🚀 go-pugleaf

Monte wrote:

> 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.

Then it's a game of semantics, and the origins of ideals. If "religiously
moral"behavior can also be described as ethical, then who cares where the message
comes from?

And, rather than fighting over metaphysical rockpiles, the whole idea is religious
tolerance and freedom, as well as freedom from having to practice a mandated
religion. Just because the Palestinians and Jews battle, does not mean the Baptists
are going to send suicide bombers to Lutheran churches. The effects of religious
zealotry we see in other areas is precisely what our political system prevents.
Indeed, "it can't happen here"





>
>
> >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.

That's just it, what *is* the definition? Since Falwell hijacked the term, you
might feel it represents what he says. "The masses" pretty much make up their own
minds. They may follow many of Falwell's guidelines, but have nothing to do with
the man. His is simply a clever way of inferring he has more allies to his platform
than he actually has, and more reasonable people are unwilling, and often
unwitting, comrades. It's not as sharply dividing an issue as the clamor would
suggest, IMHO. We will neither perish in flames, nor will we be jailed for
Blasphemy.




>
>
> 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 don't think the term has been hijacked that specifically, or that powerfully. Gay
means homosexual, pure and simple. Family Values is a much more vague term with any
number of definitions. I don't believe one has to have a religious direction to
have family values - conversely, religious affiliation or devotion is not an
automatic indicator of having them.



>
>
> >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.

The ethics of most religions were developed long before the legislative process was
born. Our laws reflect much of that ethic. Of course - we can't repeal anti-abuse
laws because the church may endorse them.

Religion is a powerful part of our country, but the system does not run at its
bidding. It's a well thought out arrangement, and the relation between the two will
always be a source of action at some point. Just an ongoing part of a still-growing
nation and ideal. Religion will never be banned, nor will it ever have absolute
power.



>
>
> >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 think perhaps I, and others, have been a bit confused as to just which "Steve" is
talking LOL. I have responded to posts directed at him...whoops sorry.

Mathematics is my Achilles' heel BTW, to me the value of Pi is about $3.14 a slice
:)

I believe a whit, used in measuring differential values, is just a skosh shy of a
nudge, divided by a hint?.


>
>
> 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. ;)

That could take a while. Lemme ponder that one.



>
>
> >
> >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.

I disagree. I don't think the "religious right", or either extreme of  political
arms can obtain power, much less maintain it. The people aren't that stupid, and
the system, by its nature, prevents it.



>
>
> >> 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.

We computer/advertising artists throw them Ad Homineys around all the time.

I see very little difference between the approach, just opposite sides of the same
coin. One side warns of the power, etc of the other.

>
>
> >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.

Then, you get the point. I was observing the commonalties. Your language fell into
that level, IMHO.


>
>
> 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.

I was using the term in relation to narrow-mindedness, as in "the same thing".



> 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.

I found your observations of people of faith as "insane", among other things, to be
somewhat hysterical.




>
>
> 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. ;)

One can only hope.



>
>
> >> 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.

Just pointing out the seeming contradictions in your use of language, which quite
frankly, is just as, or more, alarmist as some religious "leaders".



>
>
> >> 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 am aware of what you are talking about. Hallucinations, belief in unseen, etc.
It's not an uncommon approach, but flawed.

Insanity is to Religion as a sneeze is to epileptic seizure.


>
>
> >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.

There are ways to define it, based on prediction of outcomes of certain behaviors.
It does not apply to every single thing under the sun, there are areas of
subjectivity - what's good for you isn't necessarily good for me, but we can both
agree that getting hit by a bus would be bad for the both of us. There are
absolutes, both through logic, and through the history of practice and results.
Proper watering of a houseplant is "good", that's fairly inarguable, given the
qualifier.

Of course one could argue that the action would be arguable in a drought, I
suppose.



>
>
> >> 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.

I'll ignore the professor part, as I know it is not sarcastic, merely a case of
mistaken identity.

That being said - Not being of the Academic faith, I am permitted certain liberties
:)


>
>
> >>
> >> 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?

No, but if you buy the premise, you may have been fooled, and may be promoting a
falsehood.



> 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.

Then perhaps, in believing that confrontation is based purely on religious
principles, you are perhaps similar to those deluded followers, and not looking
deeply enough.



>
>
> >
> >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.

The concept that people need faith is not an indication of a bad thing. A family
that perhaps discovers faith, or recommits, is not exactly the same as a family
that raises a passel of suicide bombers. There are degrees. You cannot use
religious zealotry, or appearance of same, to justify elimination of religious
influence on people. Folks who go in that direction have more in common than
zealots and fascism than they realize.



>
> >
> >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 won't respond to the mistaken identity premise, but I will say that spiritual
searches are as important to man as mathematical searches.



>
>
> 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.

That is taking examples to an extreme. In that reference, your reluctance to accept
people's faith would have you being labeled a facets.




>
>
> >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 President does not exist in a spiritual vacuum any more than he does in an
intellectual one. To decry his approach to faith is to decry any President's
approach to anything. All people in power bring their personal "baggage" to the
podium, and religious convictions are no less permissible than political
convictions.



>
>
> 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.

I don't have that problem. I know the differences, and the similarities, even who
in the history of our country held what view publicly.

And, the converse of that is, one cannot be a Christian Theist without being a
deist.

I am threatened by neither, nor should you be, our system protects us from each
other.




>
>
> >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.

We needn't fear government-mandated church attendance, so it's moot.

Just as moot is the donut bet, because that's not going to happen either, as it
clearly is in contradiction to our laws. However, if the majority of people
managing gov't at any given time happen to be people of faith, then it should not
be alarming that they follow their personal convictions. They should no more
dispose of them than they should any other convictions. You can vote for a satanist
if you want to.




>
>
> >
> >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!

If you knew me personally, you'd know that is laughable. However, I am defending
the concept of personal faith, group faith, and the effects t has on the gov't and
the country as a whole. I do not fear the leap of logic that would have me, or the
country,  subjugated by any religious group, even if there is a preponderance of
that particular faith evident in government policy makers.

All 'm saying is - if you have a problem with the message - let's take Falwell for
example - all you need do is ignore him. He has no power over you - you needn't
follow his advice. Just because he clearly is of a particular bent does not mean
that his ideals will triumph over yours. If so, then you might also fear turning
homosexual, or being forced into gay relationships because of Barney Frank.


>
>
> 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'.

My point entirely. You are all het up over nothing. Bush may be a "true believer"
as you put it, and he may govern from a position dictated in part by his faith, but
he is a President, not a supreme ruler for life. His personal beliefs will not
usurp the laws of the land. It's much ado about nothing.

The Other Steve,
Not a perfesser (but I sometimes play one on usenet)



>
> M