🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:43:32 GMT, Steve <txdriver@attbi.com> wrote:
>Monte wrote:

>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:22:01 GMT, "Jenn" <jenn@jenn.net> wrote:
>> >Name one family whether a public family or your family that has not had its
>> >blemishes before. Most kids now are experimenting with alcohol and drugs.
>> >They would not be normal if they didn't. I don't agree with it but over 50%
>> >of kids are. Prince Harry was just busted for marijuana and alcohol last
>> >week.
>> Jenn,

>>   That's the point!  It doesn't matter apparently who the parents are,
>> and it seems there is a wide range of conditions that a kid can be
>> raised in and still turn out good or bad.  Any reasonably intelligent
>> or observant person knows this is true.  The thing that is dangerous
>> is having ideologues and religious fanatics who get into power and try
>> and legislate 'family values'.
>
>They have legislated "family values" for quite some time now. That ranges from
>laws against physical abuse to laws permitting abortion, encompassing
>educational requirements, child support/alimony, child restraints in vehicles.
>There's quite a long list of legislated values.
>The term  can be very broadly interpreted.
>The key to your expressed concern is "might", and "try". Our system  is
>designed to minimize that possibility. Cries against legislation of family
>values on the whole are generally a bit paranoiac, and for the most part, the
>balance of opinions and positions produces a livable, reasonable compromise,
>such as the legislation I mentioned.
>
I think you are confusing religious morals with ethics.  Not an
uncommon mistake lately, unfortunately.  I fully appreciate and accept
that no society can long exist wothout some enforcable ethical legal
structure such as our system of government provides.  Keep in mind
that many ethical, in fact I'd wager all of them are contained in any
major religious work.  But that does not make the ethical point a
brother of the religious moral with the one furnishing validity to the
other.  What is moral in one religion most certainly may not be so in
another.  If that were not so the religions wouldn't be fighting over
who has the biggest metaphysical rockpile.

>The fervor over the term as it stands, on both sides,  focuses on that term
>relative to the likes of Falwell, and their protests over a vague term tend to
>react to falwellesque philosophy, rather than the big picture.
>

I agree, but you have to accept the definition and perception as it
exists in the masses, for that is what is at stake: Not some academics
personal definition or even a definition which most reasoning people
might accept.  

Family Values has been usurped and corrupted exactly as the word 'gay'
has been usurped by organized homosexuals.  It may be sad that a term
or word falls into such a fate, but it does and you either accept that
and react to the new useage or you climb into some ivory tower and
debate it among those who will not have a say so. 

>I'll bet that those that get riled with the term, and warn of some dire
>formation of a moral dictatorship, would endorse many of the cited
>legislation's.
>
Once again, so?  Many laws are made for the wrong reasons or from a
misunderstanding or occasionally pure fraud, but some of those laws
actually have validity and worth.  The fact that some religious
faction adopts a perfectly valid and useful ethic as its own moral
does not change the nature or worth of the ethic.  Unless the ethic is
tossed out because of its associations and not its true nature and
worth.

>I can be a pro-family guy, who endorses many of falwell's ideals, without
>endorsing the man. After all, he's certainly not espousing radical, illogical,
>proven failures of philosophy - he's just politically attached to the term, and
>has hijacked the broader picture to suit his agenda. At this point, you may as
>well call it Falwell Family Values".
>

See above, that is what I have said and agree with.

>> There is not a whits difference in the end between the Islamic
>> fanatics and our own homegrown religious right.
>
>Rule number one. There is always  at the minimum a whit's difference in
>everything compared.

Odd statement from a mathematician.  Are you claiming the value of pi
would vary according to what is was called?  Besides you failed to
define with specificity the measure of a whit.  Is it an inch? a gram,
an angstrom?  ;)

I stand on my statement and point out that my whit is of such a value
that the two groups of religious fanatics do not differ in the whole
of my whit.  Now professor, I ask you to disprove that statement. ;)

>
>Perhaps if Falwell came into the absolute power some religious leaders have had
>and have now, there would be, if not regular public torture and grisly
>beheadings, etc, - our relative equivalent, perhaps scarlett letters, public
>stocks and the like.
>
Yes, that possibility has to be considered as having probability.  The
exact possibility I doubt is computable. However, I do not believe I
care to take the chance if I have a choice in the matter.

>> They are fanatics,
>> pure and simple.  GeeDub(the born-again) and his base supporters,
>> represented in the Whitehouse by Karl Rove are indistinguishable from
>> any other religious fanatic group in the world, which includes the
>> extinct(partially) Taliban.
>
>This is very typical extremist hate language, and is the mirror of the Falwell
>approach, exactly.
>

That declaration is pure ad hominem.  Unbecoming of one of your
claimed profession.  It is also incorrect.  

>The "whit's difference" being the more hysterical nature of the expression of
>opinion that often is a hallmark of liberal pronouncements. They tend to use
>the broad-brushed, often hypocritical fear factor approach. Battle the
>narrow-minded with a sharp, unwavering focus?
>
Now you furnish me an honest guffaw.  You just used the far lefts
'hate language' tag on me, a tag as common among that benighted group
as the 'racist' tag.  

As for battling with sharp, unwavering focus?  I plead guilty, if you
take time to notice I usually try my best to respond in the style and
manner(within reason) of those making statements or claims.  If some
are hysterical, or appear as mad-hattters, then if I think there is
some possibility of entertainment or rarely enlightenment, then I will
answer them as well as I can in a manner I think they will most easily
understand what I am saying. 

Just a courtesy, really. I know that is not the way of the pompous,
the pedantic, the academic egoists, but I was raised to respect the
other fellow.  Let him name the field and weapon, then take the
challenge and anihilate the bastard. ;) 

>> Just because a groups may say seemingly commonsense things in
>> perfectly normal manners, does not mean that all they say is
>> commonsense, normal, or even sane.
>
>And, you have proven that point quite well.

Condescending, ad hominem.  Professor(if you truly are), that ill
becomes your position.

>> The fact is anyone who holds a
>> religious view so aggressively as the christian religious right, the
>> fundamentalist jew or the fundamentalist muslim, is by definition and
>> demonstrably insane.
>
>When you preface opinions with the term "the fact is" , it immediately shows
>you have little grasp of facts.
>
>The fact is, you exhibit a shallow, dogmatic, paranoiac and extremely limited
>understanding of the nature of religious faith and people who hold same.
>
Whoops you err, herr professori!  What I described is in fact a
fore-shortened definition of one form of mental illness(insanity)
which is to be found in almost every major work in psychiatry.  If you
are going to challenge a fact, I remind you to reflect on your
training in mathematics and logic.  Check your OWN facts first.

>I'm quite sure you would scoff at people who question your ideals, that while
>different, seem just as firm and delusionary as those you decry.
>
No, in fact I would find anyone suspect who accepted anothers ideals
on face value.  I do scoff at those who do not have a more or less
coherent set of ideals( I do not include anyone under the age of 35,
and I am probably being generous on the young side with that).  Few I
suspect have ever completely tested their beliefs against their
ideals, but at least the more you make the attempt the more apt you
are to make consistent statements and actions.

Does that imply that all or any ideals are necessarily good?  Of
course not, for the simple reason good is a subjective term.

>> Before someone jumps in and points out just how
>> sane acting a specific leader is, let me remind them that Bundy,
>> Gacey, Kazinski, Manson, Fabrikant, all can and do hold or held
>> perfectly normal conversations.  Hitler appeared normal in some
>> circumstances.  Insane does not mean over the top schizophrenic
>> psychopath exclusively.
>
>True, you haven't gone totally over the top. There's a couple of rungs left to
>go yet.

Why,Bless your heart(southern sarcasm dripping), how simply
condescendingly sweet of you to notice professor.    

>>
>> Our mistake as I see it, is the moderate majority of this country and
>> perhaps in the world, are shutting off the obvious: Which is the fact
>> that you cannot deal with those in power who are religious zealots in
>> the same manner as you deal with normal corrupt or power mad leaders.
>
>If you look a little deeper into history, and the motivations of leaders,
>you'll find that all aggressions, rises to power, wars, etc are fought for a
>reason. Differences in faith have been used as the rallying cry in many
>instances - but in fact, regardless of the faith of those involved, or what
>excuses they use along those lines, real estate is the primary motivation for
>conflict.

And you are saying that using a religious argument to hide a greed
cause is somehow a mitigation?  Consider this, the only reason that
religion is used is for precisely the reason Machiavelli posited in
the 'Prince'.  Religion is something the masses require, therefor you
assume the false mantle, couch all actions in the religious frame and
you will be a successful ruler...until you run up against another with
more religious fervor, better weapons and more deluded followers.


>
>Oddly enough, the country is not shutting off one "obvious", and really never
>has -that faith is important. In fact, the populous seems to be "discovering"
>faith in greater numbers, even prior to 9/11.

See above, my reference to Machiavelli.
>
>This must have you quite frightened, given your alarmist and paranoid hatred of
>people of faith.
>
Aha!  give them enough whitespace to fill and the time to do it and
there true foundations will shine through.  You professor are a
damnable fraud!  Yes, hide and attack with the mantle of academia,
falsely using science to dabble in the mystical.  Go back too your
kneeling pad and continue your search for a mathematical proof of an
imaginary deity which you have created in your own image. 

I offer up that you would be more entertained and much less of a
threat to your fellow man if you took up casting chicken bones in the
backyard at midnite on the full moon.


>I'm curious about the specifics of your fears - like how you think Bush's faith
>will directly affect you personally.
>

Our Constitution, our system of government, our success, such as it is
in this short historical period of time is based very much on the
precept of keeping the laws and institutions of this land as secular
as is humanly possible.  People such as GeeDub Bush, and more
imprtantly his backers and supporters, do not see America in that
light.  I think I am right, I believe that all the writings of those
involved in the creation of this country also held to that view in the
most part.  No, it is not impossible to both be a deist and a holder
of the view I just expressed.  It is perfectly logical in fact.
religion is a personal thing, maybe the most personal, and if you are
trying to construct a government system that hopes to successfully
endure while governing a very disparate group of humans you must
segregate out as many purely personal factors as you can.

A common mistake made by many, and I now place you in this group, is
that being a deist(someone who believes in a supreme being) is the
equivalent too someone being a christian theist. Complete your
education professor, your ignorance outside your specialty is showing
like pantaloons on a mini-skirted teenybopper.

>Are you afraid of mandated church attendance? Are you concerned that your views
>will get you put in jail, or beheaded? Just what exactly are you afraid of???
>Why are people of faith, in the context of the American political structure,
>such a tremendous threat to you?

Read what you just wrote.  Would you accept mandated church
attendance?  Would you accept an official 'bible'? What if it was the
Book of Mormon?  How about the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead'?  Or how
about Scientology as being the only allowable religion?  I doubt you
would.  But I'd bet a donut you'd spend hour upon hour justifying the
making of the King James version of the New Testament the official
bible of America.

>
>If you think real hard, I think you'll see who just leans towards psychosis on
>the subject. Hysterical paranoia is by definition, psychosis.

More or less that is a fair definition, but I am not the one
exhibiting hidden religious zealotry.  You sir, have done so
abundantly!

I am perfectly willing to defend anothers rights to their beliefs,
religious or otherwise, I am not however, willing to extend that to
their usurping this nations tenets and turning it into a relious
enclave, ruled by the 'true believers'.
M