Do Fans Beget Fans?
Stevens
if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
fans as children? I'd really like to know.
(And, if anyone cares, I do want our child to be fan. I don't
however, want to push the kid into something against its will.)
--
Stevens R. Miller - Director, Technology & Online Forensics
DSFX International, Falls Church, VA - (703) 207-0600
Beth Friedman
> My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
> if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
> fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
> also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
> fans as children? I'd really like to know.
My experience with Minneapolis fans is mixed. There aren't that many
longitudinal samples available; a number of the children of local fans are
still children.
Let's see; I can think of six that are college age or past that I knew as
children. Of those, one is indubitably a fan, and was heavily involved in
running last year's Minicon. Two I would consider fans, though they don't
generally attend Minn-stf meetings. Two are non-fans. The scarier thing
(well, to me) is that at least two of them dropped out of high school, and
only one of those five chose to attend college, though I'm completely out
of touch with one of them, so that might have changed.
There's also at least one second-generation fan who's raising a third
generation of (presumably fannish) children, but I never knew her as a
child.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Beth Friedman
<01bdf98f$480700e0$aaf4...@bjf.wavefront.com>...
> Let's see; I can think of six that are college age or past that I knew as
> children. Of those, one is indubitably a fan, and was heavily involved
in
> running last year's Minicon. Two I would consider fans, though they
don't
> generally attend Minn-stf meetings. Two are non-fans.
Five. I meant five. Really.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
David G. Bell
> My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
> if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
> fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
> also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
> fans as children? I'd really like to know.
>
> (And, if anyone cares, I do want our child to be fan. I don't
> however, want to push the kid into something against its will.)
I'm almost tempted to produce a list of Ten Signs that your Child is a
Fan, but these days there's likely some politician who will regard them
as signs of drug-taking.
However, if you find yourself organising an SF convention rather than a
birthday party, it's a pretty strong indicator.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Laurie D. T. Mann
> My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
> if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
> fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
> also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
> fans as children? I'd really like to know.
One line I remember hearing about 15 years ago was
Children are more extreme examples of their parents
This is the truth. ;->
Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
despite her recent military experience. She grew up around a bunch
of fans, and probably about half of them still have ties to
fandom, independent of their parents.
Leslie is interested in different aspects of fandom, as she's
a gamer. She also gets along much, much better with fans than
she ever has with mundanes.
--
Laurie D. T. Mann http://www.city-net.com/~lmann/dps
1999 Nebula Weekend Pittsburgh, PA April 30-May 2
http://www.sfwa.org/awards/99wknd.html
mike weber
1998 00:15:48 -0400,
>My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
>if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
>fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
>also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
>fans as children? I'd really like to know.
>
>however, want to push the kid into something against its will.)
Kate isn't a fan by general definition, but i met her on the NG
dedicated to my brother's books.
At this moment her 14-yr old daughter is sitting listening to my
Cowboy Mouth albums and reading Charles deLint's -Spiritwalk-.
Neither hs ever attended a con to the best of my knowledge...
--
"...no use looking for the answers when the questions are in
doubt..." F.LeBlanc
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
Jordin Kare
<b...@wavefront.com> wrote:
>
> There's also at least one second-generation fan who's raising a third
> generation of (presumably fannish) children, but I never knew her as a
> child.
Bruce Coulson, son of Buck and Juanita, well-known fans, is himself a
fan. Though his child is really too young to judge, they do take the kid
to cons.
MK
Stevens
> Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
> despite her recent military experience.
Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
are servicepeople.
VJBowen
>I also spent some
>time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
>are servicepeople.
My father was not a fan, but was a voracious sf (and mystery) reader,
particularly while in the Army, as were my older brothers.
I think the fannish tendency sometimes runs slanchwise through families. My
father was a reader; his first cousin is a fan, and his sister is a reader; I
am a fan, a reader, and a sometimes writer; my younger brother was a fan, and
the older two readers; one cousin (the daughter of the above reader) is a fan;
another cousin was a reader, collector, and sometimes writer; one niece and
nephew (siblings) are readers, and I used to bring them to local fannish
parties, which they enjoyed immensely....
I can't track the rest of the family; it's too big and far-spread. We'll see if
the niece and nephew become fans -- they still ask me about my fannish friends,
and want to attend a con sooner or later.
Vijay Bowen
"I make mistakes, but I am on the side of Good, by accident and happenchance."
Jim Barker
wrote:
> In article <362819...@erols.com> just...@erols.com "Stevens" writes:
>
> > My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
> > if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
> > fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
> > also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
> > fans as children? I'd really like to know.
> >
Easy way to find out. Were your Mum or Dad fans?
Jim Barker
Mark Evans
: In article <01bdf98f$480700e0$aaf4...@bjf.wavefront.com>, "Beth Friedman"
: <b...@wavefront.com> wrote:
: MK
Bruce & Emily's daughter, Miranda, is showing fannish tendencies. She is
about a year older than my eldest and they have a great time when they are
together at cons. Although what really bothers me, and I suspect Bruce,
is the idea of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship developing. He and I
are both too young to want to think about that. (G)
--
Mark Evans
Established in 1951.
Dan Goodman
The Mnstf Hotline is currently run by a second-generation fan: Amber
Tatge, daughter of Richard Tatge and Sharon Kahn.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>Laurie D. T. Mann wrote:
>
>> Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
>> despite her recent military experience.
>
>Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
>time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
>are servicepeople.
Thank you.
--
Doug Wickstrom
Those truly desirous of private communication may find it helpful
to drop the "x" in the reply field, and replace "aol.com" with
"worldnet.att.net," cause the reply field is a fib.
Ailsa Murphy
just...@erols.com wrote:
> My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
> if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
> fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
> also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
> fans as children? I'd really like to know.
>
> however, want to push the kid into something against its will.)
>
Well, my parents had a 75% success rate: four kids, three fans. And both of
my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
-Ailsa
--
"[It's] time for the human ailsa....@tfn.com
race to enter the solar system." - Dan Quayle
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ailsa Murphy
just...@erols.com wrote:
> Laurie D. T. Mann wrote:
>
> > Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
> > despite her recent military experience.
>
> Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
> time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
> are servicepeople.
>
When I was stationed at Lackland Air Force Base, in the next barracks over
there was an ongoing D&D campaign.
Needless to say, I also have military experience. B)
Laurie D. T. Mann
> >> Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
> >> despite her recent military experience.
> >Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
> >time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
> >are servicepeople.
I was frankly appalled to hear the Army's rules about reading
material in basic training - only Army manuals and religious
materials were permitted. (Lots of other stuff appalled me
about the Army, too but that was very troublesome.)
I know some fans who survived the Army, but it mostly
seemed like "the" place for practicing mundanes.
Laurie D. T. Mann
> Basic training lasts eight weeks. It is a 24-hour continuous drill.
> It's purpose is not entertainment. The Army certainly has the right
> to restrict reading matter during training and on the job. They also
> restrict access to telephones, television, movies, and milkshakes.
> They limit letter reading and writing to specific times. Religious
> material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
>
> So what's your point?
Video games are OK.
Religious propaganda is OK.
Isaac Asimov is not. Ursula K. Le Guin is not. ....
I suppose you might not see anything wrong with this picture,
but I do.
If nothing else, the restrictions on reading spoke volumes about
the mindset of the Army. No one is arguing that you shouldn't read
while you're working, but even the grunts got Sunday mostly off.
I'd rather see the kids read, if they wanted to, rather than waste
quarters playing video games.
--
Laurie D. T. Mann --- http://www.city-net.com/~lmann/dps
1999 Nebula Weekend -- April 30 - May 2 -- Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.swfa.org/awards/99wknd.html
Stevens
> both of
> my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
This is a distinction worth savoring.
Irv Koch
> My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
> if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
> fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
> also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
> fans as children? I'd really like to know.
I've been looking at that issue for about 35 years. The answer is
"sometimes." I know at least one 5th Generation fan and lots of 2nd
Generation. I also know quite a few fen, none of whose kids even read
much. I suggest you do two things, no matter what. Talk the the kids
from birth, a lot, as if they were adults ... NO baby talk. Then, when
they are more or less speaking like "adults who just don't know much,"
at about age 3 or 4, read TO them (actually, start that as soon as they
understand anything). Eventually they will learn to read, before going
to school ... and ... who knows.
Stevens
> Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
> down the recruit[...]
That is not the point of basic training.
Stevens
> In <362BF5...@erols.com> Stevens <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> : Ailsa Murphy wrote:
>
> :> both of
> :> my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
>
> : This is a distinction worth savoring.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this.
I mean that, to mundanes, this distinction would be hard to
perceive and that, therefore, it is a joy to see it mentioned
here, where reference to it raises no questions.
> (I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
> possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
> normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
Doug Wickstrom
<lm...@city-net.com> modulated the bit stream to say:
>Doug Wickstrom wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:43:19 -0400, Stevens <just...@erols.com>
>> >Laurie D. T. Mann wrote:
>> >> Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
>> >> despite her recent military experience.
>> >Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
>> >time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
>> >are servicepeople.
>> Thank you.
>
>I was frankly appalled to hear the Army's rules about reading
>material in basic training - only Army manuals and religious
>materials were permitted. (Lots of other stuff appalled me
>about the Army, too but that was very troublesome.)
Basic training lasts eight weeks. It is a 24-hour continuous drill.
It's purpose is not entertainment. The Army certainly has the right
to restrict reading matter during training and on the job. They also
restrict access to telephones, television, movies, and milkshakes.
They limit letter reading and writing to specific times. Religious
material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
So what's your point?
>I know some fans who survived the Army, but it mostly
>seemed like "the" place for practicing mundanes.
As opposed to, say, General Motors?
Gary Farber
: Doug Wickstrom wrote:
:> Basic training lasts eight weeks. It is a 24-hour continuous drill.
:> It's purpose is not entertainment. The Army certainly has the right
:> to restrict reading matter during training and on the job. They also
:> restrict access to telephones, television, movies, and milkshakes.
:> They limit letter reading and writing to specific times. Religious
:> material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
:>
:> So what's your point?
: Video games are OK.
: Religious propaganda is OK.
: Isaac Asimov is not. Ursula K. Le Guin is not. ....
Clearly a case for the First Church of Science Fiction, the Second Church
of Science Fiction (New Wave). . . .
(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
that you're surprised at this.)
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Gary Farber
:> both of
:> my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
: This is a distinction worth savoring.
I don't know what you mean by this.
(I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
--
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>They limit letter reading and writing to specific times. Religious
>material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
Sounds like a prima facie Establishment Clause violation to me.
Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Gary Farber
: Gary Farber wrote:
:> In <362BF5...@erols.com> Stevens <just...@erols.com> wrote:
:> : Ailsa Murphy wrote:
:>
:> :> both of
:> :> my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
:>
:> : This is a distinction worth savoring.
:>
:> I don't know what you mean by this.
: I mean that, to mundanes, this distinction would be hard to
: perceive and that, therefore, it is a joy to see it mentioned
: here, where reference to it raises no questions.
Like "Mom was active in Apa:NESFA and CRAPA, while Dad was a BNF at
Gencon, but Aunt Lizzy won a FAAn Award for 'Best Letterhack'"? Okay.
Seems like a rather common thing to get joy out of to me, but whatever
rings your chimes.
Have you thought of getting active in fanzines, Steve, where you might get
such joy multiple times per day in various articles? ;-) (If you could
stand that.)
I recommend IDEA, and BANANNA WINGS, and TRAP DOOR, and PLOKTA, and
KERLES, to start.
:> (I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
:> possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
:> normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
: Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
?
Doug Wickstrom
<lm...@city-net.com> modulated the bit stream to say:
>Doug Wickstrom wrote:
>> Basic training lasts eight weeks. It is a 24-hour continuous drill.
>> It's purpose is not entertainment. The Army certainly has the right
>> to restrict reading matter during training and on the job. They also
>> restrict access to telephones, television, movies, and milkshakes.
>> They limit letter reading and writing to specific times. Religious
>> material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
>>
>> So what's your point?
>
>Video games are OK.
Really? And Sundays are "free time"? OK. Today's Army seems to have
gone soft. Everyone knows the game of choice is pinball, and then
only _after_ basic training, along about the time you're allowed to
see Coca Cola. :)
The only free time* _I_ ever got was by going to religious services.
The best ones to choose in the Air Force were Reform Jewish, because
they bussed you to the shul half a county away. For however long it
lasted, the sergeants left you alone. Bliss.
Somewhere along the line the Air Force decided I was "Protestant." It
was on my dog tags for years, until I contrived to "lose" them. Where
they got the idea _I'll_ never know, as when the time came to get on
the bus I was right in line with the rest of the Yids and pseudo-Yids.
The temple knew, and didn't care. I guess they figured that a few
hours of peace for whomever they could arrange it was a mitzvah. If
there is a God, may they be truly blessed, because they were right.
I might add that I never completed basic training at the main shed,
having already done it two and a half years earlier, elsewhere, and
was busted free after something like 9 or 10 days. I was told that on
the final weekend Saturday afternoon and most of Sunday would have
been free, except that as an early graduate waiting for a school
assignment, I pulled guard duty most weekends, and was actually there
a week _longer_ than the guys I started with. I got Mondays off,
instead, and really _was_ free for that time, civvies, liquor,
off-base restaurants, and all. Tuesday through Friday were also
details. My favorites were grounds care at the golf course (the
Tex-Mex civilians in charge didn't actually want us to work too hard,
as then the work might actually be finished someday) and taking care
of Gen. Flynn's quarters, which was also something of a lark. How
long does it take four people to cut and rake one lawn, anyway?
Basic training itself, though, was never fun. I didn't miss books. I
didn't have time. Sometime I'll tell the story of the first time
through, in the wilds of Eastern Washington State. I gained weight at
the main shed in Texas. I _lost_ twenty pounds in Washington.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> > Basic training lasts eight weeks. It is a 24-hour continuous drill.
> > It's purpose is not entertainment. The Army certainly has the right
> > to restrict reading matter during training and on the job. They also
> > restrict access to telephones, television, movies, and milkshakes.
> > They limit letter reading and writing to specific times. Religious
> > material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
> >
> > So what's your point?
>
> Video games are OK.
>
>
> Isaac Asimov is not. Ursula K. Le Guin is not. ....
BZZZT!
Sorry, Laurie, but the reason, the only reason, that the Army doesn't
restrict religious reading materials during basic training is not
because they want recruits reading "religious propaganda" [*your*
choice of words speaks volumes, did you notice that?], but because
they'd be facing First Amendment/Freedom of Religion lawsuits, which,
incidentally, they'd surely lose.
The purpose of basic training is not to promote creative thinking and
independence of mind. The purpose of basic training is to make the
recruit over into a good soldier--which you may sneer at all you like,
but the *primary* purpose of the military, next to which all else that
they do constitute "the frills", is to deal with those situations
where the ability to obey orders without pausing to think about those
orders is a vital, life-saving skill. *Of course* the recruits are
being brainwashed; that's the purpose of the exercise, and if they
could get away with banning religious reading materials for those
eight weeks, they would.
My sister Lynda, who is not exactly a mindless robot, got through
basic just fine. Of course, her method of dealing with the restriction
on reading material was to go hit some bookstores a few weeks before
leaving for basic training, and select a Bible based on two criteria:
small size, and readability. Because, you know, considered purely as
literature, much of the Bible ranks considerably *above* the works of
Isaac Asimov, and there's a lot of fascinating reading in there if
you're not viewing the matter through a veil of prejudice.
> I suppose you might not see anything wrong with this picture,
> but I do.
I think you're ignoring major pieces of the puzzle, and I wonder what
the heck you and Leslie thought the Army wanted to send her to basic
training for eight weeks for.
> If nothing else, the restrictions on reading spoke volumes about
> the mindset of the Army. No one is arguing that you shouldn't read
> while you're working, but even the grunts got Sunday mostly off.
> I'd rather see the kids read, if they wanted to, rather than waste
> quarters playing video games.
For much of their army careers, the army wants it soldiers to think
when circumstances permit. Basic training isn't one of those times,
though, because the purpose of basic is to teach the most basic of the
skills necessary when thinking will take too long and get them and
their squads killed.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
> >material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
>
Freedom of religion. Let's not lose track of the *reason* for the
First Amendment--it was not to enable the government to ban religious
practice but quite the reverse: to protect the right to religious
practice by forbidding the government to pick one set of religious
practices over others as "acceptable".
Organized classroom prayer in the public schools is "an establishment
of religion" and a violation of the Establishment Clause, not because
people are engaging in their own religious practices on public
property, but because there's no way for it not to have the appearance
of state endorsement for one particular set of religious practices
over others, and no non-invidious way for school children, especially
young school children, to refuse to participate, whether or not it's
consistent with the religious beliefs of themselves or their families.
Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
logic.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
There is no good reason to wait until they *understand* what you're
reading to them to start the process. If they'll sit at all quietly in
your lap, they can be read to, and start to form positive associations
with books. Waiting until they are three or four, or until they're
"speaking like adults who just don't know much", is waiting quite,
quite late.
And of course, one of the most important things to do is to be *seen*
by your kids, reading for pleasure, and not just when there's nothing
else to do.
Lis Carey
FitchDonS
Stevens R. Miller (<just...@erols.com>), in message
<362819...@erols.com>, posted:
>My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm
>wondering if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser
>defintions, a fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by
>that definition, also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan?
>Do most fen have fans as children? I'd really like to know.
>
>(And, if anyone cares, I do want our child to be fan. I don't
>however, want to push the kid into something against its will.)
I've not heard of Statistics being collected, though maybe
we'll do it here, but one anecdotal bit:
When in his late teens, John Burbee, son of Isobel &
Charles Burbee, enjoyed and enlivened many LArea fan parties,
but he stated that he didn't consider himself a fan. When
someone asked him why, he said: "Oh, I don't _have_ to be a fan;
my parents are fans."
I don't know what the current situation is, but back then (in
the '60s) the majority of fans seemed to be reacting against
parents who were "unfannish" in the sense of being rather dull,
unimaginative, unadventurous, and strongly oriented towards
mundane goals. Offhand, I can't think of many 2nd-generation
fans in a real sense (though a fair number seem to find some
fannish events reasonably enjoyable as social activities).
Don Fitch
--
Ailsa Murphy
"Laurie D. T. Mann" <lm...@city-net.com> wrote:
> I was frankly appalled to hear the Army's rules about reading
> material in basic training - only Army manuals and religious
> materials were permitted. (Lots of other stuff appalled me
> about the Army, too but that was very troublesome.)
>
> I know some fans who survived the Army, but it mostly
> seemed like "the" place for practicing mundanes.
>
Having survived basic training, I can assure you, you don't have _time_ to
read. Poring over your SMART book to learn everything you need to learn in
time for the tests at the end is really all the reading time you have.
Ailsa Murphy
> > Basic training lasts eight weeks. It is a 24-hour continuous drill.
> > It's purpose is not entertainment. The Army certainly has the right
> > to restrict reading matter during training and on the job. They also
> > restrict access to telephones, television, movies, and milkshakes.
> > material _cannot_ be prohibited during "free time," even in training.
> >
>
> Video games are OK.
>
> Religious propaganda is OK.
>
By law, religious "propaganda" is OK, and they can't restrict your access.
But video games are also completely off limits in basic training. Basically
all recreation other than sitting around with your bunkmates talking while
polishing your boots for the next day is off limits during basic training.
Like the man said, it's eight weeks of 24-hour continuous drill, in which
time you only get about six hours of sleep a night because you're so busy.
> Isaac Asimov is not. Ursula K. Le Guin is not. ....
>
> I suppose you might not see anything wrong with this picture,
> but I do.
>
> If nothing else, the restrictions on reading spoke volumes about
> the mindset of the Army. No one is arguing that you shouldn't read
> while you're working, but even the grunts got Sunday mostly off.
> I'd rather see the kids read, if they wanted to, rather than waste
> quarters playing video games.
>
In basic training, you do _not_ get Sunday "mostly off". You get to skip
breakfast and sleep late if you want, and those who want to attend services,
can. And everyone who isn't a hardcore atheist does attend services, cos if
you're not at services, you're working.
But in basic training, you are _not_ playing video games. You aren't
recreating at ALL. My platoon was very very good, so we got taken to the BX
(Base eXchange) and allowed to spend half an hour windowshopping and the
sargeant looked the other way when I smuggled six or seven rolls of (legally
bought) Lifesavers back to the barracks in my cleavage cos we'd all been
candy deprived for the last month. That was it for fun & games, unless you
count singing while marching.
Ailsa Murphy
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
> In <362BF5...@erols.com> Stevens <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> : Ailsa Murphy wrote:
>
> :> both of
> :> my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
>
> : This is a distinction worth savoring.
>
>
> (I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
> possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
> normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
>
I meant it as "avid science fiction readers with book collections rivalling
that of most libraries". And my father took us to a Star Trek convention
when I was twelve. In village Maine there wasn't any fandom other than
trekking to Portland for small non-annual cons to be active in. My Dad got
me into D&D and bought me my first Chivalry & Sorcery book and used to haunt
the gaming store in Bath. And now my mom's bene to ReaderCon and is coming
to Arisia. I wish my dad could have lived to see ReaderCon, he'd've loved
it. B(
But people living in backwoods Maine can be fans too.
So, what cons were there in the seventies? I know none of the ones I go to
existed then...
Ailsa Murphy
just...@erols.com wrote:
> Gary Farber wrote:
>
> > In <362BF5...@erols.com> Stevens <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> > : Ailsa Murphy wrote:
> >
> > :> both of
> > :> my parents were SF/F fans, albeit it wildly different areas.
> >
> > : This is a distinction worth savoring.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by this.
>
> perceive and that, therefore, it is a joy to see it mentioned
> here, where reference to it raises no questions.
>
Heh. Exactly. The one collection contained old Buck Rodgers, Asimov, other
things I can't remember, and the other had Andre Norton, Anne McCaffrey, etc.
My dad also sought out as much organized fandom as there was in Maine in the
seventies, and encouraged us all to take part. They both had their own
ancient copies of LoTR, and they were both good artists who never drew (and
so am I, I just realized).
> > (I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
> > possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
> > normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
>
> Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
>
*grumble* One can be a fan without being a SMOF.
Robert Sneddon
<xnims...@aol.com> writes
>On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:13:17 -0400, "Laurie D. T. Mann"
>>seemed like "the" place for practicing mundanes.
>
If one guy in the UK kept fandom alive in the 40's, it was Ken Slater
with Operation Fantast. At the time he was a serving British Army
officer...
--
To reply by email, send to nojay (at) public (period) antipope (dot) org
Robert Sneddon
mike weber
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:13:17 -0400,
>> >> despite her recent military experience.
>> >Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
>> >time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
>> >are servicepeople.
>> Thank you.
>
>material in basic training - only Army manuals and religious
>materials were permitted. (Lots of other stuff appalled me
>about the Army, too but that was very troublesome.)
>
a questfantasy short novel and it circulated samizdat style as i
finsihed the pages...
Wish i could find the manuscript.
--
"History doesn't always repeat itself... sometimes it just
screams 'Why don't you listen when I'm talkingto you?' and
lets fly with a club." JWC,Jr.
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
Brenda Daverin
> The only free time* _I_ ever got was by going to religious services.
> The best ones to choose in the Air Force were Reform Jewish, because
> they bussed you to the shul half a county away. For however long it
> lasted, the sergeants left you alone. Bliss.
Inquiry: what are pagans supposed to do? Find the local Unitarian
facility? And as for religious reading material, would a book of
appropriate mythology count? Just curious.
--
Brenda Daverin
bdav...@best.com
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Kevin J. Maroney
>> Sounds like a prima facie Establishment Clause violation to me.
>
>Freedom of religion. Let's not lose track of the *reason* for the
>First Amendment--it was not to enable the government to ban religious
>practice but quite the reverse: to protect the right to religious
>practice by forbidding the government to pick one set of religious
>practices over others as "acceptable".
When the US Government acts in a way to privelege "religious" works
over "non-religious" works--for instance, by forbidding those enrolled
in a government training program from reading non-religious works but
not forbidding them from reading religious works--it is, by that very
fact, establishing a preference for religion. They are setting
themselves up as the arbiters of what "is" and "isn't" religious, at
the very least.
If a captive in basic training were to try to read _The Metamorphoses_
on his free time, it would almost certainly be prohibited. But of
course Ovid was writing religion as much as St. Mark or the
Deuteronomist were. *That's* why it's an Establishment Clause problem.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
Jason Stokes
<kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>When the US Government acts in a way to privelege "religious" works
>over "non-religious" works--for instance, by forbidding those enrolled
>in a government training program from reading non-religious works but
>not forbidding them from reading religious works--it is, by that very
>fact, establishing a preference for religion. They are setting
>themselves up as the arbiters of what "is" and "isn't" religious, at
>the very least.
The American Atheists point this out till they're blue in the face, but
nobody ever seems to listen to them. There seems to be a tacit
consensus that while discrimination between religions is out, overt
discrimination between "religion in general" and non-belief is just
fine. Witness the wave of "special rights" legislation such as the
religious liberty protection act designed to privilege religious
belief, any officially recognised religious belief, over non-belief.
For freedom of religious belief to be meaningful it must entail freedom
not to believe at all; but I don't think current thinking in the US
elite is based on the desire to make freedom of religious belief
meaningful, rather to destroy it as a bad idea from the get-go.
--
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
David G. Bell
emsh...@aol.com "mike weber" writes:
> "Laurie D. T. Mann" <lm...@city-net.com> is alleged to have said, on
> Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:13:17 -0400,
> :
> >Doug Wickstrom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:43:19 -0400, Stevens <just...@erols.com>
> >> >Laurie D. T. Mann wrote:
> >> >> Our daughter will be 18 next week. She's categorically a fan,
> >> >> despite her recent military experience.
> >> >Laurie, why do you put it that way? I also spent some
> >> >time in the military and can tell you that lots of fans
> >> >are servicepeople.
> >> Thank you.
> >
> >I was frankly appalled to hear the Army's rules about reading
> >material in basic training - only Army manuals and religious
> >materials were permitted. (Lots of other stuff appalled me
> >about the Army, too but that was very troublesome.)
> >
> We took care of that in my boot camp company ((Navy, 1967)) -- i wrote
> a questfantasy short novel and it circulated samizdat style as i
> finsihed the pages...
>
> Wish i could find the manuscript.
That story, and mention of Ken Slater's military service, makes me
wonder if conscription alters attitudes. Does an all-volunteer army
make some assumptions about recruits which are sub-optimal in other
circumstances? Have things changed? 30 years is plenty of time for
changes--the Royal Navy now has female crew on warships, for instance.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Alex McLintock
>(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
>down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
>that you're surprised at this.)
And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
Oops. Off topic again.
Alex McLintock
The From Address lies. Sorry. Too much junk mail.
To get my email addess remove "removethisbit."
Kimiye
>My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
>if our child will be a fan. I am, by the looser defintions, a
>fan. My wife enjoys science fiction and is, by that definition,
>also a fan. Will our child probably be a fan? Do most fen have
>fans as children? I'd really like to know.
>
>(And, if anyone cares, I do want our child to be fan. I don't
>however, want to push the kid into something against its will.)
I've dragged my 10-year-old son to several Worldcons and a couple of
local cons each year since he was 5 months old. Last week he and I
attended Necronomicon in Tampa and had a grand old time. Although he
isn't much into reading s-f (has to read so much for school that it
doesn't seem like pleasure yet), he insists on cruising the dealers room,
checking out the art show, won't miss the masquerade, and will party
harder than I will (I had to drag him away from the Jumpgate Jax
blackjack table after midnight, where he won or was donated enough
funny money to claim a Darth Vader talking bank). This year I introduced
him to the trivia contest, and I think he may be willing to join a team with me
next year (he's pretty good at TV and film). We are looking into LARP
for tweenagers for next year. Maybe I'll volunteer to run it. There does
tend to be a dearth of kids in the 8 to 14-year-old range at our local Florida
cons.
The only problem he has with con-going is my tendency to stand
around and talk to people about "boring stuff". I have yet to find a
better way to escape a conversation that's started to bore me, too,
than to have him itching to be elsewhere, so it goes both ways.
I think the important point here is how much time and attention my son gets
when we go to a convention, not just from me, but from all the fans who've
known him since he was tiny. I'm sure that's why he's always eager to
go with me.
Benjamin loves watching The X-Files and other s-f media with me,
and one day maybe he'll start in on the library I've been amassing
since I was 12. I'm often impressed by his critical opinion of movies
and TV-- an understanding of plot, intent and motivation beyond what
I expected at his age. I don't know if I'd call him an s-f fan at this point,
but it's more from his lack of tendency toward obsession than any lack
of interest.
My dad loved science fiction-- he didn't read it much, but never missed
the original Star Trek. He would occasionally pull me aside to show me
some wonderful technological advance, exclaiming how all this stuff
used to be science fiction and now it's real, and the wonder in his voice
was joyful to hear. He lived from 1912 to 1990, and was fascinated his
whole life with new inventions. I hope my son and I both inherit that sense
of awe and appreciation for the advances of our world.
Good luck on having your child. I highly recommend the venture.
Kimiye
ki...@gate.net
http://www.gate.net/~kimi (Northern Exposure episode guide,
FAQ and "Where are they now?")
P Nielsen Hayden
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like a prima facie Establishment Clause violation to me.
>>
>>Freedom of religion. Let's not lose track of the *reason* for the
>>First Amendment--it was not to enable the government to ban religious
>>practice but quite the reverse: to protect the right to religious
>>practice by forbidding the government to pick one set of religious
>>practices over others as "acceptable".
>
>When the US Government acts in a way to privelege "religious" works
>over "non-religious" works--for instance, by forbidding those enrolled
>in a government training program from reading non-religious works but
>not forbidding them from reading religious works--it is, by that very
>fact, establishing a preference for religion. They are setting
>themselves up as the arbiters of what "is" and "isn't" religious, at
>the very least.
>
>If a captive in basic training were to try to read _The Metamorphoses_
>on his free time, it would almost certainly be prohibited. But of
>course Ovid was writing religion as much as St. Mark or the
>Deuteronomist were. *That's* why it's an Establishment Clause problem.
What Kevin said. This has always been a problem with the American attitude
about "freedom of religion" -- we tend to assume that of course we can
distinguish what is and isn't a religion without trampling someone's rights.
And of course we can't. But who cares, the only people affected are
eccentrics and minorities.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Rob Hansen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Because, you know, considered purely as
>literature, much of the Bible ranks considerably *above* the works of
>Isaac Asimov, and there's a lot of fascinating reading in there if
>you're not viewing the matter through a veil of prejudice.
Really? Are you sure your pro-religious "prejudice" isn't colouring
your opinion in this regard? Oddly enough, the book I've owned longest
is my copy of the Bible (which resides on a shelf downstairs alongside
other works of fantasy) that I was given in school - we have
compulsory religious "education" in schools over here - and in the
course of various lessons I got to read quite a bit of it. I have to
say that, looked at purely as something to read, I found it tedious
beyond belief. This may be partly because of the verse structure, but
it's also down to the stories themselves which - when compared to
other stuff I was reading at the time - seemed pretty unimaginative. I
gather the new books they're putting out containing individual books
of the Bible do away with the numbered verse while retaining the King
James language and are thus, allegedly, more reader-friendly. We shall
see. If nothing else, Will Self's introduction to Revelations should
be intersting.
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Jim Trash
writes
>My wife and I are trying to have a child. Lately, I'm wondering
>if our child will be a fan
A worrying thought for all parents but rest assured that if you dose the
child up nightly with Fosfax, fannish feuds and numbered fandom stories
then the worst may be avoided.
It could also help avoid those sleepless nights too...
http://www.scream.demon.co.uk Jim Trash
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
> >(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
> >down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
> >that you're surprised at this.)
>
> And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
Only if you want them to be assets to each other rather than
additional dangers to each other, if and when they wind up in a combat
situation or anything like it. Which is, you know, the reason we
*have* a military.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <362c0ad...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, xnims...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > The only free time* _I_ ever got was by going to religious services.
> > The best ones to choose in the Air Force were Reform Jewish, because
> > they bussed you to the shul half a county away. For however long it
> > lasted, the sergeants left you alone. Bliss.
>
> Inquiry: what are pagans supposed to do? Find the local Unitarian
> facility? And as for religious reading material, would a book of
> appropriate mythology count? Just curious.
Yes, the relevant religious reading materials from pagan faiths
"count". There are even Wiccan chaplains in the US military, and a
manual instructing non-Wiccan chaplains on what they need to know when
a Wiccan wants spiritual support and there's no Wiccan chaplain
available--just as is the case for other religions.
Lis Carey
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <362c0ad...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, xnims...@aol.com
> wrote:
>
>> The only free time* _I_ ever got was by going to religious services.
>> The best ones to choose in the Air Force were Reform Jewish, because
>> they bussed you to the shul half a county away. For however long it
>> lasted, the sergeants left you alone. Bliss.
>
>Inquiry: what are pagans supposed to do? Find the local Unitarian
>facility? And as for religious reading material, would a book of
>appropriate mythology count? Just curious.
>
This is where we sneak Le Guin in: her version of the Tao te ching
is marvelous.
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Frodo has recently overthrown Freud. He was able to do this
thanks to the help of Apollo, and because Freud had become
extremely mangy." --Raphael Carter
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <362C07...@erols.com>,
> just...@erols.com wrote:
>> Gary Farber wrote:
>>
>> > In <362BF5...@erols.com> Stevens <just...@erols.com> wrote:
>> > (I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
>> > possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
>> > normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
>>
>> Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
>>
>*grumble* One can be a fan without being a SMOF.
>
This may just be a semantic distinction, but most people involved
in fandom distinguish between readers (or, these days, listeners
or watchers) who enjoy science fiction along with other reading,
maybe even prefer it to other reading, and fans--people who are
in some ways involved in fandom.
You can certainly be a fan without being a SMOF. You can also
be a fan without attending many (or any) conventions: you can
write to or for fanzines, publish and mail out one of your own,
and participate in places like rec.arts.sf.*, all without ever seeing
other fans in person. If Mae Strelkov has ever been to a con, it
was a long time ago--there are no cons, and no fans other than
Mae, in her corner of Argentina. But she's definitely a fan, and
a correspondent well worth having on one's mailing list.
Dan Goodman
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Brenda Daverin wrote:
>>
>> In article <362c0ad...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, xnims...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > The only free time* _I_ ever got was by going to religious services.
>> > The best ones to choose in the Air Force were Reform Jewish, because
>> > they bussed you to the shul half a county away. For however long it
>> > lasted, the sergeants left you alone. Bliss.
>>
>> Inquiry: what are pagans supposed to do? Find the local Unitarian
>> facility? And as for religious reading material, would a book of
>> appropriate mythology count? Just curious.
>
>"count". There are even Wiccan chaplains in the US military, and a
>manual instructing non-Wiccan chaplains on what they need to know when
>a Wiccan wants spiritual support and there's no Wiccan chaplain
>available--just as is the case for other religions.
I recall reading in Green Egg (not an absolutely reliable source) that
there was a Satanist in Army intelligence.
He was denounced in Green Egg's letter column as a Fundamentalist.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Avram Grumer
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
> reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
> time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
> logic.
It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
granting an exception for the reading of religious material, grants a
priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
But there's a problem with working it the other way: Forbidding _all_
reading material could be seen as a way of discriminating against people
whose religon requires reference to written texts frequently enough to be
an issue at some point during the basic training period. That could also
be a First Amendment violation.
They could forbid all reading material and, rather than granting a blanket
exception for religious material, grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis
for members of religions that require the use of written materials, but
that could be seen as establishing religion....
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
If music be the food of love, then some of it be the Twinkies of
dysfunctional relationships.
Stevens
> In article <70i34o$ggs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ailsa....@tfn.com (Ailsa Murphy) wrote:
> >> Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
> >*grumble* One can be a fan without being a SMOF.
> This may just be a semantic distinction, but most people involved
> in fandom distinguish between readers (or, these days, listeners
> or watchers) who enjoy science fiction along with other reading,
> maybe even prefer it to other reading, and fans--people who are
> in some ways involved in fandom.
The problem is that this is _not_ a semantic distinction. It is
a distinction only in a one-sided context. That is, "fans" who
merely read have no idea that "fans" who are in fandom think that
"fan" applies to the latter but not the former. And, once the
former learns the latter's definition, they have no reason ever
to accept it. It's as confusing as it would be if, say, those
who vote in every American election called themselves "Americans,"
and expected this to distinguish them from citizens of America who
did not vote.
My "hmmm"s were generated not by the choice of authority as to the
meaning of "fan," but by the casual assessment of fandom's meaning
as "the more normal." Hmmm...
Anyway, I have been a science fiction fan for 30 years. I became,
in any meaningful way, a member of fandom five years ago. If the
dues of that membership require that I now give-up my claim of being
a fan for the previous quarter century, then I hereby resign.
--
Stevens R. Miller - Director, Technology & Online Forensics
DSFX International, Falls Church, VA - (703) 207-0600
Stevens
> Sorry, Laurie, but the reason, the only reason, that the Army doesn't
> restrict religious reading materials during basic training is not
> because they want recruits reading "religious propaganda" [*your*
> choice of words speaks volumes, did you notice that?], but because
> they'd be facing First Amendment/Freedom of Religion lawsuits, which,
> incidentally, they'd surely lose.
> [...]
> For much of their army careers, the army wants it soldiers to think
> when circumstances permit. Basic training isn't one of those times,
> though, because the purpose of basic is to teach the most basic of the
> skills necessary when thinking will take too long and get them and
> their squads killed.
And now for something completely different: Elisabeth, you are
absolutely correct.
Stevens
> This has always been a problem with the American attitude
> about "freedom of religion" -- we tend to assume that of course we can
> distinguish what is and isn't a religion without trampling someone's rights.
I don't think the court opinions devoted to the question of "What is
a religion?" reflect this assumption. Some do, but most admit at the
outset the question is inherently difficult. No surprise; protecting
freedom in a system of ordered liberty is like that.
How would you define "religion"?
Stevens
>
> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
> >(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
> >down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
> >that you're surprised at this.)
>
> And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
Only if sex in the Oval Office between the most powerful person
in the world and an unpaid intern half his age is to be acceptible
in a civilised society.
(Having trouble making the connection? Think "consent.")
Stevens
To a long-time (fifteen years, now) Usenetter like me, it's always
heart-warming to see a thread take off like this. But, as silly
as it may seem, I should say now that when I asked about "fan," I
wanted to know if our child would likely be a person who enjoyed
reading science fiction. Not that other meaning.
Alter S. Reiss
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:27:54 -0400, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Because, you know, considered purely as
> >literature, much of the Bible ranks considerably *above* the works of
> >Isaac Asimov, and there's a lot of fascinating reading in there if
> >you're not viewing the matter through a veil of prejudice.
>
> Really? Are you sure your pro-religious "prejudice" isn't colouring
> your opinion in this regard? [. . .]
I have known militant atheists who have memorized large chunks of
the Bible because of sheer infatuation with the language, and I have known
excedingly religious people who say things like "That's Isaiah for you;
"smite this", and "evil that" for like a thousand chapters."
On that basis I would consider the possibility that judgements as
to the literary quality of the bible do not nessesarily rest on
theological grounds. I suppose that this could be different for those
reading the work in translation, but I can't imagine why.
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
Yankees 2 Padres 0
David G. Bell
alex.mc...@removethisbit.earthling.net "Alex McLintock" writes:
> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> >(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
> >down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
> >that you're surprised at this.)
>
>
> And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
Civilised societies tend to frown on their members killing people.
Ultimately, the controllable ability to kill is a necessary element of
military service. I'm not sure whether I agree with Gary's description,
but the process of changing the civilian to the soldier is certainly a
pretty major psychological adjustment of the person.
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <362C2338...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
>> reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
>> time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
>> logic.
>
>It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
>granting an exception for the reading of religious material, grants a
>priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
I agree. It isn't actually often that I so completely disagree with Lis
Carey, but in this case I'm baffled by why she doesn't see something that
appears entirely obvious to me.
The system as it is set up grants total privilege to those whose deep
spiritual beliefs happen to match the preconceived template of "religion."
I don't see the Army offering to allow declared secular humanists to read
Mark Twain.
I'm open to the idea that Basic Training is supposed to be rigorous.
However, the idea that the conventionally "religious" get an indulgence, but
people like most of my friends don't, seems so obviously unfair as to be
hardly worth arguing the point. I really don't understand Lis's difficulty
grasping this.
P Nielsen Hayden
>P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
>> This has always been a problem with the American attitude
>> about "freedom of religion" -- we tend to assume that of course we can
>> distinguish what is and isn't a religion without trampling someone's rights.
>
>I don't think the court opinions devoted to the question of "What is
>a religion?" reflect this assumption. Some do, but most admit at the
>outset the question is inherently difficult. No surprise; protecting
>freedom in a system of ordered liberty is like that.
>
>How would you define "religion"?
Very conservatively. I'm entirely opposed to forbidding anyone any form of
worship that doesn't involve damaging higher animals or frightening the
horses. But I'm also opposed to the enormous amount of privilege (for
instance, tax exemptions) that big corporations like the the Roman
Catholics, or the Scientologists, have managed to wangle under the rubric of
"religious freedom."
P Nielsen Hayden
>Alex McLintock wrote:
>>
>> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
>> >down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
>> >that you're surprised at this.)
>>
>> And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
>
>Only if sex in the Oval Office between the most powerful person
>in the world and an unpaid intern half his age is to be acceptible
>in a civilised society.
>
>(Having trouble making the connection? Think "consent.")
I do think about "consent." From here it looks like it was freely given in
both directions.
I'm a lot more frightened of people like you, who are willing to rush to
severe moral judgement over weird and very human and basically harmless
behavior like this, than I am of the idea that some middle-aged executive
got a blow job.
I've been a no-means-no feminist all my adult life. But for that to be
meaningful, yes has to also mean yes. The notion that "consent" is
impossible between people of different social standing is utterly corrosive
to the idea that free people can make rational decisions.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
>>down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
>>that you're surprised at this.)
>
>
>And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
Better ideas solicited. Meanwhile, I'm glad we have a military, impatient
though I am with the pompous attitudinizing of those who make a big deal of
affecting its values.
John Boston
says...
>
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like a prima facie Establishment Clause violation to me.
>>
>>Freedom of religion. Let's not lose track of the *reason* for the
>>First Amendment--it was not to enable the government to ban religious
>>practice but quite the reverse: to protect the right to religious
>>practice by forbidding the government to pick one set of religious
>>practices over others as "acceptable".
>
>When the US Government acts in a way to privelege "religious" works
>over "non-religious" works--for instance, by forbidding those enrolled
>in a government training program from reading non-religious works but
>not forbidding them from reading religious works--it is, by that very
>fact, establishing a preference for religion.
I don't think so. You would be correct if the only relevant
constitutional provisions were the Establishment Clause and the right to free
speech, which encompasses the right to hear (i.e., and read) as well as the
right to speak. However, the First Amendment also contains a separate clause
guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. If the right to read religious
works is viewed as stemming from the Free Exercise Clause and not just the Free
Speech Clause--which seems right--then it is the text of the Constitution
itself that privileges religious works. This principle might, of course, be
limited to works like the Bible, the Qu'ran, and their counterparts, since
reading these can plausibly be claimed to be a part of the practice of
religion, unlike reading, say, ANGELS by Billy Graham, or Rapture novels. I
hasten to add that I'm doing this freehand and have no idea what if anything
the courts have said about this question.
>They are setting
>themselves up as the arbiters of what "is" and "isn't" religious, at
>the very least.
Well, yes, but so what? As long as there are constitutional provisions
concerning religion that the government has to obey, then the relevant part of
government has to determine what is and is not religious, and in the American
political system, if somebody is aggrieved by the decision they take their beef
to the judiciary, another branch of government. That's not to say it's an easy
problem, but it is an inescapable one.
>
>If a captive in basic training were to try to read _The Metamorphoses_
>on his free time, it would almost certainly be prohibited. But of
>course Ovid was writing religion as much as St. Mark or the
>Deuteronomist were. *That's* why it's an Establishment Clause problem.
Do you actually know that if someone asserted that THE METAMORPHOSES
was a religious work, the military would reject the claim? I have no idea
whether controversies like that have actually arisen in the military or if so
how they were resolved. However, if you were right, I would view the result as
a Free Exercise problem and not an Establishment Clause problem. Generally,
when people are held involuntarily in a regimented environment controlled by
government, the prohibition of the Establishment Clause is limited by the
demands of the Free Exercise Clause because people are not practically capable
of engaging in religious exercise without some degree of sponsorship and
cooperation by government. That is why it does not violate the Establishment
Clause for the military, prisons, or mental hospitals to employ chaplains.
John Boston
John Boston
>>over "non-religious" works--for instance, by forbidding those enrolled
>>in a government training program from reading non-religious works but
>>not forbidding them from reading religious works--it is, by that very
>>themselves up as the arbiters of what "is" and "isn't" religious, at
>>the very least.
>>
>>on his free time, it would almost certainly be prohibited. But of
>>course Ovid was writing religion as much as St. Mark or the
>>Deuteronomist were. *That's* why it's an Establishment Clause problem.
>
>about "freedom of religion" -- we tend to assume that of course we can
>distinguish what is and isn't a religion without trampling someone's rights.
>eccentrics and minorities.
Could you give an example of what you're talking about? I.e., a case
where someone's rights have been trampled because of the failure to distinguish
what is and isn't a religion? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
John Boston
Patrick S Lasswell
>The system as it is set up grants total privilege to those whose deep
>spiritual beliefs happen to match the preconceived template of "religion."
>Mark Twain.
Actually the term here is "right", not privilege. The Navy makes it a
requirement to attend a workshop on rights and responsibilities everytime
you change commands. In this workshop those few, precious, rights that you
have are explained to you. The Army is not so strong on this. My friends
who have been on Bread and Water have explained to me the setting: table,
chair, loaf of bread, jug of water, and a bible. Eat all the bread, drink
all the water, and read all the bible you want. No sleeping during the day,
no leaving the chair except to go to the head. But they can't take the
Bible away from you, it is a right. (B&W is a Navy and Marine Corps
specific punishment that may be gone in the next couple of years, and
properly used it is almost a compliment: you screwed up big, but we will
discipline, not discard, you.) I am sure that if you asked for the Torah,
Koran, or the Book of Mormon you would get it. It is a right. You can also
communicate with your Congressman, and this right should be absolutely clear
in its purpose.
>
>I'm open to the idea that Basic Training is supposed to be rigorous.
>However, the idea that the conventionally "religious" get an indulgence,
but
>people like most of my friends don't, seems so obviously unfair as to be
>hardly worth arguing the point. I really don't understand Lis's difficulty
>grasping this.
Most of the communications has been about Army, with the occasional Air
Force story thrown in for good measure. Navy boot camp was less about
reacting instantly to obvious threats than attention to detail and enforced
socialization. Attention to detail is necessary to survival in an
artificial environment that can fail catastrophically for lack of
maintenance. Enforced socialization to knock the rough edges off of people
who will be living together with strangers for long periods in situations of
moderate to extreme danger. Going off and reading a book by your lonesome
is not encouraged, and frankly there isn't time. You learn to make do with
who and what you have in extreme situations.
Forever afterwards you learn to take a book with you when you are going
around with a lot of other people, because there is always time to read. In
the Navy you can tell the bright ones from the dull ones by the bulge in
their jacket pocket in a mass formation. Boot camp may not let you read,
but it prepares you for boredom!
Patrick S Lasswell
Gary Farber
[. . .]
:> (I was wondering if possibly Ailsa wasn't using "fans" in the widest
:> possible sense, as in "liked science fiction," rather than in the more
:> normal sense within fandom, as in "active in fandom.")
: I meant it as "avid science fiction readers with book collections rivalling
: that of most libraries".
Like I said. :-)
[. . .]
: But people living in backwoods Maine can be fans too.
Of course: fandom until recently consisted largely of isolated people
writing to and for fanzines, after all.
: So, what cons were there in the seventies? I know none of the ones I
: go to existed then...
In the US, in the late Sixties: Worldcon (mostly), Westercon, Lunacon,
Boskone, Philcon, Balticon, Midwestcon, Octocon (the real one, in Ohio),
Disclave, DeepSouthCon, and a smattering of others. By the Seventies, we
had the Con Explosion, particularly by the late Seventies, and more
started than I could begin to list, including Armadillocon, Orycon,
Norwescon, Loscon, Icon (Iowa City), Rivercon, Windycon, World Fantasy
Con, and, oh, just dozens, if not a hundred, more.
This is also, of course, when we started having loads of really lousy
cons, because suddenly people who didn't know what they were doing started
putting on cons, and people started putting on cons using *them* as
examples, and others used *them* as examples. . . .
It was also when cons ceased being a special experience for the most part,
since the switch from there only being a handful you could attend per year
to multiple cons on most weekends is pretty dramatic.
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Gary Farber
: *grumble* One can be a fan without being a SMOF.
Of course. I don't follow what you mean by this, however. How did smofs
enter the conversation?
Gary Farber
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
:>(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
:>down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
:>that you're surprised at this.)
: And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
: Oops. Off topic again.
Nah, you weren't talking about Star Trek, or something appropriate
elsewhere in the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy.
As for your comment, how would you suggest training for the military
should best be organized?
Gary Farber
: Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
:> In article <70i34o$ggs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ailsa....@tfn.com (Ailsa Murphy) wrote:
:> > just...@erols.com wrote:
:> >> Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
[. . .]
: The problem is that this is _not_ a semantic distinction. It is
: a distinction only in a one-sided context.
Yup. I don't see how that's a "problem," though.
: That is, "fans" who
: merely read have no idea that "fans" who are in fandom think that
: "fan" applies to the latter but not the former.
I wouldn't agree that fans "think that 'fan' applies to the former but not
the latter. I'd say, again, that there are two usages: a very loose and
broad one, and the one more normally used in fandom. Neither is "right,"
nor "wrong," but each is most appropriate in a different context.
: And, once the
: former learns the latter's definition, they have no reason ever
: to accept it.
Well, readers learning about fandom are under no compulsion to use fannish
usage and lingo, no. They may have some rather confused conversations
with fans, though. But if they're not talking with fans, than no
confusion should result, and fans-active-in-fandom won't care, either.
"Fans-active-in-fandom" is a rather clumsy usage, though, and we find it
easier to rhetorically distinguish between "fans" and "readers" or "fans"
and "viewers," than between "fans-active-in-fandom" and
"fans-who-aren't-active-in-fandom-who-don't-have-contact-with-other-fans-and-don't-do-anything-active-about-their-interest-in-sf-but-are-enthusiasts-of-sf."
: It's as confusing as it would be if, say, those
: who vote in every American election called themselves "Americans,"
: and expected this to distinguish them from citizens of America who
: did not vote.
I would think that people who see that as a major confusion, to the point
of being a "problem," would have an even larger problem with people who
say they're from "New York," or "Washington." Context usually makes clear
what is meant, actually.
: My "hmmm"s were generated not by the choice of authority as to the
: meaning of "fan," but by the casual assessment of fandom's meaning
: as "the more normal." Hmmm...
That's not at all what I said, of course, as you'll see if you reread my
sentence. I referred to "the more normal sense within fandom," which
describes, quite accurately, the usage, um, within fandom. "The more
normal sense outside fandom" is the "I am an enthusiast of sf" usage.
: Anyway, I have been a science fiction fan for 30 years. I became,
: in any meaningful way, a member of fandom five years ago. If the
: dues of that membership require that I now give-up my claim of being
: a fan for the previous quarter century, then I hereby resign.
You were a "fan" in the sense of being a fan of the literature, in the
broad and loose sense, and not in the fannish, tighter, sense, of being
active in fandom. To take umbrage at these usages is to perceive a sense
of exclusion that simply doesn't exist. There is no slight here, Stevens,
just two different usages.
Gary Farber
: Elisabeth Carey wrote:
[. . .]
:> For much of their army careers, the army wants it soldiers to think
:> when circumstances permit. Basic training isn't one of those times,
:> though, because the purpose of basic is to teach the most basic of the
:> skills necessary when thinking will take too long and get them and
:> their squads killed.
: And now for something completely different: Elisabeth, you are
: absolutely correct.
How is that different from "the military mindset"?
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: I've been a no-means-no feminist all my adult life. But for that to be
: meaningful, yes has to also mean yes. The notion that "consent" is
: impossible between people of different social standing is utterly corrosive
: to the idea that free people can make rational decisions.
And if one thing is utterly clear from both the Starr Report, and
everything Monica Lewinsky is ever having been quoted as saying, it's that
she couldn't possibly have been more "consenting" to the idea of engaging
in sexual acts with Clinton. She more than threw herself at him, over a
period of years. And last I looked, even without engaging in debate as to
how low the "age of consent" should be, even our extremely conservative
society (as judged by most practice throughout history and throughout the
world) judges that age to be entered into by age 18 at the latest.
I'm a lot more uncomfortable about people passing judgement on the private
relationships and sex lives of others than I am about the private
relationships and sex lives of others.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: To a long-time (fifteen years, now) Usenetter like me, it's always
: heart-warming to see a thread take off like this. But, as silly
: as it may seem, I should say now that when I asked about "fan," I
: wanted to know if our child would likely be a person who enjoyed
: reading science fiction. Not that other meaning.
Huh. I've been meandering about, as I've often done, delaying getting
around to responding to that query. And I would have given you an
entirely different response if not for this correction.
Once again, I'm inclined to suggest writing off for some of the main
fanzines, which you may heartily enjoy. . . .
Ailsa Murphy
alex.mc...@removethisbit.earthling.net (Alex McLintock) wrote:
> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
> >(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
> >down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
> >that you're surprised at this.)
>
> And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
>
> Oops. Off topic again.
>
initiation rituals cross-culturally. One of them was military basic training,
which follows the classic model quite neatly.
-Ailsa
--
"[It's] time for the human ailsa....@tfn.com
race to enter the solar system." - Dan Quayle
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ailsa Murphy
just...@erols.com wrote:
> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > In article <70i34o$ggs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ailsa....@tfn.com (Ailsa
Murphy) wrote:
> > > just...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > >> Hmmm.... "The more normal sense within fandom..." hmmm...
>
>
> > in fandom distinguish between readers (or, these days, listeners
> > or watchers) who enjoy science fiction along with other reading,
> > maybe even prefer it to other reading, and fans--people who are
> > in some ways involved in fandom.
>
> merely read have no idea that "fans" who are in fandom think that
> former learns the latter's definition, they have no reason ever
> who vote in every American election called themselves "Americans,"
> and expected this to distinguish them from citizens of America who
> did not vote.
>
Agreed. My father referred to himself at least once as a Science Fiction
fan. I don't see why I should say he wasn't one just because in all his
looking he never found an APA or whatever. My dad _was_ a reader, like I
said, his book collection rivals some town libraries and the breadth of it
was amazing. My mom just gave me an old Reform prayerbook she found among
his things, and he was a lifelong Episcopalian.
He was also a fan. Any definition that says he wasn't is flawed, and I don't
accept it. If you choose to go on telling me he wasn't one, you're wasting
your time.
> My "hmmm"s were generated not by the choice of authority as to the
> meaning of "fan," but by the casual assessment of fandom's meaning
> as "the more normal." Hmmm...
>
> Anyway, I have been a science fiction fan for 30 years. I became,
> in any meaningful way, a member of fandom five years ago. If the
> dues of that membership require that I now give-up my claim of being
> a fan for the previous quarter century, then I hereby resign.
>
Quite. Nicely stated, too. And, I think I had more involvement with actual
Science Fiction before I joined fandom.
Ailsa Murphy
r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 01:27:54 -0400, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Because, you know, considered purely as
> >literature, much of the Bible ranks considerably *above* the works of
> >Isaac Asimov, and there's a lot of fascinating reading in there if
> >you're not viewing the matter through a veil of prejudice.
>
> Really? Are you sure your pro-religious "prejudice" isn't colouring
> is my copy of the Bible (which resides on a shelf downstairs alongside
> other works of fantasy) that I was given in school - we have
> compulsory religious "education" in schools over here - and in the
> course of various lessons I got to read quite a bit of it. I have to
> say that, looked at purely as something to read, I found it tedious
> beyond belief. This may be partly because of the verse structure, but
> it's also down to the stories themselves which - when compared to
> other stuff I was reading at the time - seemed pretty unimaginative. I
> gather the new books they're putting out containing individual books
> of the Bible do away with the numbered verse while retaining the King
> James language and are thus, allegedly, more reader-friendly. We shall
> see. If nothing else, Will Self's introduction to Revelations should
> be intersting.
>
I never likes the King James much. In fact, I never enjoyed reading the
Bible at all until I started working on my conversion. The Hebrew has
literary and poetic charms that I am only beginning to appreciate, and the
King James and most Christian translations veer so far from that, that for me
they aren't worth reading except at times as a comparison text.
We could always mutate the thread into best Bible translations... *grin* My
preference is the Steinsalitz (although I could be getting the name wrong
here), but unfortunately, all they have done so far is the Pentateuch.
Supposedly they are going to get to the reast, and I am awaiting it with
baited breath.
Arthur Hlavaty
: If nothing else, Will Self's introduction to Revelations should
: be intersting.
"There must have been some _great_ shit growing on the Isle of Patmos...."
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
mike weber
1998 23:44:31 -0400,
:
>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>> Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
>
>That is not the point of basic training.
>
As a matter of fact, setting aside the nagative connotations and
implications of "break down", Gary's original full post -is- pretty
much correct.
"The young recruit's despondent -- 'e thinks of sooicide;
'E's lost 'is gutter-devil, 'e 'asn't got 'is pride..."
((approximately)).
--
"History doesn't always repeat itself... sometimes it just
screams 'Why don't you listen when I'm talkingto you?' and
lets fly with a club." JWC,Jr.
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
mike weber
1998 23:01:04 -0400,
:
>Elisabeth Carey wrote:
>> For much of their army careers, the army wants it soldiers to think
>> when circumstances permit. Basic training isn't one of those times,
>> though, because the purpose of basic is to teach the most basic of the
>> skills necessary when thinking will take too long and get them and
>> their squads killed.
>
>And now for something completely different: Elisabeth, you are
>absolutely correct.
>
And, in fact, saying pretty much what Gary said, but, apparently, in
terms you find less semantically offensive.
mike weber
:
>P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
>> This has always been a problem with the American attitude
>> about "freedom of religion" -- we tend to assume that of course we can
>> distinguish what is and isn't a religion without trampling someone's rights.
>
>a religion?" reflect this assumption. Some do, but most admit at the
>outset the question is inherently difficult. No surprise; protecting
>freedom in a system of ordered liberty is like that.
>
>How would you define "religion"?
I have a feeling Patrick wasn't necessarily referring to the courts
when he said "we" have this problem...
mike weber
Oct 1998 04:25:31 GMT,
:
>>What Kevin said. This has always been a problem with the American attitude
>>about "freedom of religion" -- we tend to assume that of course we can
>>distinguish what is and isn't a religion without trampling someone's rights.
>>And of course we can't. But who cares, the only people affected are
>>eccentrics and minorities.
>
>
> Could you give an example of what you're talking about? I.e., a case
>where someone's rights have been trampled because of the failure to distinguish
>what is and isn't a religion? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
>
Waco, maybe?
Ailsa Murphy
just...@erols.com wrote:
> To a long-time (fifteen years, now) Usenetter like me, it's always
> heart-warming to see a thread take off like this. But, as silly
> as it may seem, I should say now that when I asked about "fan," I
> wanted to know if our child would likely be a person who enjoyed
> reading science fiction. Not that other meaning.
>
*grin* Well, like I said, three out of four kids in my family read
SF/Fantasy, and the fourth is also an avid reader, but prefers philosophy and
such. I've noticed similar number elsewhere. Reader parents seem to produce
reader kids.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <362C2338...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
> > reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
> > time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
> > logic.
>
> It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
> granting an exception for the reading of religious material, grants a
> priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
Well, not really, because it does *not* grant the exception to you *only*
if you read works of *your* religion.
For example, a Christian presumably could read the Qu'ran, or the Tao
Te Ching, or the Ramayana, or whatever. (Heck, the Nag Hammadi books
alone could keep one busy for eight weeks.)
I will agree that it privileges religious *works*. And if the only
time off is that granted to attending religious services, then that
seems to privilege the religious over the un-religious.
If *I* found myself in a position where I could read only religious
works for eight weeks, I would bring not just a Bible, but a Book of
Mormon, a Qu'ran, a Nag Hammadi volume, the Tao Te Ching, the Ramayana,
and probably some works by Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Does Dante count? :-)
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"A lot of writers can pull off being subtle, but it takes a genius like Melville
to write a great book that is so utterly lacking in subtlety." --Fiona Webster
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <avram-20109...@ts3port29.port.net>,
>Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> In article <362C2338...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
>> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
>> > reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
>> > time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
>> > logic.
>>
>> It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
>> granting an exception for the reading of religious material, grants a
>> priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
>
>Well, not really, because it does *not* grant the exception to you *only*
>if you read works of *your* religion.
With all due respect, your assertion so completely fails to address Avram's
point that I wonder whether you even read his post.
Avram said, correctly, that granting a special exception for religious
material only essentially amounts to privileging religion over irreligion.
You asserted that this isn't true because the regulations don't prohibit
people from reading religious material of someone else's religion. Evelyn,
this is logic from Mars.
Personally, I don't have a problem with basic training being rigorous. What
I have a problem with is making special exceptions available only for
religion. We do this all over our culture, in the military and civic
spheres alike. The idea that no one should be persecuted for their
religious beliefs has been perverted into the notion that religious belief
and religious organizations should get all kinds of free rides unavailable
to irreligious beliefs and organizations. That's not freedom of religion,
it's a free lunch _for_ religion.
Evelyn C. Leeper
>
> >In article <avram-20109...@ts3port29.port.net>,
> >Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> In article <362C2338...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
> >> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
> >> > reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
> >> > time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
> >> > logic.
> >>
> >> It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
> >> granting an exception for the reading of religious material, grants a
> >> priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
> >
> >Well, not really, because it does *not* grant the exception to you *only*
> >if you read works of *your* religion.
>
> With all due respect, your assertion so completely fails to address Avram's
> point that I wonder whether you even read his post.
>
> Avram said, correctly, that granting a special exception for religious
> material only essentially amounts to privileging religion over irreligion.
No, he said it "grants a priveledge to religious people that isn't
granted to the non-religious" (see above). This addresses privileging
individual people, not religions. There is a difference (e.g., churches
get tax exemptions, individual religious people do not).
I agreed (later in my post, which you snipped) that it privileges
religious *works*.
--
Kevin J. Maroney
>In <70i34o$ggs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>Ailsa Murphy <ailsa....@tfn.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>: *grumble* One can be a fan without being a SMOF.
>
>Of course. I don't follow what you mean by this, however. How did smofs
>enter the conversation?
The SMOFs enter every conversation eventually; that's their job.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
Kevin J. Maroney
> Could you give an example of what you're talking about? I.e., a case
>where someone's rights have been trampled because of the failure to distinguish
>what is and isn't a religion? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
The entire concept of "public non-denominational prayer" tramples the
rights of people who believe in the inefficacy of that type of prayer,
whether those people be secular atheists or religious theists who
believe that watered-down prayers are an offense to whatever God they
happen to worship.
But that's a separate matter. More directly to the point is the recent
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was quickly ruled to be a
violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Basically, the RFRA was a poorly-defined, sweeping measure designed to
allow organizations to claim exemption from federal, state, and local
laws by claiming that those laws restricted their right of religious
expression. These laws included things like zoning regulations.
The RFRA would *clearly* have put the federal, state, and local
judicial system in the role of Arbiter of Religion--judges would have
drowned in petitions for relief from zoning regulations, parking
restrictions, etc, etc, from every group clever, sneaky, or
disingenous enough to claim that their activities were religious.
And don't get me started on the tax-emempt status of churches.
Alter S. Reiss
[. . .]
> We could always mutate the thread into best Bible translations... *grin* My
> preference is the Steinsalitz (although I could be getting the name wrong
> here), but unfortunately, all they have done so far is the Pentateuch.
> Supposedly they are going to get to the reast, and I am awaiting it with
> baited breath.
[. . .]
Rabbi S. R. Hirsch is the best analytic translator that I've
found. The problem is that I have to read him in English, rather than the
German that he wrote in, and the existing English translations of his work
tend to be a bit clunky (which may have something to do with German
rythems of prose -- I haven't found many translations from the German of
anything that have been a joy or a pleasure to read.)
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
Yankees 3 Padres 0
Alter S. Reiss
> In <908914048.15013.0...@news.demon.co.uk> Alex McLintock <alex.mc...@removethisbit.earthling.net> wrote:
> : Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
> :>(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
> :>down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
> :>that you're surprised at this.)
>
> : And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
>
> : Oops. Off topic again.
>
> Nah, you weren't talking about Star Trek, or something appropriate
> elsewhere in the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy.
>
> As for your comment, how would you suggest training for the military
> should best be organized?
I seem to recall having this discussion on rasfw a few months
back. (I was in favor of having controlled testing of beliefs presented
as axiomatic, like close order drill improving teamwork. This view was
not uniformly accepted.)
Kevin J. Maroney
>No, he said it "grants a priveledge to religious people that isn't
>granted to the non-religious" (see above). This addresses privileging
>individual people, not religions. There is a difference (e.g., churches
>get tax exemptions, individual religious people do not).
All right then. It privileges those who are interested in reading
authorized religious works over those who are not.
It also privileges authorized religious works over non-authorized
religious works.
Alter S. Reiss
> In article <362cd99e...@client.ne.news.psi.net>, kmar...@crossover.com
> says...
> >
> >Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Sounds like a prima facie Establishment Clause violation to me.
> >>
> >>Freedom of religion. Let's not lose track of the *reason* for the
> >>First Amendment--it was not to enable the government to ban religious
> >>practice but quite the reverse: to protect the right to religious
> >>practice by forbidding the government to pick one set of religious
> >>practices over others as "acceptable".
> >
> >When the US Government acts in a way to privelege "religious" works
> >over "non-religious" works--for instance, by forbidding those enrolled
> >in a government training program from reading non-religious works but
> >not forbidding them from reading religious works--it is, by that very
> >fact, establishing a preference for religion.
>
>
> I don't think so. You would be correct if the only relevant
> constitutional provisions were the Establishment Clause and the right to free
> speech, which encompasses the right to hear (i.e., and read) as well as the
> right to speak. However, the First Amendment also contains a separate clause
> guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. If the right to read religious
> works is viewed as stemming from the Free Exercise Clause and not just the Free
> Speech Clause--which seems right--then it is the text of the Constitution
> itself that privileges religious works. This principle might, of course, be
> limited to works like the Bible, the Qu'ran, and their counterparts, since
> reading these can plausibly be claimed to be a part of the practice of
> religion, unlike reading, say, ANGELS by Billy Graham, or Rapture novels. I
> hasten to add that I'm doing this freehand and have no idea what if anything
> the courts have said about this question.
This seems rather correct. However, I seem to recall that the
government does not feel obligated to allow the free practice of religion
when practice of said religion interferes with military regulation (when
those regulations weren't designed to exlude those following certain
religious practices). There was something about an airman losing a suit
about his wearing of a yamulka. In that case the government might very
well be able to disallow religious works during basic training if they are
already disallowing other non-military texts.
If it is possible for the government to disallow religious works,
and they choose not to, that is an Establishment Clause violation, of
sorts. (Personaly, I tend to think that if wearing a yamulka was
something required by Christianity, the regulations would never have been
formulated to make it a violation, but that's a different issue entirely.)
[snip post I agree with]
Joel Rosenberg
P Nielsen Hayden wrote in message <70jkv4$m...@news1.panix.com>...
>In <avram-20109...@ts3port29.port.net> av...@bigfoot.com (Avram
Grumer) writes:
>
>>In article <362C2338...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
>><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
>>> reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
>>> time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
>>> logic.
>>
>>It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
>>priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
>
>I agree. It isn't actually often that I so completely disagree with Lis
>Carey, but in this case I'm baffled by why she doesn't see something that
>appears entirely obvious to me.
>
>The system as it is set up grants total privilege to those whose deep
>spiritual beliefs happen to match the preconceived template of "religion."
>I don't see the Army offering to allow declared secular humanists to read
>Mark Twain.
>
>I'm open to the idea that Basic Training is supposed to be rigorous.
>However, the idea that the conventionally "religious" get an indulgence,
but
>people like most of my friends don't, seems so obviously unfair as to be
>hardly worth arguing the point. I really don't understand Lis's difficulty
>grasping this.
>
But, but, but . . . the US Constitution protects religious expression, and
the courts have consistently interpreted that very broadly -- and certainly
would, once again, were the Army to forbid access to religious reading
materials during Basic.
While I think Huck Finn is at least as edifying and rather better written
than at least the vast majority of religious writings I've seen, reading it
during one's off time in Basic isn't a Constitutionally protected behavior.
The Army would get itself into trouble if it said, say, you could read James
Fenimore Cooper but not Mark Twain... and that's appropriate.
Now, whether or not this prohibition is wise is another matter. But courts
have ruled that folks have the right to make stupid choices, whether it's
individuals or governments.
That said, yes, there are advantages to being religious in the armed forces.
There are not, as far as I'm aware, atheistic chaplains, although atheism
certainly is a religious position, and atheists certainly have an much of a
need for chaplaincy as anybody else.
Janice Gelb
>e...@hobcs1.mt.lucent.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
>
>>No, he said it "grants a priveledge to religious people that isn't
>>granted to the non-religious" (see above). This addresses privileging
>>individual people, not religions. There is a difference (e.g., churches
>>get tax exemptions, individual religious people do not).
>
>All right then. It privileges those who are interested in reading
>authorized religious works over those who are not.
>
>It also privileges authorized religious works over non-authorized
>religious works.
>
I certainly support the point that any work that is religious
should be included in the exemption.
However, one point that I haven't seen made so far is that I doubt
the armed forces see reading the Bible as equivalent to "reading"
something else -- I would guess the exemption is in place because
it is seen as a form of worship, not as material to be read like
a novel.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
janic...@eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
"The first Halloween prank ever, played by a group of Druid teenagers, was
Stonehenge. (`HEY! You kids get those rocks OFF my LAWN!')" -- Dave Barry
Ailsa Murphy
But, close-order drill was one of the few things we did that was _fun_. And,
thinking back on it, it did improve teamwork. Granted, we were good at it,
and my platoon won a prize over it, so we were also practicing all sorts of
fancy steps as well and marching for the brass, but it definitely helped bond
us.
I am definitely getting old. I am sitting here getting nostalgiac for basic
training, where, by and large, I was pretty miserable most of the time. But
it was exhilarating at the same time, and I do remember quite a few things
that I enjoyed while they were happening as well, and a few times toward the
end sitting with my platoonmates and thinking "You know, this isn't so bad."
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>Elisabeth Carey wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Laurie, but the reason, the only reason, that the Army doesn't
>> restrict religious reading materials during basic training is not
>> because they want recruits reading "religious propaganda" [*your*
>> choice of words speaks volumes, did you notice that?], but because
>> they'd be facing First Amendment/Freedom of Religion lawsuits, which,
>> incidentally, they'd surely lose.
>
>> [...]
>
>> For much of their army careers, the army wants it soldiers to think
>> when circumstances permit. Basic training isn't one of those times,
>> though, because the purpose of basic is to teach the most basic of the
>> skills necessary when thinking will take too long and get them and
>> their squads killed.
>
>And now for something completely different: Elisabeth, you are
>absolutely correct.
Yeah. Frightening, ain't it, agreeing with every point Lis has raised
in this thread? And she made her point exactly the way I wish I
could. This is certainly deserving of an attaboy point.
--
Doug Wickstrom
Those truly desirous of private communication may find it helpful
to drop the "x" in the reply field, and replace "aol.com" with
"worldnet.att.net," cause the reply field is a fib.
Brenda Daverin
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Brenda Daverin wrote:
> >
> > Inquiry: what are pagans supposed to do? Find the local Unitarian
> > facility? And as for religious reading material, would a book of
> > appropriate mythology count? Just curious.
>
> Yes, the relevant religious reading materials from pagan faiths
> "count". There are even Wiccan chaplains in the US military, and a
> manual instructing non-Wiccan chaplains on what they need to know when
> a Wiccan wants spiritual support and there's no Wiccan chaplain
> available--just as is the case for other religions.
Hmm. They must have fun with non-Wiccan pagans...
--
Brenda Daverin
bdav...@best.com
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>In <avram-20109...@ts3port29.port.net> av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) writes:
>
>>In article <362C2338...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
>><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Interpreting the Army's inability to forbid the private ownership and
>>> reading of religious materials by recruits during their miniscule free
>>> time as "an establishment of religion" is, I must say, truly tortured
>>> logic.
>>
>>It's not tortured at all. It's pretty simple: Forbidding reading, but
>>granting an exception for the reading of religious material, grants a
>>priveledge to religious people that isn't granted to the non-religious.
>
>I agree. It isn't actually often that I so completely disagree with Lis
>Carey, but in this case I'm baffled by why she doesn't see something that
>appears entirely obvious to me.
>
>The system as it is set up grants total privilege to those whose deep
>spiritual beliefs happen to match the preconceived template of "religion."
>I don't see the Army offering to allow declared secular humanists to read
>Mark Twain.
>
>I'm open to the idea that Basic Training is supposed to be rigorous.
>However, the idea that the conventionally "religious" get an indulgence, but
>people like most of my friends don't, seems so obviously unfair as to be
>hardly worth arguing the point. I really don't understand Lis's difficulty
>grasping this.
I'm surprised that you have so much trouble grasping the point that
the courts have made it impossible for the Army to completely ban
religious texts during training.
And may I point out that at _most_ we're talking perhaps ten minutes a
day. I could never get much useful recreational reading done in ten
minutes. And that's the distinction, Patrick. As highly as we regard
it, SF is regarded by the Army as recreation. Military and religious
texts are not so defined.
And I'll add that the Army routinely punishes folks for reading
religious material when they are not supposed to be reading
_anything_.
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>In <908914048.15013.0...@news.demon.co.uk> alex.mc...@removethisbit.earthling.net (Alex McLintock) writes:
>
>>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>(Basic training *is* only eight weeks, Laurie, and the point is to break
>>>down the recruit and remold them with the military mindset: I'm surprised
>>>that you're surprised at this.)
>>
>>
>>And this is supposed to be acceptible in a civilised society?
>
>
>Better ideas solicited. Meanwhile, I'm glad we have a military, impatient
>though I am with the pompous attitudinizing of those who make a big deal of
>affecting its values.
As opposed to, say, the pomposities occasionally seen from SF editors?
I expected better from you, Patrick.
Joel Rosenberg
Brenda Daverin wrote in message ...
>In article <362D0CAA...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> Brenda Daverin wrote:
>> >
>> > Inquiry: what are pagans supposed to do? Find the local Unitarian
>> > facility? And as for religious reading material, would a book of
>> > appropriate mythology count? Just curious.
>>
>> Yes, the relevant religious reading materials from pagan faiths
>> "count". There are even Wiccan chaplains in the US military, and a
>> manual instructing non-Wiccan chaplains on what they need to know when
>> a Wiccan wants spiritual support and there's no Wiccan chaplain
>> available--just as is the case for other religions.
>
>Hmm. They must have fun with non-Wiccan pagans...
>
Didn't we already have this scene in Bill the Galatic Hero?
P Nielsen Hayden
>Agreed. My father referred to himself at least once as a Science Fiction
>fan. I don't see why I should say he wasn't one just because in all his
>looking he never found an APA or whatever. My dad _was_ a reader, like I
>said, his book collection rivals some town libraries and the breadth of it
>was amazing. My mom just gave me an old Reform prayerbook she found among
>his things, and he was a lifelong Episcopalian.
>
>He was also a fan. Any definition that says he wasn't is flawed, and I don't
>accept it. If you choose to go on telling me he wasn't one, you're wasting
>your time.
Well, that's a silly overstatement. Words tend to have multiple
definitions. Are you really asserting that your preferred definition of
"fan" is the only correct one, and anyone who uses some other sense of the
word is in error and somehow at fault?
If you manage to pull that off, let me know; I'd like to know how.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to agree that, in one very meaningful sense, your
father was a fan. Meanwhile, many people use the word to mean "person
active in fandom," which I gather your father wasn't. Others use it to mean
"sports fan"; I don't know how your father felt about sports. Language
isn't a mathematical system of notation. This causes confusion, which we
generally try to clear up with more language.