🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Oct 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971007145528.3025A-100000@flop.engr.orst.edu>,
> Tracy Hornschuch  <browntr@engr.orst.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 7 Oct 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> >[snipped]
> >> 
> >> You have a million men assemble in our nation's capital to do only ONE 
> >> thing -- pray to God on their knees in the heart of the nation -- and 
> >> all the media covers is all the people who see something sinister in 
> >> a group of men making the sign of the cross!
> >
> >I don't think that people are seeing the PKs as sinister....
> 
> On the contrary.  Did you watch any TV this weekend?  The NOW folks were out
> in force, and they were doing more to try to put the black hat on the PK
> people than the beltway journalists have done to Clinton in the last two
> years!

Yep... I watched HBO Saturday night... 'First Wives Club' was on at 8:00.
Interesting show... hahaha

But really, I watch the news from 5:00-7:00 every evening.  The talked
about PKs in Washington and my first thoughts were the ngs and the impact
it will have in them.  No where was it mentioned on the station that I
watched what the NOW organization had to say.  In fact they even showed
some of the Hubbies come home and their reaction to the PK.  As from an
earlier post on this subject I mentioned my reation to what one of the men
had to say...


> >but maybe just
> >maybe they are seeing them as a group of men who want to make women
> >subservient.  
> 
> Again, the Gospel (if you believe in such) is rather clear on the truth of
> this matter.  And again, it is the NOW folks who are pandering to this
> version of their beliefs, and not the PK people.  I watched CNN for quite a
> while this weekend, and the PK spokesmen who were on made this very clear --
> their views track that of the bible.

The Gospel... well I've read the Bible... front to back... no I can't
quote from it like most others, but I've read it.  I've also read a few
other Bibles in my time.  Talked to many others about their beliefs, etc.
I've also really listened to the vowes that are spoken during a wedding.

It isn't the NOW folks just saying this.  It has been around for a long
time and NOW hasn't been around as long.  Also, keep in mind that there
are people who use the words in the Bible to promote hatred of people
bacause of the color of their skin and/or because of what they believe.

> >Most churches teach women their *roles* in society.  These roles are are
> >to stay at home and raise the kids.  To take care of their husband.  Heck,
> >it is stated in the vowes when they are married.
> 
> Oh?  Can you cite a church where this actually happens?  I've not seen it,
> and I attend Catholic Mass every Sunday.  In fact, quite the opposite; I
> already quoted the sermon which was preached a few weeks back in which the
> pastor of what is clearly one of the most conservative branches of
> Christianity (Roman Catholic) made it quite clear that the Gospel 
> actually says on this matter.
> 

Yes I can... I used to go to a Mormon Ward in Corvallis OR.  Oh yes, they
wanted to set me up with a *good* husband.  Let's not talk about their
reaction why they found out that *I* took my *gift* from God to give birth
to more children away when I choose to have a tubal.

And let's not talk about the Catholic religion... my mother married a man
from that religion in the seventies, and I remember all to much of what I
was taught by not only my step-brother on *how to be a good wife/woman*
but also what I was told by the Catholic church....

Did I ever mention that I gone to a Catholic church?  I guess not!

> >Let's take a look at some things that are happening in society today.  How
> >about divorse.  
> 
> Why don't we talk about divorce in this context....  How do you end up in
> divorce court if you're a PKer?  Do you know *anything* about what this
> movement is about?  Its about keeping people *OUT* of divorce court above
> virtually everything else!  Or, at least, its about keeping them out *IF
> THEY WOULD END UP THERE BECAUSE THE MAN WAS ACTING LIKE AN ASS*, which men
> do sometimes engage in.

Yes I do know what they are wanting to do.  I do know.  As I've said I
have nothing against them but that they have a need to stick the Christian
religion in it.

And divorse happens.  Just like that, it just happens.  PK is for men, but
that doesn't mean that their wives won't have affairs and leave their
husbands.  No where is there a promise on the behalf of the women.  Now is
there?

> In fact, one of *THE* basic tenants of this movement is to be a *BETTER*
> husband, *BETTER* father, and *BETTER* man.  That is, no screwing around on
> your wife, no beating her (and/or the kids), no drunken foolery, none of the
> things which have this nasty habit of leading you right *INTO* divorce
> court!  And to buttress your own resolve as an individual, you pledge that
> your fellow PKer is your partner in keeping you on the straight and narrow.

I know this... there isn't any reason for you to go off like this....  You
must not have read everything I said.  Just read what you wanted to.

> The problem, of course, is that the man is only half of the reason that
> people end up in divorce court.  So now what do you have if the man in a
> relationship reforms through PK?  Why, now if you wind up in divorce court,
> its probably not because the guy wants to be there!  Perhaps its even the
> woman who files for divorce, wants the divorce, and perhaps, just perhaps,
> its because "the grass is greener on the other side of the yard" or she sees
> a nice fat paycheck with ZERO responsibility if she ditches Mr. Husband who
> brings her flowers and treats her like a Goddess all the time!

Or ditches Mr. Husband 'cause he wants her to stay at home and she wants
to work.

> > So one of these PKs end up in divorse court....  They find
> >thenselves facing a woman who they thought they married, but she's
> >changed.  
> 
> Yep. She took a set of vows, and now doesn't want to live up to them.

Yep and this happens now doesn't it?

> There's a reason that marriages in Christian faiths are called *COVENANTS*
> Tracy.  They're not contracts, they're not promises, they're COVENANTS.  
> You don't get to walk away from a covenant because you decide you're not
> "fulfilled" and want to sleep with Jack instead of Jeff.

Oh yes... and of course a man could want to sleep with Susan instead of
Kim.  Right?

Both men and women break those *covenants*... no joke.  I'm not arguing
that.

> Well, yeah, I guess you do - in this country.  Unless, of course, you
> married in Louisiana.  That change, by the way, needs to be made in all 50
> states.  You want a marriage in a Christian church?  Good -- you get a
> covenant marriage, and divorce is basically impossible for other than 
> proven (as in documented, charged and convicted) abuse within the law.

No actually I don't want to be married in a Christian church.  I'm too
much of a free-spirit to do that.  I cannot commit myself to one religion.
There is just too much to be gained by having an open mind.

> >Instead of making him dinner she now wants the house, the kids,
> >child-support, and because she stayed at home throughout the marriage...
> >she wants allomony.
> 
> Nowhere in what I've read about PKers does it say anything about "staying 
> at home and tending the kids" as being one of their basic tenants.  And
> besides, who wants out of the marriage?  If the woman wants to leave for
> other than reasons of abuse (ie: "I want Jack over there because he's better 
> in bed") and you got married under the *covenant* that you wouldn't do Jack,
> and further, that you'd raise your kids under Christian ideals, then go
> ahead and walk -- but IMHO you should get *absolutely nothing* in that
> circumstance.  

Nowhere is it mentioned that the women stay at home... Hum.. I don't think
so.  Maybe not all pratice that, but that is what is precieved in society.
Once again what I was talking about is not necessarily *MY* views but how
society is viewing it...  That could be totally different.

I guess the main difference between you and I is that I can see both
sides, you can only see your side.

> See, we don't even hold people to their *contractual* promises in a marriage
> in this country any more, say much less their *covenant* promises.  That
> needs to change; its a major reason half of all marriages end in divorce.

No 50% of divorses are not due to the fact that we don't hold people to
their promises.  The divorses happen because people give up to easy.  It
isn't society's responsibility to force two people to remain married....
OR *what*... maybe we (society) should force YOU to remain married.

> All this means nothing if the local Justice of the Peace married you.  
> Heh, then you have a deal under State governance, not under a religion.
> Once again, that's a choice, and its made freely by both parties.

Oh, then I should restate my statement above... The religion that married
you should *force* you to stay married.

> But if you get married in front of Jesus Christ, by a Priest, in a Church,
> then you ought to be prepared to either walk the talk or *don't do it*.

No joke... My arguement isn't on this...  This is one reason why I don't
go to church... If someone can't stick to it, they shouldn't be there.  If
you don't believe in something whole heartly... then stay away from it.

> Further, the state ought to respect that agreement you made before God and
> not abrogate it for other than the reasons allowed under *THAT* deal.

This I don't really argee with.  Because there are funny cults out there
that do some real strange things.  If the State stayed out, then there are
innocent children that can get hur.  Isn't this true?

> >I mean really now... I thought there were some men who did want to stay at
> >home while their wife worked.
> 
> There are.

Okay, then we must agree on something... 

> >Another big problem that many people have with the PKs is why
> >Christianity?  Personally I have no problem with the PKs.  I think it is
> >great that there are men out there in this world who want to make promises
> >along the lines of fatherhood and husbandhood.  But why Christianity?
> 
> Why not?  Don't we have a freedom of religion in this country?

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.  All
that they are accomplishing here is making themselves look like they are
just another Christian group with just another cause.  If they want to
change the way men in general and all men view themselves, marriages, and
fatherhood... then they need to start including other religions.

It should have to be based on the Bible.  To be a good father and good
husband should depend on the Bible.

> >There are many other religions in the world that preach basically the same
> >thing.  Why couldn't the PKs be just about making the promise to
> >themselves, their wives, and society.  Why bring God into it?  Why is it
> >that these men need an excuss to make this promis?
> 
> Because they want to.  Just like I support your right to bay at the moon in
> full nudity under the name of some Goddess if you want, or proclaim that
> there is no God at all.

I never said that there wasn't a God, or a Christian God.  You really have
no idea what I believe in do you?

> >But I cannot support such an organization
> >that doesn't support human rights as a whole.
> 
> Please document this.  I've seen no evidence of that behavior or lack of
> support, and my views towards the PKers would change in a heartbeat if I
> actually *DID* see evidence of that.

You will only see what you want to see.  I see from the heart.... I see a
bunch of men who mean well, but are not going about it in the right way.
They are leaving too many people out by depending on Christianity as their
source.

> >I don't support the NOW organization 'cause it seems to want to bash men
> >constantly and expects too much.  Personally I support single income
> >families... something the NOW organization would find bad 'cause most
> >people will assume that this means women must stay at home.
> 
> Special rights are not human rights.

I don't support special rights either.  Just the basic human rights.
There is a difference.

> >I support overall human rights.  Everyone's!  It shouldn't matter if
> >you're Christian or not.  It shouldn't matter if you're woman or man.  It
> >shouldn't matter what color your skin is.
> 
> The PKers have not, to my knowledge, said anything different than this.

they speak from the Christian Bible... that is all that needs to be said.

> If you have evidence that they have, I'd love to see it.  I've read a LOT
> about these folks in the last few weeks -- God knows, Time Magazine had them
> on the cover!  The sinister intent and displacement that people are claiming
> is going on is, at this point at least, completely without basis.

Well, Karl... I don't have *that* much time on my hands... I have kids to
support, feed, and take care of.  I would rather spend time with them then
to fnd proof.

The only proof that I need is the fact that they preach from the Bible and
not their hearts.  I've read the Bible and it does speak for itself.  And
like I've said, I've read several other *Bibles* from other religions.
Most say the same basic things and preach the same basic rules in life.

Why not start an organization that will promote good husbands and fathers
just because they are men... not because they are men and Christian.

What about the men out there who are not Christian?  What about the men
that are Jewish?

Show me proof where the PKers include Jewish men, and what they believe in
and support.

Tracy


browntr@engr.orst.edu                   | tracyh@teleport.COM
http://www.engr.orst.edu/~browntr/      | http://www.teleport.com/~tracyh/
I would like to find a man who wants    | Have you told your children
to be married and a father for life.    | you love them today?

"The only safe computer is a dead computer"