🚀 go-pugleaf

Celia Clause (clause@abbot.colorado.edu) wrote:
: Nathan Duehr --

: Several times in your previous post you ask why some people fear the PKers and
: conservitive christians. You say that although christians would like everyone
: to live a godly lifestyle, they are not forcing anyone to. 

: I would like to explain why I fear some of the conservative christians and 
: what effort I perceive they have made to repress my rights.

Celia, 
  Thank you.  I would like to see the opposing viewpoints, and from 
reading the rest of this message already, I must say that you have some 
very valid points.  Thank you in advance for the rest of the reply!  It 
was good reading.  Now for a few comments...

: First I would like to talk about the tirany of the majority. If a potential
: law stating that black people are not equal to white people and therefor 
: should not be able to vote was put on the ballet and 60% of the people voted
: for this law, it would still be evil and I would fight it with every ounce 
: of power that I could muster. Just because the majority votes for something 
: or lets something occur does not mean that I should not or will not fight 
: against it. 

Unfortunately the majority rules this country.  Always has, always will.  
Not unfortunately we had some founding fathers who really understood the 
need for basic rights and wrote the basis for our government such that 
basic human rights could not be trampled on easily.  

: That said, I would like to talk about amendment 2. This law stated that 
: homosexuals should not have the right to claim discrimination if they were
: fired by their employer for the sole reason of being gay. This means that 
: homosexuals would not have had the right to state in a public place, "I
: am gay." without the fear of losing their home or their job. The majority of
: the people who voted for this law are christians who feel that homosexuality
: is wrong and is a sin against their god. 

: This law took away the basic right of freedom of speach for a portion of the
: population because christians felt what they did in the privacy of their own
: homes was a sin. Can you imagine a similar law which stated that christians
: should not have the right to claim discrimination if they were fired by their
: employer for the sole reason of being christians? Such a law would NEVER have
: passed, because christians are in the majority. 

Obviously the Bill of Rights works, and Amendment 2 is abolished.  Just 
because Christians and (might I add) other right-wing radicals pushed it 
through a vote-in-your-favorite-law system that we have in Colorado now, 
doesn't mean that they could win in the long run.   I think that there 
were good and bad parts in the Amendment.  I don't think that _anyone_ 
should get special rights or be tiptoed around because of their sexual 
preference.  Homosexuals do not have any special rights or priveleges 
that I know of, but you can bet that _their_ political agenda is to 
receive just that... special rights and priveleges.  Some of the radical 
Christians are over the line as far as their actions are concerned also, 
but you must admit that they are a deterring force in keeping the 
extremely active leftists occupied... a sort of built in check and 
balance system.  I agree though, BOTH side's RADICAL people are scary.  
But they have a right to be that way... I don't want homogenized life.  
It wouldn't be very interesting that way!  :-)

: I would also like to talk about operation rescue and abortion. A large 
: portion of christians feel that abortion is wrong. Many are not content
: to merely not have an abortion and to work towards giving people options
: other than abortion. They want to make abortion illegal in the United States.
: I don't want to discuss why I believe every woman has the right to make her
: own very personal choice on whether she has the ability or the strength to 
: carry a child to term, but this is what I believe.

Actually, why do we always have to turn this one into a _woman's_ right 
to choose?  I would assume that in most unwanted pregnancies there is a 
father involved.  (Not too many women going to the sperm bank and then 
changing their minds.. :-) )  I'm tired of the father not having a voice 
in the issue.  Of course, if the father is the type that can't keep track 
of his sperm then he gave up his right to the child the second he walked 
out the door.  I can't stand someone who has a one night stand with a 
woman, gets her pregnant, and then starts yelling and screaming about a 
father's rights.  This, of course, is tainted with how I view a family 
and how I feel a family should be.  (No hiding from that one *here* 
anyway, right?)  I also think that in the case of underaged mothers, 
their parents have a RIGHT to know about any and all plans the young 
mother-to-be may have.  I know all the arguments about how young mothers 
can't face their parents with that kind of news and how they might resort 
to back-alley abortions, etc... but I really think that if you feel you 
are responsible enough to have sex then you should be responsible for the 
consequences! (i.e. possible unwanted pregnancy, STD's, AIDS, etc etc.)  
As I have mentioned before, SEX IS NOT A GAME.  It's not only a 
pleasure-filled toyland for sophomoric lifestyles... it's got real 
life-changing posibilities and parents should be teaching that to their 
kids young enough that it can make a difference when the sexual peer 
pressure starts.  Sex is not mandatory and there are not compulsory 
sexual events that must be met be certain ages, which is NOT what our 
society is telling our young people today.  I again reassert my statement 
that 99% of the time the choice was made in the bedroom.  Contraception 
fails, but choosing to abstain from sex completely does not.  Find that 
too hard a choice to make?  That's not a problem for me, and I should not 
have to pay taxes to pay for EITHER an abortion or welfare for you.  The 
arguments that come my way regarding this always seem to point out that 
sex is one of those necessary things to keep a human alive.  Not true.  
For those that choose to have sex, they may have to pay the consequences.

As far as the legality of abortion goes, seperation of church and state 
is the only way to go on this one.  Until people learn to have a little 
responsibility with thier sexual organs in this country, though, we may 
continue to have battles in the courtrooms.  

: I would also like to talk about sodomy laws. At first glance, these laws 
: seem to only affect homosexuals, but when you take a look at the definition
: used for somdomy in most state you realize that anyone who wants to have sex
: in a manner that does not conform to the conservative christians is affected.
: Even if these laws only affected gays they would be an example of christians
: abusing their power to force people worry about being put in jail for what
: they do in the privacy of their own homes, between consenting adults. There
: is precidence for these laws be used to take away the children of both 
: hetrosexuals and homosexuals. The most recent case was in virginia with two
: lesbians. Another case many years ago put a hetrosexual couple IN JAIL
: for having anal sex in their own home. This was in georgia. 

I agree that morality cannot be legislated.  Unfortunately just because 
we need to stand for freedom of personal rights in private, doesn't mean 
that we have to agree with them.  The cases you mention are fringe cases 
right now... we'll have to see what happens with sodomy laws.  In truth, 
sodomy laws have been on the books in most states a very long time.  Much 
longer than the radical right wingers have had enough political clout to 
get things voted on in the legislature, which I might add... these WERE 
voted on.  Get out and vote the people out of office that voted the laws 
into practice if you don't like that laws.  

: I would also like to talk about prayer in school. Many conservative christians
: would like to see voluntary prayer in school. (By voluntary they mean a 
: teacher will lead a christian prayer and the students may choose not to 
: participate. Of course, this ignores the fact that a teacher is an athority
: figure who may change a childs grades based on whether they pray. It ignores
: the fact that children are cruel to eachother and will theaten, tease and
: shun children who choose to be different.) They seek to impose their 
: religion on my children. Can you imagine if a group of pagans tried to get
: prayers to the goddesses in school or to have in school celebrations of 
: the rights of winter and spring? This would NEVER have occurred , because
: christians are in the majority.

I've never heard a variant of this that was quite this strong, but I 
guess it had to be out there.  Of course, many many many children used to 
go to Catholic schools (for a higher quality of education?  I don't 
know.) in the past and if that were any indication of what they were 
going to believe, this country would be overflowing with parochial school 
graduates.  Most kids that come out of parochial schools of any kind 
either go whole hog into or whole hog away from that religion... they 
usually don't find that wishy-washy is an option for them anymore after 
experiencing one of these schools.  I've seen requests to have a moment 
of silence during which students could pray silently or whatever they 
preferred.  I don't have a problem with that.  Many do.  Is there a 
reason why?  Next someone will be shouting that they don't want their 
child reciting the Pledge of Allegiance [sic].  In fact, both radical 
right winger types and left winger types could probably both come up with 
reasons why _their_ child (note the child no longer has free speech 
himself/herself, it's just an object to mold... glad my mom didn't do 
this.  My religious/political views are VERY different than hers...) 
can't pledge Allegiance [sic] to that 'darned old rag anyway'!

: All of these things make christians threatening. No, not all christians seek
: to take away the right of others, but enough of them do. This is why I speak
: out against the views of PKers (which to me are conservitive christians.)
: This I why I fear them. I will not stand by and let anyone take away my 
: right to define my own morality, own religion, and to say what I want in
: public without fear.

Don't just worry about the conservatives... the liberals want to do it to 
them too.  One just seems to support the one that is most on their own 
side, but they're both scary.  

To finish up:  Christianity says that God dropped in and said, "Whoa... 
you are *ALL* wrong!  Let Me show you... follow Me."   One of the reasons 
that I think He was right... just look at us try to figure it out!  (grin)

Thanks for the really good reply regarding the feelings of people who are 
afraid of the influence that PK has.  I appreciate your candor.  My 
replies may have been a little tongue-in-cheek this evening... I'm tired.

Good night.
And by the way, I still don't really see what these fears have to do with 
the "majority" of PK'ers.  Most of them are quite a bit tamer than the 
radicals mentioned fighting in the legislature and in the courtrooms.  
Both sides on those issues are QUITE vocal.

Best Regards,
-- 
Nathan N. Duehr - nduehr@netcom.com

Pvt. Pilot, N0NTZ (ham), Pikes Peak 120 (CAP), AOPA 01119032-9 (Joined 1992)
Colorado Wing CAP Net Control Station, 76 Senior Sqdn. Comm. Officer.
Member: Natl. Weather Service "SkyWarn" Severe Weather Spotting Team,
Amateur Radio Emergency Services, and the Rocky Mountain Radio League.