Christian Reconstructionism
Earl Evleth
: Christian Reconstructionism
: ____________________________________________________________
: There exists a rumor of conspiracy which goes by the name of
: "Christian Reconstructionism."
: This rumor is not new, it's been around for about 18 months to my
: knowledge.
: This is about a special group of Fundamentalists who are said to seek
: to "reconstruct" the USA on so-called "biblical principles".
: After seeing the results of Reconstructionism in Iran and Afghanistan,
: how could anyone be less than impressed.
: In 2002, anybody not particularly enthusiastic about in living in an
: Amerikastan ruled by Fundamentalist ayatollahs should thoroughly
: examine the credentials and associates of their secular political
: candidates before they go vote.
: ___________________________________________________________
:
There is a catagory of fascism called "clerical fascism", America's
religious right has the profile to be described in this manner.
So I am not surprised that at the extremist wing of the Republican
Party one finds totalitarian elements,
Earl
Ward Stewart
wrote:
It must be recognized that this odd fundy excitement has waxed and
waned all through the history of our republic. We seem to be on the
verge of an acute exacerbation but not, as yet, full blown. The
fifties brought a madness in which "in god we trust" was stamped on
the money and "under god" was forced into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Eisenhower was swept up in this one and set new standards of hypocrisy
as he and Mamie suddenly became regular church-goers. This episode
was VERY well documented in a wonderful book, "Piety Along the
Potomac" now, sadly out of print. It was this episode that made
possible the reign of the Ayatollah McCarthy, a two-bit Savanarola
"purifying" our body politic.
Prior to this excitement we had the protestants efforts to maintain
tier form of "christianity' against the waves of Catholics and Jews --
this one generated prohibition -- a disastrous folly.
On and on, back to Salem, in toxic waves.
FORTUNATELY, in the periods between our wondrous republic has made
incredible strides.
ward
----------------------------------------------------
Rabbi Hillel was asked to summarize Torah for a
gentile.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself, the rest
is commentary."
-----------------------------------------------------
Fcattus
Marvin Olavsky, one of Bush's top advisors and the man who coined the term
"compassionate conservatism." He is also taking credit for the new office of
"faith based" govt aid. Reconstructionism has been embrased by a number of
wealthy right wingers and oddballs such as Ollie North and Richard Viguerie and
the like. They publish journals and newsletters such as "Christiasn
Statesman." Etc.
John
Rumpelstiltskin
Stewart) wrote:
>It must be recognized that this odd fundy excitement has waxed and
>waned all through the history of our republic. We seem to be on the
>verge of an acute exacerbation but not, as yet, full blown. The
>fifties brought a madness in which "in god we trust" was stamped on
>the money and "under god" was forced into the Pledge of Allegiance.
>Eisenhower was swept up in this one and set new standards of hypocrisy
>as he and Mamie suddenly became regular church-goers. This episode
>was VERY well documented in a wonderful book, "Piety Along the
>Potomac" now, sadly out of print. It was this episode that made
>possible the reign of the Ayatollah McCarthy, a two-bit Savanarola
>"purifying" our body politic.
>
>Prior to this excitement we had the protestants efforts to maintain
>tier form of "christianity' against the waves of Catholics and Jews --
>this one generated prohibition -- a disastrous folly.
According to the web site below, the Knights of Columbus
was responsible for getting "under God" added in 1954.
http://homepages.go.com/homepages/k/o/f/kofc11498/pledge.htm
In high school, I always kept my mouth firmly shut for those two
words. Some of the redneck teachers noticed and clearly didn't
like it, but none of them ever actually said anything to me about it.
Polar
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:07:50 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward
>Stewart) wrote:
>
>
>>It must be recognized that this odd fundy excitement has waxed and
>>waned all through the history of our republic. We seem to be on the
>>verge of an acute exacerbation but not, as yet, full blown. The
>>fifties brought a madness in which "in god we trust" was stamped on
>>the money and "under god" was forced into the Pledge of Allegiance.
>>Eisenhower was swept up in this one and set new standards of hypocrisy
>>as he and Mamie suddenly became regular church-goers. This episode
>>was VERY well documented in a wonderful book, "Piety Along the
>>Potomac" now, sadly out of print. It was this episode that made
>>possible the reign of the Ayatollah McCarthy, a two-bit Savanarola
>>"purifying" our body politic.
>>
>>Prior to this excitement we had the protestants efforts to maintain
>>tier form of "christianity' against the waves of Catholics and Jews --
>>this one generated prohibition -- a disastrous folly.
>
>
> According to the web site below, the Knights of Columbus
>was responsible for getting "under God" added in 1954.
>
>http://homepages.go.com/homepages/k/o/f/kofc11498/pledge.htm
And to think I have been blaming Eisenhower all these years!
I wonder how those good ole' Southern Baptists would feel,
learning that their Popish enemies put the words in their mouth.
What delicious irony.
>
> In high school, I always kept my mouth firmly shut for those two
>words. Some of the redneck teachers noticed and clearly didn't
>like it, but none of them ever actually said anything to me about it.
>
I never recited those words, though I was out of school
by that time. And I always try to spread the word, though
not everyone is interested.
--
Polar
Rumpelstiltskin
>Did a google search on reconstructionism. One of the items
>I turned up is indeed quaint.
>
>The Primal Urge
>
>Dominion is God's principle for man over nature (Gen. 1:28), and for
>the male in the person of the husband and father in the family (I Cor.
>11:1-15). Dominion as the male's nature and prerogative is to be found
>throughout the animal world as a part of God's creation ordinance. In
>animals, as Ardrey has pointed out, there is a primacy of dominion
>over sexual and other drives. "The time will come when the male will
>lose all interest in sex; but he will still fight for his status." In
>fact, "dominance in social animals is a universal instinct independent
>of sex." This male instinct for dominion reveals itself in animals in
>three ways: first, in territoriality, i.e., a property instinct and
>drive, and second, in status, a drive to establish dominion in terms
>of rank in a rigidly hierarchical order, and third, survival, and
>order as a means of survival. This is true of animals in natural
>setting; zoo animals, being in a welfare society, are more absorbed
>with sex. In the male, dominion leads to increased sexual potency and
>longevity. Moreover, "It is a curious characteristic of the instincts
>of order that most are masculine." The female's sexual and maternal
>instincts are personal and thus in a sense anarchistic.
>
>These characteristics are true of human life also.
>
>R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig
>Press, 1973), p. 201
>
>I particularly like the bit about male dominion leading to increased
>sexual potency and longevity. And the view that females are
>essentially anarchistic.
You've heard of the "Duchess of Marlborough effect"? That's
the phenomenon that men are much more sexually potent after
a successful fight. It's named for an entry in the Duchess of
Marlborough's diary, "His grace returned home from the wars
today, and pleasured me twice in his top-boots."
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:59:49 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:07:50 GMT, wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward
>>Stewart) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It must be recognized that this odd fundy excitement has waxed and
>>>waned all through the history of our republic. We seem to be on the
>>>verge of an acute exacerbation but not, as yet, full blown. The
>>>fifties brought a madness in which "in god we trust" was stamped on
>>>the money and "under god" was forced into the Pledge of Allegiance.
>>>Eisenhower was swept up in this one and set new standards of hypocrisy
>>>as he and Mamie suddenly became regular church-goers. This episode
>>>was VERY well documented in a wonderful book, "Piety Along the
>>>Potomac" now, sadly out of print. It was this episode that made
>>>possible the reign of the Ayatollah McCarthy, a two-bit Savanarola
>>>"purifying" our body politic.
>>>
>>>Prior to this excitement we had the protestants efforts to maintain
>>>tier form of "christianity' against the waves of Catholics and Jews --
>>>this one generated prohibition -- a disastrous folly.
>>
>>
>> According to the web site below, the Knights of Columbus
>>was responsible for getting "under God" added in 1954.
>>
>>http://homepages.go.com/homepages/k/o/f/kofc11498/pledge.htm
>
>And to think I have been blaming Eisenhower all these years!
It WAS on his watch -- the man was clearly non-observing until he
thought that he would set an example of probity for the people and
took up hypocrisy instead.
>
>I wonder how those good ole' Southern Baptists would feel,
>learning that their Popish enemies put the words in their mouth.
>What delicious irony.
They were delighted! What was removed was the word "indivisible," a
terrible thorn in the side of the south
ward
1
>>
>> In high school, I always kept my mouth firmly shut for those two
>>words. Some of the redneck teachers noticed and clearly didn't
>>like it, but none of them ever actually said anything to me about it.
>>
>I never recited those words, though I was out of school
>by that time. And I always try to spread the word, though
>not everyone is interested.
----------------------------------------------------
Fcattus
They have long been funded by the Filedstead Corp., a private charity run by
Howard Ahmanson. Ahmanson is also a prime funder of a number of other
rightwing outfits such as the Discovery Institute (home of George Gilder) which
is leading the battle to replace evolution education with "Intelligent Design
Theory", and he funds meetings of the secretive "National Policy Council", as
does the Coors family and the Amway founders. They advocate America for
Christians only--voting, property ownership, etc. restricted to Christians (and
they don't consider Methodists or Catholics or whatever to be Christians,
note.)
John
Fcattus
http://www.chalcedon.edu
which is the highest-profile foundation pushing this stuff, led by Rushdoony;
and
www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0505_Parsons_-_Wh...
and http://capo.org/premise/95/May/ssha2.html
Scary but downplayed in public....
John
Jeff Turner
Thanks John. It is nice to see a somewhat decent person and a
conservative view once in awhile. Sort of like finding a pearl in
pig manure.
Jeff Turner
Fcattus
I think this has a reversal in it--if this fails, try ...../May/95/etc....
ie, reverse May and 95
John
Jeff Turner
It might be a bit interesting but it seems that the only
reconstruction going on is by the people who hate Christianity. I
really don't understand this. But I'm not a practicing Christian in
that I've not been to church in about 15 years and have never been a
member of any church. It would seem that we are all citizens in a
country that was more or less Christian from the founding of the
Colonies in 1620 until about the 1960s brought a plague of atheist
along with the usual commies and radicals.
I have no real problem with the loose stools but I don't understand
their blind hatred.
Jeff Turner
Fcattus
>It might be a bit interesting but it seems that the only>reconstruction going
on is by the people who hate Christianity.
I don't understand your point. Who is doing what? These sites are pretty
bland in the extent to which they make their theocratic goals clear. When you
read more of their stuff it is NOT bland, but these public "port holes" are. I
don't think things like restricting officeholding, voting and property
ownership to "Christian (sic) males" is very mainstream for Christianity! Some
of us see this as more Taliban than Christian...
John
Jeff Turner
>On 13 Feb 2001 01:05:21 GMT, fca...@aol.com (Fcattus) wrote:
>
> Without
>vigilance, we may wake up one day and see they have made
>serious inroads on separation of church and state.
>
>The poster to whom you responded made mention of the U.S.
>being a more or less Christian nation. This certainly was not the
>intention of Thomas Jefferson, who feared religious control of the
>state greatly. So did the other "founding fathers" who saw the
>turmoil this had caused in Europe over the centuries. Jefferson
>was not a Christian, rather a type of deist. His writings on the
>separation of church and state are still pertinent today.
Rita, m'am, the US is and was "more of less" a Christian nation.
Jefferson, as well as Washington, Franklin and several others, was a
Deist.
Jefferson, who had nothing to do with the Constitution, did make use
of the phrase "seperation of church and State", in his later years.
At the time he mentioned this the legislature of Massachusettes was
paying the salaries of the ministers of the Gospel in that state.
They had been doing so when the Constitution was written.
And continued to do so for 10-15 years after his death. He made no
comment on this. Perhaps he realized the necessity of a well paid
clergy :-) So much for the "fear" the Founders had of religion.
Don't you think John Adams would have noticed this ? He was right in
the "hotbed" of the religious nuts of his day.
As they say :"Actions speak louder than words". And the above is a
good illustration of this.
The only mention of the Church in the Constitution is in the First
Amendment and it is protected *from* the Federal government and not
the Federal Government from it.
A small note: Jefferson also mentioned in his writing that
permitting John Marshall to get away with "Judicial Review" was his
biggest mistake. I don't here anyone holding this up as though it
were handed down from God, although I personally think it the wisest
observation that the elder Jefferson made. But we then, we aren't
all consistent. Are we ?
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:42:54 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>Turner) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Rita, m'am, the US is and was "more of less" a Christian nation.
>>Jefferson, as well as Washington, Franklin and several others, was a
>>Deist.
>>
>Jefferson wrote many letters discussing religion, often with
>the young. He probably was a deist, but certainly was not a
>Christian. He admired the historical Jesus,
"Historical Jesus" ? Is that not a code phrase for the Revisionist
who want to show Joshua Bar Joseph as being nothing but a poor Jewish
rabble rouser ? I disagree with them. Not so much in the facts but
in the belief that this roguery is perpetrated to harm our society
rather than to extend knowledge. I think the first of this propaganda
I ever saw was a tract called "The Passover Plot" back in the 1960s.
I must say this cottage industry has grown like a fungus.
>but felt the gospels
>were a distortion of Jesus's teachings.
>Actually, Jefferson would
>fit well into the Unitarian-Universalist church I attend, and the
>Unitarians claim him as at least a fellow traveler.
I don't doubt this at all. I have had no personal experience with
this denomination.
>
> Here are some quotes:
>
>And, if you read to the end, you will find Jefferson's opinion of
>Calvin. I included this because the Recontructionists are rabid
>Calvinists.
I have no problem with his opinion of Calvin. It is about the same as
what I think. But weren't the Puritans a form of Calvinist ? If not
they were very close.
I am a great admirer of Jefferson. But I do not hold his opinions in
too much awe. I find Franklin to be more of my cup of tea. But
they were both great men.
I am not a student or a member of any religion and I honestly don't
care what anyone thinks or what they worship. (Certain nut cases
excepted, such as snake handling and blood sacrifices) But I think
the country and culture are beter served if the citizens believe in
something.
My only concern about religion and my only belief in it is that a
society and a culture needs a moral code and history has shown, for
good or evil, that only religions can instill this code. A secular
authority has never been successful.
I am more interested in the end result than the particular body of
beliefs. Were this a Moslem country , or a Jewish country, that
would also be fine. But it has been the various forms of the
Christian religion that has always been the main spring of the moral
code in this country.
Does a person have to believe in the divinity of a religion to be a
good member ? I don't think so. I think that a little hypocrisy is
necessary to a civil society. It is not your church that I have
problems with. It is the act by some denominations to try and destroy
other people of faith that disturbs me. I think that if you look at
the decline of belief in religion over the past 50 years and look at
the increase in all the social evils in this country it is like two
descending lines on a chart. IMO the cultural rot is a result of the
destruction of the belief in Christ. They took prayer out of schools
and put condom machines in. I don't think this was good.
When I was in high school (late 1950s) Out of wedlock births were
frowned on. And I don't think there were but two or three in the 5
high schools I attended. (I was a GI brat and moved a lot). Now
they are celebrated as a cash crop which gives the mother her own
place in the projects and independence from parents. If this is a
social or cultural advance I fail to see it.
Drugs were unheard of and alcohol was untouched except by kids whose
parents had a bottle laying around.
I could go on for hours, but the Genesis of this rant is not to
belittle your beliefs. But also not to put yours beliefs above
others.
>>"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus.
I find Tacitus much more informative and enjoyable when I search for
information. But the Bible is not for historical knowledge but to
aid me in searching my own soul for the beauty and wisdom of the
ancients. Like poetry, it can not be held to the scientific method.
If it could it would be useless.
>
>Jefferson's hatred of Calvinism was intense. He never ceased to
>denounce the "blasphemous absurdity of the five points of Calvin."
>Three years before his death he writes John Adams:
>
>"His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false
>God, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of
>malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at
>all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin"
>(Works, Vol. iv., p. 363).
As I said earlier, I certainly agree with him about Calvin and I
believe the Puritans would be, by our present standards, the "right
wing religious nuts" of their day. But they maintained a more civil
and less violent society than the one in the South where the old
Cavalier tradition of agnosticism held sway. I say this as a 7th
generation Georgian who enjoys genealogy and has studied the old
South. The old Southerner believed that the laws of God, as well as
those of man, should be interpreted in a very liberal light. I guess
I'm still of that tradition that says we should attend church but let
us not get carried away.
I think a lot of the Post Bellum problem in the South was due to the
rather sudden turn from a non religious society to a Christian (read
religious) one. It is at such a stage that many people become
fanatics and this happened with a segment of our population.
My problem with Christian religion in this country is that I find my
own personal likes to fall away from what I'm told by many intelligent
people to be "mainstream". I have always had the feeling that the so
called "religious right" is rather tame when compared to Puritans,
Quakers, Shakers, Mormons and other sects. I have nothing against
these good people, but I find them more amusing than they would
appreciate.
Thank you for a thoughtful and an informative post. I hope I am not
too old to want to learn new things. I shall read more of this url.
>http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
Jeff Turner
Rumpelstiltskin
Turner) wrote:
>I am not a student or a member of any religion and I honestly don't
>care what anyone thinks or what they worship. (Certain nut cases
>excepted, such as snake handling and blood sacrifices) But I think
>the country and culture are beter served if the citizens believe in
>something.
>
>My only concern about religion and my only belief in it is that a
>society and a culture needs a moral code and history has shown, for
>good or evil, that only religions can instill this code. A secular
>authority has never been successful.
I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I find the idea that people
would be immoral without a religion such a curious view, yet it's
so prevalent. Atheists are generally speaking very socially
responsible.
Polar
Atheists and agnostics are also much more goal-oriented,
in terms of preserving the only environment we have.
--
Polar
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
That certainly is true in my experience, and I think there's a
good reason for it. Atheists(/agnostics) don't expect that a god
will come and save us at the last minute from the consequences
of our disrespect for the planet.
Ward Stewart
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
There is absolutely no possible point in discussing such matters with
some-one so clearly running on empty. What he has espoused here is
PRECISELY the sort of "Archie Bunker" Christianity that was so good a
joke on TV and so poor a joke amongst the citizens of our secular
republic.
ward
----------------------------------------------------
" . .we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our
prejudices into legal principles.’ If we would guide
by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.”
Justice Louis Brandeis
----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Turner
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:44:20 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
<Snip>
>>
>>
>> I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I find the idea that people
>>would be immoral without a religion such a curious view, yet it's
>>so prevalent. Atheists are generally speaking very socially
>>responsible.
>
> Atheists and agnostics are also much more goal-oriented,
>in terms of preserving the only environment we have.
I don't think an issue such as this has anything to do with a person's
theology. I am far more comfortable on this one issue with the
Sierra Club than I am with my political friends. Love of nature is a
very personal thing. One might go as far as to describe it as a
"religious" experience :-)
>--
>Polar
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:33:14 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>Turner) wrote:
>
><Please pardon any editing. It is done only for brevity and , I hope, clarity>
>>"Historical Jesus" ?
>
>The term "the historical Jesus" is used, I believe, frequently among
>Biblical scholars and historians
I won't belabor the point.
>>My only concern about religion and my only belief in it is that a
>>society and a culture needs a moral code and history has shown, for
>>good or evil, that only religions can instill this code. A secular
>>authority has never been successful.
>
>But we are a secular society so far as not having a state religion
>goes. Individuals may be as religious as they please, but the
>state needs to stay out of it. European nations today also are
>secular states. For centuries they were not, and there was one
>religious war after another.
>>
Europe is indeed going through a period of rare calm. It seems that
you think this will last. I fear not, though I hope so. Some of
Europe's worst wars had nothing to do with religion. ( Napolean, WW1
and WW2 come to mind, not to mention Atilla and Genghis Kahn)
>>Christian religion that has always been the main spring of the moral
>>code in this country.
>
>In what way? Are not the Ten Commandents Jewish? They amount
>to sorta common sense morality and so they fit into many moral
>codes of many religions.
Aha ! Yes they would. But what if someone begins to espouse the
Mosaic food laws. Then the food starts to fly.
The Big Ten would seem to be common sense morality. Unfortunately a
large segment of our population does not have common sense. This
trait is found in all strata of society and all the fractured cults.
>>IMO the cultural rot is a result of the
>>destruction of the belief in Christ. They took prayer out of schools
>>and put condom machines in. I don't think this was good.
>
>Kids can pray whereever they please. If they are truly into prayer,
>they do not need group prayer in the schools. How can you fit in
>a Catholic, a Southern Baptist, a Jew, a Muslim, a Jehovah's Witness
>into a school prayer? And why should we? This whole business
>about public prayer is a red herring. If people want their kids to
>pray, then it should be done at home. Most kids who come from
>families who practice a very strict "you must pray" kind of morality,
>however, soon leave it behind as soon as they are on their own.
>You can not impose religious beliefs on people once they are old
>enough to think for themselves.
It is my misfortune to have a quirk of personality that forces me to
be, on the one hand, a libertarian and on the other a person who
realizes that on some points the larger culture must be protected in
order that we may all have protection for practice of our libertarian
proclivities. (Whew ! pardon me for that sentence) Without a
protective culture, we would all be at the whim of whoever decided to
take our freedoms from us. Like the Russians under Lenin.
>>
>>gives the mother her own
>>place in the projects and independence from parents. If this is a
>>social or cultural advance I fail to see it.
>
>And you truly believe school prayer would prevent this?
>>
Certainly not. I believe we agree that a good prayer gets no higher
than the ceiling. But it is the "shared" beliefs that make a culture
strong. Not the fragmented ones. My point was that the children
who grew up under the idea that morals are a part of the school
curriculum had a better chance to survive the momentary pressures put
on them by their peers. I was always taught it was the
responsibility of adults to protect children, not to add to the
difficulties they face growing up.
A school is more a part of the community than it is a part of the
nation. And a school should teach the morality of the community.
If a community is Catholic so be it. If Jewish, ditto. If
Protestant, the same. If it's mixed ? As a GI child I well
understand this. If a prayer was Jewish or Moslem it would not have
bothered me.
I spent most of the prayer sessions studying the other kids. Now, it
might have upset my parents. And that is where the whole problem
lies, is it not ? It is the parents who are so offended. The kids
are simply embarrassed at their parents intolerance. Such was my
experience.
>>I find Tacitus much more informative and enjoyable when I search for
>>information. But the Bible is not for historical knowledge but to
>>aid me in searching my own soul for the beauty and wisdom of the
>>ancients. Like poetry, it can not be held to the scientific method.
>>If it could it would be useless.
>
>This is quite true, but there are those who wish to make it the basis
>for "scientific" knowledge -- for example, the Creationists.
There is really little difference between the two. The Creation is a
religious myth or possibly a theory. Evolution is also a myth and a
secular theory. I have no use for either, to be honest. But if
impressionable minds must leave class with some idea of the past, I
had much rather them think they are descended from Gods than from
tadpoles. Talk about helping their self esteem !
But I understand your overall point. And you are right.
>> The old Southerner believed that the laws of God, as well as
>>those of man, should be interpreted in a very liberal light. I guess
>>I'm still of that tradition that says we should attend church but let
>>us not get carried away.
>
>If you believe this, then why would you impose prayer in the schools
>on kids? I think that is definitely getting carried away. You seem
>to have a rather liberal view of religion but still want it to be
>imposed on others not of the Christian persuasion. I think you have
>a conflict here.
I have found many conflicts in life. I think what I do is my
business, but I wouldn't want to influence a young mind/body to go
astray just because I have enjoyed something, that in hindsight, I
can see would have been better had I not done it or at least having
waited and done it at a more mature age.
>"Do as I say, not do as I do".
>
You mentioned above that the Ten Commandments are nothing but common
sense. Would you agree to let the kids hear a little common sense by
having them recite these with the teacher in the morning ? I would
gladly forget about prayer if we could just have a little common sense
in this area. It couldn't hurt and might even help.
I have admitted my belief that hypocrisy is necessary in raising
children and maintaining a civil society. So yes, I have no problem
with the "do as I say do" approach. It's much better than a having a
sleazy young man or woman telling the kids about their weekend with
that "significant other". They will learn the grimy side of life
soon enough.
I believe we should take the Edwardian approach : "Do what you wish,
but don't disturb the horses". Or in this case, the children.
>>I have always had the feeling that the so
>>called "religious right" is rather tame when compared to Puritans,
>>Quakers, Shakers, Mormons and other sects. I have nothing against
>>these good people, but I find them more amusing than they would
>>appreciate.
>
>There are many religions that amuse me. Quakers are, however, a
>very fine and tolerant group and are not to be laughed at.
Would a few giggles upset you ? I don't question their "goodness".
>But at
>the same time I am amused, I find some of these groups scary
>because of their willingness to impose their views on everyone.
>Luckily, most will not have much influence beyond their numbers.
>I am optimist enough to think the religious right will never hold sway
>in the U.S., although they may make an inroad here or there.
I have never feared religion even as a child. I use to enjoy the
social aspect of church and still do. But I would have feared it if
I had grown up with a group like the Puritans, Mormons and Quakers.
The former was are strict and the latter are so political. Like most
children I did not like politics until after I became an adult. I
think politics is one of the things children should be protected from,
along with pedophelia.
I must admit that I see good things in the Puritan tradition, though I
fear and dislike it. New England has been more civil, educated and
less violent from the early 1600s until the 1950s than the West, South
or Midwest as a result of their lessons from the Puritans. Maybe
this is the reason it has been so tolerant and has permitted the
growth of so many alien isms in it's midst.
I realize this is a very touchy subject, especially with the written
word. Even a good writer would have trouble explaining their beliefs
and I am no good writer. I certainly understand that any moral
teaching should be made as non denominational as possible. But it
should be tried. Beside the Ten Commandments, could anyone argue
that children should be taught to avoid drugs, alcohol, tobacco,
obscenities and sex, to name a few items in the teenagers large agenda
?
The school system takes it upon themselves to provide a breakfast for
children whose parents are too incapable or irresponsible of doing so.
Can't they also furnish a little moral guidance to these kids who are
spiritually starved ?
Both sides, left and right, are too much emotionally involved. The
right is too fearful of what it perceives to be a government
encroachment on their cultural heritage. The left is to anxious to
destroy the culture in an attempt to free the individual. ( I seem
to recall in Viet Nam we had to destroy villages in order to save
them) I must admit on this issue I prefer to ere on the side of
preservation of culture than expansion of a perceived civil right. I
could be wrong. I have a life long record of making errors.
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
With all good intentions, I'm sure you know as much about the nations
atheist as I do about the nations Baptists. Which is very little.
I have never said that they are less moral. My concern is for the
health of the society overall. I'm a border line agnostic but I
would never attempt to extinguish a child's hopes by telling him/her
so. Give them a chance to see the better things before exposing them
to the more crass.
Jeff Turner
Rumpelstiltskin
Turner) wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:44:20 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:33:14 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>>Turner) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I find the idea that people
>>would be immoral without a religion such a curious view, yet it's
>>so prevalent. Atheists are generally speaking very socially
>>responsible.
>>
>
>With all good intentions, I'm sure you know as much about the nations
>atheist as I do about the nations Baptists. Which is very little.
>
>I have never said that they are less moral. My concern is for the
>health of the society overall. I'm a border line agnostic but I
>would never attempt to extinguish a child's hopes by telling him/her
>so. Give them a chance to see the better things before exposing them
>to the more crass.
>
>Jeff Turner
(1)
Why do you think (supernatural) religion is less "crass" than
atheism?
(2)
If you don't feel atheists are "less moral", then what value do
you think (supernatural) religion confers on society?
-------------
I have no problem with non-supernatural religion. I practice
non-supernatural religiosity myself. I don't think humans can
live as social beings without religiosity, though it definitely does
not need to be supernatural. My religiosity is pretty much
respect for the Earth, people and animals: these are not
"truths", they're just precepts for living. I think the drawbacks
of supernatural religion are inevitably so severe that we would
be better off without such religion. Northern Europe has pretty
much abandoned supernaturalism, and has become much more
enlightened as it cast off those beliefs as a direct result, IMV.
My problem with supernatural religion is the arbitrariness
of an infallible god. Gravely compounding that defect in
Christianity is that the person of Jehovah as described in the
bible seems to me and many others to be full of antiquated
cruelty. That antiquated cruelty comes out clearly in the
modern speech and practice of Christian sects in the USA.
There are some where the defect is so severe as to be
comical (were it not so serious for society), but those are just
the lunatic fringe of a more general debility. I completely
disagree with the idea that Jehovah/Allah religion makes
people better than they would otherwise be.
I exclude Unitarianism and the Friends because they do not,
in effect, believe in an infallible Jehovah, and IMO are much the
better for that.
Rumpelstiltskin
Turner) wrote:
>The Big Ten would seem to be common sense morality. Unfortunately a
>large segment of our population does not have common sense. This
>trait is found in all strata of society and all the fractured cults.
I don't see how #1 (I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no
other gods before me.) has any relationship to morality or common
sense. Most of the rest, as I recall, do have moral content.
<snip>
>Certainly not. I believe we agree that a good prayer gets no higher
>than the ceiling. But it is the "shared" beliefs that make a culture
>strong. Not the fragmented ones. My point was that the children
>who grew up under the idea that morals are a part of the school
>curriculum had a better chance to survive the momentary pressures put
>on them by their peers. I was always taught it was the
>responsibility of adults to protect children, not to add to the
>difficulties they face growing up.
OK, from the above, I see somewhat how you reconcile your
personal disbelief with the idea that a generalized belief is good.
However, assuming you don't kill and steal, you have morals
compatible with your early social training. So have I, and as far
as I can recall, I never believed in gods even as a child. So I
question the validity of the idea that common morality needs
(supernatural) religion.
Don't forget that Nazism was a common morality, too. The
danger of (supernatural) religion (and Nazism) is that the
premises are not open to inspection and reëvaluation.
Jeff Turner
Thanks for making my point. I have said that no secular attempts at
imposing a code of morality has ever worked. The Nazis and the
Communist prove this. as did the terror regime of Robespierre.
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>(1)
> Why do you think (supernatural) religion is less "crass" than
>atheism?
I find atheism to be harmless but it seems like a fad that all
rebellious people have to go through. I did myself. But I out grew
it. I don't believe in the divinity of any god, but I refuse to call
myself atheist for I don't wish to appear to share such a common
belief.
As Lincoln said "God must have loved the common man. He made so many
of them" :-) But for some reason I don't like thinking of myself as
common.
>
>(2)
> If you don't feel atheists are "less moral", then what value do
>you think (supernatural) religion confers on society?
>
I certainly don't think they are more moral either. It serves as an
"adhesive" that brings and bonds people together in a shared society
and culture.
Supernatural ? As opposed to "natural" ?
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:47:48 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>The notion a child needs to be indoctrinated in a supernatural
>religion to learn "morals" is ridiculous. I have 12 grandchildren.
>Among them, eight were or are in homes that practiced no
>religion. That is, the kids never went to church or Sunday school.
>Their parents were unwilling to impose on them something they
>did not themselves believe. However, the parents did and do
>discuss subjects with them commonly believed to fit into
>"morality" and the kids certainly were/are free to enter into any
>religious belief they chose.
I'll bet the parents did attend church. People don't pick up a set of
moral values at birth anymore than birth gives them the right to
rule... "born booted and spurred" to use Jefferson's quaint term.
>
>My non-religious grandkids are just as moral as those who are
>being raised in a religion and just as moral as their friends who
>go to church and Sunday school. One does not need a
>supernatural religion to learn
I am not so sure. The thoughts of a potential of being a bit better
than what they observe in their daily life can give a child hope for
the future. When the average American child looks at his/her
"average" American Mom/Pop they must wounder "Is this as good as it
gets". The answer can be a little disheartening.
>it is not a good idea to steal or
>murder, or defame one's neighbor.
Then why do more and more kids do these things ?
>These are lessons that
>parents need to teach on a day-to-day basis,
If the parent even realizes them themselves. Most don't. I hate to
see ignorance breed and raise more of the same. This has been going
on in this country since the early 1960s.
>by discussing
>social events of the times and interactions the kids have with
>otherrs.
>
>The only benefit I, myself, gained from years of Bible study I
>had to attend as a child was a cultural thing --
BINGO !! That's what I am saying. "Only", heck. What is more
important than understanding how to function in a culture ? That is,
in my opinion, the whole purpose of a religion.
>I did learn about
>the Bible and since there are so many literary references from that
>book I have found this knowledge valuable in my reading.
Then why are you so anxious to deny it to the future generations ?
They probably need it worse than you did. Mothers and fathers, on
average, are not what they use to be. I'd go so far as to say the
averge "mom" is far below average. But why should her offspring
suffer because of her deriliction of duty ?
Rumpelstiltskin
>The only benefit I, myself, gained from years of Bible study I
>had to attend as a child was a cultural thing -- I did learn about
>the Bible and since there are so many literary references from that
>book I have found this knowledge valuable in my reading.
The best thing I got from Sunday School was reinforcement
of the realization that something isn't necessarily true just
because a lot of people seem to believe it.
My friend on the East Coast who attends church despite not
being religious says she couldn't be an atheist because she'd
have to know too much about the bible. She has a point there!
You certainly have a point with the literary references too.
Even Shelley makes use of the general knowledge of the bible
in society, as a foil or as a grounding for analogy.
Rumpelstiltskin
Turne+r) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:47:46 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>(1)
>> Why do you think (supernatural) religion is less "crass" than
>>atheism?
>
>I find atheism to be harmless but it seems like a fad that all
>rebellious people have to go through. I did myself. But I out grew
>it. I don't believe in the divinity of any god, but I refuse to call
>myself atheist for I don't wish to appear to share such a common
>belief.
Simply refusing to call oneself atheist doesn't make one not
atheist. I personally would regard such refusal as the "fad".
Atheist doesn't say anything about what beliefs one may have,
except that god-beliefs are not among them.
>
>As Lincoln said "God must have loved the common man. He made so many
>of them" :-) But for some reason I don't like thinking of myself as
>common.
>
>>
>>(2)
>> If you don't feel atheists are "less moral", then what value do
>>you think (supernatural) religion confers on society?
>>
>
>I certainly don't think they are more moral either. It serves as an
>"adhesive" that brings and bonds people together in a shared society
>and culture.
One of my friends on the east coast belongs to a church for
that reason. She does not believe in gods, but likes the social
contact of church.
A guy I worked with once described Unitarians as atheists
who hadn't gotten out of the habit of going to church. (That
wasn't a slap at Unitarians, it was a good-natured comment.)
As to "bonds", you didn't comment on the bonds of shared
Nazism, or KKK-ism or Southern-Baptistism. Bonds are not
always a good thing. Unification based on ideas in practice
commonly excludes those who do not share the ideas. It can
lead to violence, as in killing doctors who perform abortions.
>
>Supernatural ? As opposed to "natural" ?
Yes. "Natural" being that which is seen to be in the world.
"Supernatural" being that which is not seen and whose
mechanics are at odds with what is seen in the world.
Rumpelstiltskin
Turner) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:47:48 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:08:11 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>>Turner) wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> OK, from the above, I see somewhat how you reconcile your
>>personal disbelief with the idea that a generalized belief is good.
>>However, assuming you don't kill and steal, you have morals
>>compatible with your early social training. So have I, and as far
>>as I can recall, I never believed in gods even as a child. So I
>>question the validity of the idea that common morality needs
>>(supernatural) religion.
>>
>> Don't forget that Nazism was a common morality, too. The
>>danger of (supernatural) religion (and Nazism) is that the
>>premises are not open to inspection and reëvaluation.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for making my point. I have said that no secular attempts at
>imposing a code of morality has ever worked. The Nazis and the
>Communist prove this. as did the terror regime of Robespierre.
I don't see any validity to separating "secular attempts" from
"religious attempts" at imposing morality. Catholicism and
Nazism and feudalism and democracy all require shared belief
or acceptance.
You neglected to mention the Inquisition and Savonarola and
the ongoing wars in Northern Ireland along with your mention of
Nazism and Robes pierre.
Glenn Pooler
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:18:05 -0500, Rita <rkin...@amexol.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The only benefit I, myself, gained from years of Bible study I
>>had to attend as a child was a cultural thing -- I did learn about
>>the Bible and since there are so many literary references from that
>>book I have found this knowledge valuable in my reading.
>
>
>
> The best thing I got from Sunday School was reinforcement
>of the realization that something isn't necessarily true just
>because a lot of people seem to believe it.
>
> My friend on the East Coast who attends church despite not
>being religious says she couldn't be an atheist because she'd
>have to know too much about the bible. She has a point there!
True, as a child I read the Bible from cover to cover and then
started over. On the second pass, about halfway through I, with
no outside influence, decided that God and the Bible were
coincidental. However, it took a university education to
determine the nonexistence of God. Now the minor gods are a
different story altogether.
Glenn....@att.net
Rochester Minnesota USA
Jeff Turner
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:03:01 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>Turne+r) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:47:46 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
>><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
> Simply refusing to call oneself atheist doesn't make one not
>atheist. I personally would regard such refusal as the "fad".
>
> Atheist doesn't say anything about what beliefs one may have,
>except that god-beliefs are not among them.
Your point is well made. I guess I should say that I prefer the term
"agnostic" for it implies a lack of knowedge as to the non existence
of a god as it does the absolute existence of one. I have a little
trouble in denying Deism. If I understand this term correctly, it
indicates a belief in a supreme being having once come along and
created the people of the Earth and then moved on and left us to our
own devices.
This could fit the science fiction/facts notions of "Chariots of the
Gods". As we see more talk about cloning it presents a viable way
for mankind of the future to deliver the people of the Earth to
another planet in centuries to come. So why could it not have been
done in the past ? Surely we are not the only intelligent beings in
the universe. Only religious nuts could be this pompous:)
OK, I realize this is far out. But any discussion about things that
we know as little about as the "birth" of mankind has to be far out.
>>
> One of my friends on the east coast belongs to a church for
>that reason. She does not believe in gods, but likes the social
>contact of church.
I understand this well for it is my own feelings.
>
> A guy I worked with once described Unitarians as atheists
>who hadn't gotten out of the habit of going to church. (That
>wasn't a slap at Unitarians, it was a good-natured comment.)
>
> As to "bonds", you didn't comment on the bonds of shared
>Nazism, or KKK-ism or Southern-Baptistism. Bonds are not
>always a good thing. Unification based on ideas in practice
>commonly excludes those who do not share the ideas. It can
>lead to violence, as in killing doctors who perform abortions.
All human contact creates bonds of a greater or lesser strength. I
agree that they are not always good. Actually I feel most are harmful
or have the potential for harm if not balanced by a larger sense of
community, which IMO brings us back to a social need for a church.
>>
>>Supernatural ? As opposed to "natural" ?
> Yes. "Natural" being that which is seen to be in the world.
>"Supernatural" being that which is not seen and whose
>mechanics are at odds with what is seen in the world.
>
I won't go down that road ;>
Have a nice weekend.
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:18:05 -0500, Rita <rkin...@amexol.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The only benefit I, myself, gained from years of Bible study I
>>had to attend as a child was a cultural thing -- I did learn about
>>the Bible and since there are so many literary references from that
>>book I have found this knowledge valuable in my reading.
>
>
>
> The best thing I got from Sunday School was reinforcement
>of the realization that something isn't necessarily true just
>because a lot of people seem to believe it.
>
So did I. But I thought it a valuable lesson as pertaining to other
fields of human thought. I have been less of a victim of the other
evil ologies than many of my contemporaries.
I figure if we take all "truths" with a grain of salt we will be far
better off. Including the secular "truths".
Someone once said that just because 30 million Frenchmen believe in a
foolish thing it is no less foolish. (Or something like that) I
whole heartedly agree.
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
wrote:
I had the same experience. I can't say I read every word in the two
books, but I came close. I had started this to impress my
grandmother who was the daughter and grandaughter of a Methodist
minister. I took two correspondent courses regarding the bible and
bible prophecy by the time I was 12. I was intrigued by it. But
alas, as you say, to read it in it's totality is to understand that
it can't be completely true. And to fail in one area it must fail in
all.
When my grandmother inquired about my progress with the scriptures, I
told her I had given up. (which was true in a way) I loved the dear
old girl and never troubled her with my superior knowledge.
Unlike you my University experienced taught me not to value the
Professor's atheism or take it too serious. Or by extension, any of
his other revelations. I had, after all, arrived there at age 12
without his help. It does cause a small amount of cynicism which my
experience with "people of ideas" has not dispelled.
This, if for no other reason, may be why we should encourage children
to read the scriptures. If they find what we found they will be more
safe in their own beliefs and less open to the ideas of rogues and
demagogues that they are bound to run into as they pursue their
education.
Jeff Turner
PS, I bet it's cold up there. isn't it. I have some cousins in
Minnesota on my step fathers side. When we were kids, they lived on
a dairy farm. Had one of those tremendous red barns where the cows
had pretty good accomodations. Sure is nice up there in the summer.
If I could stand the cold I would move up there in a minute. The
South is goiung to hell.
Jeff Turner
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:03:00 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>Turner) wrote:
>
>>I'll bet the parents did attend church. People don't pick up a set of
>>moral values at birth anymore than birth gives them the right to
>>rule... "born booted and spurred" to use Jefferson's quaint term.
>
>People learn moral values from a variety of sources. Supernatural
>religion is only one of them. And, along with various "moral values",
>I, for example, raised as a Lutheran, learned that Catholics were bad
>folks as were Methodists, Presbyterians and so forth.
Most strange. I was raised as a Methodist but was never taught that
my Baptist or Catholic friends were bad.
>In fact, I
>learned a whole lot of garbage, such as unless I proclaimed Jesus
>Christ as my Lord and Savior I would go to hell. Now this was not
>particularly helpful to me as a child -- fears of hellfire are not for
>children. If people need a fear of hell to be moral people, then we
>are in a sad state, and what is more, all those Buddhists in the world
>and those of other religions that do not have a hell must produce
>people with no moral code whatsoever.
>
>I do believe you are a bit of a hypocrite.
True. But at least I admit.
> Not accepting supernatural
>religion yourself but wanting it for others. Also a bit of an
>elitist. You apparently can function morally without it, but the
>"masses" need it so they do not rape, pillage, and murder.
>>
>>>
>
>I don't know what kind of company you keep.
Some bad, some pretty good, some average and one or two that have been
recognized as being above average.
>And I don't know what
>you consider an "average" American family. My experiences with the
>younger generation all are extremely positive. Perhaps you just don't
>know the right people. My grandchildren are socially aware,
>interested in social questions, and have a fine set of values.
That right there strikes fear in my heart. I try to get children to
be children and enjoy childhood and leave the politics for adulthood.
This is where I always parted company with the old Puritans and
Quakers. Children should not be used to further the parents political
agenda.
>They
>do not need a supernatural religion -- they think for themselves.
>I do have a couple of grandkids rasised in a fundamentalist church.
>Believe me, this is not a topic I want to discuss in detail, but there
>is a big difference in the intellectual scope between the two
>backgrounds. These kids are in no way superior to the others in
>their daily lives, but they do carry a lot of baggage around that
>makes them extremely judgmental about others who do not share
>their views. I feel very sorry for them. Their intellectual growth
>has been truncated because they are limited to a very select and
>limited view of the world.
>
You say you have 12 grandchilden. Let me take a wild guess and bet
that the ones with the religious training are the children of your
son(s) who married Christian woman. And the children of your
daughters are the more worldly ones. Just a guess.
I read an interesting quote the other day. Someone said that were it
not for the influence of women, men would still be sitting in a cave
eating raw meat.
I had to think that with the influence of the modern woman men just
might be returning to the cave in a few more generations.
Jeff Turner
Polar
Turner) wrote:
[...]
>Your point is well made. I guess I should say that I prefer the term
>"agnostic" for it implies a lack of knowedge as to the non existence
>of a god as it does the absolute existence of one
[...]
I, too, prefer "agnostic". It seems unscientific to assert that there
is no supreme being, when we have no way of actually proving existence
or non-existence.
--
Polar
Glenn Pooler
wrote:
Of course there's a proof of the nonexistence of god, I posted it
some time back in response to Sir Fred's contention similar to
yours. It involves multiple existence starts, such as the big
bang, and projecting the subject, you if you like, into follow-on
existences where reality is changed a little, with knowledge of
previous existence. Unfortunately I've forgotten the details and
my mind has deteriorated too much for me to once again develop
the proof.
There are other proofs such as the "preponderance of evidence,"
and minor gods but they are not as powerful as the multiple
existence proof.
Glenn....@att.net
Rochester Minnesota USA
Rumpelstiltskin
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:31:43 -0800, Rumpelstiltskin
>> As to "bonds", you didn't comment on the bonds of shared
>>Nazism, or KKK-ism or Southern-Baptistism. Bonds are not
>>always a good thing. Unification based on ideas in practice
>>commonly excludes those who do not share the ideas. It can
>>lead to violence, as in killing doctors who perform abortions.
>
>All human contact creates bonds of a greater or lesser strength. I
>agree that they are not always good. Actually I feel most are harmful
>or have the potential for harm if not balanced by a larger sense of
>community, which IMO brings us back to a social need for a church.
That doesn't follow, IMV. If churches are not always good,
then they need to be subject to more scrutiny than things that
bind mankind together but make no pretense of "ultimate truth".
>
>>>
>>>Supernatural ? As opposed to "natural" ?
>
>> Yes. "Natural" being that which is seen to be in the world.
>>"Supernatural" being that which is not seen and whose
>>mechanics are at odds with what is seen in the world.
>>
>
>I won't go down that road ;>
>
>Have a nice weekend.
You have a nice weekend too. It's pouring rain here, and will
do so all weekend though.
Rumpelstiltskin
Turner) wrote:
>Someone once said that just because 30 million Frenchmen believe in a
>foolish thing it is no less foolish. (Or something like that) I
>whole heartedly agree.
Anatole France, according to
http://www.mbhs.edu/~bconnell/quotes.html
--------------
Now, unrelated to the above, who was it who said something
like "Learning about physics through cyclotron experiments is like
learning about music by throwing a grand piano down the stairs
and observing what falls out."
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
>I do think
>the "faith based" initiative in social services is one such open
>door. As is the attack on women's reproductive rights.
Let us not forget that faith-based empowerment will also impact gay
people in a horrible way.
>Without
>vigilance, we may wake up one day and see they have made
>serious inroads on separation of church and state.
If you ignore the attack on gay people--when it comes (and come it
soon will)--by looking the other way, then you have already sold out.
For you would have failed in your vigilance, by ignoring the swift
expiration of the canaries in the caves. If gays go, everyone else
goes. But if gays are defended by our fellow contrymen, then all shall
win and beat down the demon of tyranny.
---
Pennsylvania Dutch Gay Jesus Says:
"Throw the hetero over the fence some hay!"
---
Lavender Velvet Revolution:
http://surf.to/gaybible
Rumpelstiltskin
Krahlin) wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:19:59 -0500, Rita <rkin...@amexol.net> wrote:
>
>>I do think
>>the "faith based" initiative in social services is one such open
>>door. As is the attack on women's reproductive rights.
>
>Let us not forget that faith-based empowerment will also impact gay
>people in a horrible way.
>
>>Without
>>vigilance, we may wake up one day and see they have made
>>serious inroads on separation of church and state.
>
>If you ignore the attack on gay people--when it comes (and come it
>soon will)--by looking the other way, then you have already sold out.
>For you would have failed in your vigilance, by ignoring the swift
>expiration of the canaries in the caves. If gays go, everyone else
>goes. But if gays are defended by our fellow contrymen, then all shall
>win and beat down the demon of tyranny.
As a gay person myself, I have no expectations from
this administration. For one, this administration has to
please the religious right. Coming down on gay people
is one way to do that without upsetting the whole of
society too much. For another, this administration is
going to need ways of diverting attention from a rapidly
increasing national debt.
Jeff Turner
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:56:59 GMT, jtu...@lycosREMOVE.com (Jeff
>Turner) wrote:
>
>
>>Most strange. I was raised as a Methodist but was never taught that
>>my Baptist or Catholic friends were bad.
>
>I attended an evangelical Lutheran church -- the church
>had been considered too fundamentalist in Norway so they
>brought their beliefs to the U.S. Midwest. They were
>intensely anti-Catholic. I did not absorb the attitides because
>my family was not. In fact, my family made fun of them so
>I had distinictly mixed messages. When I was age 13 I
>stopped going to the church and not a word was said.
>>
>
>>You say you have 12 grandchilden. Let me take a wild guess and bet
>>that the ones with the religious training are the children of your
>>son(s) who married Christian woman. And the children of your
>>daughters are the more worldly ones. Just a guess.
>
>Wrong. It is far more complex than you suggest.
>
Please pardon me for saying that. I did not mean to get personal and
I shall not let it happen again. I didn't realize I had until I
re-read this.
All I know about the Unitarian Church is it's name. I have had the
pleasure in my life of meeting people from most of the world's major
religions, but this one has escaped me.
If they are so "tolerant" in accepting everyones view, then some
members are probably able to go 'God shopping' in a spiritual buffet.
Sorta.
Most of the other Protestant religions have returned to what I think
of as old fashioned idolatry. I guess it beats the old time faith,
for them.
Jeff Turner
Jeff Turner
If you know, that will make one of us :-)
Jeff Turner
Rumpelstiltskin
I know it was a well-known physicist who wrote it. It's
a great analogy.
I went looking for it, but was unsuccessful. However,
on the way, I was re-introduced to Nietzsche's aphorisms.
They're really stunning. I half agree with whoever
originally owned my used copy of Zarathustra, who wrote
on the title page "Nietzsche is nuts". But Nietzsche's
profound aphorisms are equaled in quality only by a few,
such as Shaw and Churchill, IMV, and in quantity by none.
Here are a couple from Nietzsche:
--------------
In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak: but for
that one must have long legs.
Not the intensity but the duration of high feelings makes high men.
Many people wait all their lives for the opportunity to be good in
their own way.
The end of a melody is not its goal; and yet as long as the melody
has not reached its end, it also hasn't reached its goal. A parable.
What? A great man? I always see only the actor of his own ideal.
Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the
abyss also looks into you.
Honest with ourselves and with whatever is friend to us; courageous
toward the enemy; generous toward the vanquished; polite-always.
That is how the four cardinal virtues want us.
(The last of those stings me, and should sting most in this
newsgroup, and on internet newsgroups in general. I'm
polite privately, but not on newsgroups. I suspect many
others are the same.)
Merchant and pirate were for a long period one and the same person.
Even today mercantile morality is really nothing but a refinement of
piratical morality.
(That's one for C. Asa James, IMO.)
On the heights it is warmer than people in the valleys suppose,
especially in winter. The thinker recognizes the full import of this
simile.
(I'll have to remember that one the next time someone asks me
if I don't find atheism too cold.)
In the mountains of truth, you never climb in vain. Either you already
reach a higher point today, or you exercise your strength in order to
be able to climb higher tomorrow.
Jeff Turner
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I have always understood that he was a genius of sorts. Some of these
thought are interesting to say the least. But for some reason I just
never got around to looking into his works. I had a little of him
in college but I can't recall much.
I must confess a weakness for almost anything that Churchill ever
said. He could liven up an everyday thought or sentence to make it
cause a person to want ot follow. His "Blood, sweat and toil" speech
has no comparison in modern history IMO. I don't think the
Gettysburg address can touch it.
Jeff Turner
john williamson
Re: Christian Reconstructionism sites
(Jeff Turner) wrote:
As to "bonds", you didn't comment on the bonds of
shared Nazism, or KKK-ism or Southern-Baptistism. Bonds are not always a
good thing. Unification based on ideas in practice commonly excludes
those who do not share the ideas. It can lead to violence, as in killing
doctors who perform abortions.
All human contact creates bonds of a greater or lesser strength. I agree
that they are not always good. Actually I feel most are harmful or have
the potential for harm if not balanced by a larger sense of community,
which IMO brings us back to a social need for a church.
+++++++++++++++
Rumplestiltskin wrote:
That doesn't follow, IMV. If churches are not always
good, then they need to be subject to more scrutiny than things that
bind mankind together but make no pretense of "ultimate truth".
++++++++++++++=
John wrote:
Something I saw some time ago may fit here.
"Institutions such as schools, churches, governments and political
organizations of every sort all tend to direct thought for ends other
than truth, for the perpetuation of their own functions, and for the
control of individuals in the service of those functions."
John
Ward Stewart
Furthermore, the snide assumption that those who are not churched are
somehow "less" -- have less community, have less sense of social
responsibility, less inclination to selfless acts is offensive,
PROFOUNDLY offensive!
ward
-----------------------------------------------------
"It is interesting, that termites don't build things,
and the greatbuilders of our nation almost to a man
have been Christians, because Christians have the
desire to build something....The people who have come
into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites
....They are into destroying institutions that have
been built by Christians, whether it is universities,
governments, our own traditions, that we have....and
the time has arrived for a Godly fumigation."
Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August1986
-----------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
williamson) wrote:
>control of individuals in the service of those functions."f
>John
Furthermore, the snide assumption that those who are not churched are
somehow "less" -- have less community, have less sense of social
responsibility, less inclination to selfless acts is offensive,
PROFOUNDLY offensive!
ward
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and
punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein