Religion and Politics (was Re: AKICIF: Regional descriptions)
Julie Stampnitzky
> Bill Bradley won't state anything about religion, if he goes to
> church, where, what he believes, etc. But if there's some active
> religiosity behind that, wouldn't you want to know? Don't you think
> that people who believe strongly in a religion make decisions based on
> that belief? Even when the decisions affect the nation?
Wouldn't you be able to answer that question by looking at a candidate's
voting record etc.? If his decisions are affected by his religion, he's
probably already made such decisions in the past. Or do you think that he
has been sneakily refraining from allowing his religion to influence his
politics, but that this will change once he is in a position of real
power?
--
Julie Stampnitzky |"I hope you can imagine my furious joy,
Rehovot, Israel |scribbling away in the lamplight, sometimes
http://www.yucs.org/~jules |surprising myself with what I think, and how I
http://neskaya.darkover.cx |choose to express it." (_Freedom & Necessity_)
Doug Berry
> Bill Bradley won't state anything about religion, if he goes to
> church, where, what he believes, etc. But if there's some active
> religiosity behind that, wouldn't you want to know? Don't you think
> that people who believe strongly in a religion make decisions based on
> that belief? Even when the decisions affect the nation?
Matthew 6.
Nice to see a Christian who actually reads the Bible, and follows
what it says.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Hear the voices in my head, swear to God it sounds like
they're snoring." -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"
Loren MacGregor
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
> > Bill Bradley won't state anything about religion, if he goes to
> > church, where, what he believes, etc. But if there's some active
> > religiosity behind that, wouldn't you want to know? Don't you think
> > that people who believe strongly in a religion make decisions based on
> > that belief? Even when the decisions affect the nation?
>
> voting record etc.? If his decisions are affected by his religion, he's
> probably already made such decisions in the past. Or do you think that he
> has been sneakily refraining from allowing his religion to influence his
> politics, but that this will change once he is in a position of real
> power?
I think that were I running, I probably would not answer questions
about -my- religion, either, even though that's a very important
part of my life. For one thing, stating "I'm Catholic" would lead
people to believe things about my politics that simply aren't true,
and to clear up the confusion would distract from the actual
campaign issues. Of course, this isn't limited strictly to
religion. For example, I think that if John Rocker was accurately
quoted, he is an idiot that I'd rather not see being rewarded for
his idiocy. I also think that he has every right to express the
opinions he expressed, and any attempt to deny him this right is
against my principals.
How long do "you" (in this case, "you" are those people reading, not
Julie Stampnizky specifically, whose opinions expressed above I
agree with) think an interview would have to be to reconcile those
statements and to get the result expressed accurately in print?
-- LJM
Loren MacGregor
>
> As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
> rights actions came from his Catholicism?
Um. No, not really. His Catholicism -may- have been one of the
parts of a complex of things, but I actually believe, from what I've
read, that much of his vaunted civil rights action came, in fact,
from a canny sense that it was at that time a politically astute
thing to do.
-- LJM
Ailsa N Murphy
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
>
have to do with civil rights? NOt that I'm saying that R Catholocism
is anti civil rights either, just that in my mind they're orthogonal.
-Ailsa
--
There is no forgetting sorrow an...@world.std.com
There is no regretting love Ailsa N.T. Murphy
All we really do is borrow all the dreams we're dreaming of
We can never know tomorrow, all we have is giving love today
-Midge Ure
Marilee J. Layman
Stampnitzky <ju...@yucs.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> Bill Bradley won't state anything about religion, if he goes to
>> church, where, what he believes, etc. But if there's some active
>> religiosity behind that, wouldn't you want to know? Don't you think
>> that people who believe strongly in a religion make decisions based on
>> that belief? Even when the decisions affect the nation?
>
>Wouldn't you be able to answer that question by looking at a candidate's
>voting record etc.? If his decisions are affected by his religion, he's
>probably already made such decisions in the past. Or do you think that he
>has been sneakily refraining from allowing his religion to influence his
>politics, but that this will change once he is in a position of real
>power?
Sure, but a congressperson may be bound by agreements with other
congresspeople that would not bind if he were a president. No, I
don't think he's been sneaky about it, if I had to vote today, I'd
vote for him. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that he used to be
a proselytizing Christian.
As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
rights actions came from his Catholicism?
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Chats & Message > SF Forum > The Other*Worlds*Cafe
Rob Hansen
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
Not that I've ever heard, no. As I understand it he was responding to
public opinion, which was appalled by the images they were seeing on
their TV screens of non-violent black protestors being hosed,
bludgeoned by cops, and having dogs set on them.
--
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0500:
>In <Pine.LNX.4.10.100010...@yucs.org>, Julie
>Stampnitzky <ju...@yucs.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bradley won't state anything about religion, if he goes to
>>> church, where, what he believes, etc. But if there's some active
>>> religiosity behind that, wouldn't you want to know? Don't you think
>>> that people who believe strongly in a religion make decisions based on
>>> that belief? Even when the decisions affect the nation?
>>
>>Wouldn't you be able to answer that question by looking at a candidate's
>>voting record etc.? If his decisions are affected by his religion, he's
>>probably already made such decisions in the past. Or do you think that he
>>has been sneakily refraining from allowing his religion to influence his
>>politics, but that this will change once he is in a position of real
>>power?
>
>Sure, but a congressperson may be bound by agreements with other
>congresspeople that would not bind if he were a president. No, I
>don't think he's been sneaky about it, if I had to vote today, I'd
>vote for him. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that he used to be
>a proselytizing Christian.
That logic would, I think, rule out a lot of people. For
example, Mormon men are expected to spend time as missionaries:
would you argue that this disqualifies them from public office?
>
>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
No idea. Did Truman's and LBJ's come from their Protestantism?
*deep breath*
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian. Perhaps for
that reason, I am deeply unhappy about anything that even
resembles a religious test for public office, not because the
constitution says it's a bad idea (you can vote on any basis
you like, including refusing to vote for anyone left-handed)
but because, in practice, I suspect it would reduce the
diversity of our elected officials even further: I don't think
my religious beliefs are Bradley's business, and I don't
think his beliefs are mine, unless either of us chooses to
make public statements about them. If we do, well, Molly Ivins
was well within her rights to publicly ask Shrub how he
justified some of his positions in Christian terms, after he
claimed that the philosopher who had influenced him most was
Jesus. Had he said "Adam Smith" or "Thomas Jefferson" or
"my mother," the question would have been out of bounds, imho.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Sue Mason for TAFF!
Marilee J. Layman
<churn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Marilee J. Layman" wrote:
>>
>> As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>> rights actions came from his Catholicism?
>
>Um. No, not really. His Catholicism -may- have been one of the
>parts of a complex of things, but I actually believe, from what I've
>read, that much of his vaunted civil rights action came, in fact,
>from a canny sense that it was at that time a politically astute
>thing to do.
Others have said much the same thing, but I understand that Catholics
were taught about the equality of man much longer than protestants
did, and I thought that probably was a motivating issue.
Marilee J. Layman
<v...@redbird.org> wrote:
LOL Part of me would like to. After all, practicing Mormons have
some odd ideas -- would they push those ideas on their constituents?
But no, I'm not saying their religion (or anybody else's) should
disqualify that person from holding public office. I'm just a little
queasy about people who seem to actually hold to their religion, doers
rather than talkers.
<snip>
>*deep breath*
>
>I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian. Perhaps for
>that reason, I am deeply unhappy about anything that even
>resembles a religious test for public office, not because the
>constitution says it's a bad idea (you can vote on any basis
>you like, including refusing to vote for anyone left-handed)
>but because, in practice, I suspect it would reduce the
>diversity of our elected officials even further: I don't think
>my religious beliefs are Bradley's business, and I don't
>think his beliefs are mine, unless either of us chooses to
>make public statements about them. If we do, well, Molly Ivins
>was well within her rights to publicly ask Shrub how he
>justified some of his positions in Christian terms, after he
>claimed that the philosopher who had influenced him most was
>Jesus. Had he said "Adam Smith" or "Thomas Jefferson" or
>"my mother," the question would have been out of bounds, imho.
Yes, but not knowing their religion means we believe they can make all
decisions independent of their religion. I'm not sure that's
possible.
P Nielsen Hayden
<f7ti7skfb6a0t1l9l...@4ax.com>:
>In <3878FA9B...@worldnet.att.net>, Loren MacGregor
><churn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Marilee J. Layman" wrote:
>>>
>>> As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his
>>> civil rights actions came from his Catholicism?
>>
>>Um. No, not really. His Catholicism -may- have been one of the
>>parts of a complex of things, but I actually believe, from what
>>I've read, that much of his vaunted civil rights action came, in
>>fact, from a canny sense that it was at that time a politically
>>astute thing to do.
>
>Others have said much the same thing, but I understand that
>Catholics were taught about the equality of man much longer than
>protestants did, and I thought that probably was a motivating issue.
!!! I think Catholicism and various flavors of Protestantism all have
aspects that tend toward sympathy with what you're calling "civil
rights" issues, and aspects that don't. (On the one hand: Paul saying
there is no male or female, there is no Greek nor Jew, you are all one,
etc. On the other hand: two thousand years of churchly support for
whatever power structure would cut it a deal, no matter how unjust.)
Plenty of contemporary Catholics feel strongly about social justice
issues, and it's to the Church's credit that fighting discrimination
and economic oppression are now overt institutional priorities. But so
do plenty of contemporary Protestants and their ecclesiastical leaders,
and, of course, lots of people who have no religion at all. It would
be, gosh, _novel_ to try to make a case that Catholicism had some sort
of superior lock on the issue in recent history, or over the past
couple of centuries. Goodness. My.
I would start by noting that American Catholicism certainly did not
distinguish itself in the fight against slavery. Far from it; the
abolitionist movement was almost entirely fueled by Protestant
religious leaders. Various dioceses of American Catholicism owned more
than a few slaves.
I would further remark that the "equality of man" is not exactly a
phrase one associates with the stance of pre-Vatican II American
Catholic political power. I would also observe that John F. Kennedy's
Catholicism was rather closer to that of Vince Lombardi than to that of
the Berrigan brothers.
You want to admire an American president for getting out front on
"civil rights" issues, admire the not-very-religious-at-all Lyndon B.
Johnson.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Loren MacGregor
>
> In <3878FA9B...@worldnet.att.net>, Loren MacGregor
> <churn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Marilee J. Layman" wrote:
> >>
> >> As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
> >> rights actions came from his Catholicism?
> >
> >Um. No, not really. His Catholicism -may- have been one of the
> >parts of a complex of things, but I actually believe, from what I've
> >read, that much of his vaunted civil rights action came, in fact,
> >from a canny sense that it was at that time a politically astute
> >thing to do.
>
> Others have said much the same thing, but I understand that Catholics
> were taught about the equality of man much longer than protestants
> did, and I thought that probably was a motivating issue.
Again, it -may- have been. Catholics are taught many things, some
of which they actually reflect upon and put into practice. Kennedy,
as a well-educated, intelligent man, may have been one of those, in
which case you are likely right that it was one of the concerns
which motivated him. However, Kennedy was also a politician who
survived being "a Catholic" when being a Catholic -president- was
considered impossible. I think it is quite likely that he was aware
of and concerned about racial issues, and welcomed the change to act
on his conscience when it became politically useful to do so.
I have a great deal of admiration for Kennedy, but it's not blind
admiration.
-- LJM
Marilee J. Layman
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Otherwise, Marilee, what you're doing is arguing for the right of
>religious believers to interrogate the non-religious and the adherents
>of minority religions about their beliefs, and exclude them from
>office based on that, because you can't extend the right to such
>interrogations in one direction and not the other, and despite the
>sometimes different impression one can get in fandom, it's not the
>atheists and neopagans that have the wieght of numbers on their side.
I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
office and that makes me queasy.
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0500:
No, it means that we believe that, to whatever extent their
religion influences their policies and decisions, it will have
been reflected in their past votes, speeches, and so on. I
don't need to know why a politician takes a position for or
against public funding of health care to know whether I support
her: if I know what position she takes, and how consistent she
is about it, I don't care if it's because Goddess told her to
vote that way, or because her uncle was a family doctor, or
for any of a thousand other reasons.
Sure, a politician's religious beliefs might come to have more
or less effect on their votes--but they also might wake up one
morning and conclude there is no god, or become suddenly
convinced of the truth of Islam, and there's no way to predict
that until it happens, so it's not a good basis for voting for
or against someone.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In <tf2i7sgealevpbnav...@4ax.com>, Vicki Rosenzweig
> <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>
Being religious is okay, as long as the "believer" is insincere?
There are people still prepared to argue that being Catholic should be
a disqualification from public office. There are people still prepared
to argue that being an atheist should be a disqualification from
public office. And there are people who are prepared to argue that
having religious beliefs at all should be a disqualification from
public office.
All three make me queasy, because accepting _any one_ of those
propositions threatens the rights of everyone--because once you've
accepted the principle and allowed it to become established, you are
in danger of it being turned against _you_, when public opinion
shifts.
Yes, Mormons have some odd ideas. So do I. So do you. And any of us is
free to argue for those ideas--as long as we refrain from trying to
_impose_ our religious beliefs and practices on people who don't want
them.
But proposing an idea for public discussion is not "imposing" it. And
being seen to engage in certain religious observances, whether it's
having a creche on your front lawn a Christmas time, or wearing a
yarmulke, or bowing in prayer in the direction of Mecca five times a
day, is not "imposing" those practices on anyone else, either.
People who do these things out of sincere belief don't lose their
right to participate fully in the political life of the country, and
if they don't advance their religion as some sort of qualification for
office, then they don't have an obligation to submit to interrogation
about their religion, either.
> <snip>
>
> >*deep breath*
> >
> >I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian. Perhaps for
> >that reason, I am deeply unhappy about anything that even
> >resembles a religious test for public office, not because the
> >constitution says it's a bad idea (you can vote on any basis
> >you like, including refusing to vote for anyone left-handed)
> >but because, in practice, I suspect it would reduce the
> >diversity of our elected officials even further: I don't think
> >my religious beliefs are Bradley's business, and I don't
> >think his beliefs are mine, unless either of us chooses to
> >make public statements about them. If we do, well, Molly Ivins
> >was well within her rights to publicly ask Shrub how he
> >justified some of his positions in Christian terms, after he
> >claimed that the philosopher who had influenced him most was
> >Jesus. Had he said "Adam Smith" or "Thomas Jefferson" or
> >"my mother," the question would have been out of bounds, imho.
>
> Yes, but not knowing their religion means we believe they can make all
> decisions independent of their religion. I'm not sure that's
> possible.
"Making all their decisions independent of their religion" is not
something you're entitled to expect of them. What you are entitled to
require of them is that they not attempt to impose their beliefs or
practices on anyone else. The unanimous chorus in favor of "allowing"
prayer in public school classrooms that's coming from the Republican
candidates for president violates that principle, because children,
especially young children, don't have a real choice of whether to
participate or not, and any prayer which is not so stripped of content
as to be an empty mockery ("Dear possibly impersonal Universe...")
will violate _someone's_ beliefs. Bill Bradley's refusal to discuss
his private religious beliefs does not violate that principle. That's
his right--an essential part of the same freedom of religion that
protects the right of the American Atheists to publicly promote ideas
that religious believers find offensive, and the same freedom of
religion that results in the US military having Neopagan chaplains, as
well as Christian and Jewish chaplains.
If John Kennedy's pro-civil rights policies did stem in part from his
religious beliefs as a Catholic, does that make those policies bad
ones? Does that violate your rights? Were C. Everett Koop's efforts to
promote both research and public education on AIDS bad because they
stemmed in part from how he interpreted his obligation as a Christian
to help the sick?
We all bring our deeply held beliefs into the public arena with us. We
cannot avoid doing so. But this is as true of atheists or neopagans as
it is of Catholics or Protestants or Jews or Moslems, and what we have
the right to challenge each other about is our actions and their
effects, not our beliefs--except of course when someone _chooses_ to
make their religious beliefs an issue, as with George W. claiming
Jesus as his most influential political philospher, or Keyes and Bauer
making it clear that they believe there's a right to impose Christian
belief and practice in the public schools and elsewhere.
Otherwise, Marilee, what you're doing is arguing for the right of
religious believers to interrogate the non-religious and the adherents
of minority religions about their beliefs, and exclude them from
office based on that, because you can't extend the right to such
interrogations in one direction and not the other, and despite the
sometimes different impression one can get in fandom, it's not the
atheists and neopagans that have the wieght of numbers on their side.
I may have gone on too long and too forcefully. I hope not, and I
apologize if I have. I find the idea that we have a right to inquire
into the religious beliefs of political candidates in detail, even
when they don't bring it up themselves, a really scary one, though,
one that threatens everyone's right to be religious or non-religious
in the way they choose.
Lis Carey
Jason Stokes
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Yes, Mormons have some odd ideas. So do I. So do you. And any of us is
>free to argue for those ideas--as long as we refrain from trying to
>_impose_ our religious beliefs and practices on people who don't want
>them.
The Mormon church is a good example. Mormons used to prohibit blacks
from being priests, and there are claims that a lot of anti-black
discrimination still occurs tacitly today. The book of Mormon
characterises the "mark of cain" as having been afflicted with black
skin. I note that the majority of Mormons want to disavow their legacy
of racism today; but the example is still a good one, because racist
theology, for example, is not just a case of "odd beliefs" but a
dangerous doctrine with real political consequences.
Actually you'd be surprised at how many political consequences "odd
beliefs" have. The Mormon church is totally committed to the view that
Native Americans are descendents of Israelites, rode horses and
cultivated nonindigenous seeds just like it says in the Book of Mormon,
and would squash scientific education that says otherwise if it had
enough power -- just as creationists do so in relation to evolution.
The religious beliefs of a candidate can a perfectly relevant issue
when considering the merits of a candidate. I note that, for a
politician in the US, being an open atheist is not considered a very
good career move.
--
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Bob Webber
: Quoth Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> on Mon, 10 Jan 2000 01:03:25
: -0500:
: >In <tf2i7sgealevpbnav...@4ax.com>, Vicki Rosenzweig
: ><v...@redbird.org> wrote:
: >
: >>*deep breath*
: >>
: >>I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Christian. Perhaps for
: >>that reason, I am deeply unhappy about anything that even
: >>resembles a religious test for public office, not because the
: >>constitution says it's a bad idea (you can vote on any basis
: >>you like, including refusing to vote for anyone left-handed)
: >>but because, in practice, I suspect it would reduce the
: >>diversity of our elected officials even further: I don't think
: >>my religious beliefs are Bradley's business, and I don't
: >>think his beliefs are mine, unless either of us chooses to
: >>make public statements about them. If we do, well, Molly Ivins
: >>was well within her rights to publicly ask Shrub how he
: >>justified some of his positions in Christian terms, after he
: >>claimed that the philosopher who had influenced him most was
: >>Jesus. Had he said "Adam Smith" or "Thomas Jefferson" or
: >>"my mother," the question would have been out of bounds, imho.
: >
: >Yes, but not knowing their religion means we believe they can make all
: >decisions independent of their religion. I'm not sure that's
: >possible.
: No, it means that we believe that, to whatever extent their
: religion influences their policies and decisions, it will have
: been reflected in their past votes, speeches, and so on. I
: don't need to know why a politician takes a position for or
: against public funding of health care to know whether I support
: her: if I know what position she takes, and how consistent she
: is about it, I don't care if it's because Goddess told her to
: vote that way, or because her uncle was a family doctor, or
: for any of a thousand other reasons.
While I agree with Vicki's point that the underlying motivations
for positions are relatively unimportant compared with the positions
themselves, this also seems a good point at which to killfile
this thread.
Some other posts in the thread seem to be a bit deaf to aspects
of their own tone which are likely to result in extremely
high levels of acrimony in the ensuing discourse. Other threads
have been showing a sufficiently high level of socially numb
posts that a high level of background irritability seems
inevitable.
Boiling it down, when I start feeling twinges of sympathy for
the poor, put-upon modern Mormons, I consider it time to prepare
to run for cover.
--
The secret to a long life
Is knowing when it's time to go.
-- Michelle Shocked
P Nielsen Hayden
>Boiling it down, when I start feeling twinges of sympathy for
>the poor, put-upon modern Mormons, I consider it time to prepare
>to run for cover.
Small restrained chuckle.
I did want to mention, anent the alleged built-in racism of modern
Mormons, that they can be as unpredictable as anyone else. It's true
that melanin is overworked in the Book of Mormon as a signifier of
inward grace. It's also true that Mormons send a large number of their
most privileged young people overseas to serve missions in very exotic
places, and that often those young people return with some rather
cosmopolitan views. Whatever you think of Orson Scott Card's views on
some other issues, for instance, he is a sincere and passionate anti-
racist...and downright left-wing in his view of the effects of
untrammelled capital on the downtrodden of the world. As it happens,
Scott served his mission in Brazil.
I'm also thinking of Teresa's mother, who was a Republican
committeewoman and Goldwater supporter for years...and who voted for
Jesse Jackson in the 1984 primary elections. She also spent much of
the latter part of her high-school teaching career fighting
fundamentalist loons. (I particularly recall the twiceborn parent who
went on the warpath at the news, brought home by her child the day
Teresa's mother taught Milton, that "Mrs. Nielsen says it's better to
reign in hell than serve in heaven.")
When you're actually related by marriage to dozens and dozens of real
live Mormons, it becomes clear that they are, as individuals, far from
the homogenous Stepford stereotype. Socially, intellectually,
politically. Very far indeed.
Kip Williams
>
> I'm also thinking of Teresa's mother, who was a Republican
> committeewoman and Goldwater supporter for years...and who voted for
> Jesse Jackson in the 1984 primary elections. She also spent much of
> the latter part of her high-school teaching career fighting
> fundamentalist loons. (I particularly recall the twiceborn parent who
> went on the warpath at the news, brought home by her child the day
> Teresa's mother taught Milton, that "Mrs. Nielsen says it's better to
> reign in hell than serve in heaven.")
I still think you shouldn't be able to vote until eighteen years
after you're born, and if you're born again, the count should start
again. Who wants neonatals voting, for corn sakes?
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Avedon Carol
>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
Do you think all his other activities came from his Catholicism?
Avedon Carol
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>In <3879D69F...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>Otherwise, Marilee, what you're doing is arguing for the right of
>>religious believers to interrogate the non-religious and the adherents
>>of minority religions about their beliefs, and exclude them from
>>office based on that, because you can't extend the right to such
>>interrogations in one direction and not the other, and despite the
>>sometimes different impression one can get in fandom, it's not the
>>atheists and neopagans that have the wieght of numbers on their side.
>
>I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
>who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
>office and that makes me queasy.
Yeah, probably. But there's a big difference between "their beliefs"
the name of their religion. Telling me you're a believing Catholic
doesn't really tell me everything you believe, even on some pretty
obviously Catholic religious issues. I mean, hell, there are an awful
lot of Catholic priests who consider themselves good Catholics but
don't agree with each other. The same is even true of Born-again
Pentacostalists. When you get right down to it, you have to pay
attention to more than just one word that comes out of their mouths if
you want to know what they believe in doing.
Marilee J. Layman
(Avedon Carol) wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 16:07:52 -0500, Marilee J. Layman
><mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
>
>Do you think all his other activities came from his Catholicism?
You mean like his reported adultery? No, I don't think the Catholics
say that's a good idea.
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0500:
>In <3879D69F...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>Otherwise, Marilee, what you're doing is arguing for the right of
>>religious believers to interrogate the non-religious and the adherents
>>of minority religions about their beliefs, and exclude them from
>>office based on that, because you can't extend the right to such
>>interrogations in one direction and not the other, and despite the
>>sometimes different impression one can get in fandom, it's not the
>>atheists and neopagans that have the wieght of numbers on their side.
>
>I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
>who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
>office and that makes me queasy.
Doesn't your reaction depend, at least a little, on what
they believe?
As far as I can tell, just about everyone believes something:
whether or not they believe in gods, they have opinions about
the structure of the universe and what behavior is and is not
proper.
Avedon Carol
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>>>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
>>
>>Do you think all his other activities came from his Catholicism?
>
>You mean like his reported adultery? No, I don't think the Catholics
>say that's a good idea.
Well, that was kinda my point.
(I think his civil rights actions had a lot to do with the fact that
his brother talked him into it.)
Elisabeth Carey
And I think it's quite likely that his Catholicism was _part_ of
Robert's motive for doing so. But that's Robert, not John. And I don't
think it was the whole story for Robert, either.
Lis Carey
Marilee J. Layman
<v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>Quoth Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> on Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:25:08
>-0500:
>
>>In <3879D69F...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
>><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>>Otherwise, Marilee, what you're doing is arguing for the right of
>>>religious believers to interrogate the non-religious and the adherents
>>>of minority religions about their beliefs, and exclude them from
>>>office based on that, because you can't extend the right to such
>>>interrogations in one direction and not the other, and despite the
>>>sometimes different impression one can get in fandom, it's not the
>>>atheists and neopagans that have the wieght of numbers on their side.
>>
>>I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
>>who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
>>office and that makes me queasy.
>
>Doesn't your reaction depend, at least a little, on what
>they believe?
>
>As far as I can tell, just about everyone believes something:
>whether or not they believe in gods, they have opinions about
>the structure of the universe and what behavior is and is not
>proper.
Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
believe.
Marilee J. Layman
(Avedon Carol) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:45:54 -0500, Marilee J. Layman
><mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>>>As to the Kennedy question (another post) -- don't you think his civil
>>>>rights actions came from his Catholicism?
>>>
>>>Do you think all his other activities came from his Catholicism?
>>
>>You mean like his reported adultery? No, I don't think the Catholics
>>say that's a good idea.
>
>Well, that was kinda my point.
>
>(I think his civil rights actions had a lot to do with the fact that
>his brother talked him into it.)
Really? You do see more about Bobby being active in civil rights. I
was 7 when JFK died and most of what I know about his life has been
from television documentaries.
Julie Stampnitzky
> Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
> because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
> I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
> believe.
If it's only what they *say* they believe, and not what they actually
believe, how does it help you to know it?
--
Julie Stampnitzky "Lecture slides are the most important
Rehovot, Israel thing a scientist produces."
http://www.yucs.org/~jules -my thesis advisor
http://neskaya.darkover.cx
Lydia Nickerson
>Yes, but not knowing their religion means we believe they can make all
>decisions independent of their religion. I'm not sure that's
>possible.
Of course it's possible. The role that religion plays in a person's life
is infinitely variable. Moreover, the "religion" that may play a role in
that person's legislative career won't be the religion on the books, it
will be his personal understanding and his personal compromises with
whatever religion he professes. No matter what they say, and they do say
it constantly, people don't just turn themselves over to God and do what
he says. Life is way more complex than religion. In order to live and
worship, one makes adjustments to fit actual daily life. Some people are
nutters, and truly believe that they are following only the dictates of
god without any variation, but look a little closer. Heck, look at the
theological arguments of literally any religion in the world.
If someone has a public stand on religion, well, I'd be afraid. But
someone who refuses to discuss it at least meets my standards of being my
social equal (a la _Stranger_). Worrying that someone like Bradley is
really a deep cover mole for some religious organization seems paranoid.
The man has a good, long, and industrious legislative career. You have
something to judge him on. I'd like to vote for him, I think. I don't
want to know what his religion is.
--
----
Lydia Nickerson ly...@demesne.com ly...@dd-b.net
Marilee J. Layman
Stampnitzky <ju...@yucs.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
>> because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
>> I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
>> believe.
>
>If it's only what they *say* they believe, and not what they actually
>believe, how does it help you to know it?
I think it's fairly easy to tell people who are simply saying
something vs. people who believe it. Do you really think George W.
Bush's most important advisor is Jesus? That's what he said, but I
don't think it's true. It does tell you a lot about him, though.
Lydia Nickerson
>Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
>because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
>I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
>believe.
Their votes are a better measure than what they say about themselves, but
even so, what Bradley is saying is that religion is a private matter.
This strikes me as a remarkably sane and useful position.
Walter Daniels
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>In <t1aq7scdc196or7ak...@4ax.com>, Vicki Rosenzweig
><v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>>Quoth Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> on Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:25:08
>>-0500:
>>>In <3879D69F...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
>>><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>>>Otherwise, Marilee, what you're doing is arguing for the right of
>>>>religious believers to interrogate the non-religious and the adherents
>>>>of minority religions about their beliefs, and exclude them from
>>>>office based on that, because you can't extend the right to such
>>>>interrogations in one direction and not the other, and despite the
>>>>sometimes different impression one can get in fandom, it's not the
>>>>atheists and neopagans that have the wieght of numbers on their side.
>>>I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
>>>who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
>>>office and that makes me queasy.
Trying hard not to sound like a certain politician. :-) It depends
on how you define "push." Most of my close friends, know that I am
strongly Christian, and I hope I don't "push" it on them. It does set
the core of what I believe, and want to see happen. It makes me less
likely to ignore, or allow, what I most deeply believe is wrong. I've
already discusased why i would never allow myself to be out in a
position of political power, so I won't restate it.
>>Doesn't your reaction depend, at least a little, on what
>>they believe?
>>As far as I can tell, just about everyone believes something:
>>whether or not they believe in gods, they have opinions about
>>the structure of the universe and what behavior is and is not
>>proper.
>Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
>because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
>I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
>believe.
Ideally, it would give a clue as to how they might deal with
something. However, saying (claiming to be) is different from being.
A "friend" has a saying about religion. "Going to church doesn't make
you a Christian, anymore than going into a garage, makes you a car."
She and I disagree, about religion and many other things, but we agree
on this. It is also why i refer to myself as a "Practicing Christian."
One of these days, with enough practice, I will get it right.
>--
>Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
>relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
>Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
>AOL keyword: BOOKs > Chats & Message > SF Forum > The Other*Worlds*Cafe
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics prints specialties in small quantities at
reasonable prices. Express your interests with a Custom printed T-shirt,
mug, mousepad, or carry bag. We cheerfully print in quantities as small
as one. Contact: fbng...@indy.net http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics/
Enter the bi-monthly design survey, and win a free mug.
Walter Daniels
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
>> because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
>> I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
>> believe.
>If it's only what they *say* they believe, and not what they actually
>believe, how does it help you to know it?
I use the standard of, "If they lie about their religion, what else
will they lie about?" YMMV, but it works for me.
>--
>Julie Stampnitzky "Lecture slides are the most important
>Rehovot, Israel thing a scientist produces."
>http://www.yucs.org/~jules -my thesis advisor
>http://neskaya.darkover.cx
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mitch Wagner
said:
> As far as I can tell, just about everyone believes something:
I believe I'll have another donut.
--
Mitch Wagner | dm.members.mitch-wagner | sff.people.mitch-wagner |
http://www.sff.net/people/mitchw
Mitch Wagner
mjla...@erols.com said:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.10.100011...@yucs.org>, Julie
> Stampnitzky <ju...@yucs.org> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
> >> because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
> >> I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
> >> believe.
> >
> >If it's only what they *say* they believe, and not what they actually
> >believe, how does it help you to know it?
>
> I think it's fairly easy to tell people who are simply saying
> something vs. people who believe it. Do you really think George W.
> Bush's most important advisor is Jesus? That's what he said, but I
> don't think it's true. It does tell you a lot about him, though.
None of it good, unfortunately.
I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
religious groups.
Ross Smith
>
> I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> religious groups.
Whereas I feel exactly the opposite way. I don't trust idealists or True
Believers of any kind, religious or otherwise. You never know when
they're going to decide that their High Principles are more important
than trivial little things like human beings. Someone who's only
pandering to public opinion, on the other hand, while far from
admirable, is at least likely to be fairly consistent and predictable.
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"Well, yes, I was aiming at him, but I've never hit anything with
a rocket launcher before, so I didn't think it mattered." -- Axly
Richard Brandt
>
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >
> > I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> > religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> > religious groups.
>
> Whereas I feel exactly the opposite way. I don't trust idealists or True
> Believers of any kind, religious or otherwise.
Heck, I'm willing to meet you guys in the middle...
--
=== Richard Brandt is at http://www.zenation/rsbrandt ===
"Usenet will get you through times of no cable better than
cable will get you through times of no Usenet."--Kip Williams
Mitch Wagner
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >
> > I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> > religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> > religious groups.
>
> Whereas I feel exactly the opposite way. I don't trust idealists or True
> Believers of any kind, religious or otherwise. You never know when
> they're going to decide that their High Principles are more important
> than trivial little things like human beings. Someone who's only
> pandering to public opinion, on the other hand, while far from
> admirable, is at least likely to be fairly consistent and predictable.
The religious people I know tend to be pragmatists. They are steady and
steadfast about their goals. They count the sanctity of human beings as
the highest principle of all. They don't talk about their religion all
that much, except with people they trust.
The panderers will do any damn thing at all if it will get them votes or
money.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >
> > I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> > religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> > religious groups.
>
> Whereas I feel exactly the opposite way. I don't trust idealists or True
> Believers of any kind, religious or otherwise. You never know when
> they're going to decide that their High Principles are more important
> than trivial little things like human beings. Someone who's only
> pandering to public opinion, on the other hand, while far from
> admirable, is at least likely to be fairly consistent and predictable.
Someone who's only pandering to public opinion, will pander to any
d**n thing that will advance them politically. Someone who has a
strong, coherent body of belief, whether religious or not, will have
some genuine goals. While they're unlikely to be totally consistent in
their pursuit of those goals (being human and dealing with other
humans, after all), it's generally going to be far, far easier to get
a real sense of what they're _likely_ to do, and to figure out which
things they consider more important than other things.
Lis Carey
Avedon Carol
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>I think it's fairly easy to tell people who are simply saying
>something vs. people who believe it. Do you really think George W.
>Bush's most important advisor is Jesus? That's what he said, but I
>don't think it's true. It does tell you a lot about him, though.
Well, he seems committed to acting on that famous teaching of Jesus
that says, "Keepeth the death penalty in your heart, and forget the
value of human life or the redemption of the soul."
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
>religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
>religious groups.
But then... You know, I was genuinely shocked to find out that Henry
Hyde had been having an affair. I thought he was a creep, but I
thought he was an _honest_ creep.
Avedon Carol
>No matter what they say, and they do say
>it constantly, people don't just turn themselves over to God and do what
>he says. Life is way more complex than religion. In order to live and
>worship, one makes adjustments to fit actual daily life.
Yse. It's not like every time the mechanic tells them their car needs
a tune-up, they stop and ask, "What would Jesus do?" before agreeing
to having their timing re-set.
>Some people are
>nutters, and truly believe that they are following only the dictates of
>god without any variation, but look a little closer. Heck, look at the
>theological arguments of literally any religion in the world.
I've heard a lot of people claim they live a "Biblical lifestyle".
You can usually stop them with questions like, "If your husband dies,
are you going to marry his brother?" (I resist the temptation to
suggest that they wander lost in the desert for 40 years.)
>If someone has a public stand on religion, well, I'd be afraid. But
>someone who refuses to discuss it at least meets my standards of being my
>social equal (a la _Stranger_). Worrying that someone like Bradley is
>really a deep cover mole for some religious organization seems paranoid.
>The man has a good, long, and industrious legislative career. You have
>something to judge him on. I'd like to vote for him, I think. I don't
>want to know what his religion is.
Bradley has a public stand on actual issues, last I looked. That's
probably more useful than anything he could say about his religion as
far as figuring out what he actually believes in terms relevant to the
presidency.
Avedon Carol
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>>Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
>>because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
>>I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
>>believe.
>
>Their votes are a better measure than what they say about themselves, but
>even so, what Bradley is saying is that religion is a private matter.
>This strikes me as a remarkably sane and useful position.
And it is, to a large extent, the sort of religious belief that
counts. No statement you make about the name of your religion says
anything about your relationship with your deity and how you comport
yourself according to that relationship. Everyone thinks they believe
in "good", but it doesn't stop them from doing evil.
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>In article <t1aq7scdc196or7ak...@4ax.com>, v...@redbird.org
>said:
>
>> As far as I can tell, just about everyone believes something:
>
>I believe I'll have another donut.
I believe my suitcase comes from Saturn.
Marilee J. Layman
(Avedon Carol) wrote:
>On 14 Jan 00 05:11:31 GMT, ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>
>>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>>>Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
>>>because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
>>>I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
>>>believe.
>>
>>Their votes are a better measure than what they say about themselves, but
>>even so, what Bradley is saying is that religion is a private matter.
>>This strikes me as a remarkably sane and useful position.
(picking this up from Avedon's post because)
Lydy, I'm not seeing your posts.
Ray Radlein
>
> ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>
> >No matter what they say, and they do say it constantly, people
> >don't just turn themselves over to God and do what he says. Life
> >is way more complex than religion. In order to live and worship,
> >one makes adjustments to fit actual daily life.
>
> Yse. It's not like every time the mechanic tells them their car
> needs a tune-up, they stop and ask, "What would Jesus do?" before
> agreeing to having their timing re-set.
Jesus would also check the points and plugs.
- Ray R.
--
**********************************************************************
"Okkoto-chu! I choose you!" - Princess Pokemononoke
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
**********************************************************************
Mitch Wagner
ave...@thirdworld.uk said:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:59:46 GMT, Mitch Wagner <mi...@wagner.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> >religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> >religious groups.
>
> But then... You know, I was genuinely shocked to find out that Henry
> Hyde had been having an affair. I thought he was a creep, but I
> thought he was an _honest_ creep.
I don't know.
I can't decide whether the people who prosecuted Clinton were sincere in
their outrage at his behavior, or whether it was just a hook to get him
out of office.
Perhaps the prosecutors themselves didn't know after a while.
Doug Wickstrom
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> excited the ether to say:
>Avedon Carol wrote:
>>
>> ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>>
>> >No matter what they say, and they do say it constantly, people
>> >don't just turn themselves over to God and do what he says. Life
>> >is way more complex than religion. In order to live and worship,
>> >one makes adjustments to fit actual daily life.
>>
>> Yse. It's not like every time the mechanic tells them their car
>> needs a tune-up, they stop and ask, "What would Jesus do?" before
>> agreeing to having their timing re-set.
>
>Jesus would also check the points and plugs.
IIRC Jesus drives a diesel.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"That lowdown scoundrel deserves to be kicked to death by a jackass, and I'm
just the one to do it." --a Texas congressional candidate
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <p7e38sgjvgl5ef8mv...@4ax.com>,
> ave...@thirdworld.uk said:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:59:46 GMT, Mitch Wagner <mi...@wagner.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> > >religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> > >religious groups.
> >
> > But then... You know, I was genuinely shocked to find out that Henry
> > Hyde had been having an affair. I thought he was a creep, but I
> > thought he was an _honest_ creep.
>
> I don't know.
>
> I can't decide whether the people who prosecuted Clinton were sincere in
> their outrage at his behavior, or whether it was just a hook to get him
> out of office.
>
> Perhaps the prosecutors themselves didn't know after a while.
You're still confused on that point? After Henry Hyde told us an
affair in his forties was just a "youthful indiscretion", and the
Republicans' amusing scramble to find a new Speaker after Newt bailed,
and Newt's recent divorce to marry the aide he was having an affair
with _during_ the Lewinsky scandal?
Even the ones who aren't known to having been involved in sexual
affairs themselves, if they were really motivated by moral outrage as
they claimed they were, would have had severe difficulty continuing to
work with important people on their own side.
No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
presidency.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In <eme38sk3pjnkgghvk...@4ax.com>, ave...@thirdworld.uk
> (Avedon Carol) wrote:
>
> >On 14 Jan 00 05:11:31 GMT, ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
> >
> >>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>Sure, but you can't really tell from past voting records, etc.,
> >>>because politicians are always changing how they vote. And that's why
> >>>I'd like to know what they believe. Or at least what they say they
> >>>believe.
> >>
> >>Their votes are a better measure than what they say about themselves, but
> >>even so, what Bradley is saying is that religion is a private matter.
> >>This strikes me as a remarkably sane and useful position.
>
> (picking this up from Avedon's post because)
>
> Lydy, I'm not seeing your posts.
Neither am I.
Lis Carey
Kip Williams
>
> Avedon Carol wrote:
> >
> > ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
> >
> > >No matter what they say, and they do say it constantly, people
> > >don't just turn themselves over to God and do what he says. Life
> > >is way more complex than religion. In order to live and worship,
> > >one makes adjustments to fit actual daily life.
> >
> > Yse. It's not like every time the mechanic tells them their car
> > needs a tune-up, they stop and ask, "What would Jesus do?" before
> > agreeing to having their timing re-set.
>
> Jesus would also check the points and plugs.
"You can read the stars in the skies, yet know not what the dials on
your dashboard say."
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Philip Chee
>(picking this up from Avedon's post because)
>Lydy, I'm not seeing your posts.
+ X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV)
+ From: ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson)
+ Lines: 14
+ Date: 14 Jan 00 05:11:31 GMT
Cause: date using windowed two digit years. Your news server is rejecting
all of Lydy's articles because it thinks she is posting from 1900.
Solution:
In article <dlLd4.2233$v31.2...@ptah.visi.com> mtp...@visi.com writes:
>lini...@fozzie.chem.wisc.edu (Rachael Lininger) writes:
>>In article <3875DEC0...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>>You may have found a clue. Now, what can we do with it?
>>Might they all be using nn?
>Lydy often does, Jo doesn't, and I don't know what Morgan uses.
>>Then we know who to blame.
>>In fact, let's blame him anyway. Michael! Hey, you! No pie!
>I should point out that I've released nn-6.5.5 to deal with other people's
>broken software. In addition to fixing a few long-standing sorting bugs,
>it will do intelligent date parsing, to the point of treating the year 100
>as the year 2000. (Actually, I just back-ported nn7's pack-date.c to nn-6,
>as nn7 *still* isn't finished. One of these months....) Anyone using nn
>should get their SysAdmin to upgrade. Oh, not in nn-6.5.5 but also on the
>ftp site is a patch to get nn to compile under Solaris 7. Sun did some
>real brain-damage to at least one of their header files.
>
>--
>**************************************************************************
>* Michael T Pins | mtp...@visi.com *
>* keeper of the nn sources | mtp...@icaen.uiowa.edu *
>* ftp://ftp.visi.com/users/mtpins | #include <std.disclaimer> *
Philip
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Corporation Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 20270.27 ž COBOL is an acronym for "Compiles Only Because Of Luck."
Marty Helgesen
<SNIP>
>I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
>who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
>office and that makes me queasy.
>
Martin Luther King, Jr. as a federal holiday. He did not hold public
office, but he did push for his religious belief that racial segrega-
tion and discrimination are wrong. He tried to get the laws changed
to conform to this belief. Because he was black and subject to the
Jim Crow laws in the South he had other reasons to oppose them, but
he was joined by many other religious believers, including many who
were white. They included other Protestant ministers, Catholic
priests, Catholic sisters and brothers, and ordinary laypeople of all
denominations. Many of them went south to participate in sit-ins,
freedom rides, voter registration drives, marches, demonstrations,
etc. They did so because of their religious beliefs. I am sure that
you do not disapprove of their actions, that they do not even make
you queasy.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"Ever noticed how many people claim it's organized religion they
object to? Makes me wonder what's so great about incoherent
religion." Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Jordin Kare
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:58:14 GMT, Mitch Wagner <mi...@wagner.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <t1aq7scdc196or7ak...@4ax.com>, v...@redbird.org
> >said:
> >
> >> As far as I can tell, just about everyone believes something:
> >
> >I believe I'll have another donut.
>
> I believe my suitcase comes from Saturn.
Well, Mazda makes special fitted luggage for the trunk of the Miata, but I
didn't know Saturn did the same.
Jordin Kare
James Nicoll
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
Snip
>
>No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
>crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
>presidency.
I bet it is going to really suck to be the next Republican
President with a majority Democrat congress and senate.
--
From _Emily Bronte: Standup Comedian_
"What's dark and evil and stalks the moor?"
"Iago"
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <3882F2FF...@mediaone.net>,
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> >
> >No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
> >crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
> >presidency.
>
> I bet it is going to really suck to be the next Republican
> President with a majority Democrat congress and senate.
Yes, that's one of the seriously wretched aftereffects of this: the
Republicans' mindless desire for revenge regardless of the
consequences for the country is all too likely to inspire the same
sort of mindless desire for revenge on the part of the Democrats, when
they have the chance.
And public disgust with system will get even deeper, and we'll be that
much more vulnerable to someone promising to "fix" it.
Lis Carey
Doug Wickstrom
excited the ether to say:
>In article <tre38som9rc6jqilv...@4ax.com>, ave...@cix.co.uk wrote:
I used to have a Saturn suitcase. It was a line of molded
hardshell (_very_ hardshell) luggage by Samsonite.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he
has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad."
--Theodore Roosevelt
Dave Weingart
>And public disgust with system will get even deeper, and we'll be that
>much more vulnerable to someone promising to "fix" it.
I hereby announce my intention to become President of the US. I'm
certainly qualified...I'm a natural-born US citizen (can't have
none of them Artificial Persons runnin' our country, can we?) over
35 years of age. And, as I'm not a member of any political party
(and, in fact, hold several members of both major parties in utter
contempt), I'm relatively immune to party politics. My answer to
questions like "have you ever used drugs" or "have you ever had an
affair" or "do you like green eggs and ham" will be the same: "None
of yer business. Ask me what my plans are for the future or get a
real life." Appointments will be made in the basis of exactly two
things: merit (which I define as an ability to to the job well, quickly
and fairly) and a willingness to listen to alternatives. Welfare
will be reformed to focus on helping people get their lives in order
and making them self-sufficient. Education will be reformed to focus
on teaching children how to learn and how to think, not dry recitation
of facts. The resources at our disposal will be used to help make
people's lives *better* instead of being wasted upon the accumulation
of power and wealth, preferably with all segments of our society taking
part. Let us truly become a government by the people, of the people
and for the people.
'Course, nobody like that would ever win in *my* lifetime.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK If you can read this,
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Y2K was over-hyped.
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux
ICQ 57055207
Jonathan Guthrie
> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>> In article <p7e38sgjvgl5ef8mv...@4ax.com>,
>> ave...@thirdworld.uk said:
>> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:59:46 GMT, Mitch Wagner <mi...@wagner.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > >I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
>> > >religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
>> > >religious groups.
>> > But then... You know, I was genuinely shocked to find out that Henry
>> > Hyde had been having an affair. I thought he was a creep, but I
>> > thought he was an _honest_ creep.
>> I don't know.
>> I can't decide whether the people who prosecuted Clinton were sincere in
>> their outrage at his behavior, or whether it was just a hook to get him
>> out of office.
>> Perhaps the prosecutors themselves didn't know after a while.
> You're still confused on that point? After Henry Hyde told us an
> affair in his forties was just a "youthful indiscretion", and the
> Republicans' amusing scramble to find a new Speaker after Newt bailed,
> and Newt's recent divorce to marry the aide he was having an affair
> with _during_ the Lewinsky scandal?
> Even the ones who aren't known to having been involved in sexual
> affairs themselves, if they were really motivated by moral outrage as
> they claimed they were, would have had severe difficulty continuing to
> work with important people on their own side.
> No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
> crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
> presidency.
It occurs to me that, as far as many people on this ng are concerned,
there can be no greater crime than being "Republican in Office". In
other words, you can look in the mirror to find someone with a similar
attitude to those that you accuse Clinton's prosecutors of having.
James Nicoll
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> In article <3882F2FF...@mediaone.net>,
>> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> Snip
>> >
>> >crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
>> >presidency.
>>
>> President with a majority Democrat congress and senate.
>
>Yes, that's one of the seriously wretched aftereffects of this: the
>Republicans' mindless desire for revenge regardless of the
>consequences for the country is all too likely to inspire the same
>sort of mindless desire for revenge on the part of the Democrats, when
>they have the chance.
>
>much more vulnerable to someone promising to "fix" it.
I am willing to be king. I promise to rule, although perhaps not
wisely.
Mark Jones
jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) spake thusly:
>In article <3882F2FF...@mediaone.net>,
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>>
>>No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
>>crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
>>presidency.
>
> I bet it is going to really suck to be the next Republican
>President with a majority Democrat congress and senate.
Surely you jest. All the high-minded, principled and non-vengeful
politicians are in the Democratic Party. It's the _Republicans_ who
are vicious, hate-filled, cynical exploiters of innocent personal
pecadilloes.
The Democrats told us so.
Avram Grumer
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> >
> > (picking this up from Avedon's post because)
> >
> > Lydy, I'm not seeing your posts.
>
> Neither am I.
Me neither. I just tried working my way up the References chain --
<lydy.94...@gw.dd-b.net> isn't on my server, though the message to
which it is a reply, <0joq7so8ks3eqntiq...@4ax.com>, is.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
The Phantom Menace delenda est!
http://www.PigsAndFishes.org/goodstuff/pmde.html
Mark Jones
Guthrie <jgut...@brokersys.com> spake thusly:
>> No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
>> crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
>> presidency.
>
>It occurs to me that, as far as many people on this ng are concerned,
>there can be no greater crime than being "Republican in Office". In
>other words, you can look in the mirror to find someone with a similar
>attitude to those that you accuse Clinton's prosecutors of having.
I think there's some validity to this. There were (and are, for
that matter) plenty of people who think Clinton's behavior was
reprehensible, and many who think it _does_ constitute impeachable
behavior. Some of them might even be politicians.
That some of Clinton's most visible political opponents' hands
weren't clean is hardly surprising--they're politicians too. It
doesn't mean that _all_ of his opponents were cynically using his
behavior as a fig leaf for a political agenda.
I'm equally willing to consider the possibility that at least _some_
of the Democrats who supported him did so for reasons of principle,
and not just because they couldn't stand the thought of Republicans
winning a fight.
Jason Stokes
wrote:
>Surely you jest. All the high-minded, principled and non-vengeful
>politicians are in the Democratic Party. It's the _Republicans_ who
>are vicious, hate-filled, cynical exploiters of innocent personal
>pecadilloes.
>
>The Democrats told us so.
Watching the McNeil newshour, I think it's one of those things where
only Americans can detect the differences between the parties. From an
outsider's point of view, it looks like the parties and candidates use
identical rhetoric, make identical promises, and screw people over
later in identical fashion.
--
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Jason Stokes
>I hereby announce my intention to become President of the US.
[snip]
>My answer to questions like "have you ever used drugs" or "have you
>ever had an affair" or "do you like green eggs and ham" will be the
>same: "None of yer business.
That's the George W. Bush solution. It didn't work for him, and it
wouldn't work for you.
>Welfare will be reformed to focus on helping people get their lives in
>order and making them self-sufficient.
Standard Republican line. Where "self-sufficient" means "doing
anything, prostitution, bumming on the street, so long as they're not
getting welfare."
>Education will be reformed to focus on teaching children how to learn
>and how to think, not dry recitation of facts.
Heretic! The only way to improve our schools is standardised,
homogenised curriculums graded by standardised testing in production
line fashion!
--
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Elisabeth Carey
Wrong.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On 17 Jan 2000 19:24:43 GMT, Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>
> >I hereby announce my intention to become President of the US.
>
> [snip]
>
> >My answer to questions like "have you ever used drugs" or "have you
> >ever had an affair" or "do you like green eggs and ham" will be the
> >same: "None of yer business.
>
> That's the George W. Bush solution. It didn't work for him, and it
> wouldn't work for you.
Ah, but it has worked for George Dubya. He had a short uncomfortable
period, stuck to his line, and the story has faded away. It's still
possible he won't get the Republican nomination--but if he doesn't, it
won't be because of that.
<snip>
Lis Carey
Janice Gelb
>Mitch Wagner wrote:
>>
>> I can't decide whether the people who prosecuted Clinton were sincere in
>> their outrage at his behavior, or whether it was just a hook to get him
>> out of office.
>>
>> Perhaps the prosecutors themselves didn't know after a while.
>
>
>Even the ones who aren't known to having been involved in sexual
>affairs themselves, if they were really motivated by moral outrage as
>they claimed they were, would have had severe difficulty continuing to
>work with important people on their own side.
>
>No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
>crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
>presidency.
>
And getting away with stuff by dint of his charm that none of
them would have been able to get away with.
*****************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janic...@eng.sun.com | this message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
The thing about having been around as long as I have is that you
can't fit your hearing aid over your earring. - Quincy Jones
Dave Weingart
>>ever had an affair" or "do you like green eggs and ham" will be the
>>same: "None of yer business.
>
>That's the George W. Bush solution. It didn't work for him, and it
>wouldn't work for you.
Oh, I dunno. I think you'll find that the majority of Americans
didn't care.
>>Welfare will be reformed to focus on helping people get their lives in
>>order and making them self-sufficient.
>
>Standard Republican line. Where "self-sufficient" means "doing
>anything, prostitution, bumming on the street, so long as they're not
>getting welfare."
Umm...well, no. More like having jobs, homes, able to have actual
lives.
>>Education will be reformed to focus on teaching children how to learn
>>and how to think, not dry recitation of facts.
>
>Heretic! The only way to improve our schools is standardised,
>homogenised curriculums graded by standardised testing in production
>line fashion!
If this be heresy, burn me at the stake!
Dave Weingart
>only Americans can detect the differences between the parties. From an
>outsider's point of view, it looks like the parties and candidates use
>identical rhetoric, make identical promises, and screw people over
>later in identical fashion.
No, it's the accent. In the sentence "The government has no business
interfering in the [______]" one party says "bedroom" and the other
says "boardroom."
Mike Kozlowski
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>Education will be reformed to focus
>on teaching children how to learn and how to think, not dry recitation
>of facts.
That's not reform; that's the status quo. Every teacher I've had since
grade school has tromped out the "We're not going to waste your time with
useless facts" mantra.
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mkozlows/
Dave Weingart
>That's not reform; that's the status quo. Every teacher I've had since
>grade school has tromped out the "We're not going to waste your time with
>useless facts" mantra.
Yes, but do any of them actually follow through on it?
The Weingart Presidency will.
That's my platform and I'm sticking to it.
Mike Kozlowski
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Mike Kozlowski) said:
>>That's not reform; that's the status quo. Every teacher I've had since
>>grade school has tromped out the "We're not going to waste your time with
>>useless facts" mantra.
>
>Yes, but do any of them actually follow through on it?
Well, there are a lot of facts I don't know, so by that measure...
>That's my platform and I'm sticking to it.
Turpentine can help solve that problem.
Dave Weingart
>>That's my platform and I'm sticking to it.
>
>Turpentine can help solve that problem.
Will it also get the wood screws out of my feet?
Kip Williams
[announces his candidacy and his platform for US President, then...]
> 'Course, nobody like that would ever win in *my* lifetime.
Interesting. You are running, but you won't win in your lifetime. Is
yours a posthumous strategy, then? I can see how it might make it
easier for you to campaign (he can't talk now; he's dead), but
what's in it for you? A legacy?
Kip Williams
> In article C62A...@mediaone.net, Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> writes:
> >No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
> >crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
> >presidency.
> And getting away with stuff by dint of his charm that none of
> them would have been able to get away with.
I thought it was by dint of _their_ charmlessness.
Randy Smith
Stampnitzky <ju...@yucs.org> writes:
>On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> Bill Bradley won't state anything about religion, if he goes to
>> church, where, what he believes, etc. But if there's some active
>> religiosity behind that, wouldn't you want to know? Don't you think
>> that people who believe strongly in a religion make decisions based on
>> that belief? Even when the decisions affect the nation?
>
>Wouldn't you be able to answer that question by looking at a candidate's
>voting record etc.? If his decisions are affected by his religion, he's
>probably already made such decisions in the past. Or do you think that he
>has been sneakily refraining from allowing his religion to influence his
>politics, but that this will change once he is in a position of real
>power?
No, I don't think you could answer that question by looking at a
candidate's voting record. It is possible for candidates from similar
religious
backgrounds to have strongly opposing political views, and base them
on their religious beliefs. Jimmy Carter, Pat Robertson, and Jesse Jackson
have all been presidential candidates. All of them are devoutly and
publically Christian. Yet, each one holds different views, based on his own
understanding of Biblical interpretation and Christian tradition.
I would hope that candidates would inform us of their religious backgrounds
(or lack thereof) and how those views affect their voting records and how
they might go about making decisions if elected to office. These are
important considerations for some voters.
--Randy Smith
RSmit...@aol.com or rand...@pacbell.net
--A Nebraskan Sojourning By The Bay
Marilee J. Layman
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>In article <outk7s4oamo019h3i...@4ax.com>, Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> says:
><SNIP>
>>I'm not actually arguing at all. I'm saying that I think that people
>>who truly follow their beliefs are likely to push for them in public
>>office and that makes me queasy.
>>
>
>This weekend the United States is observing the birthday of the Rev.
>Martin Luther King, Jr. as a federal holiday. He did not hold public
>office, but he did push for his religious belief that racial segrega-
>tion and discrimination are wrong. He tried to get the laws changed
>to conform to this belief. Because he was black and subject to the
>Jim Crow laws in the South he had other reasons to oppose them, but
>he was joined by many other religious believers, including many who
>were white. They included other Protestant ministers, Catholic
>priests, Catholic sisters and brothers, and ordinary laypeople of all
>denominations. Many of them went south to participate in sit-ins,
>freedom rides, voter registration drives, marches, demonstrations,
>etc. They did so because of their religious beliefs. I am sure that
>you do not disapprove of their actions, that they do not even make
>you queasy.
MLK Jr wasn't a perfect person. If he held office, he might have
decided that prayer was required in schools. We don't know, he didn't
live long enough and he never held office. No, I don't disapprove of
those actions, but they were not the actions of a politician.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Chats & Message > SF Forum > The Other*Worlds*Cafe
Kevin J. Maroney
>Watching the McNeil newshour, I think it's one of those things where
>only Americans can detect the differences between the parties. From an
>outsider's point of view, it looks like the parties and candidates use
>identical rhetoric, make identical promises, and screw people over
>later in identical fashion.
Two points: It's "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer", not McNeil; and;
like the sex of hyenas, when it's important, we can tell the
difference.
George Quincey Bush and Al Gore might sound annoyingly alike on the
stump, but no one could mistake Daniel Patrick Moynihan for Trent
Lott.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
http://www.nyrsf.com
Vicki Rosenzweig
09:21:54 -0600:
>Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>
>>> In article <p7e38sgjvgl5ef8mv...@4ax.com>,
>>> ave...@thirdworld.uk said:
>
>>> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:59:46 GMT, Mitch Wagner <mi...@wagner.net>
>>> > wrote:
>
>>> > >I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
>>> > >religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
>>> > >religious groups.
>
>>> > But then... You know, I was genuinely shocked to find out that Henry
>>> > Hyde had been having an affair. I thought he was a creep, but I
>>> > thought he was an _honest_ creep.
>
>>> I don't know.
>
>>> I can't decide whether the people who prosecuted Clinton were sincere in
>>> their outrage at his behavior, or whether it was just a hook to get him
>>> out of office.
>
>>> Perhaps the prosecutors themselves didn't know after a while.
>
>> You're still confused on that point? After Henry Hyde told us an
>> affair in his forties was just a "youthful indiscretion", and the
>> Republicans' amusing scramble to find a new Speaker after Newt bailed,
>> and Newt's recent divorce to marry the aide he was having an affair
>> with _during_ the Lewinsky scandal?
>
>> Even the ones who aren't known to having been involved in sexual
>> affairs themselves, if they were really motivated by moral outrage as
>> they claimed they were, would have had severe difficulty continuing to
>> work with important people on their own side.
>
>> No, the real crime that they wanted to punish Clinton for was the
>> crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
>> presidency.
>
>It occurs to me that, as far as many people on this ng are concerned,
>there can be no greater crime than being "Republican in Office". In
>other words, you can look in the mirror to find someone with a similar
>attitude to those that you accuse Clinton's prosecutors of having.
There may be such, but I doubt it's most of the people you're
addressing. I intensely dislike the mayor of New York City, and
would like to see him impeached, if the city had such a thing,
for repeated violations of the First Amendment. I'm not thrilled
with the governor of New York either, but I don't think he's
done anything for which he deserves to be hounded out of office:
I would like to see us replace him with someone better, but
that's one of the risks he takes in his line of work.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Sue Mason for TAFF!
Rachael Lininger
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>
>> Lydy, I'm not seeing your posts.
>
>Neither am I.
I am! In fact, I saw Jo's the whole time, too.
Rachael, All-Seeing
--
Rachael Lininger | "It's good to know an assassin
lininger@ | you can hire with a can of tuna fish."
chem.wisc.edu | --Rocco da Mallet
Doug Wickstrom
(Jason Stokes) excited the ether to say:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:50:03 GMT, Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Surely you jest. All the high-minded, principled and non-vengeful
>>politicians are in the Democratic Party. It's the _Republicans_ who
>>are vicious, hate-filled, cynical exploiters of innocent personal
>>pecadilloes.
>>
>>The Democrats told us so.
>
>Watching the McNeil newshour, I think it's one of those things where
>only Americans can detect the differences between the parties. From an
>outsider's point of view, it looks like the parties and candidates use
>identical rhetoric, make identical promises, and screw people over
>later in identical fashion.
There is some truth in this view.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"We find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take
possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt ends-the
nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians who are
ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate it and plunder it."
--Friedrich Engels
Avram Grumer
av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> In article <3882F323...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> > >
> > > (picking this up from Avedon's post because)
> > >
> > > Lydy, I'm not seeing your posts.
> >
> > Neither am I.
>
> Me neither. I just tried working my way up the References chain --
> <lydy.94...@gw.dd-b.net> isn't on my server, though the message to
> which it is a reply, <0joq7so8ks3eqntiq...@4ax.com>, is.
...but it is showing up on Panix's news server.
--
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.
Avram Grumer
Weingart) wrote:
> However, I will NOT let that stop me. I don't believe that
> being alive is a requirement.
It probably isn't a requirement for winning the election -- I think one of
the Manhattan districts elected a dead candidate to the House a few years
back. I'm pretty sure it is a requirement for serving.
Mitch Wagner
js...@bluedog.apana.org.au said:
> On 17 Jan 2000 19:24:43 GMT, Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>
> >I hereby announce my intention to become President of the US.
>
> [snip]
>
> >My answer to questions like "have you ever used drugs" or "have you
> >ever had an affair" or "do you like green eggs and ham" will be the
> >same: "None of yer business.
>
> That's the George W. Bush solution. It didn't work for him, and it
> wouldn't work for you.
What evidence do you have that it didn't work for W?
--
Mitch Wagner | dm.members.mitch-wagner | sff.people.mitch-wagner |
http://www.sff.net/people/mitchw
Mark Jones
js...@bluedog.apana.org.au (Jason Stokes) spake thusly:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:50:03 GMT, Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Surely you jest. All the high-minded, principled and non-vengeful
>>politicians are in the Democratic Party. It's the _Republicans_ who
>>are vicious, hate-filled, cynical exploiters of innocent personal
>>pecadilloes.
>>
>>The Democrats told us so.
>
>Watching the McNeil newshour, I think it's one of those things where
>only Americans can detect the differences between the parties. From an
>outsider's point of view, it looks like the parties and candidates use
>identical rhetoric, make identical promises, and screw people over
>later in identical fashion.
I wouldn't say _identical_. Close enough to make little difference
in the long run.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Janice Gelb wrote:
>
> > In article C62A...@mediaone.net, Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > >crime of being a Democrat who got elected and re-elected to the
> > >presidency.
>
> > them would have been able to get away with.
>
> I thought it was by dint of _their_ charmlessness.
Both. Clinton has oodles of charm, and the Republican leadership has
none. (This is part of the reason some of them are so set on Dubya
getting nominated. They've figured out that extreme charmlessness may
be a problem of some kind.)
Lis Carey
Dave Weingart
>Interesting. You are running, but you won't win in your lifetime. Is
>yours a posthumous strategy, then? I can see how it might make it
>easier for you to campaign (he can't talk now; he's dead), but
>what's in it for you? A legacy?
It will undoubtedly take longer than my lifetime to get on the
New York ballot (for those outside the area, New York is a notoriously
and ridiculously difficult state to run for office in. The rules
for getting ON the ballot are arcane at best, and petition signatures
are disallowed for almost any reason).
However, I will NOT let that stop me. I don't believe that being
alive is a requirement.
Kip Williams
Dave Weingart wrote:
>
> One day in Teletubbyland, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> said:
> >Interesting. You are running, but you won't win in your lifetime. Is
> >yours a posthumous strategy, then? I can see how it might make it
> >easier for you to campaign (he can't talk now; he's dead), but
> >what's in it for you? A legacy?
>
> It will undoubtedly take longer than my lifetime to get on the
> New York ballot (for those outside the area, New York is a notoriously
> and ridiculously difficult state to run for office in. The rules
> for getting ON the ballot are arcane at best, and petition signatures
> are disallowed for almost any reason).
>
> However, I will NOT let that stop me. I don't believe that being
> alive is a requirement.
Well, it's been known for a long time that you could vote while
deceased. This is the next logical step, I'd say.
Richard Brandt
>
> Dave Weingart wrote:
> > However, I will NOT let that stop me. I don't believe that being
> > alive is a requirement.
>
> Well, it's been known for a long time that you could vote while
> deceased. This is the next logical step, I'd say.
Long-time readers will remember El Paso judges who made a decent
showing on the ballot while deceased.
--
=== Richard Brandt is at http://www.zenation/rsbrandt ===
"Omigod! They roasted Kenny Rogers!"
"You basters!" --Kip Williams
Mark Jones
(Dave Weingart) spake thusly:
>One day in Teletubbyland, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> said:
>>Interesting. You are running, but you won't win in your lifetime. Is
>>yours a posthumous strategy, then? I can see how it might make it
>>easier for you to campaign (he can't talk now; he's dead), but
>>what's in it for you? A legacy?
>
>It will undoubtedly take longer than my lifetime to get on the
>New York ballot (for those outside the area, New York is a notoriously
>and ridiculously difficult state to run for office in. The rules
>for getting ON the ballot are arcane at best, and petition signatures
>are disallowed for almost any reason).
>
>However, I will NOT let that stop me. I don't believe that being
>alive is a requirement.
It certainly isn't a requirement to _vote_. Not in Chicago, anyhow.
Ailsa N Murphy
Richard Brandt <rsbr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Ross Smith wrote:
>> Mitch Wagner wrote:
>> >
>> > I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
>> > religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
>> > religious groups.
>>
>> Believers of any kind, religious or otherwise.
>
>Heck, I'm willing to meet you guys in the middle...
>
Me too. I prefer my allies to be honorable and my enemies, venial.
How can you ever work with someone who is on a Mission from G-d to
stamp out the evil that is you? But you might be able to come up
with the capital to buy someone who is for sale to the highest
bidder.
-Ailsa
--
There is no forgetting sorrow an...@world.std.com
There is no regretting love Ailsa N.T. Murphy
All we really do is borrow all the dreams we're dreaming of
We can never know tomorrow, all we have is giving love today
-Midge Ure
Ailsa N Murphy
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Mike Kozlowski) said:
>>>That's my platform and I'm sticking to it.
>>
>>Turpentine can help solve that problem.
>
>Will it also get the wood screws out of my feet?
Hmm... Male, Jewish, holes in feet... This sounds familiar.
Are you trying to usurp Alter's position as Antichrist as
well?
Dave Weingart
>Hmm... Male, Jewish, holes in feet... This sounds familiar.
>Are you trying to usurp Alter's position as Antichrist as
>well?
Heavens above, no! I need him to command the fleets of black
helicopters.
Mitch Wagner
> In article <38813760...@rgfn.epcc.edu>,
> Richard Brandt <rsbr...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >Ross Smith wrote:
> >> Mitch Wagner wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I trust religious politicians if they appear to me to be authentically
> >> > religious. I grow mistrustful when they appear to be simply pandering to
> >> > religious groups.
> >>
> >> Whereas I feel exactly the opposite way. I don't trust idealists or True
> >> Believers of any kind, religious or otherwise.
> >
> >Heck, I'm willing to meet you guys in the middle...
> >
> Me too. I prefer my allies to be honorable and my enemies, venial.
> How can you ever work with someone who is on a Mission from G-d to
> stamp out the evil that is you?
Ailsa, that's a pretty bigoted statement--it assumes that (1) Religious
people believe themselves to be on Missions from God and (2) religious
people want to go around stamping out evil.
> But you might be able to come up
> with the capital to buy someone who is for sale to the highest
> bidder.
>
And I find this statement to be preposterous--as a rule, people do not
change their principles all that much, so if you convince someone that it
is in the interest of their principles to work with you, likely that
alliance will be longstanding.
Whereas if someone is for sale to the highest bidder, they will always be
able to find an even higher bidder tomorrow. Do you think you can outbid
a fundamentalist Christian billionaire?
Ailsa N Murphy
Mitch Wagner <mi...@wagner.net> wrote:
>In article <FoJC4...@world.std.com>, an...@world.std.com said:
>> In article <38813760...@rgfn.epcc.edu>,
>> >
>> How can you ever work with someone who is on a Mission from G-d to
>> stamp out the evil that is you?
>
>Ailsa, that's a pretty bigoted statement--it assumes that (1) Religious
>people believe themselves to be on Missions from God and (2) religious
>people want to go around stamping out evil.
>
qualities that fundamentalist lobbyists consider evil incarnate.
I _did_ after all, say "my enemies", which is not the same as the
set of all religious people. If someone is going to be my enemy,
I would prefer that they not feel that G-d has ordained that this
must be so.
I could be missing my guess on some of these, but I gather that
Zev, Jonathan, Lis, Loren, Patrick, and Theresa are to some
degree or another "religious people". I don't feel that any
of them are on a quest to stamp out evil, nor that they are
my enemies or out to get me.
>
>> But you might be able to come up
>> with the capital to buy someone who is for sale to the highest
>> bidder.
>
>And I find this statement to be preposterous--as a rule, people do not
>change their principles all that much, so if you convince someone that it
>is in the interest of their principles to work with you, likely that
>alliance will be longstanding.
>
>Whereas if someone is for sale to the highest bidder, they will always be
>able to find an even higher bidder tomorrow. Do you think you can outbid
>a fundamentalist Christian billionaire?
>
I can't. Lobbies I contribute to might.
Vicki Rosenzweig
-0500:
>In article <860hbr$n9a$1...@cedar.liii.com>, phyd...@liii.com (Dave
>Weingart) wrote:
>
>> However, I will NOT let that stop me. I don't believe that
>> being alive is a requirement.
>
>It probably isn't a requirement for winning the election -- I think one of
>the Manhattan districts elected a dead candidate to the House a few years
>back. I'm pretty sure it is a requirement for serving.
If I recall correctly, he won the primary. (Look, if you had the
choice of the long-time Congressman you liked, who happened to
be dead, and Lenora Fulani, who would *you* vote for?) That then
enabled the Democratic party to pick someone a bit more to their
liking to run in the general election. The Bronx did, however,
re-elect the late Mario Merola as District Attorney a few years
ago.
Matt Austern
> The only thing we know Clinton did that the Republicans claim he did
> was get blow-jobs from an adult woman. You may not like it, but it's
> not a felony or a serious abuse of power to say yes when a woman wants
> to go down on you.
At least it's not a felony in DC this year. It was a felony there
a few years ago, and it still is in many other parts of the US.
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>I'm equally willing to consider the possibility that at least _some_
>of the Democrats who supported him did so for reasons of principle,
>and not just because they couldn't stand the thought of Republicans
>winning a fight.
Winning an _unfair_ and thoroughly reprehensible fight that they never
should have started. I wouldn't want to see the Democrats win such a
fight, either.
And do you think maybe the Republicans, including a few in Congress,
who opposed impeachment may also have done so for reasons of
principle?
You know, the Democrats who went after Nixon for Watergate hated him
just as much as the Republicans hated Clinton, but they at least
waited for him to commit real crimes, not to mention serious abuses of
power, before trying to impeach him.
The Republicans were never after Clinton for anything important, and
the only thing they really accomplished was to embarrass the country.
They didn't really embarrass Clinton as much as they thought they
would, because we all already knew he was a slut before voting in the
'92 election, and we knew it even better by '96.
The only thing we know Clinton did that the Republicans claim he did
was get blow-jobs from an adult woman. You may not like it, but it's
not a felony or a serious abuse of power to say yes when a woman wants
to go down on you.
Fully two-thirds of Americans polled during the proceedings opposed
impeachment. They were not by any stretch of the imagination all
Republicans.
Avedon Carol
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> I bet it is going to really suck to be the next Republican
>> President with a majority Democrat congress and senate.
>
>Yes, that's one of the seriously wretched aftereffects of this: the
>Republicans' mindless desire for revenge regardless of the
>consequences for the country is all too likely to inspire the same
>sort of mindless desire for revenge on the part of the Democrats, when
>they have the chance.
God, I hope you're wrong. But yes, Starrgate does threaten to have
lowered the bar quite a bit. The question is whether the Democrats
will remember _why_ they were so astonished at the way Starr went
after Clinton, and the Republicans went along with it, or if they will
simply play, "Let's see how _they_ like a taste of their own
medicine," and bring the whole thing tumbling round again.