🚀 go-pugleaf

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!

>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.

>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.

>So there are many people, both men and women, who do not feel that this is
>correct...  

Then don't follow people or associate with those who believe that it is.

This is a matter of free choice.

>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.

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.

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!

> 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.

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.

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.

>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.  

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.

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.

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*.
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.

>Now where does this leave this man and this woman?  And what about the
>kids?

See above.

>You can't blaim NOW for men's problems in court when there are wanting a
>wife to stay at home and raising the kids.  You can't.  In fact you should
>be thanking NOW for trying to get more women in the work force.

Oh, yeah.

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

There are.

>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?

Obviously not, when marriage and divorce are concerned (religion and its
commitments are not respected in this country in that context).

>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.

>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.

But I haven't.  All I've seen is NOW apologists bashing the hell out of the
group.  The only excuse I can see them coming up with is twofold:

1)	It will remove the excuse from all the women involved in those
	marriages who decide to get a divorce and "be a real woman" that
	their husband was a dirty lying, cheating, gambling and drinking
	pain in the ass.  They'll have to face the responsibility for
	walking away from their kids, homes, and COVENANTS.  That pisses 
	NOW off, so they bash it.

2)	IF the PKers turn political, its big trouble for NOW.  Christianity
	and abortion, among other things, just don't mix.  So instead of
	trying to find ACTUAL evidence that these folks have a sinister
	agenda, which people like me would actually listen to, NOW bashes
	them instead.  I can only surmise that this is because there *IS NO
	EVIDENCE* of this activity or any intent to engage in it.

>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 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.

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.

--
-- 
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