Lauryn Hill: Hypocrite?
DarkStar
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/22/hill/index2.html
Lauryn Hill: Hoochie or hero?
The black community debates the
singer's icon status in light of
her unwed motherhood.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
BY DEBRA DICKERSON
June 22, 1999 | My 18-year-old
niece, Carlie, tried to bond with me recently by showing me her new
outfits for my approval. Everything was see-through, thigh-high or
skin-tight. Not only was I shocked, I was frightened. It was all I
could do not to spank her, the way you might swat a child caught
playing with a loaded gun, because she seemed dangerously
unconscious about the power of her magnificent breasts and legs.
Instead, I subjected her to a lecture on date rape and street
harassment that she sat through patiently. When I took all my nieces
and nephews out for movies and pizza that evening, I actually made her
change from her booty-cooler shorts to something with more coverage.
Carlie's a sweet girl, so she didn't get mad at me. She thinks I'm
funny. "I'll just wear them tomorrow," she said with sly good humor.
The thing is, Carlie is a good
girl. She wants to be a math teacher. We know all her friends, she's
responsible, she happily spends most of her time with family, and
she's in no hurry to date much. When she does, she prefers her dates
to hang at the house with her, watching videos and being abused by
her horde of smart-mouthed aunts. But can she really dress "like
that," immerse herself in hip-hop culture and still be a good girl,
i.e. a girl who's not going to screw up her life? It's against this
personal backdrop that I've watched the gathering storm over the
status of hip-hop star Lauryn Hill in the black community.
Hill is young black womanhood writ
large. She's only 23, but her sultry alto, enormous talent and furious
drive have made her the female artist of her generation. Her debut
solo album, "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill," won every award you
can think of -- ethnic, mainstream and international -- and went
triple platinum. "Miseducation," which she single-handedly wrote and
produced, is both a dead-on critique of negative behaviors in the
black community and a love letter to it. An accomplished movie and
TV actress, songwriter, producer and video director, Hill is firmly
in control of her own career.
And there's more. On leave from
Columbia University, she's also created the Refugee Project for
inner-city kids in her spare time. She still lives with her revered
parents in the New Jersey home she grew up in. A fervent Christian
whose every utterance and song lyric proclaim her belief in God, she
simultaneously exudes New Age grooviness ("Cause karma, karma, karma
comes back to you hard" goes one line of "Miseducation") and old-time
religion ("You can't hold God's people back that long" hunders the
next).
But Hill, the rhapsodic Christian
proselytizer, is not everybody's idea of a black female role model.
For one thing, she often dresses hoochie-style. Worse, she has two
out-of-wedlock children with her live-in boyfriend, Rohan Marley (one
of Bob's many children). Hill may embody the best of young black
womanhood to some people, but to others she's just a hypocrite, or
worse, a danger to the community's endangered morals with her hip-hop
halo.
The calls for her head crescendoed
recently with the June 2 television broadcast of the Essence Awards.
In a tearful acceptance speech, Hill said: "I want to let young
people know that it is not a burden to love Him, and to represent Him,
and to be who you are, as fly and as hot and as whatever, and to still
love God and to serve Him. It's not a contradiction."
Radio call-in shows,
letter-to-the-editor pages and, especially, online venues were deluged
by the debate over Hill. Lee Bailey, founder and publisher of the
Electronic Urban Report (EUR), said, "I was totally surprised by the
outpouring. We received 300-400 e-mails before we stopped counting
and it's still coming in." Indeed, the EUR ran a special section of
the Hill e-mails. As one disgusted e-mailer wrote, "Lauryn's
lifestyle doesn't match her sermons. If she's gonna shack up (and in
her parents' home, no less) with her man and her two babies, that's
her business, but Lauryn's crossing the line when she gets on every
available TV screen talking about how 'holy' she is. God is not in
that mess." Another e-mailer wrote, "If Lauryn Hill weren't famous,
but instead worked the register at [McDonald's], black folks would
be the first people saying what a poor role model she is and how
she needs to get her life together." Still another fulminated: "If
most of these people we 'hero worship' weren't celebrities, we'd
probably be dogging them for some of their lifestyle choices. It
makes it difficult to explain the difference to my son." Many
e-mailers supported Hill, but it was the fulminators who grabbed the
most attention.
Much more at that site.
I think the article is a good one, and the EUR emails are a great
read.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
BARD
allowed things to get out of control. Mind you, the adults who came of age in
the 60s and 70s knew better. Black pride was the resounding theme heard
everywhere; even Tupac's mom was a Black Panther; and yet, she gave us Tupac.
Not that Tupac as an individual is a bad fellow. He seemed likable enough.
But the thing is, a state of affairs existed which enabled him to become a
role model; and that's what's wrong with the Tupacs who permeate black
culture today-- they're heros.
Lauryn Hill is a product of the disintegration of black culture. Clearly,
this women is as confused as a person can be. She doesn't know whether she's
coming or going. Black culture doesn't know whether it's coming or going.
What happened? Who knows. Somewhere thinks got out of control. Perhaps it was
the rejection of Western culture without having anything sensical to put in
its place. So the kids started "doing their own thing"; they started to
manufacture the abomination we have upon us today.
BARD
DarkStar wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/22/hill/index2.html
>
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Pushing it.
RDHULL
why doesnt she just do it?
Michael Rimpel
>Although her speech moved me very much, I never knew she was notmarried.Heck,
>why doesnt she just do it?
>
Question: Knowing that she is not married but has a very close
relationship with the father of her children and he is a big part of the
lives of his children is that better or worse than if she was married and
divorced and was raising her kids by herself? I'm just wondering if
people are making a bigger deal about her being married instead of Lauryn
Hill being a good parent and keeping the father of her children a part of
her children's lives. As for Lauryn Hill setting a good example....I'm
still one of those people that thinks that the best way to give your
children a good exapmle is at home. I guess I just have issues with
people worring about how she affects children she never met.
Michael Rimpel
ri...@worldnet.att.net
To email remove NOSPAM from my address
Wayne Johnson
>Although her speech moved me very much, I never knew she was notmarried.Heck,
>why doesnt she just do it?
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
If you want my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
"Hey, Leroy, I just saw your wife, and she shoooooooow is ugly!"
"Yeah, but she shoooooooow can cook!"
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
If you want my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
Wayne "Pretty women tend to make a lot of Jiffy Mix" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rodney Smith
Leaving out that it's specifically Lauryn Hill being discussed, there
are 3 of my social pet peeves wrapped up in this thread :
1) "Christian Relativism"
I have a real problem with people regardless of ethnicity who publically
dress and or perform in an overtly sexual manner, curse like 2 drunk
sailors and cover all manner of raunch in their comedy routines or
lyrics and then conclude the performance or accept the award by
thanking God or praising Jesus for blessing them with talent, etc. Call
me old fashioned by I don't believe your "persona" versus the "real
you" are mutually exclusive from Christian behavior (especially if you
profess to be one. If you don't then at least you're not being a
hyprcrite). Now, I'm not going to even pretend I'm some sort of super
Christian but I was raised well enough to know that booty shaking,
dressing like a male or female prostitute, and using eveyr swear known
to Man are not the tools generally used to find the Promised Land.
Our society has cooked up a compartimental approach to life in which
your beliefs or (I hate this word in how it's just thrown around)
"values" don't have to be holistically applied across the board of your
life. Rather you can *say* you have some but that they are deeply
private, and this is the license to act in a completely different way
in public: because you're "different" privately. [This is a sidebar
but, the illogical extreme of this is people excusing someone's rabid
racism for example, because they were also a loving parent or generous
to the community in some way.] I think this segmenting approach to life
is playing with fire.
2) Hyprocracy over out of wedlock children
I'm sick to death of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births in
general always being discussed in the public forum as if minorities
invented them and are the only ones who have to contend with these
issues. You get politicians talking about "illegitmacy" all the time
and riffing on "babies having babies" and "generations of welfare
dependency". The truth is, as I see it, America doesn't really care how
many children you have and under what circumstances as long as it
doesn't effect "our" pockets. If a young woman (dropped out of high
school and broke with no job) was living like Lauryn at home with the
folks and shacking with 2 kids, people would be talking about the
crisis of the black family, illegitimacy and all that. But since she's
famous and presumbably has enough money to raise them and keep both her
and her children off of public assistance, then it's "ok". America does
this all the time. I remember a minister preached once about the fact
that a popular magazine heralded on the cover that Donald Trump's new
lady was pregnant with their child although they weren't married and
his divorce with Ivona wasn't even carried through yet. But hey, Trump
is loaded so his children won't cost us anything so that's alright.
Quayle went after a fictional woman having a baby out of wedlock while
there are several famous couples in Hollywood and the entertainment
industry in general who have shacked for years and have had children
out of wedlock by more than one partner. He didn't say squat about that
because as I said, the real issue is whether or not the children and
the parents will be a drain on "our resources", not the supposedly pure
belief in "family values" and Christian principles like fidelity,
marriage, etc.
3) I don't know what to call this one...
As long as I'm ranting, the last thing is the whole process of an
artist throwing out "provacativness" (if that's a word) for profit
without any thought to what it might lead to for their fans. Admittedly
a person can't be responsible if a fan takes what they produce too
seriously (although we often blame movies and music when someone goes
off and does something terrible i.e. Littleton) Yet, it seems that
quite a few artists add extra sexual overtones, gore, violence or
profanity for purposes of "marketing" without any thought of how this
impacts people and what they walk away with from the "show". A person
can showcase all of their talent and looks without it becoming a
voyeristic experience. A famous performer can get away with wearing cut
offs up to their privates on stage because they're surrounded by
security and an enterage and don't deal with the public as frequently
as a "regular person" would. But a girl in regular life wearing a
similar style for fun or emulation of an idol
is going to have to deal with a level of attention from men which will
range from flattering to potentially dangerous. I know it should be up
to parents to make sure these things are taught and explained. However,
it seems like artists get folks aroused, angry, or otherwise
emotionally engaged to attract them to their product and let them back
to street afterwards with no regard to the effect of the energy they
artificially built up to sell with. That came out poorly but I think
folks will get what I'm trying to say.
ksp...@umich.edu
Rodney Smith <rod...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Leaving out that it's specifically Lauryn Hill being discussed, there
>are 3 of my social pet peeves wrapped up in this thread :
>
>1) "Christian Relativism"
>
>I have a real problem with people regardless of ethnicity who publically
>dress and or perform in an overtly sexual manner, curse like 2 drunk
>sailors and cover all manner of raunch in their comedy routines or
>lyrics and then conclude the performance or accept the award by
>thanking God or praising Jesus for blessing them with talent, etc. Call
>me old fashioned by I don't believe your "persona" versus the "real
>you" are mutually exclusive from Christian behavior (especially if you
>profess to be one. If you don't then at least you're not being a
>hyprcrite). Now, I'm not going to even pretend I'm some sort of super
>Christian but I was raised well enough to know that booty shaking,
>dressing like a male or female prostitute, and using eveyr swear known
>to Man are not the tools generally used to find the Promised Land.
Fair enough. However your commentary leaves me with two questions here:
1. Does Lauryn Hill take the Lord's name in vain? I ask THIS, because
though biblical doctrine does speak about foul language, usually the
concept of "foul" deals with INTENT rather than CONTENT. That is
gossiping about someone is sinful, as opposed to joking and saying "f..k
you." The one exception deals with any swears involving God. Here I am
talking about "swearing on the Bible" or on "God's honor" as well as to
terms such as "God Damn you."
2. Has Lauryn Hill ever dressed like a prostitute? If so, on what
occasion? What video?
>Our society has cooked up a compartimental approach to life in which
>your beliefs or (I hate this word in how it's just thrown around)
>"values" don't have to be holistically applied across the board of your
>life. Rather you can *say* you have some but that they are deeply
>private, and this is the license to act in a completely different way
>in public: because you're "different" privately. [This is a sidebar
>but, the illogical extreme of this is people excusing someone's rabid
>racism for example, because they were also a loving parent or generous
>to the community in some way.] I think this segmenting approach to life
>is playing with fire.
You may be correct here....but as applied to Lauryn Hill, without more
information I'm thinking that your comments might be a bit off.
>2) Hyprocracy over out of wedlock children
>
>I'm sick to death of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births in
>general always being discussed in the public forum as if minorities
>invented them and are the only ones who have to contend with these
>issues. You get politicians talking about "illegitmacy" all the time
>and riffing on "babies having babies" and "generations of welfare
>dependency". The truth is, as I see it, America doesn't really care how
>many children you have and under what circumstances as long as it
>doesn't effect "our" pockets.
This is right on point.
>If a young woman (dropped out of high
>school and broke with no job) was living like Lauryn at home with the
>folks and shacking with 2 kids, people would be talking about the
>crisis of the black family, illegitimacy and all that. But since she's
>famous and presumbably has enough money to raise them and keep both her
>and her children off of public assistance, then it's "ok". America does
>this all the time.
No....this isn't true. White America does this with white people, but NOT
with black people. And given the uproar over Hill's statements, we don't
do it either. If we DID engage in this behavior, NO one would be tripping
over Lauryn Hill's kids, or her comments at the Essence Awards.
>I remember a minister preached once about the fact
>that a popular magazine heralded on the cover that Donald Trump's new
>lady was pregnant with their child although they weren't married and
>his divorce with Ivona wasn't even carried through yet. But hey, Trump
>is loaded so his children won't cost us anything so that's alright.
>Quayle went after a fictional woman having a baby out of wedlock while
>there are several famous couples in Hollywood and the entertainment
>industry in general who have shacked for years and have had children
>out of wedlock by more than one partner. He didn't say squat about that
>because as I said, the real issue is whether or not the children and
>the parents will be a drain on "our resources", not the supposedly pure
>belief in "family values" and Christian principles like fidelity,
>marriage, etc.
Well there is another form of hypocrisy at work here. In some of the
critiques I've read, people are saying that Hill is wrong for going on
tour and leaving her mother to take care of the kids. So....she should
basically stay home to raise her kids, and put off her career. BUT...if
she were POOR and engaging in the same behavior, people would be saying
"she needs to get a JOB!"
>3) I don't know what to call this one...
>
>As long as I'm ranting, the last thing is the whole process of an
>artist throwing out "provacativness" (if that's a word) for profit
>without any thought to what it might lead to for their fans.
I think you are absolutely correct here....however again I have to ask
whether this applies to Lauryn Hill specifically. I think that she has
carried herself very tastefully throughout her career. If you are using
Hill's actions as an occasion to speak about wider issues, I feel you...
lks
Rich Thompson
(On Christian Relativism and Lauryn Hill:)
> 1. Does Lauryn Hill take the Lord's name in vain? I ask THIS, because
> though biblical doctrine does speak about foul language, usually the
> concept of "foul" deals with INTENT rather than CONTENT. That is
> gossiping about someone is sinful, as opposed to joking and saying "f..k
> you." The one exception deals with any swears involving God. Here I am
> talking about "swearing on the Bible" or on "God's honor" as well as to
> terms such as "God Damn you."
This is an interesting distinction, but one I couldn't convince my parents
of it when I was growing up. In any case.
As right as you may be about that, and much as Ilike Lauryn Hill, the
Bible is pretty clear about pre- or extra-marital sex. Having two children
with someone one isn't married to implies at least two incidents of
pre-marital sex, by my estimation. And the fact that this is an ongoing
situation, and not a blast from the past leads me to wonder what's up with
that.
Other than that, I agree with what you're saying.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
"To be great is to be misunderstood."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>
>
>Leaving out that it's specifically Lauryn Hill being discussed, there
>are 3 of my social pet peeves wrapped up in this thread :
>
>1) "Christian Relativism"
>
>I have a real problem with people regardless of ethnicity who publically
>dress and or perform in an overtly sexual manner, curse like 2 drunk
>sailors and cover all manner of raunch in their comedy routines or
>lyrics and then conclude the performance or accept the award by
>thanking God or praising Jesus for blessing them with talent, etc. Call
>me old fashioned by I don't believe your "persona" versus the "real
>you" are mutually exclusive from Christian behavior (especially if you
>profess to be one. If you don't then at least you're not being a
>hyprcrite). Now, I'm not going to even pretend I'm some sort of super
>Christian but I was raised well enough to know that booty shaking,
>dressing like a male or female prostitute, and using eveyr swear known
>to Man are not the tools generally used to find the Promised Land.
I'm sorry, but I had to get back up off the floor to finish this post.
[remainder snipped; it's a Must Read]
Wayne "That is a collection of VERY apt statements" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Art Clemons
Johnson) writes:
>If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
>Never make a pretty woman your wife
>If you want my personal point of view
>Get an ugly girl to marry you
>
>Wayne "Pretty women tend to make a lot of Jiffy Mix" Johnson
>cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
There's a question which pops into my mind, but I'll phrase it this way, I
sincerely hope one way or another your wife doesn't read your postings today.
I suspect either category you've placed her in will get you in trouble.
-art clemons-
dr...@cis.uab.edu
100...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca>,
Rich Thompson <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> (On Christian Relativism and Lauryn Hill:)
>
because
> > though biblical doctrine does speak about foul language, usually the
> > concept of "foul" deals with INTENT rather than CONTENT. That is
> > gossiping about someone is sinful, as opposed to joking and saying
"f..k
> > you." The one exception deals with any swears involving God. Here
I am
> > talking about "swearing on the Bible" or on "God's honor" as well
as to
> > terms such as "God Damn you."
>
parents
> of it when I was growing up. In any case.
>
> As right as you may be about that, and much as Ilike Lauryn Hill, the
> Bible is pretty clear about pre- or extra-marital sex. Having two
children
> with someone one isn't married to implies at least two incidents of
> pre-marital sex, by my estimation. And the fact that this is an
ongoing
> situation, and not a blast from the past leads me to wonder what's up
with
> that.
True, but the Bible is somewhat contradictory on the subject also.
Case in point was the status of "concubines" in the old testament.
Men, who could afford them, often had multiple wives and multiple
concubines on the side. From my understanding these women were
"sort of like wives, but not really". I've heard this explained
away as "well God really didn't approve of this, but He just sort
of allowed it because the men were hard-headed." Yet in other
instances people were struck dead for seemingly lesser offenses.
The heart of the matter is that the individual must decide for
him or herself what God is saying in His word.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
dr...@cis.uab.edu
> 2. Has Lauryn Hill ever dressed like a prostitute? If so, on what
> occasion? What video?
Now THAT is a very good question. People seem to be getting Lauryn
Hill and Foxy Brown confused. I'll admit, I haven't seen every Lauryn
Hill video or heard every Lauryn Hill song, but what I HAVE seen and
heard is a much welcome change from the dross that has been coming
over the airwaves/cable-channels lately. Ok, so she's not CeCe Winans.
And? Ok so she lives a lifestyle that some people disapprove of.
And? Does that mean she's forfeitted the right to talk about where
she is in her own religious experience? I think not. I would be
more concerned with Lauryn Hill if she lived the convential "married
with two kids" role and produced garbage music than the other way
around.
Rich Thompson
On Christianity, and pre-marital sex.
> True, but the Bible is somewhat contradictory on the subject also.
> Case in point was the status of "concubines" in the old testament.
> Men, who could afford them, often had multiple wives and multiple
> concubines on the side. From my understanding these women were
> "sort of like wives, but not really".
This often happened, yes. Not so sure as to where it's mentioned tha God
allowed it or approved. Also not sure if Lauryn would want to use
concubines, women who were basically chattel, as a precedent.
> I've heard this explained
> away as "well God really didn't approve of this, but He just sort
> of allowed it because the men were hard-headed."
That's pretty much a quote of Jesus explaining why divorce was allowed.
Which, BTW, God explicitly made rules about.
> The heart of the matter is that the individual must decide for
> him or herself what God is saying in His word.
No doubt. But there are limits.
alice
Wayne Johnson wrote in message <377530d0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:48:30 CST, rdh...@aol.com (RDHULL) wrote:
>
>>Although her speech moved me very much, I never knew she was
notmarried.Heck,
>>why doesnt she just do it?
>
>Never make a pretty woman your wife
>If you want my personal point of view
>Get an ugly girl to marry you
I'm tellin'! Yassah. I'm callin' her right now. Ought to be ashamed of yo
se'f Wayne Johnson. And I bet yo wife don't know you out here carryin' on
like this.
alice
>
alice
Rodney Smith wrote in message <260619991744469261%rod...@mediaone.net>...
>
>
>Leaving out that it's specifically Lauryn Hill being discussed, there
>are 3 of my social pet peeves wrapped up in this thread :
>
>1) "Christian Relativism"
Cutting most of the post for space - may I say Thank You for actually
stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. It has perplexed me for years
that "stars" who cuss, gyrate, hump and do everything but live screwing in a
video, etc. can actually say Thanks to the Lord when He specifically says
these things are displeasing to Him.
It has become increasingly unpopular for any of us to question this kind of
behavior. Glad you got the nerve!
I frequently have to go back to Psalms 39 (I believe) when I wonder why
folks doing good things - songs, books, movies, etc - get no recognition.
(it boils down to "don't envy the wicked - it won't last long)
alice
has...@forest.drew.edu
ites:
>>are 3 of my social pet peeves wrapped up in this thread :
>>
>>1) "Christian Relativism"
>
> stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. It has perplexed me for years
> that "stars" who cuss, gyrate, hump and do everything but live screwing in a
> video, etc. can actually say Thanks to the Lord when He specifically says
> these things are displeasing to Him.
A while back, "Mad TV" had a skit about this. At an awards show, a guy and
gal got up to recieve an award for their "bitches 'n' hoes" record. When
they started to thank God, He appeared and said he didn't want his name
associated with this sort of thing, and would they please leave his name
out in the future. Veering off topic, he was played by a black man. That's
why I like this show so much better than SNL. The roles they give to the
black actors/actresses are not stereotyped, and are pretty much
interchangable with the roles given to whites. It's a nice change, after
SNL's Tim "token black" Meadows. Is he still on there?
dee...@primenet.com
>
> Lauryn Hill: Hoochie or hero?
The black community debates the
> singer's icon status in light of
> her unwed motherhood.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> BY DEBRA DICKERSON
>
> June 22, 1999 | My 18-year-old
> niece, Carlie, tried to bond with me recently by showing me her new
> outfits for my approval. Everything was see-through, thigh-high or
> skin-tight. Not only was I shocked, I was frightened. It was all I
> could do not to spank her, the way you might swat a child caught
> playing with a loaded gun, because she seemed dangerously
> unconscious about the power of her magnificent breasts and legs.
Oh, _brother_. Of course, it's not those skeezy men who would be at
fault, it would be Carlie's fault for not knowing how her just showing
up and being pretty can incite men. :PPPPPPP
> Instead, I subjected her to a lecture on date rape and street
> harassment that she sat through patiently.
Given that the girl is 18, one suspects she _has_ heard this kind of
lecture before--g!
When I took all my nieces
> and nephews out for movies and pizza that evening, I actually made her
> change from her booty-cooler shorts to something with more coverage.
> Carlie's a sweet girl, so she didn't get mad at me. She thinks I'm
> funny. "I'll just wear them tomorrow," she said with sly good humor.
>
> The thing is, Carlie is a good
> girl. She wants to be a math teacher. We know all her friends, she's
> responsible, she happily spends most of her time with family, and
> she's in no hurry to date much. When she does, she prefers her dates
> to hang at the house with her, watching videos and being abused by
> her horde of smart-mouthed aunts. But can she really dress "like
> that," immerse herself in hip-hop culture and still be a good girl,
> i.e. a girl who's not going to screw up her life?
Yeah, boy--once a girl is touched by hip-hop, she becomes a slut so fast
it ain't funny. Never mind that she prefers to hang at home and shoot
the breeze with relatives; never mind she has goals and an identity not
tied exclusively into dating. Gotta watch her (and all girls) like a
hawk anyway, because down deep, they _all_ have hoochie potential 1)
they are either hiding from you or 2) is just waiting to be unleashed.
Must be nice to have people who've known you all your life and should
have reason to trust you constantly on the lookout to see when and if
you go "ho."
:PPPPP
> But Hill, the rhapsodic Christian
> proselytizer, is not everybody's idea of a black female role model.
> For one thing, she often dresses hoochie-style.
The _horror_. . .g!
Worse, she has two
> out-of-wedlock children with her live-in boyfriend, Rohan Marley (one
> of Bob's many children). Hill may embody the best of young black
> womanhood to some people, but to others she's just a hypocrite, or
> worse, a danger to the community's endangered morals with her hip-hop
> halo.
Um, I seem to recall that Shawn Kemp has--what, seven kids by almost as
many women? I don't see anyone screaming about how he's endangering
community morals.
>
> The calls for her head crescendoed
> recently with the June 2 television broadcast of the Essence Awards.
> In a tearful acceptance speech, Hill said: "I want to let young
> people know that it is not a burden to love Him, and to represent Him,
> and to be who you are, as fly and as hot and as whatever, and to still
> love God and to serve Him. It's not a contradiction."
>
> Radio call-in shows,
> letter-to-the-editor pages and, especially, online venues were deluged
> by the debate over Hill. Lee Bailey, founder and publisher of the
> Electronic Urban Report (EUR), said, "I was totally surprised by the
> outpouring. We received 300-400 e-mails before we stopped counting
> and it's still coming in." Indeed, the EUR ran a special section of
> the Hill e-mails. As one disgusted e-mailer wrote, "Lauryn's
> lifestyle doesn't match her sermons. If she's gonna shack up (and in
> her parents' home, no less) with her man and her two babies, that's
> her business, but Lauryn's crossing the line when she gets on every
> available TV screen talking about how 'holy' she is. God is not in
> that mess." Another e-mailer wrote, "If Lauryn Hill weren't famous,
> but instead worked the register at [McDonald's], black folks would
> be the first people saying what a poor role model she is and how
> she needs to get her life together." Still another fulminated: "If
> most of these people we 'hero worship' weren't celebrities, we'd
> probably be dogging them for some of their lifestyle choices. It
> makes it difficult to explain the difference to my son."
She has her financial/career life together; gives back to the community;
is making worthwhile use of her talent; and is raising her kids. I guess
that's not enough for some people--better she be like Whitney Houston
and live a nightmare sham of a marriage, so long as she pays endless
hypocritical lip service to "domestic bliss" in public. Unreal. . .:PPP
C.
**
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Sarcasm.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>>Wayne "Pretty women tend to make a lot of Jiffy Mix" Johnson
>>cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
>There's a question which pops into my mind, but I'll phrase it this way, I
>sincerely hope one way or another your wife doesn't read your postings today.
>I suspect either category you've placed her in will get you in trouble.
>-art clemons-
Well, the truth is, I make all the cornbread in my house.
Wayne "Purely for reasons of self-preservation" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
Well, I got stuck with a pretty one, so I'm just trying to warn all
the other folks out there.
Plus, if there's a lot pretty girls not getting married, and something
were to happen and I got single again, it would be real easy for me to
just run out there and snatch me up one a them
KA WHONK
yeeeeeoooooOOOOWWWWW
ow ow ow
DANG
i HATE it when she reads over my shoulder
Wayne "Put the skillet down, honey...I know, I was talking to Alice,
and I should have been wearing it in the seat of my pants..." Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
dr...@cis.uab.edu
>
> On Christianity, and pre-marital sex.
>
> > True, but the Bible is somewhat contradictory on the subject also.
> > Case in point was the status of "concubines" in the old testament.
> > Men, who could afford them, often had multiple wives and multiple
> > concubines on the side. From my understanding these women were
> > "sort of like wives, but not really".
>
> This often happened, yes. Not so sure as to where it's mentioned tha
God
> allowed it or approved. Also not sure if Lauryn would want to use
> concubines, women who were basically chattel, as a precedent.
I don't think Lauryn Hill is using the "concubine defense" or any
defense for that matter and that is REALLY not the point. The simple
fact is that it's not as cut and dry as you're attempting to make it.
>
> > I've heard this explained
> > away as "well God really didn't approve of this, but He just sort
> > of allowed it because the men were hard-headed."
>
> That's pretty much a quote of Jesus explaining why divorce was
allowed.
> Which, BTW, God explicitly made rules about.
I realize that and I know the quote by heart. And the Bible doesn't
make any specific statements about whether or not God approved or
dis-approved. Again that is NOT the point. As for rules on monogomy
the Bible did say that a bishop should be the "husband of one wife",
but not everyone is a bishop. And AGAIN, the specifics aren't the
issue as much as the fact that there is discreprency about them.
> > The heart of the matter is that the individual must decide for
> > him or herself what God is saying in His word.
>
> No doubt. But there are limits.
No doubt. But it's still up to the individual to decide what those
limits are.
dr...@cis.uab.edu
>
> I'm sick to death of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births in
> general always being discussed in the public forum as if minorities
> invented them and are the only ones who have to contend with these
> issues. You get politicians talking about "illegitmacy" all the time
> and riffing on "babies having babies" and "generations of welfare
> dependency".
True. And considering that fact that the average unwed mother is
NOT a teenager, and the fact that teen pregnancy is actually on
the DECREASE among blacks (while rising among whites) I find the
"selective reporting" on the subject quite irritating.
> The truth is, as I see it, America doesn't really care how
> many children you have and under what circumstances as long as it
> doesn't effect "our" pockets. If a young woman (dropped out of high
> school and broke with no job) was living like Lauryn at home with the
> folks and shacking with 2 kids, people would be talking about the
> crisis of the black family, illegitimacy and all that. But since she's
> famous and presumbably has enough money to raise them and keep both
her
> and her children off of public assistance, then it's "ok". America
does
Well I don't know about Lauryn Hill's living arrangments (frankly I
don't care), but if she IS living with her folks I'm assuming she's
at least carrying her share of the expenses correct? Then what's
the big deal? The problem with adult kids living at home are those
that are freeloading (i.e. not paying anything). If the apartment
you live in happens to be attached to your parents house, and you
pay them rent so what?
> this all the time. I remember a minister preached once about the fact
> that a popular magazine heralded on the cover that Donald Trump's new
> lady was pregnant with their child although they weren't married and
> his divorce with Ivona wasn't even carried through yet. But hey, Trump
> is loaded so his children won't cost us anything so that's alright.
> Quayle went after a fictional woman having a baby out of wedlock while
> there are several famous couples in Hollywood and the entertainment
> industry in general who have shacked for years and have had children
> out of wedlock by more than one partner.
Dan Quayle is an idiot. He had to back down from the "Murphy Brown"
comments when it was brought to his attention that the TV charecter
made the "morally correct" decision not to have an abortion. Then
when the Monica mess flared up he tried to re-take the moral high
ground thinking that the rest of America forgot about the pro-life
conflict. We didn't.
> He didn't say squat about that
> because as I said, the real issue is whether or not the children and
> the parents will be a drain on "our resources", not the supposedly
pure
> belief in "family values" and Christian principles like fidelity,
> marriage, etc.
Actually the Murphy Brown charecter was quite capable of taking
care of herself and her child so the example you're giving doesn't
quite fit.
And, speaking as someone who DOESN'T use unwed teen mothers as
society's scapegoats, I DO see a difference between someone who's
able and willing to take care of his or her family responsibility
(however that family is defined) and someone who isn't (or isn't
at least trying).
I would ask you, do you feel the same about Kobe Bryant, who
forwent a free college education to go pro, as another kid
who forwent college and ended up on welfare? Personally I
like the example of Grant Hill better, but hey, I can't really
argue with Kobe either.
dr...@cis.uab.edu
"alice" <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> Rodney Smith wrote in message <260619991744469261%
rod...@mediaone.net>...
> >
> >
> >are 3 of my social pet peeves wrapped up in this thread :
> >
> >1) "Christian Relativism"
>
> stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. It has perplexed me for
years
> that "stars" who cuss, gyrate, hump and do everything but live
screwing in a
> video, etc. can actually say Thanks to the Lord when He specifically
says
> these things are displeasing to Him.
I can only agree with you. But someone else brought up a pertinent
question in this thread that has yet to be addressed. Has LAURYN
HILL done all of those things? The videos I've seen of her have
been quite positive. The songs I've heard from her have also
been positive. Admittedly I haven't seen all of her videos or
heard all of her songs. Ok, she's chosen a lifestyle that I don't
particularly agree with, but that doesn't automatically make her
a "hoochie" or anything else. Erica Badu (sp) is another female
artist that has a generally positive spin on her music. I don't
agree 100% with her lifestyle either. But it's her lifestyle,
not mine.
KarenX
If God in her infinite wisdom truly desired human beings to "marry" before
having babies, wouldn't she have made sure those sperm and eggs cells
couldn't get together before being blessed by a priest or a judge?
Marriages don't produce children, human beings do. Perhaps what God means
by marriage is a commitment between two people before God, not before the
congregation or the state. It seems odd that Ms. Hill is catching so much
flack about this when there are plenty of irresponsible and abusive parents
who have the seal of approval of both the church and the state, including
some of those who are criticizing her. I'm not a fan, in fact I don't think
I've ever heard any of her songs, so I can't comment on the content of her
work. I do know that it's very hard to compete with people who appeal to
the lowest instincts of an audience...an experience I had first hand
recently. I had the pleasure of working with a group of 6-8 other Black
women in a spoken word performance here in SF a few weeks ago. Some of the
performers used explicit language in their pieces, but I didn't consider any
of them obscene...except one, which was actually pornograhic. I was
offended by her "work," but the audience hooted and howled and seemed to
enjoy it. Unfortunately, I had to follow this woman after intermission, and
I really couldn't focus on delivering my rather serious, political prose
poem after that. I was really annoyed with our director for allowing the
piece in the show...it seemed so unfair to those of us who actually put some
thought into our work beyond describing (in explicit detail, ad nauseum) how
one has sex.
But...since she had heard the piece before, and I hadn't, she knew how the
audience would respond, so it didn't matter if the piece had artisitic merit
or not...that response meant "success" to her. And, it was a learning
experience for me...next time I'll make sure I hear all the works in the
show before I sign on. Anyway, I said all that to say it's easy and
profitable to appeal to the worst in people and call it "art," but it's
another entirely to reach for the best in yourself and have the courage to
share that with people....and call it "art."
morp...@my-deja.com
dee...@primenet.com wrote:
> DarkStar wrote:
In article <377843...@primenet.com>,
dee...@primenet.com wrote:
> DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > Lauryn Hill: Hoochie or hero?
> The black community debates the
> > singer's icon status in light of
> > her unwed motherhood.
-great stuff snipped-
> She has her financial/career life together; gives back to
> the community; > is making worthwhile use of her talent;
> and is raising her kids. I guess > that's not enough for
> some people -snip- Unreal. . .:PPP
>
> C.
> **
Your entire post, is my sentiments exactly. I had planned to
reply to this aunt, but am pretty busy now. Parents should
raise their children, and not expect the media to do it for
them. The young woman appears to have been raised
well. I personally would trust her, if she is as her aunt
states her to be. The 18 year old, appears to be
knowledgeable about a lot of things. She is 18, and
whatever choices she makes in terms of dress, is her
own business.
Heck, the current see through stuff is tame, as
opposed to what they wore in the 60's or early 70's.
The current see through stuff has a camisole top
underneath. The 60's or early 70's had
nothing whatsoever under very sheer fabric.
The sheers only had a layer of sheer pockets
strategically placed over each breast.
Not to mention the halter top worn by busty
women back then, who quite often came out
of their tops. I was watching a soul train
episode back when the halter & tube tops
were en vogue. One young woman who was
quite busty, was bouncing around so much
dancing, her tube top began to go southward.
She barely noticed it in time to tug it back up.
My sibling and I fell out laughing.
Some girls are with it in terms of guys oggling
them when they choose to wear their fashions.
I was about a half block behind a group of high
school girls when some nutcase in a raincoat
decided to flash them. They laughed so hard,
one girls legs gave out. The slime ball slunk
back under whatever rock he came from. In
this particular case, all of the young teens were
decently dressed.
Not to mention, if the girl is a karate expert, not
all that many men would dare lay a hand on her.
If the person is 18, they are old enough to vote.
They are also old enough to decided what they
will or will not wear. By the age of 18, they more
likely than not, know the consequences of
wearing certain items of clothing.
The old time religion, is others take on what religion
should or should not be. Lauryn has her own
religious beliefs. God made us all, each and
every one. She is engaged, so most likely she will
buckle to public pressure and marry soon. Maybe
then others will breath a sigh of relief and find
some other woman entertainment to rip apart.
What the heck is this anyhow. I remember when
Barbara Walters was the first anchorwoman to
make a mint, everyone lit into her. Is this open
season on woman?
So the women take a hit, and men doing similar
are angels to ge held up to esteem? Double digit
double standards IMHO.
Projecting your personal values onto another person,
is just that, projections. Just because a person
thinks something is hypocritical, it is not always
so. Everyone ideas as to what morals is or isn't
do not match 100%. Lauryn is doing her thing,
and she is "not" asking any taxpayers to subsidize
her choices.
==================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> Sarcasm.
Great sarcasm : )
-morpheme-
Rodney Smith
Just to be clear, as one poster suggested, I was using this thread
to sound off about conditions at large not specifically Lauryn Hill.
I also want to be clear that I don't have any illusions about my
Christianity. If there was a grade on "My Walk" it would probably
be about a C. I don't forgive as well as I should, I take an
occassional drink, I can speak profanity if required, and other things.
But in spite of those shortcomings I also remember all the things that
my mom, my relatives from "Down South", and the church I grew up in
tried to teach me. Those lessons temper my behavior and play a large
part in how I see the world and I think because I take those lessons
seriously (if not consistently) I would get a C instead of a failing
grade.
In trying to answer some of the questions regarding what's the big deal
or what if it was so and so instead of Lauryn and such, the best answer
I can give is this ( a huge digression is about to happen so be
forewarned) : When I turned 35 or so, I woke up one day and felt like I
was completely out of step with the world. Nothing that I grew up with
was valid anymore and the planet seemed crazy to me. It's as if a
media-entertainment-marketing-corporate complex is pumping out a toxin
which says "hey look, we're all animals, so just give it up and come
down here and wallow in the mud with us, you know you want to." Well, I
don't want to. I want to be 80 or 90 and look back and say "I lived a
long and productive life and I didn't fall for all that diversionary
b***s**t."
If you have no direction, agenda, or personal code of life, the world
is more than willing to suggest one. The one they suggest generally
includes obsessing over things, bodies (not necessarily people),
indulging your passions, and not giving much care about the "losers"
around you. If you don't read and explore your mind proactively the
world will give you Springer and the National Inquirer. You can choose
to develop a sense of boundaries and intimacy or the world will give
you all the porn, suggestive programming, ads, and other imagery as you
can handle. The irony is when the world has squeezed you dry of your
consumer dollars, morals, looks, health, spiritual well being,etc., it
moves on and you're left with whatever you have within. If you've let
the world cultivate that for you, it's probably not going to be pretty.
When I became a parent that was the second knock on my door. When these
observations became filtered through what they all meant for my
children and their world my displeasure with what I saw got kicked up a
notch. It's not specifically Lauryn or the idea of out of wedlock
children and all that. But every piece of the mosaic goes towards
forming the big picture and I personally don't like how a lot of it
looks. Time has shown me that when enough things add up the sum can be
more negative than it's parts.
This may seem like hyperbole but if I don't want my daughter to be
watching a band called the Subway Motherf*****s on Saturday morning
network TV one day, the time to start looking for that opening is now.
When I was a kid in the 60's (I'm can't beleive I'm using that
expression now) adults seemed to be uptight about TV becoming too loose
with bad language and adult situations. At the time they seemed silly
and way too conservative. Now, 30 years later we have a problem with
kids using the WWF catch phrase "Suck It!" the way I used to fake curse
as child by saying "dag!" or "oh, snap!". I find myself thinking they
may have been lucky or prophetic but in either case, they had a point
and they were right. Smoothing out things that are err...morally
inconsistent, is paving the way for something else. It's that else that
concerns me and why I posted those 3 points of mine.
Beleive me I could literally go on for pages with this but I'll stop.
Pardon this bit of indulgence. I promise I'll stay more on topic :-)
olan
ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
> In article <260619991744469261%rod...@mediaone.net>,
> Rodney Smith <rod...@mediaone.net> wrote:
[deletion]
> >2) Hyprocracy over out of wedlock children
> >
> >I'm sick to death of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births in
> >general always being discussed in the public forum as if minorities
> >invented them and are the only ones who have to contend with these
> >issues. You get politicians talking about "illegitmacy" all the time
> >and riffing on "babies having babies" and "generations of welfare
> >dependency". The truth is, as I see it, America doesn't really care
how
> >many children you have and under what circumstances as long as it
> >doesn't effect "our" pockets.
>
> This is right on point.
Do you mean the majority of Americans? There are many Americans who
have a real problem with out of wedlock births...mostly for religious
reasons.
Personally, I don't care how many children a person decides to have,
as long as that person can take care of the children...or as long as
that person doesn't expect the rest of us to take care of the children.
Who do you think should be responsible for a child brought into this
world?
[deletion]
--
olan
Tha' Duke
hastily scribbled in crayon:
>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:13:59 CST, alice <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Wayne Johnson wrote in message <377530d0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:48:30 CST, rdh...@aol.com (RDHULL) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Although her speech moved me very much, I never knew she was
>>notmarried.Heck,
>>>>why doesnt she just do it?
>>>
>>>If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
>>>Never make a pretty woman your wife
>>>If you want my personal point of view
>>>Get an ugly girl to marry you
>>
>>I'm tellin'! Yassah. I'm callin' her right now. Ought to be ashamed of yo
>>se'f Wayne Johnson. And I bet yo wife don't know you out here carryin' on
>>like this.
>>
>>alice
>
>Well, I got stuck with a pretty one, so I'm just trying to warn all
>the other folks out there.
Forward approaches Johnson on the Power Play...shoots...JOHNSON
SAVES!!!
>Plus, if there's a lot pretty girls not getting married, and something
>were to happen and I got single again, it would be real easy for me to
>just run out there and snatch me up one a them
>
>KA WHONK
>
>yeeeeeoooooOOOOWWWWW
>
>ow ow ow
>
>DANG
>
>i HATE it when she reads over my shoulder
>
>Wayne "Put the skillet down, honey...I know, I was talking to Alice,
>and I should have been wearing it in the seat of my pants..." Johnson
Just let me know...will the doctor allow you to have visitors soon?
Earl "and I wonder if the nurses read patients their email whilst
they're in comas" Bryant
--------------
Skull: "We've got an unwritten rule that anyone who isn't earning his
age in thousands is a loser. You're 33 and you only make 29 grand a
year, so that means you've been a loser for..."
Harvey: "...four years."
Skull: "Exactly, and since we don't *hire* losers, I'm afraid..."
-From the movie "Serial"
Rodney Smith
wrote:
> In article <1999062804...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
> > In article <260619991744469261%rod...@mediaone.net>,
> > Rodney Smith <rod...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> [deletion]
>
>
> > >2) Hyprocracy over out of wedlock children
> > >
> > >I'm sick to death of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births in
> > >general always being discussed in the public forum as if minorities
> > >invented them and are the only ones who have to contend with these
> > >issues. You get politicians talking about "illegitmacy" all the time
> > >and riffing on "babies having babies" and "generations of welfare
> > >dependency". The truth is, as I see it, America doesn't really care
> how
> > >many children you have and under what circumstances as long as it
> > >doesn't effect "our" pockets.
> >
> > This is right on point.
>
> Do you mean the majority of Americans? There are many Americans who
> have a real problem with out of wedlock births...mostly for religious
> reasons.
I didn't mention a percentage or anything but what I had in mind was
not so much a literal numeric majority of Americans but rather a
general mindset expressed in the public forum. This includes the
disconnect between what this mindset believes in *theory* and how it
reacts in the day to day. If America's objection to out of wedlock
births was purely on a moral or religious basis then it wouldn't make a
difference if the parents were famous and wealthy or unknown and poor
as dirt. But this objection is elastic and tends to incriminate the
poor and minorites. If an absolute has the element of a double standard
it's hyprocritcal. It's as simple as that.
> Personally, I don't care how many children a person decides to have,
> as long as that person can take care of the children...or as long as
> that person doesn't expect the rest of us to take care of the children.
> Who do you think should be responsible for a child brought into this
> world?
>
You realize of course that you've echoed the exact sentiment I
identified in point 2. Who should be responsible for their children was
never at issue.
alice
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote in message <7l8bkt$n2h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.990628091037.9484B-
>>
>>
>> As right as you may be about that, and much as Ilike Lauryn Hill, the
>> Bible is pretty clear about pre- or extra-marital sex
>
>True, but the Bible is somewhat contradictory on the subject also.
>Case in point was the status of "concubines" in the old testament.
>Men, who could afford them, often had multiple wives and multiple
>concubines on the side.
If I can go back to 1 Samuel - when the folks demanded a king - the first
thing God told them was that they shouldn't be allowed to have many wives
and many horses. I don't profess to know what the horses were about -
starting uncalled for wars? Dunno. but I do know what the wives were
about....look at the trouble it caused amoung the people.
And when you say its contridictory - please do remember that God also gave
us free will. Just because he said it doesn't mean we obey it.....and the
consequences of poor behavior often show up in places where you least expect
them....like stuff that happened to Saul and Soloman and David. David got to
watch his child of Bathsheba rape his twin sister and end up hanging from a
tree by his beautiful hair - dead.
alice
morp...@my-deja.com
"alice" <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
-snip-
> And when you say its contridictory - please do remember that God
> also gave > us free will. Just because he said it doesn't mean we
> obey it.....and the > consequences of poor behavior often show up
> in places where you least expect > them....like stuff that happened to
>Saul and Soloman and David. David got to > watch his child of
> Bathsheba rape his twin sister and end up hanging from a > tree by
> his beautiful hair - dead.
>
> alice
The bible of choice for most Christians in the U.S.A., is the King James
version. This book from what I understand was commissioned by the
then king of England. When you translate from an original language,
you lose a lot in the translation. The King James version is way to
lyrical to be lock step in line with what was originally intended. They
have done other bible translations since the King James version,
and the flow of theses bibles are a bit stilted.
Not to mention, the overall gist of the bible is to knock women for a
loop. In bibleland, men rule, just as they do in the real world. It is a
book written in a time past. A lot of it's tenets are useful in forming
some sort of order in a world that appears to have gone mad. It
is up to each individual to determine what of a dead book they
feel is right for them. Some reject it completely since a lot of it
is not even very logical.
One can argue just about anything on either side with verses from the
bible. You can argue points for and against the exact same thing. So
I would have to agree with the other poster, that yes the bible is
contradictory in many areas of what it states. People tend to forget
Jesus statement in regards to "He who is without sin, let him/her cast
the first stone".
History has recorded the numerous atrocities commited in the name
of Christanity. There was a nun I knew who was the teacher of a
relative I have. This nun was with the Roman Catholic version of
christianity. She served faithfully, teaching inner city children. That
is until she became senile. The church decreed that she should
leave the U.S.A. and finish out her life in a foreign country, of which
she did not even know the language. So I really don't think she
reaped what she sowed. The parish attempted to raise money to
have her stay where she felt at home. The church turned down
their plea on her behalf. I have no idea what happened to the
woman. All I know is she did not deserve such treatment.
As always, it is my contention, people make choices, and they
should take responsibility for the choices that they make. In
terms of Lauryn Hill, from what I've seen she only wore short
skirts and did not tend to wear provocative things. Currently she is
the spokesperson for Levi's so she wears a lot of denim. Lauryn
is not asking anyone to take responsibility for providing for the
children she choose to place on this earth. Just because
others feel she should follow whatever they determine is
the heart of the bible, does not mean anything. Lauryn has
her own beliefs and Lauryn is following her heart as to what
is right for her.
In terms of the performers, most of them are being pimped
by their record labels. The record labels decreed that
provocative stuff sells so they push for their stars to behave
in a provocative manner. I do not hear anyone pointing a
finger at the father of the lead singer of Destiny's Child.
This guy, as well as the parents of the other girls pretty
much raised this group of girls to be provocative and
they are mere children. The record label have the girls
stating stuff like "We are Christian girls". They even
have the girls signing autographs in skimpy outfits. It's all
about money.
What is it with them having "teens" perform as the
girlfriends of grown men in the videos of male
performers. It is not the artist that needs people
knocking them, it is the record labels. Not to mention,
parents need to do their jobs and raise their
children. Do not under any circumstances allow the
entertainement industry or the media to do it for them
The parents made a choice to place their children
in this world. They should do their jobs and not place
blame on outside influences.
Isn't there a bible thing that go something like the
following: Train the child in the way he/she should
go, and when she/he is old, they will not depart
from it.
-morpheme-
ksp...@umich.edu
>In article <1999062804...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>> Rodney Smith <rod...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> >2) Hyprocracy over out of wedlock children
>> >
>> >I'm sick to death of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births in
>> >general always being discussed in the public forum as if minorities
>> >invented them and are the only ones who have to contend with these
>> >issues. You get politicians talking about "illegitmacy" all the time
>> >and riffing on "babies having babies" and "generations of welfare
>> >dependency". The truth is, as I see it, America doesn't really care
>how
>> >many children you have and under what circumstances as long as it
>> >doesn't effect "our" pockets.
>>
>> This is right on point.
>
>have a real problem with out of wedlock births...mostly for religious
>reasons.
Well I don't know about that. Of course religion is at least PART of
it....but given Christ's dictate that we care for the poor and the
unwanted, one would think that the care for out of wedlock births would
also be matched by a desire to care for the poor in general and poor
children specifically. We do NOT see this....
>Personally, I don't care how many children a person decides to have,
>as long as that person can take care of the children...or as long as
>that person doesn't expect the rest of us to take care of the children.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
>Who do you think should be responsible for a child brought into this
>world?
What does your spiritual system tell you?
Mine tells me that I am the individual caretaker for my children....but
that we are ALL responsible for children within our general midst.
lks
dr...@cis.uab.edu
first
> thing God told them was that they shouldn't be allowed to have many
wives
> and many horses. I don't profess to know what the horses were about -
> starting uncalled for wars? Dunno. but I do know what the wives were
> about....look at the trouble it caused amoung the people.
>
gave
> us free will. Just because he said it doesn't mean we obey it.....and
the
> consequences of poor behavior often show up in places where you least
expect
> them....like stuff that happened to Saul and Soloman and David. David
got to
> watch his child of Bathsheba rape his twin sister and end up hanging
from a
> tree by his beautiful hair - dead.
>
> alice
Well I won't argue that the muti-wife/concubine lifestyle is
the optimum. I would point out, however, that the tragedy
of Absolom came directly from David's murdering Uriah the
Hittite and taking his wife Bathsheba and not simply from
David having multiple wives. When the prophet Nathan rebuked
David for this he was quite specific. In fact the parable
that he told David to point out his sin was clear. The
"rich man" in that parable was "blessed" with many sheep,
but then he "stole the poor man's one little lamb".
But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God. If we were to
judge David and Solomon as some now seem prepared to judge
Lauryn Hill, then we should throw Psalms of David, Proverbs
, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiates out of the Bible. After
all when much of those books were written those two men
weren't living the way many modern moralists feel they
should have been living.
A person's private walk with God is just that. Assuming
Ms. Hill is actually seeking God and assuming she is
living "outside His will" he will eventually lead her
where he want's her to go. Assuming she's just "faking
it for the media" then she'll have to deal with that
personally.
One final note. If, like the Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingrichs
and Bob Doles of this world, Lauryn Hill had been on her
second (or third, or fourth) marriage instead of being an
unwed mother, I sincerely doubt there would have been ANY
uproar, despite the fact that there is really no biblical
difference. Now there's the real hypocrasy.
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> Question: Knowing that she is not married but has a very close
> relationship with the father of her children and he is a big part of the
> lives of his children is that better or worse than if she was married and
> divorced and was raising her kids by herself? I'm just wondering if
> people are making a bigger deal about her being married instead of Lauryn
> Hill being a good parent and keeping the father of her children a part of
> her children's lives. As for Lauryn Hill setting a good example....I'm
> still one of those people that thinks that the best way to give your
> children a good exapmle is at home. I guess I just have issues with
> people worring about how she affects children she never met.
Let me say that it has been only very recently, within this century, that
there has been a concerted effort by American blacks to get legally married.
I say this as a woman who was born in the State of Louisiana. There has
always been a predilection for common-law marriage or living together
arrangements among black folks, basically because there was little property in
common, much less land and furnishings. Legal marriage was considered a
middle-class standard. If you were married by a preacher, that was enough.
Not until the New Deal, I believe, did states uniformedly require licenses to
marry or birth certificates among people of color. Usually children came
first and marriage came second--or not at all.
People took off from untenable relationships in about the same way or fashion
or even frequency as they do now. Only problem is that the state records
these sunderings and couplings, no more and no less, especially if property in
common is at issue. They did that--and continued to believe in God--even
through the fourth or fifth marriage sometimes in the same town/city or state.
May I add that Rohan Marley's father had several women, but had one legal
wife that he refused to divorce. And he--and Rita--continued to believe in
God.
I wish people would stop dogging Lauryn. I saw her speech on the Essence
Awards, and I felt that her feelings and words were pure and genuine. It is
apparent that she experiences the Divine or the Universe in a totally
different fashion than the hide-bound Baptist. It is apparent that her
children are well taken care of, that they see their father often and
regularly, and that the grandparents are present and contributing. Both Rohan
and Lauryn appear to be financially able to care for the children, but at the
present, legal marriage in not in the works. You could say the same for the
affairs and marriage of Steveland Morris, aka Stevie Wonder. And Stevie, who
I have followed and watched since "Fingertips" and has recited our Buddhist
mantra, seems to me to be very spiritual in his art--"As," "Love's in Need of
Love Today," "Joy Inside My Tears," and "Please Don't Go." And Stevie still
believes in God.
Celebrities are not necessarily upstanding role models. They are full of
contradictions. People ought to get a life and fix on more down-to-earth
models who make no noises or do nothing untoward, except to be of service to
their friends, family members, and community.
--
0o-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------o0
Gabrielle Daniels “Money was exactly like sex. You
Novelist thought of nothing else if you didn’t
San Francisco, CA have it and thought of other things
mkin...@pacbell.net when you did.”
(415) 673-2956 -James Baldwin
0o------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o0
olan
ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
> In article <7lbroi$vq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, olan <olan...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <1999062804...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> > ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
> >> In article <260619991744469261%rod...@mediaone.net>,
> >> Rodney Smith <rod...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
[deletion]
> >
> >Do you mean the majority of Americans? There are many Americans who
> >have a real problem with out of wedlock births...mostly for religious
> >reasons.
>
> Well I don't know about that. Of course religion is at least PART of
> it....but given Christ's dictate that we care for the poor and the
> unwanted, one would think that the care for out of wedlock births
would
> also be matched by a desire to care for the poor in general and poor
> children specifically. We do NOT see this....
America's poor of about the most cared for poor on the face of the
earth, but if you feel there is more we should do I'm open to
suggestions.
> >Personally, I don't care how many children a person decides to have,
> >as long as that person can take care of the children...or as long as
> >that person doesn't expect the rest of us to take care of the
children.
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't really have a religious objection, as such, to out of wedlock
births, though many people do. I am also not opposed to helping those
in need. The tricky question that sparks so much debate within our
country is how best to help the poor.
> >Who do you think should be responsible for a child brought into this
> >world?
>
> What does your spiritual system tell you?
>
> Mine tells me that I am the individual caretaker for my
children....but
> that we are ALL responsible for children within our general midst.
Fine. Go ahead and take care of whoever you want to within your
general midst...or the entire country, for that matter. While you
are busy feeding and clothing not only your children, but those
of other parent's, take a minute to post any ideas you have on
reducing the amount of babies having babies they cannot feed or
clothe or shelter.
--
olan
Rich Thompson
> America's poor of about the most cared for poor on the face of the
> earth, but if you feel there is more we should do I'm open to
> suggestions.
Look at the domestic policy of about any other "developed country" for
suggestions. Start with the Scandinavian countries, look at Canada, the
Beneluxes, and even (God help us) Britain.
"Most cared for poor" my hairy white behind.
olan
>
> > America's poor of about the most cared for poor on the face of the
> > earth, but if you feel there is more we should do I'm open to
> > suggestions.
>
> Look at the domestic policy of about any other "developed country" for
> suggestions. Start with the Scandinavian countries, look at Canada,
the
> Beneluxes, and even (God help us) Britain.
I asked for suggestions, not homework. How about providing a synopsis.
A very brief one will do. Very brief.
> "Most cared for poor" my hairy white behind.
Well, I did say "about" the most cared for poor. But more importantly,
are just the hairs white, of is your actual behind white?
> "To be great is to be misunderstood."
> -Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
I like that Emerson quote.
DarkStar
SUPERDOME*!!!!!!!!
And at that Essence Music Fair concert, she basically told people who
don't like her choices to kiss her ass.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
dee...@primenet.com
>
> Well, hypocrite or not, the sister *TURNED OUT THE NEW ORLEANS
> SUPERDOME*!!!!!!!!
My brother was there--he _totally_ agrees--g!
> And at that Essence Music Fair concert, she basically told people who
> don't like her choices to kiss her ass.
Good for her. It's past time for this "black women have to carry the
total moral/strength burden of the race" crap to _end_. Folks want
plaster saints, let 'em make them themselves--or go worship Whitney
Houston--g!
C.
**
-Bev-
dark...@flash.net wrote:
-snip-
> And at that Essence Music Fair concert, she basically told
> people who don't like her choices to kiss her ass.
Hey now!! Three cheers for Lauryn Hill. Lauryn's business is
nobodys business but her own.
--
-Bev- p/k/a morpheme alternate email still in use
morp...@my-deja.com
Rich Thompson
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.990706115340.9514D-
> 100...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca>,
> Rich Thompson <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, olan wrote:
> >
> > > America's poor of about the most cared for poor on the face of the
> > > earth, but if you feel there is more we should do I'm open to
> > > suggestions.
> >
> > Look at the domestic policy of about any other "developed country" for
> > suggestions. Start with the Scandinavian countries, look at Canada,
> the
> > Beneluxes, and even (God help us) Britain.
>
> I asked for suggestions, not homework. How about providing a synopsis.
> A very brief one will do. Very brief.
Affordable (or free) safe housing. Affordable (or free) medical care.
> > "Most cared for poor" my hairy white behind.
>
> Well, I did say "about" the most cared for poor. But more importantly,
> are just the hairs white, of is your actual behind white?
"Hairy" and "white" are both modifiers.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
"...logical and reassuring discussion of these fears and generation of
alternatives proved over time to be very useful tactics in reducing his
hostility, even when, as occured on the first occasion, his hand was
around the therapist's throat."
-Kingdon & Turkington
ksp...@umich.edu
>In article <1999070215...@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>> In article <7lbroi$vq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, olan <olan...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >In article <1999062804...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>> > ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>> >> In article <260619991744469261%rod...@mediaone.net>,
>> >
>America's poor of about the most cared for poor on the face of the
>earth, but if you feel there is more we should do I'm open to
>suggestions.
I don't see how you can make this claim, and disagree with it strongly.
Could you explain this to me?
>> >Personally, I don't care how many children a person decides to have,
>> >as long as that person can take care of the children...or as long as
>> >that person doesn't expect the rest of us to take care of the
>children.
>>
>> This is exactly what I'm talking about.
>
>I don't really have a religious objection, as such, to out of wedlock
>births, though many people do. I am also not opposed to helping those
>in need. The tricky question that sparks so much debate within our
>country is how best to help the poor.
The only reason this is tricky, I argue, is because the country is VERY
conservative and believes that the poor are responsible for their own
plight and should be ignored...by ignoring them we help them.
Now given how much we ignore them....and that this is supposed to HELP
them, perhaps now I understand how you can say that we do more for the
poor than anyone else on the face of the planet! :)
>> >Who do you think should be responsible for a child brought into this
>> >world?
>> >> What does your spiritual system tell you?
>> >> Mine tells me that I am the individual caretaker for my
>> >>children....but that we are ALL responsible for children within our
>> >>general midst.
> >Fine. Go ahead and take care of whoever you want to within your
>general midst...or the entire country, for that matter. While you are
>busy feeding and clothing not only your children, but those of other
>parent's, take a minute to post any ideas you have on reducing the amount
>of babies having babies they cannot feed or clothe or shelter.
First let's address whether or not this is a problem. The conservatives
(and here I include true conservatives as well as many "liberals" such as
William Julius Wilson) seem to think it IS...but I don't buy it. POVERTY
is a problem, not children having children out of wedlock. What to do
about it?
1. Stop tying together AFDC to single mothers.
2. Create a new version of the GI Bill to spur home ownership in cities,
and preferably among brothers and sisters.
I say THIS because the GI Bill was one of the bills used to build wealth
among white communities and KEEP blacks from accumulating it (the home
ownership portions of the bill were tied to homes in suburban areas where
blacks couldn't live).
3. Pay for child care....or at least create a political environment where
child-care co-ops are seen as viable options.
4. Create public works projects that allow people without jobs to do work
for the community, valued work.
5. A number of working Americans do not have health care. Change this.
6. End the policy of redlining...tying things like auto-insurance to
where you live.
And this doesn't even BEGIN to get at dismantling white supremacy.
your turn.
lks
alice
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote in message <7lj65f$lc9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Well I won't argue that the muti-wife/concubine lifestyle is
>the optimum. I would point out, however, that the tragedy
>of Absolom came directly from David's murdering Uriah the
>Hittite and taking his wife Bathsheba and not simply from
>David having multiple wives.
Yes, but it was all about his sexual carryings on. Its that sexual sin that
the bible talks about. Murder was the culmination of sexual sin, envy, greed
and finally - the ultimate - murder to accomplish ones other sins. (if his
eyes had been where they should have been....)
>
>But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
>wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
>what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
>the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God.
You know, if you claim to "love" God and his ways and you publically go
against that "will" - then what do you expect? Accolades? If (as my brother
Wayne would say) if you don't want to do the "time" then don't do the crime.
Either live like you claim you are or don't talk about it. Nobody else will
either. Its the "claims" that cause the problems - not the actual act.
If we were to
>judge David and Solomon as some now seem prepared to judge
>Lauryn Hill, then we should throw Psalms of David, Proverbs
>, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiates out of the Bible. After
>all when much of those books were written those two men
>weren't living the way many modern moralists feel they
>should have been living.
Or - apparently - many people in THEIR time, either. (called privilege of
wealth) And they did get to pay some big time dues.
>
>A person's private walk with God is just that.
Amen. So keep it that way. Its like the Pharisees and the Saducees....if
they hadn't been out on the street corners praying loudly and yet leaving
the Samaritan to die in the gutter, nobody would have been talking about
them. They would NOt have been somebody's object lesson.
Assuming
>Ms. Hill is actually seeking God and assuming she is
>living "outside His will" he will eventually lead her
>where he want's her to go. Assuming she's just "faking
>it for the media" then she'll have to deal with that
>personally.
That's right
>
>One final note. If, like the Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingrichs
>and Bob Doles of this world, Lauryn Hill had been on her
>second (or third, or fourth) marriage instead of being an
>unwed mother,
I would agree. There is no difference. Ain't none of 'em got nothing to crow
about.
alice
alice
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels wrote in message
<377FA3E4...@pacbell.net>...
>Michael Rimpel wrote back to RDHULL:
>
>there has been a concerted effort by American blacks to get legally
married.
>
>I say this as a woman who was born in the State of Louisiana.
Depending, of course, on what "legal" means. (you mention "only preachers"
later on and I have deleted that) But how much more "legal" can you get?
That was the only option open to my folks in Missouri. The damn "state"
didn't care what black folks did. You shoulda seen my momma tryna prove she
was "born" just so she could get a passport....it took three old black
ladies and a white man......
And while I was trying to "hunt" down my folks, I found out my great
grandmother wasn't "legally" married to my grandfather for obvious reasons -
even though they had a "preachers" decree (I saw it with my own eyes - on a
half sheet of note book paper torn) and they maintained a relationship. But
according to the "state" it ain't even our last name.
There's a big difference in willfully not being married and trying to be
married.
alice
alice
ksp...@umich.edu wrote in message
<1999070215...@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
>In article <7lbroi$vq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, olan <olan...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>>In article <1999062804...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>> ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>Mine tells me that I am the individual caretaker for my children....but
>that we are ALL responsible for children within our general midst.
Mine tells me the same thing - unfortunately, I don't see it happening.
Whatever the mother (and we act like there was no father involved) did, it
is NOT the fault of the child and we need to stop acting that way.
alice
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
...
>First let's address whether or not this is a problem. The conservatives
>(and here I include true conservatives as well as many "liberals" such as
>William Julius Wilson) seem to think it IS...but I don't buy it. POVERTY
>is a problem, not children having children out of wedlock. What to do
>about it?
>
>1. Stop tying together AFDC to single mothers.
>2. Create a new version of the GI Bill to spur home ownership in cities,
>and preferably among brothers and sisters.
>
>I say THIS because the GI Bill was one of the bills used to build wealth
>among white communities and KEEP blacks from accumulating it (the home
>ownership portions of the bill were tied to homes in suburban areas where
>blacks couldn't live).
You neglected to mention the government funding that promoted the
creation and building of suburbs.
crc...@ibm.net
> <snipped very interesting ideas on ways to reduce poverty>
>
> And this doesn't even BEGIN to get at dismantling white supremacy.
>
> your turn.
> lks
Oops. I think you're onto something. I also think
you're hitting _real_ close to home for some people.
I can't wait to see the interesting responses on this
thread.
Carol
crc...@ibm.net
> dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote in message <7lj65f$lc9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> <snip>
> >
> >But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
> >wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
> >what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
> >the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God.
>
> You know, if you claim to "love" God and his ways and you publically go
> against that "will" - then what do you expect? Accolades? If (as my brother
> Wayne would say) if you don't want to do the "time" then don't do the crime.
> Either live like you claim you are or don't talk about it. Nobody else will
> either. Its the "claims" that cause the problems - not the actual act.
>
> If we were to
> >judge David and Solomon as some now seem prepared to judge
> >Lauryn Hill, then we should throw Psalms of David, Proverbs
> >, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiates out of the Bible. After
> >all when much of those books were written those two men
> >weren't living the way many modern moralists feel they
> >should have been living.
>
> Or - apparently - many people in THEIR time, either. (called privilege of
> wealth) And they did get to pay some big time dues.
>
> <snip>
I read the sermon given at the following web site this
evening, and then ran across this discussion. It seems
relevant. For me, the explanations concerning the nature
of marriage, as well as divorce, described in
this sermon explain the reasons Lauryn Hill is being
condemned by those who consider themselves Christian.
I personally don't condemn Lauryn Hill, because I believe
she has a right to make her own choices.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want a child of mine to look
at her as a role model in the arena of building strong male/female
partner relationships based on the documented teachings of
Christ.
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/sermon_trans/Jesus_on_Divorce.html
Carol
Wayne Johnson
>2. Create a new version of the GI Bill to spur home ownership in cities,
>and preferably among brothers and sisters.
>
>I say THIS because the GI Bill was one of the bills used to build wealth
>among white communities and KEEP blacks from accumulating it (the home
>ownership portions of the bill were tied to homes in suburban areas where
>blacks couldn't live).
My father bought our first house, in 1959, with benefits from the GI
Bill. So did both of his brothers, one before him, and one after.
I bought my first home with benefits from the GI Bill, in 1980.
I know MANY other Black veterans, and all with families have bought
homes through the GI Bill. I have no idea what you're talking about,
in saying that Black people couldn't use this benefit; Black people
most definitely could live in suburban areas, even though many of
those were very much segregated throughout the Fifties, early Sixties,
and in many places, until the Seventies.
Could you explain what you mean when you say that Blacks could not use
the GI Bill, and how that squares with my own experience?
>3. Pay for child care....or at least create a political environment where
>child-care co-ops are seen as viable options.
In Los Angeles County, the Department of Public Social Services has
funding going begging for just this purpose.
>4. Create public works projects that allow people without jobs to do work
>for the community, valued work.
"Public Works Projects" doing what? Machines sweep the streets;
machines cut the roads; it takes skilled and dedicated labor to build
highways and bridges. Who are the people without jobs, nowadays?
Mostly the uneducated, the unmotivated (perhaps through years of drug
use), and the mentally unstable, who suffer from varying problems such
as schizophrenia and various manic-depressive problems.
Make-work does not pay. Make-work jobs don't last; they only teach
make-work skills; people need to get into positions where they can
really make some money, have a career, be mobile in their ability to
make money.
Would a public works job be something like working on a farm, picking
vegetables or fruit? This work is so strenuous that most people will
not do it. Would it be something like sweeping a street?
Right now, companies like UPS hire people to simply move boxes around,
and there are companies that do help line phone work, and so on. But
for any government entity to simply hire people to do something that
would not be of profit makes no sense, doesn't help, and is ultimately
demeaning.
The days when unskilled workers fell off the face of Hoover Dam or the
Golden Gate Bridge, are long gone.
I understand what you're trying to spell out, but I fail to see how
these items are accurate or effective.
Wayne "Good intentions are only half the battle" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Bev.
>In article <TA0h3.46$cr2....@news.uswest.net>,
> "alice" <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>> dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote in message
>> <7lj65f$lc9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > "alice" <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >Well I won't argue that the muti-wife/concubine lifestyle is
> >the optimum. I would point out, however, that the tragedy
> >of Absolom came directly from David's murdering Uriah the
> >Hittite and taking his wife Bathsheba and not simply from
> >David having multiple wives.
>
> Yes, but it was all about his sexual carryings on. Its that sexual
> sin that the bible talks about. Murder was the culmination of
> sexual sin, envy, greed and finally - the ultimate - murder to
> accomplish ones other sins. (if his eyes had been where they
>should have been....)
I think it was about coveting that which was legally belonging
to another. Some people tend to think it was about sexual
going ons. The "murder" was the ultimate reason for any
resultant tragedy. He was a human being, who was weak.
Just becaue someone looks, does not mean they will be
weak and act on what they see.
> >But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
> >wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
> >what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
> >the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God.
>
> You know, if you claim to "love" God and his ways and you
> publically go against that "will" - then what do you expect?
> Accolades? If (as my brother Wayne would say) if you don't
> want to do the "time" then don't do the crime. Either live like
> you claim you are or don't talk about it. Nobody else will
> either. Its the "claims" that cause the problems - not the
> actual act.
Lauryn did not expect accolades. The most she probably
expected is that "so called christians" would follow their own
tenets. You know, he/she who is without sins, let them cast
the first stone. Lauryn is living like she claims. It is christians
who are projecting their take on the bible onto Lauryn Hill.
>> If we were to >judge David and Solomon as some now
>> seem prepared to judge Lauryn Hill, then we should throw
>> Psalms of David, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiates
>> out of the Bible. After all when much of those books were written
>> those two men weren't living the way many modern moralists
>> feel they should have been living.
>
> Or - apparently - many people in THEIR time, either. (called
> privilege of wealth) And they did get to pay some big time dues.
The same kind of heavy dues so called christians will pay
when they meet their maker in ignoring Jesus tenet "He who is
without sin, let him/her cast the first stone". Eh?
> >A person's private walk with God is just that.
>
> Amen. So keep it that way. Its like the Pharisees and the
> Saducees....if they hadn't been out on the street corners
> praying loudly and yet leaving the Samaritan to die in the
> gutter, nobody would have been talking about them.
> They would NOt have been somebody's object lesson.
And where does Jesus words fit in here. Did not Jesus say "He who
is without sin, let him/her cast the first stone? How will the so called
christians fare, who are currently judging Lauryn, when they meet
their maker? I very much doubt any heavenly authority appointed
the many christians of the world as judge and jury for any living
human being.
>
> Assuming Ms. Hill is actually seeking God and assuming she is
> >living "outside His will" he will eventually lead her
> >where he want's her to go. Assuming she's just "faking
> >it for the media" then she'll have to deal with that
> >personally.
>
> That's right
So why is it that so called christians don't follow Gods words when
it is stated "Vegeance is mines, saith the lord"????
> >
> >One final note. If, like the Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingrichs
> >and Bob Doles of this world, Lauryn Hill had been on her
> >second (or third, or fourth) marriage instead of being an
> >unwed mother,
>
> I would agree. There is no difference. Ain't none of 'em got
> nothing to crow about.
>
> alice
It is my view that, Lauryn Hill was not crowing about anything
whatsoever. It is my view that Lauryn was merely stating everyone
has a right to the choices they make. The problem is, the
individuals who make choices they have no intention of
taking responsibility for.
--
-Bev-
Alternate email address
ksp...@umich.edu
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:52:19 CST, ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>
>>2. Create a new version of the GI Bill to spur home ownership in cities,
>>and preferably among brothers and sisters.
>>
>>I say THIS because the GI Bill was one of the bills used to build wealth
>>among white communities and KEEP blacks from accumulating it (the home
>>ownership portions of the bill were tied to homes in suburban areas where
>>blacks couldn't live).
>homes through the GI Bill. I have no idea what you're talking about,
>in saying that Black people couldn't use this benefit; Black people
>most definitely could live in suburban areas, even though many of
>those were very much segregated throughout the Fifties, early Sixties,
>and in many places, until the Seventies.
>
>Could you explain what you mean when you say that Blacks could not use
>the GI Bill, and how that squares with my own experience?
When you say that Black people most definitely could live in the suburbs,
EVEN THOUGH MANY OF THOSE WERE VERY MUCH SEGREGATED THROUGHOUT THE
FIFTIES, EARLY SIXTIES, AND IN MANY PLACES UNTIL THE SEVENTIES, what are
you talking about?
I didn't say blacks couldn't use the GI Bill. I said that the way it was
structured benefited whites to the detriment of blacks. If I wasn't clear
on the how before, I'll say it here....GI's were given money to build new
houses in suburban areas WHICH WERE RACIALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Now the term "racially exclusive" doesn't mean that blacks didn't slip
through the cracks, in as much as there WERE some black people who
voted--even during the worst of Jim Crow. But the number who VOTED was
infinitesmially small. Just like the number of black GIs who were able to
take advantage of the GI bill (compared to the percentage of WHITE gi's
who were able to take advantage of it) was small.
>>3. Pay for child care....or at least create a political environment where
>>child-care co-ops are seen as viable options.
>
>In Los Angeles County, the Department of Public Social Services has
>funding going begging for just this purpose.
Could you answer a couple of questions here:
1. What funds you are talking about?
2. Whether you can use the policy of a county as representative of
policies enacted at the federal level?
>>4. Create public works projects that allow people without jobs to do work
>>for the community, valued work.
>
>"Public Works Projects" doing what? Machines sweep the streets;
>machines cut the roads; it takes skilled and dedicated labor to build
>highways and bridges. Who are the people without jobs, nowadays?
>Mostly the uneducated, the unmotivated (perhaps through years of drug
>use), and the mentally unstable, who suffer from varying problems such
>as schizophrenia and various manic-depressive problems.
Given that the black unemployment rate is hovering about 25% last I heard,
compared to 4% of the country at large, what are you saying here? That
black people are more uneducated, more unmotivated (perhaps through years
of drug use) and more mentally unstable than their white counterparts?
>Make-work does not pay. Make-work jobs don't last; they only teach
>make-work skills; people need to get into positions where they can
>really make some money, have a career, be mobile in their ability to
>make money.
Yep.
>Would a public works job be something like working on a farm, picking
>vegetables or fruit? This work is so strenuous that most people will
>not do it. Would it be something like sweeping a street?
Nope. Because of urban neglect, most of our cities need rebuilding. Our
streets don't need sweeping, in many cases they need repaving. Our
schools don't need painting, in many cases they need rebuilding. This
DOES take training, but it also takes more than private funds to get the
job done. These are the types of public works I'm talking about.
>Right now, companies like UPS hire people to simply move boxes around,
>and there are companies that do help line phone work, and so on. But
>for any government entity to simply hire people to do something that
>would not be of profit makes no sense, doesn't help, and is ultimately
>demeaning.
I agree.
>I understand what you're trying to spell out, but I fail to see how
>these items are accurate or effective.
That's ok. WHy don't you posit some different ideas, and we can discuss
them. Whatever the case, homeboy wanted solutions, I gave some...and I'm
waiting for a response from him. If he comes up with some "I agree with
Wayne" stuff....I'ma have to clown. ;)
lks
Wayne Johnson
>In article <3786e47e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Could you explain what you mean when you say that Blacks could not use
>>the GI Bill, and how that squares with my own experience?
>
>When you say that Black people most definitely could live in the suburbs,
>EVEN THOUGH MANY OF THOSE WERE VERY MUCH SEGREGATED THROUGHOUT THE
>FIFTIES, EARLY SIXTIES, AND IN MANY PLACES UNTIL THE SEVENTIES, what are
>you talking about?
Why are you shouting?
You said that Blacks could not use the GI Bill. We agree that the GI
Bill did not desegregate neighborhoods; but I bought my home without
any problems with segregation.
I was with my father when he attempted to buy a home in a segregated
area, and I've discussed this, over the years, many times in this
group. I'm fully aware of the situations in the past, and I'm
probably more conversant with these situations than you are, having
experienced them first hand.
>I didn't say blacks couldn't use the GI Bill. I said that the way it was
>structured benefited whites to the detriment of blacks. If I wasn't clear
>on the how before, I'll say it here....GI's were given money to build new
>houses in suburban areas WHICH WERE RACIALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Here is your exact quote:
********************************
>I say THIS because the GI Bill was one of the bills used to build wealth
>among white communities and KEEP blacks from accumulating it (the home
>ownership portions of the bill were tied to homes in suburban areas where
>blacks couldn't live).
********************************
That statement is flat out inaccurate, and misleading. If you wish to
modify it at this point, I don't have a problem with that; I would
appreciate it, however, if you would be polite enough to do so without
making it all in capital letters.
>Now the term "racially exclusive" doesn't mean that blacks didn't slip
>through the cracks, in as much as there WERE some black people who
>voted--even during the worst of Jim Crow. But the number who VOTED was
>infinitesmially small.
Nationally, or regionally? I know of "voting clubs" that were quite
popular in my great-grandfather's time, in Tucson, Arizona - in the
1920's - and a great many Black people voted. It depended on the area
of the nation we're talking about, and the times, doesn't it?
But my question wasn't about voting; it was about the GI Bill, and
your original statement that Blacks couldn't use it because it was
tied to home ownership only in areas that excluded Black people.
>Just like the number of black GIs who were able to
>take advantage of the GI bill (compared to the percentage of WHITE gi's
>who were able to take advantage of it) was small.
Anyone could take advantage of it, and most did, at one time or
another. In this state, any veteran still can. I don't understand
why you're saying these things, or what you're basing these
assumptions on, because it matches no real-world experience I know of;
and almost every male in my extended family is a veteran, who took
advantage of the GI Bill, to a man. Some of these guys served when
the military itself was still segregated!
It just doesn't add up. I'm not demanding statistics or sources, I'm
just asking: where did you get this information?
>>>3. Pay for child care....or at least create a political environment where
>>>child-care co-ops are seen as viable options.
>>
>>In Los Angeles County, the Department of Public Social Services has
>>funding going begging for just this purpose.
>
>Could you answer a couple of questions here:
>
>1. What funds you are talking about?
Funds specifically set aside, for a special program to get working
mothers with young children back on their feet. The program allows
women to get support for infants, toddlers, and preschool aged kids,
as well as after school care for older children, up to a certain age.
If you want the name of the program, I can provide it for you, and I
think there is more info on the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Social Services website.
The program is having a hard time getting participants, because so
many young mothers, especially the Latinos, are unwilling to
relinquish their children every day to take on a job. The funds are
there, but the participants are balking.
>2. Whether you can use the policy of a county as representative of
>policies enacted at the federal level?
It's part of the Welfare Reform Act, which is a Federal program.
Aren't you aware of the Welfare Reform Act?
>>>4. Create public works projects that allow people without jobs to do work
>>>for the community, valued work.
>>
>>"Public Works Projects" doing what? Machines sweep the streets;
>>machines cut the roads; it takes skilled and dedicated labor to build
>>highways and bridges. Who are the people without jobs, nowadays?
>>Mostly the uneducated, the unmotivated (perhaps through years of drug
>>use), and the mentally unstable, who suffer from varying problems such
>>as schizophrenia and various manic-depressive problems.
>
>Given that the black unemployment rate is hovering about 25% last I heard,
>compared to 4% of the country at large, what are you saying here?
Where did you hear 25%? I don't know if it's accurate or not, but
that doesn't sound right to me.
I don't know what your question is, since it's based on figures that
don't make sense. It's not "given" that 25% of people are unemployed;
if that's true, you give me the reasons why, and we'll talk about it.
>That
>black people are more uneducated, more unmotivated (perhaps through years
>of drug use) and more mentally unstable than their white counterparts?
I'm going to tell you some things you already know.
First, it is very difficult to get a job when you have a prison
record. Especially if it is for a violent crime... but having any
kind of record is not going to get you a job at a bank, or any other
position requiring a company to be bondable, for instance.
So even working in a warehouse full of auto parts is almost impossible
for someone with a record to get.
Second, there is a disproportionate number of our people who are on
dope, and this kind of addiction has a certain comfort level in our
community. I have discussed this issue with a great deal of heat in
this group for some time; it seems that there is some belief that
Black people cannot stop using the stuff, so we should just make it
legal and OK.
I don't buy this, but no employer wants an employee who is unreliable
or unsafe around machinery or systems because of drug addiction, for
all kinds of reasons. In this litigious age, having a person test
positive for drugs after some incident is a sure-fire way to be on the
receiving end of a massive lawsuit, and liability on the part of the
employer is almost automatic. We have a lot of people failing drug
tests, and that seems to not be an issue with all of the "let's just
make the stuff legal" crowd.
Next, though the problem of unwed teenage births is on the downswing,
the damage has been done. One heck of a lot of young women had to
leave school, and never returned; after the pattern of having children
was established, even if there is a man in the home, the return to
school for an adequate education almost never happens. So we are in
the position of having a large percentage of Black women, who have
children to care for, without a high school diploma, let alone further
vocational training or college.
So YES, we are talking about people who are MORE UNEDUCATED than their
suburban white counterparts that got abortions instead; and this
affects the ability to find work.
>>Would a public works job be something like working on a farm, picking
>>vegetables or fruit? This work is so strenuous that most people will
>>not do it. Would it be something like sweeping a street?
>
>Nope. Because of urban neglect, most of our cities need rebuilding. Our
>streets don't need sweeping, in many cases they need repaving. Our
>schools don't need painting, in many cases they need rebuilding. This
>DOES take training, but it also takes more than private funds to get the
>job done. These are the types of public works I'm talking about.
It's not going to happen. I watched my city being rebuilt, after the
last earthquake in 1994, and it is not a low-tech situation any more.
Work goes fast, needs to meet code, requires workers to be mobile,
skilled, and technical, and so on. It is not hodcarriers hauling
concrete in buckets up flights of stairs.
Paving is done with massive machines, etc. etc. Training for these
things is not out of reach; but much of it comes in the classroom, at
vocational schools where certifications are given, and then, guess
what....
- You have to be drug-free to run an equipment crane, a paving
machine, a steamroller...
-You have to be without a criminal record to have access to the
stockroom, the tool crib, the explosives shack....
-You have to be educated to be able to pass the certifications, and
meet the standards....
It's just not like the old WPA, where a bunch of men got on a train,
rode to the middle of the desert, and built Hoover Dam, almost by
hand.
And many of them got killed, too.
>>I understand what you're trying to spell out, but I fail to see how
>>these items are accurate or effective.
>
>That's ok. WHy don't you posit some different ideas, and we can discuss
>them. Whatever the case, homeboy wanted solutions, I gave some...and I'm
>waiting for a response from him. If he comes up with some "I agree with
>Wayne" stuff....I'ma have to clown. ;)
I think the basic assumption will have to be that we will sacrifice
much to get much. Many things will have to be set aside, to gain the
skill set and meet the standards that will knock down the barriers.
That means no dope, no criminal activity, and no being sidetracked
with having kids in high school. The social acceptance for that must
end, immediately. I don't think it's accepted, in any case, but when
I say dope dealers go to jail, everybody starts worrying about his job
when he gets back out.
It's the wrong time to deal with the situation when a man is 30 years
old, getting out of prison for the third time, and now he needs to
work to feed three or four kids. Most Black people are not in that
situation; those that are, need to understand that the consequences
were predictable.
I see no point in doing make-work. I also have no solutions, when an
employer says, "I can't hire a guy on a construction site that tests
positive...I'll get my ass sued off, maybe by him, if he gets hurt"
and so on.
When a young girl starts joyfully passing around baby shower
invitations in her high school English class, why the hell is
everybody supposed to act excited and happy? It's a tragedy, and a
terrible roadblock to a future. We don't need to come up with fancy
programs to care for people's kids, when they could take care of them
all by themselves if they had an education and a good job, so what is
this worry about the esteem of a young pregnant girl? What kind of
self-esteem is she going to have six or seven years, and two or three
kids, later...and can't work to take care of them?
This needs to be stopped, NOW. Prevention is the most important
thing.
Wayne "It's difficult for me to figure out how to tell an adult the
best way to act like an adult...how do you help people who won't grow
up?" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
alice wrote back to Drake:
> >Well I won't argue that the muti-wife/concubine lifestyle is
> >the optimum. I would point out, however, that the tragedy
> >of Absolom came directly from David's murdering Uriah the
> >Hittite and taking his wife Bathsheba and not simply from
> >David having multiple wives.
>
> Yes, but it was all about his sexual carryings on.
David was a king. He decided to copy the example of other kingdoms and
establish a harem. Israel was not exempt from the practice of multiple wives,
but he was the only one to have more than two and concubines.
Plus, David was given wives, by Saul, by the tribes of the Southern Kingdom,
commonly known as Judah before he united all Israel in his middle age, and
even by the Philistines. He doesn't sound like a total swashbuckler, except
in this one case.
Moreover, he also established a harem for political purposes other than
raising up successors. He married foreign women to seal peace treaties among
his neighbors and enemies. It didn't mean he made love to them at all, much
less once or twice. One could have the title of Royal Wife and not be called
to share the Royal Bed--regularly.
I would think David would have had plenty sense not to marry a foreign woman,
beget a child, and place him on the throne.
> Its that sexual sin that the bible talks about.
Are you speaking of David's many wives or this one woman he had the gall to
steal from Uriah?
Absalom started stirring up trouble because David was feeble and had not
formally chosen an heir from that large contentious brood. He had a few
favorites, but didn't outright choose. Absalom decided to force his father's
hand, and chose to kill his half-brother because he had raped Absalom's sister
Tamar--thus taking too much on himself as a prince, no matter how beloved.
What made matters even worse was Absalom raping his father's concubines
"before all Israel," thus showing himself no better than his half-brother.
This is why David had to be moved to put a stop to all this usurpation and
fast, before the country's fragile unity was sundered.
I don't think the Almighty had that much of a problem with David swiving
women--as long as he honorably cared for the women and married them or gave
them some kind of status, and didn't allow it to get to his head and derail
him from leading his people correctly. I think Yahweh had a big problem later
with the foreign wives who were allowed to practice their faith in Israel,
most notably
with his son Solomon, the second son he had with Bathsheba.
Bathsheba was the only woman for which David was damned for by the God of the
Israelites. The Bathsheba story is also one of testing, taking away and
raising up (that is, forgiveness). Apparently God allowed David to make his
successor the son by his favorite wife. The first son, as you recall, died in
childbirth as a punishment from God.
And what does this have to do with Lauryn Hill? She is in a non-marriage with
Rohan Marley, but for all intents and purposes and as far as we know, it is
monogamous. They aren't sampling from the donut shop.
>Murder was the culmination of sexual sin,
Yeah, but Lauryn ain murdered nobody to get somebody. David was obsessed; he
had to have this girl no matter what. And apparently, Bathsheba wanted him to
ring her chimes, which is why she bathed before his eyes on her roof. Wanting
ain the same as getting. And a lot of times you get what you pay for.
I doubt whether Lauryn is going to go down the same road as Billie Holiday or
Bessie Smith in "St. Louis Blues," or Whitney (LAWD!) over some man.
[...]
> >
> >But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
> >wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
> >what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
> >the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God.
>
> You know, if you claim to "love" God and his ways and you publically > go against that "will" - then what do you expect? Accolades?
I believe what the God of Sinai wanted was purity of mind and heart when
approaching the one you say you love or consider as wife. And a lot of
people, unfortunately, break this rule daily, even when they've exchanged vows
and rings. I believe this girl when she says she experiences the Divine in
this pure way, regardless of her legal marital state. In that way, she cannot
be considered to be going against the "will"--whatever that is--of the Divine.
I see too much of the literal biblical meaning people running roughshod over
Lauryn; when this controversy is little more of a cultural requirement
impressed upon this girl than a biblical one.
> If (as my brother
> Wayne would say) if you don't want to do the "time" then don't do
> the crime.
Lauryn has not committed any crime against nature or against the God she
recognizes or reveres, except for exploding some man-sanctioned bubble. She
may consider herself "married"--in common law terms. She may consider herself
"married" in her heart and mind.
I'd also like to know why in blue blazes ROHAN is not being dragged and
roasted over some coals for not marrying the girl. I'm not sure whether he
has taken up Rastafarianism like his father, but if he has, remember that they
are just as insistent on their experience of the Divine as a Baptist.
Conservative Jamaicans may think of the sect as godless (among other things),
but they consider themselves religious. I am not sure about marriage with
these people, but these men are known to have several serial wives, lovers and
children. As some black men are known to do as well over here...
There are also many women who have had children out of wedlock who still
experience the Divine in their lives as some thing (as the Divine is SUPPOSED
TO HAVE NO GENDER), forgiving, loving, and listening and present.
--
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
Writer
mkin...@pacbell.net
(415) 673-2956
<-------------------------------------------------------------------->
“Nowadays, having the gift of song and dance ain enough,”
Jubilee said, “You gotta have a gimmick.”
--Wesley Brown, DARKTOWN STRUTTERS
<-------------------------------------------------------------------->
dr...@cis.uab.edu
"alice" <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote in message <7lj65f$lc9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <A2Ne3.242$Jl1....@news.uswest.net>,
> > "alice" <ray...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >the optimum. I would point out, however, that the tragedy
> >of Absolom came directly from David's murdering Uriah the
> >Hittite and taking his wife Bathsheba and not simply from
> >David having multiple wives.
>
sin that
> the bible talks about. Murder was the culmination of sexual sin,
envy, greed
> and finally - the ultimate - murder to accomplish ones other sins.
(if his
> eyes had been where they should have been....)
Well now you've jumped from polygamy to adultery and murder.
Different animals altogether. Suffice it to say that if David
had stuck with his many wives and concubines there would have
been no Absolom fiasco. And had he murdered Uriah the Hittate
for his grape orchard like Ahab murdered Nabal instead of for
Uriah's wife, the consequences would have been similair though
the initial sin was not sexual. Both initial sins involved
coveteousness, but then so does just about any sin.
However this is getting way off the point. The issue that I'm
raising is the FACT that different people have differing opinions
on sin and God's will. In the OT, right or wrong, polygamy
wasn't considered sinful. Nowadays it is (even to the point
of it being illegal in the U.S.) Thus I don't think it behoves
anyone to judge someone else's religious sincerity by one's
own belief in what is or is not the will of God.
>
> >
> >But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
> >wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
> >what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
> >the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God.
>
> You know, if you claim to "love" God and his ways and you publically
go
> against that "will" - then what do you expect?
Publically go against YOUR interpretation of God's will.
Considering the many different religious experiences/beliefs/ect.,
just about everyone is living outside of someone else's definition
of God's will.
You're making the assumption that everyone agree's with your
definition of sexual sin. If someone does, and then lives
differently, but makes false pretenses, that's hypocracy. But,
so far, I've not heard any evidence that Ms. Hill has been
making any false pretenses. Nor do I hear her condemning anyone
else for how they live. Those are the true halmarks of hypocrasy,
pretending to be something you know you're not, and condemning
others that you don't feel live up to standards that you know
you yourself are not living up to. Lauryn Hill has not done
either of those things. You could say "well she should believe
in this particular fashion" but that doesn't mean that she does.
> Accolades? If (as my brother
> Wayne would say) if you don't want to do the "time" then don't do the
crime.
> Either live like you claim you are or don't talk about it. Nobody
else will
> either. Its the "claims" that cause the problems - not the actual act.
What claims about God's will has Lauryn Hill made? Perhaps she
disagree's with you on exactly what God's will is. I'm not saying
she's right. But she definitely has a right to a different opinion.
> If we were to
> >judge David and Solomon as some now seem prepared to judge
> >Lauryn Hill, then we should throw Psalms of David, Proverbs
> >, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiates out of the Bible. After
> >all when much of those books were written those two men
> >weren't living the way many modern moralists feel they
> >should have been living.
>
> Or - apparently - many people in THEIR time, either. (called
privilege of
> wealth) And they did get to pay some big time dues.
A) Everyone pays dues.
B) So far you've failed to show any instance where David or
Solomon paid any dues for the "sin" of polygamy. David paid
for adultery, lying, and murder. Was it the fact that he had
so many wives what led him to want yet another one? Who knows.
The Bible doesn't say. Solomon's sin was leading the nation
into idolatry. Sure, you could say that stemmed from his wives,
many whom were from pagan countries. But Ahab only had one wife
and did exactly the same (well worse actually).
>
> >
> >A person's private walk with God is just that.
>
> Amen. So keep it that way. Its like the Pharisees and the
Saducees....if
> they hadn't been out on the street corners praying loudly and yet
leaving
> the Samaritan to die in the gutter, nobody would have been talking
about
> them. They would NOt have been somebody's object lesson.
It's interesting that you bring up the Pharasees and Saducees.
There main pastime was not giving God the praise for anything, but
rather going around seeing where they had an oportunity to condemn
someone else. Yes I do see a parallel to the Lauryn Hill saga, but
probably not in the same place that you see one.
Also, the fact that you have a private walk with God in no way
diminishes your right to talk about it.
>
> Assuming
> >Ms. Hill is actually seeking God and assuming she is
> >living "outside His will" he will eventually lead her
> >where he want's her to go. Assuming she's just "faking
> >it for the media" then she'll have to deal with that
> >personally.
>
> That's right
>
> >
> >One final note. If, like the Rush Limbaughs, Newt Gingrichs
> >and Bob Doles of this world, Lauryn Hill had been on her
> >second (or third, or fourth) marriage instead of being an
> >unwed mother,
>
> I would agree. There is no difference. Ain't none of 'em got nothing
to crow
> about.
>
> alice
Well, actually none of us have anything to crow about. (Unless
the second coming has already happened without my knowlege and
some of us are posting the Usenet from glory.)
dr...@cis.uab.edu
crc...@ibm.net wrote:
> I read the sermon given at the following web site this
> evening, and then ran across this discussion. It seems
> relevant. For me, the explanations concerning the nature
> of marriage, as well as divorce, described in
> this sermon explain the reasons Lauryn Hill is being
> condemned by those who consider themselves Christian.
> I personally don't condemn Lauryn Hill, because I believe
> she has a right to make her own choices.
>
> On the other hand, I wouldn't want a child of mine to look
> at her as a role model in the arena of building strong male/female
> partner relationships based on the documented teachings of
> Christ.
I agree 100%! Actually the only one I'd want my child to use
as a role mole in all arenas would be the Lord Himself. :-)
I definitely agree that there are elements of Lauryn Hill's
life that I would not want my child to emulate. But I realize
that I probably have a different value system than she does.
That being said, I'm not going to lump her in with all of the
gansta-hoochie-rappers in the world. From what I've seen, her
music has been overall positive and well as the way she carries
herself in public. To continually rake her over the coals and
ignore the positive aspects is unfair IMO.
Alice Holman
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
>
>
> Publically go against YOUR interpretation of God's will.
> Considering the many different religious experiences/beliefs/ect.,
> just about everyone is living outside of someone else's definition
> of God's will.
Undoubtedly. However, there are some basic tenents in all religions
(whatever religion it is that you chose to speak of) and the New Testiment
clearly - oh very clearly - speaks to fornication as being
unacceptable...the def. is: voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried
persons.(and what is shacking up, producing children, without benefit of
clergy or state?) So my point is merely that if you chose to ignore the
basic tenents of your religion, don't try and blow smoke at the rest of us
about it. I would feel the same way about a Moslem bowing and praising Allah
and scarfing down 10 pounds of pork for breakfast. Fine. Just shut up. I
don't want to hear it.
One major problem (as I see it) in this dear country of ours is our ability
to equvocate about "right" and "wrong" and then we have to nerve to get all
astonished when some young person does something that is "wrong" and can't
see why the world is upset with him/her. If we weren't so busy trying to see
and justify all sides of evil (probably against the day when we might need
to do that evil ourselves) we might actually produce a population that has a
conscience. As it is, with right and wrong being relative........and
everybody has a 'point of view' that can explain away the
unexplainable......wrong is only wrong if it affects YOU.
What we NEED to keep in mind is "ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory
of God." and stop trying to define "sin" as it fits OUR needs.
alice
>
>
>
olan
ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
> In article <7lqeub$kg5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, olan <olan8108@my-> >> In article <7lbroi$vq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, olan <olan8108@my-
deja.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <1999062804...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> >> > ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
> >> >> Rodney Smith <rod...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >America's poor of about the most cared for poor on the face of the
> >earth, but if you feel there is more we should do I'm open to
> >suggestions.
>
> I don't see how you can make this claim, and disagree with it
strongly.
> Could you explain this to me?
There very well could be places who give more to the
poor than we do her in America. Rich certainly seems
to think so.
But if I were dirt poor, I still can't think of another
place I'd rather be living than the good old US of A.
[deletion]
>
> First let's address whether or not this is a problem. The
conservatives
> (and here I include true conservatives as well as many "liberals"
such as
> William Julius Wilson) seem to think it IS...but I don't buy it.
POVERTY
> is a problem, not children having children out of wedlock. What to do
> about it?
You might be interested in a not very new concept called the negative
income tax. In his book from the seventies, _Free To Choose_, Milton
Friedman gives a pretty good explanation it.
In a nutshell, everybody files income tax forms. If one's income falls
above the poverty line, that person pays an income tax. If one's income
falls below the poverty line, that person receives a cash payment from
the gov't to being his income back up to poverty line for that year.
There is a good deal more to it than that, but it is a very interesting
concept.
--
olan
dr...@cis.uab.edu
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
> dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
>
>
> Undoubtedly. However, there are some basic tenents in all religions
> (whatever religion it is that you chose to speak of) and the New
Testiment
> clearly - oh very clearly - speaks to fornication as being
> unacceptable...the def. is: voluntary sexual intercourse between
unmarried
> persons.(and what is shacking up, producing children, without benefit
of
> clergy or state?)
Interesting that you snipped out the rest of the discussion, but
no matter. I'm not arguing that what Lauryn Hill did was "right".
I am arguing that she might not see things the same way are you
or I. Yes, the N.T. view or fornication is clear to YOU. And
you and I probably have the same belief on that. But I'm sure
if we enumerated our various beliefs we would come to something
that is just as clear to ME as fornication but that YOU disagreed
with. I'm not going to call you a hypocrite because you believe
differently than I. That simply is an incorrect definition of
the word hypocrite. A hypocrite is someone who doesn't live
up to what HE OR SHE believes and NOT someone who doesn't live
up to what others believe no matter how "obvious" that is. There
are, after all, Christian churches that have taken a different
stance on something as "basic" as fornication. Though I wouldn't
join such a church, I'm not going to say it's not Christian any
more than I'm going to say that a church that choses sprinkling
over baptism by immersian is not Christian.
> One major problem (as I see it) in this dear country of ours is our
ability
> to equvocate about "right" and "wrong" and then we have to nerve to
get all
> astonished when some young person does something that is "wrong" and
can't
> see why the world is upset with him/her. If we weren't so busy trying
to see
> and justify all sides of evil (probably against the day when we might
need
> to do that evil ourselves) we might actually produce a population
that has a
> conscience. As it is, with right and wrong being relative........and
> everybody has a 'point of view' that can explain away the
> unexplainable......wrong is only wrong if it affects YOU.
Accepting that someone else has different beliefs is not the same
as "justifying" what they do.
And as for what's "basically" wrong with this country it's that we
spent so much time analyzing/critizising others lives rather than
living our own.
> What we NEED to keep in mind is "ALL have sinned and come short of
the Glory
> of God." and stop trying to define "sin" as it fits OUR needs.
>
> alice
With that much I agree. We have all sinned and need to be mindful
of that as we look for the mote in our neighbor's eye.
Alice Holman
Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
> My father bought our first house, in 1959, with benefits from the GI
> Bill. So did both of his brothers, one before him, and one after.
>
> I bought my first home with benefits from the GI Bill, in 1980.
>
> I know MANY other Black veterans, and all with families have bought
> homes through the GI Bill. I have no idea what you're talking about,
> in saying that Black people couldn't use this benefit; Black people
> most definitely could live in suburban areas, even though many of
> those were very much segregated throughout the Fifties, early Sixties,
> and in many places, until the Seventies.
Wayne (seeing this late in the deal) You gotta be kidding me. Even white folks
acknowledge the racism that existed in black GIs using the gov. to finance
homes. There were all kinds of restrictions, etc. I am happy that it worked for
you but for the screaming majority - it just didn't.
I can't find my source right now, but there is a professor who talks about the
amount of money being handed down to babyboomers (white) as a direct result of
the investments in real estate that were possible because of the gov. lending
programs - like 14 trillion. But then, I note you keep saying "GI Bill" and
there IS a difference in GI bill and the federal housing authority lending
money.
But, BTW, the GI bill didn't help a lot of black vets either because of the
discrimination in predominately white colleges and the few HBCUs filled up
dramatically leaving many wanting.
alice
>
>
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Alice Holman
<alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
...
>I can't find my source right now, but there is a professor who talks about the
>amount of money being handed down to babyboomers (white) as a direct result of
>the investments in real estate that were possible because of the gov. lending
>programs - like 14 trillion. But then, I note you keep saying "GI Bill" and
>there IS a difference in GI bill and the federal housing authority lending
>money.
I thought that the GI Bill was not open to Black vets, initially.
>But, BTW, the GI bill didn't help a lot of black vets either because of the
>discrimination in predominately white colleges and the few HBCUs filled up
>dramatically leaving many wanting.
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
alice wrote back to someone:
> >Well I won't argue that the muti-wife/concubine lifestyle is
> >the optimum. I would point out, however, that the tragedy
> >of Absolom came directly from David's murdering Uriah the
> >Hittite and taking his wife Bathsheba and not simply from
> >David having multiple wives.
>
> Yes, but it was all about his sexual carryings on.
David was a king. He decided to copy the example of other kingdoms and
establish a harem. Israel was not exempt from the practice of multiple wives,
but he was the only one to have more than two or four and concubines.
Plus, David was given wives, by Saul, by the tribes of the Southern Kingdom,
commonly known as Judah before he united all Israel in his middle age, and
even by the Philistines. He doesn't sound like a swashbuckler, except in this
one case.
Moreover, he also established a harem for political purposes other than
raising up successors. He married foreign women to seal peace treaties among
his neighbors and enemies. It didn't mean he made love to them at all, much
less once or twice. One could have the title of Royal Wife and not be called
to share the Royal Bed--regularly.
I would think David would have had plenty sense not to marry a foreign woman,
beget a child, and place him on the throne.
> Its that sexual sin that the bible talks about.
Are you speaking of David's many wives or this one woman he had the gall to
steal from Uriah?
I don't think the Almighty had that much of a problem with David swiving
women--as long as he honorably cared for the women and married them or gave
them some kind of status, and didn't allow it to get to his head and derail
him from leading his people correctly. I think Yahweh had a big problem later
with the foreign wives who were allowed to practice their faith in Israel,
most notably
with his son Solomon, the second son he had with Bathsheba.
Bathsheba was the only woman for which David was damned for by the God of the
Israelites. The Bathsheba story is also one of testing, taking away and
raising up (that is, forgiveness). Apparently God allowed David to make his
successor the son by his favorite wife. The first son, as you recall, died in
childbirth as a punishment from God.
And what does this have to do with Lauryn Hill? She is in a non-marriage with
Rohan Marley, but for all intents and purposes and as far as we know, it is
monogamous. They aren't sampling from the donut shop.
>Murder was the culmination of sexual sin,
Yeah, but Lauryn ain murdered nobody to get somebody. David was obsessed; he
had to have this girl no matter what. And apparently, Bathsheba wanted him to
ring her chimes, which is why she bathed before his eyes on her roof. Wanting
ain the same as getting. And a lot of times you get what you pay for.
I doubt whether Lauryn is going to go down the same road as Billie Holiday or
Bessie Smith in "St. Louis Blues," or Whitney (LAWD!) over some man.
[...]
> >
> >But what I find more concerning is the seeming apparent
> >wholesale condemnation of Lauryn Hill for living outside
> >what some consider to be the "will of God" and then having
> >the "nerve" to simultaneously praise God.
>
> You know, if you claim to "love" God and his ways and you publically > go against that "will" - then what do you expect? Accolades?
I believe what the God of Sinai wanted was purity of mind and heart when
approaching the one you say you love or consider as wife. And a lot of
people, unfortunately, break this rule daily, even when they've exchanged vows
and rings. And I believe this girl when she says she experiences the Divine
in this pure way, regardless of her legal marital state. In that way, she
cannot be considered to be going against the "will"--whatever that is--of the Divine.
I see too much of the literal biblical meaning people running roughshod over
Lauryn; when this controversy is little more of a cultural requirement
impressed upon this girl than a biblical one.
> If (as my brother
> Wayne would say) if you don't want to do the "time" then don't do
> the crime.
Lauryn has not committed any crime against nature or against the God she
recognizes or reveres, except for exploding some man-sanctioned bubble. She
may consider herself "married"--in common law terms. She may consider herself
"married" in her heart and mind.
I'd also like to know why in blue blazes ROHAN is not being dragged and
roasted over some coals for not marrying the girl. I'm not sure whether he
has taken up Rastafarianism like his father, but if he is, remember that they
Wayne Johnson
<alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> My father bought our first house, in 1959, with benefits from the GI
>> Bill. So did both of his brothers, one before him, and one after.
>>
>> I bought my first home with benefits from the GI Bill, in 1980.
>>
>> I know MANY other Black veterans, and all with families have bought
>> homes through the GI Bill. I have no idea what you're talking about,
>> in saying that Black people couldn't use this benefit; Black people
>> most definitely could live in suburban areas, even though many of
>> those were very much segregated throughout the Fifties, early Sixties,
>> and in many places, until the Seventies.
>
>Wayne (seeing this late in the deal) You gotta be kidding me. Even white folks
>acknowledge the racism that existed in black GIs using the gov. to finance
>homes. There were all kinds of restrictions, etc. I am happy that it worked for
>you but for the screaming majority - it just didn't.
I am not kidding you, and I know where the bodies were buried with the
G.I. Bill. In the early days, a house had to "qualify" for the G.I.
Bill, just as it had to qualify for an FHA loan - meaning it had to
meet an inspection, and certain standards of construction.
Name some of the restrictions you know about. Members of my family,
starting in the early 1950's, bought homes using the G.I. Bill, Alice.
I am not kidding when I tell you this.
>I can't find my source right now, but there is a professor who talks about the
>amount of money being handed down to babyboomers (white) as a direct result of
>the investments in real estate that were possible because of the gov. lending
>programs - like 14 trillion. But then, I note you keep saying "GI Bill" and
>there IS a difference in GI bill and the federal housing authority lending
>money.
Yes, of course, and I'm not talking about FHA - a whole different ball
game.
>But, BTW, the GI bill didn't help a lot of black vets either because of the
>discrimination in predominately white colleges and the few HBCUs filled up
>dramatically leaving many wanting.
Maybe I'm dealing with a regional gap, here. I'm from the Southwest,
and have direct experience with the experiences of my parents and
myself - which included virtually no restrictions on attendance in
public universities and colleges, in California, for instance. Many
Black people - Tom Bradley, Johnnie Cochran, and so on - attended
major universities in this area, and they were not unusual.
Not everyone took advantage of the educational benefits of the G.I.
Bill, but it was not due to the fact that they couldn't attend and
HBCU.
Now, if the situation was different elsewhere, I can't see how the
G.I. Bill itself can be blamed; it sounds like the usual garden
variety racism that always restricts us in some way.
Wayne "It's like blaming the pot because the food burned" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Alice Holman
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
> In article <378B5EEA...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Interesting that you snipped out the rest of the discussion,
Nothing more boring than (when time is short) having to wade thru thousands
of repeated words.....that's why...nothing sinister.
> I'm not arguing that what Lauryn Hill did was "right".
> I am arguing that she might not see things the same way are you
> or I. Yes, the N.T. view or fornication is clear to YOU. And
> you and I probably have the same belief on that.
snip:
>
> There
> are, after all, Christian churches that have taken a different
> stance on something as "basic" as fornication.
You know, I realize the English language changes all the time but I have
NOT noticed a change in the definition of "fornication." Societal changes,
yes. How we view it, yes....but fornication is still a good word with the
same meaning.
I must take a couple of lessons from my skillet wearing friend, Wayne and
just stand here, stubborn, obdurate, flatfooted: If it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck, has feet like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is
a duck.
Now, with the proper smooth speech, theological or philisophical or
whatever (just so it sounds reasonable) you can probably convince a whole
lot of people its a mountain lion. But some of us are still going to see
the duck.
I also understand that it has become increasingly improper/unpopular to
take a stand on anything - for fear of hurting someone else's feelings or
giving the appearance of condemning someone else, or losing the love of
certain folks, however, that still don't change the definition of
fornication.
alice
>
ksp...@umich.edu
Could you explain this preference? I don't understand it. Why do you say
this?
>> First let's address whether or not this is a problem. The
>conservatives
>> (and here I include true conservatives as well as many "liberals"
>such as
>> William Julius Wilson) seem to think it IS...but I don't buy it.
>POVERTY
>> is a problem, not children having children out of wedlock. What to do
>> about it?
>
>You might be interested in a not very new concept called the negative
>income tax. In his book from the seventies, _Free To Choose_, Milton
>Friedman gives a pretty good explanation it.
>
>In a nutshell, everybody files income tax forms. If one's income falls
>above the poverty line, that person pays an income tax. If one's income
>falls below the poverty line, that person receives a cash payment from
>the gov't to being his income back up to poverty line for that year.
>There is a good deal more to it than that, but it is a very interesting
>concept.
I am familiar with it....and don't see a problem. HOWEVER what I don't
know is how the negative income tax deals with corporations. Do
corporations pay less than their "fair share" as they have for the last 30
or so years? Seems to me that we're focusing on the relationship between
rich and poor INDIVIDUALS which is important, but perhaps not as important
as the relationship between individuals PERIOD, and legal persons
(multinational corporations).
lks
Wayne Johnson
>I thought that the GI Bill was not open to Black vets, initially.
It was, but the opportunity to use it was restricted. Institutions
(universities, segregated housing, and so on) prevented Black GI's
from using the benefits like whites could.
Wayne "Our money was no good in certain places" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
bev.
> snip:
> > There
> > are, after all, Christian churches that have taken a different
> > stance on something as "basic" as fornication.
>
> You know, I realize the English language changes all the time but I have
> NOT noticed a change in the definition of "fornication." Societal changes,
> yes. How we view it, yes....but fornication is still a good word with the
> same meaning.
fornication: 1, voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried
persons or two persons not married to each other.
2. (in the Bible) a. adultery, b. idolatry
adultery: voluntery sexual intercourse between a married person
and someone other than his or her lawful spuse..
Possible resons for the institution of what is basically a social
construct, in connection with married couples, to ensure families
remain intact. In the case of children being in said families, to
allow for a strong foundation for the children to thrive.
Possible reason for the licensing by the state for the commitment of
two individuals to one another A history of untold number of
irresponsible indiduals who refuse to take responsibility for the
choices they make. A way for the state to allow for the breaking
up of marriages, whereby lawyers, as well as the state, obtain
"fees".
Possible reasons why unmarried couples are discouraged from
fornication, in an uncommitted relationship, they tend to spread
diseases and quite often death. Should one be married and the
other not, it tends to break up the marriage and further erode the
society.
The relationship Lauryn has with her significant other, who she
will most likely marry soon, is probably strong than most "licensed"
marriages.
It is quite amusing the so called christians sitting in judgment on
someone who most likely does not hold the exact same belief
in christianity that Laury has. No flowery words, just the truth
as I see it. No heavenly authority appointed any living human
being to sit in judgment on another. Whereby do so called
christian lend a "blind" eye to God's exhortation, "Vegenance
is Mines, Saith the Lord. It is no ones business what another
individual does or oes not do, as long at that individual is
taking responsibility for the choices they made. Lauryn has
made her choice, and she is not asking anyone to take
responsibility for her choice.
I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
particular tenet. It is almost like they fear the choice they made
would not adhere to his vows, unless christianity if firmly in
place. However, why is it that on specific tenents pushed by
said married woman? Why not the other fine points of what
Jesus who was a Jewish individual stated should be the
hallmark of a christian?
> I must take a couple of lessons from my skillet wearing friend,
> Wayne and just stand here, stubborn, obdurate, flatfooted: If
> it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feet like a duck,
> quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
A duck is not always a duck, nor has a duck always been a duck.
Evolution has changed many creatures into something "better".
Who knows what the future will hold? Perhaps scientists will find
a way for a duck to actually talk.
>
> Now, with the proper smooth speech, theological or philisophical
> or whatever (just so it sounds reasonable) you can probably
> convince a whole lot of people its a mountain lion. But some of
> us are still going to see the duck.
No problem with christian holding fast to the past, at least in
the selective past since some tend to ignore Jesus statement
in regards to He who is without sin, let then toss the first stone.
Nothing smooth about anyone pointing out the hypocricy that
christians tend to hold fast to, when seeking out and pointing
out others so called faults, while overlooking their own.
>
> I also undersand that it has become increasingly improper/
> unpopular to take a stand on anything - for fear of hurting
> someone else's feelings or giving the appearance of
> condemning someone else, or losing the love of
> certain folks, however, that still don't change the definition of
> fornication.
>
> alice
No one is condemning the beliefs of anyone. There is discussion
going on in regards to certain issues in connection to religion.
That I have seen, quite a number of christians have taken a
stand. However, their taking a stand, does not mean that those
who hold other views will feel that the stand they take is right.
By biblical terms any second marriages is held as fornications.
By biblical terms, a whole heck of a lot of individuals are not
within the tenets of christianity as originally placed forth, and
from the link Carol provided was changed not by Jesus, but
by Paul. In Jesus words, second marriages is adultery, pure
and simple. Jesus made his statement by calling people
attention to the old testament, which was based in Judaism,
not christianity.
--
-bev-
Alternate email address
morp...@my-deja.com
dr...@cis.uab.edu
One good snip deserves another.
Sometimes in the course of a discussion it's profitable
to see "just how we got here." I orginally avoided this
thread because I felt that the trend to blame Lauryn Hill
for all of the "hoochie-mama" sins of the world was rather
juvenille. (Yes, I realize that the person that opened the
thread to the "broader questions" put in the "this isn't
just about Lauryn" disclaimer, but he left the title the
same, and put Lauryn back into the discussion on the sly.)
But then someone asserted that "all Christian believe the
same" on the questions marriage and human sexuality all
Christians believed the same. Well that's simply not true.
Perhaps it should be true. You might WISH it was true.
But it's simply not. For some strange reason you've come
to the false conclusion that I disagree with you on the
definition of fornication. I have not. I'm simply pointing
out the fact that there are Christians who do. You may
not like that, but that's really not the point.
In the discussion of what Christians do/don't believe about
marriage I brought up the point about polygomy/concubines
ect. Why? Because though most Christians today find that
sinful, that is not something you can prove via the Bible.
Not the new testament and CERTAINLY not the old. Again, you
may not like this fact, but it's still a fact.
But the most important fact is that the primary job of the
Christian is to keep their OWN life straight, and not to go
around in Pharisee manner looking for whom who wish to throw
stones at.
trudogg
> But the most important fact is that the primary job of the
> Christian is to keep their OWN life straight, and not to go
> around in Pharisee manner looking for whom who wish to throw
> stones at.
Let me add that if and when anyone got to the undisputed point that they
actually could throw those stones, their exhaustion would be so great
they would no longer care to...
Alice Holman
Wayne Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:41:19 CST, Alice Holman
> <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Wayne Johnson wrote:
> >
> >>
>
> I am not kidding you, and I know where the bodies were buried with the
> G.I. Bill. In the early days, a house had to "qualify" for the G.I.
> Bill, just as it had to qualify for an FHA loan - meaning it had to
> meet an inspection, and certain standards of construction.
I understand what you're saying so in my part of the country, a whole lot of houses
(where segregation was legal) didn't qualify.
>
>
> Name some of the restrictions you know about.
Those housing restrictions that said if your neighbors decided not to sell to you
because you were black (something about the 'integrity' of the neighborhood) then
they didn't have to. That kind of thing. Not necesarily FORMAL segregation. Just the
pernicious kind that gets dumped on us all the time. The kind that we can pretend
ain't happening....either because it didn't happen to us or we didn't research
closely enough "why" we got turned down.
> Members of my family,
> starting in the early 1950's, bought homes using the G.I. Bill, Alice.
> I am not kidding when I tell you this.
I know that.
snip:
>
You bet but black folk were still restricted in where they could buy. I guess you
were in California all that time. Not all black folks were. As a matter of fact, I
kinda remember the stampeed to get there.
>
>
> >But, BTW, the GI bill didn't help a lot of black vets either because of the
> >discrimination in predominately white colleges and the few HBCUs filled up
> >dramatically leaving many wanting.
>
> Maybe I'm dealing with a regional gap, here. I'm from the Southwest,
> and have direct experience with the experiences of my parents and
> myself - which included virtually no restrictions on attendance in
> public universities and colleges, in California, for instance.
Okay. I was looking at it in a universal way across the country. That professor I
mentioned is just one person who has documented the difficulty SOME/MANY black
people had using the GI Bill - and that included going to school. Just because the
predominately white institutions in YOUR neighborhood weren't keeping black folks
out, didn't mean the rest of the country was following suit.
> Many
> Black people - Tom Bradley, Johnnie Cochran, and so on - attended
> major universities in this area, and they were not unusual.
>
> Not everyone took advantage of the educational benefits of the G.I.
> Bill, but it was not due to the fact that they couldn't attend and
> HBCU.
I surely wish I could remember my source....I just saw it a couple of weeks ago (but
as usual, I said, "oh, cool information" and stored it somewhere) Many GIs (black)
couldn't take advantage of the bill - maybe they didn't know they could relocate to
Calif. Or didn't want to. In any case, many of them gave up in frustration because
they COULD NOT get into the PWIs and the HBCUs were crowded. Now, if you will
remember, segregation was perfectly acceptable all over the country until the middle
l950s. There are many cases (such as Texas and Missouri) who actually started up
colored law schools, etc. just so they could maintain their segregated stance. Other
states didn't bother. As a matter of fact, that scholarship that got busted in Univ.
Of MD was directly because U of M had kept black folks out for so long - even while
they paid taxes for education.
>
>
> Now, if the situation was different elsewhere, I can't see how the
> G.I. Bill itself can be blamed; it sounds like the usual garden
> variety racism that always restricts us in some way.
Why shouldn't it be blamed? The federal government could have stopped that nonsense
any time they wanted to. But they didn't.
>
>
> Wayne "It's like blaming the pot because the food burned" Johnson
> cia...@ix.netcom.com
Well, darlin', I got a couple of pots that do just that. They are made out of poor
quality material and no matter how low you keep the fire, you can count on burnt
food. So naturally, I stopped using them. So naturally, the US finally had to do
away with segregation (formal and by law, that is, not by custom) but we are still
suffering from the fall-out - which is why white boomers are inheriting a lot more
than black boomers.
alice
>
Alice Holman
"bev." wrote:
> In article <378D07A8...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Possible reason for the licensing by the state for the commitment of
>> two individuals to one another A history of untold number of
>> irresponsible indiduals who refuse to take responsibility for the
>> choices they make.
>
Strange but most societies (past and present) tend to have some sort of formal
arrangements to make sure that the society continues in a safe and reasonable
manner and that the children and the elderly are taken care of. The defense
starts when folks want to change the rules to fit THEIR situation. The
assumption being that some are more responsible than others and so the rules
should apply to the irresponsible. Of course, I always wonder if they take into
account their own off-spring who might not be very responsible but who have
learned by example. And when all that happens, then we can sit down and have
summits about teen violence, AIDS spreading so quickly among young women, and
any number of social ills that come about because we have socialized our
younguns to feel intitled to do whatever they want to do whenever they want to
do it regardless of the pain it might cause them, somebody else or society in
general.
snip:
>> It is quite amusing the so called christians sitting in judgment on
>> someone who most likely does not hold the exact same belief
>> in christianity that Laury has. No flowery words, just the truth
>> as I see it. No heavenly authority appointed any living human
>> being to sit in judgment on another.
>
So who's sitting in judgement? I said don't try and change the def. of
fornication. I note your dic. says the same thing as mine. I could care less
what she or anybody else does. I would like to point out that the def. changes
according to the size of the pocket book the fornicator holds.
>>
>> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
>> particular tenet.
>
This is hilarious. It won't be three months before we have a thread whining
about "out-of-wedlock" births and the strain it puts on tax payers (or so we
say). Or tears about missing dads, etc. when we actually encouraged this kind of
behavior (irresponsibility)
Why don't we just say its a class thing. If you got the money you can do
anything you want to do. If you ain't - then the entire nation is going to judge
you. Pahdon me, but isn't this a fairly obvious double standard?
alice
>
Alice Holman
"bev." wrote:
>>
>> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
>> particular tenet. It is almost like they fear the choice they made
>> would not adhere to his vows, unless christianity if firmly in
>> place. However, why is it that on specific tenents pushed by
>> said married woman? Why not the other fine points of what
>> Jesus who was a Jewish individual stated should be the
>> hallmark of a christian?
>
I had to revist this: This is extraordinarily amusing. In America today you can
be a Satanist and get no flack - a skinhead bent on destruction - a drug-doing
trenchcoat mafia member - an adulterous, theiving minister of national fame - a
white collar criminal stealing billions from helpless elderly citizens - you can
sacrifice live animals in the middle of the street during a full moon - a child
molester - the king of pornography - and SOMEBODY (many somebodies) will cheer
you on.
What you can't be is a person who is happily married to your best friend with
certain moral values that you are willing to stand up for (and refer to them as
the teachings of Christ) without somebody finding major fault (dey must be
sumpin wrong with huh/him). And frankly, I'm having so much fun with my best
friend I really don't have time to analyze why others think we like (or
secretly-but-can't-admit-it-don't like/trust) each other. Although, considering
the fear of "committment" in this country, I can well understand paranoia about
it.
I can't help but laugh. How did we get from there to here?
alice
>
Alice Holman
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> But the most important fact is that the primary job of the
> Christian is to keep their OWN life straight, and not to go
> around in Pharisee manner looking for whom who wish to throw
> stones at.
Reciting - reprinting - simply stating - the definition of "fornication"
is NOT throwing stones. It is just that: a definition.
alice
>
>
>
dr...@cis.uab.edu
"bev." <nete...@mail.com> wrote:
> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
> particular tenet. It is almost like they fear the choice they made
> would not adhere to his vows, unless christianity if firmly in
> place. However, why is it that on specific tenents pushed by
> said married woman? Why not the other fine points of what
> Jesus who was a Jewish individual stated should be the
> hallmark of a christian?
While I may disagree with Alice on the whole in this thread, I
would be remiss not to point out that this particular assertion
is completely bereft of logic. Why when people disagree do we
often look for some "hidden agenda" in the part of the opponent?
Notice that males, married or otherwise, have taken the same
position as Alice so the "married woman" comment is offbase.
Besides, were talking about fornication, not adultery. And at
any rate, adultery is written into our secular laws. You cheat
on your spouse, and you can be made to pay for it (literally)
in divorce court.
ksp...@umich.edu
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
>"bev." wrote:
>
>> In article <378D07A8...@cudenver.edu>,
>> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>>
>So who's sitting in judgement? I said don't try and change the def. of
>fornication. I note your dic. says the same thing as mine. I could care less
>what she or anybody else does. I would like to point out that the def. changes
>according to the size of the pocket book the fornicator holds.
This is correct.
>
>This is hilarious. It won't be three months before we have a thread whining
>about "out-of-wedlock" births and the strain it puts on tax payers (or so we
>say). Or tears about missing dads, etc. when we actually encouraged this kind of
>behavior (irresponsibility)
This is correct too.
>Why don't we just say its a class thing. If you got the money you can do
>anything you want to do. If you ain't - then the entire nation is going to judge
>you. Pahdon me, but isn't this a fairly obvious double standard?
Yes it is.
HOWEVER....this doesn't mean that we take how some talk about the poor as
the standard here. I believe that the out-of-wedlock-birth discussion is
a red-herring PERIOD. It doesn't apply to low-income brothers and
sisters, and it certainly doesn't apply to Lauryn Hill.
I'd like to point out ANOTHER double standard here.....with Lauryn Hill
the explicit argument is...."she's on tour when she needs to be at home
with her kids." With low-income sisters it's "she's at home with her kids
when she needs to be out on tour [i.e. working]." Christian or no, it's
time that we really think about our positions in regards to these areas.
I know it ain't that deep, but in many ways it's tragic....
lks
dr...@cis.uab.edu
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
> "bev." wrote:
> >> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
> >> particular tenet.
> >
>
> This is hilarious. It won't be three months before we have a thread
whining
> about "out-of-wedlock" births and the strain it puts on tax payers
(or so we
> say). Or tears about missing dads, etc. when we actually encouraged
this kind of
> behavior (irresponsibility)
I agree that bringing someone's marital status into the discussion
is ridiculous. As for whatever thread that comes up in the next
3 months, it will probably be brought up by the same folks bashing
Lauryn in this thread. As for tears about "missing dads", Rohan
Marley is not "missing". In fact if he was then no one could
accuse Lauryn of "living in sin."
>
> Why don't we just say its a class thing. If you got the money you can
do
> anything you want to do. If you ain't - then the entire nation is
going to judge
> you. Pahdon me, but isn't this a fairly obvious double standard?
>
> alice
Actually, Alice, whether or not someone takes care of their financial
responsibilities IS a legitimate issue. Take divorce for example.
Many point to divorce as a reason for child poverty. Rightly or
wrongly most people, including myself, look at divorced fathers
who pay their child support differently than from those who don't.
And I understand some guys just don't have the money. (i.e. if
your in prison it's hard to raise money for child support.) Still
everyone should make whatever effort possible to handle their
financial obligations. The Bible even speaks on this. *Paraphrase
on* "He who does not take care of his family is worse than an infidel"
*paraphrase off*
Alice Holman
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
> In article <3793AF75...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> I agree that bringing someone's marital status into the discussion
> is ridiculous. As for whatever thread that comes up in the next
> 3 months, it will probably be brought up by the same folks bashing
> Lauryn in this thread.
You'd be surprised who enters into those threads! Generally people who are
more interested in money than morality.
> snip:
>
> Actually, Alice, whether or not someone takes care of their financial
> responsibilities IS a legitimate issue.
Okay, my point exactly.
The more money you have, the more moral you are - regardless of your
choices.
The less money you have, the more decadent your morals are - regardless of
your choices.
Morality is determined by dollars. A direct correlation.
And don't scream. That has been true in this country since they stole it
from the Indians. We demonize and criminalize the poor for doing exactly
what their richer counterparts do and then we try and justify it -----
lemme see ----- we refer to it as "responsibility." That makes it okay.
snip:
> And I understand some guys just don't have the money. (i.e. if
> your in prison it's hard to raise money for child support.) Still
> everyone should make whatever effort possible to handle their
> financial obligations. The Bible even speaks on this. *Paraphrase
> on* "He who does not take care of his family is worse than an infidel"
> *paraphrase off*
Interesting that we can quote the Bible here - but not about fornication.
Maybe some folks have a different idea of what "supporting" their family
is/means.
alice
>
>
dee...@primenet.com
>
> "bev." wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
> >> would not adhere to his vows, unless christianity if firmly in
> >> place. However, why is it that on specific tenents pushed by
> >> said married woman? Why not the other fine points of what
> >> Jesus who was a Jewish individual stated should be the
> >> hallmark of a christian?
> >
>
> be a Satanist and get no flack - a skinhead bent on destruction - a drug-doing
> trenchcoat mafia member - an adulterous, theiving minister of national fame - a
> white collar criminal stealing billions from helpless elderly citizens - you can
> sacrifice live animals in the middle of the street during a full moon - a child
> molester - the king of pornography - and SOMEBODY (many somebodies) will cheer you on.
Huh? I don't see a ton of folks wanting to canonize that racist idiot
who
did that July 4th massacre. I don't see people en masse saying that what
Klebold/Harris did was right. I don't see a majority of people praising
whatever his name was for defrauding his church. And if there is anyone
out there (except for a few yuppie/buppie/social Darwinist nitwits) who
actively cheer on anyone who defrauds senior citizens, I'd be amazed.
Of _course_ there are going to be a few people who support creeps--that
does _not_ mean the vast majority of people do--or that such support
signifies the country is going to hell.
>
> What you can't be is a person who is happily married to your best friend with
> certain moral values that you are willing to stand up for (and refer to them as
> the teachings of Christ) without somebody finding major fault (dey must be
> sumpin wrong with huh/him).
In my experience, people have no problems with happily married folk (in
fact, they are inclined to either give them high props for keeping it
together or think they are real cute--g!). However, people _do_ have a
problem with married folk who regard those who aren't married as either
irresponsible/unnatural, and want to impose their standard of what a
happy marriage is on everyone.
And frankly, I'm having so much fun with my best
> friend I really don't have time to analyze why others think we like (or
> secretly-but-can't-admit-it-don't like/trust) each other. Although, considering
> the fear of "committment" in this country, I can well understand paranoia about
> it.
Oh, _brother_. Hon, believe me--most people don't care about how one is
married. They _do_ care when folks want to say that that is how everyone
"normal" should be married--or that _everyone_ normal should be married.
C.
**
DarkStar
....
>I surely wish I could remember my source....I just saw it a couple of weeks ago (but
>as usual, I said, "oh, cool information" and stored it somewhere) Many GIs (black)
>couldn't take advantage of the bill - maybe they didn't know they could relocate to
>Calif. Or didn't want to. In any case, many of them gave up in frustration because
>they COULD NOT get into the PWIs and the HBCUs were crowded.
Now, this is what I've been told by those who had gone through it.
>Now, if you will
>remember, segregation was perfectly acceptable all over the country until the middle
>l950s. There are many cases (such as Texas and Missouri) who actually started up
>colored law schools, etc. just so they could maintain their segregated stance. Other
>states didn't bother. As a matter of fact, that scholarship that got busted in Univ.
>Of MD was directly because U of M had kept black folks out for so long - even while
>they paid taxes for education.
*HELLO*!
...
>So naturally, the US finally had to do
>away with segregation (formal and by law, that is, not by custom) but we are still
>suffering from the fall-out - which is why white boomers are inheriting a lot more
>than black boomers.
*BAM*
Da
TRUFF!
bev.
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
> In article <7mv68f$r0v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> "bev." <nete...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > particular tenet. It is almost like they fear the choice they made
> > would not adhere to his vows, unless christianity if firmly in
> > place. However, why is it that on specific tenents pushed by
> > said married woman? Why not the other fine points of what
> > Jesus who was a Jewish individual stated should be the
> > hallmark of a christian?
>
> would be remiss not to point out that this particular assertion
> is completely bereft of logic. Why when people disagree do we
> often look for some "hidden agenda" in the part of the opponent?
> Notice that males, married or otherwise, have taken the same
> position as Alice so the "married woman" comment is offbase.
> Besides, were talking about fornication, not adultery. And at
> any rate, adultery is written into our secular laws. You cheat
> on your spouse, and you can be made to pay for it (literally)
> in divorce court.
It was not meant to be logical. It was a statement in regards to
the woman in reality that I know. I mean christianity itself, is not
based on logic, it is based on faith. If anyone took my statement
to mean I was singling them out, it was not my intention. I only
meant some woman in reality that I know of. Since you are not
a woman, I have no idea why you took issue with my statement.
Not only that, I am not looking for any hidden agenda. I stand
by my statement. It is irrelevant that males have taken the stance
that Alice have. I am speaking of some woman in reality that I
know of.
Quite often guys will hold one belief system when unmarried,
and change their stance once they marry. This could be
more so should they have a daughter. My dictionary
considered fornification in the biblical sense, to be akin to
adultery. It was applicable to those who believed in christianity.
Once again, I stand by my original statement. The other definition
in my dictionary was applicable to a social construct. I also took
that stance that I did, based on the link provided by Carol where
Jesus himself referred someone back to the old testament which
stated fornicator a/k/a adulterers were those who married a
second person, after divorcing the first person.
Like I said, some christians tend to pick and choose, what
they will or won't adhere to. Quite often they will not follow
their own biblical tenet which state: He who is without sin,
let them cast the first stone.
bev.
> "bev." wrote:
>
>>
>> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push
>> this particular tenet. It is almost like they fear the choice
>> they made would not adhere to his vows, unless
>> christianity if firmly in place. However, why is it that on
>> specific tenents pushed by said married woman? Why
>> not the other fine points of what Jesus who was a Jewish
>> individual stated should be the hallmark of a christian?
> I had to revist this: This is extraordinarily amusing. In
> America today you can be a Satanist and get no flack -
> a skinhead bent on destruction - a drug-doing trenchcoat
> mafia member - an adulterous, theiving minister of national
> fame - a white collar criminal stealing billions from helpless
> elderly citizens - you can sacrifice live animals in the middle
> of the street during a full moon - a child molester - the king
> of pornography - and SOMEBODY (many somebodies)
> will cheer you on.
That is the choice they have, as stated in the constitution.
However if said choice is breaking the law, and the law is
aware of what you are doing, you will be put stand trial and
put in jail for it, if you are found guilty. If one does not like the
choice of another, the majority can get together and have the
constitution revised.
> What you can't be is a person who is happily married to your
> best friend with certain moral values that you are willing to
> stand up for (and refer to them as the teachings of Christ)
> without somebody finding major fault (dey must be sumpin
> wrong with huh/him).
This is riduculous, you can do all of the above, no one is
stopping you from doing any of it. What I have repeatedly
stated is some christians sit in judgment on others, ignoring
the very book they profess to believe in. What I said was
some christians project their take on what it means to walk
with god, onto others. No one said it is anything wrong with
what christians choose to do in regards to marrying and
anything else. It is the hypocrisy some christians resort to,
that I have a problem with.
>And frankly, I'm having so much fun with my best friend I
> really don't have time to analyze why others think we like
> (or secretly-but-can't- admit-it-don't like/trust) each other.
> Although, considering the fear of >committment" in this
> country, I can well understand paranoia about
Well from what I have seen thus far, Lauryn Hill has the ultimate
trust, she currently has a good relationship with the father of her
children, without a piece of paper. When I said I have noticed it
is married woman, I did not mean all married woman. I meant
some. If you feel I was singling you out, I was not. I was speaking
of the married woman I know in reality. I have no idea or concept
of who or what you are since this is usenet.
> I can't help but laugh. How did we get from there to here?
>
> alice
I can't help but laugh at the projections of their beliefs onto
others that some christians resort to. How did christianity
get to this point, from the orginal intent of the bible?
dr...@cis.uab.edu
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> Reciting - reprinting - simply stating - the definition of
"fornication"
> is NOT throwing stones. It is just that: a definition.
>
> alice
Saying someone should "shut up" and calling someone a hypocrite
is NOT "Reciting - reprinting - simply stating" a definition.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Keep this civil.
dr...@cis.uab.edu
> > Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree that bringing someone's marital status into the discussion
> > is ridiculous. As for whatever thread that comes up in the next
> > 3 months, it will probably be brought up by the same folks bashing
> > Lauryn in this thread.
>
> You'd be surprised who enters into those threads! Generally people
who are
> more interested in money than morality.
>
> > snip:
> >
> > Actually, Alice, whether or not someone takes care of their
financial
> > responsibilities IS a legitimate issue.
>
> Okay, my point exactly.
>
> The more money you have, the more moral you are - regardless of your
> choices.
Wrong Alice. There are other factors that influence choices other
than just morality. While your riding your horse Alice, answer
this question. Let's assume that you knew two 14 year olds who
decided they just couldn't live without each other. They tell
you they want to get married, and both of their parents are willing
to sign to allow this. Although they haven't been sexually active
they make it clear that they don't believe in birth control. When
you ask them how they're going to care for a baby the answer is "well
the wife will drop out of school." When you ask them how are they
going to afford to live they answer "we will go on welfare of course."
Technically speaking they would be well within Judeo-Christian
"morality". In fact 100 years ago getting married that young
might even have been normal. But in modern times would you
consider such a decision wise? Responsible? Ethical?
It's NOT a question of money as much as it is a questian of
handling your responsibilities to the best of your ability.
> snip:
>
> > And I understand some guys just don't have the money. (i.e. if
> > your in prison it's hard to raise money for child support.) Still
> > everyone should make whatever effort possible to handle their
> > financial obligations. The Bible even speaks on this. *Paraphrase
> > on* "He who does not take care of his family is worse than an
infidel"
> > *paraphrase off*
>
> Interesting that we can quote the Bible here - but not about
fornication.
> Maybe some folks have a different idea of what "supporting" their
family
> is/means.
>
> alice
Honestly Alice that last quip was beneath you and quite inaccurate.
Inaccurate for the following reasons :
A) I have NOT been arguing against your definition of fornication.
Just pointing out the fact that not everyone agrees with it.
B) I HAVE been quoting the Bible throughout this thread. I've even
brought up sections of the Bible that you are apparently uncomfortable
with.
C) When it came to the story I quoted earlier on David and Nathan it
was YOU who was doing the misquoting.
trudogg
> The less money you have, the more decadent your morals are - regardless of
> your choices.
> Morality is determined by dollars. A direct correlation.
Damn! I am going straight to hell....
> And don't scream. That has been true in this country since they stole it
> from the Indians. We demonize and criminalize the poor for doing exactly
> what their richer counterparts do and then we try and justify it -----
> lemme see ----- we refer to it as "responsibility." That makes it okay.
And here I thought that being poor and pious were virtues. Must have
been a rich guy plot all along...
> Interesting that we can quote the Bible here - but not about fornication.
Not gonna go there...(the moderators may be listening in)...
Alice Holman
dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
> In article <3794FDD7...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, my point exactly.
> >
> > The more money you have, the more moral you are - regardless of your
> > choices.
>
> Wrong Alice.
A rich woman can sleep around as much as she likes - but its okay because
if she "makes a mistake" she can "handle" it. A poor woman becomes a slut
and a criminal - even if she doesn't "make a mistake" simple because if she
does, we feel she can't "handle" it and God forbid we should have to
remember/help "the least of these." And if she does have a kid and can't
keep the kid in the manner to which we feel is the minimum standard, then
she's really in trouble....the heck with whether or not she loves the kid -
or her baby daddy. She has NO RIGHT. Right?
A movie star keeps getting sent to Betty Ford.....a negro on the street
keeps getting sent to Huntsville......this is something other than a double
standard?
Can you really tell me that money has nothing to do with either situation?
And how we as a society view it? We will make excuses for money - we will
find ways to justify the unjustifiable. But for the poor? Actually, we have
formed a new industry on the backs of the poor.
> There are other factors that influence choices other
> than just morality. While your riding your horse Alice,
Don't ride horses. I''m afraid of them.
> answer
> this question. Let's assume that you knew two 14 year olds who
> decided they just couldn't live without each other. They tell
> you they want to get married, and both of their parents are willing
> to sign to allow this. Although they haven't been sexually active
> they make it clear that they don't believe in birth control. When
> you ask them how they're going to care for a baby the answer is "well
> the wife will drop out of school." When you ask them how are they
> going to afford to live they answer "we will go on welfare of course."
>
> Technically speaking they would be well within Judeo-Christian
> "morality". In fact 100 years ago getting married that young
> might even have been normal. But in modern times would you
> consider such a decision wise? Responsible? Ethical?
I don't think your scenario works quite like you'd like it to. We weren't
discussing runaway hormones in children. We were discussing - um - for lack
of better terms - mores, morals, values, definitions thereof and why it is
okay for rich folk to have one set and for poor folk to have another. If
those kids parents were wealthy enough, then yeah, they could do it.
As a matter of fact, I could point out real life cases just as you
proposed. The "gutless" wonders who call themselves laughingly "parents"
have the "children" and their "children" living in their house with them.
By the same token, when all the welfare crap came up, there was a move to
make it illegal for a child to have a child and collect welfare. Is that
not a double standard? Its okay to be a fool if you can afford it. Which is
my ONLY point. We penalize the poor at every turn. I think they call it a
"poor tax."
I would recommend that you read "Crack Mothers" (by Drew Humphries) It sets
this kind of thing out case by case - where if the woman has money - her
drug use was unimportant. If she had to go to a clinic for prenatal
treatment - then she automatically became a criminal, subject to felony
child abuse laws, jailed, other children taken from her care. Not so the
well heeled woman in a private doc's ofc.
>
>
> It's NOT a question of money as much as it is a questian of
> handling your responsibilities to the best of your ability.
>
> > snip:
> >
> >
> > Interesting that we can quote the Bible here - but not about
> fornication.
> > Maybe some folks have a different idea of what "supporting" their
> family
> > is/means.
> >
>
> Honestly Alice that last quip was beneath you and quite inaccurate.
You like horses? It was quite accurate. You said that other people may have
a different definition of "fornication." I said other people may have a
different definition of "taking care of their family." What, pray tell, is
inaccurate about that? I dare say there are some fools who believe that if
they aren't beating their wives and children, they are "doing good." The
fact that they may not provide money may not even cross their minds - after
all, SHE can handle it, can't she? She has been, hasn't she? MAH daddy done
the same thang. And I do not doubt that some of them are Bible toting
brothers who KNOW what they are doing it "right." And their ARE pockets of
people with what you and I would consider "weird" ideas on WHO in the
family does the work.
Now if we really want to get cute, since the 70s when women went to work in
large numbers, the majority of the housework STILL falls on the woman's
shoulders. Couldn't we talk about that and who is really "supporting" the
family? so you see, we are not really talking at cross purposes. We are
saying the exact same thing. Different folks see things in different ways.
There's many a battle about the house work these days and who does the
cooking and who should do it. Which is a different definition than say -
just the 50s - about who is supporting whom.
>
>
> Inaccurate for the following reasons :
>
> A) I have NOT been arguing against your definition of fornication.
> Just pointing out the fact that not everyone agrees with it.
And I say, by that same reasoning, not everybody will agree with you on
what "supporting" a family means.
Plus, what's not to agree with a non-judgemental dictionary definition?
Maybe you can explain that to me. All the def says is voluntary sexual
intercourse between two unmarried persons. Are they married or not?
>
>
> B) I HAVE been quoting the Bible throughout this thread. I've even
> brought up sections of the Bible that you are apparently uncomfortable
> with.
I am not uncomfortable with any part of the Bible.....and what did you
bring up that made me uncomfortable? And better, how did you decide I was
"uncomfortable?"
>
>
> C) When it came to the story I quoted earlier on David and Nathan it
> was YOU who was doing the misquoting.
Sorry if I misquoted. I have said time and time again, I am NOT one for
details. The gist will do me just fine. And I wasn't uncomfortable with it
because I deleted it. I deleted it because I saw no problem with it and no
reason to just keep it sitting there. Also, I do not have an OT with me
here.....I have NOT been bringing my bookbag these days.
The gist of what I said about David was, his behind was on the roof looking
at another woman when he should have been at war someplace. As a result of
his straying eyes, he committed murder and while he asked for forgiveness
and got it, he had trouble for the rest of his natural life - most of it
stemming from his coveting Uriah's wife. The short version. Fairly simple.
Which was MY point. (all the other stuff is just that - stuff and details
which doesn't change what he did) You very well may have had a different
point and you are entitled to that.
alice
>
>
>
dr...@cis.uab.edu
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
> dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
>
> > In article <3794FDD7...@cudenver.edu>,
> > Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, my point exactly.
> > >
> > > The more money you have, the more moral you are - regardless of
your
> > > choices.
> >
> > Wrong Alice.
>
> A rich woman can sleep around as much as she likes - but its okay
because
> if she "makes a mistake" she can "handle" it. A poor woman becomes a
slut
> and a criminal - even if she doesn't "make a mistake" simple because
if she
> does, we feel she can't "handle" it and God forbid we should have to
> remember/help "the least of these." And if she does have a kid and
can't
> keep the kid in the manner to which we feel is the minimum standard,
then
> she's really in trouble....the heck with whether or not she loves the
kid -
> or her baby daddy. She has NO RIGHT. Right?
Nope. Wrong again. Though I have to admit that your using a rather
intersting debate trick. (Though it's a transparent trick). Rather
than addressing the example that I gave directly you're seperating
it from your response.
Back to my example. If two kids did the morally right thing in terms
of getting married before having sex, but they were not emotionally
or financially prepared to handle that, then they would be
irresponsible just like a teenage mother would be irresponsible. You
may think this is just a "hypothetical" scenario, but I've known
someone who got married at 14. The marriage was a disaster. The only
good thing was that she DIDN'T have any kids in that marriage. Her
second marriage turned out better. I suppose from a strictly Judeo
Christian perspective her first marriage was "morally approved"
(though quite irresponsible) while her second marriage was "morally
unapproved" though far more stable.
> A movie star keeps getting sent to Betty Ford.....a negro on the
street
> keeps getting sent to Huntsville......this is something other than a
double
> standard?
>
> Can you really tell me that money has nothing to do with either
situation?
Mo
We weren't discussing drug abuse either, yet you just brought that
into the subject when it really has nothing to do with what we were
talking about.
And the scenario simply serves to point out the fact that there are
more issues surrounding a decision than simply whether or not someone
is operating within Judeo-Christian "morals".
> If
> those kids parents were wealthy enough, then yeah, they could do it.
If, and only if, those kids parents were willing to foot the bill.
> > It's NOT a question of money as much as it is a questian of
> > handling your responsibilities to the best of your ability.
I think I should elaborate on this. I view a single mom who does
everything in her power to take care of her family herself the
same whether she's a rich movie star or if she works at McDonalds.
I view someone who's sits on his/her butt waiting for a handout
the same whether they are single or married. I've personally
known people in all categories. (Working single mom's and married
deadbeats.) Are there some people who look at it simply from
the money aspect? Possibly. But you are wrong to ignore the
responsibility aspect. There is a responsibility aspect regardless
of financial status or marital status.
> >
> > > snip:
> > >
> > >
> > > Interesting that we can quote the Bible here - but not about
> > fornication.
> > > Maybe some folks have a different idea of what "supporting" their
> > family
> > > is/means.
> > >
> >
> > Honestly Alice that last quip was beneath you and quite inaccurate.
>
> You like horses? It was quite accurate. You said that other people
may have
> a different definition of "fornication." I said other people may have
a
> different definition of "taking care of their family."
You missunderstand what I'm saying is inaccurate. You said that I
can't quote the Bible on fornication. I'm saying I didn't need to
because I didn't disagree with your assessment of what the Bible
said on that.
> >
> >
> > Inaccurate for the following reasons :
> >
> > A) I have NOT been arguing against your definition of fornication.
> > Just pointing out the fact that not everyone agrees with it.
>
> And I say, by that same reasoning, not everybody will agree with you
> on
> what "supporting" a family means.
They may come to that conclusion, but not by the same reasoning.
Fornication is defined in moral terms. Family support is defined
in social management terms.
> Plus, what's not to agree with a non-judgemental dictionary
> definition?
First you say you're using a biblical definition. Then you say
you're using a "non-judgemental dictionary definition". Make
up your mind.
> >
> > B) I HAVE been quoting the Bible throughout this thread. I've even
> > brought up sections of the Bible that you are apparently
uncomfortable
> > with.
>
> I am not uncomfortable with any part of the Bible.....and what did you
> bring up that made me uncomfortable? And better, how did you decide I
was
> "uncomfortable?"
Then you either haven't read all of the Bible or you are not honest
with yourself. For example, I find it hard to believe that any
Christian would be completely comfortable with stories in the Bible
where the Israelites were "commanded by God" to kill every man, woman,
child and even every animal in certain enemy countries. Yes, I'm
unconfortable with it. No, it doesn't destroy my faith in God. It's
one of those "I'll have to ask God myself one day" questions.
The part that you seem uncomfortable with is the seeming sanction of
polygamy in the old testament.
> > C) When it came to the story I quoted earlier on David and Nathan it
> > was YOU who was doing the misquoting.
>
> Sorry if I misquoted. I have said time and time again, I am NOT one
for
> details. The gist will do me just fine.
Fair enough.
> And I wasn't uncomfortable with it
> because I deleted it. I deleted it because I saw no problem with it
and no
> reason to just keep it sitting there. Also, I do not have an OT with
me
> here.....I have NOT been bringing my bookbag these days.
>
> The gist of what I said about David was, his behind was on the roof
looking
> at another woman when he should have been at war someplace. As a
result of
> his straying eyes, he committed murder and while he asked for
forgiveness
> and got it, he had trouble for the rest of his natural life - most of
it
> stemming from his coveting Uriah's wife. The short version. Fairly
simple.
> Which was MY point. (all the other stuff is just that - stuff and
details
> which doesn't change what he did) You very well may have had a
different
> point and you are entitled to that.
>
> alice
That's nice. But the problem is that my argument never was that
EVERYTHING David did was acceptable to God. Certainly taking another
man's wife was wrong. But there is no direct indication that David
was ever punished in anyway for having mulitple wives and concubines.
At least if it is, I've never read it. The Bathsheba episode would
have been just as wrong if David had been single. And if Bathsheba
hadn't been married and if David had made her a wife or concubine
through the normal channels there probably wouldn't have been any
sanction.
Heather Aston
>
> I don't think your scenario works quite like you'd like it to. We weren't
> discussing runaway hormones in children. We were discussing - um - for lack
> of better terms - mores, morals, values, definitions thereof and why it is
> okay for rich folk to have one set and for poor folk to have another. If
> those kids parents were wealthy enough, then yeah, they could do it.
But Alice, if those kids had money, you and I aren't being asked to support
their little er, miscalculation, are we? If they don't have money, we get
to foot the bill. Is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other
people's poor choices? Most people make their choices based on their
circumstances. If they can barely support themselves, they generally don't
have children. But there are those few who have no regard for anyone else.
They can barely provide for themselves, much less a child, but what does it
matter? They want a child, or children, so they have them. Then everyone
else gets to pick up the bills. Then again, I suppose that is one of the
nice things about the U.S. Until a few years ago, you could do what you
wanted, and assume you'd be
taken care of. I wonder if welfare reform will force people to think harder
about their choices.
Alice Holman
Heather Aston wrote:
> Alice Holman wrote:
> >
>
>
> But Alice, if those kids had money, you and I aren't being asked to support
> their little er, miscalculation, are we?
I guess I am NOT saying this very well. Why should there be two standards of
morality - that's all I'm asking. As a 'community' of people - do we have
mores/morals/ethics that fit everyone - or do we have separate
mores/morals/ethics - depending on the size of the pocketbook. And if we do, how
did we get there? And is it the best place to be?
Is this the 'marketplace' mentality deciding what is 'good' and what isn't?
Doesn't that somehow go deeper in - for instance - how we determine public
policy? Such as (and we do have it this way) one set of standards for the rich
and one set for the poor. Should money be the determiner for morality?
Isn't there a danger that when money becomes the end for everything - including
children - that something or somebody is going to suffer?
> If they don't have money, we get
> to foot the bill. Is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other
> people's poor choices?
Probably not but when we take an attitude that money means so much in our society
- how much "real" stuff are we losing? Don't we carry the idea over to other
areas - and then we can ignore the insane, the disabled, the mentally challenged,
the elderly - and say "well, if they can't produce....." Where do we put the
brakes on? Where does humanity enter the picture? Or does it? Or should it?
> Most people make their choices based on their
> circumstances. If they can barely support themselves, they generally don't
> have children. But there are those few who have no regard for anyone else.
No regard? All of them? Or only some of them? I am sure, even as we speak, there
is some mentally unbalanced/dumb/immature woman/girl being talked into something
that is going to get her pregnant. Should the child be a throw-away because of
it? You might be throwing away a brilliant person - but we'll never know. Surely
that can't help society.
>
> They can barely provide for themselves, much less a child, but what does it
> matter? They want a child, or children, so they have them. Then everyone
> else gets to pick up the bills. Then again, I suppose that is one of the
> nice things about the U.S. Until a few years ago, you could do what you
> wanted, and assume you'd be
> taken care of. I wonder if welfare reform will force people to think harder
> about their choices.
Do you really think welfare "reform" will take care of all the broken people this
society produces? It would be nice....but.....it ain't gonna happen. We'll end up
with a few more absolutely desparate people who are unable to fend for
themselves....they'll be living on the streets. The welfare reform (at least
here) just loves to produce numbers of people who are now off the roles - but it
doesn't track where those people are. The homeless shelters have a lot to
say....but they get ignored, as usual. Who cares if children have no where to
live?
There were/are a few hard core welfare recipients who got stuck in a generational
bag - I really do not believe (and stats bear it out) that people (most) just
decided to lay up on the state and produce babies. Most folks on welfare used it
as the support they needed after some disaster and when they were able, they got
off. I mentioned the death of Vicki Buckley in this state - a former welfare
mother who got off. They tried to use her as a poster girl when they wanted
welfare reform and she wouldn't let them (good for her!) as she said, she didn't
do anything unusual - its what most folks used welfare for - the lift when they
were at their lowest. We have a really unfortunate myth going on about welfare
queens (read that black women) and we justify it by saying its okay to reproduce
like a rabbit as long as the public doesn't have to support you. The thing is -
get poor children - to buy into the fact that rich kids can and they
can't....especially when we sell everything with sex - as a matter of fact, if
you aren't "doing" it, something is wrong. So you are going to have a bunch of
unwanted, unloved, unprovided for infants. But they shouldn't be relegated to the
garbage heap. They had nothing to do with it.
alice
>
Art Clemons
writes:
>But Alice, if those kids had money, you and I aren't being asked to support
>their little er, miscalculation, are we? If they don't have money, we get
>to foot the bill. Is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other
>people's poor choices? Most people make their choices based on their
>circumstances. If they can barely support themselves, they generally don't
>have children. But there are those few who have no regard for anyone else.
>They can barely provide for themselves, much less a child, but what does it
>matter? They want a child, or children, so they have them. Then everyone
>else gets to pick up the bills. Then again, I suppose that is one of the
>nice things about the U.S. Until a few years ago, you could do what you
>wanted, and assume you'd be
>taken care of. I wonder if welfare reform will force people to think harder
>about their choices.
What an absolute bunch of nonsense. Most children born out of wedlock don't
get welfare benefits. Those who did get such benefits got a substandard level
of living, regardless of which state resided in, and the scorn of the rest of
society. To claim that the wealthy have a higher moral standard because they
have money just perpetuates a myth. Most poor children born out of wedlock
don't get any government support except schooling, and the schooling too
usually leaves much to be desired compared to that received in richer suburbs.
What removing welfare has mostly done is remove any safety net, and also
guaranteed that wages won't rise as much because there are too many people
lusting after lots of jobs. An interesting sidenote is that most states don't
know if the women who leave welfare actually keep jobs for a year or not, and
it appears that many of said women actually end up getting their lives
supplemented by their families even more. If that's what you want, so be it,
but pretending that money equates with morality ignores a long history in the
United States and the rest of the world.
-art clemons-
ksp...@umich.edu
Heather Aston <has...@drew.edu> wrote:
>Alice Holman wrote:
>>
>
>> I don't think your scenario works quite like you'd like it to. We weren't
>> discussing runaway hormones in children. We were discussing - um - for lack
>> of better terms - mores, morals, values, definitions thereof and why it is
>> okay for rich folk to have one set and for poor folk to have another. If
>> those kids parents were wealthy enough, then yeah, they could do it.
>
>their little er, miscalculation, are we? If they don't have money, we get
>to foot the bill. Is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other
>people's poor choices?
Given the tax rebates and abatements that both privileged individuals and
institutions receive, I find it very interesting that we focus on the
choice of a low-income individual to bring life into the world, rather
than on other poor choices that have far more drastic consequences. You
ask is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other people's poor
choices....I ask why we are focusing on the choices of these people rather
than others. Is it simply a matter of them being financially
irresponsible?
>Most people make their choices based on their
>circumstances. If they can barely support themselves, they generally don't
>have children.
This sounds like common sense, but I'm not feeling you. Can you prove
this assertion?
>But there are those few who have no regard for anyone else.
>They can barely provide for themselves, much less a child, but what does it
>matter? They want a child, or children, so they have them. Then everyone
>else gets to pick up the bills. Then again, I suppose that is one of the
>nice things about the U.S. Until a few years ago, you could do what you
>wanted, and assume you'd be
>taken care of. I wonder if welfare reform will force people to think harder
>about their choices.
FIRST, could you expand on what you mean by "you could do what you
wanted?" Given that welfare is a means tested program, I don't see how
this can be the case.
And secondly, given that states and institutions are having a hard time
actually FINDING people who get kicked off of welfare, I don't know if
the people are actually going to be around to talk about their choices in
the FIRST place.....
lks
DarkStar
...
>Interesting that we can quote the Bible here - but not about fornication.
>Maybe some folks have a different idea of what "supporting" their family
>is/means.
Alice is *WORKIN* this thread!
I'm not saying I agree, nor am I saying I disagree with what she has
written, but people have to admit, she *HAS* been slamming her points
home!
SueCalico
>
>
>Okay, my point exactly.
>
>The more money you have, the more >moral you are - regardless of your
>choices.
Really. People who have money and use drugs, or beat their wives, or what have
you, are thought to be moral?
>The less money you have, the more >decadent your morals are - regardless of
>your choices.
BS. You're telling us that someone who works at a low paying job, and stays on
the right side of the law is thought to be decadent? The choices people make
have everything to do with it. People are thought to be decadent when they make
choices
*other people* have to take responsibility for.
>Morality is determined by dollars. A direct >correlation.
>
>And don't scream. That has been true in >this country since they stole it
>from the Indians. We demonize and >criminalize the poor for doing exactly
>what their richer counterparts do and then >we try and justify it -----lemme
see ----- we >refer to it as "responsibility." That makes >it okay.
I've heard this same thing many times. What never seems to get mentioned is
this: if you have money, you aren't asking others to support the results of
your poor
choices, are you? If an unmarried woman
who is finacially secure has a child, who ponys up the money for it? She does.
On the other hand, if someone who is on welfare has a child, who pays to
support it? You know who. Let's say you are a drug addict who needs treatment.
If you have money, you go to private clinic, which *you* pay for, or your
insurance company, to whom you paid premiums, pays for. If you're poor and go
to one supported by the state? Who pays the bills then? As my mother puts it
"He who pays the fiddler calls the tune." People feel they should have some say
in how their money is spent. Giving without wanting to know what happens with
the money may be laudable. But most people aren't going to go for it.
"I know the true world, and you know I do.
But we needn't let it think we all bow down."
--The Dark Is Light Enough--
Christopher Fry
Wayne Johnson
<alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> Now, if the situation was different elsewhere, I can't see how the
>> G.I. Bill itself can be blamed; it sounds like the usual garden
>> variety racism that always restricts us in some way.
>
>Why shouldn't it be blamed? The federal government could have stopped that nonsense
>any time they wanted to. But they didn't.
Then the problem wasn't the G.I. Bill; the problem was the general
racism in America. You might as well say that the Dollar Bill was the
problem, since it was no good for buying a house if you were Black.
Why shouldn't the G.I. Bill be blamed for racism in America? Because
it makes no sense, Alice. The symptom is not the disease, and the
G.I. Bill was not a disadvantage to Black veterans - racism was the
disadvantage, in a lot more areas than that.
What the federal government "could have stopped" could have been
stopped in the Constitutional Convention in the 18th Century. Calling
every act since then as Bad for the Brothas simply doesn't add up.
The G.I. Bill was a good thing. It was stultified by racism,
certainly; but this doesn't mean that it was a bad thing.
Racism was the bad thing.
Wayne "I'd rather get to the bottom of the problem" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
bev.
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
> "bev." wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I have noticed that it is married woman who tend to push this
> >> particular tenet. It is almost like they fear the choice they made
> >> would not adhere to his vows, unless christianity if firmly in
> >> place. However, why is it that on specific tenents pushed by
> >> said married woman? Why not the other fine points of what
> >> Jesus who was a Jewish individual stated should be the
> >> hallmark of a christian?
> >
>
-snip things answered elsewhere by me-
> What you can't be is a person who is happily married to
> your best friend with certain moral values that you are
> willing to stand up for (and refer to them as the teachings
> of Christ) without somebody finding major fault (dey must
> be sumpin wrong with huh/him). And frankly, I'm having
> so much fun with my best friend I really don't have time to
> analyze why others think we like (or secretly-but-can't-
> admit-it-don't like/trust) each other. Although, considering
> the fear of "committment" in this country, I can well
> l understand paranoia about
> it.
>
> I can't help but laugh. How did we get from there to here?
>
> alice
As further clarification, no one is knocking marriage. What I
was saying is that it is mostly married woman that I have known,
who tend to stress and preach about, that which they did not
choose. Why should a married woman care that someone
like Lauryn choose at this point in time, to be in a commited
relationship without a piece or paper? If marriage works for
you sanctioned by the goverment and your religion, no one is
saying it is wrong. What is wrong is some christians
sitting in judgement on others, interepreting the bible and
acting as if their personal interpretation of the bible is
applicable to anyone other than themselves. I have no
problem with anyone being whatever they wish to be. I
do have a problem with those who act as if someone
elses choices is wrong.
As for fear of commitment, it appears that Lauryn Hill
nor her man, are afraid of commitment. I have known
neighbors who were in common law relationships
which lasted a lifetime. They did not fear commitment,
and their relationships were very strong. Just because
someone makes a choice to not buy into the state and
chuch requirements, does not mean they fear
commitment. From what I've seen, Lauryn is having
a lot of fun with her best friend, who currently she
finds no reason to obtain a piece of paper with.
In regards to your claim of certain morals, from
what I've seen, a whole heck of a lot of christians
lie to their children in regards to certain fantasy
situations. In terms of morals, the divorce rate in
this country is very high. In terms of morals, no
one can foster their "opinion" as to what is and
isn't moral, onto another person. If a person
is harming no one with their choices, what
business is it of anyone else.
A lot of people think that in terms of OOW, in
relation to lower class woman who made choices
to have children they could not afford, more
money and services should be given to them
by the government. I disagree, I think they
should take responsibility for the choices they
make. Throwing money around using tax
payers funds, helps no one, not even the
individuals it is supposed to help. If a person
is able to support any children they made a
decision to place on this earth, it is no ones
business if they are not asking the tax payers
to pay for those children.
Like I asked in my original statement, why is it
that this particular point is pushed by married
woman? Why should they care as to whether
a woman is capable of supporting the children
she made a choice to place on this earth.
Quite often a christian guy would also stress
this particular point. Quite often the guy only
changes his tune and stress this point, after
he marries. Quite often he would more so
stress this particular point, if he has daughters
of his own.
I've visited many churches in my lifetime. Churches
of all types that basically had a christian
foundation. In none of these churches throughout
the years, were men in the majority. In all of these
churches, there were very few men. Most of the
guys I know and have known as acquaintances,
leaned more toward being agnostic. Most of the
woman I know, leaned toward christianity, regardless
as to whether they were married or single.
So you and others who find this a laughing matter,
I have to wonder since any belief system in regards
to there being a god or not being a god or there may
be a god, is just that a belief which is a/k/a opinions.
It is not based anything other than what one "choose"
to believe. However, why project your belief system
onto others? Why interpret the bible one way when it
clearly states a certain thing and pretend it says
something else? Why use your interpretation or
the interpretation of your preacher to villify others?
Why do so many christians tell their children
lies in regards to santa claus among other
fantasies? Why do some christians feel that
standing up for their values, means knocking
others beliefs? What's with that? Is this the christian
way? If so, small wonder why the agnostics become
fence sitters. No one is knocking any choice
christians make, the only thing people are knocking
is some christians penchant to knock the belief
system of others.
--
-bev-
Alternate email address
morp...@my-deja.com
Alice Holman
"bev." wrote:
> In article <37948AB0...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> As further clarification, no one is knocking marriage. What I
> was saying is that it is mostly married woman that I have known,
> who tend to stress and preach about, that which they did not
> choose.
Excuse me? I don't understand - what THEY didn't choose? Maybe they made a
stand. Told the guy, you ain't committed, neither am I. Go take a hike. And
that is their decision to make.
> Why should a married woman care that someone
> like Lauryn choose at this point in time, to be in a commited
> relationship without a piece or paper?
They don't. This is just a discussion.
> If marriage works for
> you sanctioned by the goverment and your religion, no one is
> saying it is wrong. What is wrong is some christians
> sitting in judgement on others, interepreting the bible and
> acting as if their personal interpretation of the bible is
> applicable to anyone other than themselves. I have no
> problem with anyone being whatever they wish to be. I
> do have a problem with those who act as if someone
> elses choices is wrong.
If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. You are most
definately taking a stand. You just have a problem with stands that don't
match yours.
>
>
> As for fear of commitment, it appears that Lauryn Hill
> nor her man, are afraid of commitment. I have known
> neighbors who were in common law relationships
> which lasted a lifetime.
Yeah. In this state common law is instant and binding. A lot of couples -
when the break up comes and the fighting start - find out that although
they THOUGHT they were taking the easy way, the uncomitted way and
when-its-over-its-over, they discover they got jest as many problems as if
they had not embarrassed their mother by shacking up. They still got to go
before the judge to disolve it....heh heh, I've seen some folks try to just
walk out and end up with bigamy charges all over them - among other legal
difficulties. When both parties don't want the break-up - you got trouble.
One cute thing that sometimes happens is they make a life and money etc
together and does happen - old guy goes thru mid-life crisis, wants a young
thing, dumps the old thing and takes the money and runs. And she ain't got
a leg to stand on except "I thought he loved me." As a little friend of
mine said once, Love is the first thing to go. If you ain't got mutal
respect, like each other, and a sense of decency.......um hum...and in many
cases, a legal leg to stand on, more the fool you. Amazing how often it is
women who get caught in this trick bag. Men have more sense. They know what
"love" is and ain't and what "lust" is and ain't.
> They did not fear commitment,
> and their relationships were very strong. Just because
> someone makes a choice to not buy into the state and
> chuch requirements, does not mean they fear
> commitment. From what I've seen, Lauryn is having
> a lot of fun with her best friend, who currently she
> finds no reason to obtain a piece of paper with.
Yes and maybe she'll be okay. I always read with interest, the palimony
suits that go on after the fact - after everybody has their fun and
somebody gets discarded. Dumped in the street. Treated like trash. The
one-up partner acts as if the "discard" had contributed nothing to the
relationship. And gets away with it more often than not.
>
>
> In regards to your claim of certain morals, from
> what I've seen, a whole heck of a lot of christians
> lie to their children in regards to certain fantasy
> situations.
Aw shucks, you must not have any kids or know any. If you did, you'd know
that kids have a rich fantasy life with a life of its own. It does not need
adults to establish it. What it needs is adults to encourage it. After all,
real life is the sum total of somebody's dream.
> In terms of morals, the divorce rate in
> this country is very high. In terms of morals, no
> one can foster their "opinion" as to what is and
> isn't moral, onto another person. If a person
> is harming no one with their choices, what
> business is it of anyone else.
How do you determine "harm?" Do you think the palimony bunch feels like its
been "harmed?"
>
>
> A lot of people think that in terms of OOW, in
> relation to lower class woman who made choices
> to have children they could not afford, more
> money and services should be given to them
> by the government. I disagree, I think they
> should take responsibility for the choices they
> make. Throwing money around using tax
> payers funds, helps no one, not even the
> individuals it is supposed to help. If a person
> is able to support any children they made a
> decision to place on this earth, it is no ones
> business if they are not asking the tax payers
> to pay for those children.
As I said, you are equating morality with money. You ain't got no money,
you ain't got no choices. And life is too short, at this point, to go into
why we have so many poor people in America who should have no choices.
>
>
> Like I asked in my original statement, why is it
> that this particular point is pushed by married
> woman? Why should they care as to whether
> a woman is capable of supporting the children
> she made a choice to place on this earth.
I think you're hung up on the "married" bit. "Married" has nothing to do
with it unless you wish to push the point that maybe some women believe in
making it legal and stand up to guys who want to shack up, have their fun,
and then depart leaving the woman holding the bag. And don't say they don't
do it. Women do it to men also. I got a friend who is a single dad. He
picked the baby up from the hospital and ain't seen her since.
So what I don't understand is why you have such a problem with women who
chose not to live loosy goosy with a guy and then cry the blues when the
inevitable happens. They chose to produce children when they feel that both
partners are committed enough to stand before men and God and declare their
intentions. Don't see anything wrong with that. Nor should they be
castigated for it.
Maybe when we talk about "choices" we should outlaw "palimony" suits on the
grounds that they made a decision and should have to stick by it come hell
or high water (or in their cases, both showed up). After all, it costs tax
payers money to run courts and pay judges and juries and all that stuff.
>
>
> Quite often a christian guy would also stress
> this particular point. Quite often the guy only
> changes his tune and stress this point, after
> he marries. Quite often he would more so
> stress this particular point, if he has daughters
> of his own.
Yeah, he suddenly sees what he wanted to do, has done, thought about doing
to somebody elses daughter and he doesn't want some bum doing that to his
daughter. He doesn't want his baby hurt. He knows now what the pain
quotient is. Interesting how we change as we get older, have more
experiences, see more of the world and the consequences of behavior we
thought had no consequences.
>
>
> snip:
> Why interpret the bible one way when it
> clearly states a certain thing and pretend it says
> something else?
I don't follow. You wanna explain. Who is doing this? I do believe there is
a definition of "fornication" - if that's what you're talking about and I
do believe the Bible says its a no-no. Now you can do anything you want to
do. That's obvious. You have free will. But to say the definitions are not
what they are......I don't understand.
>
snip:
>
> Why do so many christians tell their children
> lies in regards to santa claus among other
> fantasies?
Are you just hung up on Christians? As I said before, all children have
fantasies. They are not all connected with Christianity in any way shape
form or fashion. What about the tooth fairy? African stories are rife with
animal characters that talk and carry on. American Indians have talking
animals and rocks that party, etc. What's up with this assumption that only
christian children have a fantasy life? Do you know any kids? Have you ever
listened in on their play - as they make it up as they go along? Its
downright fascinating to listen it. What's awful is when adults bust their
bubbles.
I dare say, in many Christian sects, etc. they are hard nosed and think
kids should not have a fantasy life. But I don't suppose you've ever run
into them. Like the Puritans in the early centuries. Or the ones who don't
think folks should even read any book other than the Bible. So you see, its
kinda hard to pigeon hole all Christians - just as it would be to do the
same to Moslems, or anybody else.
> Why do some christians feel that
> standing up for their values, means knocking
> others beliefs?
Why is standing up for what one believes in, necessarily knocking other
beliefs? It doesn't follow. Ain't nothing more boring and uninteresting
than a wishy washy person who sways with the breeze and anything that comes
along. Agrees with whoever is talking loudest. Ain't got an opinion on
nothing. Might I add, that from all I've read, that just might be why
Klebold followed Harris into hell. Don't sound like being gutless is
something I'd push for.
> What's with that? Is this the christian
> way? If so, small wonder why the agnostics become
> fence sitters. No one is knocking any choice
> christians make,
Oh, I think you are. Big time. In fact, rather angry because some people
have some beliefs that they are willing to stand for. You are making a
stand, albeit a different one, but you don't wish to grant that choice to
others - especially those you label Christians. For your information,
Moslems have a problem with fornication also. You going after them?
alice
>
>
Alice Holman
Wayne Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:15:14 CST, Alice Holman
> <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
> >Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
> Then the problem wasn't the G.I. Bill; the problem was the general
> racism in America. You might as well say that the Dollar Bill was the
> problem, since it was no good for buying a house if you were Black.
>
> Why shouldn't the G.I. Bill be blamed for racism in America? Because
> it makes no sense, Alice. The symptom is not the disease, and the
> G.I. Bill was not a disadvantage to Black veterans - racism was the
> disadvantage, in a lot more areas than that.
Awright then, are you going to say that the government could NOT have put the brakes on
that particular kind of racism by adding sanctions or something when folks didn't act
right? If the blankety blank blank government is so helpless in the face of racism, how
could Truman just up and integrate the armed forces? By the same token, if the
government is so powerless how could Wilson just up and segregate the federal government
work force?
How come you always tryna absolve the government in its role of fostering, encouraging,
pandering to racists, interpreting the constitution in the most narrow ways that make
racism easier, bad acting and all the other things they do? After all, the gubmint ain't
nothing but a bunch of old men spouting nonsense. How can you pretend they are so
innocent?
alice
>
>
>
dr...@cis.uab.edu
artcl...@aol.com (Art Clemons) wrote:
> What an absolute bunch of nonsense. Most children born out of
wedlock don't
> get welfare benefits. Those who did get such benefits got a
substandard level
> of living, regardless of which state resided in, and the scorn of the
rest of
> society. To claim that the wealthy have a higher moral standard
because they
> have money just perpetuates a myth.
True, only I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that the
wealthy have a "higher moral standard". And I'm glad that you've
pointed out that most kids born out of wedlock aren't on welfare.
By the same token there are plenty of kids in two-parent homes
who are.
Whether or not someone is being "moral" and whether or not someone
is being "responsible" are two different matters. And for the
record, those who scapecoat single moms, whether those mother's are
rich or poor, for the woes of the world are simply out to lunch.
dr...@cis.uab.edu
Alice Holman <Aho...@carbon.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Heather Aston wrote:
>
> > Alice Holman wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
support
> > their little er, miscalculation, are we?
>
standards of
> morality - that's all I'm asking.
There shouldn't and as far as I'm concerned there isn't.
Let me clarify this. We got into this "double standards"
discussion on the assuption that if the subject had been
about some poor single mother instead of a rich star like
Lauryn Hill that many people would be ragging on the poor
mom right? But many people are ragging on Lauryn Hill, so
where is the difference? When this long and tired thread
FIRST started the original poster pointed out that the
overwhelming majority of respondents in another forum were
ragging on Lauryn. I haven't done the stats on the
responses in this thread, but it seems the majority of
posts (especially the early ones) were that way too. So
again, where's the difference?
>From strictly a sexual morality point a view, a self
supporting single mom is no different from one on
assistance. Notice I said "self-supporting" single
mom and not "rich" single mom. There are a hell of
a lot of single mom's who are in the "working poor"
category. Going further, from a sexual morality
point of view a single mom is no different from a
sexually active single person. In fact the person
without the kid could actually be "less" moral when
you consider abortion and/or some religious views on
birth control. And of course the married couple,
regardless of whether or not they're financially
prepared for the responsibility, is at the "top"
of the "morallity ladder".
So it would be wrong for someone to talk about
someone's decision from a moral perspective just
because that person is poor, but not do the same
concerning a self-supporting person. But the
question of whether or not a decision is "responsible"
or not is a different matter altogether. When you
ask someone else to help you with the consequences
of your decision, you automatically invite them into
your decision whether you (or they) want to be
involved or not. This is not a class issue. Take
the example of the married 14 year olds. If they're
parents are poor, than the state is brought into their
decision. If their parents are rich, then their PARENTS
are brought into the decision. Either way your involving
someone that normally would have no buisiness in the
arragement.
Here's another counter-class example. Is a person who
makes bad savings and loan investments any more or less
moral than someone who bets his life savings at the horse
track? If I as a taxpayer have to help bail out the S&L
than who's decision am I more concerned with?
Heather Aston
> >
> >But Alice, if those kids had money, you and I aren't being asked to support
> >their little er, miscalculation, are we? If they don't have money, we get
> >to foot the bill. Is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other
> >people's poor choices?
>
> Given the tax rebates and abatements that both privileged individuals and
> institutions receive, I find it very interesting that we focus on the
> choice of a low-income individual to bring life into the world, rather
> than on other poor choices that have far more drastic consequences.
Are tax rebates and such really more damaging than the poor having children
they are ill prepared to support? This is unfortunate, but a lot of people,
most perhaps, don't particularly care what other people do-as long as it
doesn't involve them. Most people don't care that Aileen Getty was/is a
drug addict because they don't have to pay her hospital bills when she
OD's; they don't pay for her to go to rehab. On the other hand when
Nameless Uninsured Junkie does, well, who foots the bill? The same is true
about out of wedlock children. No one cares when Big Movie Star and His
Model Wife have an illigitimate child, because the cost of raising that
child is borne by the parents. If he/she uses drugs or drinks, the family
pays for rehab. When someone poor, without insurance has a child, the
child's health care, schooling, etc. are paid for out of the public purse.
That isn't to say we shouldn't pay for it, just that people's opinions are
motivated by how it affects them.
>You ask is it really so wrong not to want to pay for other people's poor
> choices....I ask why we are focusing on the choices of these people rather
> than others. Is it simply a matter of them being financially
> irresponsible?
Well, no. Take a look at the cities in the Northeast. You go to NYC,
Newark, Boston, D.C. and so forth and see the same thing over and over.
Even in the smaller cities and towns you see it. Young women having
children. Not teenagers neccessarily, even though they do it too. The women
I'm thinking of are in their late teens and early twenties. Legally they
are adults, but what woman that age is really in a position to be a good
mother? I'm not, and to be honest, I don't know anyone that age who is.
What 19 or 20 year old girl is experienced enough to capably raise a child?
And it may sound unkind, but the kids often don't turn out well. I grew up
with kids like this, whose mothers had them when they were 17 or 18 years
old. The mothers were like children themselves-they never did have a chance
to mature before the role of parent was thrust on them. And so their
desires were somewhat childlike-posessions (car, fashionable dress) seemed
so important, and other things like saving
for the future, or education, just fell by the wayside. Then the kids grew
up. Some of them got jobs at the bank, or the post office. But too many
fell into the same patterns their parents did. Having children too early,
and these days too many. What are the consequences when a significant
percentage of the population chooses to have children when they are 1) poor
and 2) emotionally immature?
> >Most people make their choices based on their
> >circumstances. If they can barely support themselves, they generally don't
> >have children.
>
> This sounds like common sense, but I'm not feeling you. Can you prove
> this assertion?
Well, that's been my observation among my family and friends. I couldn't
prove whether it's true among the general population. Looking at my family
and friends, those of us who do have children are generally the ones who
are affluent, or at least have steady jobs with benefits. Those of us who
don't have children are generally relatively young and working at jobs
which would not support anyone other than ourselves.
> >But there are those few who have no regard for anyone else.
> >They can barely provide for themselves, much less a child, but what does it
> >matter? They want a child, or children, so they have them. Then everyone
> >else gets to pick up the bills. Then again, I suppose that is one of the
> >nice things about the U.S. Until a few years ago, you could do what you
> >wanted, and assume you'd be
> >taken care of. I wonder if welfare reform will force people to think harder
> >about their choices.
>
> FIRST, could you expand on what you mean by "you could do what you
> wanted?" Given that welfare is a means tested program, I don't see how
> this can be the case.
Perhaps I should have put that differently. Up until Clinton signed the
welfare reform bill, there was a guaranteed safety net. If you did lose
your job, or never had one to begin with, you knew that you could collect
welfare. There was no limit on how long you could stay on it, or a
requirement that you work for it. Now, you've got to meet much more
stringent conditions.
Art Clemons
writes:
>Are tax rebates and such really more damaging than the poor having children
>they are ill prepared to support? This is unfortunate, but a lot of people,
>most perhaps, don't particularly care what other people do-as long as it
>doesn't involve them. Most people don't care that Aileen Getty was/is a
>drug addict because they don't have to pay her hospital bills when she
>OD's; they don't pay for her to go to rehab. On the other hand when
>Nameless Uninsured Junkie does, well, who foots the bill?
I suggest that you do more research on how medical bills are paid in this
country.
Either the medical institution providing the services eats the bill run up
caring for someone uninsured, or it duns the family and drug addict for the
debt. Either way, the society isn't paying for it. Insurance companies used
to pay enough to allow a hospital to deal with such losses, but government
(which you seem to be implying pays for uninsured care) doesn't get affected by
uninsured care presently.
Similarly, most children born out of wedlock don't get medical care from the
state, and while they are eligible for "free" education in public schools, so
are all other children in the same jurisdiction. If every child is eligible
and most children take advantage of public school education, what point are you
making. Once again, you need to research how things works for both education
and health care. Poor people don't get a special break because they don't have
enough money to buy insurance, and most don't get government provided health
insurance either. There are more people uninsured than there are receiving
governmental provided insurance of all kinds, including state employees,
federal employees, municipal employees, folks on welfare and the like.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Art
Clemons) wrote:
>In article <37A08C33...@drew.edu>, Heather Aston <has...@drew.edu>
>writes:
>
...
>> On the other hand when
>>Nameless Uninsured Junkie does, well, who foots the bill?
>
>I suggest that you do more research on how medical bills are paid in this
>country.
>Either the medical institution providing the services eats the bill run up
>caring for someone uninsured, or it duns the family and drug addict for the
>debt. Either way, the society isn't paying for it. Insurance companies used
>to pay enough to allow a hospital to deal with such losses, but government
>(which you seem to be implying pays for uninsured care) doesn't get affected by
>uninsured care presently.
Ummm....
Well, let's see....
If a hospital gets an uninsured patient, the hospital either eats the
costs or charges prices that attempts to spread the anticipated costs
of uninsured patients over all paying "customers."
When the costs can't be spread out, the hospitals tend to go belly up.
Well, that's a cost to society if you ask me.
love...@my-deja.com
people this
> society produces? It would be nice....but.....it ain't gonna happen.
We'll end up
> with a few more absolutely desparate people who are unable to fend for
> themselves....they'll be living on the streets. The welfare reform (at
least
> here) just loves to produce numbers of people who are now off the
roles - but it
> doesn't track where those people are. The homeless shelters have a lot
to
> say....but they get ignored, as usual. Who cares if children have no
where to
> live?
Well, in many nations around the world, there is no welfare. You also
have large numbers of homeless people. Here in NYC over the past year
the number of homeless and beggars seems to have increased dramatically
. I have no official stats to back this up, but just judging from what
my eyes see, the numbers of increasing. The numbers of white bums and
beggars seem to have increased the most.
>
> There were/are a few hard core welfare recipients who got stuck in a
generational
> bag - I really do not believe (and stats bear it out) that people
(most) just
> decided to lay up on the state and produce babies. Most folks on
welfare used it
> as the support they needed after some disaster and when they were
able, they got
> off.
Yes. Most welfare recipients were not generational, except for a few
living in some truly awful housing projects.
.especially when we sell everything with sex - as a matter of
fact, if
> you aren't "doing" it, something is wrong. So you are going to have a
bunch of
> unwanted, unloved, unprovided for infants. But they shouldn't be
relegated to the
> garbage heap. They had nothing to do with it.
I agree.
>
> alice