🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971007201300.17640C-100000@flop.engr.orst.edu>,
Tracy Hornschuch  <browntr@engr.orst.edu> wrote:
>
>Karl,
>
>First off I will tell you up front ... don't you ever call me a bigot ever
>again.  That is something I am not.  

On the contrary.  When you condemn people and *demand* that they follow
*your* path or you will call them all kinds of ugly names then that's
exactly what you are. 

FYI, religious tolerance means more than just you being left alone to do
what you want with whatever path you choose.  It means leaving *other
people* alone to do likewise, and taking action *only* when said paths
will cause direct and immediate harm.

>You sit there on your ass and tell
>people who to live their lives when yours is a far cry from being prefect.
>I have been involved in these issues.  But I get involved for the children
>not for myself, not for women, and not for men.  But for the children.  Or
>what did you forget your child?!

Your attacks had *nothing* to do with the children in PK marriages.  If they
did, you'd have nothing to attack.  The national media has *tried* to frame
the PKers in the black hats in this fashion *AND HAS FAILED*.

Why don't you address the point Tracy?

>> And both Newsweek and TIME ran stories on the rally, and actually (gasp)
>> interviewed a few *wives*, all of whom are very happy (surprise!) that their
>> husbands are involved in PK.
>
>Oh yes these women are happy... sure.  You're the only one here who's
>arguing this.  I'm not!  I'm basing my statements from what I've heard
>from society and trying to answer the question why?

You're basing your statements on what your "heart" tells you.  I'm basing
them on what reporters have printed in media of national circulation, and
what television investigative reporters (both of who have made their 
LIFE'S WORK exposing fraud) have been able to say in print and on the 
air.  There's a heck of a difference here - those people have to answer
for their statements to the public.

I accept that before I accept anecdotal evidence from *one* source.  So 
far I have CNN, TIME, and Newsweek all corroborating the point which I 
have made.  Since I don't know *any* PKers personally, this (and Patricia
Ireland's rants on CNN) is the sum total of my knowledge base.

>Just because you have a personal thing against me..  dont' confuse the
>issues here.

Huh?  I'm pointing out your own internal inconsistency in your argument.
Nothing more or less.  If you've got a problem with that, well, gee, stay
out of the kitchen.  My point has nothing to do with personal anything.

>And if you must... sorry dear but I heard it from one of the horses mouths
>stating that "he drives the *bus* in the house; afterall, someone must."
>In other words, he wears the pants in the house, he is the one who makes
>the choices.  That isn't a two-way road... it is simply a one-way road.

Where was his wife?  What if she *WANTS* it that way?  Is there something
wrong with two people negotiating a position which they find to be perfectly
acceptable in their lives?  Since when do *you*, say much less anyone else,
get to dictate how a particular family "should" live?

That's the entire point.  You're pissed off about this because over 1
Million people have found a path which *to at least some extent* you
disagree with personally, but *WHICH IS WORKING FOR THEM*.  It is, frankly,
none of your business what happens behind their bedroom (or front) door
*as long as all of it is consensual between the parties* and nobody 
(including the kids) gets hurt.

>> So why not make such a violation something which becomes something more than
>> a guilty conscience?  It *is* within all other areas of our life.  Its not 
>> here.
>> 
>> Why not?
>
>Once again your statement here is strickly personal and has no bearing in
>this arguement.

Nonsense.  You brought up the divorce rate.  I brought up one potential way
to reduce it -- markedly.  In my *particular* situation it would not apply,
so your charge of "strictly personal" is balderdash.  

Please try to stay on topic.

>> >Because if they want to be on the good side of people who are not NOW like
>> >me and others... they should stop preaching from the Christian Bible.  
>> 
>> Why?
>
>Just take a good hard look at history.  It speaks for itself.

Ok, so let's see.

I'm sure somewhere along the line of your family tree, REGARDLESS OF YOUR
HERITAGE, some ancestor of yours was an ass and abused someone.  This is
true of white people, black people, yellow people, or green people from 
Mars.  Its true of people in GENERAL.  So let's stop with the history
crap, because that's what it is - crap.  

People use that as a cheap excuse to dismiss those who they don't want to
face as doing something *right* for a change.  

Can the Bible be used to justify horiffic actions?  Sure.  How many people
were "purified" during the Crusades?  11 Million?  At a time when the 
population of the world was some 1/5th of what it was during WWII?

Does that damn EVERY person who worships the Christian God?  Yes?

Ok, let's go to Islam.  We have a holy war going on *right now* over in
Israel.  Guess what -- BOTH SIDES kill people based on "religious
rightousness".  Scratch the Jews and Muslims off the "Good" list.

You can repeat this exercise with every religion of the world -- including 
Native American.  Some Tribes were very much war-like and killed others in
non-warlike tribes without cause (well, ok, other than wanting their land,
horses, women, etc).  Again, scratch that religious calling.

Keep going and you end up with only the atheists.  But you have to scratch
those too, since people have killed without using the name of God too --
over property, money, or just plain greed.

So we have no "good people" left.

Do you get the idea yet?

Claiming that "history" demands that we damn anyone who uses Christianity
(or any other religion) as the basis for their actions is a bigoted
statement.  It is bigoted *precisely* because every other spiritual path
and non-spiritual path has led to exactly the same kind of abuse.  

The problem isn't Christ, or Buddha, or the Sun God.  Its the people
involved.

>> And you're right about that.  It doesn't depend on it.  But these men have
>> chosen that framework.  If you TRULY believe in the First Amendment, then
>> you have to divorce yourself from religious intolerance.  
>
>You made statements that the PKers don't close out other religions, and
>your statement is false!

I made no such statement.  I said that the PKers have every right to choose
under the First Amendment the basis for their beliefs and framework.  You
stated that you wouldn't support them until they welcomed Jewish people.
I said in response that you had no right to make such a demand.

>Something the PKers don't.  If so prove it!  Otherwise... shut the fuck up!

My, what nice language.

I support the PKers *right* to choose the Bible as the framework of their
faith and belief system.  Just as I support your right to organize a secular,
non-religious group of similar goal.  Just as I support NOW's right to march
in Washington even though their message is one of bigotry and hatred, not to
mention illegal discriminatory practice and hypocrisy of the highest order.

The First Amendment is one of the toughest to support -- because it is
precisely *OFFENSIVE SPEECH* that it protects.  Nobody tries to ban any 
other kind!

>> >You will only see what you want to see.  I see from the heart.... 
>> 
>> In other words, you have no evidence.  That's nice.  Its pretty close to
>> what people in this country felt about people of color 100 years ago.  
>> You know, that people with dark skin were stupid, lazy, criminals.... 
>> all with no evidence of course, but they "saw from the heart" and so
>> it had to be right.
>
>No Karl, read your history books... it was a bunch of *good* Christians
>who believed that.  It was Christians who caused and supported slavery.

And it was Islamics and Jews who have, for 2,000 years, fought each other
over pieces of land that each claim to be holy for *THEIR* religion.  So
what?  People label people.  People do bad things under the color of
authority of God.  This is a surprise?

>How many people died in the hands of a so-called *good* Germany Christian
>named Hitler?  And why?  Because they were not Christian...

Non-sequitor.  You are fixated on things which one group claimed to do under
God's authority, ignoring the rest.

I've already conceded the point that people use God as a shield for actions
which have no conscience and no basis in reality, say much less which are
just plain wrong.  Historically, it happens all the time.

That doesn't invalidate that the *majority* of people who are Christians, or
Jews, or Muslims, don't and haven't over the years practiced these horiffic 
acts.

>> Why is it that for a group to be "good" it has to include an acceptance
>> policy that is on *your* terms?  Isn't this an extreme position that is
>> guaranteed to lead to divisiveness and conflict?
>
>No it would bring more people together.  Heck I wouldn't mind seeing in
>this country before I die a Jewish or Islamic President.  Why not?  But
>no, we live in a country that still damns people based on their religion.
>
>And once again YOU stated that the PKers don't descriminate... but they
>do, now don't they?

Where did I state that?  

I said that the PKers have *every right* to make the basis of their faith
and message the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I also said that you have every right to speak against them if you'd like,
but that it would be far more productive if you actually used a factual
basis for your argument rather than an act that someone's great-great-great
grand-dad did 150 years ago.

>> There isn't much point in discussing things like this when the basis for
>> someone's beliefs is "I just know in my heart", and that's the end of the
>> debate.
>
>Oh yes, it wasn that feeling in my heart that told me where my children
>were when they were kidnapped... It was that feeling in my heart that
>said.. hey something is really fishy with a person I used to talk to
>through email, and I was right!

Again, no evidence.

>You show me proof that they do not descriminate.  You can't!

I've not said that they do not discriminate.  They do - their message is
based on the Bible, and to join you must be willing to believe in that
message.  If you don't, they are not for you.

So what?

If you join NOW, you support their views.

If you join the ACLU, you support their views.

If you vote Democratic, you support their views.

All of these organizations "discriminate".  So what?  All of them <believe>
they are doing the "right thing".

So you put the black hat on one which bases their model for life on Jesus
Christ, but are oddly silent about the rest.

>Until you can prove that they do not promote descrimination I really have
>nothing more to say to you.  But you continue to slam me and put words
>into my mouth I'll continue.  I suggest that you stop.
>
>Tracy

Is that a threat?  So noted.

You entered this thread first Tracy, and you can choose to leave it.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal