🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>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.)

>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...

>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.
 
      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.
      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.

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

      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 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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      (looks down)

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


>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..)

>bashing them for being radicals. 

      Free speech. Got something against it?

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

>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.

>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?

      Touche'. And checkmate.

>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.

>*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.

      (Except me. I like to get my flamethrowers and pit bulls out when I
      see 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.

      Therefore the group has no self-control.

      
>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.

      You're welcome.

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

      (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.

>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.

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

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

>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.)

>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)

>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.

>Take care and Best Regards to all.

      It's been sur-real.

>-- 
>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.


+=============================================================================+
| Steve Kramer  -- skramer@nyx.cs.du.edu   //There is no ache more deadly than|
|(other Inet addresses currently unstable) \\the striving to be oneself.      |
|"I've found it,I've found it!" Found what?//___________-Yevgeniy Vinokurov___|
|"The final component, the ultimate piece! *The last thingy!!* - Wakko Warner |
+=============================================================================+