Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 560.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>   Warnings about attacks on the handicapped, who in the master race
> ideologues are weaklings with no right to live, have gradually crept into
> politicians' speeches and concerned editorials for weeks.
  
        I wonder if there are similar undertones in some political
        rhetoric in the US, especially from the far right.

        During the past political season, especially when "welfare"
        issues such as medical care, special education, "headstart"
        programs for "disadvantaged" preschoolers, and even family
        leave were discussed, one got the impression from
        conservative speakers that it was wrong for the US government
        to cater to these special needs even though most other
        industrialized nations provided far more in these areas.  The
        rhetoric seemed to imply that it wasn't right to tax "normal"
        persons to support such programs and that such social
        programs led to a general increase in laziness and
        discouraged hard work.

        No, it couldn't happen here.

        Bob

    RE: .1
    
    Wrong Bob. Just because a person is a conservative doesn't mean that
    they don't have compassion and feelings for handicapped people or
    others. The *DIFFERENCE* is in the way the two groups,liberal and
    conservative want to solve the problem.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 560.2 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     Wrong Bob. Just because a person is a conservative doesn't mean that
>     they don't have compassion and feelings for handicapped people or
>     others. The *DIFFERENCE* is in the way the two groups,liberal and
>     conservative want to solve the problem.
  
        Compassion or feelings don't clothe or feed or educate or
        medicate anyone.

        The conservative rhetoric I refer to implies that it is not
        society's collective responsibility to prop up the less
        capable or disadvantaged, but merely the option of nameless
        private parties, and ultimately it is the less capable or
        disadvantaged who must raise up themselves.

        I don't find the practical result to be that different from
        that of the neo-Nazis who would probably be quite willing to
        let the less capable live as long as they put no added demand
        on society as a whole and were as productive as people of
        normal abilities.  (Of course, often this is impossible.)

        Bob

    RE: .3
    
    Well Bob, my view of conservative approach doesn't talk at all about
    "felt sorry for you". I think that you are making a wrong assumption
    that a conservative just "feels sorry" for the person and lacks the
    desire to help.
    
    I fall under the general heading of "conservative". Although I 
    can't give you a lengthly answer, the "short version" is that the
    conservative views the answers to help the person out, to be
    , in general, less government, and more free enterprize.
    I really think that the conservative wants and will help,
    the means are just different.
    
    You don't have to be a liberal to want to solve problems( and
    have your solutions).
    
    Marc H.

re Note 560.4 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     conservative views the answers to help the person out, to be
>     , in general, less government, and more free enterprize.
  
        Well, then how does it happen in practice?  What's the
        mechanism?  An appeal to "free enterprise" seems to me to be
        merely saying "I don't know who will help, but it shouldn't
        be government.  Surely somebody will help."

        I don't believe that free enterprise always works to solve
        all the problems that need to be solved in an appropriate
        way, any more than I believe that government always can solve
        all the problems that need to be solved in an appropriate
        way.

        When I hear people saying flatly that "government shouldn't
        help" this or that truly needful person, when it is obvious
        that private enterprise ISN'T helping them, then the end
        result isn't that far from what those neo-Nazis are
        advocating.

        Bob

    RE:.5
    
    You are correct. It is a rat hole. Bye.
    
    Marc H.

    Just for your information, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed
    the poor were a blotch on society.  There is alot that the liberal left
    isn't telling you!
    
    Jack

    
    You're right Jack.  Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood was
    a major proponent of eugenics.  But PP's public relations department is
    so good that they can make people thing PP is working the public's
    good.  Specifically black people were targeted early in PP's lifetime
    as undesireable stock that should be destroyed if possible.  PP clinics
    first sprang up in black neighborhoods to promote abortion of black
    children.  PP's is an evil, sick and dark legacy.
    
    jeff

    Thanks Jeff for that very informative entry.  When I hear how
    uninformed people are and are coerced by the media to believing
    something, I simply don't know whether to laugh or cry for them.
    
    There are alot of things I've learned and much more to learn I'm sure.  
    I just get so annoyed when I hear what bad people Pat Robertson and Pat 
    Buchanan are.  Like the left wing liberals have a corner market on
    virtue and integrity.  
    
    Getting back to the original note, I think the best thing the German
    government can do is simply brake one of each thugs legs, their choice.
    Then award them a free wheelchair and ditch them in downtown Berlin.
    If they survive, they will certainly change their attitude!!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack
    

    re: .7
    
    	Just for your information, I believe the poor are a blotch on
    society, but a blotch that can be helped.  I don't believe all the poor
    can be raised to prosperity, but if some of the ignorance they hold (I
    hate using "they") can be properly raised up, or if a means of birth
    control can be made available to them that they wouldn't normally have,
    then I am all for PP.
    	And no, I do not advocate abortion as a form of birth control, but
    I do see it as a viable option for women, especially minority women,
    who cannot reasonably expect to see their children adopted.  It is a
    sad fact that most US adoptions are of young, white children and very
    few minority kids.
    	But then, if all "Christians" practiced what they preached, the
    lines at adoption centers would stretch around the block.
    
    George
    

    re: .11
    
    	Please, with all the technology and knowledge available to us,
    there is no good reason for such a large part of our population to be
    poor.  There is no real excuse for so many people to be on the public
    dole, and continuing to have children they cannot afford in the first
    place.  This leads to a rather vicious circle in that more and more
    poor are being born to take advantage of more and more limited public
    assitance.  Birth control is one way to try and stem the flood to
    manageable levels, at least until more training can be given to those
    on welfare.
    	I am all for people having children, but only if you can afford to
    have them.  If a person cannot bring up the child in some form of
    comfort, then by all means use a condom or birth control pills.
    	Forcing people to bring up children in poverty and squalor is as
    great an evil as many of the neo-Nazi activities.
    
    George
    

    Hi George:
    
    I am an advocate of birth control as well.  The point I am making is
    that the founder of planned parenthood was propagating a hateful
    attitude toward the poor.  She didn't express the concern in the same
    heartful manner you have.  Point being that heartlessness is a fruit of
    the sin nature of human kind and not just limited to the conservative
    party.
    
    I would also question what constitutes a general level of comfort to
    bring up a child.  If you are talking about a child being raised in a
    dangerous environment, I am inclined to agree the parent(s) should 
    consider their options (before conception hopefully).  Our level of
    comfort however far exceeds that of our forefathers and I would simply
    suggest that a child can have a childhood of hardship yet grow to be a
    responsible, intelligent individual,
    
    We play God at times when we should be letting God make those types of 
    decisions.  In mankinds infinite wisdom, we've screwed up royally!
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack

re Note 560.7 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     Just for your information, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed
>     the poor were a blotch on society.  

        When was Planned Parenthood founded?

> There is alot that the liberal left
>     isn't telling you!
  
        I'm sure that is true.  I'm just as sure that there is a lot
        that the conservative right isn't telling me, either.  So
        what?

        Bob

    Margaret Sanger started her eugenics program  under the auspices of the
    Birth Control League in 1920 or so.  She began publishing a magazine ,
    The Birth Control Review at the same time.  One of her books, The Pivot
    of Civilization became a bestseller in 1922.  Throughout the book she
    unashamedly called for the elimination of "human weeds", for the
    cessation of charity, for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and the
    maladjusted" and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races".
    
    In the late '30s and early 1940s she had become closely associated with
    the scientists and theorists who put together Nazi Germany's "race
    purification" program.  She openly endorsed the euthanasia,
    sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the early Reich. 
    She published a number of articles in the Birth Control Review that
    mirrored Hitler's Aryan-White Supremacist rhetoric.  She even
    commissioned Dr. Ernst Rudin, the director of the Nazi Medical
    Experimentation program to write for The Review himself.
    
    jeff

    re: .15
    
    	So how did she get associated with Planned Parenthood?  Also, did
    your sources mention any recanting of her beliefs, or perhaps tempering
    them after seeing them taken to the extreme by the Nazis?  A lot of
    people hold to ideals, but once those ideals are made concrete they
    become insupportable.
    
    George
    

    re: .13 (et al)
    
    So, okay.  By today's standards, Margaret Sanger was not a very nice
    person.  So what?  Some mighty fine Christians  used to use Christian
    teachings to justify slavery, and thousands, maybe millions, of people
    were put to death in the name of Christ over the years, too.  Just as
    Christians don't like to have the value of their organization judged by
    what their churches did in centuries past, so to y'all shouldn't judge
    Planned Parenthood by what some people did under its aegis in the past,
    as well.  To do otherwise is to be hypocritical in the extreme.
    
    Mike 

    The only initial point I was trying to make is that the left paints the
    right as an exclusionary group of people.  When I hear of groups like
    planned parenthood promoting this propaganda while they're sitting
    there in their height of hypocrisy, I just laugh out of embarrassment
    for them!!
    
    Jack

    
    The Birth Control League was renamed to Planned Parenthood in 1942.
    
    jeff

    The earlier noter infers that Margaret Sanger's prejudiced attitudes
    influence today's Planned Parenthood.  This is not so.
    
    While there is much to criticize about Margaret Sanger, the
    organization does not now reflect her attitudes, and has not reflected
    them in my experiences with this organization, which go back 23 years.
    
                                      *
    
    Once again, I see some noters here resorting to a black-or-white, angel
    or devil, saved or damned, saint or sinner dichotomy.  And to
    defensiveness.
    
    It's easy to prove that the left has it's evil people and methods.  I
    mean, how many people today believe that Stalin was pure?  You could
    count them on one hand.
    
    The presence of bigots, ego maniacs, liars, and extortionists on ALL
    portions of the political spectrum does not prove or disprove anything
    except some unsavory truths about human nature.
    
    One must evaluate political and social positions on their own merits.
    
    L

    RE:.18

    While I agree that there are plenty of hypocritical people who
    proselytize their points of view concerning human reproduction, I can
    assure you that such people are found preaching from pulpits both in
    and out of the Christian faith.  In fact, some of the most hypocritical
    people I know, preach the Christian doctrine on these matters.  As in
    say one thing and do another?

    Incidentally, I have never quite understood why the Christian faith is
    so overly concerned about human reproduction.  I wonder if someone
    could explain that.

    Mike
                                 

    I will try to answer that as concisely as possible and within the
    context of this note.
    
    We all have choices and privacy requires these choices Not to affect
    anybody elses rights.  Abortion for example, I believe Does in fact
    infringe on the right to life of the child.  One is playing God when
    they use their human understanding to justify this type of action and
    is what Hitler has proven to us.
    
    Would you abort your child if:
    1. Its a boy and you wanted a girl.
    2. Its an inconvenience to you and you should've thought of this
       before.
    3. This baby is a minority and society KNOWS that minority children
       don't get adopted as fast and wouldn't be happy or grow up properly
       in a foster home?  (What an epitomy of arrogance)
    4. Your child has no more significance than cutting a fingernail.
    
    Admiral Stockdale himself during the debates said that although he
    abhored abortions, it is a private choice.  Thats fine but something in
    his conscience made him abhor the act...What exactly is it?!
    
    Adolf committed acts of atrocity mainly because he didn't allow his
    conscience to intervene with his free will.  What does that say about
    America?  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack 

    
    
    re: .21
    
    It's so there will be more people to dump money in the offering place
    every Sunday morning!!!!!!   8-)
    
           GJD

RE: .22
    
    >>One is playing God when
    they use their human understanding to justify this type of action and
    is what Hitler has proven to us.
    
    >>Adolf committed acts of atrocity mainly because he didn't allow his
    conscience to intervene with his free will.  What does that say about
    America?  
    
    I really must object to the rhetorical comparison of abortion to the
    Nazi atrocities.  I feel this somehow reduces the Nazi atrocities to a
    sort of generic evil and shows a perhaps unintentional disrespect for
    the victims of this regime.
    
    As for the second paragraph, that is a very weird statement if you
    don't mind me saying so.  What leads you to believe that Adolf Hitler
    had any pangs of conscience about his actions?  This sounds like a
    rather strange form of psychobiography.  
    
    It further proves that you are trying very hard to force the abortion=
    Nazi atrocities comparison.  It just doesn't work very well.  
    
    L
   

    .20
    
    Laura,
    
    There is nothing different about PP today than there was in its
    inception.  It still performs the same function, aborting children and
    preventing their birth.  It seems absurd to say that the organization
    does not reflect Sanger's attitudes today.  Except for the language,
    what has changed?  The methods are the same.  
    
    Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood are both instruments of evil
    from their inception to this very moment.  One need only look at the
    30,000,000 children which have been killed by abortion, the hundreds of
    thousands of teenagers whose lives have been altered due to pregnancy,
    disease and dysfunction brought on by "sex eductation" and the
    availability of birth control and condems in our public schools.  By
    all measures PP has failed miserably and has, in fact, created many
    more problems than would exist without it or something like it. 
    
    What's it like to be associated so closely with death and destruction? 
    Can you see God patting you on the back for being related to so much
    killing and misery?  I can see it now, the babies bodies all piled up
    with arms and legs placed just right, and God saying, "you did a great
    job".  The blood of the innocent cries out for God's judgement.  We
    are, will and shall receive that judgement.
    
    jeff

    .24
    
    Abortion, genocide and all the other forms of mass killing are related. 
    Abortions are strictly controlled in Germany today (if allowed at all). 
    This is a direct and proper response to the Nazi atrocities which
    resulted, as you know, from the idea of Eugenics.
    
    jeff

    re: .25
    
    	Yet another person blaming sex education for disease, etc. in
    teens.  In the recent news, say October or November, there was a report
    by a group that had studied a group of adults who as teens had had sex 
    education.  In this group, as compared to another group of adults who
    had not had sex ed while attending the same high school, the folks on
    average had waited a year later than their compatriots to have sex,
    they used prophylactics in more instances, and there were less
    pregnancies.  With this as a basis, how can you place the blame for
    those diseases, dysfunctions and everything else on sex ed?
    
    George
    

    In fact, many conservative religious groups have finally begun
    to realize that arguing against sex ed is counter-productive 
    due to mounting evidence of its effectiveness in preventing disease 
    and teen pregnancy (not to mention wide-spread support among parents).

    So they have actually turned to trying to influence the content 
    of sex ed classes.  This has been going on since the early-mid
    1980s.  Two widely used sources in public school sex ed classes
    were developed during the Reagan Administration - funded by a 
    10 million dollar federal grant under the [I can't remember the
    name] Act - something to do with children I think...  Anyway,
    it has been my understanding that these curricula were specifically 
    designed to promote the conservative, Christian point of view 
    (abstinence/chastity outside of marriage) that prevailed under
    Reagan/Bush.  

    It is also my understanding (from a recent article on the subject)
    that these curricula have been criticized for being "fear based"
    rather than "knowledge based" (emphasizing the dangers of abortion,
    pregnancy, etc.... sort of like "Don't Smoke!!!!  It's bad for
    you!  Period!" - not the most effective way to convince young
    people not to do something, if you ask me....)

    Personally, I think schools should teach just the facts about 
    sexuality and leave the moral instruction to the parents/churches.

	Jeff, do you have any data that supports your writings that sex
education has caused more harm (diseases, pregnancy) than without it?




Glen

    Re: POBOX::DIERCKS - God is the one that told us to bring the whole
    tithe to the storehouse.  If you have a problem with this, yell at God,
    not at the local church.  As far as the way the church handles their
    finances, God will certainly handle this in His own usual way!
    
    Re: .24 To Laura - 
    
    <<I really must object to the rhetorical comparison of abortion to the
    <<Nazi atrocities.  I feel this somehow reduces the Nazi atrocities to
    <<a sort of generic evil and shows a perhaps unintentional disrespect
    <<for the victims of this regime.
    
    Upon reading this, at first it sounded like you were inferring that the
    Nazi atrocities were atrocities and abortion is a generic evil.  The
    original question posed was why Christians are so concerned about
    reproductive rights.  I am not trying very hard to force the abortion -
    Nazi atrocities comparison.  I'm simply stating what I and millions of
    Americans see as fact.  
    
    Evil is evil no matter what form it comes in.  Hitler was a paranoid
    Schyzophrenic and hence was an irrational individual.  Because of this,
    he totally lacked conscience in what he did and in fact desensitized a
    nation into following him.
    
    Without trying too hard, I can say there are organizations (such as
    planned parenthood) that are attempting to do the exact same thing.  I
    don't have to force any comparisons, It is written very large on the
    wall of common sense.  The motives of this generations actions may
    differ, however, the same deadly result has been inevitable!
    
    To those victims of the Nazi regime, no offense intended.  To live that
    kind of hell certainly has stronger implications to the individuals in
    that the memories are there.  The unborn have no memory of this as they
    didn't even have a chance.
    
    Re:.27
    
    George - I don't think sex education is to blame for disease, etc.  I
    believe irresponsible sex education is to blame in a large way, giving
    our youth the message they shouldn't be hearing.  I went to a sex ed
    seminar at our church and found it to have alot of substance.  quite 
    honestly, I feel the local church is part to blame as they do not take 
    part in this as much as they should.  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    I think it goes beyond stretching to compare *today's* organization
    called Planned Parenthood to Nazi eugenics.
    
    That's like saying Mercedes is still making trucks with inverted tail
    pipes...

    It would be a hasty generalization for me to say that all Planned
    Parenthood members equate to some sort of class or ethnic cleansing
    promotors.  I would say that the organization is a catalyst itself for 
    promoting acts that people think are atrocious, regardless of how we 
    white wash them.
    The fact still remains that many minorities utilize planned parenthood
    services within the inner cities.  Let me ask this, What element in
    this makes it separate from genocide?  Just trying to learn!
    
    Jack

re: Note 560.30 by Jack

>   Hitler was a paranoid Schyzophrenic 

Interesting.  Can you tell me who performed the clinical diagnostic?  where?
other test results?

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  If this sounds like a challenge, it isn't; I'm seriously interested.

    RE: .25

    Oh, good.  I was hoping you would go on this sort of rampage.  Shall we
    now talk about the millions of people killed by, and at the behest of,
    Christianity?  Shall we now talk about the evils perpetrated by so many
    leaders of the various Christian churches?  Shall we also take judicial
    notice of the fact that the worst murderers of the 20th century were
    brought up in the grand Christian tradition, including Hitler and
    Stalin?  Shall we talk about the evils that Christianity has
    perpetrated on children through sexual, physical, and emotional abuse?
    Well, Benson, shall we?  Or shall we each get off our high horse, calm
    down, and recognize that neither one of us is without sin, and that
    such false moral posturing will accomplish nothing good, and probably
    lead people into occasions of sin, rather than an understanding of
    good?

    Shall we?

    Mike

    .32
    
    The fact that nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to
    go.  People in the inner city who go to Planned Parenthood clinics do
    so of their own *choice*

    Sure Mike...Be Glad To!
    
    I am a member of a local Church...Adult Sunday School Teacher...Lay
    Preacher when asked to...Compared to a dumb sheep in Isaiah...All my
    works counted as filthy rags to God...Have the wisdom of man which
    James says is of the devil...A heart desperately wicked as said by
    Jeremiah...and the list goes on and on and on...ends with, deserves
    eternal death!!!!
    
    Now that I know my condition, lets talk about what is/was available to all
    humankind...myself, Hitler, Stalin and the like.  A personal
    relationship with Jesus Christ.
    
    The local Church is flawed because it is held in stewardship by sinful
    humans such as myself.  Remember Jesus said, "Thou art Peter and upon
    this rock I will build my church."  Not ten or so verses later He said
    to Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan for thou art an offense to me."
    This pretty much spells out the condition of the stewards of the local
    church when they are not lead by the Holy Spirit.  Members and curators
    of the local church of history past and present will be judged by God,
    some as wolves in sheeps clothing.  I make no defense for the stupidity
    of members of various local churches.
    
    Remember, church members are members because they choose to be members.  
    To add a twist to this.  When you fund clinics with MY money (thats
    right...MY MONEY!!! LISTEN one more time...I can't stress it enough...MY
    money and YOUR YOUR YOUR Money too), You are dragging me into your
    personal choice...You are dragging me into your bedroom...You are
    dragging me into your sex life...I DO NOT WANT TO BE THERE!!!  As long
    as clinics are being subsidized with MY money, I can and will pray that
    the efforts of these places will be thwarted because sin brings no
    peace but simple chaos!
    
    On that note...Have a beautiful day!
    
    Best Rgds.
    

    Re: .35
    
    Dan, you are absolutely correct.  However, Does Planned Parenthood
    receive Federal Funds?  As I just indicated, I am being dragged into
    this...Private Choice = Private Funds.
    
    P.S. Do I see the military argument coming on the horizon
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    Well, then, fine.  So you don't want to help young women in trouble
    unless they join your church.  That's jake with me.
    However, you and young Benson would be very well advised to drop this
    moral equivalent to Hitler and the Nazis schtick, if only because this
    is bad evangelistic technique.  You don't draw people to your cause by
    calling them hateful names, ya know?
    
    Mike

    re: .30
    
    Jack,
    	Schools are limited (or should be limited) to teaching the facts
    about sex, not whatever morality parents & various churches want to
    impose on the teens.  Morality & whatever other values you hold dear
    are a matter of personal ethics and not something that the education
    system should be responsible for.  Oh, I'm not saying they shouldn't
    instill some sort of respect for the authority of society and teach
    adherence to the just laws of the land, but when it comes to sex ed,
    they need to stick to the facts.  The teens are ultimately going to 
    make up their own minds anyway, so schools should spend their time more
    effectively.
    
    George
    

    re: .32
    

    Mike:
    
    I guess I don't understand what your getting at.  The purpose of my
    participation here is not to evangelize.  I'm simply here to give my
    point of view and quite honestly, I am sitting here very calmly telling
    you that although I feel the way I feel, the laws of the land are the
    way they are and I continue to pay my fair share like everybody else.
    I'll sugar coat this as much as I can so nobody will get hot under the
    caller.
    
    As a U.S. citizen, I will graciously do everything within legal and
    spiritual means to thwart the ongoing trend the United States is going
    through.  If it is convicting to others where they get all bent out of
    shape, then they need to understand that we are a melting pot society
    and come from all different backgrounds.  Private Choice = Private
    Funds!
    
    Since we're on the theme of being two-faced.  I thought it was
    extremely suspicious that planned parenthood is filing a lawsuit
    against family planning agencies sponsored by churches in California. 
    It seems these agencies are providing counciling, room and board for
    pregnant teens, adoption alternatives, and many more services I am
    fully supportive of.  There is some church and state argument the PP is
    using which to me, confirms they have an agenda.
    
    Mike, I am glad to help anybody in trouble and have many times in the
    past.  As far as calling people hateful names, there is a broad line
    between hateful name calling and exposing something for what it is.
    If your asking whether I hate PP as an organization, then the answer is
    obviously yes because I don't trust them.  I'm not going to sit here
    and lie to others and myself by being politically correct!  If PP wants
    to be looked upon favorably in the eyes of many, then the onus is on
    them to change their facade and so far they have failed miserably!
    
    -Jack

    Re: .40
    
    Whose choice George, the mothers or the "non-persons"! (Strange
    Oxymoron)
    
    -Jack

    re: .42
    
    
    
    
    re: .42
    
    >Whose choice George, the mothers or the "non-persons"! (Strange
    >Oxymoron)
    
    Jack,
    	Well, you got it right.  Fetusi up to a certain point are
    non-persons and non-thinking beings.  Forcing human beings to attribute
    some rights to them that they do not deserve, especially when forcing
    those so-called rights interferes with the rights of the mothers, is
    absurd.  Kind of like giving a virus the right to vote.
    	Until science can prove that early fetusi possess cognitive
    processes above those of plants, then abortion will continue to be a
    viable and sin-free alternative.
    
    

    Sounds kind of like Ready...Fire...Aim!  I equate this argument kind of
    to the standard of the EPA.  A drug is not supposed to be put on the
    market until they have tested it.  They are sure beyond the shadow of a
    doubt that it is useable before it is sellable.
    
    You say it is sin free because we live in a state of moral relativism.
    It is sin free because we haven't proven it is not a human being.  Tell
    me, what if five years from now, we find proof beyond a shadow of a
    doubt that a fetus is human?  How should we feel about the last thirty
    years we have committed this "sinless" act.  Should we say, "Oh gee,
    well we didn't know any better?"  Kind of like the Germans at the post
    WW2 era.  
    
    Other than, "Gee we didn't know any better". I'd be really curious to
    hear some of the answers to this.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack  

RE:  .44
    
    >>Should we say, "Oh gee, well we didn't know any better?"  Kind of
    like the Germans at the post WW2 era.  
    
    Dear Jack,
    
    I have never heard of a German in the post WW2 era making this claim. 
    Some claim they never knew what was happening, some didn't care or were
    glad to participate, and many are clearly remorseful.  You need only
    listen to the statements out of Germany today in response to the neo-
    Nazis to hear these positions.
    
    Your statement is both inaccurate and quite alienating.
    
    Once again, I request that you stop comparing the current American
    abortion legal status to Nazi Germany.
    
    As I said before, this blurs the uniqueness of the Holocaust and is
    profoundly disrespectful to the millions of victims of that era.
    
    In fact, to take this discussion of the neo-Nazis and bend it to yet
    another diatribe on the abortion topic, is disrespectful to both the
    Holocaust victims and to those in Germany who are being persecuted
    today by these thugs.
    
    This is an important subject of great concern to Christians.  It poses
    profound moral questions to all thinking people.
    
    If I thought that the abortion debate was the only thing American
    Christians can think of when they consider the resurgence of Naziism,
    I'd feel ashamed of these fellow Americans.
    
    At the very least, you should respect the thousands of American
    soldiers who gave their lives in fighting the Nazi regime.  Some died
    not on the battle field, but in concentration camps along with a
    cross-section of all Europe.
    
    Again, I ask readers of this conference to avoid this rhetorical
    device.  Surely you can make your point without it.
    
    L

    
    And the phrase "I was just doing my job" arose repeatedly at Nuremburg.
    
    Yes Laura and three of my uncles are now resting in Arlington.
    
    I will stop the conversation from here on in.  Just please, for the
    love of God, remember that we who do not learn from history are
    condemned to repeat it!
    
    Respectfully Yours,
    
    Jack (who is still paying for it!)
    
                                      

    re: .44
    
    	No, I did not say it (I presume you mean abortion) is sin free
    because "we live in a state of moral relativism."  I said it is sin
    free because we have no proof that a fetus has thinking, cognitive, or
    awareness process going on (above that of plants reacting to
    sunlight) until it reaches a certain age.  Giving a fetus any rights
    before the point of "cognition", especially any rights that supersede 
    those of the mother, is foolish and just trying to impose your choices
    on someone else.  As I said before, giving a fetus rights before this
    point is like giving a virus the right to vote in our elections.
    
    George
    

    re: .44
    	
    Jack,
    	Unless we come up with some new way to measure human intelligence
    or some new way to detect cognitive processes, we aren't going to
    suddenly find out that fetusi think from the moment of conception.  And
    if we do, we'll treat it like any other medical or conciousness
    breakthrough - utilize it and move on from there.  
    	Heck, it wasn't so long ago that mentally handicapped persons were
    summarily sterilized or that deformed children were exposed at birth. 
    When we found out we were wrong, we improved our actions.  If your
    miracle "proof" comes through, I'm sure we will react in the same
    manner.
    
    George
    

What does "thinking" have to do with it?

Destroying life is destroying life, whether it "thinks" or not.

Some would argue that newborn babies don't "think" yet.

/john

    These notes have lingered in my mind the last few days.  A question
    came to me and would not depart.  I share it here with you.
    
    I cannot understand why Christians are not speaking out against the
    slaughter in Bosnia and Croatia.  Here are purportedly Christian Serbs
    interning, starving, raping, and displacing Bosnian Moslems and
    Croatian Christians who who are of a different church.
    
    We are witnessing this dreadful "ethnic cleansing", a replay of the
    genocide that occured under the Nazis 50 years ago, yet I do not hear a
    word of protest from the Christian community in Europe or America.
    
    Please tell me that I am wrong.  Please show me the news releases and
    give me news of the prayer vigils, sermons, and other actions against
    this horror.
    
    L

    Laura, there has been considerable discussion in the Quaker mailing
    list about the situation in former Yugoslavia.  Joel Sax, a Friend,
    traveled to that region recently and sent back many moving dispatches
    about his experiences there.  Unfortunately, the volume of mail I
    receive from QUAKER-L is quite high, and I don't keep much of it
    around, so I don't have anything at my fingertips that I can post here.
    
    -- Mike

>    I cannot understand why Christians are not speaking out against the
>    slaughter in Bosnia and Croatia.

	They are. I haven't a clue as to why you are not hearing about it.

	
			Alfred

    I have a copy of a message just recently posted on the Quaker mailing
    list that discusses the victimization of women and children in the
    Bosnian concentration camps.  It is over 200 lines, so I am afraid that
    I cannot post it here in its entirety.

    -- Mike

>    I cannot understand why Christians are not speaking out against the
>    slaughter in Bosnia and Croatia.

	We are. I haven't a clue as to why you are not hearing about it.

	We're also speaking out against the slaughter in Palestine;
	Every morning at Mass at St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem a
	prayer is said for the emerging nation of Palestine and its leaders,
	and regularly Bishop Samir Kafity also prays for peace in the region
	and the world, and also specifically in Bosnia and Croatia.

			John

    Laura:
    
    We need to also realize that Jesus said to be careful of wolves in the
    fold.  There are many nations that use the word "Christian" quite
    loosely.  We need to understand there is a vast difference between
    professing Christ and Possessing Christ.
    
    Warmly,
    
    Jack

    re: .49
    
    >Destroying life is destroying life, whether it "thinks" or not.
    
    	So picking a tomato and eating it is another means of destroying
    life and is thus a sin?  You cannot argue that a tomato is not alive in
    some fashion.  Is it because you can separate the tomato fruit from the
    tomato plant without killing the plant that causes eating a tomato not
    to be a sin?  By this statement, the only thing you could truly eat
    safely would be some sort of symbiont or parasite.
    	In my view, eating a tomato is fine and sin-free.  While it may
    have "life", it is not "alive".  Up to a certain point, a fetus is not
    "alive" either.
    
    George
    

Destroying human life is destroying human life, thinking or not.

    Yes George, your arguments don't really stand because you are comparing 
    someone made in the image of God to something that is not an inadimate
    (spelling) object.  God made vegetables and fruit for consumption
    amongst other reasons.  God made bacteria for scientific reasons such
    as helping us survive in this environment.
    
    As humans, we are stewards of what God has given us.  We are violating 
    this trust by our actions and IMHO, we had better repent of it!!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

re Note 560.59 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     Yes George, your arguments don't really stand because you are comparing 
>     someone made in the image of God to something that is not an inadimate
>     (spelling) object.  

        But that's just begging the question, isn't it:  is a
        fertilized egg (to take the most extreme example) already
        "made in the image of God"?  You would answer "yes" because
        you believe it is human life (in some way that a human blood
        cell is not human life).  Another might answer "no" because
        they have a different opinion whether it is human life.

        Bob

If abortionists only killed fertilized eggs and not several week old living and
feeling human fetuses there would be much less of an outcry.

Even though many of us believe that a life is a life from the moment it starts,
many of us are much more horrified by the incredibly painful end a young fetus
of several weeks faces in the abortion mills.

/john

    You all know, of course, that there exists an Abortion Debate note
    (Topic 31).
    
    Please address the abortion issue there.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Mod/Christian-Perspective
    

I believe certain conditions have to be right for Nazism to flourish.

Economic conditions must be poor.  It must appear that a few are privileged
to the disadvantage of the many.  The few must also be perceived as a drain
on society; a parasitic hindrance to the betterment of humanity.

Nationalism must be established as the highest and noblest good.

People must feel that conditions have gotten out of control and extreme
measures are required to bring about restoration or recovery.

Richard

    I hate to say this Richard but it sounds an awful lot like you just
    described Congress in bullet #1.  
    
    I believe Nationalism or the sovereignty of the U.S. is of the utmost
    importance - actually third under God and family if one has a family.
    Without God, the proper perspective can be wrong!
    
    A country of course also needs somebody with enough charisma to incite
    a mob if he/she wanted, and thats exactly what happened. 
    
    Rgds.,
    
    
    Jack

	Richard, I would agree with you on points 1 and 3. I'm afraid we
	are close to that situation already. It is why I fear a tyranny
	(most likely of the left) in my lifetime. The third think I think
	that is needed is a leader. Someone to capture the imagination and
	bring people together for their own purposes. That purpose or focus
	need not be nationalism, though that is a possible one to use.

	Nationalism does not always lead to bad things. And even when it does
	it as likely, in the US anyway, to lead to intreversion as it is
	expansionism.

			Alfred

re Note 560.64 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     I hate to say this Richard but it sounds an awful lot like you just
>     described Congress in bullet #1.  
  
        The big difference being that the (voting) majority elected
        them.

    Re: 66
    
    Yes, you are correct on that one.  No one to blame but ourselves.  I
    mentioned congress with the thought of how they've excluded themselves
    from the accountability their constituents have to adhere to!

I agree that nationalism is not necessarily a bad thing.  At the same time
I think there is a danger when one nation is considers itself superior to
all others and maintains its superiority at the expense of all others.

I don't believe the United States in God's chosen nation (though I concede
that the concept is integral to the American myth).

We're all inhabitants of the same planet.  God isn't limited by national borders
any more than the air that we breathe.  And it has become increasingly
apparent, at least to me, that we're all interdependent.

Peace,
Richard

Richard,

The Scriptures do back up what you are saying in the following paragraph:

;We're all inhabitants of the same planet.  God isn't limited by national 
;borders any more than the air that we breathe.  And it has become increasingly
;apparent, at least to me, that we're all interdependent.

Acts 17:26 NWT "He made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon
the entire surface of the earth." We should recognise the original family
tie.

Acts 10:34,35 NWT "Peter opened his mouth and said: 'For a certainty I
perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears
him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.'" If God is not partial,
should one not try and cultivate impartiallity by trying to imitate him.

Also one would risk becoming any enemy of God, that is if one becomes an
enemy of a person that is acceptable to Jehovah. For he will protect his
loyal ones, for example Revelation 7:9,10 NWT shows peoples coming through
the great tribulation and it reads "I saw and look! a great crowd, which 
no man was able to number, out of all the nations and tribes and peoples 
and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in 
white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep 
crying with a loud voice, saying :'Salvation we owe to our God, who is 
seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.'" those not showing love to his
loyal ones will not fare so well (Compare Matt 25:31-46). Notice too
that this "great crowd" is made up of people from "all the nations", 
that would include some Americans as well as some in Iraq.

Phil. 

    I agree as the Bible also states it would be better if a millstone were
    tied around his neck and thrown into the depths of the sea then for
    that same person to hurt one of my little ones!
    
    We can take a lesson from Israel during the Babylonian exile...God is
    no respector of persons!
    Jack

I am a quadriplegic.  I am one of the few.  If you don't believe me, take a
look around your area right now and count how many people are in wheelchairs.

Now, some might see me as being in a "privileged" or protected status minority,
especially since the ADA was signed into law by President Bush.  Some might
feel that just because I happen to have a handicapping condition, I shouldn't
be entitled to any special considerations or rights.  And, you know something?
I tend to agree.  I don't believe I'm entitled to be treated any better than
anyone else.  And you know something else?  I don't think I am.

But I can see how others might see me as a charity case and suspect that I
probably don't truly pull my own share of the load -- that the only reason
I'm here is because of Digital's aggressive philosophies regarding EEO/AA
and VoD ("hiring the handicapped").  I wouldn't doubt that some see me as
taking gainful employment away from some equally qualified able-bodied family
man.  This would qualify me as one of the few who are privileged, to the
disadvantage of the many, and therefore, the object of resentment.

]B^} Wouldn't things be a lot fairer for everyone if we could just get rid
of people like me? ]B^}

Peace,
Richard

    Richard:  
    
    I've been reading your last entry over and over, quite honestly trying
    to figure out how to respond to it.  When using notes, one has no
    preconceived notions of the other person as alot of us don't know or
    see each other personally.  My perception of you is that you are an 
    individual with various gifts and talents, probably alot more than myself.  
    
    You brought up an interesting twist to this whole matter so I'd like to
    pose a question.  Government regulation, in all its good intentions,
    does at time propagate class warfare through outdated programs that
    have never worked and never will.  Don't get me wrong, although I
    thought Lyndon Johnson wasn't the most stable man in the world for
    example, he instituted medicare which I thought was a very good idea!
    I am willing to pay into this since it is proven to have value in our
    society and can work.  However, I cringe at programs like affirmative
    action, if not for the fact they appear to be reverse discrimination,
    they are also an insult to minorities in some of its policies.
    
    Do you feel government in propagating class warfare such as penalizing
    individuals who succeed is a danger in the development of a Neo-Nazi 
    attitude?
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

re .71

Richard,

;]B^} Wouldn't things be a lot fairer for everyone if we could just get rid
;of people like me? ]B^}

No, persons would continue to find something else to show their prejudices. 
These would include skin colour, education or even lack/abundance of material
wealth.

Fortunately, God does not weigh up people the way humans do. He looks
at what a person is in the inside and man looks at the outside (Proverbs
17:3) . My mother used to tell me "dont judge a book by it's cover", 
however we all seem to fall into judging a person's outside appearance. 
All need to cultivate love of neighbour by imitating God and not being
prejudiced of these external appearances. 

I also say no because I have a few friends that are dependent on wheelchairs.
One in particular is a dear friend, who shares our car to the meetings
at the local Kingdom hall. He is conscious of being dependant on others, so
when possible I always let him do things in his own strength. Also he worries
about the weight and awkwardness of his wheelchair (he has changed it twice
in the last few months), I tell him not to fuss. He plays an active part
in the Jehovah's Witnesses door to door ministry and I join in with him
quite often. He often says that he believes that he only gets a listening
ear because of his disability, but this is not totally true because he 
always gets my attention and he is a very good talker and listener. One
comment that he made was that he always found that the love the brothers
show in and outside the congregation upbuilding and yet to me I believe
the brothers draw an immense amount of encouragement from such ones as him.
Who under difficulties still cling to their hope, that God has given them,
and see the importance of helping others to see His will and purposes. To 
me his example shows the importance of relying on Jehovah and not on my
own strength, unlike many today whose lives are independant of God.

Phil.

Jack .72,

	Class warfare??  Hmmmm.  I don't think I understand your question.
What I was suggesting in .71 was that it's not difficult to find situations
where the few are perceived as being "privileged" to the disadvantage of
the many.  Some may also see these "privileged" few as opportunistic leeches
and parasites, sucking the life out of society, a society that was good and
decent before a bunch of extremists started agitating for "civil" (aka
"special") rights.

Phil .73,

	Agreed.

Peace,
Richard

    Well, the majority of Americans (myself included) feel there is needs
    for civil rights legislation and programs for those in need although I
    still blame the local church for shirking their responsibilities in
    this area.  The local church relies on government to do their job!
    
    I think what annoys me and many Americans is the disingenuous attitude
    of the congress.  It is perceived most representatives have ulterior
    motives in what they do.  This is why we have problems with lobbyists
    and PAC money.  
    
    If there is a wave of neo-nazi attitudes in this country, I feel our
    government certainly played a role in the development of the same.  
    
    -Jack
     

    Thanks for the information about Christian response to the problems in
    Bosnia and Croatia.  This is heartening.
    
    L

Cost of federal mandate lamented
--------------------------------
By Barry Noreen		Gazette Telegraph	December 23, 1992

What one Colorado Springs city councilman termed "a very expensive
taxi service" for the disabled will begin rolling next year [1993],
probably offering rides for $1.50.

Called "paratransit" service, the program will be offered to an
estimated 4,000 city residents who are physically unable to take
advantage of the city's bus service.  City officials say it'll
actually cost about $10 to provide each ride, so the city will 
lose roughly $8.50 a trip.

But the city has little choice: Paratransit service was mandated by
by the Americans With Disabilities Act for all cities with transit
systems.

The only way for the city to avoid offering paratransit service
would be for it to get out of the bus service altogether.  Even in
the face of mounting subsidies, the council has resisted the
temptation to drastically cut back on bus service.

The federal law set no specific deadline for the service to begin
as long as cities with toward the goal.  Colorado Springs is doing
that, having budgeted $236,000 this year for specially equipped
vans.

Hans Schalk of the city's Transportation Department told the City
Council on Tuesday that it remains unknown how much the service
will have to be subsidized, mainly because no one knows how many
of the 4,000 residents will use it.

By March, Schalk said, the city expects to receive bids from 
various operators to run the service; sometime in the second
quarter of the year, the vans should be carrying passengers.
Schalk suggested the council could make the service free until
Jan. 1, 1994, to give the city time to evaluate the demand for
the service.

The council members balked at the idea.  "I'd rather see us 
start right out in `93 and charge them," Councilwoman Cheryl
Gillaspie said.

Councilman David White agreed: "This is a very expensive taxi
service, is what it's turning out to be."

Others on the council feared a backlash in the community if
the service is offered for free and later is subjected to the
$1.50 fee.  "There are plenty of handouts.  Government can't
be doing this," White said.

Mayor Robert Isaac noted that fares from regular bus service
only pay for about 19 percent of the operating cost.  In a 
fiscal environment of tax and spending limits, Isaac said adding
more subsidies to the equation should be viewed seriously.

"There are more people out there who are interested in this than
just the ones who are eligible for the service," Isaac said, in
a reference to taxpayers.

The federal law allows the city to charge twice its normal bus
fare for the paratransit rides.  The current bus fare is 75 cents.

re Note 560.77 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        I guess that I would have to agree with those who would say
        that the topic of "special consideration to the handicapped"
        is only very slightly related to the "neo-nazi" topic
        (although the neo-nazis are on record as objecting to such
        special consideration).

        Yet I do think that this is a worthy topic for our
        discussion.  Can a society be compassionate?  Is a society
        compassionate if governmental policy states that compassion
        is a private affair?

        Bob

Note 560.78

>        I guess that I would have to agree with those who would say
>        that the topic of "special consideration to the handicapped"
>        is only very slightly related to the "neo-nazi" topic
>        (although the neo-nazis are on record as objecting to such
>        special consideration).

I guess I'm still concerned about the news article that appears in .0 of this
string.  Mine is of more than passing interest.  For the past 38 years I've
required the use of a wheelchair.

But there's also another factor.  It is the mindset of who and who is not
generally considered a parasite, or even simply a blemish, on society.

>        Yet I do think that this is a worthy topic for our
>        discussion.  Can a society be compassionate?  Is a society
>        compassionate if governmental policy states that compassion
>        is a private affair?

Who are society's outcasts and how are they treated?

Peace,
Richard

My spouse, Sharon, is taking a class on Racism through the Sociology
Department at UCCS.

The notion has been put forth that Hitler wasn't so much a racist as he
was an extreme nationalist.

The difference is that a nationalist will destroy anyone who might be
considered a threat or a detriment to the success of nationalist policies.

What do you think?

Richard

    
    I think they are right that there is a difference between racists
    and nationalists and that both might carry out acts of hate for
    their cause.  In addition to Hitler being a nationalist, he was
    extremely unbalanced making him all the more dangerous.  
    
    Although, the root of both is still hate.  
    
    Jill

>The notion has been put forth that Hitler wasn't so much a racist as he
>was an extreme nationalist.
>
>The difference is that a nationalist will destroy anyone who might be
>considered a threat or a detriment to the success of nationalist policies.

    I think he was more power mad than anything else. There is evidence
    that he used racism and nationalism as a tool to get power. Initially
    he targeted Communists more so than anything. This did not work so he
    shifted to Jews. And he clearly used nationalist policies and attitudes
    in his rise to power. But he himself was really Austrian more than 
    German so if nationalist was what he was he'd have been an Austrian
    nationalist. No, I think power mad was what he was and everything else
    was used to that end.

    			Alfred

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (LEON MANGASARIAN)
Subject: German state bans neo-Nazi group

	BERLIN (UPI) -- Authorities in Baden-Wuerttemberg banned a neo-Nazi
group, raiding 23 homes of alleged members but making no arrests,
officials said Wednesday.
	Also Wednesday, suspected rightists in a Berlin suburb attacked a man
from Ghana, beating him with baseball bats before robbing him and
fleeing, police said.
	Police in the western German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg raided 23
homes belonging to members of the Alliance of Faithful for the German
Homeland, HVD, after the group was banned by the state government.
	``This is clear political signal aimed at rightists in the state...
they should know the police and intelligence are continuously hot on
their heels,'' said Frider Birzele, the state's Interior Minister.
	Birzele said the HVD was a militant neo-Nazi group with about 30
members and a larger number of supporters active almost exclusively in
Baden-Wuerttemberg.
	He said police seized documents at the HVD members' homes, but that
no arrests were made.
	Last fall, Germany's Interior Ministry banned three rightist groups
that were active in more than one of Germany's 16 federal states.
	Germany's state governments have the power to ban rightist groups if
they are active only in their respective state.
	Police in the Berlin suburb of Strausberg said Wednesday that
suspected rightists attacked a 29-year-old Ghanaian man with baseball
bats at a train station.
	The two attackers first shouted insults at the Ghanaian, who refused
to respond, police said.
	The pair then beat the man with baseball bats before robbing him of
$290 and fleeing in a car, police said.
	Also, Germany's Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe upheld an eight-
year prison sentence imposed by an eastern German court on a rightist
convicted of attempting to kill a Nigerian national.
	The court refused to reduce the prison term after noting the 24-year-
old rightist had been found guilty of attempting to beat the Nigerian to
death last May outside a disco in the eastern German state of
Brandenburg in order to impress a group of his rightist friends.