Pat Robertson
Elizabeth G. Levy
NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92
ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS
-----
Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
-----
DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a
broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.
But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
rights for women."
Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
become lesbians."
Mr. Robertson, a 1988 Republican Presidential contender, included in
the letter a plea that money be sent to the group Stop ERA to "help
defeat ERA and defend the family in Iowa."
Betty Durden, head of the group Iowa Equal Rights Amendment 1992,
said Mr. Robertson's letter was "ridiculous."
But Ione Dilley, a member of Stop ERA and chairwoman of the Iowa
Christian Coalition, said that although she would not defend Mr.
Robertson's references to child-killing and witchcraft, he was
correct about hidden agendas.
She said her proof came from a hearing called by state officials
seeking opinions on how the amendment should be summarized on the
Iowa ballot. She said the meeting had been attended by officials for
the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and "the
homosexuals."
"If this resolution to change our Constitution were not vital to
them," Mrs. Dilley said, "why would they show up at this hearing?"
--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
jchadwic
President Bush wants to lower taxes across the board.
President Bush wants to cut the capital gains tax.
President Bush wants to cut the deficeit.
Now President Bush wants to increase spending with a job training act.
And President Bush refuses to tell us what programs he is going to
cut. We are asked to "trust" him.
Somehow, this does not add up at all. Perhaps someone could enlighten me
how the President plans to decrease revenue, increase the budget (oh, I
forget, tax vouchers don't increase the budget, they just lower revenue
even more) and balance the budget.
--john chadwick
Len Olszewski
No, no, you're not confused at all. This is the clearest statement of
Bush's election year proposals that I've seen so far.
I *will* enlighten you as to how Bush plans to do all this and balance
the budget --- he doesn't. He's just feeding you and I and anyone who
can vote a load of hokum hoping we're *stupid* enough to believe it and
vote for him. After all, enough of us bought it four years ago, so I
can't fault him for trying it again.
Clinton's proposals aren't perfect, but they're light years better than
the fairy tale Bush and Buchannan are pushing.
<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
| Len Olszewski | "The best way to have a good idea |
| Technical Writer | is to have a LOT of ideas." |
| sas...@unx.sas.com | |
| "Have cursor, will curse." | - Linus Pauling |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Jim McMaster
Jim McMaster
Jim McMaster
laf...@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.0...@news.columbia.edu>, eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>> Here's the AP wire report on the Pat Robertson letter.
>>
>
>Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
>amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be running
around loose.
Jim McMaster
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
I agree, but for the purpose of completeness and full disclosure, it
would be nice to see the text in order to see just how whacko he truly
is. Until that is done, some unnamed individuals will say we are taking
his words out of context (or some other fool thing).
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Keith Jackson
>ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS
>-----
>Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
>-----
>DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
>evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
>amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
>to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
...
>Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
>political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
>kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
>become lesbians."
...
I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
(anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?
--
^ >
O o \_O
>=-=< Keith Jackson == jack...@cs.rpi.edu |O
U _/ \_
Michael Jenkinson
>--> U _/ \_
I'm sure this isn't the example Mr. Robertson had on hand when he made
the comment, but its still verifiable. A magazine published out of
Alberta, called Western Report, ran an article recently about a
feminism conference sponsored in part by the Alberta government. Among
the workshops offered were courses on witchcraft/wicca, seminars on
lesbian relationships, pagan worship ceremonies, etc.
So much for separation of church and state! :)
And, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work!
Michael
Steve Adams
According to many evangelicals, and 99.99% of the fundamentalists, "New
Age" is witchcraft, allong with Wicca, etc. Any 'pagan' rituals would
likely fall under this. Biblically, he'll point out the warnings against
astrologers, etc.
He's missed a MAJOR part of the message: love and tolerance. Heck, Jesus
hung around with 'tax collectors and sinners.' And he also commanded us to
love our enemies. "Do not even the pagans love their friends"...
He's hung up on the idea that God has somehow ordered a Christian Govt. for
the US (and the world) when the Bible says no such thing. But, alas, you
won't get most evangelicals or fundamentalists to admit this.
-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
-------------------
ad...@spss.com Phone: (312) 329-3522
Steve Adams Fax: (312) 329-3558
Susan Hagan
>jack...@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.0...@news.columbia.edu> eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
>>>political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
>>>kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
>>>become lesbians."
>> ...
He says that as if its a bad thing. :)
But seriously, or as serious as you can get with this kind of nonsense
staring you in the face, I just have a small question.
>Age" is witchcraft, allong with Wicca, etc. Any 'pagan' rituals would
What is Wicca?
--
Susan R. Hagan (sha...@gandalf.rutgers.edu)
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Loren I. Petrich
>jack...@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>
[TV evangelist and political activist Pat Robertson:]
@ >Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
@ >political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
@ >kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
@ >become lesbians."
@ I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
@ (anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
@ Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?
>According to many evangelicals, and 99.99% of the fundamentalists, "New
>Age" is witchcraft, allong with Wicca, etc. Any 'pagan' rituals would
>likely fall under this. Biblically, he'll point out the warnings against
>astrologers, etc.
I'm surprised that he didn't go through the roof when it
turned out that Nancy Reagan was arranging her husband's schedule --
with its ridiculously large fraction of unlucky days -- by consulting
an astrologer. And also, when it turned out that she had White House
staffers cover it all up.
As to Fundie intolerance, let us not forget that these fellows
are traditionally anti-Catholic, also. They usually believe Catholic
ritual to be riddled with idolatry, and some of them have considered
the Vatican a hostile foreign power bent on world domination.
>He's missed a MAJOR part of the message: love and tolerance. Heck, Jesus
>hung around with 'tax collectors and sinners.' And he also commanded us to
>love our enemies. "Do not even the pagans love their friends"...
I've always suspected a lot of Jesus Christ's teachings to be
Politically Incorrect by many common standards of Political
Correctness. I confess I don't agree with a number of them myself.
>He's hung up on the idea that God has somehow ordered a Christian Govt. for
>the US (and the world) when the Bible says no such thing. But, alas, you
>won't get most evangelicals or fundamentalists to admit this.
The Bible doesn't even mention the nation we live in.
Steve Adams
>In article <adams.715007831@spssig> ad...@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> As to Fundie intolerance, let us not forget that these fellows
>are traditionally anti-Catholic, also. They usually believe Catholic
>ritual to be riddled with idolatry, and some of them have considered
>the Vatican a hostile foreign power bent on world domination.
True enough...I was raised Roman Catholic and have heard lots about this
from Evangelical friends...
>>He's missed a MAJOR part of the message: love and tolerance. Heck, Jesus
>>hung around with 'tax collectors and sinners.' And he also commanded us to
>>love our enemies. "Do not even the pagans love their friends"...
> I've always suspected a lot of Jesus Christ's teachings to be
>Politically Incorrect by many common standards of Political
>Correctness. I confess I don't agree with a number of them myself.
Hmm. I would have to say that Christ *was* "politically correct"! He
condemned the rich, proclaimed universal love and tolerance, associated
with the down-trodden, advocated disposal of wealth to help the poor, etc.
>>He's hung up on the idea that God has somehow ordered a Christian Govt. for
>>the US (and the world) when the Bible says no such thing. But, alas, you
>>won't get most evangelicals or fundamentalists to admit this.
> The Bible doesn't even mention the nation we live in.
But it is universally applicable. What applied to Christians living under
the domination of Rome, applies to us today. We are to obey the laws of
the land, spead the message (not force it), and only violate the law when
it would force us to violate God's law.
Followups to talk.relgion.misc...
Michael Jenkinson
Jesus Christ and saying he preached "love and tolerance."
I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
call "tolerance."
Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
thieves in his Father's house.
Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth, the life...No one comes to
the father except through me." Funny, that's sounds pretty "fundie"
doesn't it?
Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
surprised.
Michael
alex
|> I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
|> (anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
|> Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?
"New Age" religion.
--
Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide
>I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
>fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
>about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
>call "tolerance."
This is absolutely true. He would never have tolerated Pat Robertson.
He had very specific things to say about rich people and those who
make a great show of their piety.
>Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
>very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
>thieves in his Father's house.
Exactly. Like those who take money from the sick, the old, and the poor because
they are on the top of the ecclesiastical heap. Pat Robertson is the money
changer...�a thief working Jesus' name for a buck.
>Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth, the life...No one comes to
>the father except through me." Funny, that's sounds pretty "fundie"
>doesn't it?
Well, no, not really. There's no mention of family values and no mention
of bringing public prayer into our political institutions, just to name two
things that are missing.
>Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
>surprised.
I did and I was. It had nothing to do with the modern Protestant church.
I was amazed that Karl Marx didn't pick it up and run with it. It's the
best socialist tract I ever read. Think about it. It exhorts us to give up our
wordly quests and love each other, and take care of each other. It exhorts
us to put God and Love foremost in our lives. It teaches us not to worry
about the government and to discount material possessions.
QED,
JZ
Lawrence C. Foard
>Following this Pat Robertson thread, I keep noticing people mentioning
>Jesus Christ and saying he preached "love and tolerance."
>
>I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
>fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
>about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
>call "tolerance."
>
>Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
>very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
>thieves in his Father's house.
And if Jesus returned today I would expect a repeat performance, I
would love to see the look on Pat Robertsons face as Jesus and his
band of drag queens ripped the satellite dish off the roof :-)
--
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<< ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line \ /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume. \ /
-- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.-- \/
Judy McMillin
Were you referring to those three wise men that followed the
star to Bethlehem? I always thought they were what we would
nowadays call astrologers.
Bye, Judy.
David Veal
It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
"serious whacko." However, I've seen his letter quoted six times
from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
objects to.
Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
>Jim McMaster
===========================================================================
|David Veal PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu University of Tennessee |
| Division of Continuing Education |
===========================================================================
Kathy Beatty
: In article <mjenkins.715015044@cunews>, Michael Jenkinson writes:
:
: >Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
: >surprised.
:
: I did and I was. It had nothing to do with the modern Protestant church.
: I was amazed that Karl Marx didn't pick it up and run with it. It's the
: best socialist tract I ever read. Think about it. It exhorts us to give up our
: wordly quests and love each other, and take care of each other. It exhorts
: us to put God and Love foremost in our lives. It teaches us not to worry
: about the government and to discount material possessions.
:
: QED,
:
: JZ
Yes. It's too bad Christians don't follow the teaching of Jesus.
Kathy
Edward J. Branley
> In <rrqyzl#@rpi.edu> jack...@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>
> >In article <1992Aug27.0...@news.columbia.edu> eg...@cunixf.cc.columbi
In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out in
my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
years later.
|Edward J. Branley ele...@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software UUCP: rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA 70006 voice: +1-504-455-5087 bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
mike
>In article <PA146008.26...@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>> It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
>> "serious whacko." However, I've seen his letter quoted six times
>> from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
>> objects to.
>>
>> Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
>> baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
>
>
>It says that there can be no discrimination based on sex.
>
>That's it. That's all it says, except in legalese. Of course,
>you can see how witches ("Burn witches!!!") and children-sacrificing
>comes naturally out of that statement.
>
>Steve
>
I think that I heard on CNN that proposed change to the constitution was
basically making "All men...." into "All men and women...", or something
along those lines.
Such a change does seem innocent enough, but the spokesman for Robertson
cited Connecticut -- which passed a similar change. He said that recent
court rulings in that state protected gay marriage, and adoption by gay
couples, based entirely upon that small constitutional change.
Evidently, it is homophobia that is fueling the Robertson opposition.
--
-- Mike
David Veal
sp...@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale) writes:
>
>In article <PA146008.26...@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Daid Veal) writes:
>> It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
>> "serious whacko." However, I've seen his letter quoted six times
>> from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
>> objects to.
>>
>> Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
>> baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
>
>The amendment changes the consistution as follows (this is from memory:)
>
>It says that there can be no discrimination based on sex.
I know this much. I was looking more for the exact wording.
What people say laws say and what laws actually say are two different
things. That's why politicians have such fun naming their bills things
like "Civil Rights Act of 1992" etc., knowing that no matter what they
put into the "Civil Rights Act" is is political suicide to oppose it.
"What? Only *racists* oppose civil rights laws!"
Is there anybody out there who knows what this amendment says?
Elizabeth G. Levy
>
>In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out in
>my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
>Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
>and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
>party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
>now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
>years later.
But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys! All those RC are evil
papists, in the employ of Satan. Being dominated by the religious
right is GOOD!
joseph.m.knapp
>my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
>Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
>and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
>party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
>now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
>years later.
Right on. Since you mention JFK's problems with the P-word (Pope), you may be
interested that some in the press compared Governor Clinton's speech to the
American Legion convention in Chicago last Tuesday (8/25) to the speech given
to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association by then Senator John F. Kennedy
on September 12, 1960. In retrospect, both men won points for confronting
what might be called their character issues by speaking about them candidly
before a tough audience -- and more or less winning them over, defusing the
issue. Of course, it's no accident that the press made this comparison, as
Clinton brought up the analogy himself in his address:
"In 1960, John Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
that they should not oppose him just because he was a Catholic. He
said, 'If I should lose this election on the real issues, I shall be
satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged.'"
One more thing: I may have read too much about JFK, but I see the spirit of
JFK in a lot of Clinton's campaign. How about this -- in Austin last Thursday,
Clinton addressed an outdoor rally at the LBJ School of Government. After a
crowd warm-up by Senator Gore, Clinton took the podium. After delivering the
straight-line "do you love Hillary?," the Governor apologized that his wife
was running a little late. During his opening comments a few minutes later,
there was apparently something distracting the crowd. Hillary then appeared
at the podium in a bright red dress to a rousing welcome from the crowd,
which began chanting "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"
OK, set the way-back machine to the morning of November 22, 1963. President
Kennedy is attending a breakfast given in his honor at the Hotel Texas in
Fort Worth. Problem is, Mrs. Kennedy is a no-show, apparently still up in
her hotel room. The question foremost in everyone's mind was "Where is
Jackie?" The President apologized that it takes her a little longer to get
ready than he does. William Manchester wrote about what happened when she
finally made her grand entrance:
"The introduction lacked only a stentorian roll of snare drums. She
appeared smiling tentatively, and was greeted by pandemonium. Two
thousand cheering Texans were standing on their chairs."
Jackie was wearing her famous pink wool suit (to the dismay of Nellie Connally,
who had chosen the same suit). Another nice coincidence: both Lady Bird
Johnson and Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough were at Jackie's Hotel Texas
appearance in 1963, and also were present last week for Hillary Clinton's
version.
---
Joe Knapp j...@cbvox.att.com
Edward J. Branley
> In article <X2NaqB...@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> ele...@mintir.new-orleans
> >
> >In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out
> >my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
> >Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Ro
> >and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that
> >party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
> >now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-t
> >years later.
>
> But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys! All those RC are evil
> papists, in the employ of Satan. Being dominated by the religious
> right is GOOD!
>
>
> --
> Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
> Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
> -- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Hey, those papists are anti-abortion also. You noticed that most of the fundie
preachers have toned down their attacks against Catholics? Shoot, even
Swaggart was forced to back off of the RCC before his demise. If the radical
religious right ever gets its way on abortion, then they'll go back to bashing
the evils of Rome...
Edward J. Branley
> ele...@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> >In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out
> >my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
> >Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Ro
> >and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that
> >party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
> >now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-t
> >years later.
>
> Right on. Since you mention JFK's problems with the P-word (Pope), you may be
> interested that some in the press compared Governor Clinton's speech to the
> American Legion convention in Chicago last Tuesday (8/25) to the speech given
> to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association by then Senator John F. Kenned
> on September 12, 1960. In retrospect, both men won points for confronting
> what might be called their character issues by speaking about them candidly
> before a tough audience -- and more or less winning them over, defusing the
> issue. Of course, it's no accident that the press made this comparison, as
> Clinton brought up the analogy himself in his address:
>
> "In 1960, John Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
> that they should not oppose him just because he was a Catholic. He
> said, 'If I should lose this election on the real issues, I shall be
> satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged.'"
The American Legion is one tough audience, espcecially for a non-member.
However, they're definitely a 'what have you done for me lately' group, since
they are a very focused special-interest group, of course interested in
veterans' issues. GHWB hasn't done much for vets lately, and I think he forgot
that when he stood up there taking credit for the demise of communism. Those
guys are more interested in making sure the VA system of hospitals and other
vets' benefits remain in place and are not gutted as 'unnecessary entitlements'
Another note on the Legion: Clinton didn't think that they'd vote for him just
because he's a product of Boy's State and Boy's Nation, but I can assure you
that many of them will. My dad is a former District Commander of the Legion,
and is very active with Louisiana Boy's State. Those old guys love it when
one of their own does good. Combine that with the overall indifference that
many veterans feel about GHWB, and Clinton will pick up more than he thinks.
>
> One more thing: I may have read too much about JFK, but I see the spirit of
> JFK in a lot of Clinton's campaign. How about this -- in Austin last Thursday
> Clinton addressed an outdoor rally at the LBJ School of Government. After a
> crowd warm-up by Senator Gore, Clinton took the podium. After delivering the
> straight-line "do you love Hillary?," the Governor apologized that his wife
> was running a little late. During his opening comments a few minutes later,
> there was apparently something distracting the crowd. Hillary then appeared
> at the podium in a bright red dress to a rousing welcome from the crowd,
> which began chanting "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"
>
> [historical stuff about JFK and Jackie deleted for brevity's sake]
I saw that speech at the LBJ School at UT re-played on CSPAN. While watching
Hillary and Tipper, all I could think of was Jackie Kennedy at the time. I
kept thinking 'Hillary, you're no Jackie Kennedy,' <grin, apologies to Senator
Bentson>, but she's still good in her own way. Yup, there's a lot of JFK in
Clinton. In a way, the timing is similar. JFK was a breath of fresh air after
a fairly weak second Eisenhower administration. It's sort of the same
situation now, since folks are looking for a change from a weak second
Reagan/first Bush period.
Steven Miale
> It's been fairly well established that Pat Robertson is a
> "serious whacko." However, I've seen his letter quoted six times
> from various sources and nobody has yet to quote the amendment he
> objects to.
>
> Yeah, I seriously doubt the amendment goes into witchcraft and
> baby-killing, but I'd like to at least *see* the thing.
The amendment changes the consistution as follows (this is from memory:)
It says that there can be no discrimination based on sex.
That's it. That's all it says, except in legalese. Of course,
Elizabeth G. Levy
>eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>> But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys! All those RC are evil
>> papists, in the employ of Satan. Being dominated by the religious
>> right is GOOD!
>
>preachers have toned down their attacks against Catholics? Shoot, even
>Swaggart was forced to back off of the RCC before his demise. If the radical
>religious right ever gets its way on abortion, then they'll go back to bashing
>the evils of Rome...
Oops, I forgot. I was even down at the abortion clinic when Cardinal
O'Connor was there praying, with gaggles of Operation Rescue folk
there along with Johnny Boy's usual flock. OR needs the Catholic's
numbers so they won't be grossly outnumbered.
Richard Foy
>Jesus Christ and saying he preached "love and tolerance."
>
>
>Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
>surprised.
>
>Michael
Maybe one would be surprised. However, I believe that the main messge of
Jesus is love. The word love, or variations thereof, is used over 300 times
in the New Testament. No other word that expresses attitude towards others
is used anywhere near as often.
Richard Foy Redondo Beach CA Standard Disclaimer
Edward J. Branley
> In article <4P9BqB...@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> ele...@mintir.new-orleans
> >eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >>
> >> But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys! All those RC are evil
> >> papists, in the employ of Satan. Being dominated by the religious
> >> right is GOOD!
> >
> >Hey, those papists are anti-abortion also. You noticed that most of the fun
> >preachers have toned down their attacks against Catholics? Shoot, even
> >Swaggart was forced to back off of the RCC before his demise. If the radica
> >religious right ever gets its way on abortion, then they'll go back to bashi
> >the evils of Rome...
>
> Oops, I forgot. I was even down at the abortion clinic when Cardinal
> O'Connor was there praying, with gaggles of Operation Rescue folk
> there along with Johnny Boy's usual flock. OR needs the Catholic's
> numbers so they won't be grossly outnumbered.
>
>
>
> --
> Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
> Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
> -- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
They're also very much a tempering force on the OR crazies. Catholics tend not
to go in for the violent confrontation theory. Sure, you got exceptions, but
things would be a lot more violent at the clinics if the Catholic pro-life
forces joined in full force.
Problem is that a lot of Catholics can be liberal on issues other than
abortion, and do not vote single-issue. Most Catholic clergy tend to be
extremely liberal, and have little respect for GOP policies in Central America
and Africa.
Steve Adams
Astrology/Astronomy didn't really differ much back then...although there
was some good, basic scientific work done in the Middle East, it was
fraught with what we call today astrology...
Dave Borden
>In article <rrqyzl#@rpi.edu>, jack...@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>
>|> I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
>|> (anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
>|> Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?
>
> "New Age" religion.
>
movement, as it is only a small portion of society in general.
- Dave Borden
bor...@m5.harvard.edu
Don Pajerek
>In article <X2NaqB...@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> ele...@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>
>>In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out in
>>my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
>>Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
>>and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
>>party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
>>now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
>>years later.
>
>But, you see, those fundies are the Good Guys! All those RC are evil
>papists, in the employ of Satan. Being dominated by the religious
>right is GOOD!
>
Are you talking about that well-known Roman Catholic, Pat Buchanan?
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Judy McMillin
>
>In studying the 1960 election, one of the things that will always stick out in
>my mind are the attacks made by the GOP on JFK for being Roman Catholic.
>Accusations that if JFK would be elected, the country would be ruled from Rome,
>and other such nonense. It's sort of funny (in a sick, perverted way) that the
>party that was so afraid of being controlled by a religious group in 1960 is
>now totally dominated and controlled by the Radical Religious Right thirty-two
>years later.
>
|Edward J. Branley ele...@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
Yeah, Mr. Branley! I remember that, too! Thanks for reminding
us (or enlightening the youngsters).
Judy.
Unknown
Wicca is a name used by any of several neo-pagan groups. Some claim to
be descended from the pre-Christian folk-religions of Europe. Most worship
a Goddess and her male consort in a kind of nature religion. Some wiccans
call themselves witches. A reasonably good book to start with (I think)
is _Drawing Down the Moon_, the author of which I can't remember. You can
get lots of information, company, and entertainment at alt.pagan.
***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******
Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
Charles Darwin
Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.
George Santayana
Keith Jackson
>|> I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
>|> (anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
>|> Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?
> "New Age" religion.
What exactly does this entail?
--
^ >
O o \_O
>=-=< Keith Jackson == jack...@cs.rpi.edu |O
U _/ \_
Donal
> Wicca is a name used by any of several neo-pagan groups. Some claim to
> be descended from the pre-Christian folk-religions of Europe. Most worship
> a Goddess and her male consort in a kind of nature religion. Some wiccans
> call themselves witches. A reasonably good book to start with (I think)
> is _Drawing Down the Moon_, the author of which I can't remember. You can
> get lots of information, company, and entertainment at alt.pagan.
Margot Adler, of course! (jus' tryin' to be helpful!)
> Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.
>
> George Santayana
I like this one... mind if I keep it? :)
--------------------
Donal, Sysop of The Brewer's Witch BBS -- +1 713 272 7350
(Internet) do...@brewich.hou.tx.us (Work) bill%ps...@lobster.hou.tx.us
(CIS) 76460,1443
(SCA) Ld. Donal Dubh, IC of Dun Bruddair, B of the Stargate, K of Ansteorra