be applied to our own lives as well.
    
    -Jack

    faulted...not falted!

| <<< Note 1088.107 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| BTW, lust is but one driving factor for subjective morality and relativism. 
| Please don't convince yourself that it is the only one.

	I believe it to be the biggest, but not the only one. And lust is much
more than a sexual drive.


Glen

    first of all there is nothing wrong with subjective morality and
    relativism.  What may be wrong is the criteria more the subjectivity.
    
    The biggest reason for sin is not lust.  It is our inability to love as
    we ought to love.  lust is a result of our inability to love as we
    ought to love.  Lust is the misplaced belief that something physical
    or material might be able to replace the need to love and be loved that
    we all share.
    
                                    Patricia

| <<< Note 1088.108 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| He was speaking to individuals who heard the message, heard what was right and
| what was holy, and yet by their own free volition chose to ignore the message.
| This must be applied to our own lives as well.

	Jack, you need to clear some things up for me please.


	1. When you say message, do you mean the Bible or what's in the Bible?

	2. If not the Bible, what and where is this message coming from?

	3. You have stated that you think a belief in Him is what is needed to
	   get into Heaven. If that is the message you are talking about, then
	   you are being consistant. If it is not the message you are talking
	   about, then you need to choose. 

		Is it the message? (which would go against what you stated
		before)

		Is it a belief in Him? (which would keep you consistant)

		Or a combo of both? (which would go against what you stated
		before)



	In other words, let me know what you mean. :-)


Glen

    Glen:
    
    I am consistent.  It is a belief in Him, for he is the only way!  
    
    I believe that sanctification is the greatest responsibility of a
    regenerated believer.  Sanctification comes through repentence.
    
    Repentence is a lifetime activity.  A holy walk with God is the outward
    evidence of a regenerated believer.  One may profess Christ but the
    main question is does the same person possess Christ?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1088.113 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I am consistent.  It is a belief in Him, for he is the only way!

	That's cool. Then why bring up the thing about the message? Unless that
IS the message. But seeing you were talking about the Bible, there would have
to be more than a belief message to this, wouldn't there?

| I believe that sanctification is the greatest responsibility of a regenerated 
| believer.  Sanctification comes through repentence.

	As is direct dialogue with Him, through actions, or through confession
with a priest? 

| Repentence is a lifetime activity. A holy walk with God is the outward 
| evidence of a regenerated believer. 

	Depends on how much is real, how much is an act.

| One may profess Christ but the main question is does the same person possess 
| Christ?

	Jack, that is only something He can answer. If the person says they do
believe in Him, then it is not our place to say if this person is or isn't
telling us the truth. God will know.


Glen

| -Jack

    | One may profess Christ but the main question is does the same person
    | possess Christ?
    
   ZZ Jack, that is only something He can answer. If the person says they do
   ZZ believe in Him, then it is not our place to say if this person is or
   ZZ isn't telling us the truth. God will know.
    
    Correct...I have no way nor am I interested in judging whether you are
    hell bound or not.  We do as believers have the right to admonish one
    another toward holiness.  This is a tenet of the local church.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1088.115 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>



| Correct...I have no way nor am I interested in judging whether you are hell 
| bound or not. We do as believers have the right to admonish one another toward
| holiness. This is a tenet of the local church.

	Jack, that is actually ok. But please, when you are doing the holiness
thing, let others know these are your beliefs, and that this is what you view
to be God's way? You know you have differences between others when it comes to
some of your beliefs, so ya can't really say yours are absolute, unless you
believe the others are wrong. Can ya do that Jack?


Glen

    Fine Glen, what are your beliefs?  
    
    -Jack

regarding.....

Z    Jack, that is actually ok. But please, when you are doing the holiness
Z    thing, let others know these are your beliefs, and that this is what you 
Z    view to be God's way? 
    
    I shouldn't have to.  It's religion man!
    
Z    You know you have differences between others when it
Z    comes to some of your beliefs, so ya can't really say yours are absolute, 
Z    unless you believe the others are wrong. Can ya do that Jack?
    
    Of course I believe those who differ from me are wrong...just as I'm
    sure you do the same.  Do you believe I'm wrong Glen...of course you
    do.  Otherwise you wouldn't consistently oppose me on everything.
    
    Watch everybody, I'll prove that Glen is always against me....
    
    Glen, Hanes is the best mens briefs offered in department stores.  
    
    -Jack

>    Glen, Hanes is the best mens briefs offered in department stores.  

And one of out better customers down this here way in the Carolinas.

FWIW, Sara Lee Knit Products owns 'em. 

Now briefs versus boxers should be a good'n.

TTom

| <<< Note 1088.119 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Z    Jack, that is actually ok. But please, when you are doing the holiness
| Z    thing, let others know these are your beliefs, and that this is what you
| Z    view to be God's way?

| I shouldn't have to.  It's religion man!

	Well, you don't HAVE to.... but it would make your position clear from
the get go.

| Of course I believe those who differ from me are wrong...just as I'm sure you 
| do the same.  

	Jack, to believe someone is wrong is one thing. To say you have the
absolute anything is another. You don't, I don't. We can believe we are doing
the right thing, but how many times throughout our lives do we find what we
once thought was the truth, really wasn't? Prejudice is a good example of this.
It's an example Jack, I ain't callin you it. :-)

| Do you believe I'm wrong Glen...of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't 
| consistently oppose me on everything.

	Everything Jack? Come on... there is a 1 or 2% that I let slide by. :-)
Again, it is my belief that you can be wrong. It does not make it so. People
believed that Jim Bakker was a holy man, when reality showed he had a ton of
bad dealings. Can you see how a belief does not make something absolute? I'm
talking about absolutes. 

| Glen, Hanes is the best mens briefs offered in department stores.

	The models are anyway. :-)

    ZZZ       The models are anyway. :-)
    
    Ahhh, see???  He avoided the question!!! :-)
    
    Glen, if I thought I was absolutely right, I wouldn't even bother
    asking you to defend your position on anything.  I at least state a
    position then back it up with some sort of reason.  I don't just pick a
    belief and believe it just because!
    
    I'm not saying you do but when having dialog, I would expect a person
    to back up their position with reason.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1088.120 by HBAHBA::HAAS:

> >    Glen, Hanes is the best mens briefs offered in department stores.  
> 
> And one of out better customers down this here way in the Carolinas.
> 
> FWIW, Sara Lee Knit Products owns 'em. 
  
        Jack picked an especially bad example, because

        	NOBODY DOESN'T LIKE SARA LEE

        Bob

    You're right.  Let's try this one.
    
    GLEN...BELGIAN SHEPHERDS ARE THE SMARTES DOG IN THE WORLD!!!!

| <<< Note 1088.122 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZZ       The models are anyway. :-)

| Ahhh, see???  He avoided the question!!! :-)

	Jack, you are right that I avoided the question, but were wrong that I
disagree with everything. :-)

| Glen, if I thought I was absolutely right, I wouldn't even bother asking you 
| to defend your position on anything.  

	Jack, even if you thought you were absolutely right, you SHOULD ask
another to defend, or explain their position. Knowing where someone is coming
from may help you out immensly with the person's view(s). You don't have to
change your belief to find out where one is coming from. Just reread some of
the notes in this very file. Don't view them as being right or wrong, but view
them from a spectators view. You will see such a wonderful display of beliefs,
and the beauty part of it is you actually get to see how people came to believe
X in some cases, but moreso how others think. Just taking it all in can be
overwhelming at times. Try it... just from a spectators view. Watch the magic
begin. (and speaking of magic, they had better begin tonight or they are out of
the finals and Houston will win back to back championships!)

| I at least state a position then back it up with some sort of reason.  

	Yes, you do this. But where there is a problem is when you imply that
it is a fact, and not just your own belief. 

	But let me ask you something. I kind of get the feeling that you do not
think absolute morality is something that we as humans, will be able to obtain.
Is this a true statement?



Glen

| <<< Note 1088.124 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| GLEN...BELGIAN SHEPHERDS ARE THE SMARTES DOG IN THE WORLD!!!!

	Jack... I can't say one way or the other.... I don't know what SMARTES
means, and it isn't in my dictionary....

 Z   Jack... I can't say one way or the other.... I don't know what
 Z   SMARTES means, and it isn't in my dictionary....
    
    Actually a line from Hogans Heroes.
    
    Klink:  Belgian Shepherds are the smartest dogs in the world!
    
    Hogan:  They couldn't find the mess hall.....
    
    (I guess you had to see it!)
    
    -Jack

    I don't mean to bring up a sore subject Glen...but...
    
    I asked one person if they had a testimony and they wouldn't give it.  
    I asked another person what molded their passion for a specific social
    cause and said individual assumed I was putting said person in a
    box...I was assuming the passion was molded by a bad marriage, bad
    childhood...whatever.
    
    I'm trying Glen...I really am!  
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I'm sure that note has something to do with something.... but ya
lost me..... what point were you trying to make? 

    Point was that I was trying to sit on the sidelines and let the magic
    happen...but nobody cooperated!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1088.130 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Point was that I was trying to sit on the sidelines and let the magic
| happen...but nobody cooperated!

	That's what the Magic's coach is saying right about now too. :-)

    Smirk!!!!!  %-}