🚀 go-pugleaf

LAZARUS Project (skramer@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: This topic's just too damn hot for me not to wade in and play devil's
: advocate...(I'm sure all the fundy Christians are reeling back in horror
: as I say that - I s'pose that's their right.)...but I won't be going too
: in-depth here. Just a few general observations...

: In article <nduehrCt8nGy.6BD@netcom.com>,
: Nathan N. Duehr <nduehr@netcom.com> wrote:
: >MASSENGALE MELANIE O (massenga@spot.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: >
: >: >mm> When you welcome women as equals, Boulder will welcome you.
: >
: >: "Howzabout" not bashing Boulder, the host city.  I feel confident that Bill
: >: and his friends can defend themselves.  When the Jews and Muslims come to
: >: Boulder, making rude comments about the city while denouncing abortion rights,
: >: I'll be happy to take them on, too.   
: >
: >You seem very upset about this if the issue is only that the Promise 
: >Keepers are saying "rude" things about Boulder.  Of course you fail to 
: >mention that Mr. McCartney and the group in general represent a group of 
: >men who hope to offer a much better solution than abortion.  

:       That'd be adoption from another couple, right?
:       Always a 3rd choice out there.

One of many solutions other than abortion.  Yes.

: >proclaim that sex was meant for procreation and the strengthening of a 
: >godly marriage, but was never intended to be a selfish act of 
: >sensuality. 

:       Even between married people? My. (I'm warming up, bear with me.)

Even between married people.  Selfishness is not holy in God's sight.
(I'm bearing, I'm bearing...)  And I'm not saying that people aren't 
unholy or unselfish sometimes, no matter how how "good" they think they are.

: >They also proclaim that men in general need to follow 
: >through on promises made to their families and to in general be more 
: >responsible for the actions taken in relationships, including not 
: >allowing themselves to be tempted into sexual relations before there is 
: >any marriage commitment, therefore there would be no need for measures as 
: >extreme and deadly as abortion.

:       There are always alternatives to penile-vaginal intercourse, if
:       one gets that paranoid about it and doesn't trust birth control.
:       Me, personally, I'd never trust "just a condom". Seen too many
:       "unintended"s occur...if one DOES insist on p-v intercourse. But
:       there always are other choices. Always. You seem to be stating
:       that "p-v intercourse is the only form of sex out there", and
:       while it certainly consumes the overwhelming majority of sexual
:       action out there, you're looking at 1 broad band of wavelength
:       in a huge spectrum of colors. Nuff said there...

No I never said anything like that.  My point was about abortion, and 
some of the distortions of what sex is supposed to be as argument that 
sexual promiscuity (yes of the p-v kind) caused the pregnancy in the 
first place.  Very obvious stuff here... no hidden meaning.

: >Men and women who have no self control have caused the entire abortion 
: >debate to be blown completely out of proportion.  If both sexes would 
: >learn to keep their pants on, then maybe we'd see what CHOICE really is.  
: >I'm extremely sick of people who say their right to choice is going to be 
: >eroded by making abortion illegal.  Of course, they forget to mention 
: >that they had a choice in the bedroom.  (Or was it the back of a car?)

:       Yes, many people do have a choice in the bedroom..and thank GOD
:       (or whoever) that they aren't controlled and dominated by Big
:       Brother...or worse.

You seem to misunderstand.  I am suggesting (and I believe the PK is 
also) that there be more SELF control, not government, political, church, 
or Big Brother control.  Paranoia about who is controlling oneself today 
is causing people to lose the ability to control themselves.

:       I'm willing to die for my freedom, I'm sure many others are as well.
:       I'm willing to die to keep my beliefs, and the *choosing* of them.

Okay. 

:       Generally, extremist Christians believe that one has no free choice,
:       free choice is a work of the Devil, and one must always follow God
:       *first*. I'm willing to respect their viewpoint, but they had damn
:       well better not force theirs upon me, or heads will roll. It's
:       kind of like the "panhandler" law Boulder (used to?) has - People
:       can panhandle all they want...but if they actively block anyone's
:       way or otherwise harass and cajole them to the point people cannot
:       get where they're going, they can get fined and perhaps jailed.

The part about free choice is not what most Christians believe.  Every 
Christian has the ability to take off bouncing and screaming away from 
God at any time.  Most Christians simply point out that they *don't want 
to*.  This gets misinterpreted as them feeling there is no other choice 
for them.  The issue is not whether or not there are options.  The issue 
is whether or not they want to exercise those options.  "The road is 
narrow..." etc etc.  Off topic anyway, we were discussing PK and some 
sexuality issues.  This could blow up into an entire discussion of the 
Christian faith, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to 
defend on Usenet (though I could try, I'm definately not a theologian...)

:       Maybe we'd better broaden it to include Christian right-wing
:       zealots who badger other people, too.

In some ways I agree with what you are saying here.  I don't like being 
stopped from getting to where I am going outdoors in public places 
either, but if I am not interested I will usually take a copy of whatever 
is being passed out and move on.  Also, I agree that assault is assault.  
I've never seen that any religious person who hands out paper is going to 
do a whole heck of a lot of good for anyone who has not already been 
introduced to someone who actually cares about them and takes the time to 
talk to them personally and get to know them before getting into such 
severely personal topics as religion.  Paper is dead... Jesus didn't send 
paper, he sent people.  I'm getting off topic here again, but I am just 
following up on the very open comments you made that could mean many 
different things.

:       I say Christian, because in my times in Boulder, I have not seen
:       (to date) any other religious group pester, harass, cajole, or
:       force (via trespass) citizens with the same desire that right-wing
:       Christians have. I've seen people of all faiths there - Muslim,
:       Buddhist, pagan - even those wonderful Hare Krishnas. They sit on
:       lawns, play their instruments or march around, and passed out
:       pamphlets (unlike in the typical "airport" generalization scenario)
:       to *anyone who was interested* in their faith and beliefs.
:       Respecting other people as *individuals* with the power to make
:       their own CHOICES of their own free will. R-W Christians won't have
:       it that way - it's Our Way, or No Way - and We Won't Have You Burning
:       In Our Form of Hell, so We WILL Drag You With Us, Even If It's Kicking
:       And Screaming.  No better than rapists, really - it's just using
:       force and harassment of the mind, rather than the body...

I don't think that I would be very happy with myself if I were to act the
way some of these people you describe are acting.  Zealots are almost
always overbearing insecure people (just observations, not slamming
them... perhaps these words are too strong, but it's early and my brain
ain't up yet...) who enjoy being a little bit obnoxious in their zeal for
"spreading the news."  There are plenty of very right-wing (a political
term) Christians (a religious term... these shouldn't be mixed unless
appropriate.  There are plenty of liberals calling themselves Christians)
who disagree with obnoxious evangelism for evangelism's sake. 

:       I wonder: what would all the RWC's do if everyone just suddenly
:       "fell into line" - and hated the RWC's who forced them to do it,
:       hated everything about it, and the religion, and God, and Jesus,
:       but would obey them.  Surely God and Jesus  (as has been stated SO
:       often in the Bible and by 'gentler', TRUE Christians (eat that,
:       you sanctimonious (insert your favorite insulting adjectives or
:       nouns here) - God and Jesus want you to MAKE THE CHOICE and come
:       and embrace them.)) MAKE THE CHOICE. God doesn't want "unwilling
:       soldiers" in His army, nor would Jesus.

Agreed.  Exactly why I beg to disagree with those who obnoxiously 
evangelise others.  I don't have a problem with street-corner preachers 
who are preaching and not evangelizing though.  Free speech and all, as 
you point out later.

:       So why are these people out there "In His Name" trying to *force*
:       people to conform to what THEIR idea of what God is saying???
:       And not through gentle means, but through harassment, debasement,
:       and other forms of domination?? Gotta admit -- even Brother Jed
:       and Sister Cindy are better than that -- and you can always walk
:       away from them.

Who?  PK?  Not.  Perhaps some political organizations are pushing their 
interests in local politics, but I thought we were talking about PK.

:       Perhaps the RWC's consider all the rest of us "sinners" and we
:       "should be removed from the face of the planet if we don't conform"
:       (more or less the attitude I've seen)...but I'd venture my OPINION
:       (free to accept or reject it. wonderful thing, that - choice) that
:       if God was active enough to strike down every sinner, He'd take
:       them too.

Two points here:  Conform to what?  I don't ask that any Christian do 
anything that I do.  It's not my place.  I do hope that they are not 
doing things that God expressly forbids, and would tactfully let them 
know if at all possible that I seriously disagreed with their actions if 
I had a chance.  I would expect the same courtesy from them... Golden 
Rule again.  As far as the statement, "the attitude I've seen" goes, 
where and what have you seen?  Have you personally attended any Christian 
events like PK (I'm trying to get back on topic here... but any large 
Christian event would do...)?  Church attendance isn't what I am looking 
for here, since Church is supposed to be a place for practicing 
Christians to fellowship with each other and their God.... it's not a 
stage for playacting, and it's not a pulpit for evangelism.  They have a 
place elsewhere in a Christian's life, but not in the worship times.  I 
ask the question about what you have seen/heard because after spending 
time with many non-Christians I find that usually their arguments about 
behaviour come down to, "I saw them do XXX on TV."  I see a light 
aircraft crash every two weeks on TV also, but unlike the rest of the 
public I do not deem them as UNSAFE (don't start this discussion, I can 
offer many many many cases of jury trials tainted with this 
misconception), and I don't believe that the reports are objective about 
ANYTHING anymore... they just want ratings.  

:       And with any sense of justice in the universe, we'd watch the RWC's
:       be blasted by holy lightning first - for perverting God's Word into
:       their own agenda.

You're right.  God already promises that people who desecrate His word 
will be severly punished.  I would like to see it sooner than later, but 
He can take all the time He wants.  I like to think that He is waiting 
for just such things as you are mentioning:  People will eventually 
either follow the false prophets or figure it out.

:       (looks down)

:       My, this soapbox has gotten high. >=) I'll step down now...temporarily.
:       (grin)

I do it too.  My apologies for offenses.  I hope this is a decent 
reasonable discussion.  I don't participate in flame wars usually.  This 
is going alright so far.  We definately agree to disagree on some 
points.  Not a problem.

: >I'm also not naieve enough to think that a blanket answer is the key, but 
: >the Promise Keepers have a viable and ALREADY WORKING plan for their 
: >lives regarding the issue of abortion.  Funny thing is, everyone is 

:       Let them keep *their* plan, then. Bully for them. i respect their
:       right to keep it theirs, and would even defend them, to keep it
:       that way. They've got no right to force it through intimidation
:       on others. No one does. (well, except the corrupted officers of
:       law enforcement in many corridors, but let's keep on subject here..)

When did they start forcing anything on anyone?  We were discussing their 
behavior in Boulder, but I must say that I think every one of the 50,000 
attending was there of his own free will.  No kicking, screaming, 
dragging, or anything of the kind.  Where are you leading here?

: >bashing them for being radicals. 

:       Free speech. Got something against it?

:       Then move out of the country.
:       (at the very least, the state. Please.)

This quote isn't even a full sentence.  Easy to bash me I suppose, but 
what I was pointing out was not that anyone shouldn't have free speech, 
but that the actions of the PK'ers used to be the status-quo in this 
country.  Men used to keep promises to loved ones, including marriage 
vows, etc.  Now they are on the fringe of our permissive society and are 
being touted as radicals.  I'm not decrying anyone's right to scream it 
at the top of their lungs if they want to... my point was in the 
rediculous swings of political fervor in this country.  To quote a bumper 
sticker directly (and I hope the humor isn't lost in the discussion 
here... this is not a prejudicial quote, I'm using it as an example of 
the EXTREMES of the changes in U.S. society over the course of 30-40 
years...) "Roosevelt promised a chicken in every pot.  Clinton promises a 
fag in every pup tent."  CAUTION:  My point is not regarding the subject 
of the bumper sticker, my point is that both men were catapulted to 
public office by these claims and how DIFFERENT the claims are.  I don't 
agree with the bumper sticker's ideology, I just wanted to show that the 
country's values are changing rapidly.  In my former post I showed the 
opinion that it might be for the worse, and wanted the reader to decide.  


: >Since when is waiting to have sexual 
: >relations with a person until they are legally commited to you so 
: >radical?  Used to happen in this country all the time.  Sad that we think 
: >it is so strange now.

:       Sad to think we need a police force type strike team of religious
:       zealots to force our way back to that. People can choose. Let em.

Exactly why I posted.  Information for the masses.  All Usenet is good 
for anyway.  Debates are better in person.  (grin)  *What* religious task 
force are you eluding to anyway?   Your post has a lot of innuendos and 
baseless fears about the great powerful religious masses, but there 
aren't any concrete examples of any religious groups poised to take your 
rights away.  *Who* are you talking about?  I'm not going to do it.

: >Sober up, America.  As evidenced by the continuous flaming on Usenet, and 
: >the promiscuous sexual sensuality craze that this country is in, we no 
: >longer care about each other in this country.  All we care about is 
: >ourselves.  Is someone invading *MY* rights today?  Is someone 
: >disagreeing with *ME*?  I use the examples of the Usenet and sexuality 
: >just because they fit the topics in this message.  There are obviously 
: >many more pieces of evidence to support this position.

:             Is someone taking away YOUR right to have individual beliefs?
:             There are many who would stand up for you if such were the case.
:       YOUR rights would be trampled, yet OTHERS would be defending you.

:       Curious.

:       Is that what's meant by selfishness and the "I only care about
:       myself" that you were talking about?

I guess I should have been more specific regarding the differences 
between basic human rights and the petty "rights" everyone is squabbling 
over.  Free-speech being lost I would squawk over (and probably be killed 
for it if free-speech truely were gone...) but things like whether or not 
someone else's religion might jeprodize your basic human rights is a 
little silly.

:       Touche'. And checkmate.

Didn't know there would be a winner or loser... nice game though, 
whatever we are playing.  (?)

: >Volunteer in an area where you care and let others be free.  

:       *blink* You didn't just say what I *think* you did...did you?
:       Praise (whomever), the blinders have been lifted. Maybe. For a
:       short while.

My basis for the next statement:  Leave the PK'ers alone.  They have a 
right, just as you do to follow the above statement to the best of their 
abilities.  If some of them are football coaches, some are politicians, 
some are musicians, some are truck drivers, some are computer 
programmers, some are pilots, etc etc etc... it should be expected that 
their views and lifestyle might start to shape how they interact with 
others on the job, in public office, etc etc.  Hopefully they will 
respect the other people though, and unfortunately sometimes people just 
don't respect others.  

: >*United* States of America, isn't it?  I don't yell and scream on Usenet 
: >every time a Bronco game snarls traffic in both directions on I-25, just 
: >because it inconvieniences me.  Maybe I'm a football fan, maybe I'm not, 
: >but I certainly didn't want that traffic jam that resulted.  Stuff 
: >happens.  

:       "It certainly does." - Stan Laurel

: >My point is this:  It sure is easy to stir up hate and discontent.  ANYONE
: >can do that.  Peacemakers are few and far between these days.  My hope is
: >to be a peacemaker, as *most* of the Promise Keepers hope to do also. 

:       There's a flaw in this, and I'll tell you what it is in a second..

: >"Judge every man by the fruit he produces."  Right?

:       Only, these "men" are producing enough BAD effects that it totally
:       overshadows their "good intentions". At least, some of them are.
:       But wait, I hear you say, they're individuals! They have the right
:       to act that way! (oo, have I struck a nerve after my long speech?
:       Hope so.)

:       I counter that with, "Yes, but they are acting as a GROUP of people,
:       supposedly as REPRESENTATIVES of a higher power that they want
:       everyone to become a worshipper of!" A GROUP (perhaps a mob, in
:       some people's eyes - certainly the people who've been harassed we've
:       all read about)...and that GROUP is working as a SINGLE entity, a
:       SINGLE force - and will be considered by such by the populace in
:       general. And if there are "bad" people in that group, people acting
:       in such a way that it's contrary to what their "mission objectives"
:       are - they really aren't contributing strength to their cause, but
:       discord.  And people will judge them accordingly.

:       And shun them.

:       And since they are acting as representatives of God (supposedly)
:       it will cause SOME people, perhaps MANY people, to flee God as
:       well.  Because those people being victimized don't want to become
:       like the victimizers...to pick the *smallest* reason why they'd
:       reject such hooligans.

:       Jesus said "If your hand causes you to sin,cut it off."

:       If the atrocious behavior of the people reported really isn't the
:       mainstream thrust of Promise Keepers, perhaps the PK's would do
:       better kicking their "sinner's faction" out. (Or better yet,
:       executing them. >=). Seems to me, if you're looking for *purity*,
:       you'd best keep your group *pure*, if you want people to believe
:       you're *pure* - otherwise, they're no different than "any of the 
:       other sinners" out there - except they're proclaiming they are as
:       such - and that makes them hypocrites. And no one likes a hypocrite.

You sound like you are trying to say that since all criminals are guilty 
they should all be killed.  Talk about throwing the baby out with the 
bathwater... a few people in any group setting are usually "on the 
fringes" of the group or maybe don't agree with the group at all, but are 
there for other reasons.  You can not judge a group by the MINORITY.  I 
personally would consider that very foolish and unwise.  You make the 
call for yourself, but it sounds like you *like* doing just that.  Pick 
out the few bad apples in the group and blame the whole group for their 
behavior.  If you use that logic, then we all are damned (which 
interestingly puts you in the same camp as the PK'ers on THAT topic :-) ).

:       (Except me. I like to get my flamethrowers and pit bulls out when I
:       see them. >=)

I really hope you don't mean this if you are advocating all these 
"rights" for everyone else but not for them.

: >People with self-control enough to make things better who have morals 

:       But they obviously (all) don't have self-control. And since they
:       are a group, a) the "good" people in that group don't have enough
:       self-control to keep the "bad or wickedly tempted" (laugh) members
:       in line.

They aren't in the business of being police.  In fact, in another post I 
did suggest that CU had an obligation to the general public of Boulder 
to REQUIRE PK to have more campus police or city police around for just 
such problems.  What does SELF control have to do with the policing of 
other's actions?  All the men who didn't do these things could do is set 
a good example and if they saw it happening, point out to the guys doing 
it that they could be wrong.  Do all concert attendees have a moral 
obligation to throw out anyone not enjoying the concert because they 
don't like the music?  Or should they help the person by explaining the 
nuances and interesting points?   Do the people enjoying the concert not 
exercise SELF control when they don't make sure that everyone around is 
doing what they are supposed to be doing?  This isn't a great analogy, 
but you must admit that SELF control has absolutely nothing to do with 
others actions.

:       Therefore the group has no self-control.

See above.

: >that require them to put others before themselves *are* the answer to 
: >making the U.S. a good place to live.

:       Therefore, by pure mathematical logic, these people are NOT
:       the answer in making the U.S a good place to live.

Mathematical?  Help me here... it's too abstract.  What do you mean?

:       You're welcome.

:       It's been fun prosecuting, and my check's in the mail -- pay
:       it promptly, would you? Gracias.

Checks are for cashing and bills are for paying, but that would be 
nit-picking.  I don't expect either, so I won't worry about it.

:       (I *should* just wrap it up there, having a wonderful finish,
:        but I'll meander through the rest of this...)

: >Interstate twice in one week for driving normally.  At no time did I 
: >endanger anyone, cut off anyone, or do anything reckless, but I may have 
: >caused someone going well over the speed limit in both cases to slow down 
: >because I needed to be in their lane to make a turn.  I don't drive the 

:       Well, some people are assholes, ok? Live with it. People have
:       choice. Including the choice to get angry with others who disagree
:       with them.

My point was a general degradation in respect and courtesy on our public 
highways.  Anger is not the problem here, the visual assault is.  It's 
not necessary to flip someone off to be angry with them... there is a 
difference.

: >speed limit (and my driving record shows this) but I also don't expect 
: >others to speed up just because I want to go fast. 

:       Many do - and it's the person's holding up the lane choice to
:       drive whatever speed they damn well please, and the choice of
:       the person behind them to get angry with the other person. Or
:       blow their head off with a shotgun.

Actually we all agreed on a set of driving laws including "Slower traffic 
keep right" which superceded your right to choose your lane the day you 
accepted your driver's license from your government.  Driving is a 
*priveledge* granted to those who agree to follow the rules and do so.

:       Oh wait. (pause) That would be wrong. That would be force and
:       punishment for not conforming.

Here's the Oliver Stone conspiracy word "conform" again.  Force and 
punishment for not abiding by the laws set down by the citizens of this 
country, yes.  For not conforming?  No.  If I were to blow off one of 
your loved ones heads with the proverbial shotgun in the scenario above, 
you would want me locked up, and I'm sure you wouldn't come to defend my 
"rights" to shoot them.  There is a line between right and wrong, though 
many would prefer that there wasn't because it interferes with their 
world view.

:       (fixed plastic grin) Have I made my point yet??? >=>

About which topic?  You're jumping around quite a bit.  If your point is 
that there are a lot of vague notions about conspiracies of Christian 
plots to take over the world, don't worry.  God already promises that it 
will get worse for Christians long before it gets better.  I wish modern 
day evangelism would allow this to be known before selling their 
candy-coated versions of the gospel.  (Example:  Your life will be 
perfect if you follow Jesus.  Yeah right.  Gullibility abounds.  I agree 
with you on that point.  What evangelists should tell folks is that there 
is a peace *of mind* that can be found no where else when you know you 
are trying to live a life that has a Man who was perfect as a 
role-model.  Jesus didn't do the things that you hate so much about 
Christians, yet the Christians who are trying to live like Jesus did are 
most often not the ones on the TV set.)

: >difference, and I think it illustrates the change in our way of thinking 
: >as a society.  We want anyone who will slow down *our* beliefs to kindly 
: >move aside.  We have no respect for what we might learn from them.

:       That's their choice. And I'm glad to live in a country where,
:       although limited, I *have* the power to choose (in most areas).

:       It's too bad the PK's can't practice somewhere where they could
:       "learn" a few much-needed lessons - say, in pre-splintered
:       C.C.C.P.  They could learn what it's like to be harassed, cajoled,
:       and finally subjugated - into the government's way of thinking.
:       (But all that's wishful thinking.)

Actually the Christian people in the former Soviet Union continued to 
live as Christians with many of them being hauled off to prison as a 
result.  Tests of true faith are few and far between in this country, I 
agree.  Imagine attending an underground church willingly, and knowing 
that at any minute the soldiers could come through the door and take you 
away from your family or worse.  I'm quite struck with awe at the courage 
these people showed... and now they are revitalizing their churches as 
never before (who says God doesn't answer prayer in abundance?) as people 
from all walks of life in Russia who had previously been starved of any 
kind of spirituality by the government now rush out to find their God.

: >Anyway, I hope this post made some sense to someone.  My plea is that we 
: >all be a little more tolerant of each other.  The Golden Rule has always 
: >been the best course of action ever taught.  It's funny.  People flame 
: >others on Usenet and then don't want those others to flame them back and 
: >get *really* insulted when they do.  

:       Only some - most expect it as a matter of free speech among heated
:       topics. I certainly hope you were. (expecting it)

Of course I was expecting flames.  Actually this has been a relatively 
tame discussion so far...  It's refreshing.  No flame email, no flame 
posts (that I've seen yet), and no personal insults.  It's nice.

: >Americans have a case of the selfishness disease as they have never had 
: >before.  Will it end with you?  I think that is what the Promise Keepers 
: >are really asking every year in Boulder.  Dropping the peripheral 
: >arguments and complaints and I really think that is what they represent.

:       That's your belief to what you think they're asking, and that's nice.

They don't want conformers... they want people who are willing to 
transform.  And they are wishing to reach out to others.  I don't have 
any problems with that.  This is what I am trying to convey, as I believe 
there are those who want to slam them (not you) with innuendo and gossip.

Thanks for the inputs.  I've enjoyed replying... lots to think about.
: | Steve Kramer  -- skramer@nyx.cs.du.edu  


-- 
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.