TC in Time Magazine
Brian McDaniels
Ogden Johnson III
>Check out:
>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020729-322616,00.html
Well, not a bad interview, but, here I go into "Queen Jane the Third"
territory again.
From the article:
Time Q: I assume you've been following what's been going on with the
church...?
TC: With great sadness, yeah. You know, anti-Catholicism is the last
respectable prejudice. You can't hate black people anymore, of course,
and you can't hate homosexuals anymore, but you can hate all the
Catholics you want.
End article quote.
I sincerely hope that TC's response was more expansive, and that
Time's editors just cut it down to something they thought "punchy".
Two observations, given that caveat;
Growing up as an Army, then Marine, Brat in the late '40s and the
'50s, I lived in a lot of places [nearly two dozen addresses] and went
to a lot of schools [11, and that includes 8th through 12th in one {ok
2, but the first was only 6 weeks}, both on- and off-base, and never
saw anti-Catholic prejudice, respectable or not. I did run across the
odd anti-Catholic individual during 21 years as a Marine, but they
invariably hated *everyone* - blacks, Jews, Catholics, damnyankees
[or Southerners, or Westerners, or Easterners, or all of the above],
women, their officers, their NCOs, their wives, their kids, government
workers, ...
I would also hope that Tom Clancy does not mistake the outrage of
Catholic and non-Catholic alike at the behavior of the Catholic church
hierarchy in protecting, covering up, and then allowing their
predatory priests the opportunity to abuse their parishioners children
again as hatred; and that he is aware that the majority of the
Catholics and non-Catholics among those of us who are outraged are
also aware that such child-abusing priests make up a small percentage
of a large, highly respected, body.
OJ III
Kurt Ullman
>Brian McDaniels <mcbr...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Check out:
>>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020729-322616,00.html
>
>Well, not a bad interview, but, here I go into "Queen Jane the Third"
>territory again.
>
>From the article:
>
>Time Q: I assume you've been following what's been going on with the
>church...?
>
>TC: With great sadness, yeah. You know, anti-Catholicism is the last
>respectable prejudice. You can't hate black people anymore, of course,
>and you can't hate homosexuals anymore, but you can hate all the
>Catholics you want.
>
>End article quote.
>
>I sincerely hope that TC's response was more expansive, and that
>Time's editors just cut it down to something they thought "punchy".
>
I doubt it. There have been a couple of places in the books where he says
almost exactly the same words.
------------------------------
"A discussion is an exchange of knowledge, as opposed to an argument which is an exchange of ignorance."
Geof F. Morris
TC in Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:35:02 GMT:
> I doubt it. There have been a couple of places in the books where he says
>almost exactly the same words.
Right. My Catholic friends here sometimes feel the same way,
that even though Kennedy got elected that we hadn't progressed much in
that regard.
I'm Methodist, so it's hard for me to speak to it. I harrass
all other denominations equally. :)
GFM
--
Geof F. Morris
Dean, The Indiana Jones School of Management
mailto:use...@ijsm.org | http://www.ijsm.org
Michael Adams
news:6lo0kuorrpuql78v1...@4ax.com...
>
> Two observations, given that caveat;
>
> Growing up as an Army, then Marine, Brat in the late '40s and the
> '50s, I lived in a lot of places [nearly two dozen addresses] and went
> to a lot of schools [11, and that includes 8th through 12th in one {ok
> 2, but the first was only 6 weeks}, both on- and off-base, and never
> saw anti-Catholic prejudice, respectable or not. I did run across the
> odd anti-Catholic individual during 21 years as a Marine, but they
> invariably hated *everyone* - blacks, Jews, Catholics, damnyankees
> [or Southerners, or Westerners, or Easterners, or all of the above],
> women, their officers, their NCOs, their wives, their kids, government
> workers, ...
I would agree that unless that qoute is being taken out of context, Clancy
is wrong about anti-Catholic prejudice...but on the other hand, I've
actually met a _few_ people who were anti-Catholic and not necessarily
anti-_everything_-else. Though, it might not necessarily been the religion;
I suspect that in their cases, they hated most anything to do with
conservatism(in much of anything) and decried "organized religion" as stupid
just 'cause. Perhaps you could extend the argument that they hated everyone
and were drastically insecure themselves, but they didn't seem like it. You
_could_ talk to them, just not about politics or big social issues (on which
of course, they were vicious and dogmatic).
> I would also hope that Tom Clancy does not mistake the outrage of
> Catholic and non-Catholic alike at the behavior of the Catholic church
> hierarchy in protecting, covering up, and then allowing their
> predatory priests the opportunity to abuse their parishioners children
> again as hatred; and that he is aware that the majority of the
> Catholics and non-Catholics among those of us who are outraged are
> also aware that such child-abusing priests make up a small percentage
> of a large, highly respected, body.
Agreed. In my fascination with religion in general (not in the usual way), I
like to think that "everybody can get along", that we need not hate a
religion in essence, just 'cause.
--Michael
Chris Vail
Methinks TC correct: anti-Catholicism is, at the very
minimum, a fashionable prejudice. Understand however,
the difference between 'fashionable' and 'popular'. It isn't
very popular--meaning that it is not practiced by very many.
But it is fashionable--meaning that prominent members of the
media elite do practice it.
I could mention any number of movies that attempt to
lampoon the RC Church. I've even laughed at a few (the
scene in _Blues Brothers_ remains a classic in my
memory). You can think of any number of Monty Python
skits, or movies by MP regulars that insult that church.
I'll also note that the majority of these movies fail miserably
at the box office. Nevertheless, Follywood continues to
crank them out regularly every couple of years.
Check out:
http://www.rlbm.tripod.com/ALL_Encyclopedia/encyc125.txt
for the anti-Catholic in particular and the anti-Christian view in
general.
> I would also hope that Tom Clancy does not mistake the outrage of
> Catholic and non-Catholic alike at the behavior of the Catholic church
> hierarchy in protecting, covering up, and then allowing their
> predatory priests the opportunity to abuse their parishioners children
> again as hatred; and that he is aware that the majority of the
> Catholics and non-Catholics among those of us who are outraged are
> also aware that such child-abusing priests make up a small percentage
> of a large, highly respected, body.
We know that, statistically, homosexuals are about 1.5%
of the American population. It stands to reason that
the Catholic priesthood has its share of them as well as
do any number of Protestant churches. Of these, a few
will be child molesters.
The only sure cure for lust is death. As long as the Church
consists of living people, all of them will lust. Some of
them will surrender to those lusts. Some of those who
surrender to those lusts will become pedophiles. The more
is the shame on them for their offenses, but especially is
the shame on the Church leadership who did nothing about
these offenses. I hope and pray that this has now changed.
A lot has changed in the RC Church since Vatican II, and
this has become a part of that process. Only time will tell
for sure, but I am one who is encouraged that these changes
have been made, and will continue to be made.
Chris
Michael Adams
news:96350E72FC1A81A8.13B23296...@lp.airnews.net...
> Methinks TC correct: anti-Catholicism is, at the very
> minimum, a fashionable prejudice. Understand however,
> the difference between 'fashionable' and 'popular'. It isn't
> very popular--meaning that it is not practiced by very many.
> But it is fashionable--meaning that prominent members of the
> media elite do practice it.
Just who is this "media elite"? 'Cause it goes both ways. If all you read is
the National Review, and you're a liberal, you're going to say things like,
"It's all a massive right-wing conspiracy!" If all you read is classically
liberal news, and you're a conservative, then you're going to complain about
anti-conservative bias. And if you're right in the middle, then you're going
to constantly be looking for "more unbiased" (Centrism, like everything
else, can be biased) news sources and having a hard time finding it. Media
coverage is certainly biased, but it depends on what it is which bias it
has.
For simplicity's sake, I've divided the world above into three camps:
liberal, conservative, and centrist; obviously things are more complicated
than that. The point is, no matter which media you peruse, if you already
happen to be of a different ideological stripe, you're going to disagree and
if you disagree widely with it, you'll probably call it biased.
I understand, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you'll
find it biased. Unfortunately, most people seem to operate on that, and even
with the people who don't, we're talking about a wide range of disagreement.
Let me give an example: I read the NY Times on the web. They're certainly
well known and if there are "media elites" they probably are card-carrying
members. With them, I _tend to_ agree in principle but almost invariably
disagree on why. I know that they're considered "liberal" and, in my
frequent disagreement, I find them "biased" because I don't think they give
fair treatment to other points of view as much. Now, even though I think
they're biased, I don't find them disgustingly so; I think that overall,
they're pretty fair. On some things, they're definitely biased. But in fact,
we're all biased; we all operate from differing sets of principles and are
less-than-incredibly willing to change them(for good reason!). The idiots of
the world blindly accept principles from certain sources(the news media is
common provider) and parrot them back, often inaccurately, as apparently
they're incapable of original thought or critique. If they change, it's
because their provider did. But they're idiots. The rest of us also operate
from various sets of principles but fortunately, we will look at these
principles from time to time and try to be aware of their flaws (certainly a
lot of my principles are mutually contradictory!). The thing is, in all of
this we're "biased" against certain other beliefs: am I supposed to
"fair-mindedly" evaluate Nazism? I don't think _complete_ "fair mindedness"
is possible...and same with the news media.
--Michael
Howard Berkowitz
<96350E72FC1A81A8.13B23296...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>
> Methinks TC correct: anti-Catholicism is, at the very
> minimum, a fashionable prejudice. Understand however,
> the difference between 'fashionable' and 'popular'. It isn't
> very popular--meaning that it is not practiced by very many.
> But it is fashionable--meaning that prominent members of the
> media elite do practice it.
>
> I could mention any number of movies that attempt to
> lampoon the RC Church. I've even laughed at a few (the
> scene in _Blues Brothers_ remains a classic in my
> memory). You can think of any number of Monty Python
> skits, or movies by MP regulars that insult that church.
> I'll also note that the majority of these movies fail miserably
> at the box office. Nevertheless, Follywood continues to
> crank them out regularly every couple of years.
While I dearly loved "Every Sperm is Sacred," I must say, as a
non-Judaeochristian, that the more centralized (?) Christian churches --
Catholic, LDS, etc. -- seem more logical to me if a deity wanted a
church. It strikes me that the usual triad of omniscience, omnipotence,
and omnipresence leads to one of two observations -- the deity needs no
clergy or interpreters, because the deity's message is unambiguous, or
the deity is efficient, and delegates to a priesthood.
Obviously, neither one of these quite work. But I've found theological
discussions with a Jesuit, Paulist, or Redemptorist more enlightening
than a discussion in which people simply quote Scripture without tying
the references together. Of course, not all theological work of this
type gets approved by the Vatican, Salt Lake City, etc., but I have
always found Teilhard du Chardin, Aquinas, Loyola, Xavier, etc., to be
more compelling than simple recitation of a translation of a translation
of a translation.
If independent interpretation is the right way to go, than Talmudic or
Hadithic reasoning is appealing. I can't say I can think of any
Christian group that has this tradition.
>
> Check out:
> http://www.rlbm.tripod.com/ALL_Encyclopedia/encyc125.txt
> for the anti-Catholic in particular and the anti-Christian view in
> general.
>
> > I would also hope that Tom Clancy does not mistake the outrage of
> > Catholic and non-Catholic alike at the behavior of the Catholic church
> > hierarchy in protecting, covering up, and then allowing their
> > predatory priests the opportunity to abuse their parishioners children
> > again as hatred; and that he is aware that the majority of the
> > Catholics and non-Catholics among those of us who are outraged are
> > also aware that such child-abusing priests make up a small percentage
> > of a large, highly respected, body.
>
> We know that, statistically, homosexuals are about 1.5%
> of the American population. It stands to reason that
> the Catholic priesthood has its share of them as well as
> do any number of Protestant churches. Of these, a few
> will be child molesters.
>
> The only sure cure for lust is death. As long as the Church
> consists of living people, all of them will lust.
Better not talk to Voudouns! Or how _do_ you get the phone number of a
succubus? :-)
>Some of
> them will surrender to those lusts. Some of those who
> surrender to those lusts will become pedophiles. The more
> is the shame on them for their offenses, but especially is
> the shame on the Church leadership who did nothing about
> these offenses. I hope and pray that this has now changed.
> A lot has changed in the RC Church since Vatican II, and
> this has become a part of that process. Only time will tell
> for sure, but I am one who is encouraged that these changes
> have been made, and will continue to be made.
Again, Chris, we find ourselves in frightening agreement!
Howard Berkowitz
"Michael Adams" <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
To wit, the world is divided into three groups. Those who count well,
and those who do not.
>The point is, no matter which media you peruse, if you already
> happen to be of a different ideological stripe, you're going to disagree
> and
> if you disagree widely with it, you'll probably call it biased.
> Let me give an example: I read the NY Times on the web. They're certainly
> well known and if there are "media elites" they probably are
> card-carrying
> members. With them, I _tend to_ agree in principle but almost invariably
> disagree on why. I know that they're considered "liberal" and, in my
> frequent disagreement, I find them "biased" because I don't think they
> give
> fair treatment to other points of view as much. Now, even though I think
> they're biased, I don't find them disgustingly so; I think that overall,
> they're pretty fair. On some things, they're definitely biased. But in
> fact,
> we're all biased; we all operate from differing sets of principles and
> are
> less-than-incredibly willing to change them(for good reason!). The idiots
> of
> the world blindly accept principles from certain sources(the news media
> is
> common provider) and parrot them back, often inaccurately, as apparently
> they're incapable of original thought or critique.
Ironically, this was exactly what my honors history teacher demanded in
1965-1966...read the newspaper and say who said what, rather than write
an independent synthesis (even quoting appropriately).
>If they change, it's
> because their provider did. But they're idiots. The rest of us also
> operate
> from various sets of principles but fortunately, we will look at these
> principles from time to time and try to be aware of their flaws
> (certainly a
> lot of my principles are mutually contradictory!).
>The thing is, in all
> of
> this we're "biased" against certain other beliefs: am I supposed to
> "fair-mindedly" evaluate Nazism?
There is a difference between objective evaluation of something that can
be considered evil (e.g., the practice of National Socialism, well
described by Kogon as "The Theory and Practice of Hell"), or the study
of something that can't be considered evil because it's nonsentient (a
filovirus like Ebola), but is equally unacceptable.
I have evaluated Naziism in great detail, not with any agreement with
its principles (other than they had great uniform designers), but to
understand how the Nazi phenomenon happened, and how to prevent it from
happening elsewhere. I can equally study Robert Conquest on Stalinist
terror without any personal approval of Josef Vissarionovich.
>I don't think _complete_ "fair
> mindedness"
> is possible...and same with the news media.
But there is the practical reality that individuals don't have the time
to research and form independent judgements on every issue. For general
news, the Washington Post and CNN are convenient, if I want to know
about a train wreck or sports result, or, frankly, to follow the
Traficant affair in the House.
Talk about medical or Internet policy, the associated technologies,
intelligence and special ops, C3I, etc., the new media are not very high
in my list of sources. So, I do look for reasonably accurate sources
in areas that are not of primary interest.
I was about to say that, after last night's Larry King interview with
Pam Anderson (although I just read the transcript), the mass media are
good for entertainment. But then I think of a case report letter in the
New England Journal of Medicine titled approximately "Suzanne Somers
Synovitis, or Thigh Trimmer Tendinitis."
The letter demonstrated idiocy on the part of the patient and the
initial medical evaluators. They spent thousands of dollars in tests to
understand his comment of hip pain, until someone took a decent history
and found he had been using the Suzanne Somers thigh exerciser several
hours per day, for about 6 weeks.
Michael Adams
news:hcb-1BF168.2...@text.giganews.com...
> To wit, the world is divided into three groups. Those who count well,
> and those who do not.
I'm in that second(or third) category. <g>
> Ironically, this was exactly what my honors history teacher demanded in
> 1965-1966...read the newspaper and say who said what, rather than write
> an independent synthesis (even quoting appropriately).
Oh yes, certainly people are taught to do so. (Disgusting, isn't it?) But
otherwise social rejection happens. You can't be a totally free thinker even
if you wanted to be...that's one of the (few) advantages of Usenet. There's
no effective retribution so people will say what they think for a change.
Now, there are some groups in real life that are all about divergent
opinions; unfortunately, they're few...
> >The thing is, in all
> > of
> > this we're "biased" against certain other beliefs: am I supposed to
> > "fair-mindedly" evaluate Nazism?
>
> There is a difference between objective evaluation of something that can
> be considered evil (e.g., the practice of National Socialism, well
> described by Kogon as "The Theory and Practice of Hell"), or the study
> of something that can't be considered evil because it's nonsentient (a
> filovirus like Ebola), but is equally unacceptable.
There is. However, while we may strive toward complete objectivity, I tend
to believe nobody can consistently reach it. And I'm not sure we'd want to.
We can practice "fair-minded" evaluation and we MUST attempt to do so, but
it doesn't work out "completely". One of my hobbies is paying attention to
what's happening politically in China. Now then, I try to be fair minded
about it all, but I always have the niggling doubt that I'm not _truly_
doing that.
One could argue that if one never doubted in that way, one would definitely
not be fair-minded...I don't know. Regardless, to me, objectivity and
fair-mindedness are ideals to be strived for, but perhaps unfortunately,
never truly reached.
> I have evaluated Naziism in great detail, not with any agreement with
> its principles (other than they had great uniform designers), but to
> understand how the Nazi phenomenon happened, and how to prevent it from
> happening elsewhere. I can equally study Robert Conquest on Stalinist
> terror without any personal approval of Josef Vissarionovich.
Of course. But it seems like it's impossible to determine if total
objectivity is present...
>
> But there is the practical reality that individuals don't have the time
> to research and form independent judgements on every issue. For general
> news, the Washington Post and CNN are convenient, if I want to know
> about a train wreck or sports result, or, frankly, to follow the
> Traficant affair in the House.
Of course! I agree completely. I was simply pointing out that the news media
_is_ biased along with everyone else, so both consumers and producers of
news end up seeing things in their "biased" ways. I wasn't arguing that it's
somehow "wrong". Because I believe total objectivity to be mostly an
unreachable ideal, I don't consider it wrong not to be. At worst, it's
neutral.
(I have a horribly complicated moral theory, most of which hasn't been
worked out very well. My idea of solving this morass is using mathematics
that I don't know yet. <g>)
> Talk about medical or Internet policy, the associated technologies,
> intelligence and special ops, C3I, etc., the new media are not very high
> in my list of sources. So, I do look for reasonably accurate sources
> in areas that are not of primary interest.
Logical.
> I was about to say that, after last night's Larry King interview with
> Pam Anderson (although I just read the transcript), the mass media are
> good for entertainment. But then I think of a case report letter in the
> New England Journal of Medicine titled approximately "Suzanne Somers
> Synovitis, or Thigh Trimmer Tendinitis."
>
> The letter demonstrated idiocy on the part of the patient and the
> initial medical evaluators. They spent thousands of dollars in tests to
> understand his comment of hip pain, until someone took a decent history
> and found he had been using the Suzanne Somers thigh exerciser several
> hours per day, for about 6 weeks.
LOL. Takes a lot of higher education. <g>
--Michael
Howard Berkowitz
"Michael Adams" <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Howard Berkowitz" <h...@clark.net> wrote in message
> news:hcb-1BF168.2...@text.giganews.com...
> > To wit, the world is divided into three groups. Those who count well,
> > and those who do not.
>
> I'm in that second(or third) category. <g>
>
> > Ironically, this was exactly what my honors history teacher demanded in
> > 1965-1966...read the newspaper and say who said what, rather than write
> > an independent synthesis (even quoting appropriately).
>
> Oh yes, certainly people are taught to do so. (Disgusting, isn't it?) But
> otherwise social rejection happens. You can't be a totally free thinker
> even
> if you wanted to be...that's one of the (few) advantages of Usenet.
> There's
> no effective retribution so people will say what they think for a change.
> Now, there are some groups in real life that are all about divergent
> opinions; unfortunately, they're few...
People tend to be surprised about the openness to ideas in such things
as the Internet Engineering Task Force. If you can demonstrate your idea
makes sense, and especially if you can build a working prototype, people
tend to pay attention to what you say rather than your "credentials."
Don't confuse, of course, "titular" credentials with people that have
long track records. I have trouble with a bright UNIX programmer that
worries "I might break something" given root, and I try to explain to
him I've been doing UNIX administration only a few years less than he's
been on the planet.
>
> > >The thing is, in all
> > > of
> > > this we're "biased" against certain other beliefs: am I supposed to
> > > "fair-mindedly" evaluate Nazism?
> >
> > There is a difference between objective evaluation of something that
> > can
> > be considered evil (e.g., the practice of National Socialism, well
> > described by Kogon as "The Theory and Practice of Hell"), or the study
> > of something that can't be considered evil because it's nonsentient (a
> > filovirus like Ebola), but is equally unacceptable.
>
> There is. However, while we may strive toward complete objectivity, I
> tend
> to believe nobody can consistently reach it. And I'm not sure we'd want
> to.
> We can practice "fair-minded" evaluation and we MUST attempt to do so,
> but
> it doesn't work out "completely". One of my hobbies is paying attention
> to
> what's happening politically in China. Now then, I try to be fair minded
> about it all, but I always have the niggling doubt that I'm not _truly_
> doing that.
One fundamental that you will need to resolve is whether you are judging
others within their cultural or ethical model, or yours -- or if it does
make sense to try to merge them.
>
> One could argue that if one never doubted in that way, one would
> definitely
> not be fair-minded...I don't know. Regardless, to me, objectivity and
> fair-mindedness are ideals to be strived for, but perhaps unfortunately,
> never truly reached.
>
> > I have evaluated Naziism in great detail, not with any agreement with
> > its principles (other than they had great uniform designers), but to
> > understand how the Nazi phenomenon happened, and how to prevent it from
> > happening elsewhere. I can equally study Robert Conquest on Stalinist
> > terror without any personal approval of Josef Vissarionovich.
>
> Of course. But it seems like it's impossible to determine if total
> objectivity is present...
It probably can't be--and even if it were there, you'd have to make some
compromises to make things work in a real-world political (in the
broadest sense of the word, including any large organization) world.
Nevertheless, it's comforting to be able to say to oneself that you've
done your best to be fair.
There's something about knowing you are doing the right and/or fair
thing, even though you HATE it at the time. OTOH, there was great joy in
knowing I was doing whatever it was that would most annoy my Aunt
Shirley.
> (I have a horribly complicated moral theory, most of which hasn't been
> worked out very well. My idea of solving this morass is using mathematics
> that I don't know yet. <g>)
Out of curiosity, read any Spinoza (mathematical proofs of God and the
like)? I find him one of those people who are insanely fascinating, or
perhaps fascinatingly insane.
>
> > Talk about medical or Internet policy, the associated technologies,
> > intelligence and special ops, C3I, etc., the new media are not very
> > high
> > in my list of sources. So, I do look for reasonably accurate sources
> > in areas that are not of primary interest.
>
> Logical.
>
> > I was about to say that, after last night's Larry King interview with
> > Pam Anderson (although I just read the transcript), the mass media are
> > good for entertainment. But then I think of a case report letter in
> > the
> > New England Journal of Medicine titled approximately "Suzanne Somers
> > Synovitis, or Thigh Trimmer Tendinitis."
> >
> > The letter demonstrated idiocy on the part of the patient and the
> > initial medical evaluators. They spent thousands of dollars in tests
> > to
> > understand his comment of hip pain, until someone took a decent history
> > and found he had been using the Suzanne Somers thigh exerciser several
> > hours per day, for about 6 weeks.
>
> LOL. Takes a lot of higher education. <g>
>
> --Michael
It hath been said that Pam's breadth hath great depth.
cMAD
> (I have a horribly complicated moral theory, most of which hasn't been
> worked out very well. My idea of solving this morass is using mathematics
> that I don't know yet. <g>)
Wild guess ...
Would the observation that in general, there is a sufficient amount of people
who will always play non-cooperative strategies, so that cooperation is not
feasible, fit into that morass?
cMAD
loki
>
> Right. My Catholic friends here sometimes feel the same way,
> that even though Kennedy got elected that we hadn't progressed much in
> that regard.
>
> I'm Methodist, so it's hard for me to speak to it. I harrass
> all other denominations equally. :)
Actually, having grown up Catholic in the Bible Belt was good preparation
for becomming pagan. I'm quite accustomed to folks thinking my religion is
weird and that I'm doomed to Hell. <grin>
A few years back a fundamentalist Christian informed me that - as a
Catholic -
I was actually under the influence of Satan. He said that all
non-fundamentalist
religions (that includes your's Geof) were inspired by Satan to lead us
astray. <sigh>
Then he tried to get in my pants.
Loki
Fred J. McCall
:In the interest of brevity, let's see what Kurt Ullman said about Re:
:TC in Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:35:02 GMT:
:
:> I doubt it. There have been a couple of places in the books where he says
:>almost exactly the same words.
:
: Right. My Catholic friends here sometimes feel the same way,
:that even though Kennedy got elected that we hadn't progressed much in
:that regard.
Personally, I just think about what TEDDY Kennedy said when his
election opponent was a Mormon. The Kennedys have no room to complain
about anyone else's use of religious bigotry in an election....
--
"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one’s
neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious
intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the
people next door are headed for hell."
-- Aleister Crowley
Fred J. McCall
:"Geof F. Morris" <use...@ijsm.org> wrote
:>
:> Right. My Catholic friends here sometimes feel the same way,
:> that even though Kennedy got elected that we hadn't progressed much in
:> that regard.
:>
:> I'm Methodist, so it's hard for me to speak to it. I harrass
:> all other denominations equally. :)
:
:Actually, having grown up Catholic in the Bible Belt was good preparation
:for becomming pagan. I'm quite accustomed to folks thinking my religion is
:weird and that I'm doomed to Hell. <grin>
Well, given that, no reason not to enjoy yourself now, then. ;-)
David E. Powell
news:3D402D49...@charter.net...
> Check out:
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020729-322616,00.html
>
No Senate run, darn ;)
Well, it's his life. Plenty of people in MD would vote for him, though.
gws
news:96350E72FC1A81A8.13B23296...@lp.airnews.net...
> We know that, statistically, homosexuals are about 1.5%
> of the American population. It stands to reason that
> the Catholic priesthood has its share of them as well as
> do any number of Protestant churches. Of these, a few
> will be child molesters.
Christian conservatives estimate that about 1.5% of the population is
homosexual. Gay activists estimate 10%. The truth is, we don't have a clue
what the percentage is.
Grey Satterfield
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>
>Then he tried to get in my pants.
LOL. Did he try to sell you some Amway first as well?
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Steve Bartman
<art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Just who is this "media elite"?
Given that RCs are about (from memory) 46% of the Christian population
of the US, it seems statistically unlikely that the media elite
excludes them, and logically unlikely that they would be prejudiced
against their own beliefs. Especially considering the ratio of
Catholics in the Tri-state area of the NE, home to lots of said
elitists.
Chris making more dumb blanket statements. Move along.
Chris Vail
"gws" <g...@oscn.net> wrote in message
news:sIa09.53780$jq5....@news2.central.cox.net...
Steve B and I had this discussion a while back. I have
plenty of data to support this number. The official
Dept. of Census number is 0.44%, a 1992 University
of Chicago study quoted 2.5%. So split the difference
and call it 1.4-1.5% of the total US population.
The 10% number comes from the Kinsey report--
now widely discredited.
Chris
Chris Vail
"loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ahqgmv$3da$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
I take it then that they didn't fit?
Chris
Chris Vail
"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17ab22b41...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <sIa09.53780$jq5....@news2.central.cox.net>, g...@oscn.net
(snip)
> The most unbiased sexual data that I'm aware of is still
> the Kinsey research done many decades ago, and I believe that
> Kinsey is the source of that 10% number.
From :
http://www.alumni.uchicago.edu/magazine/0010/features/gay-studies.html
Meanwhile, in 1992, sociologists Edward O. Laumann;
Robert T. Michael; John H. Gagnon, AB'55, PhD'69; and
Stuart K. Michaels, PhD'97; undertook a major
quantitative survey of adult sexual behavior. Its
controversial finding-that only 1.4 percent of
women and 2.8 percent of men identified themselves
as homo- or bi-sexual-challenged the widespread belief
that lesbians and gay men composed 10 percent of the
nation's population and was greeted with some skepticism,
prompting a continuing debate on the study's methodology
and interpretations.
From:
http://www.harrisschool.uchicago.edu/news/pressreleases/pr_american_sex_stdy
.htm
Unlike previous surveys, the University survey
used a representative sample of the American
population. The study involved 90-minute,
face-to-face interviews with 3,432 randomly
selected Americans ages 18 to 59. Of those
selected, 80 percent, an extremely high percentage
for response to any survey, agreed to disclose
the facts of their sexual lives. The survey was
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center.
Because the questionnaire included a number of
cross checks on the respondents' veracity, the
investigators have much confidence that the data
provide accurate estimates for such sensitive
behavior as sexual practices and preferences,
extramarital sex, number of sexual partners
and homosexuality.
There's a lot of good stuff at the following URL
From: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
VI. Why Was Kinsey So Far Off?
A. Sample skewed tremendously by non-typical
populations
1. Had interviewed over 1,500 convicted sex
offenders in first 10,000 histories
2. Included histories of 600 male and
600 female prostitutes in database
3. Regularly visited not only prisons
but known homosexual communities of his time.
In fact, in very few years did Kinsey fail to hit either a prison or gay
enclave in
his sampling efforts
4. All Kinsey's histories were thrown together
for analysis with little regard for proper
statistical weighting or handling of the data
B. Kinsey's sampling scheme was not systematic
but rather haphazard
1. No random or probability-based design
2. Used underworld contacts to get into gay
and sexually deviant groups
3. Kinsey became very interested in documenting
the extremes of sexual diversity, even going so
far as to film participants in sexual activity.
The Kinsey Institute contains an archive of such
films.
4. By being so interested in diversity, Kinsey
was much less interested in the relatively "dull"
sexual histories of most ordinary Americans, and
these "dull" histories did not show up in his
sample nearly as often as they should have.
A little Googling produces wondrous info.....
Chris
Scott Lurndal
And a statistician would tell you that it is unlikely that the
catholic priesthood is representative of the population at large
(think self-selecting).
scott
Chris Vail
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:6kq2ku0vm88a920gq...@4ax.com...
> Chris making more dumb blanket statements. Move along.
Thats just another example of Steve attempting to
dismiss people and ideas that don't agree with him.
I will agree with his statement to "move along".
Chris
gws
I was talking about the percentage of those who ARE homosexual, not the
percentage who ACKNOWLEDGE that they are homosexual. I can't accept 10% as
a realistic number, but I don't buy 1.5%, either.
Grey
Michael Adams
news:3D40BF82...@freenet.de...
Not quite. Mostly it consists of ever-changing values for a seemingly
infinite number of variables that depending on the situation of course,
aren't necessarily present at all. I've heard of multi-variable calculus.
Just by the name it might help, but I'm not sure.
The reason why I look to math is because it seems that, in any given
situation, we weight value X more than value Y, yet in another, we weight Y
more than X, and in a third, Y is a function of X, and so on...
--Michael
Michael Adams
>
> From: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
> 2. Used underworld contacts to get into gay
> and sexually deviant groups
The language in this indicates that it itself would have found Kinsey wrong
no matter what--and just why would Kinsey have to use "underworld" contacts?
Like the mob keeps track of homosexuals? It makes for exciting reading, but
one does wonder.
> A little Googling produces wondrous info.....
It does. Don't you think though, that any person who believes Kisey will
also google and come up with a site called, "Why Kinsey is right"? You might
first want to agree on a likely source for good data about Kinsey's
research...I doubt many will accept the Kinsey stuff you posted above(that I
mostly snipped). Your other sources are probably far more believable, just
on the name alone.(Yes, the irony of it...but ah well)
--Michael
Geof F. Morris
Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:44:58 -0500:
>Actually, having grown up Catholic in the Bible Belt was good preparation
>for becomming pagan. I'm quite accustomed to folks thinking my religion is
>weird and that I'm doomed to Hell. <grin>
That's been my experience with it. As a mainline Protestant,
I've been told that myself...
>A few years back a fundamentalist Christian informed me that - as a
>Catholic - I was actually under the influence of Satan. He said that all
>non-fundamentalist religions (that includes your's Geof) were inspired
>by Satan to lead us astray. <sigh>
Heh, I well recognize that I'm not a fundamentalist. If
someone asks me if I am, I reply that I like overtones better. I've
got that delivery down pat, actually.
>Then he tried to get in my pants.
-lol-
Geof F. Morris
TC in Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:29:29 -0500:
>Methinks TC correct: anti-Catholicism is, at the very
>minimum, a fashionable prejudice. Understand however,
>the difference between 'fashionable' and 'popular'. It isn't
>very popular--meaning that it is not practiced by very many.
>But it is fashionable--meaning that prominent members of the
>media elite do practice it.
Indeed. The Catholic priest sex scandal was juicy and got
lots of play. Similar stories about Jehovah's Witnesses get airtime,
but usually only on newsmagazine shows and Fox News Channel.
>Nevertheless, Follywood continues to
>crank them out regularly every couple of years.
Probably the funniest movie about the Catholic faith was
directed by Kevin Smith, who himself is a practicing Catholic. If
you've never seen _Dogma_, it's worth a rent, if for no other reason
than Chris Rock's character ... ;)
Smith got a s41tstorm from Catholic groups about it. Once,
there was a protest outside a movie theater, and he joined the crowd
just to talk to them. He never said who he was, but the story is
hilarious.
>We know that, statistically, homosexuals are about 1.5%
>of the American population. It stands to reason that
>the Catholic priesthood has its share of them as well as
>do any number of Protestant churches. Of these, a few
>will be child molesters.
Just 1.5% of the population? I would think it's a little
higher than that. It's not as big as some would like you to believe,
but if I think of 100 of my friends, I'm going to come up with more
than two of them that are gay.
>The only sure cure for lust is death. As long as the Church
>consists of living people, all of them will lust. Some of
>them will surrender to those lusts. Some of those who
>surrender to those lusts will become pedophiles. The more
>is the shame on them for their offenses, but especially is
>the shame on the Church leadership who did nothing about
>these offenses. I hope and pray that this has now changed.
>A lot has changed in the RC Church since Vatican II, and
>this has become a part of that process. Only time will tell
>for sure, but I am one who is encouraged that these changes
>have been made, and will continue to be made.
I wonder if they've stopped praying for Protestants to return
to the fold during Mass yet ...
Geof F. Morris
Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:50:48 GMT:
>Christian conservatives estimate that about 1.5% of the population is
>homosexual. Gay activists estimate 10%. The truth is, we don't have a clue
>what the percentage is.
Can we say that the truth rarely lies in the extremes?
GFM <-- who'd bet it's about at the average of those two
figures ...
Geof F. Morris
Re: TC in Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:53:15 -0400:
>Agreed. In my fascination with religion in general (not in the usual way), I
>like to think that "everybody can get along", that we need not hate a
>religion in essence, just 'cause.
I try not to hate. I've been commanded not to do so. I'll
argue all day, but unfortunately, most of us are very wedded to our
beliefs, so attacking the foundation of those beliefs often stirs up
hate-like feelings, if not flat-out hate.
GFM
Geof F. Morris
Re: TC in Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:08:15 GMT:
>And a statistician would tell you that it is unlikely that the
>catholic priesthood is representative of the population at large
>(think self-selecting).
Quite true.
cMAD
Hmmm. Sounds complicated and messy.
Now, as you will most likely find out in any introductory mathematics lecture
at college, mathematics is a _great_ tool to obfuscate matters
(and math lecturers tend to demonstrate this to freshman, just to show them
their place).
The real issue is how to map reality into mathematics.
Here, Occam's Razor comes into play. You should use as few variables as
possible.
It might also help to address the problem from the desired result: if you want
any quantitative criterion to judge the relative merit of alternatives,
whatever math you use, you must end up with _one_ _real_ number as the result
of your decision function.
Describe in the simplest terms possible how this number is going to change
(improve/deteriorate) if you change your decision, or others change their
decisions.
cMAD
cMAD
You don't have to use elaborate statistics to accept that there is a strong
deterrent for someone with socially accepted sexual preferences to become Catholic
priest, which doesn't exist for someone whose sexual preference is ostracized by
society already.
cMAD
loki
> The letter demonstrated idiocy on the part of the patient and the
> initial medical evaluators. They spent thousands of dollars in tests to
> understand his comment of hip pain, until someone took a decent history
> and found he had been using the Suzanne Somers thigh exerciser several
> hours per day, for about 6 weeks.
Hey, I just finished dealing with such things myself. I have been trying -
for
two weeks - to get my daughter's physician to listen to her history of gall
stones and the attendant mistakes of prior physicians. It wasn't until
we had gone 1.5 weeks with no diagnosis that he finally listed to me (and
at that I had to be very, very agressive in getting him and not his office
staff)
and he agreed with me about what is probably causing her pain. This was
pain significant enough to land her in the hospital for 4 days on Demerol.
<sigh>
Sometimes they don't *want* the history.
Loki
Chris Vail
"Michael Adams" <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:w2g09.20473$Og3.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> "Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:ECAD791F8804C77F.4A4103E0...@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> > From: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
>
> > 2. Used underworld contacts to get into gay
> > and sexually deviant groups
>
> The language in this indicates that it itself would have found Kinsey
wrong
> no matter what--and just why would Kinsey have to use "underworld"
contacts?
At the risk of belaboring the obvious: gay and sexually
deviant groups rarely advertise, and they certainly
didn't when Kinsey did his work in the late 40's and
early 50's. For him to observe this behavior at all
means that he had to use unorthodox technique for
obtaining his information--technique which draws his
conclusions into question by current standards. For
his day, he was a pioneer, but any modern grad student
who used his sampling techniques would be laughed out
of school.
> Like the mob keeps track of homosexuals? It makes for exciting reading,
but
> one does wonder.
>
> > A little Googling produces wondrous info.....
>
> It does. Don't you think though, that any person who believes Kisey will
> also google and come up with a site called, "Why Kinsey is right"? You
might
> first want to agree on a likely source for good data about Kinsey's
> research
I suspect that the Kinsey Institute believes his research
unassailable. Yet his early data COMPLETELY
contradicts later, and better information. From the
same people at familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html
....the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
(NHSDA) conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC)2. In this study, 12,381 adults
aged 18-59 years were interviewed on a variety
of topics, including their sexual behavior during
the previous year. The NHSDA sample is the largest
to date allowing national estimates of the numbers
of people who engage in homosexuality.
It also had the additional benefit of not starting
off as a "sex survey." The evidence is limited,
but introducing a study as a 'sex survey' appears
to cause the 'sexually conservative' to disproportionately
refuse to cooperate. This is what happened to Kinsey,
and what happened to FRI when we did our large study
in the early 1980s.
So there's a good chance the NHSDA estimates are
closer to the true numbers of homosexuals than
those other 'sex surveys' have reported. 1.1% of
women (weighted n= 828,678) and 1.3% of men
(weighted n= 828,900) reported having had "oral,
vaginal, or anal" sex with a person of the same
sex in the prior 12 months. Now this doesn't mean
that there are 'less than 2 million homosexuals in
the nation.' Rather, since people who engage in
homosexuality 'drop in' and 'drop out' of homosexual
activity all the time, probably there are about two
or three times this number who either have in the
past or will at some future date participate in
same-sex sexual behavior.
Still, it is clear that those actively engaged in
homosexuality are a tiny portion of the non-institutionalized
population certainly no more than 2% (although homosexuals
may make up as much as a quarter of those in prisons and jails).
>...I doubt many will accept the Kinsey stuff you posted above(that I
> mostly snipped). Your other sources are probably far more believable, just
> on the name alone.(Yes, the irony of it...but ah well)
The folks at Family Research are as unbiased a group
as I've yet seen. They blast conservative Christian
groups as readily as they do the American Psychology
Association and any number of pro-homosexual groups.
But I agree with you: most folks--including many in this
NG--dismiss information they find that conflicts with
their worldview.
Chris
Chris Vail
"Scott Lurndal" <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:3mf09.34225$fv7.24...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Your assumption is that Catholic priests are something
other than 'just as human' as everyone else. The only
difference between them and anyone else engaging in
that behavior is the number of people hurt and the amount
of shame that they bring upon the institution they're supposed
to represent.
Chris
Michael Adams
news:hcb-4D7994.2...@text.giganews.com...
>
> People tend to be surprised about the openness to ideas in such things
> as the Internet Engineering Task Force. If you can demonstrate your idea
> makes sense, and especially if you can build a working prototype, people
> tend to pay attention to what you say rather than your "credentials."
> Don't confuse, of course, "titular" credentials with people that have
> long track records. I have trouble with a bright UNIX programmer that
> worries "I might break something" given root, and I try to explain to
> him I've been doing UNIX administration only a few years less than he's
> been on the planet.
Yep. Nothing quite like practical experience...
> One fundamental that you will need to resolve is whether you are judging
> others within their cultural or ethical model, or yours -- or if it does
> make sense to try to merge them.
Exactly. But as we're always judging within some model, what is to determine
whether it is the "objective" model or not? What makes for an objective
model?
>
> It probably can't be--and even if it were there, you'd have to make some
> compromises to make things work in a real-world political (in the
> broadest sense of the word, including any large organization) world.
> Nevertheless, it's comforting to be able to say to oneself that you've
> done your best to be fair.
Agreed.
> There's something about knowing you are doing the right and/or fair
> thing, even though you HATE it at the time. OTOH, there was great joy in
> knowing I was doing whatever it was that would most annoy my Aunt
> Shirley.
Of course. It's an ideal, but one that's practically impossible to achieve.
> > (I have a horribly complicated moral theory, most of which hasn't been
> > worked out very well. My idea of solving this morass is using
mathematics
> > that I don't know yet. <g>)
>
> Out of curiosity, read any Spinoza (mathematical proofs of God and the
> like)? I find him one of those people who are insanely fascinating, or
> perhaps fascinatingly insane.
No...titles? Speaking of proofs of God's existence, I find the Ontological
the most interesting so far(Anselm and co.) It begs the question(as Rowe
pointed out in a fascinating critique) but as far as a proof goes, I found
it "more convincing" than the others(teleogical(spelling?) and cosmological)
Then of course there's Pascal's wager, but that wager has some serious
problems...
--Michael
Chris Vail
"Geof F. Morris" <use...@ijsm.org> wrote in message
news:g743kus8ep2nrct8j...@4ax.com...
> In the interest of brevity, let's see what Chris Vail said about Re:
> TC in Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:29:29 -0500:
> Just 1.5% of the population? I would think it's a little
> higher than that. It's not as big as some would like you to believe,
> but if I think of 100 of my friends, I'm going to come up with more
> than two of them that are gay.
I posted some stuff on this to Michael Adams in this thread.
Check it out. A bit of Googling shows the most generous
non-Kinsey number is 4%.
> >The only sure cure for lust is death. As long as the Church
> >consists of living people, all of them will lust. Some of
> >them will surrender to those lusts. Some of those who
> >surrender to those lusts will become pedophiles. The more
> >is the shame on them for their offenses, but especially is
> >the shame on the Church leadership who did nothing about
> >these offenses. I hope and pray that this has now changed.
> >A lot has changed in the RC Church since Vatican II, and
> >this has become a part of that process. Only time will tell
> >for sure, but I am one who is encouraged that these changes
> >have been made, and will continue to be made.
>
> I wonder if they've stopped praying for Protestants to return
> to the fold during Mass yet ...
I know my friend the nun is praying for me, specifically
for this <g>. Thats okay, I'll take any prayers I can get
these days.
Chris
Tom Clancy
People's entire attention to the Catholic Church right now seems to be with
some priests who've strayed way off the reservation.
Observations: Anyone who molests a child is a criminal, and he or she belongs
in a penetentiary. Being a mamber of the clergy is not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free
card. I hope these people like rooming with the famous Bubba the armed robber,
but, when you think about it, maybe they will.
My comment in Time Magazine was intended for a wider scope, however. The media
as a whole pays scant respect to organized religion in general and the Catholic
Church in particular. Why this is so, I will not speculate here, and though I
consider myself a Catholic, it it most unlikely that there will ever be a
parish church named for me.
But I think religion is something to be treated with respect. There is no more
personal or profound choice in life than how one chooses to talk with God. I
think my readers will recognize this principle from my writing. Some of the
best writing I've ever done was the sermon duet of the Baptist ministers in
B&D--enough so that I've gotten complimentory e-mails from nascent Baptist
ministers in divinity school. I'm actually rather proud of that. The last
Baptist church I entered was on Luszerne Avenue in central Baltimore around
1951 (mainly for the day-care attached to the church; I was part of St.
Elizabeth's parish, you see). But it remains God's house, and I am compelled by
my ethical beliefs to respect it.
The media treats all religions as equal. With sorrow, I cannot find it in me to
apply respect to wtichcraft or voodoo, and I think what the media is doing when
it says that voodoo ("Santeria," I think they call it now) is co-equal with
Christianity is to say that all forms of religion are equally worthless. The
media has its own internal language, but remember that to love everything is to
love nothing.
Now is this because the media, which tends to be somewhat left of center,
regards religion as the opiate of the people? I will not speculate on that,
either.
But I think we should all remember that all of human existance has been a
struggle to replace chaos with order, and religion has helped us to do that.
Moreover, the world's great religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) say
much the same thing: Somewhere up there is a God of justice and mercy and love.
And that's not a very bad message, is it? My church, and others, have spent
centuries building distinguished places of learning, and healing, and that at
the very least is a debt we all need to consider once in a while. If you've
injured outside a Mercy Hospital, you will get the mercy you need.
Okay, sure, it's never been a perfectly straight road, but the farther
governments get from the revealed word of God, the closer we get to holocausts.
Marxism and National Socialism are two clear exemplars, albeit negative ones,
of the value of religious principle. Please don't throw the Crusades and
religious wars at me. Yes, people have screwed up horribly (more often with
religion as an excuse for economic gain), but we've all learned from their
mistakes, haven't we? J. V. Stalin and A. Hitler did not, and without the
restraints imposed by a healthy fear of God, look what they did in the
enlightened 20th Century.
TC
Michael Adams
> Catholic -
> I was actually under the influence of Satan. He said that all
> non-fundamentalist
> religions (that includes your's Geof) were inspired by Satan to lead us
> astray. <sigh>
>
Maybe it's his twisted version of a pickup line? If you're all evil, he
figures, then you ought to be willing to "sin" with him? The fundementalist
mind is strange place. (as are most minds) <g>
--Michael
Howard Berkowitz
<F91E5FF9554F13DE.04A76502...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> "Geof F. Morris" <use...@ijsm.org> wrote in message
> news:g743kus8ep2nrct8j...@4ax.com...
> > In the interest of brevity, let's see what Chris Vail said about Re:
> > TC in Time Magazine on Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:29:29 -0500:
> (le snippiage)
> > Just 1.5% of the population? I would think it's a little
> > higher than that. It's not as big as some would like you to believe,
> > but if I think of 100 of my friends, I'm going to come up with more
> > than two of them that are gay.
>
> I posted some stuff on this to Michael Adams in this thread.
> Check it out. A bit of Googling shows the most generous
> non-Kinsey number is 4%.
There's been a recent trend in the medical literature to refer to "men
who have sex with men" rather than "male homosexuals." I'd have to dig
for the references, but there are a significant number of people who
will say "I have had sex with a person of the same gender" but deny they
are "homosexual."
Kinsey did contribute the useful idea that sexual preference is a
spectrum, ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively
homosexual. Mind you, I know that the scale is 1 to 6, but I never
remember which number is at which extreme.
It gets somewhat like the "taint" theory in race, and I've seen this
both in pro- and anti-gay radicalism. Now, there's no question in my
mind that I'm attracted to women. But I can also say I had the fairly
usual experimentation in high school and college, and had some pleasure.
So does that make me bisexual, or "homosexual in denial?" I don't think
so, but some would have it that way.
>
> > >The only sure cure for lust is death. As long as the Church
(non Voudoun church)
> > >consists of living people, all of them will lust. Some of
> > >them will surrender to those lusts. Some of those who
> > >surrender to those lusts will become pedophiles. The more
> > >is the shame on them for their offenses, but especially is
> > >the shame on the Church leadership who did nothing about
> > >these offenses. I hope and pray that this has now changed.
> > >A lot has changed in the RC Church since Vatican II, and
> > >this has become a part of that process. Only time will tell
> > >for sure, but I am one who is encouraged that these changes
> > >have been made, and will continue to be made.
> >
> > I wonder if they've stopped praying for Protestants to return
> > to the fold during Mass yet ...
>
> I know my friend the nun is praying for me, specifically
> for this <g>. Thats okay, I'll take any prayers I can get
> these days.
Well, the evidence that Mass can be converted into Energy is fairly
strong--especially attractive on a grey, dreary day when I can't seem to
wake up.
Howard Berkowitz
"Michael Adams" <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:ECAD791F8804C77F.4A4103E0...@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> > From: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
>
> > 2. Used underworld contacts to get into gay
> > and sexually deviant groups
>
> The language in this indicates that it itself would have found Kinsey
> wrong
> no matter what--and just why would Kinsey have to use "underworld"
> contacts?
> Like the mob keeps track of homosexuals? It makes for exciting reading,
> but
> one does wonder.
A better term might have been subculture, or even clandestine subculture.
Jim Elwell
cMAD wrote:
> Michael Adams wrote:
>
> > The reason why I look to math is because it seems that, in any given
> > situation, we weight value X more than value Y, yet in another, we weight Y
> > more than X, and in a third, Y is a function of X, and so on...
>
> Hmmm. Sounds complicated and messy.
>
> Now, as you will most likely find out in any introductory mathematics lecture
> at college, mathematics is a _great_ tool to obfuscate matters
> (and math lecturers tend to demonstrate this to freshman, just to show them
> their place).
What? You want to do away with hetereoscedasticity and multicolinearity?!? How
else are balding, fortyish math profs going to impress the coeds?
-Jim
[Although I do like your other suggestion regarding a game theory approach to
morality <g>]
Michael Adams
> At the risk of belaboring the obvious: gay and sexually
> deviant groups rarely advertise, and they certainly
> didn't when Kinsey did his work in the late 40's and
> early 50's. For him to observe this behavior at all
> means that he had to use unorthodox technique for
> obtaining his information--technique which draws his
> conclusions into question by current standards. For
> his day, he was a pioneer, but any modern grad student
> who used his sampling techniques would be laughed out
> of school.
The term "underworld" implies criminal activity. Now then, back in the 40s
and 50s homosexuality probably would have had even more condemnation than it
does now..agreed?
If so, then to get in criminal trouble and be homosexual would be stupid. If
it's possible to tell homosexuality, it seems like the majority-male prison
enviroment would be just the thing, and I don't think homosexuals would have
wanted others to know. (As rape is a "crime of power" supposedly, than
attraction, then a would-be male rapist might choose the homosexual, for
instance).
In essence, homosexuals wouldn't necessarily call attention to themselves by
getting involved in criminal activities. They'd want to be as "normal" as
possible.
> But I agree with you: most folks--including many in this
> NG--dismiss information they find that conflicts with
> their worldview.
More specifically, they'll probably reject that report you cite because of
its overtly hostile language. Whether it's right is a different issue
entirely. I again suggest you guys agree on a trusted source(like, the
bible! <g>)
--Michael
Michael Adams
> I try not to hate. I've been commanded not to do so. I'll
> argue all day, but unfortunately, most of us are very wedded to our
> beliefs, so attacking the foundation of those beliefs often stirs up
> hate-like feelings, if not flat-out hate.
Exactly...yet a lot of people do that anyway.
<sigh>
--Michael
Jason Atkinson
>I was talking about the percentage of those who ARE homosexual, not the
>percentage who ACKNOWLEDGE that they are homosexual. I can't accept 10% as
>a realistic number, but I don't buy 1.5%, either.
Split the difference and call and 5%?
Any study would have to agree on a single definition of "homosexual".
Are we including bisexuals? Are we including everyone sexually
attracted to some members of the same gender or only those who are
interested in and getting romantically involved with those of the same
gender?
Geof F. Morris
>I posted some stuff on this to Michael Adams in this thread.
>Check it out. A bit of Googling shows the most generous
>non-Kinsey number is 4%.
-shrug- You know, I'm just not that worried about it.
They're still people, and as much as I can, I try not to subdivide
people.
>I know my friend the nun is praying for me, specifically
>for this <g>. Thats okay, I'll take any prayers I can get
>these days.
Heh.
Geof F. Morris
>> And a statistician would tell you that it is unlikely that the
>> catholic priesthood is representative of the population at large
>> (think self-selecting).
>
>Your assumption is that Catholic priests are something
>other than 'just as human' as everyone else. The only
>difference between them and anyone else engaging in
>that behavior is the number of people hurt and the amount
>of shame that they bring upon the institution they're supposed
>to represent.
No, it's that Catholic priests are self-selecting. I'll
debate people about being called to ordained ministry offline, but
hell, I'll note that not everyone accepts their call. I doubt that
clergy of any faith are representative of the larger population.
Ceri Jones
> We know that, statistically, homosexuals are about 1.5%
> of the American population. It stands to reason that
> the Catholic priesthood has its share of them as well as
> do any number of Protestant churches. Of these, a few
> will be child molesters.
I may be taking this the wrong way Chris, but this reads as if ONLY
homosexuals molest children, which is total bullshit.
Was this your intent or was your post just badly phrased?
--
THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW
Jason Atkinson
<art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote in message
>news:6033E5B28DC765DC.702A54A1...@lp.airnews.net...
>> At the risk of belaboring the obvious: gay and sexually
>> deviant groups rarely advertise, and they certainly
>> didn't when Kinsey did his work in the late 40's and
>> early 50's. For him to observe this behavior at all
>> means that he had to use unorthodox technique for
>> obtaining his information--technique which draws his
>> conclusions into question by current standards. For
>> his day, he was a pioneer, but any modern grad student
>> who used his sampling techniques would be laughed out
>> of school.
>
>The term "underworld" implies criminal activity. Now then, back in the 40s
>and 50s homosexuality probably would have had even more condemnation than it
>does now..agreed?
Ever read up on sodomy laws? In many places "criminal activity" is an
accurate description.
Howard Berkowitz
use...@ijsm.org wrote:
> In the interest of brevity, let's see what Chris Vail said about Re:
> TC in Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:52:20 -0500:
>
> >> And a statistician would tell you that it is unlikely that the
> >> catholic priesthood is representative of the population at large
> >> (think self-selecting).
> >
> >Your assumption is that Catholic priests are something
> >other than 'just as human' as everyone else. The only
> >difference between them and anyone else engaging in
> >that behavior is the number of people hurt and the amount
> >of shame that they bring upon the institution they're supposed
> >to represent.
>
> No, it's that Catholic priests are self-selecting. I'll
> debate people about being called to ordained ministry offline, but
> hell, I'll note that not everyone accepts their call. I doubt that
> clergy of any faith are representative of the larger population.
You'll forgive me, I'm sure, when I wonder if the call sounds like Bill
Cosby being bidden to Build an Ark.
Josh Hattery
[snip]
> Well, the evidence that Mass can be converted into Energy is fairly
> strong--especially attractive on a grey, dreary day when I can't seem to
> wake up.
There's no conversion necessary. Mass is merely a concentrated form of
energy. The only difference between the sunlight outside and the matter
of which we are composed is its form. Analogous, perhaps, to an ice
cube and steam.
Although, I guess you probably meant conversion between forms of energy,
but the scientist in me just had to make the clarification. ;)
J
Howard Berkowitz
<jaat...@NOSPAM.edu> wrote:
Which always makes me wonder just what they did in Gomorrah.
Jim Elwell
Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> Well, the evidence that Mass can be converted into Energy is fairly
> strong--especially attractive on a grey, dreary day when I can't seem to
> wake up.
And the conversion of mass to energy can result in the absorption of grays.
-Jim
Howard Berkowitz
"Michael Adams" <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, read any Spinoza (mathematical proofs of God and the
> > like)? I find him one of those people who are insanely fascinating, or
> > perhaps fascinatingly insane.
>
> No...titles?
Just do an Amazon, etc. search on Baruch de Spinoza. Lots and lots and
lots of readers, collections, etc.
Geof F. Morris
Re: TC in Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:38:30 GMT:
>You'll forgive me, I'm sure, when I wonder if the call sounds like Bill
>Cosby being bidden to Build an Ark.
It's about as confusing at first ...
Chris Vail
> In the interest of brevity, let's see what Chris Vail said about Re:
> TC in Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:52:20 -0500:
>
> >> And a statistician would tell you that it is unlikely that the
> >> catholic priesthood is representative of the population at large
> >> (think self-selecting).
> >
> >Your assumption is that Catholic priests are something
> >other than 'just as human' as everyone else. The only
> >difference between them and anyone else engaging in
> >that behavior is the number of people hurt and the amount
> >of shame that they bring upon the institution they're supposed
> >to represent.
>
> No, it's that Catholic priests are self-selecting.
And that somehow makes them immune to lust?
Is there ANYONE who hasn't heard of clergymen
having affairs outside of their vows?
> I'll
> debate people about being called to ordained ministry offline, but
> hell, I'll note that not everyone accepts their call. I doubt that
> clergy of any faith are representative of the larger population.
I'd be astonished if they weren't. Clergypeople
are indifferent than every other person on the
planet. There was only one who didn't lust, and
He got crucified. Everyone--including Him--is
subject to the same temptations. The only difference
is that He didn't sin. Everyone else does. Some
will have greater consequence than others. But it
is sin nonetheless.
There is the fact that, occasionally, a clergyman manages to
spend a lifetime in accordance with his vows. I think
this is the exception, rather than the rule. Even Billy Graham,
who is 80+ now, admits that he's been tempted, though
never strayed.
Chris
DDENT
>Date: 7/26/2002 1:58 PM Central
>> I wonder if they've stopped praying for Protestants to return
>> to the fold during Mass yet ...
>
>I know my friend the nun is praying for me, specifically
>for this <g>. Thats okay, I'll take any prayers I can get
>these days.
Last time I went to Mass (Sunday to be exact), no words were spoken on the
subject <g>. As for prayers, I'll say a few extra for y'all if you will say a
few for me.
Fran
Geof F. Morris
>> No, it's that Catholic priests are self-selecting.
>
>And that somehow makes them immune to lust?
>Is there ANYONE who hasn't heard of clergymen
>having affairs outside of their vows?
No, but the subject was statistical studies. Presumably
Catholic priests would be more serious about not succumbing, since
they take a vow.
>I'd be astonished if they weren't. Clergypeople
>are indifferent than every other person on the
>planet. There was only one who didn't lust, and
>He got crucified. Everyone--including Him--is
>subject to the same temptations. The only difference
>is that He didn't sin. Everyone else does. Some
>will have greater consequence than others. But it
>is sin nonetheless.
>
>There is the fact that, occasionally, a clergyman manages to
>spend a lifetime in accordance with his vows. I think
>this is the exception, rather than the rule. Even Billy Graham,
>who is 80+ now, admits that he's been tempted, though
>never strayed.
I'm not trying to put them up on a pedestal, Chris.
Geof F. Morris
Time Magazine on 26 Jul 2002 20:26:48 GMT:
>Last time I went to Mass (Sunday to be exact), no words were spoken on the
>subject <g>. As for prayers, I'll say a few extra for y'all if you will say a
>few for me.
Okay. "Lord, I'd like for you to make Fran's family be a
bunch of nice Methodists and for her to send her daughter to UAH.
What's that, Boss? I'm asking too much? You're right. Can you send
me a six-pack gratis, then?"
Chris Vail
> In article
> <F91E5FF9554F13DE.04A76502...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> There's been a recent trend in the medical literature to refer to "men
> who have sex with men" rather than "male homosexuals." I'd have to dig
> for the references, but there are a significant number of people who
> will say "I have had sex with a person of the same gender" but deny they
> are "homosexual."
Which is why I differentiate between "gay" and
"homosexual". "Homosexual" refers to behavior
wherease "gay" is "outlook or lifestyle" whatever the
heck THAT is. Behavior is observable and quantifiable,
outlook or lifestyle can change with ambient temperature,
and really isn't readily observable and quantifiable.
By 'lifestyle' _I_ am probably 'gay'. I enjoy jazz, the arts,
fine conversation, I like to be around people, go clubbing.
Given a choice in the matter (and I'm not) my lifestyle probably
wouldn't be much different than a typical gay rights activist.
But the content of my speech and actual behavior are most
emphatically NOT homosexual.
> Kinsey did contribute the useful idea that sexual preference is a
> spectrum, ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively
> homosexual. Mind you, I know that the scale is 1 to 6, but I never
> remember which number is at which extreme.
>
> It gets somewhat like the "taint" theory in race, and I've seen this
> both in pro- and anti-gay radicalism. Now, there's no question in my
> mind that I'm attracted to women. But I can also say I had the fairly
> usual experimentation in high school and college, and had some pleasure.
I don't know why you'd call it 'usual'. It certainly wasn't
'usual' in my circle of acquaintances. Of my college days,
I know of only two guys who would self-identify as homo-
sexual, which is probably congruent with the 1-2% number.
Being a drama major, I knew a lot more guys who were
effeminate, but were probably heterosexual. They always
seemed to have the best looking g/f's, anyway.
> So does that make me bisexual, or "homosexual in denial?" I don't think
> so, but some would have it that way.
The website I quoted deals with some of this. You should
look it up.
(snip)
> Well, the evidence that Mass can be converted into Energy is fairly
> strong--especially attractive on a grey, dreary day when I can't seem to
> wake up.
Most mornings I am existential proof that the dead do rise.
Chris
DDENT
>bunch of nice Methodists and for her to send her daughter to UAH.
>What's that, Boss? I'm asking too much? You're right. Can you send
>me a six-pack gratis, then?"
>
> GFM
>
LOL Geof. She's still too young for you <g>.
Fran
Chris Vail
"Tom Clancy" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020726150329...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> Okay, I guess I have to say this:
>
> People's entire attention to the Catholic Church right now seems to be
with
> some priests who've strayed way off the reservation.
>
> Observations: Anyone who molests a child is a criminal, and he or she
belongs
> in a penetentiary. Being a mamber of the clergy is not a
Get-Out-of-Jail-Free
> card. I hope these people like rooming with the famous Bubba the armed
robber,
> but, when you think about it, maybe they will.
At least in Texas, pedophiles have their own prison unit.
> My comment in Time Magazine was intended for a wider scope, however. The
media
> as a whole pays scant respect to organized religion in general and the
Catholic
> Church in particular. Why this is so, I will not speculate here, and
though I
> consider myself a Catholic, it it most unlikely that there will ever be a
> parish church named for me.
St. Tom of Peregrine Cliff?
Maybe you should endow a chair at a seminary. I
know that I've thought about it....
> But I think religion is something to be treated with respect. There is no
more
> personal or profound choice in life than how one chooses to talk with God.
I
> think my readers will recognize this principle from my writing. Some of
the
> best writing I've ever done was the sermon duet of the Baptist ministers
in
> B&D--enough so that I've gotten complimentory e-mails from nascent Baptist
> ministers in divinity school. I'm actually rather proud of that. The last
> Baptist church I entered was on Luszerne Avenue in central Baltimore
around
> 1951 (mainly for the day-care attached to the church; I was part of St.
> Elizabeth's parish, you see). But it remains God's house, and I am
compelled by
> my ethical beliefs to respect it.
I thought the dual-sermon thing a bit weak, but then
I am a little bit to the right of most Baptists. Otherwise
it is quite commendable. I didn't find it 'bad', but knowing
and involving my life with these people, I know you could've
done even better in your description. If you ever want to
do some real research with real China missionaries, I can
put you in touch with some good people.
> The media treats all religions as equal. With sorrow, I cannot find it in
me to
> apply respect to wtichcraft or voodoo,
Yep. As an example, I respect (and really care
for) our own Loki as a person, though I can't find
anything salutary about her religion.
> and I think what the media is doing when
> it says that voodoo ("Santeria," I think they call it now) is co-equal
with
> Christianity is to say that all forms of religion are equally worthless.
The
> media has its own internal language, but remember that to love everything
is to
> love nothing.
Yep again.
> Now is this because the media, which tends to be somewhat left of center,
> regards religion as the opiate of the people? I will not speculate on
that,
> either.
You might have read of my conversation(s) with Howard Berkowitz
concerning Rex/Lex. The media is VERY Rex oriented (else why
would they cannonize Kennedy?).
> But I think we should all remember that all of human existance has been a
> struggle to replace chaos with order, and religion has helped us to do
that.
> Moreover, the world's great religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)
say
> much the same thing: Somewhere up there is a God of justice and mercy and
love.
> And that's not a very bad message, is it? My church, and others, have
spent
> centuries building distinguished places of learning, and healing, and that
at
> the very least is a debt we all need to consider once in a while. If
you've
> injured outside a Mercy Hospital, you will get the mercy you need.
I know that in Dallas, the Yellow Pages listing of
Hospitals reads like a listing for churches.
> Okay, sure, it's never been a perfectly straight road, but the farther
> governments get from the revealed word of God, the closer we get to
holocausts.
> Marxism and National Socialism are two clear exemplars, albeit negative
ones,
> of the value of religious principle. Please don't throw the Crusades and
> religious wars at me. Yes, people have screwed up horribly (more often
with
> religion as an excuse for economic gain), but we've all learned from their
> mistakes, haven't we? J. V. Stalin and A. Hitler did not, and without the
> restraints imposed by a healthy fear of God, look what they did in the
> enlightened 20th Century.
Yep. And they'll be repeated when we forget.
Chris
Michael Adams
news:3D419EC8...@visi.com...
> What? You want to do away with hetereoscedasticity and
multicolinearity?!? How
> else are balding, fortyish math profs going to impress the coeds?
Sick thought. <g> Is that common?
> [Although I do like your other suggestion regarding a game theory approach
to
> morality <g>]
How do I determine my dominant strategy again? <g>
--Michael
Michael Adams
news:it83kus05dceb2hto...@4ax.com...
> Ever read up on sodomy laws? In many places "criminal activity" is an
> accurate description.
True, but the "underworld" contacts is so general that to me, it seems like
a trumped-up charge. And, why not just visit the jails to find those? Why
have to use "underworld" contacts? It's not as though they're really any
more likely to be truthful in the second case...
--Michael
Chris Vail
> In the interest of brevity, let's see what Chris Vail said about Re:
> TC in Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:18:23 -0500:
>
> >> No, it's that Catholic priests are self-selecting.
> >
> >And that somehow makes them immune to lust?
> >Is there ANYONE who hasn't heard of clergymen
> >having affairs outside of their vows?
>
> No, but the subject was statistical studies. Presumably
> Catholic priests would be more serious about not succumbing, since
> they take a vow.
Again, why does their vow make them any different
than anyone else?
Chris
Chris Vail
"DDENT" <dd...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020726162648...@mb-md.aol.com...
Itsadeal.
Chris
Michael Adams
> A better term might have been subculture, or even clandestine subculture.
It would have been. On the other hand, so, he knows there are homosexuals.
But in his studies he got to find a few of them, count them, and factor them
in. But to find them to get a sense of their numbers, he must go to the
clandestine subculture. That doesn't seem like a bad research technique.
--Michael
Michael Adams
> > GFM
> >
>
> LOL Geof. She's still too young for you <g>.
Don't send her over there anyway. Have her spend a semester at UNC-CH this
coming year. <g>
--Michael
Paul J. Adam
<lo...@mindspring.com> writes
>Actually, having grown up Catholic in the Bible Belt was good preparation
>for becomming pagan. I'm quite accustomed to folks thinking my religion is
>weird and that I'm doomed to Hell. <grin>
I was an agnostic in a Catholic school. I learned debate :)
Then I got asked back a couple of times, when I left at sixteen, to
liven up the classes that weren't the same when only the true believers
were left :)
Kudos to them for admitting they wanted a dissenting opinion, at least.
(And, religion aside, it was a damn good school- I got great O-levels
from them, then outstanding A-levels from the secular sixth-form college
I went on to, before achieving a mediocre degree)
>A few years back a fundamentalist Christian informed me that - as a
>Catholic -
>I was actually under the influence of Satan. He said that all
>non-fundamentalist
>religions (that includes your's Geof) were inspired by Satan to lead us
>astray. <sigh>
>
>Then he tried to get in my pants.
Is it sinful to find such blatant wickedness and hypocrisy amusing?
(For reference, Usenet squabbles just don't count, it's _typing_.)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul J. Adam
Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> writes
>And a statistician would tell you that it is unlikely that the
>catholic priesthood is representative of the population at large
>(think self-selecting).
The nasty case I know of is of a UK teacher who was accused of molesting
children in his care. The offences were 'only' in the "inappropriate
touching" class, and the union got involved, and the teacher in question
was allowed to resign quietly.
He next appeared as a trainee Catholic priest.
http://www.churchnet.org.uk/news/files5/news167.html
"The diocese took action following the Church's failure to realise it
was ordaining someone previously accused of child abuse when it accepted
Fr Joe Jordan in Cardiff in 1995.
Jordan, who was convicted of child abuse in October and sentenced to
eight years, had been acquitted previously by Sheffield Crown Court of
abusing a boy at Don Valley High School, Doncaster, in 1989."
My mother was deputy head of Don Valley at that time, and wanted Jordan
to face trial for the 'accusation'. The headmaster and the LEA wanted
the issue 'smoothed over' since 'no real harm had been done'. One reason
she took early retirement.
Geof F. Morris
>> No, but the subject was statistical studies. Presumably
>> Catholic priests would be more serious about not succumbing, since
>> they take a vow.
>
>Again, why does their vow make them any different
>than anyone else?
It doesn't in terms of temptation. It should in terms of what
they do about it.
Geof F. Morris
>LOL Geof. She's still too young for you <g>.
Yeah, so? :p
Howard Berkowitz
wrote:
As surfer health physicists might say, rad, man, rad!
Michael Adams
with
> some priests who've strayed way off the reservation.
Defining the media as "the people" or what? In general?
> The media treats all religions as equal. With sorrow, I cannot find it in
me to
> apply respect to wtichcraft or voodoo, and I think what the media is doing
when
> it says that voodoo ("Santeria," I think they call it now) is co-equal
with
> Christianity is to say that all forms of religion are equally worthless.
The
> media has its own internal language, but remember that to love everything
is to
> love nothing.
Who says? Except you, Mr. Clancy. <grin>
> Now is this because the media, which tends to be somewhat left of center,
> regards religion as the opiate of the people? I will not speculate on
that,
> either.
There's plenty of media that tends to be somewhat right of center, also. It
depends on what you've been reading lately.
> But I think we should all remember that all of human existance has been a
> struggle to replace chaos with order, and religion has helped us to do
that.
Seems doubtful that all of human existence has been a struggle to replace
chaos with order. Do you mean, all of "good" human existence(whoever they
are) or what? You bring up Hitler and Stalin later...were they just bad
exceptions to the rule?
If "replacing chaos with order" is the value that you hold as the goal of
human existence, then you can go onto say that the good people are the ones
that do that. But what about the bad people in the world? I personally don't
feel compelled to replace chaos with order...am I morally lacking? Are you?
> Okay, sure, it's never been a perfectly straight road, but the farther
> governments get from the revealed word of God, the closer we get to
holocausts.
> Marxism and National Socialism are two clear exemplars, albeit negative
ones,
> of the value of religious principle. Please don't throw the Crusades and
> religious wars at me. Yes, people have screwed up horribly (more often
with
> religion as an excuse for economic gain), but we've all learned from their
> mistakes, haven't we? J. V. Stalin and A. Hitler did not, and without the
> restraints imposed by a healthy fear of God, look what they did in the
> enlightened 20th Century.
So "truly" religious people feel restraints on them by a healthy fear of
God? Why fear him if he is just, merciful, and loving? Except, of course,
he's only those to the people that deserve it. But don't you think that
Hitler, if he would have believed in God, would have thought he deserved it?
Of course, Hitler was delusional. Fine. But it's not God that's doing the
judging here; we've just decided that Hitler's opinion doesn't count 'cause
he's a delusional bastard made of evil(which he certainly seemed to be, the
last, at least). Unless God told us we're right, how do we have a leg to
stand on? I could read the bible and convince myself I deserve heaven if I
do those things, fail, and then beg for forgiveness. If I meant it, and
there is a God, then I might get in. But if Hitler would have believed in
God, don't you think he might have asked for forgiveness too?
Ah, the problems mortal men(used in the "person" sense) encounter when we
try to reason about God. Yet, we feel compelled to do it anyway. Not a bad
thing.
--Michael
Scott Lurndal
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) writes:
|> Observations: Anyone who molests a child is a criminal, and he or she belongs
|> in a penetentiary. Being a mamber of the clergy is not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free
|> card. I hope these people like rooming with the famous Bubba the armed robber,
|> but, when you think about it, maybe they will.
Agreed.
|>
|> My comment in Time Magazine was intended for a wider scope, however. The media
|> as a whole pays scant respect to organized religion in general and the Catholic
|> Church in particular. Why this is so, I will not speculate here, and though I
|> consider myself a Catholic, it it most unlikely that there will ever be a
|> parish church named for me.
I'm not sure that the mainstream media should have anything to do
with any religion. The problem is that members of a particular
religious faith (with few exceptions) believe that their faith is
the only true faith - so which one is it?
|>
|> But I think religion is something to be treated with respect. There is no more
|> The media treats all religions as equal. With sorrow, I cannot find it in me to
|> apply respect to wtichcraft or voodoo, and I think what the media is doing when
|> it says that voodoo ("Santeria," I think they call it now) is co-equal with
|> Christianity is to say that all forms of religion are equally worthless. The
How can the media make a choice? If a group of people choose to believe
in something, how can that be gainsaid by the media? While it is all too
rare, the media should _report_ facts, not opinion. You're basically saying
that as a result of your indoctrination into the Catholic faith, you cannot
believe that someone else's faith is legitimate.
scott
loki
> No, it's that Catholic priests are self-selecting. I'll
> debate people about being called to ordained ministry offline, but
> hell, I'll note that not everyone accepts their call. I doubt that
> clergy of any faith are representative of the larger population.
Uh, except for Jack...
Loki <duck and run>
Jim Elwell
Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <3D41AA0C...@visi.com>, Jim Elwell <jel...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And the conversion of mass to energy can result in the absorption of
> > grays.
> As surfer health physicists might say, rad, man, rad!
We do have to deal with SI units these days. Would the appropriate Pythonese
translation be: "I deposit the energy from my photons in your general
direction"?
-Jim
cMAD
> Okay, I guess I have to say this:
>
> People's entire attention to the Catholic Church right now seems to be with
> some priests who've strayed way off the reservation.
[...]
> But I think we should all remember that all of human existance has been a
> struggle to replace chaos with order, and religion has helped us to do that.
> Moreover, the world's great religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) say
> much the same thing: Somewhere up there is a God of justice and mercy and love.
> And that's not a very bad message, is it? My church, and others, have spent
> centuries building distinguished places of learning, and healing, and that at
> the very least is a debt we all need to consider once in a while. If you've
> injured outside a Mercy Hospital, you will get the mercy you need.
>
> Okay, sure, it's never been a perfectly straight road, but the farther
> governments get from the revealed word of God, the closer we get to holocausts.
> Marxism and National Socialism are two clear exemplars, albeit negative ones,
> of the value of religious principle. Please don't throw the Crusades and
> religious wars at me.
... and I was about to mention the Spanish Inquisition ...
> Yes, people have screwed up horribly (more often with
> religion as an excuse for economic gain), but we've all learned from their
> mistakes, haven't we? J. V. Stalin and A. Hitler did not, and without the
> restraints imposed by a healthy fear of God, look what they did in the
> enlightened 20th Century.
The 21st century started with a bang, caused by quite an unhealthy fear of God (in
that specific case referred to as Allah).
Compared to that, the attitude of the Catholic church is quite laudable, methinks
...
cMAD <- Make love, not war.
Chris Vail
"Michael Adams" <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NOi09.22005$Og3.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
No, this IS a bad research technique--the whole point
of the article. Its like saying "Hey, out of 100 homosexuals,
100 said they were homosexuals. Therefore the entire
population is homosexual".
To get a survey of the number of homosexuals (or any
other criteria) within a population, that _entire_ population
has to be sampled. The survey should cut across other
demographic lines such as race, gender, location and
socioeconomic status. A survey of homosexuality in
San Francisco will return a completely different result
than the same survey conducted in Enid, Oklahoma, even
after factoring the difference in total population. A truly
valid survey would be conducted in both of these, and
probably several dozen other locations, whether or not
they had the reputation of having a large homosexual
community.
This is why the NHSDA information is so intriguing,
and probably accurate. Although it is a survey of
drug use and only incidently sexuality, it is a valid
survey. Its database is large and cuts across all
kinds of socioeconomic factors. The only thing the
respondants had in common was drug abuse. There
fore it is accurate to say that 1.1%-1-3% of drug users
engaged engage of some form of same-sex sexual
behavior within the last 12 months of the survey.
This jibes closely with other surveys such as the
Beaureau of Census data and the Univ. of Chicago
data I quoted earlier. In fact, it is right between
those two numbers.
Chris
Chris Vail
"Geof F. Morris" <use...@ijsm.org> wrote in message
news:m4g3ku0vr5rl689g8...@4ax.com...
> In the interest of brevity, let's see what Chris Vail said about Re:
> TC in Time Magazine on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:14:54 -0500:
>
> >> No, but the subject was statistical studies. Presumably
> >> Catholic priests would be more serious about not succumbing, since
> >> they take a vow.
> >
> >Again, why does their vow make them any different
> >than anyone else?
>
> It doesn't in terms of temptation. It should in terms of what
> they do about it.
>
Ah yes....the "should". Have you ever met
anyone who did EVERYTHING they 'should'
do?
Chris
Howard Berkowitz
<6E3CE7508FFB6332.2BE14D19...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> "Howard Berkowitz" <h...@clark.net> wrote in message
> news:hcb-8E5DA0.1...@text.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <F91E5FF9554F13DE.04A76502...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > "Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> (snip)
> > There's been a recent trend in the medical literature to refer to "men
> > who have sex with men" rather than "male homosexuals." I'd have to dig
> > for the references, but there are a significant number of people who
> > will say "I have had sex with a person of the same gender" but deny they
> > are "homosexual."
>
> Which is why I differentiate between "gay" and
> "homosexual". "Homosexual" refers to behavior
> wherease "gay" is "outlook or lifestyle" whatever the
> heck THAT is. Behavior is observable and quantifiable,
> outlook or lifestyle can change with ambient temperature,
> and really isn't readily observable and quantifiable.
>
> By 'lifestyle' _I_ am probably 'gay'. I enjoy jazz, the arts,
> fine conversation, I like to be around people, go clubbing.
> Given a choice in the matter (and I'm not) my lifestyle probably
> wouldn't be much different than a typical gay rights activist.
> But the content of my speech and actual behavior are most
> emphatically NOT homosexual.
Now I'm confused. I know extremely socially conservative people,
including senior military, who have sex with the same gender. I know
people who are completely heterosexual who enjoy being "campy."
Aren't you creating a two-dimensional matrix?
Has "gay" behavior Has sex with same gender
Y N
Y
N
>
> > Kinsey did contribute the useful idea that sexual preference is a
> > spectrum, ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively
> > homosexual. Mind you, I know that the scale is 1 to 6, but I never
> > remember which number is at which extreme.
> >
> > It gets somewhat like the "taint" theory in race, and I've seen this
> > both in pro- and anti-gay radicalism. Now, there's no question in my
> > mind that I'm attracted to women. But I can also say I had the fairly
> > usual experimentation in high school and college, and had some pleasure.
>
> I don't know why you'd call it 'usual'. It certainly wasn't
> 'usual' in my circle of acquaintances. Of my college days,
> I know of only two guys who would self-identify as homo-
> sexual, which is probably congruent with the 1-2% number.
Again, the response may differ if the question is "are you homosexual"
or "have you ever had sex with someone of the same gender."
loki
> Maybe it's his twisted version of a pickup line? If you're all evil, he
> figures, then you ought to be willing to "sin" with him? The
fundementalist
> mind is strange place. (as are most minds) <g>
That was part of it. The rest is that since he believes and is saved and
since his nature is to sin, it's no big deal for him to sin with me since I
can't be saved anyway (or, rather choose not to be saved according to
his belief).
Loki
Josh Hattery
Nah, Virginia Tech has a cooler campus. Send her here. ;)
Josh
DDENT
>Don't send her over there anyway. Have her spend a semester at UNC-CH this
>coming year. <g>
>
>--Michael
I didn't realize you were in NC. Her cousins (both male) are at NC State.
Methinks the Rice advisors have seen her picture that we sent. She has heard
from 3 of them with welcome messages, all of them male.
Fran (who has got to start thinking of something more intelligent to write
about).
MikeWrite
media
> as a whole pays scant respect to organized religion in general and the
Catholic
> Church in particular. Why this is so, I will not speculate here, and
though I
> consider myself a Catholic, it it most unlikely that there will ever be a
> parish church named for me.
Our Lady of the Perpetual Chapter?
>
> The media treats all religions as equal. With sorrow, I cannot find it in
me to
> apply respect to wtichcraft
Uh oh.
> The
> media has its own internal language, but remember that to love everything
is to
> love nothing.
Not according to Jesus.
>
> Okay, sure, it's never been a perfectly straight road, but the farther
> governments get from the revealed word of God, the closer we get to
holocausts.
> Marxism and National Socialism are two clear exemplars, albeit negative
ones,
> of the value of religious principle. Please don't throw the Crusades and
> religious wars at me. Yes, people have screwed up horribly (more often
with
> religion as an excuse for economic gain), but we've all learned from their
> mistakes, haven't we? J. V. Stalin and A. Hitler did not, and without the
> restraints imposed by a healthy fear of God, look what they did in the
> enlightened 20th Century.
Interesting that the three great evil men of WWII all had strong religious
backgrounds. Hitler was a Catholic who as a child attended school at a
Benedictine monastery, dreaming often of becoming a monk himself, and
developing a lifelong fascination with icons and rituals that guided his
formation of National Socialism. Mussolini was the son of a devout Catholic
mother, who sent him as a boy to a school run by Salesian priests. Unlike
Hitler, he hated Catholicism from the get-go, resented the class system he
believed it perpetuated, and rebelled against its attempts to enforce its
discipline on him - abetted in those attempts by his socialist father.
Stalin was even more immersed in religion than his two dictator
contemporaries. He began religious school, in the Georgian Orthodox Church,
at age 9. At 15 he entered a seminary with the goal of becoming a priest.
And like Hitler he loved the rituals of church. But he soon came to loathe
Tiflis Theological Seminary because, as Leckie puts it, "of its dogmatic,
domineering, spying, prying administration and because of its repressive
prisonlike atmosphere." Stalin began his long career as an underhanded,
backstabbing climber there; the seminary faculty "relied heavily upon a
system of student spies ... [Staliln] saw quickly and clearly that an
informer could ingratiate himself with the faculty."
I was myself the victim of abuse by sadistic nuns at a parochial school.
Cruelty and repression are undeniably longstanding hallmarks of many
religious educational systems, particularly Catholic. The Crusades aren't
the only foul legacy of the Church, Tom. That should be kept very much in
mind in any honest appraisal, along with the strength and solace that
millions have drawn from that Church - perhaps, we can say, despite its
darker nature.
M
Paul J. Adam
<lo...@mindspring.com> writes
>That was part of it. The rest is that since he believes and is saved and
>since his nature is to sin, it's no big deal for him to sin with me since I
>can't be saved anyway (or, rather choose not to be saved according to
>his belief).
Anyone who assumes they're 'saved' is probably damned. Pride is, after
all, a mortal sin.
Evidence to the contrary should be submitted with an explicit ITEAP.
J.T. McDaniel
> In article <it83kus05dceb2hto...@4ax.com>, Jason Atkinson
> <jaat...@NOSPAM.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:18:45 -0400, "Michael Adams"
> > <art...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote in message
> >
>news:6033E5B28DC765DC.702A54A1...@lp.airnews.net...
> > >> At the risk of belaboring the obvious: gay and sexually
> > >> deviant groups rarely advertise, and they certainly
> > >> didn't when Kinsey did his work in the late 40's and
> > >> early 50's. For him to observe this behavior at all
> > >> means that he had to use unorthodox technique for
> > >> obtaining his information--technique which draws his
> > >> conclusions into question by current standards. For
> > >> his day, he was a pioneer, but any modern grad student
> > >> who used his sampling techniques would be laughed out
> > >> of school.
> > >
> > >The term "underworld" implies criminal activity. Now then, back in the
> > >40s
> > >and 50s homosexuality probably would have had even more condemnation
> > >than it
> > >does now..agreed?
> >
> > Ever read up on sodomy laws? In many places "criminal activity" is an
> > accurate description.
>
Mostly, they were inhospitable and disliked
strangers. A reason for destruction that always seems
to disappoint a lot of people.
--
Jack
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com
http://withhonourinbattle.com
http://riverdaleebooks.com
gws
news:it83kus05dceb2hto...@4ax.com...
> >The term "underworld" implies criminal activity. Now then, back in the
40s
> >and 50s homosexuality probably would have had even more condemnation than
it
> >does now..agreed?
>
> Ever read up on sodomy laws? In many places "criminal activity" is an
> accurate description.
Sodomy, also known as "the abominable crime against nature" is, indeed,
still a crime in Oklahoma and other places. Nevertheless, I cannot remember
the last time there was a prosecution for the violation of these statutes
where the act was consensual.
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:3D41AA0C...@visi.com...
>
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > Well, the evidence that Mass can be converted into Energy is fairly
> > strong--especially attractive on a grey, dreary day when I can't seem to
> > wake up.
>
grays.
Not me, I hope.
gray^^^^ Grey Satterfield
gws
Only if you can say it in an accent appropriate for a French physicist.
Grey Satterfield
gws
. . .
> Again, the response may differ if the question is "are you homosexual"
> or "have you ever had sex with someone of the same gender."
This brings to mind one of my favorite euphemisms. Why not simply ask, "Are
you musical?"
Grey Satterfield
gws
> Okay, sure, it's never been a perfectly straight road, but the farther
> governments get from the revealed word of God, the closer we get to
holocausts.
> Marxism and National Socialism are two clear exemplars, albeit negative
ones,
> of the value of religious principle. Please don't throw the Crusades and
> religious wars at me. Yes, people have screwed up horribly (more often
with
> religion as an excuse for economic gain), but we've all learned from their
> mistakes, haven't we? J. V. Stalin and A. Hitler did not, and without the
> restraints imposed by a healthy fear of God, look what they did in the
> enlightened 20th Century.
I fear governments getting too close to "the revealed word of God." I decry
the silliness of the recent 9th Circuit opinion, which declared the "under
God" language in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Nonetheless, I
think government needs to assiduously avoid getting too close to religion.
I agree that the ghastly Stalin and Hitler regimes were horrible because
they had no moral compass, but I believe the moral tenets of we secular
humanists will serve as well as Christianity, or any other religion, to
restrain such excesses.
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:ir$yOLPk9bQ9Ewb$@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
All of the proves that "School Men" (in the generic sense) are exactly the
same on the east side of the Atlantic as on the west.
Grey Satterfield
loki
>
> It gets somewhat like the "taint" theory in race, and I've seen this
> both in pro- and anti-gay radicalism. Now, there's no question in my
> mind that I'm attracted to women. But I can also say I had the fairly
> usual experimentation in high school and college, and had some pleasure.
> so, but some would have it that way.
My own opinion is that many of us could take pleasure from someone
of the same sex, but might have limits about what we could return.
I don't think it's as much about who you actually have sex with as it
is about who you fall in love with.
Loki
loki
>
> And that somehow makes them immune to lust?
> Is there ANYONE who hasn't heard of clergymen
> having affairs outside of their vows?
No, but it makes them men who agree to live without
close relationships with women.
Loki
Jeff Jacoby
[snip]
> To wit, the world is divided into three groups. Those who count well,
> and those who do not.
There are 10 groups. Those who understand binary...
and those who don't.
Jeff
loki
> Sodomy, also known as "the abominable crime against nature" is, indeed,
> still a crime in Oklahoma and other places. Nevertheless, I cannot
remember
> the last time there was a prosecution for the violation of these statutes
> where the act was consensual.
I've posted about it here. Georgia in the early 1990's. The couple was
married
and the act was consentual.
Loki
Fred J. McCall
:On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:44:58 -0500, "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com>
:wrote:
:
:>
:>Then he tried to get in my pants.
:
:LOL. Did he try to sell you some Amway first as well?
More interestingly, did he SUCCEED? ;-)
[If he did, was he any good?]