Conference yukon::christian_v7

15.1  Kevorkian....

All this will do is tie the Doctor up for a time.  The Bible was once 
mistakenly mistranscribed to say "Thou shalt commit adultery" leaving the
"not" out by accident.  Those monks (?) were fines 300 pounds (I believe
that was the fine) for their error.

They won't be able to prove it was anything more than an erroneous copy,
is my opinion.  But if the strategem is to put a [temporary] stop to this,
I'd say it may work.

    >Lynn Mills, an activist with the militant anti-abortion group
    >Operation Rescue, 
    
    Intreresting characterization!

re: 15.2
    
The excitement in Waco has been at the top of the news here
in Austin, TX.  The stupidity of it all has me practically 
speechless.  I fear more people will die needlessly.

Dear Lord, I pray that you will bring some sanity to this 
situation and guide the people to a peacable conclusion.
             
Otto

    I just went back and read 15.2... sigh, how awful.  No wonder folks
    feel badly towards people who name the name of Christ.
    
    One thing I agree with is that we are in the last days.  I cannot even
    express the revolt I feel at reading this.
    
    Nancy

    Re: Note 15.5 by I8UU82::BALSAMO
    
>Subject: Cultists believe their leader can open mysterious Seven Seals
>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 9:35:05 PST
>	Revelation, believed to have been written by St. John the Devine,
>describes a vision in which the Lamb of God opens the seals on a scroll.
    
    Devine?  Isn't it spelled Divine?

.5

Tony doesn't write the reports; he just copies them and supplies them for
our reading pleasure.  The misspelling is (I believe) on the part of the
news writer.

    We will have people like Howell/Koresh around until the LORD comes
    again.  The bible indicates that demoniacs/antichrists/wackos (take
    your pick) will abound in the last days and their existence tells me
    that He is coming soon.  However, I am deeply grieved by those who
    follow such as these.
    
    Dave

   re: 16.5 <AUSSIE::CAMERON>

   See .6

   Thanks, Mark!

   Tony

You are most welcome.

    
    
    >Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who represented the five women, said McGowan's
    >ruling could mean women will be allowed to bare their breasts wherever
    >they want.
    
    What's this world comming too!

I saw a similar case on New York news last summer.  Of course the video was 
blurred because the FCC does not yet feel the freedom of these women.
The news went to a beach and relayed the courts findings.  A few daring
women took off their tops (facing the ocean) but ran for cover when some
"interested" but not so "interesting" men came along.

The Movement has progressivley been to desensitize the populace.  
Where is the balance between toplessness and full coverage (as in
some of the strict Moslem countries)?

That oh-so-elusive line between decency and perversion (abuse of intended
purpose): we all define it differently, but the line is there somewhere,
despite *our* definitions.

Mark

   re: 16.11 Public Nudity etc...

       FWIW, I do believe that there is a double standard.  From a Christian
   perspective, just as topless women could/does cause men to stumble, so to
   bare chested men can have the same effect on women (so my wife tells me).
   The Bible does call for modesty in dress.  But pagan society, especially
   American society, is male dominated and therefore holds a double standard
   on this.  If women had been calling the shot, male toplessness would be the
   crime and female toplessness the norm.

       As a Christian male, I try to be sensitive to this: the only time that
   I will allow myself to be bare chested in public is my occasional visit to
   the beach in the summer.  And even then, if I thought that I was attracting
   attention, I probably wear a top when not in the water.

   In Christ,
   Tony Balsamo

    IMHO, proper dress (whatever it may be to keep would be sinners from
    not doing so) is required. I often think about the early times right
    after the fall, when 'man' was sinful yes, but had not "experienced"
    too much indecency. What would father Abraham or Adam thought?? What
    was the dress God gave Adam and Eve? Did God completely cover Eve as
    the Moslem's do, I doubt it. Did God only provide Adam with a skin for
    the loins?? I do not know, but I doubt that too.
      The sinfulness of these times will hardly compare to what is coming!
       PDM

    
    re: tony
    
    	Your reply was a hoot... I'm not downplaying it in the least
    though.  I'm just thinking about it...
    
    	We all know there is a double standard, but somehow it is deemed
    acceptable.  
    
    	Then again, I do think back to all those times I've went topless
    playing hoops in the summer heat...  Never really thought that the
    opposite might stumble.  Stumble laughing maybe, but never stumbling
    to sin...
    
    	Is it summer yet?  I'm sick of the cold!  I wanna sweat again!
    
    bill..g.
    

    Re: Note 16.6 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
>Tony doesn't write the reports; he just copies them and supplies them for
>our reading pleasure.  The misspelling is (I believe) on the part of the
>news writer.
    
    Yes, I know that they are copied.
    
    What I wanted to know is whether the word was spelled correctly
    according to the writer's dialect.  You have answered my question.
    
    I keep watch for such words because we have so many dialect specific
    spelling correction products down under...  university lecturers used
    to warn us that we'd lose marks if we used a spelling checker because
    it would spell everything in murrikan, which they didn't know how to
    read... ;-)
    
    James

>   >Lynn Mills, an activist with the militant anti-abortion group
>   >Operation Rescue, 
    
>   Interesting characterization!

           Yeah, the mixture is interesting:  from militant to anti-
           abortion groups to right-wing conservatives to Right-To-Life
           groups.  I like RTL, but the other side hates it, 'cause it
           doesn't fit their agenda... like "how dare you say 'we' don't
           want life?"
           
           re: 15.3
           
>          The American Civil Liberties Union planned to file a lawsuit
>          Monday against the law, which Kevorkian has vowed to defy.

           But these guys, I 'love' the best... what would we do w/o
           them...  :-(
           
           And, I saw this Dr. Death on Street Stories last night, and I
           hope he's PUT IN PRISON FOR LIFE OR STARVES!  Sorry for being
           so insensitive... guess I should pray for him, too... he needs
           it BAD!!!
           
           Steve
           
           "and right will be called wrong and wrong will be called
           right?"  HOW TRUE IT HAS BECOME!!!
           

>           "and right will be called wrong and wrong will be called
>           right?"  HOW TRUE IT HAS BECOME!!!
           


See Isaiah 5:20

15.11> Title:  Major urges television producers to curb violence

I wonder if these people who draw a parallel to media violence and
the violence inthe streets would also consider drawing the parallel
between pornography and sexual abuse in all its ugly forms.

>.13
>
>	``Randall Terry's terror tactics, which seek to deny women their
>constitutional right to choose, did not and will not succeed,'' Abrams
>said.

Whenever I see "constitutional right to choose" I wish they'd
finish the sentence: "right to choose to kill their young" for
this is what society is attempting to legalize.

	Hmm,

	I heard Paul Harvey on the radio at 12ish today.  I only caught
	part of what he was saying, but it went something like this:

	"if I were the devil, I'd see that God was banned from all
	classrooms and courtrooms, and I replace all religious leaders
	with psychiatrists.  I'd allow violence and promiscuity on
	television, and I'd make it acceptable for you to remove
	your clothes in public places..."

	it went on, then the last line was:

	"in short, if I were the devil, I'd just keep doing the
	things I'm doing today"

	Today's "Religion in the News" additions kind of echo the
	sentiment, huh ?

    As a follow on to Mark M., I heard that there may be a *very*
    interesting case coming up soon regarding "constitutinal rights" and
    such with regard to abortion.  (I heard this as I was listenting to
    Rush L. while going to a Dr.'s appt. last Thursday.)  It seems that
    there is a Dr. in New York who attempted an abortion on an 8-month
    pregnant woman (they both claim that she didn't know how far along she
    was).  The result is that there is now a healthy 2-year old girl,
    except that she has no right arm as a result of the abortion attempt. 
    The Dr. is now being charged with various assault and murder-attempt
    charges.  This case has the potential to press the rights of the unborn
    issue.            
    
    Mark L.

>	"if I were the devil, I'd see that God was banned from all
>	classrooms
    
    Interesting -- another tidbit from the visit of Peter Dugulescu from
    Romania (he is the first evangelical member of Parliament there):  in
    Romania, the right to read the Bible and pray in school is now
    *guaranteed by their constitution*.
    
    Mark L.

   re: 15.17 < 'Old Glory' condom wins trademark appeal >

       They just don't get it, do they.  Heard a preacher say once, "The best
   protection you can wear against the spread of STD is a wedding ring".  I
   like that.

   Tony

15.17>

>	The company logo consists of a flag-like image in the shape of an
>unfurled condom.

And an Asherah pole was a huge carved phallus found in idolotrous Israel,
polluted by the nations around them.

>	The company's motto notes that ``we believe it is patriotic to
>protect and save lives.'' The company said that part of its profits are
>donated to safer sex education and AIDS related services.

This is plain stupid.  Safer than what?  It is like taking one or two 
bullets out of a six shooter only to increase the number of times you pull
the trigger at your head is safer "Russian Routlet."  Abstinence and
monogamy is the only safe sex and these by themselves do not *prevent*
HIV from happening through other means.

MM

   re: 16.23 <TOKNOW::METCALFE>

   >>The company logo consists of a flag-like image in the shape of an
   >>unfurled condom.
   >
   >And an Asherah pole was a huge carved phallus found in idolotrous Israel,
   >polluted by the nations around them.

       "phallus"!  Gee, had to look that one up in the dictionary.  Now that I
   know what it is; how do you know that that is form the Asherah pole took?
   Certainly not from Scripture.  But is does makes sense, since their shrines
   enlisted prostitution as a form for worship to their god.

   Very interesting,
   Tony

Asherah is the same as Ashtoreth.

>   Now that I
>   know what it is; how do you know that that is form the Asherah pole took?
>   Certainly not from Scripture.

I do not have the right study bible to answer this at work; I believe
it is at home.  So, I'll answer off the cuff, as it were.

A study of ancient civilizations shows this to be true: the statue for
asherah or ashtoreth was a phallus often cut from a tree, by lopping
off all the branches and making the approriate carving.  The "grove"
indicated in Judges 6:25-32 was probably a grove of these staues to 
"the phonecian goeddess."

In fact, the reference to grove in the KJV has the number 842 (Strong's
reference to the Hebrew/Chaldee) which says:

  842.  asherah; from 833; happy; Asherah (or Astarte) a Phonecian godess;
also an image of the same: -grove.

Taken with 833:

  833:  ashar; a pimary root; to be straight (used inthe wildest sense, 
especially to be level, right, happy); flg. to go forward, be honest,
prosper: -(call, be)bless(ed, happy), go guide, lead relieve.

  If someone has other studt material they can readily provide, it 
would be welcome.

Mark

A little more:

KJV says grove; 
Amplified says "cut down the Asherah that is beside it";
NASB says the same as Amplified.
NIV says "cut dow the Asherah pole." with notation:

  That is, a symbol of the godess Asherah; here and elsewhere in judges.
  
Now, all I need it to confirm from what source said this symbol was a 
phallus.  I know that it was recently stated in a sermon, but I'll find
some book also to confirm this, if you like.

    Although I am unable to provide a direct quotation at this time (since
    my books are about 900 miles away), I can attest from memory of another
    source -- an article in Rotherham's "Emphasized Bible" --  that the
    meanings of Ashtoreth and such are as Mark M. says.
    
    Mark L.

    
    
    Condoms do not stop nor do they even help stem the spread of aids. The
    size of the HIV virus is .1microns, the size of the pores in the best
    condoms are 5 microns. You do the math.  Let's be patriotic and tell
    the public the truth for once!

    
    
    >This case has the potential to press the rights of the unborn issue.
    
    My wife took care of a 24 week old preemie last nite.
    
    

   re: 16:25 <TOKNOW::METCALFE>

       Thanks for the info.  It's not necessary to provide sources; I believe
   you.

   Tony

    Re: Note 15.11 by I8UU82::BALSAMO
    
>            -< Major urges television producers to curb violence >-
    
    Hmmm.  My wife and I decided when we got married in '88 to not have a
    television receiver.  We haven't got kids yet... I wonder how they'd
    survive the society without TV?

    Re: Note 16.28 by AOSG::YACKEL
    
>   Condoms do not stop nor do they even help stem the spread of aids. The
>   size of the HIV virus is .1microns, the size of the pores in the best
>   condoms are 5 microns. You do the math.  
    
    Science has told us that they don't get through.
    I guess water surface tension becomes significant at that scale?
    Maybe they could crawl around the outside?
    
    Whether the virus can or cannot get through is somewhat irrelevant - 
    any benefit from the compaign to use condoms is more likely due to the
    increased awareness of STDs and the increased partner selection process
    that people will employ.
    
    James

A doctor once told me he had little faith in the efficacy of using condoms 
against aids, noting that pregnancies still occur when condoms are used.

(We'd been talking about blood transfusions at the time, and the topic kind 
of "drifted")

Chele

    Re: Note 16.33 by GIDDAY::BURT
    
>A doctor once told me [...]
    
    A country based doctor told me last year that virgin births are not as
    unusual as people often think...  it was around three or four of his
    patients in the past 20 years or so.
    
    God must've designed very well to get this human multiplication system
    working so effectively...
    
    James

As for condoms, consider the data on a condom being 98% effective for
preventing pregnancy:

A woman is fertile 10% of the time (3 days out of 30, roughly)
A woman is infertile 90% of the time (27 out of 30)
A woman is the only one who can get pregnant.

Why am I going slow?  I want to illustrate what 98% effective really means.

Condom effectiveness deals with 100% of condom usage, even during the 27
days out of 30 that a woman is infertile.  To have a defective rate of 2%
(two percent), that is, 2 out of 100 women can get pregnant using the condom
as birth control, the failure CAN ONLY OCCUR during the 3 fertile days.

If the failure can occur only during the fertile days, which is the only
way to gather data on success and failure, then we cannot really say
condoms have a 98% effective rate, can we?  We know it to fail 2%
of the time (how?) during the fertile period (which is 10% of the
actual time).  2% failure X 10% fertile may equal up to 20% actual
failure rate of the condom.

To married couples, they don't care too much because 18% of the failure
rate occurs during the unfertile period (only %2 fails resulting in
pregnancy).  

So, unless you know when your fertility period begins and ends, you'll
be shooting with a 5-chamber gun with one bullet and playing russian
roulet.  Do you like those odds?

Mark

    Re: Note 16.31 by AUSSIE::CAMERON

>    Hmmm.  My wife and I decided when we got married in '88 to not have a
>    television receiver.  We haven't got kids yet... I wonder how they'd
>    survive the society without TV?
    
    Believe me (and I think Gil), they do *quite* well. :-)  Besides that,
    I think they become better readers.  So, *when* (not if, I hope) you
    have kids, don't think that the television needs to be added to the
    family.
    
    Mark L.

      <<< Note 16.35 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>If the failure can occur only during the fertile days, which is the only
>way to gather data on success and failure, then we cannot really say
>condoms have a 98% effective rate, can we?  We know it to fail 2%
>of the time (how?) during the fertile period (which is 10% of the
>actual time).  2% failure X 10% fertile may equal up to 20% actual
>failure rate of the condom.

I don't think this is correct. If it fails 2% of the time in the fertile
period (3 days) then it will also fail 2% of the time for the next 3 days,
and 3 days, and 3 days, a 3 days... In a month, say of 30 days, you just
break the month into 10 groups of 3 days. Each group of 3 days has a failure
rate of 2%... So, the month has a failure rate of 2%. I believe that
you average percentages, not add them...

But I could be wrong - I got an F the first time I took Statistics in school.

/Scott

>If it fails 2% of the time in the fertile
>period (3 days) then it will also fail 2% of the time for the next 3 days,
>and 3 days, and 3 days, a 3 days... In a month, say of 30 days, you just
>break the month into 10 groups of 3 days.

You are correct - IF the statistic was BASED ON 3 DAYS.

BUT the statistic for condom effectiveness is based on condom use and
NOT fertility period.  We only SEE the failure of a condom by evidence
of a pregnancy.  

In other words, if someone uses condoms for 30 days (more power to him)
there is [statistically] a 2% failure rate.  How does one KNOW that
a failure has occurred?  A pregnancy results.  A pregnancy cannot result
unless the woman is fertile.  The 2% failure is based on 30 [statistical]
condoms of which 27 are unnecessary because the woman cannot get
pregnant during an infertile period.  Because 27 are unnessary, you
cannot KNOW the "failure" rate during this time.  In other words,
using no condom, you will have 100% effectiveness against pregancy
during 27 days, and 100% effectiveness of getting pregnant during
3 days (allthings being equal).

Now, I can make these stats more conservative:  Sperm can live inside a
woman, if the conditions are right which may extend the "fertility"
period to up to 5 days, and we can shrink some women's cycles down
to as little as 3 weeks in some cases (poor women).  When this occurs,
the "window" of probability for preganancy changes.

The point is the makers of condoms and medical agencies claim the condom to
be 98% effective for preventing pregnancy.  2% of those who use condoms
regularly result in a pregnancy.  Pregnancy can only result in a woman
in roughly 10% of the time (3 days of the month) under any circumstances.
Condom statistics can only be measured during the fertile period even
though the condom is used (unnecessarily) during the infertile period.

Let me put it to you this way.  If a couple *only* had sex during the
woman's fertile period, do you think it would still be a 98% effective
rate?  I'd be willing to bet that the rate would drop.  To get an
accurate reading for condoms, one has to KNOW when a woman is fertile
and collect data on only those condoms used during those days (and
not on all condoms used).

Brian Phaneuf talked about a natural family planning that helps the
woman know when her fertile period is based on mucosal consistency 
(not
temperature readings).  This form of planning can be as accurate or
better when followed properly because the woman will know (not based
on a calendar, nor temperature) when she is fertile and when she is not.
We used this method before our last child with deadly accuracy.  When
we conceived our last child, my wife said, "If we do it tonight, chances
are I'll get pregnant and chances are also that it will be a boy."
Right on both counts.

Mark

Notes that spawned off the tangent of the last paragraph in .38 have 
been moved to note 47 "Natural Family Planning".

Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-moderator

Scott,
  I think you've helped me find the words to clarify what I've been saying.

47.26>
>You can make a case for anything, providing you use only the data that 
>supports your position!

Yes, condoms are effective to prevent a pregnancy 98% of the time one
uses a condom.  The data gathered is the number of pregnancies that occur
for people who have employed condoms; which says that 2% of the people
(couples, that is) using condoms got pregnant.

This DOES NOT indicate the failure rate of a condom.  It only indicates the
failure rate during one tenth of the time that data can show a failure
through pregnancy.  So we have a failure rate of a tenth, which can be
extrapolated to *suppose* that failures occur in condoms during the 
other 90% of the time (but for which we cannot collect data because
infertility means no resulting pregnancy).  Because we *see* a failure
rate of 2% during 10% of the available time to *see* it, we might
*suppose* that 2% is a number we can use during any given 10% of
it's use.  That's 1 out of 5.

Protection from pregnancy?  Sexually transmitted diseases?  Depends
on the odds one is willing to risk.

Mark

15.22>  Nude models for art classes at Baptist University
>
>	Bishop said none of the models will be Baylor students or associated
>with the school in any way.

I had to laugh when I read this.  Not associated with the school, eh?
Do they do this for free?  Will they be on campus?

    re: .31 
    
      Good thing to do in my opinion.
    
    re: .36
    
      Well put, Markel. Good memory, too. We don't have or want a TV in our
    home.
    
    Gil

re 16.31 by AUSSIE::CAMERON 
>            -< Major urges television producers to curb violence >-

This was triggered because of a couple of really horrific child murders 
which occurred a couple of weeks back.  Sorry - I ought to have aquainted 
you with this at the time.

A recently qualified (I believe) nurse is on trial for administering fatal
doses to young children who were recovering under her care.  From the
timings of the relapses, which correlated closely with her times on duty,
it *sounds* conclusive, but there's a lot to be sifted before a court
judgement is issued.  Several children died from overdoses. 

A two-year-old boy in Liverpool went missing when his mother was shopping 
(very brief attention break, I believe, and he wandered out of the shop).  
He was found murdered a few days later, but was seen on the mall videos 
being led away by two boys of about 10 years old.  From evidence of 
sightings, it seems that they took him to the railway line where he was 
later found.

The whole country has been devastated by the grossness of these crimes.

Two boys have been arrested in connection with the second case.  

Another boy was earlier taken in for questioning, because of a passing
similarity to the video description (it was very general / unclear - they
were only at the edge of the screen, not full-face), and although he was 
released as having nothing to do with it, his family had to be rapidly 
rehoused because of danger from local public feeling.

The following Saturday while in town, I was aware of a tenseness  
especially from parents with young children.

I believe that this has made everyone here rather more aware of the horrors 
of violence - it's not a toy or an amusement, even in a 'story'.  It's foul 
sin, aimed at dishonoring God's image.
    
Hence also the awareness of television violence.

I'm just sad that human nature forgets, and in a little while becomes numb 
about such atrocities.  Not that one could bear the full pain continuously, 
but measures such as controlling what is permitted top be portrayed are so 
easily and so soon watered down....

Hey - you guys without television - wish I'd been firm to set such 
principles in early marriage.  We were given one....  

There is another side too.  Learning to control it.  My family never had
one when I was a kid, and I think the adult compulsion factor is harder to 
set the right rules for and overcome even at my parents level now (they 
regretfully received one for their 50th wedding anniversary).  I've had my 
personal problems with this.  Trouble is that the 'off' button also turns 
it on again - Ugh!!! ;-)

							Andrew

>> There is another side too.  Learning to control it.  My family never had
>> one when I was a kid, and I think the adult compulsion factor is harder to 
>> set the right rules for and overcome even at my parents level now (they 

There is a Christian book available, called something like "Learning to Tame 
the Television".

I grew up in a small town where the doors often weren't locked at night, and 
the only problem with walking half an hour to school was if your dog decided 
to follow you there, you had to walk it home again etc....

I think one problem many of these children (and adults) have is that they 
can't distinguish reality from fantasy. People die on TV. But it's OK, it's 
not real. They go on to be in another TV show. The hero gets hurt, but 
recovers to go on to chase & capture the villain. The hurt isn't real. Other 
people aren't real. There is only the "me". If there are no close 
relationships, they don't really become part of society, or develop the 
ability to become "socially acceptable" - they live inside their own heads, 
with what they learnt from TV.

Chele

    
    FYI
    
    It was either the Washington Post or the New York Times that wrote a
    description of those that support Pat Robertson's organizations - 700
    Club and the Christian Coaltition.  Such folks were described as 
    "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
    
    #24

           re: 15.X
           
           I thought I heard on news tickler last nite about a doctor
           being killed outside an abortion clinic and Clinton condemning
           it... can anyone confirm this?  I can't condone this, but I'm
           not surprised by it, since any form of violence (abortion)
           will provoke more violence.  (It'll probably get worse before
           it gets better)
           
           Steve
           

15.25>

I missed it, Tony.  Why is the woman's desrie to be an Elk a
"religion" in the News item?

   RE: 16.47 <TOKNOW::METCALFE>

   >I missed it, Tony.  Why is the woman's desrie to be an Elk a "religion" in
   >the News item?

       Yes, I guess it isn't obvious.  Aside from being an interesting
   article, I thought I saw "feminist agenda" peeking through between each
   line.  Maybe I'm seeing thing. :-)

   Tony

          Re: <<< Note 16.46 by QETOO::SCARDIGNO "God is my refuge" >>>
                      -< Killing outside abortion clinic >-
           
     Steve 
           
     > I thought I heard on news tickler last nite about a doctor being
     > killed outside an abortion clinic ... 

     Yes, Kevin (?) Burns, the Butcher of Bread and Roses was shot an killed
     by an unknown assaillant just outside of his abortuary yesterday. 

     > ...and Clinton condemning it... 

     More than condemning it, he is almost blaming pro-lifers for it. 

     Banned Parenthood used it at a springboard to call for passage of
     Federal legislation to protect "clinics" and "clinic" workers from any
     kind of "assault from anti-abortion terrorists" (a direct quote),
     obvious including blockade, making it a Federal felony to violate the
     proposed statute. I con't have a copy of the bill, nor have I read it,
     but that is how I understand it to read. It *does* seem *awfully*
     conveninent timing, considering that this bill is about to go before
     the Senate judiciary committee. It sort of a thing that makes you go
     "Hhmmmmmm..." 

     Even more interesting (and potentially terrifying) is that the newly
     confirmed US Attorney General said this morning that this
     "asassination" was going to be her "Number One Priority" (even over the
     wackos in Waco), and that she would use the "full weight and force" of
     the US AG's office to "put an end to anti-abortion terrorism" and see
     to it that such "terrorists" were "put in jail for the rest of their
     lives." Gee, I never knew that the demonically inspired opposition was
     quite so scared of a bunch of pacifistic and prayerful children, old
     men and old women. We must be awful people to deserve such treatment. 

     > ...can anyone confirm this? 

     WAKE UP, CHURCH! Smell the battle before they come to your door for
     your children and your Bible! It's real, it's happening, it's serious!
     Remember the 40 year old German poem that starts out, "When they came
     for the Jews, I didn't say anything, for I wasn't a Jew..."? It ends,
     "And when they came for me, there was no protest, for no one was left." 

     > I can't condone this, ... 

     Neither can I, or any other Bible-Believer. For the record, OR (both
     local and national) have officially denounced the action, and stated
     that no one presently or previously involved with their organizations
     had *anything* to do with this murder. After all, we're in the ministry
     of *preventing* murder, aren't we? 

     > ...but I'm not surprised by it, since any form of violence (abortion)
     > will provoke more violence. 

     That's an honest worldly perspecting, and, dealing with worldly and
     carnal people probably a likelihood. But, it has absolutely *no* place
     in a Christian's world view. (See "how many times should I forgive...") 

     > (It'll probably get worse before it gets better) 
           
     Oh good, someone else (I thought I might have been the only one) who
     saw that is eschatological Biblical writings!  8^{)  8^{)  8^{)  8^{)

     Brian

    re. Elks Club
    
    I always have to wonder when I read/hear about things like this.
    I mean, why would someone want to join a club where he/she/it
    is not welcome?  Masochistic?  Expect to magically become welcome
    once the threat of suit admits them?  A firm desire to impose your
    will on others?  Once there, will there be other suits of sexual
    harrassment (and looking for them)?
    
    In this case, is the Elks Club the *only* restaurant in town?
    
    Maybe something isn't quite right in me, but I'd *think* that
    people and courts would have *better* things to do with their
    time/money/efforts.  
    
    Otto

    .50
    
    IMHO, its the once a victim forever victim, lets take it to martyrdom
    role...
    
    sigh,
    Nancy

    Discussion about the Vigliante who shot the abortion doctor has been
    moved to 62.*
    
    Mark Metcalfe
    Christian Co-mod

    re: 15.108
    
    I'm sorry, but this is the 3rd year I've seen this putrid story entered
    into this file and it's so grossly offensive, I can't believe it's
    entered.
    
    It's satanic, it's no longer news, it's disgusting,
    sick, perverted, unthinkable, and has no place in this file.
    
    Please, can it be deleted?
    
    Thanks,
    
    steve

    Steve,

    I agree completely with your assessment.  If the concensus is that it
    should be deleted, or if a concensus is not needed, I would be more
    than happy to delete it. Moderators?

    In His love,

				*** Daryl ***

I find it interesting that it mentions that a Spanish tourist was shocked
by seeing the spectacle.

This practice, which was also condemned by the Church then, is documented
to have been "popular" in Spain in the late middle ages.

/john

    I'd just as soon see it blown away.
    
    Gil (in non-mod mode)
    

    
    
    	I just as soon forget about it and go on the NEXT UNSEEN..
    
    	What a consept! ;)
    
    
    
    	Bill

    
    I agree.. delete it....
    
    It might give the impression to one who's seeking that man actually has
    a say in atoning for his and others sins...
    
      What a satanic delusion....
    
    
     Andy
    

    Done.  My apologies to all for letting it slip through my vigil, and my
    thanks to Steve for catching it!

    In His love,

				*** Daryl ***

    Thanks, Daryl.
    
    And Bill - I next unseen much of this and other conferences...it just
    so happened that my unseen map brought me to that entry and for the 3rd
    year in a row I thought I was going to pop!
    
    Just my own perspective I guess....
    
    me

    RE:-1
    But, perhaps it was the first time anyone else would have gotten to
    read it.
     
    I think it should have stayed.

>    I think it should have stayed.

I fail to see the eternal significance of a "self-flagellation" story.
It does nothing to help man overcome the innate feeling that *he* has to do
something to gain relief from his sins, when in fact, Jesus did it all for us!

Joe

If eternal significance is the price of admission to this note, then most can be
deleted.  Of what eternal significance are the Branch Davidians, or the 
Railly (sp?) trial?

Paul

    
    Joe,
       whether you agree with the story or not isn't the point. The point
    is that it is religion in the news. Should we stop posting all the 
    negative things that people do in the name of Christianity ? 


    BTW, I think its time for you to grow your beard back.;)

    Jim

    
    
    	Right! If every reply or note was delete because of confusion
    	to searching Christians, the Mods would be quite busy.

> If eternal significance is the price of admission to this note, then most
> can be deleted.

Paul,

What a delightful idea!  Then we wouldn't have to dig through so much manure
to find the pony!

To the rest of you freedom dudes:

Okay, I get your point (to a point).

Beard-less,
Little Joe

    
    
    	Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, that some can learn
    	by seeing what we are *not* surpose to do??
    
    
    	Bill

 Is it also not possible that a new Christian, or one searching, could read
 such stuff and wonder whether or not they should do something similar?  I know
 when I first became a Christian, and sinned, the guilt was overwhelming and I
 was searching for anything that I could do to relieve the guilt, not fully
 comprehending God's wonderful grace.  




Jim

    Most new  Christian or one searching will be more confused by our
    heated debates than the religion in the news stuff. Sometimes it
    would better for them to hit "next unseen conference."

    Jim

    
    
    	I lived in the Philipines for 2 years. They are not the
    	most educated people I've ever met. 
    
    	I really don't know you personally, but I would have to feel
    	you would have never resorted to crucifing yourself for forgiveness
    	of your sins. And I strongly doubt anyone reading this file would.
    
    
    	Bill

The point is moot, folks.  Daryl entered it and was entitled to delete it.
If he chose not to and there was a call to do so, then this argument may
have merit.  But since this is not the case, the argument is moot.

    Slick Willy at his best, me thinks.  I did not know that Child Abuse
    was a Federal Offense - wouldn't the state or local authorities be
    responsible for that.  The Feds were there for possible firearms
    violations, weren't they?  Guess Willy needs to explain this to me.
    Course, if he doesn't care about 1.5 million babies killed  by 
    abortion each year, I doubt he was too interested in, what was it - 23?
    
    Your Other Brother Daryl

Politics.  Politics.

They don't care two hoots about what the public thinks.  They only care
about keeping the cattle (that's you and me, folks) grazing on 
television pap.  Docile animals while the upper echelon plays power
games with each other.

Somewhere, there are a couple of old guys congratulating each other:

"You got me this time, Bob.  Stunning how you got the democrats into power."
"Thanks, John.  I did notice your game was a little off."
"A little off?  Not really.  The game's not over; you've been set up
   and just don't know it, yet."
"Set up?"
"Yeah, we played poorly this round on purpose to let you win this match."
"Oh, I see it, you rascal!  Set us up with losers in a no win case and
  blame it on us."
"You got to take some lessons, Son."
"That was brilliant, John."
"Thanks.  How's the wife?"
"Fine, just fine.  And yours?"
"Great, thanks."
"Oh by the way, don't be too surprised if we win this no win case."
"Oh?"
"We've got a few interesting developments cooking."
"Do tell!"
"That would spoil it, John."
"Of course, you're right, Bob.  You are a formidible opponent."
"You really think so?"
"Of course, I do.  Pass the cheese, please."
"Sure thing.  Like what?"
"Watergate was a coup de grace."
"Yeah but that was some time ago."
"I know, but we've been small potatoes since then.  I go to hand it to you."
"Potatoes?  With an e or without?"
"Ha ha ha.  But we got him elected."
"That you did.  Cost me three cases of Champaigne."
"Yeah.  Who'd have thought to put the four worst possible candidates up for
    election - what a riot!  It was worth the challenge and the risk for 
    the laughs alone!"
"Ha ha ha.  You're right, John.  What say we do it again in the next election.
  Same wager?"
"You're on.  Putting up visionaries is passe, and besides, they think too
  much for themselves.  Start a list for the next election and we'll see
  what we can come up with."
"Great.  See you tomorrow on the course."
"Okay, Bob.  Take care."

    Eh ... they screwed up.  This is a major flop for the Clinton
    administration.  According to their line, they were relying on *rumors*
    of child abuse and so let the ATF storm the compound.  This is like
    shooting fish in a barrel as far as the press is concerned.  All we
    really know is that the Clinton administration is claiming to back the
    actions taken and won't say why.  I think I know why.  
    
    I think that the problem is that we have a brand new FEMALE Attorney 
    General and the Clintons don't want to go through yet another round of 
    having to find another female to fill a post.  Several of their efforts 
    have already been disasterous from a publicity point of view.  Like a 
    DJ quipped, "the Clinton administration promised to cut domestic spending, 
    but all they've done so far is cut spending on domestics."  
    
    The Clinton administration is based on symbolism.  We really have no
    idea what they are really doing (probably Democratic Party agenda support
    and favors) but the administration is focused on symbolism.  I'm sure they 
    hoped that this media event was going to give them reason to laud praise 
    on a FEMALE Attorney General.  She was basically set up because the Clintons
    felt that the situation was going to end well.  Why not encourage the
    media attention, they probably figured.  It literally blew up in their
    faces with the AG looking inexperienced and proposing resignation of
    the post.
    
    What should have happened?  Well, I suppose that the Clintons should
    have basically stayed out of it and not tried to use it as a symbolic
    media opportunity.  And, the AG should have pushed for more answers before
    allowing rash action to be taken.  The FBI isn't going to wait.  They
    are going to do all they can to move as quickly as they can to resolve
    the situation.  How could they recommend anything else to their
    superiors?  It's like the military during times of threat -- of course
    they are going to recommend military action.  It's up to the high
    officials to coordinate all efforts.  That was obviously not done, even
    by the admission of those I saw interviewed.
    
    The press is having an easy time making mince meat of the high
    officials involved.  I predict ...  we'll see more of this as time goes
    on.  That is, high officials will be so stuck on getting symbolism
    points with the public that they will pay less and less attention to
    doing the real job.  So, the job won't get done and the public will be
    dumbfounded as to who to blame.  As Rush Limbaugh puts it, the average 
    person is being made to feel guilty for things he or she is innocent
    of.  That's because in the end, that's who will be the easiest to blame.
    Only thing I can think of for Christians to do is to pay attention, 
    stay close to the Lord and take action when and where appropriate.  
    Just my own wild opinion.
    
    Steve

    15.129  Please show us how to stop this Lord.  Show and lead us to a
    way to convince people just how wrong abortion is.  Help us Lord, help
    us Lord.  Please Lord
    

    Just so the readers will know, the reason I haven't been posting news
    items of late is that my workstation is down for a while, and I can't
    use my usual news reader. :-)

    In His love,

				*** Daryl ***

 It appears to me, that our government believes that the life of a child is
 worth exactly $8.70  Twenty three children, senselessly destroyed, all over
 the $200 tax that might not have been paid on a machine gun that Koresh
 might have manufactured?  It smells to me like the feds do not like
 Christians, particularly those who will not pay fealty to an unGodly
 government but only to God.  Armed tax collectors (BATF responsible
 for collecting taxes on A.T.F.) scare me, armed tax collectors that
 dislike religion terrify me.

 Bruce

    <<< Note 16.78 by FIEVEL::FILGATE "Bruce Filgate SHR3-2/W4 237-6452" >>>
                   -< what happened to freedom of religion? >-


 It appears to me, that our government believes that the life of a child is
 worth exactly $8.70  Twenty three children, senselessly destroyed, all over
 the $200 tax that might not have been paid on a machine gun that Koresh
 might have manufactured?  It smells to me like the feds do not like
 Christians, particularly those who will not pay fealty to an unGodly
 ^^^^^^^^^^
 government but only to God.  Armed tax collectors (BATF responsible
 for collecting taxes on A.T.F.) scare me, armed tax collectors that
 dislike religion terrify me.

 Bruce


While I don't like the results of what happened in Waco either, do not
deny the Koresh caused ALL of this... Yes, the BATF went in armed, but 
why? Because they knew Koresh and his group were unstable and had large 
amounts of weapons. Also, I wouldn't call this cult Christian... Don't 
forget Koresh said he was Jesus Christ... 

Koresh and his followers fired the first shots. Koresh held the children,
using them as hostages to keep the FBI from moving in. Koresh made them
kill themselves, and while they burned the place down killing the 
children they also shot themselves in the head (included Koresh, who was
shot between the eyes)...

This was not a Christian group...

The BATF and FBI are getting a bum rap, something had to be done... Why did
Koresh have to have so many fire arms? Why did they start shooting on the 
BATF? Why did he hold the children hostage? Why did he burn the place down?
Why did he get into a shooting match several years ago in a power struggle
within the Branch Davidians?  Koresh was unstable, the BATF and FBI 
knew that... Koresh forced their hand...  the FBI didn't kill the kids,
Koresh did... Why didn't Koresh just surrender?

/Scott

I agreed with you, Scott until this point:

>The BATF and FBI are getting a bum rap, something had to be done... 

Experts in cults knew how to negotiate with "unstable" people 
such as these and offered the information to the FBI.  They had to
do "something" doesn't include setting the match to the fuse of 
an unstable bomb to diffuse it.  Diffusing an explosive situation 
does not include blowing up the bomb so it doesn't blow up.  Not
with children involved.

The facts are that there are two bad sides to this story, not a good
side and a bad side.  The FBI/ATF/government screwed up ROYALLY in
diffusing this explosive situation.  Instead of putting the ticking package 
in water, they put it in the oven.

I saw an ever so brief blurp on the local (Boston) news Saturday night about
a group of Christian youth who had gathered to "protest" the increasing violence
among/against young people in Boston.  


It was encouraging to see young Christians in such a gathering.




Jim

URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT

Many of you may remember in the previous version of this notes conference, 
under the topic Religion in the News, there was a man arrested for molesting 
a child on a church bus.  This church is a mirror image of the kind of church 
I belong to, fundamental, independent, separated, Bible believing Baptist 
church, equipped for spreading the salvation method through a Bus Ministry 
that reaches into the depths of drug and gang infested neighborhoods.

I am not declaring this man innocent just cause he was in a church like mine 
or in a ministry that I am active in, but what I am about to say is very 
scary.  The media in that state [I believe it's Michigan] has taken up the 
cross to portray Independent Bible Believing Churches as cults like David 
Koresh.  We have heard the same alluded towards this conference from Glen 
Silva.  

I must ask, are you aware that there is an attack on mainstream Christianity 
today?

    The local news made this statement: [BTW, saw the news clips in church
    last night]

"Women are taught to be submissive and children obedient to their parents, 
irregardless of the situations."

They are taking God-given principles and saying that they are the reason for 
women and children being abused, versus the sinful nature of depraved men.

It reminds of the raped woman being placed on trial versus the man/woman who 
raped her.

They also have placed an attack on Jack Hyles and his ministry.  Jack Hyles 
is being referred to as a cult leader due to his separatist beliefs.  I have 
followed the ministry of Jack Hyles since I was 15 years old.  Jack Hyles is 
not a cult leader, nor does he use "mind control" in his sermons.  Jack Hyles 
is the Pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, not too far from 
the Chicago area.  His ministry each Sunday reaches 20,000 people.  He is not 
on TV.  He has written many books and is a proponent of "Holiness" in God's 
people.  Therefore, his views on "holiness" for many in the Christian realm 
are considered harsh.  But he doesn't *demand* you follow him, he *requests* 
that you get alone with God and consider them.
His father was the town drunk, his mother left alone sent Jack to Sunday 
School barefooted, a woman in the church lead Jack Hyles to the Lord.  His 
heart's desire has been to the downtrodden.  He has several missions in 
Chicago that reach out to the street people, alcoholics and drug addicts.

He has through the Holy Spirit been a great influence in my life to continue 
in God's grace through my own abusive childhood.

I am coveting your prayers, saints of God, for not only Christendom as are 
allowed to worship today, but for Jack Hyles and his ministry.

Oh and BTW, since my Pastor's name is mentioned about once a month from Jack 
Hyles' pulpit, this may soon come down to reflect on my own church.

To further drive this point home, the correlation between David Koresh and 
Jack Hyles was a 30 minute news broadcast in that area.  If Jack Hyles is 
being cast in that light, it will cast many other churches in that light as 
well.

Nancy
    

    Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking
    place among you to test you, as though something strange were
    happening to you.  But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ's
    sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when
    his glory is revealed.  If you are reviled for the name of Christ,
    you are blessed, because the spirit of glory which is the Spirit of
    God is resting on you.  But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a
    thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief maker.  Yet if any of you
    suffers as a Christian, do not consider it a disgrace, but glorify
    God because you bear this name.
    
    					1 Peter 4:12-16

 ...sigh...

>"Women are taught to be submissive and children obedient to their parents, 
>irregardless of the situations."

>They are taking God-given principles and saying that they are the reason for 
>>women and children being abused, versus the sinful nature of depraved men.

Many, many more women and children are abused and murdered in the name 
of Satan and we hear nothing.  Yet let one sick individual abuse a child 
on a bus sponsored by a fundamental church and all Bible-believing 
Christians are evil, abusive creatures.  Go figure.


Sandy

 Good point.  When alocohol is involved is there a clamor to shut down bars,
 or stop sales of alcohol? 



 Jim
 

    There are numerous examples of Satanic Ritual abuse/murder going on
    today.  Crimoney even the movie industry has painted it as such. 
    However, they call more evil spirits in to solve these murders in the
    name of clairvoyance [sp].
    
    Nancy [bigger sigh]

    >There are numerous examples of Satanic Ritual abuse/murder going on
    >today.  Crimoney even the movie industry has painted it as such. 
    >However, they call more evil spirits in to solve these murders in the
    >name of clairvoyance [sp].
    
    >Nancy [bigger sigh]


Agreed, Nancy.  What concerns me is the national media's push in the 
opposite direction.  I've seen a number of magazine articles and talk 
shows that claim the incidences of Satanic Ritual Abuse are overstated 
and many individuals are being falsely accused.  It seems so sad that 
rather than attempt to put a stop to what's happening, we spend all of 
our time and energy arguing whether or not it even happens.  The Great 
Deceiver strikes again.




Sandy

    And I am even more perturbed at folks who claim that children are
    stupid and manipulated into making allegations that aren't true.
    
    While I believe that *some* children, like *some* adults are easily
    manipulated just by their own personality traits, but I regurgitate
    when I hear things like what you just wrote in regards to minimizing
    these things.
    
    Nancy

    Praying for the situation Nancy.  This kind of media distortion,
    whether or not it is intended, makes me believe that we must see that a
    greater proportion of the media is Christian.  We must make it clear to
    our youngsters that there is need for strong Christian journalists
    working for the secular press to keep that balance we so desparately
    need to prevent the biased reporting.  
    
    Your alert to this specific situation is well recieved I hope.  We can
    make a difference with prayer to start and eternal vigelance to remain
    ready for the next attack.  All of which should be accompanied by more
    fundamentilist Christians entering the media.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Your Other Brother Daryl

Note 16.82
    
> This church is a mirror image of the kind of church 
>I belong to, fundamental, independent, separated, Bible believing Baptist 
>church, equipped for spreading the salvation method through a Bus Ministry...

>I must ask, are you aware that there is an attack on mainstream Christianity 
>today?
    
    Are you suggesting that your church reflects mainstream Christianity?

>"Women are taught to be submissive and children obedient to their parents, 
>irregardless of the situations."

    Very poor grammar here.  I'm surprised it went to print worded this
    poorly.
    
    Richard

    -1
    
    You know, Richard, I must agree with you both on the wording and on the
    statement that fundamentalism is maintstream Christianity.
    
    Fundamentalism is the *only* Christianity that exists today, all others
    are a mere imitation. 
    
    Nancy
    

    Well, there you have it folks.
    
    In a nutshell if you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God
    and live your life by its contents, you are *not* mainstream
    Christianity as defined today.  And you know, when I wrote that, I
    almost said what was previously known as mainstream Christianity.
    
    sigh,
    Nancy 

    
    Think of "Mainstream Christianity" today....
    
    Then think of a big pot of stew....
    
    Throw in beef, chicken, pork, tuna fish, halibut, lamb, calf's liver,
    lobster, clams and whatever meat youmight have available.
    
      Then throw in potatoes (yes, it has an 'e' on it), carrots, peas,
    beans, tomatoes, beets and whatever vegetable is available.
    
      Add some apples, pears, grapes, oranges, peaches, plums, strawberries
    and whatever fruit is avaiable.
    
     Then start with the spices.... salt, pepper, garlic, bay leaves,
    mustard seed, thyme, parsley, sage and a hundred different spices too
    numerous to name here.
    
      Top it off with a few pickles, olives and one maraschino cherry...
    
    
     Bring to a boil and stir for millenia...
    
    
    Then taste....
    
    
      Real good... isn't it??????????????????

Re .91
I completely agree. Fundamentalism is still pretty lukewarm
in God's eyes and certainly not what He sees as mainstream...
however its a pretty good place to start. When the church gets
serious and humble's itself before God's throne of grace and
seeks after a pure heart with all of its strength then we'll
be well on our way to being mainstream. If you didn't like
fundamentalism then you sure won't like this. There will be a
VERY clear distinction between the church and the numerous
counterfiets and lukewarmisms that exist today.

Umm...

I'm afraid the use of the word "fundamentalism" is probably not a shared
definition with everyone.

I do not believe "fundamentalist Christianity" = All Christianity.
Yet, I do believe that some people's definition of "fundamentalism"
is the spectrum of Christianity.

I'm not attempting to define "fundamentalism" but I will attempt to 
define [some fundamentals of] "mainstream" Christianity.

  Jesus is God.
  The Bible is God's Word.
  God does not change.
  Jesus saves from sin by His blood sacrifice.
  God is the Absolute Authority.

There are more but these are really quite mainstream in Christianity.

I would also define "out of the mainstream" to mean those individuals
or groups that call themselves Christians, yet deny one or more of the
major tenet's above.  These people are in danger of breaking the 
commandment nopt to take the Lord's name in vain.

Just so you know, term definition is pretty important around such words 
as "fundamentalist" these days.

MM

 Thank you, Mark.  








 Jim

    Yes, thank you, Mark! :-) (We'll keep it our secret...) :-)
    
    Just wondering -- does anybody make a distinction between
    "fundamentalist" and "evangelical"?  I actually prefer the latter, but
    I'm wondering if the two terms are equivalent in most peoples' minds.
    
    Mark L.

 I've wrestled with that one for quite a while.  I identify with those character
 istics that Mark listed, so what does that make me?  I imagine we could go
 round and round on that for a while, then perhaps we could ask for a definition
 of "mainstream".


 


 Jim

 Personally, I prefer the label "sinner, saved by the Grace of God"





 Jim

    Fundamentalist = as extrapolated by Mark is what I meant
    Evangelical = [to me] combines fundamental with *spreading* the gospel.
    
    In which case, I'd say I'm both! :-)
    
    Now, as far as mainstream, I'd say "most common in today's society" is
    the definition that I believe Mr. Christie was referring.
    
    In that case, I'd say fundamentalists were previously "mainstream" and
    Mr. Krawiecki's definition suits very well today's mainstream version
    of *c*hristianity.
    
    Nancy

    .101  God may not change.  But it doesn't take much to get Nancy to
    alter her tune.
    
    ;-)
    
    Richard

    >101  God may not change.  But it doesn't take much to get Nancy to
    >alter her tune.
    
    Well, Richard, if you ever heard me sing, you'd be happy for me to
    change the tune. :-) :-) :-)
    
    Richard, why are you picking on me?  I'm moldable, God can change my
    heart in a split second.  And when I'm wrong, I'll admit it and if I've
    offended a Brother, I'll confess it.  My heart is out for persual in
    this conference and you know it.
    
    Nancy

    After discussion with one of the moderators, and after re-reading my
    note (.102), I decided to delete it.

    My intent was not to open up any heated debate on a particular topic
    (not that I was accused of that), but I can see where it could easily
    go that route.  Thank you moderators for pointing it out.

    I intended to merely point out that being labeled "evangelical" is
    currently not good here in Colorado.

    My apologies if I hurt or offended anyone.

    Ron

    >101  God may not change.  But it doesn't take much to get Nancy to
    >alter her tune.

In addition, when the terms are not understood at the first, the tune
may have the same words but very different meanings, as was the case
in point.  Point in fact, Nancy has not altered her position one iota
but merely has realized that the terms being applied are being applied
differently, even though the same terms are being used.

And why *are* you picking on her?

MM

    
    
    Must be slow over in PC....  er, I mean CP....
    
    :)
    

re:108    
    
>    Must be slow over in PC....  er, I mean CP....

 Yeah, cuz why else would Richard want to enter this lions den ?;)


    Jim
    

    
    Jim....
    
    Isn't that in Detroit??????????????
    
    
    :) :) :)
    

Who was it referred to feeling like a lion in a den of Daniels?

								Andrew

  re 15.133



    Amazing.

    15.133
    
    Paul, 
    
    Where is that scripture that is so appropos...
    
    "worship the creation instead of the creator"  
    
    Sigh,
    Nancy

    Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
    creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    >          <<< Note 16.114 by CHTP00::CHTP05::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>
    >                                -< Romans 1:25 >-
    
    > Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
    > creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    
    This came up with someone I was with this weekend.  He seemed to think
    that enjoying the beautiful mountains and scenery made God happy as
    long as we enjoyed it; as apposed to going to church and reading the
    word.  NOT!   
    
    Thanks for the memory refresher and location.
    
                                                -Jim-
    
    

    There is a scripture in the old testament that says something like this
    [and again Ah dun't know whar it is]
    
    "doth not nature itself teach that there is a God?"
    
    Somewhere, there is a balance between recognizing Creation and
    worshipping God the Creator.  Oftimes, it is confused by some very well
    meaning and good people, that by worshipping creation, they have in
    fact worshipped God.  But God makes it clear that creation validates
    the Creator... Hmm... well round and round in circles we go.
    
    Can anybody who understood this say it better? :-)
    
    Nancy

>    There is a scripture in the old testament that says something like this
>    [and again Ah dun't know whar it is]
>    
>    "doth not nature itself teach that there is a God?"

I'm not aware of the OT reference, but Romans 1 also says, as preamble to the
verse where it condemns people for worshipping the creation instead of the
creator:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to
them.  Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his
eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been
made.  So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor
him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and
their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or
birds or animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the
dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth
about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the 
Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."
							Romans 1:19-25 (RSV)
Paul

    > <<< Note 16.116 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze">>>
    >
    >There is a scripture in the old testament that says something like this
    >[and again Ah dun't know whar it is]
    >
    >"doth not nature itself teach that there is a God?"
    Nancy,
    Is this what you were thinking about or is there one verse that 
    says it all ?
    
    \/ \/ \/
      
Job 12:4\I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, 
    and he answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn.
Job 12:5\He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised 
    in the thought of him that is at ease.
Job 12:6\The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God 
    are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.
Job 12:7\But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls 
    of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Job 12:8\Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes 
    of the sea shall declare unto thee.
Job 12:9\Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought 
          this?
Job 12:10\In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath 
    of all mankind.
    

For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
 and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know
  the one who exists,
   nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works;

But they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,
 or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,
  or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.

If through delight in the beauty of these things
 people assumed them to be gods,
  let them know how much better than these is their Lord,
   for the author of beauty created them.

And if people were amazed at their power and working,
 let them perceive from them
  how much more powerful is the one who formed them.

For from the greatness and beauty of created things
 comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.

Yet these people are little to be blamed,
 for perhaps they go astray
  while seeking God and desiring to find him.

For while they live among his works,
 they keep searching,
  and they trust in what they see,
   because the things they see are beautiful.

Yet again, not even they are to be excused;
 for if they had the power to know so much
  that they could investigate the world,
   how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?

					--Wisdom 13:1-9, NRSV

The KJV quote you might be familiar with is

	For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures
	proportionably the maker of them is seen.

(same book and chapter, verse 5)

    Jim Glenn,
    
    The verse is very familiar, methinks perhaps its my paraphrase thinking
    in KJV lingo! :-) :-) I doth that muchly! %-}
    
    Oh Romeo, Romeo, would you find your Juliet!!! :-)
    
    Nancy

    Thou doth paraphraseth mucheth well ! I understandeth thine words :-)
    
             -Jim-
    

    Nancy,
    
    Once I was walking in the woods and marveling at the beauty around
    me. I felt no desire to worship the things, but rather, what came to me
    was the thought of what God must be like to create such beauty and how
    much He must love us to allow us to share in it. I felt like I received
    a brief glimpse of His nature. Is that maybe what it means?
    
    Rebecca
    

    Rebecca,
    
    Exactly!!!!  That is what it means... Thanks for writing that, as
    usual, it was right on.
    
    Nancy

    Boy as I was reading through the news this morning... my heart just
    fell...  sigh
    
    First a mother with empty arms wanting to hold that baby again.  And
    then this Porter guy who obviously is a real sick puppy.  I still say
    castration should be in effect for sexual offenders... as *part* of the
    punishment.. especially for blokes like this guy!
    
    Nancy Borden :-)

 In light of the seriousness of the news today, I am deleting .125.





Jim

    Aw Jim... you are too sensitive.  You're note was humorous and fine.  
    
    :-)
    
    Nancy

> `Cities of Refuge,'...where fleeing Israelites were purportedly told
> by God that they could avoid bloodshed.

The unabashed disdaine for the veracity and credibility of G_d's Word
has rarely been clearer than in the use of the word "purported," above.

> The tactic has become extremely scary to doctors since the shooting
> death of physician David Gunn outside a Pensacola abortion clinic in
> March.

Guilt by false association. The young man who shot abortionist Gunn was
not, and never had been associated with Operation Rescue (or even the 
local pro-life group picketing that day). Focusing on the abortionists 
and their business enterprises has become scary, IMHO, because they 
butchers are no longer left any place to hide - their crimes against 
humanity are being exposed everywhere that they go.

> The seven cities were chosen because of their active anti-abortion
> communities...

Once again, in the media, it's "pro-choice," but "anti-abortion." 
Objective reporting? NOT!

Brian

Re: 15.167

> The debate was marked by bitter exchanges between several House
> members, including Hyde and female members of the Congressional Black
> Caucus.

This is particularly sad, IMHO, when you consider the abuse that women 
have suffered at the hands of profiteering abortionists and the 
genocidal eugenics foundations, policies and practices of Planned
Barrenhood, et al...

Again, there is none so blind, as they who *will* not see...

8^{(

Brian

    
    Rep. John Linder was the one who stopped debate on this issue by the
    use of a procedural rule.  Congress was stunned when he did this and it
    is largely his action which brought it to a relatively quick vote,
    preventing the debate from going down the tubes and the liberals
    getting the advantage.  Linder serves the district the Digital ALF site
    is in (in Georgia).
    
    jeff

   -< Georgian makes a difference >-

    But Henry Hyde is from right here in the Chicago burbs.  Kinda like the
    guys views, I do.  (At least there's one decent Illinois representative
    in D.C. that I know of.)
    
    Mark L.

    And one of Colorado's Congressmen, Joel Hefley (who lives down the
    street from me, literally) also is a Christian and supported the bill.
    In fact, in the paper this morning they reported how the Colorado
    delegates voted on the issue (which they do on most of the major
    issues).  Can you say "party line vote"???  That may not be a fair
    statement but statistically...

    Recently my 11 year old daughter was looking at the paper and read
    through a report on how our delegates voted on an issue.  When she was
    finished, she said, "Dad, did you notice how all the Republicans voted
    one way and all the Democrats voted the other?"

    "Yep."

    Ron

	I heard Pat Shroeder on a news bite at lunch today, saying some
	women claimed they felt "like they had been raped" after hearing
	that the bill passed.

	I don't know who these women are, but to equate the passage of this
	bill to rape is probably one of the most stupid, insensitive comments
	I've *ever* heard (And for Pat S. to repeat it makes her equally
	insensitive!)   Not only does it reduce the crime of rape to
	a mere disappointment, but acts as though the passage of the bill
	is a crime against women, when in fact, it's LIFE to innocent children.

	Karen

> <<< Note 16.135 by CNTROL::JENNISON "John 3:16 - Your life depends on it!" >>>

>	I heard Pat Shroeder on a news bite at lunch today, saying some
>	women claimed they felt "like they had been raped" after hearing
>	that the bill passed.

    I won't say what my opinion of her is!  Let's just say that she is
    living proof of the need for term limits.

    Ron

>    I won't say what my opinion of her is!  Let's just say that she is
>    living proof of the need for term limits.
    
    I hear ya on the term limits.  It's the likes of Henry Hyde, however,
    that makes me pause on this issue.  He's one of the few I'd hate to
    lose.
    
    Mark L.

>            <<< Note 16.137 by CHTP00::CHTP05::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>

>    I hear ya on the term limits.  It's the likes of Henry Hyde, however,
>    that makes me pause on this issue.  He's one of the few I'd hate to
>    lose.

    Agreed.

    Ron

> From: [email protected] (JULIANA GRUENWALD)
> Subject: Flynn sworn in as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 93 13:12:15 PDT
    .
    .
    .
>	Flynn said his religion would not bias his ability to serve as
>ambassador to the Vatican.
    .
    .
    
    anyone else find this just a little bit ironic?

>>Flynn said his religion would not bias his ability to serve as
>>ambassador to the Vatican.
>    .
>    .
>    
>    anyone else find this just a little bit ironic?

I'd like to know _exactly_ what Flynn said.  Flynn's job will be to tell
the Pope that Clinton isn't going to budge on abortion.  I think someone
can do that without compromising his religion.  The Pope will know that
Flynn is pro-life.  And so will God.  An ambassador represents his boss,
not himself.

However, this whole appointment seems extremely strange.  I'm sure Flynn
realizes that Clinton's primary reason for choosing Flynn for this post
was to get one of the few pro-life Democrats out of the country.

What Flynn doesn't seem to realize is that his job is Ambassador _to_
the Vatican, which means that he is to represent Clinton in Rome, not
the other way around.  The Papal Nuncio, in Washington, represents the
Pope _to_ Washington.

It's really a rather silly post, more visible, but only slightly, and
not as important as the ambassador to Burkina Faso.  But, of course,
Rome is a much more fun place to be than Oagadougo.

We'll have to see what comes of Flynn's hope that the Secretary of State
will use Flynn in additional capacities as a humanitarian troubleshooter
all over the world.  At least that will give him something to do.  We
already have another ambassador in Rome (the ambassador to Italy) who can
do the all important job of being party host to diplomats from all over
the world.

/john

>	The tavern owners have argued before the zoning board that allowing a
>church to move into the middle of a commercial strip sporting such
>establishments as the Grapevine Lounge and the Little Brown Jug would
>destroy the ambience of the area.
    
    Destroy the ambience.  Hardly. Keep the streets safer to walk on
    more likely.
    
>	``Eventually they're going to complain that we are open at 8 o'clock
>on Sunday mornings and they will get us to close till noon,'' she said.
    
    What's wrong with that.  I don't think that they are going to make
    that many sales between 8-noon anwyway.  Those who frequent the place
    will probably be still at home in bed from getting home at 2 a.m. in
    the morning.
    
>	``We would oppose any church, black or white, because eventually they
>would try to limit us.''

    Absolutely nothing wrong with limits.  Especailly any G_dly limits.
    Most PC persons think that limits violate their right.  I think
    it helps prevent anarchy.
    
    

    
    

 RE 15.235..interesting that they perform abortions at a place named "Good
 Samaritan"






 Jim

I posted this because I saw something very interesting that caught my eye.

>	Fear of the cult spreading throughout Ukraine prompted authorities to
> take undemocratic measures without any protest from the public.
>	Cult members have given up their identitification to their leaders,
> and police are authorized to detain anyone without identifying
> documents. Detained ``white brothers'' who are not returned to their
> parents are kept in special centers with therapy until ``their conduct
> returns to normal.''

Proposal number 1: This cult bears a marked resemblance to Christianity,
particularly that Christianity in the midst of the last days revealed in
Revelation. To a typical secular person, especially in Ukraine where people are
unfamiliar with Christianity, there may be little difference between this group
and us.

Proposal number 2: A number of such cults are around, including David Koresh's
former group, a group in Venezula, and many of them in the C.I.S.  Already even
in our own country we see the government increasingly intolerant of these cults
and moving to do such things as detain their children and put members in
psychological treatment.

Conclusion: It does not seem unlikely that at some point the government will
fail to see what we recognize as a distinction between cults and orthodox
Christian groups and will begin to treat all Christians as they treat these
cult members, gradually passing laws against cults and eventually applying 
them to the Christian faith.

Note that apparently some legislators are already using the Koresh fiasco as
an excuse to propose laws against all Christians.  Note the recent court
rulings against the Christian Scientists, native Americans, and Santeria
followers.  While we certainly don't sympathize with these groups, nevertheless
the same laws that have been used against them can be used against us.  Also
note the increased power of social service agencies to seize children of
parents they deem to be of questionable character; I just received a Rutherford
Institute press release (they defend Christians in the courts for free) on a
pair of Christian parents who are in litigation against the Texas Social
Services agency because they attempted to take their infant away because they
felt the parents were overly concerned about the child's health (they were
alerted by the hospital).  (From my judgment, the state absolutely no case
whatsoever.)  Note, too, how "child abuse" is being extended to include parents
who spank their children or even bring them up in a strange religious faith.

Comments?

Eric

remember that the Supreme Court ruled in _favor_ of the Santeria sacrifices.

>        Our pastor said that, if this had been a prayer vigil outside an
>        abortuary, all the demonstrators would be facing 2 years in
>        penitentiary.

Maybe 2 1/2.

Article 3159 of clari.news.group.women:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!looking!dogmead!clarinews
From: [email protected] (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.group.women,clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.gov.state
Subject: Mass. governor signs anti-blockade bill
Keywords: abortion, social issues, demonstrations, state government,
	government
Copyright: 1993 by UPI, R
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 93 19:05:12 EST
ACategory: usa
Slugword: us-blockades
Priority: daily
Format: daily
ANPA: Wc: 177/171; Id: a1758; Sel: na--a; Adate: 11-4-N/A
Approved: [email protected]
Codes: &nxadxx., &nn.dxx., &ngsdxx., xxxxxxxx, //na--a/, na--a
Lines: 16
Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com clari.news.group.women:3159 clari.news.demonstration:6014 clari.news.gov.state:3518

	BOSTON (UPI) -- Gov. William Weld signed a bill Thursday to make
abortion clinic blockades a crime in Massachusetts carrying jail terms
of up to 2 1/2 years in prison for repeat offenders.
	Weld, a Republican, said the bill was not intended to prevent anti-
abortion demonstrations outside clinics, but only to guarantee a woman's
constitutional right to get inside a building to obtain an abortion.
	``This bill does not silence anyone, but it does punish those who go
beyond debate and resort to physical force,'' Weld said.
	The bill would permit jail sentences of up to six months in prison
for first-time violators, and up to 2 1/2 years and a $5,000 fine for
subsequent offenses. It would also allow clinics to sue abortion
opponents for disrupting their business.
	The measure, which is the first pro-abortion rights bill ever passed
by the Massachusetts Legislature, was denounced by the militant group
Operation Rescue, which called it an attempt to stifle the anti-abortion
movement.


NOTE: Clarinet news articles may not be distributed outside of Digital.

	This is a re-entry 309.3 with adjustments for political
	correctness.

	      <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                               -< CHRISTIAN-V7 >-
================================================================================
Note 309.3             'White Brotherhood' cult in Ukraine                3 of 4
LEDDEV::CAMUSO "alphabits"                           31 lines   5-NOV-1993 09:18
                              -< Perilous Times >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Social Darwinism, as practiced by the likes of Josef Stalin and Mao
        Tse Tung, bases a person's usefulness on what he thinks.  This
        philosophy holds that those who do not think the politically
        correct party line are legitimate targets for slave labor or
        elimination.

        At our Wednesday night prayer service this week, the pastor read an
        account from a Maranatha publication.  It was reported that a
        demonstration against a local church was organized by the local
        contingent of (a group whose name it is not politically correct to
        use).  I did not get where this happened, it was in the USA,
        though.  I will try to provide the details next week.

        They shouted obscenities at church members, who were greatly
        outnumbered, and terrorized young and old alike.  They smashed
	the windows of the sanctuary and screamed obscenities and chanted
	"We want your children!"

        The police were called, the mob was dispersed, but not one arrest
        was made.

        Our pastor said that, if this had been a prayer vigil outside an
        abortuary, all the demonstrators would be facing 2 years in
        penitentiary.

	Indeed, these are perilous times.

	Praying for our nation and its leadership,
		Tony

Re: 15.305  


 ...and the connection to religion?

The connection to religion:

The AIDS epidemic is made worse by religious groups that wish to
suppress the availability of condoms to junior high school children.

Dincha know?

It's our fault.

I read that in some other notesfile.

| <<< Note 16.148 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| The AIDS epidemic is made worse by religious groups that wish to suppress the 
| availability of condoms to junior high school children.

	John, while I know the numbers run very high that those in high school
(I think I heard something like 88%) will have sex before they graduate, I'm
not sure of the junior high numbers. And while I also think that abstinance
should be taught, I also agree that safer sex should also be talked about. You
have to agree that all the talking in the world is not going to prevent
children from having sex. Considering it doesn't always stop them from doing
other things, why should this be any different? I would rather see a kid who
decided to not listen to the abstinance message have sex wearing a condom than
to have kids have unprotected sex.

| It's our fault.

	Not really John. You just aren't looking at the entire picture, that's
all.

| I read that in some other notesfile.

	Which one John?



Glen

    re.: 16.149 by DEMING::SILVA

    I may be wrong, but I *think* John was being facetious in his comments?
    
    As for the subject of Sex Education in school and the distribution of
    condoms... No way should either be the responsibility of the schools.
    
    This should *always* be the responsibility of the *family*. I realize
    that not all kids out there have *family*, but there are other ways to
    get the message to them without it happening in school.
    
    With budget cuts and all, our tax money could be used to educate the
    kids, so they can some day be productive members of society.
    
    Yes, there will be some who fall through the cracks, but devise a way
    to close the crack.
    
    Parents need to become involved in their kids' lives. They need to help
    teach their children. If the parents are unable, they then should have
    a place to go which will help them help their children.
    
    Lately, Sex education cariculum includes (most often) subject matter
    that is counter to the norm... So the question would really be, what do
    our educators really want to teach our children (about sex)....????
    
    

 

  The Southern Baptist Convention is currently teaching a program called 
  "True Love Waits" which sounds like a wonderful program.  Of course we'll
  never see it in public schools, or on MTV because the world hears abstinence
  and they think religion and we sure don't want the kids to hear about that!
  

  

 Jim

    
    >I would rather see a kid who decided to not listen to the abstinance 
    message have sex wearing a condom than to have kids have unprotected sex.
    
    
     It has been proven that the result is the SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
     Condoms do not prevent the HIV virus from getting through. This is the
    BIG lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    I say this at the risk of starting a debate that has already been
    explored. One in which I have no desire to beat my head against the
    wall about again.
    
    Dan

	True story, told to me last week by the mother speaking below.

	The following conversation took place during a parents' night
	discussion on a planned Sex Education lecture being proposed
	for 7th and 8th graders at a public school.

	Leader: Where did you learn about sex ?

	(some parents offer their responses, which the leader writes on
	a board)

	Mother: From my mother.

	Leader: Well, that's certainly come down the list a few, hasn't it ?

	(more responses follow, after which the leader begins to discuss
	the responses)

	Leader: I suppose we really should take "mother" off the list, after
		all, it's kind of an unreliable source.

	Mother:  Well, my mother wasn't, she was right on.

	Leader:  Well, I doubt that's the norm, I mean, parents often lie.

	This leader was the woman who will be teaching the course.

 Re -1  


 Well, that instructor got things off on a good note, eh?  Hope it isn't
 the same "instructor" that "taught" at Chelmsford High School a couple 
 months ago.




Jim

        
    Re.147
    
    Mark,
    
    >...and the connection to religion?
    
    I thought it would be obvious.  Since AIDS has now risen to being 
    the *number one* killer of men in the US in that age group, that 
    Christians would want to know, and should be deeply concerned about 
    this new statistic.  Knowing a fact can lead to people doing 
    something about it in a constructive way.  Funding research, etc.
    
    I also believe that it was you, Mark, who said that you were in an
    extremely low risk group for contracting AIDS, so this topic has been
    discussed before from this perspective, and by you specifically.  Given 
    all things, it is no doubt true that you are in a very low risk 
    category.  However, still, you are also in this age bracket.  And
    probably so are many of your close male friends and relatives.  Maybe 
    not you, but them... 
    
    Cindy

I don't think so, Cindy.  The connection is what one would like to make it. 
The article had no explicit reference to religion; only the implicit
ones people have attached to it since .147.

Re: biggest killer among X age group.

The AIDs epidemic can be reduced and eventually [virtually] eliminated
with behavior modification.  Monogamous sex with HIV- persons (regardless
of preference) is safe from contracting AIDs.  Period.  This one factor
change would result in between 67 and 85% of cases of HIV transmission 
being eliminated.  The remaining 15-33% (depending on who is giving the stats)
belong to drug abusers and prostitution, with no more than 2% attributed
to blood transfusions or babies being born to HIV+ women (though this is
on the rise as blood infections are on the decline).

The message in the world is "y'all be careful out there."  We know what 
PREVENTS HIV transmission, but education doesn't seem to be enough.
Despite KNOWING, people are unwilling to change or do not believe it
will happen to them.

Now, either HIV is highly contagious, in which case preventative measures
should be taken as with any contagious disease, or it is highly preventable,
in which case people should take steps to prevent the spread of HIV.
Condoms only reduce the spread and do not prevent it.  Condoms are not
as reliable for preventing diseases as they are for preventing pregnancy;
the ratio is much worse!  The condom message is a stupid one that says,
"if you're going to put a loaded pistol to your head, remove four of the
six bullets from the chamber before pulling the trigger."

>    Christians would want to know, and should be deeply concerned about 
>    this new statistic.  Knowing a fact can lead to people doing 
>    something about it in a constructive way. 

When the answer is there, and ignored, how can one be more constructive?

As for funding of research: this goes back to the age group thing:
Let is fund it according to its severity as a killer.  Why does AIDS
research get 10 times the government funding that heart disease does
which kill 43 times as many people?

Mark

>Why does AIDS research get 10 times the government funding that heart disease
>does which kill 43 times as many people?

Some legitimate and some illegitimate reasons:

1. The victims are quite young.
2. There is, as yet, no known cure or effective treatment.
3. AIDS has hit people involved in the media quite hard, so it has vocal
   spokespersons with prominent podiums.
4. AIDS has hit very hard among a group of people who were already politically
   very well-organized.

/john

>Some legitimate and some illegitimate reasons:
>
>1. The victims are quite young.
>2. There is, as yet, no known cure or effective treatment.
>3. AIDS has hit people involved in the media quite hard, so it has vocal
>   spokespersons with prominent podiums.
>4. AIDS has hit very hard among a group of people who were already politically
>   very well-organized.

I propose some metric by which all diseases get funded for research.
Factors to include are:

a. Contagiousness of the disease
b. Lethality (word) of the disease
c. Relative actual number of people affected
d. Rate of incident increase (sometimes related to contagiousness; sometimes not)

I don't have a proposal for weighting these factors, but HIV would 
stack up something like this:

a. contagious BUT highly preventable (moderate weight);
    not contagious (virtually) to those outsise "high risk groups"
b. lethality (always lethal, progressive) (heavy weight)
c. low compared to other diseases (low weight)
d. rising (but leveling) (moderate weight)

Heart disease:

a. Not contagious (low weight); somewhat preventable 
b. Treatable but significantly impacts life (moderate weight)
c. High compared to other diseases (high weight)
d. Steady (change measured in single percentages)

Should we weight a, b, c, and d equally?  Should we spend more money on 
saving 10 people or 430 people?  All things being equal, it is an easy
question.  But since the threat of heart disease is not *as* imminent
(thought death is death), and not as tragic (the symptoms are 
(I presume) more "tolerable" for the heart disease victim), I would 
not propose a 1:43 disbursment of funds to these two categories.
I would propose that 10:1 is not an objective ratio for disbursment,
either.  Would you?  While I don't have a functional equation to determine
an objective way to fund research for diseases, I think is it possible,
if reasons 3 and 4 that John gives are dismissed as not being objective,
which they aren't.  You might get a 1:3 ratio, or even 1:2 based on 
these factors.  Your mileage may vary.

	I forget who said it, but it would be much better if the parents would
teach their children about sex. But the sad thing is (which even you listed)
that not every child has a good family base to begin with. 

	Mark, if your plan is so easily workable, go out and make the masses
use it. I think while what you want to accomplish is the right thing
(abstinence), achieving it is another.


Glen

    
    Well, OK, if you say so, Mark (about the connection.)  (;^)
    
    Seriously though, I still feel that because the topic has been
    discussed so frequently here, that it was important that the
    statistic be entered.  I have also entered it in other places
    where there is no direct connection either, primarily because
    *I* was shocked to hear it.
    
    Cindy

    
    Mark,
    
    A few other thoughts came to mind since re.-1.  The statistic I heard
    was only for the US.  And not for other countries.  
    
    What you say about AIDS can be said about heart disease...that people
    know the primary causes (smoking, diet, stress, weight, etc.), and yet 
    they do not change.  People also can get a few 'warning signs' with 
    heart disease and they can change at that point (see Dr. Dean Ornish's 
    book on reversing heart disease, or have a bypass operation).  With
    behavior modification, heart disease can virtually be eliminated. Such 
    things are not possible with AIDS as it exists today.  Once you have
    it, you have it, and you die.
    
    You can say all you want about behavior modification, etc., and in
    theory it is a *great* idea, but that's not what happens.  First of
    all, education is not reaching people the way it should - not even 
    the basics.  If there are children/teens growing up today who still 
    don't know how a baby is created until after they've had sex and 
    find out the hard way, then they probably won't understand - or even
    have the capacity to understand - about AIDS transmission either.  
    
    A few stories - I met a British woman who was a nurse in a Saudi 
    hospital.  She said that it was not uncommon for older, married women
    to come in for a problem and before they could treat the problem, they
    had to treat them for STDs.  Now, these women certainly weren't having
    sex with anyone but their husbands.  However......  Another story - a
    friend in the Netherlands (not a Digital person) hosted a Saudi fellow
    on business.  The fellow asked for a 15-year-old girl to have sex with.
    But that's illegal in Holland, so he ended up with an 18-year-old.  And
    this is not an uncommon thing.  Not to pick on Saudi Arabia, but just 
    to illustrate that the chances of what you would like to have happen - 
    abstinence, etc. - are very low.  At this point, and with the rate of 
    spreading of this disease in the US and in the world, it's better to 
    teach abstinence AND look for a cure/preventative as quickly as possible.  
    In a mere *14 years* (or thereabouts), AIDS went from killing virtually 
    nobody to skyrocketing to the statistic I presented in the other topic.  
    That is very scary.  
    
    I do not know if you, personally, have lost anyone you know to AIDS, 
    but I have.  I've also lost many to heart disease and cancer, but AIDS 
    is altogether different.  
    
    While the amount of money spent on AIDS research may be
    disproportionately high right now, I believe the money spent on finding 
    a cure or a prevention for AIDS will, in the long run, *prevent* the 
    astronomical amount of money that would be spent in caring for AIDS 
    patients as they die.  I do not have figures for what it costs to care 
    for an AIDS patient, but I have heard that it is unbelievably high.  
    
    Cindy
                                                           

Note 16.161   TNPUBS::PAINTER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    You can say all you want about behavior modification, etc., and in
>    theory it is a *great* idea, but that's not what happens.  First of
>    all, education is not reaching people the way it should - not even 
>    the basics.  If there are children/teens growing up today who still 
>    don't know how a baby is created until after they've had sex and 
>    find out the hard way, then they probably won't understand - or even
>    have the capacity to understand - about AIDS transmission either.  

  (a) If something is "not what happens", then identify why and 
      change it.

  (b) If in theory it is a great idea, implement it, or at least 
      act like you really think so by attempting to implement it.

  (c) If you want to talk about people not knowing where babies come
      from, education is what should happen.  And not simply wearing
      latex while one has sex but education about the responsibilities
      of sex.  You're talking about educating people how to have safer
      sex when you should be talking about the responsibilities and 
      aftermath of sex.

>    Not to pick on [country omitted because it doesn't matter], but just 
>    to illustrate that the chances of what you would like to have happen - 
>    abstinence, etc. - are very low.  

   The chances of those people killing themselves by NOT having abstinence
   education is then very high.  Our responsibiltiy is to make them aware 
   of that danger, and not simply say, "Hey buddy, you'll be a lot safer
   if you just take four of those six bullets out of the chambers before
   putting that gun to your head and pulling the trigger."

>    At this point, and with the rate of 
>    spreading of this disease in the US and in the world, it's better to 
>    teach abstinence AND look for a cure/preventative as quickly as possible.  

   We agree on this (believe it or not).  But I wonder to what degrees
   we agree on the emphasis that should be placed on these.  The spread of 
   the disease has a limit, too (and I should include rate of spread in the
   equation for funding).  That limit is to the high risk groups and those
   innocents that they affect (tainted blood, babies born to HIV+ people, 
   unknowing spouses of unfaithful partners, etc).  The rate of spreading
   is ZERO for monogamous HIV- partners, last time I checked.

>    In a mere *14 years* (or thereabouts), AIDS went from killing virtually 
>    nobody to skyrocketing to the statistic I presented in the other topic.  
>    That is very scary.  

   Scary to whom?  I have no fear of it.  However, fear is not the motivator
   for Christians to contribute to the solution for AIDs.  Compassion is.
   Compassion for body and soul.

>    While the amount of money spent on AIDS research may be
>    disproportionately high right now, I believe the money spent on finding 
>    a cure or a prevention for AIDS will, in the long run, *prevent* the 
>    astronomical amount of money that would be spent in caring for AIDS 
>    patients as they die.  I do not have figures for what it costs to care 
>    for an AIDS patient, but I have heard that it is unbelievably high.  

   This argument is appealing to the unconcerned (about AIDs)
   taxpayer who knows that he'll pay for it.  Unfortunately, this will
   be the primary motivator to dealing with this segment of the AIDs issue.

   This is also a good argument for getting out the abstinence message so 
   that the new incidences of infection is reduced.  The condom message is
   KNOWN to not reduce or in some cases INCREASE the rate of teen sex and
   pregnancy in high schools.  The abstinence message is KNOWN to signficantly
   reduce the rate of sex and pregnancy among teens in high school.  So 
   let's decide who is really serious about saving these young people
   from catching STDs.

Mark

    
    Re.163
    
    Mark,
    
    No, I am not for educating people to have safer sex vs. teaching the
    reasons for abstinence.  I've never once advocated that position.  Your
    note in .163 makes it seem that I have. 
    
    Let me use another example...I know a very intelligent engineer who
    works for this company.  He is going for his Ph.D.  And yet, even with
    the 'safer sex by using condoms' message, he admitted that he has never
    used condoms, and yet has had casual sex with several women.  If the 
    message of 'safer sex through condoms' isn't even getting to someone 
    like him, then I don't believe it is getting to people who have far 
    less education and are in far more difficult economic circumstances.
    
    I guess that what it comes down to, is that the message you would like
    to get out (via education or whatever means), given the high statistic
    of AIDS transmission, is not getting through either.  My posting the
    statistic here may get people to work harder to do just this.  I don't
    think it's productive to attack the people who are for handing out
    condoms, because even though you may not agree with it, at least they
    are doing something, and they are doing it out of genuine concern for
    humanity.  Please try to see this, and stop attacking them.  I recommend 
    that you use your (collective 'your') energies instead, to work with 
    these people and combine forces to fight the real enemy here - AIDS.
    
    Your figure of 0% of monogamous couples who are HIV- contracting AIDS
    is not quite correct.  You leave out tainted blood transfusions, for 
    example. 
    
    Cindy

>    Your figure of 0% of monogamous couples who are HIV- contracting AIDS
>    is not quite correct.  You leave out tainted blood transfusions, for 
>    example. 

Actually, I hadn't.  I included the tainted blood people.  And the 0% is
a virtual number; or a statistical zero, not an absolute one.  Tainted blood
makes up for a fraction of 1% of HIV+ cases.  And since HIV+ people make up
a fraction of the total population, that fraction of 1% of HIV+ cases to
the total population is a statistical zero.

>    I don't
>    think it's productive to attack the people who are for handing out
>    condoms, because even though you may not agree with it, at least they
>    are doing something, and they are doing it out of genuine concern for
>    humanity.  Please try to see this, and stop attacking them.  I recommend 
>    that you use your (collective 'your') energies instead, to work with 
>    these people and combine forces to fight the real enemy here - AIDS.

Sorry but i don't buy the "at least they are doing something" message.
Taking bullets out of the chamber is still KILLING people.  Taking the gun
out of their hands is saving them.  "Doing something" can still mean
killing.  Do condom bring an "acceptable" rate of death?

Fighting AIDs is simple... SIMPLE.  Behavior modification will reduce
AIDs to almost nil.  Modifying behvaior is the difficult thing but it is
THE correct answer to AIDs prevention.  PREVENTION.  No more spreading
of HIV, Cindy.

AIDs is not the enemy - it is a tragic result of the enemy, ignorance
and self-indulgence.  Destory ingorance and self-indulgence, and you've
destroyed HIV, STDs and a host of other ills.  

Sound ideallistic?  You bet it is!  But it is also DOABLE.  Empowerment
begins with getting control over oneself and their self-indulgences.
Prevention and protection comes with education on what is safe, and not
only on what is merely a little safer.

So, I disagree also that attacking the condom message pushers is 
counterproductive.  Condoms kill because they are not reliable; they
only reduce (by questionable amounts) the risk - but they still kill.
Abstinence doesn't kill; it educates and empowers.

Mark

        The attempt to convince people to use condoms before engaging in
        sex is an attempt at behaviour modification.  This renders moot the
        argument that teaching abstinence is not viable because it entails
        behaviour modification.

        I read one of Dear Abby's replies where she said that condoms in
        the schools were necessary, because the kids are not going to
        listen to their parents, teachers, doctors, or preachers concerning
	sexual abstinence.  This logic is fatally flawed, because if the
	kids ain't listening to calls for abstinence, what makes you think
	that they'll listen when you tell them to use a condom?  The
	problem then becomes, "Why ain't the kids listening?"

        If we're going to try to modify behaviour, we should modify it in
        the direction yielding the most effectiveness.  For example, we
        don't encourage people imbibing alcohol to drive no matter how
        little they've consumed.  Complete abstinence from alcohol before
	driving is the recommended behaviour, and this is considered sound.

        It has been reported that condoms are not effective in the
        prevention of HIV transmission from sexual contact, HIV being
        smaller than the porosity of condoms. This method does not yield
        the highest effectiveness.

        I have never seen a condom dispensing machine.  When I was in High
        School, rumor had it that the bars in the Combat Zone (Red Light
        District) in Boston had them.  How sad it is that today's schools
        exhibit the moral substance of a Red Light District.  Sadder still
        that people are not shocked by it enough to change it.  The fall of
        morality, after all, is the root of today's Sexually Transmitted
        Disease epidemic.  Let's address the cause, not the effect.

		JER 6:15  

                Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay,
                they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush:
                therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time
                that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.

	With all due respect,
		Tony
		

                                                
    Re.167
    
    Tony,
    
    That is a very good question - why aren't kids listening?  I can only 
    expand on it by saying, why, even in light of the statistics, aren't 
    *people* listening?  To calls for either abstinence OR even using condoms
    ...why aren't they listening?
    
    The fellow I mentioned earlier - an intelligent, well-educated, upper 
    middle class engineer who *knows* about AIDS and how it is transmitted 
    - who STILL won't use condoms when engaging in sex with women he 
    hardly knows...how can one expect that such a person will abstain?  He
    can't even be bothered to modify his behavior a little bit.  He *knows* 
    full well that abstinence is a viable option, and yet... What is it 
    going to take to get through to him?  Why isn't he getting the message?  
    I do not know.
    
    One thing I do know is that some children and people can be reached via
    quoting facts such as the statistic I mentioned many notes earlier.  If, 
    by posting it, it made one person stop and think, "Hey, maybe I'd better 
    take this AIDS thing more seriously, or, maybe I should get involved in 
    my children's education and make things more clear to them, or maybe I 
    should really consider abstaining (if you aren't already), etc.", then 
    it was worth posting here.  
    
    Maybe it wasn't strictly religious, but I posted it anyway because I 
    care about people in general.  Call it a public service message.  I 
    thought that it was information that should be given exposure in light 
    of the crisis at hand.  Beyond this, I don't have anything more to say.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    Your note has merit, it is news even if it isn't religion in the news. 
    Thanks for the information.
    
    Nancy

    
    You're welcome, Nancy.  And thank you.
    
    Cindy

    
    
    How would you like to be a teenager and in essence be told,
    "I know you can't control yourself and your going to do this
    anyway , though we'd rather you not, and telling you the 
    dangers is going to matter to you anyway, so here, use this."
    
    I think there are many teenagers that would be and are insulted 
    at this condescending low-respect position. "What is it?  Do they 
    think I am some sort of animal?"
    
    #24

Note 16.168  TNPUBS::PAINTER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    That is a very good question - why aren't kids listening?  I can only
>    expand on it by saying, why, even in light of the statistics, aren't
>    *people* listening?  To calls for either abstinence OR even using condoms
>    ...why aren't they listening?

  Self-indulgence.

  And think about this: I can go and have unprotected sex with 100
  women and be completely safe from catching HIV if each of these 100
  women are HIV-.  In other words, morality aside, catching HIV happens
  because you have sex with an HIV-infected person (most commonly).

  So, if I am pretty well convinced that my "partner(s)" is HIV- then
  why bother "protecting" yourself from no danger?  Oh, yeah, I may
  suspect my partner has slept around, right?

  A convention of medical doctors was asked whether they would recommend
  people using condoms as a preventative measure against HIV.  Most
  raised their hands.  When asked whether they would advocate an HIV-
  person wearing a condom for sex with an HIV+ person, and the response
  was almost silent (virtually no hands were raised).

  The condom message is seriously flawed.  Condoms are USELESS from
  preventing HIV transmission if both partners are HIV-.  They are
  useless in this case because there is no virus to transmit.

  When there is a virus to transmit, condoms are in serious question
  as to their preventative effectiveness.  Preventing STDs is a
  whole lot less effective for condoms than preventing pregnancy.

  And if two partners are HIV+, you can't transmit more.  You're
  HIV+ or HIV- and the condom ONLY reduces the risk (questionably)
  in HIV-/HIV+ sexual contact.  And the only safe sex between HIV-/HIV+
  people is no sexual contact.

  But people will do what they want.  But at least they should know the
  real risks, and "I didn't think it would happen to me" needs to be
  part of that message from people who didn't think it would happen to
  them.

Mark

>  So, if I am pretty well convinced that my "partner(s)" is HIV- then
>  why bother "protecting" yourself from no danger?  Oh, yeah, I may
>  suspect my partner has slept around, right?

Of course, if the argument is that if this person is willing to have
sex with me, she may have been willing before...so just to be safe[R]
and protect myself from the possibility that I am not her first, that
she may be a carrier, I'll wear latex which reduces my chances of
killing myself over this self-indulgence of mine.

Empowering a teen before hormones take over is crucial to helping prevent
such stupid reasoning.  "Oh, yeah, you'll be safer, if you must have sex,
so use a condom."  But be sure to add that condoms are not very reliable
for the prevention of STDs.  Peer pressure is so much of what drives teens
to have sex, and yes, it is primarily a gender inequality: girls are
pressured by their boyfriends to "give" to keep him.  (I don't make this
up; this particular tidbit comes from a news magazine with Diane Sawyer 
on this particular story).  I'll be the first one to cry male-c-pig over
any buffoon who pressures another person for something they are not
ready or [completely] willing [without the duress of peer pressure].
Teen girls, in my opinion, are victimized more than any other age group
of females.  It ain't whether she plays with Barbie or GI Joe, but
whether she gets love and instruction in an affirmative environment
that determines the strength to resist the pressure.  And boys are
not exempt from this either, who need love and instruction for respect
and controlling their own hormones so as not to put pressure on a girlfriend.
(Vice versa occurrences are noted.)

Rambling, now...

MM

Another point I want to make is that this is such an emotional issue
because people charge it with morality and religion, when it is looked at
from an amoral position, objectively, the condom versus abstinence
message becomes clear; clear in which protects and prevents in 
theory AND in practice in the real world.

I purposely used the argument that I safely could have sex with 100 HIV-
women, even though my personal morality would be a factor that would
prohibit such behavior in me.  My personal morality has nothing whatsoever
to do with the logical, objective argument that preaching condoms is 
a dangerous message because it does not reduce the incidences of teen 
sex, and in fact increases it in many cases.  And saying "they'll do
it anyway, so let's tell them about condoms" is just plain flawed
logically, based on ACTUAL practice, not just theory.  Yet, people continue
to dismiss the abstinence message.  Why?

There are many people, myself included, in which moral position plays
a FACTOR in the reasons why the condom message is stupid and the CAUSE
of unnecessary transmission of STDs (based on these high school studies)
in contrast with the having the Abstinence (and empowerment) message preached.
But regardless of this factor, the condom message is still a stupid and
detrimental one to make.

Mark

    In a related story, I heard a short bit on the news the other night
    that Jocelyn Elders, the new Surgeon General, is beginning her push for
    expanded sex education in the schools beginning at the kindergarten
    level.

    Disgusting!

    I also read in this mornings paper that Senator Hatch (I think that's
    who it was) is submitting a bill that would create a bubble around
    church worship services (similar to the one around abortion clinics)
    that would make it a crime for individuals to disrupt a church service
    by doing things like shouting, throwing condoms, etc.  Part of his push
    for this, according to the article, was the recent disruption of a
    service here in Colorado Springs at Village Seven Presbytarian Church.

    Comments?  Thoughts?

    The church here, from what I have heard, handled it very well and
    showed a loving attitude towards the individuals.

    Ron

    
    Re.173-.175
    
    The condom vs. abstinence soapbox is now yours, Mark.  I never
    intended to bring up that issue for debate, so beyond quoting 
    the statistic for people to make up their own minds about, I 
    have nothing more to say.
    
    Cindy

Thanks for the soapbox, Cindy.  I never intended to bring up the debate
either.  My comment in .147 asked what the statistic you cites in 15.305
had to do with religion.  Your response:

>    I thought it would be obvious.  Since AIDS has now risen to being
>    the *number one* killer of men in the US in that age group, that
>    Christians would want to know, and should be deeply concerned about
>    this new statistic.  Knowing a fact can lead to people doing
>    something about it in a constructive way.  Funding research, etc.

It wasn't obvious.  I could also cite drowning as the leading
cause of death in swimming related accidents.  Christians might want 
to know and do something constructive about it.

.174 shows that the AIDs issue is not necessarily a religious or moral 
issue, is it?  

But some people have no problem with bringing it into the moral/religious
arena as long as moral and religious values are not part of the deep
concern and constructive way of dealing with the problem.  After all, 
the moral and religious values are not to be considered practical solutions 
to a very real problem.

Mark

    Ron,
    
    I think that it's fantastic that Senator Hatch is doing this... I hope
    it passes and sets a precedent, so that the PC here in California.
    
    It still really irks me what happened to the church in San Francisco.
    
    Nancy

    It seems as though this discussion (i.e. abstinence vs. condoms) may be
    dying, so my reply may be ill-timed. Nevertheless, I'm compelled to
    remind everyone what the Bible says. When you remember God's plan, the
    whole debate seems pointless.
    
    The Bible tells us that we're to have sex only with our marriage
    partner - Period. Sex before marriage is sin; sex outside of marriage is
    sin. The Bible also tells us that there is a penalty associated with
    sin. We reap what we sow, etc.
    
    What's the point? For a Christian to condone the use of condoms
    (assuming a non-marital encounter) is to condone the sin. The use of a
    condom outside of marriage is an attempt to circumvent the spiritual
    law. It's telling people, "You can sin, but wearing this may help
    mitigate sin's effect." What a ridiculous position for a Christian to
    support!
    
    We are a royal priesthood, a holy people. We are to provide salt and
    light to the world. We do not live up to our calling by supporting a
    means whereby people can sin with impunity.
    
    One secular example, and I'll quit. A certain percentage of people are
    going to rob banks. Even some teenagers with raging hormones are going
    to rob banks. Would anyone in their right mind "help" these would-be
    criminals (i.e. sinners) by teaching them a safer way to rob the bank?
    I can hear it now: "Well, I know some of you won't be able to control
    yourselves from trying to rob banks, so we want to provide you with
    bullet-proof vests so that when you do it you can be safer."
    
    God's plan is so simple.
    
    	BD�

    re: .179
    
    Well said, Barry.
    
    

    Re: Note 16.179 by DYPSS1::DYSERT
    
>   The Bible tells us that we're to have sex only with our marriage
>   partner - Period. 
    
    But what is sex?  Does the bible define it for us?
    
    My wife-to-be and I got involved in premarital interdigitation (holding
    hands), so is that sex?  (A Rhetorical Question; I'm *sure* it isn't,
    but it can be very "sexy" sometimes...  ;-)  ).
    
    James

    .181
    
    Mr. James,
    
    If you do not know by now... well, blush, you gots lots of pwoblems.
    :-}
    
    

    Re: Note 16.182 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
>   If you do not know by now... well, blush, you gots lots of pwoblems.
>   :-}
    
    A reading of Song of Songs with an open mind (or a dirty one) should
    give one sufficient practical hints...  ;-)  ;-)
    
    James

Sometimes people [yes, even Christians] act as though they really think
that sex is wrong.  I guess they forget Who designed it.  Surely, only God
could imagine - and implement - such a pleasure so way out that it is a
major compulsive human motivation.  Thing is, He also told us exactly when
and how it could and couldn't be used.  In fact He didn't just build it
in as a 'possible', He commanded it.  Like: "Even you guys who don't want
anything to do with Me, even *you* gotta enjoy some part of what I've made
you..."

We [people - not just Christians] want the sugar icing all the time, and
then wonder why we get sick on it... 

What a wonderful God we have .... If only we'd listen to Him...

								Andrew

	The leader of our Marriage Ministries group has several times
	quoted, "Before marriage, Satan does everything he can to bring
	you together (in sex).  After marriage, he does everything he can
	to keep you from it."  (Yeah, well, she says it better than that,too,
	but I hope you get the gist)

	PS - When we had our lesson on sex, I couldn't help but look ahead
	to see what the homework was going to be!

	Karen

    .185
    
    I *love* that quote. :-) :-)

.184

>We [people - not just Christians] want the sugar icing all the time, and
>then wonder why we get sick on it... 

Andrew, this delighted me.  Exemplary!

    
    Well said, Andrew.  
    
    Cindy

    AP 11/30 19:01 EST V0194

    Copyright 1993. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  By The
    Associated Press


    A glance at the spread of AIDS since the disease was first diagnosed in
    1981. Statistics are cumulative totals since records began, based on
    World Health Organization figures:  

    ------ 

    --Symptoms: Takes on average 10 years for human immunodeficiency virus
    to develop into full-blown AIDS. Disease attacks the immune system,
    exposing victims to illnesses. No cure. No vaccine expected before end
    of century.  

    --Transmission: Through heterosexual and non-heterosexual intercourse,
    contaminated blood and from mother to child.  

    --Total AIDS cases: More than 700,000 full-blown AIDS cases reported to
    WHO by July. True total estimated to be nearer 2.5 million worldwide
    because of under-reporting in developing countries.  

    --Total HIV infections: More than 13 million adults and 1 million
    children estimated infected. Forecast to climb to 40 million by end of
    decade.  

    ------ 

    Regional breakdown of estimated HIV infections:  

    --North America: Between 1 and 1.5 million estimated HIV infections.
    AIDS is biggest killer of American men aged 25 to 44, but virus now
    spreading rapidly among women.  

    --South America and Caribbean: 1.5 million. Future course will depend
    on whether Brazil can control spread of virus.  

    --Sub-Saharan Africa: 8 million. Bears the brunt of the current
    epidemic.  

    --Mideast and North Africa: 75,000. Strict Muslim traditions on
    sexuality confines problem but rise in sexually transmitted diseases
    among men and intravenous drug users suggests future problems.  

    --South and Southeast Asia: 1.5 million, mainly Thailand and India.
    Experts fear an explosion in cases, mainly because of prostitution.  

    --Western Europe: 500,000. Spreading across heterosexual population.  

    --Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union: 50,000. Fears that increased
    prostitution and drug abuse following collapse of Communism will lead
    to big increase. 

    AP Online
                                                 

>    --Transmission: Through heterosexual and non-heterosexual intercourse,
>    contaminated blood and from mother to child.  

I had listed some of the coutries cited in .189 but deleted them for redundancy.
What I notice from the statistics in .189 is not that the virus is running
rampant among the general population, but that it is running rampany in
the high risk behavior groups.  Note the mideast and North Africa with
their "strict Muslim traditions on sexuality."  Christianity also has
strict guidelines on sexuality (and the use of drugs).

Putting meaning to the stats either shows the truth or the skew.  
The epidemic exists among those who participate in high risk behavior,
and in some cases touches those of use who do not. 

Whether you place a "good" or "bad" value on certain behavioral values doesn't
really matter.  The fact is that certain behaviors are more likely to cause
life-trauma than others.  And behavior modification can go a long way to
PREVENTING harmful effects.

Mark

 RE 15.313


  Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.





 Jim

Hi Glen,

This sort of thing has happened elsewhere, to Christians who are not well 
taught in some aspects of the faith.  They try to re-create a specific
event, rather than listening to what the LORD is saying to them at the time 
they're in.

You needn't worry about the most important part - it doesn't lose them
their salvation; we'll meet them in heaven! 

							Andrew

    Re 313
    
    They obviously weren't praying hard enough.
    
    
    /Axl :-)

    RE;193
    Hi Gary !
    
    Hugs
    Jim

    Hi Gary,
    
    Welcome to Christian.
    
    Nancy

	Hey, maybe they weren't praying with a full deck????? ;-)


Glen

    .196
    
    Sick... but funny. :-) 

    Hi Jim, hugs to yer.
    Hi Nancy, hugs to yer.
    Hi Glen, hugs to yer.
    
    Hugs to everyone,
    
    /Axl

	Thanks fer the hugs Ax... er GAry. :-)  Hugs back at ya!


Glen

    Even though we all knew it was coming sooner or later, it's downright
    eerie seeing the means of a cashless system in the news.
    
    "No one without the mark of the beast can buy or sell..." (loosely
    quoted from Revelations)
    
    Although in first implementation there will be no "mark", I have no
    doubt that once the system is in place, it will not be long before
    this program evolves into something a bit more sinister.
    
    I've got chills.  It is quite faith enhancing, though, to see the
    begining of Biblical prophesies coming to fruitation.  Scary and
    exiting all at the same time.
    
    ...or maybe I'm just weird.
    
    -steve (the paranoid one)

    
    I think we tend to romanticize what we don't understand, especially if
    there is an element of anticipation associated with it (like the return
    of Jesus for His church).
    
    The hardship will be significant.  And our lives, as flacid as they
    are, will be, to some, unbearable.  Jesus made it clear that we are to
    pray that we can make it through the hardships of that day.  If He said
    it would be hard, it will really be hard.
    
    jeff
    

    I agree with you Steve... I hate to be considered a pessimist, but if I
    believe the prophecy of the Bible to be true, then as a Christian I
    must recognize the signs.  The GREAT thing is that although I recognize
    the signs, I'm at peace and have a calm for me and my children.  I have
    an increased burden for the lost and the wayward.  The wake-up call is
    here....
    
    Nancy

    speaking of endtimes prophecy, Chuck Missler is coming to our church on
    the 15th and 16th to clue us all in on what's going on.  Should be an
    exciting and scary 2 evenings.

    re: .203
    
    You will share his thoughts on the matter with the rest of us, I hope. 
    
    Pleeeeeze!  8^)
    
    -steve

    re: .201
    
    >If he said it will be hard...
    
    And the Bible is famous for its understatements.  Kinda scary.  You can
    bet I *will* be praying.
    
    -steve

From: [email protected] (RALPH JOSEPH)
Subject: Greece gripped by fear of widespread devil-worship cults

	ATHENS (UPI) -- Police said Thursday they have found a cave on a
mountain near Athens containing hundreds of figurines and other items
believed to be used in black magic and devil-worship cults.
	The discovery, together with the arrest earlier this week of two men
charged with the kidnapping, rape and ritual slaying of female victims,
has touched off fears that devil-worship cults and the practice of
witchcraft may be widespread in Greece.
	A police spokesman said the cave was discovered in Imitos Mountain
just outside Athens after a tip from an informer.
	The cave, running deep into the mountain, contained hundreds of wax
figurines, some stuck with pins, photographs of suspected victims, and
other items believed to be used in witchcraft, police said.
	The discovery came as police continued their probe into the ritual
killings of two young women over the past 18 months.
	Police have charged naval conscript Asimakis Katsoulas, 21, and army
conscript Manos Dimitrokallis, 19, with the kidnapping, rape and
slayings of a young hotel chambermaid and a teenage girl who disappeared
in August 1992.
	The two conscripts, who were being held by military police but may be
tried in a civilian court, reportedly told police the killings were part
of a devil-worship cult that they headed.
	Police said they have arrested two other members of the cult, and
were led to a hideaway used by the cult for their rituals. Inside were
an altar, inscriptions, partly burned photographs, dolls and other items
used in witchcraft.
	It was not immediately clear if the cave was linked to the cult
members allegedly involved in the deaths of Theodora Syropoulos, 15, in
August 1992, and hotel chambermaid Garyfalia Yiourga, 30, in April.
	Police said they have found what was believed to be the broken skull
of Syropoulos, who allegedly was killed in a shack on the Imitos
Mountain. Her body was allegedly raped after she was killed, and then
set ablaze to destroy the evidence. The fire spread to a nearby forest.
	The teenager reportedly was a member of the cult before becoming a
victim.
	Yiourga allegedly was kidnapped as she returned home from work late
at night. Police said she was taken to a shed in an Athens suburb,
bound, raped several times, then killed. Her skull was smashed beyond
recognition and the body wasdumped on a roadside.
	Police said the slayings came to light when a cult member, fearing
his sister was about to be the next victim, decided to seek help from
the authorities.
	Dimitra Karyeti, 18, another cult member arrested as an alleged
accessory, told reporters she helped lure Syropoulos to the shack in
1992 after the cult leaders told her they had been prompted by a demon
to commit the ritual murder.
	Investigators said during rituals, the two alleged killers called
themselves Amon and Enigma, the names of two demons said to be invoked
in black magic and witchcraft.
	These details, together with the discovery by reporters of a shop in
Athens selling books, potions and items used in black magic, have sent a
wave of panic through otherwise intensely religious Greeks.
	Police said they received a call from people living on Academias
Street in central Athens who reported ``strange sounds and happenings''
in a house in their neighborhood. It turned out the house was being used
as a small chapel.

 RE 15.l (devil worship cults)



 the 700 Club this week has had some rather frightening stories of such 
 activity in the US.  don't know how many of y'all listen to Bob Larson,
 but based on some of the calls he gets on this subject if even 10% of them
 are true, its quite scary.




Jim

    I listened to him regularly about 7 years ago.  I'm not even sure if
    he's on the dial out here now.

 I hear calls from Phoenix quite a bit.  





Jim

 Heard a brief talk last night about someone proposing a law against 
 "religious harassment".  Essentially, should you be talking to an acquaint-
 ance and he/she relates personal problems and you mention Jesus Christ, the
 Bible, etc, you could be accused of "religious harrassment".  I assume this
 would also include any type of visitation, etc.  I can't recall who had
 proposed the law, but I believe it was a member of Congress.




Jim

From:	LILCPX::BULLARD      25-JAN-1994 16:51:09.35
To:	JULIET::MORALES_NA
CC:	
Subj:	Can ya post this in Christian notes for me? Thanks....

EARTHQUAKE SHAKES UP CENTER OF PORN INDUSTRY
by William Arnold
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The overwhelming media coverage of last weeks California earthquake failed
to mention that the quakes epicenter is the hub of America's 3 billion X-
rated video industry.
 The triangle formed by the San Fernando Valley communities of Chatsworth,
Northridge and Conoga Park- tighly encircling the epicenter of the powerful
quake- contains nearly 70 companies theat make 95% of the roughly 1,400
pornographic videos made every year in the United States.
 In a recently published book on Los Angeles, the film reveiwer for 
Penthouse magazine is quoted as saying, "For some reason, the Valley is to 
porn tapes what Washington is to bureaucrats. They have all the talent out 
there, most of it drawn to mainstream Hollywood but not making it. Porn now 
rates in the top 100 of California industries."
 So far this coincidence of cataclysm-and -Gommorah appears to have gone 
unnoticed by California's feisty religious right, but no one who works in 
the entertainment industry's shadow expects that situation to last.
 "Can you imagine how (the fundamentalists) are going to leap on this when 
the smoke clears?" says a director who works for several Northridge studios.
"They're gonna have a feild day of 'I told-you-so's' down in Orange County.
They'll say it's God's retribution, his personal destruction of 
America'most wicked city".
 God's will or not, there's no doubt that the devastation in California's
video-Sodom has been close to apocalyptic. A telephone survey of various
Northridge and other Valley area studios discloses that- with no exceptions
- every company has suffered some major damage, much of it immobilizing.
  Probably the most devastated has been the giant of the industry, VCA 
Pictures, a Chatsworth company that usually releases more than 100 videos a 
year including such relatively expensive, shot on film features such a 
"Erotique" and "The good the bad and the nasty".
  According to several sources, VCA's office building was "totaled," and no 
one has been inside since the morning of the quake.
  "It's all over for them", says Malcom Beard, manager of Northridge's 
Executive Video. "Their whole operation is gone- all their equipment and 
masters. I hear there may even be a security guard under the rubble."
 Other companies report a range of lesser damges, including cracked walls, 
buckled floors, flooding, smashed optical equipment and duplicating 
machines, broken windows, broken windows, and a lingering state of 
uncertainty.
 Several industry spokesmen said they believe the biggest effects, at least 
in the short run, may be psychological.
  An executive at World Modeling, a Van Nuys modeling agency that supplies 
talent to the porn industry, has noted a "distinct lack of motivation" from 
his clients.
  "With all these aftershocks, everyone is a nervous wreck. WHo can be in 
the mood to be in a pornographic movie, for gosh sakes...? Or maybe this 
thing has just put the fear of God in them. I'm telling you, it's enough to 
give you an attack of religion."
  Some porn insiders believe the quake will cause no lasting damage to the
X-rated video industry and probably only a minor effect on its 1994 
production year. Gene Ross, critic and columnist for the industry trade 
paper Adult Video News, is particularly upbeat.
  "There's no permanent damage here," he says. "Two to three days have been 
lost, at most. Everyone will soon be and running."
  Others are less certain. Many feel the writing has been on the wall for 
some time for the Valley's monopoly on the industry.
  According to a critic at Adam Film World, a magazine that revies X-videos
, "A year or so ago, the L.A. Times publised a map of the area that 
pinpointed the the individual porno video companies- what they called a
'map of shame'.
  "It was like they hung up a target or something- an invitation to every 
religious kook and eager beaver assistant DA in Southern California to come 
on up and hassle the industry. It just hasn't been as comfortable there as 
it once was".
    

	I think this is pretty funny. As someone else had said, it would be
pretty sloppy of God to wipe out the porn industry along with many people. But
if the zealots want to actually believe this stuff, oh well......


Glen

 Whilst attempting to move some notes from this topic to the comments (16)
 topic some strange goings on occured..bear with me whilst I try to figure
 out just what I've done.





Jim Co Mod

    While this is pretty good, if God was behind it, they wouldn't have a
    chance of recovery.

 But the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slack-
 ness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but
 that all should come to repentance..but the Day of the Lord will come as a
 thief in the night...2Peter 3:9-10a.



 Certainly God's desire is for people to be saved..but we never know when He
 will take us. 




 Jim

    I heard that shortly after the earthquake, Jay Leno (with reference to
    the pornography industry) said something to the effect of "If we didn't
    know better, we'd think God was trying to tell us something."
    
    Mark L.

 "If we didn't know better"....

    re.: Jay Leno (with reference to the pornography industry) said 
    	 something to the effect of "If we didn't know better, we'd 
    	 think God was trying to tell us something."

    *if we didn't know better* He's a Christian, he knows! He'd
    			       unfortunately say anything for a laugh...!

    *we'd think God was trying to tell us something*

    	To coin a well known kid phrase......  DUH......!


    I know the area where Jay Leno grew up... In Andover Mass. I know a few
    folks from that area and there aren't many "non-believers" in that area
    of the world... The community of Andover has many churches who's
    "parishes" encompass most of the city.

    The Leno family has lived in the area for at least 2 generations..

    Success has caused a drift from the truth....
    
    Bob
    

>>    ... In Andover Mass. I know a few folks from that area and there 
>>    aren't many "non-believers" in that area of the world... The 
>>    community of Andover has many churches who's "parishes" encompass 
>>    most of the city.

      Gosh, is there more than one Andover in MA? I lived in Andover for 
      3 years and my impressions are a bit different.  I didn't find it 
      any more or less "Christian" than anywhere else in the New England 
      area.  It had a large population of uppermiddle class and wealthy, 
      and tended to be very "posh", but I didn't think it was any more aware 
      of who God is and what it means to be a follower of Jesus than anywhere 
      else.  I went to a large Congregational Church there that was okay - 
      had some people who were dedicated to God and others who were there 
      just because it was the thing to do - comfortable.  Also, I thought 
      of Andover as more of a town than a city. (I lived two blocks from the 
      Main St in a large house that had been converted to apartments)

Leslie

    
   *     I know the area where Jay Leno grew up... In Andover Mass. I know a
   * few folks from that area and there aren't many "non-believers" in that
   * area of the world... The community of Andover has many churches who's
   * "parishes" encompass most of the city.
    
     I would say that the area of Andover is no different than the norm for
    any other city in the U.S.
    
    
   *     The Leno family has lived in the area for at least 2 generations..
    
    I have heard Jay take the Lord's name in vain on many occasion.
    
    Dan
    
    

    Come to think of it... it could have been the "comfortable Christian" I
    was seeing/hearing about...
    
    I never lived there myself. But knew several Scotish families, through
    my grandparents and the Scotish American club... 
    
    Oh, I've heard some of Jay's monologues... They are not Christian-like,
    by any means.... But then, his are saintly compared to some other
    commedians I've heard..
    
    Bob
    

    Knowing Leno's style, his delivery was probably laced with sarcasm.

Re:  evil

The evil that is around is affects us all.  You cannot say,
"I do not do that and so I will be unaffected".  The "innocent"
have been and still are affected when evil is punished - even
when God punishes evil (which is imperfectly punished here
on earth).

When the Babylonians came, did they treat those who worshipped
Yahweh and were faithful to Him with respect?  Or were they
dragged off with everybody else?  This judgment on the nation
affected the righteous as well as the unrighteous.  So it
continues to day.

God hasn't revealed to me whether or not this earthquake was
his judgment on some of the evil done in Southern California.
However, I wanted to set the record straight that it is certainly
consistent with judgments in the past and therefore, this can
not be ruled out.

Collis

Re: Note 16.219 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON 

� The evil that is around is affects us all.  You cannot say,
� "I do not do that and so I will be unaffected".  

I think it is salutary to recall the response of Daniel and Nehemiah in
this context.  When bringing the state of the nation before the LORD, they
'stood in the gap' as per Ezekiel 22:30, and said, not 'forgive them', but
'forgive *us*...' (Daniel 9:5-11, Nehemiah 1:6-7) 

From their faithfulness, it can be seen that they were not those to
practise the sins they were repenting of; they were identifying with a
national repentance, much as Jesus was baptized 'to fulfil all
righteousness' (Matthew 3:15).

							Andrew

Article 5481 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected] (UPI)
Subject: Rafsanjani escapes apparent assassination attempt

	ATHENS (UPI) -- Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani escaped
unhurt in an apparent assassination attempt Tuesday when a man pulled a
gun and began firing while the cleric was delivering a speech, the
state-run Iranian news agency IRNA said.
	People in the crowd jumped the man after he pulled a pistol, and five
bullets were fired into the air before the man was overpowered, IRNA
said in a dispatch monitored in Athens.
	The incident occurred as Rafsanjani was delivering a speech in a
shrine 10 miles (15 km) south of Tehran to mark the 15th anniversay of
the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran from exile in
1979, at the height of the revolution against the shah.
	IRNA did not identify the would-be assassin, but said Rafsanjani was
unhurt.
	The president was quoted as saying later he thought he heard a light
bulb popping, and only when he heard the sound again did he realize it
was shooting. He finished his speech, and there was no panic, IRNA said.
	The would-be assassin was handed over to security officials at the
shrine, the news agency said.
	At the time of the incident, he was standing about 150 yards (150 m)
from the speaker's platform inside the mosque at Khomeini's mausoleum.
	The news agency quoted witnesses as saying the man behaved
suspiciously before pulling the gun. ``He was trembling and looked
embarrassed a minute before'' the incident, one witness said.
	The man lost his self-control when he pulled the gun, and people
standing nearby immediately jumped him, another said. ``I grabbed him on
the wrist and then I heard bullets fired,'' another said.
	A student in the crowd was quoted as saying the incident lasted no
more than a few seconds.
	After the shooting, people chanted slogans against the outlawed
Mojahedin Khalq organization and the United States, IRNA said.

    
    I just heard from Charles Mok, who used to note in here prior to
    leaving the company.  He sends his greetings (and would enjoy hearing
    from any of you).  Charles sent on a couple of news items on China that
    I'll post here and in the next reply.
    
    Mark L.
    
From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Charles Mok" 15-FEB-1994 19:47:29.47
To:	pobox::lovik
CC:	
Subj:	Amnesty says 10 Christians jailed in China HONG KONG 

Amnesty says 10 Christians jailed in China HONG KONG (Feb. 15) UPI - A group
of 10 Christians, including three from the United States, have been detained
in China since Feb. 10, the human rights watchdog Amnesty International said
Tuesday. 

The spate of arrests has sparked renewed fears of an official crackdown
against religious freedoms in China, Amnesty International said. 

The group was said to be planning to meet with religious leaders and groups
in various villages in central China's Henan Province. 

Of the 10, three were from China and seven were foreign nationals being held
in Fangcheng City in Henan. In addition to the Americans, two people from
Hong Kong and two Indonesian nationals were being held. 

"The U.S. embassy has reportedly been told that the foreigners are being held
under a religious law," Amnesty said. 

The three Chinese nationals were separated from the rest of the group,
raising concern for their safety. 

"The three Chinese Christians among them are at risk of being held without
charge or trial solely for carrying out peaceful religious activities,"
Amnesty said. 

At the end of January, China passed two new regulations governing religion
that included laws aimed at curbing religious activities by foreign visitors.


More than 25 Protestant preachers and Catholics have been arrested or
detained in recent months, Amnesty said. 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Charles Mok" 15-FEB-1994 20:33:13.00
To:	pobox::lovik
CC:	
Subj:	China Nabs Foreigners in New Religion Crackdown

Subject: China Nabs Foreigners in New Religion Crackdown
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:30:13 PST

	 BEIJING (Reuter) - Chinese police detained seven foreign
Christians from the United States, Indonesia and Hong Kong last
week in the country's first reported use of strict new religion
laws, Amnesty International said.
	 The U.S. Embassy in Beijing said it was told by authorities
in the central province of Henan that three detained Americans
had been released Tuesday.
	 There was no immediate word on two Indonesians and two Hong
Kong residents or on three Chinese Christians reported detained
during the same raid in Henan's Fangcheng city the night of
February 10.
	 London-based Amnesty International called on Beijing to
release all the Christians immediately if they were not charged
with ``recognizably criminal offenses in accordance with
international standards.''
	 The human rights group named the foreign detainees as Paul
Star, Daughin Chan and Dennis Balcombe of the United States, Ina
Yang and Bam Bang of Indonesia and May Chong and Kok Fai Kwok of
Hong Kong.
	 The U.S. Embassy was unable to confirm the names or say
where the Americans were at present. Officials at the Indonesian
Embassy could not be reached for comment.
	 Amnesty said the detentions were thought based on new laws
enacted January 31 banning foreigners from converting residents
and forbidding churches from destructive, independent,
unauthorized or overseas-financed activities.
	 China's apparant new hardline on religion comes at a
sensitive time for U.S-China relations, which are already under
serious strain over human rights as Washington debates renewal
of China's preferential trade privileges in June.
	 Beijing is under pressure to show rights improvements or
lose Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, which would put billions
of dollars of Chinese exports to the U.S. market at risk.
	 The new laws sharply increased the Communist government's
already-tight control over religious activity in China.
	 Amnesty said the foreigners, who arrived in China  February
8 intending to meet rural Christians in Henan province, were
detained at a government guesthouse.
	 It said the three Chinese Christians, whose names were not
known, were believed to have been separated from the foreigners
``and it has indicated that their cases will be investigated
separately.''
	 Amnesty said the arrests followed reports of over 25
Protestant preachers and Catholic leaders being arrested or
placed under restrictions during the past few months for their
religious activities.
	 China permits state-sanctioned religious bodies for
Buddhist, Taoist, Protestant, Catholic and Islamic groups, but
keeps a close eye on their activities and acts swiftly to halt
any unsanctioned religious groups.
	 The new religion laws say foreign violators will face
unspecified punishment. They also ban the underground ``house
churches'' which have proliferated across China as believers
gather to worship in secret. 

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "Russell Sutherland"   13-JAN-1994 16:30:00.61
To:	distribution:;@us2rmc.bb.dec.com (see end of body)
CC:	
Subj:	Persecution in Iran

[Scott Vander Weil has posted this message to me, the manual
 pb-mail list forwarder. Please respond to him if you have
 any information relating to the Christian assemblies in Iran.]

Below is an article that tells of persecution experienced by
Christians in Iran.  It looks like the author is from the Assemblies
of God, but a Brethren assembly in Tehran is mentioned as one of two
Evangelical groups that have not signed (apparently false) letters of
appreciation to the UN for their full freedom in the country.  I would
like to know if anyone on the PB mailing list knows additional
information about how the brethren in Tehran are managing.  

 Regards,
 Scott Vander Wiel
 AT&T Bell Labs, Room 2C-277            [email protected]
 600 Mountain Avenue                    office: (908) 582-3213
 P.O. Box 636                           fax:    (908) 582-3340
 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636



This message was dated 9 PM 1/11/94. It is sent as received.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject : Persecution in Iran 

From: Luis Bush             To: Dear Christian Colleagues   
         AD2000
Today I received a copy of the defense of an Iranian pastor on 
Dec 3, who is scheduled for execution tomorrow, from Sam
Yegnazar, who pastors a large Iranian church in London. This 
report has been verified by a colleague, Doug Clark of the AoG
in the mIddle East and Tom Craig based in Cyprus with Interdev.
Please mobilize prayer for the Christians in Iran. What an 
example of the suffering of the believers in this part of the world.

Mehdi Dibaj's written statement at his court hearing on December
3, 93 after nine years in prison:

       <<In the Holy Name of God who is our life and existence>>

<<With all humility I express my gratitude to the Judge of all
heaven and earth for this precious opportunity, and with broken-
ness I wait upon the Lord to deliver me from this court trial ac-
cording to His promises.  I also beg the honored members of 
the court present to listen with patience to my defense and
with respect for the Name of the Lord.

<<I am a Christian, a sinner who believes Jesus has died for
my sins on the cross, and who, by His resurrection and victory 
over death, has made me righteous in the presence of the Holy 
God.  The true God speaks about this fact in His Holy Word, 
the Gospel.  Jesus means Saviour, "because He will save His 
people from their sins."  Jesus paid the penalty of our sins by 
His own blood, and gave us a new life so we can live for the 
glory of God by the help of the Holy Spirit, and be like a dam
against corruption, be a channel of blessing and healing, and 
be protected by the love of God.

<<In response to this kindness, He has asked me to deny myself 
and be His fully surrendered follower, and not fear people even 
if they kill my body, but rather rely on the Creator of life, who has 
crowned me with the crown of mercy and compassion, and Who 
is the great protector of His beloved ones, and their great reward.

<<I have been charged with "Apostasy"!  The invisible God who 
knows our hearts has given assurance to us Christians that we 
are not among the apostates who will perish, but among the 
believers so that we may save our lives.  In Islamic Law, an 
apostate is one who does not believe in God, the prophets or
the resurrection of the dead.  We Christians believe in all three!

<<They say, "You were a Muslim and you have become a Christian." 
No, for many years I had no religion.  After searching and studying,
I accepted God's call and I believed in the Lord Jesus Christ in
order to receive eternal life. People choose their religion, but a
Christian is chosen by Christ.  He says, "You have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you."  From when?  Before the foundations of the
world.

<<People say, "You were a Muslim from your birth".  God says, 
"You were a Christian from the beginning."  He states that He
chose us thousands of years ago, even before the creation of
the universe, so that through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ we 
may be His!  A Christian means one who belongs to Jesus Christ.

<<The eternal God, Who sees the end from the beginning and
Who has chosen me to belong to Him, knew from everlasting 
whose heart would be drawn to Him, and also those who would 
be willing to sell their faith and eternity for a pot of porridge.  I
would rather have the whole world against me but know that the
Almighty God is with me, be called an apostate but know that I 
have the approval of the God of glory, because man looks at the 
outward appearance but God looks at the heart, and for Him who 
is God for all eternity nothing is impossible.  All power in heaven 
and on earth is in His hands.

<<The Almighty God will raise up anyone He chooses and bring 
down others, accept some and reject others, send some to heaven 
and others to hell.  Now because God does whatever He desires, 
who can separate us from the love of God?  Or who can destroy 
the relationship between the creator and the creature, or defeat a 
heart that is faithful to His Lord?  He will be safe and secure under
the shadow of the Almighty!  Our refuge is the mercy seat of God
who is exalted from the beginning.  I know in whom I have believed, 
and He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him to the end, 
until I reach the Kingdom of God, the place where the righteous 
shine like the sun, but where the evildoers will receive their 
punishment in hell fire.

<<They tell me "Return!"  But from the arms of my God to whom 
can I return to? Is it right to accept what people are saying instead 
of obeying the Word of God?  It is now 45 years that I am walking
with the God of miracles, and His kindness upon me is like a shadow 
and I owe Him much for His fatherly love and concern.

<<The love of Jesus has filled all my being, and I feel the warmth 
of His love in every part of my body.  God, who is my glory and honor
and protector, has put His seal of approval upon me through His un-
sparing blessings and miracles.

<<This test of faith is a clear example.  The good and kind God
reproves and punishes all those whom He loves.  He tests them 
in preparation for heaven. The God of Daniel, who protected his 
friends in the fiery furnace, has protected me for nine years in prison, 
and all the bad happenings have turned out for our good and gain, 
so much so that I am filled to overflowing with joy and thankfulness.

<<The God of Job has tested my faith and commitment in order to strengthen 
my patience and faithfulness.  During these nine years,
He has freed me from all my responsibilities so that, under the pro-
tection of His blessed Name, I would spend my time in prayer and 
study of His Word, with heart searching and brokenness, and grow 
in the knowledge of my Lord.  I praise the Lord for this unique op-
portunity.  "You gave me space in my confinement, my difficult
hardships brought healing, and your kindness revived me."  Oh 
what great blessings God has in store for those who fear Him!

<<They object to my evangelizing.  But "if you find a blind person
near a well and keep silent, then you have sinned (a Persian 
saying)". It is our religious duty, as long as the door of God's 
mercy is open, to convince evildoers to turn from their sinful ways, 
and find refuge in Him in order to be saved from the wrath of a 
Righteous God and from the coming dreadful punishment.

<<Jesus Christ says, "I am the door. Whoever enters through me will 
be saved." "I am the way, the truth and the life.  No-one comes to 
the Father except through Me."  "Salvation is found in no-one else, 
for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we 
must be saved."  Among the prophets of God, only Jesus Christ rose
from the dead, and He is our living intercessor forever.

<<He is our Saviour and He is the Son of God.  To know Him 
means to know eternal life.  I, a useless sinner, have believed 
in His beloved person and all His words and miracles recorded 
in the Gospel, and I have committed my life into His hands.  Life 
for me is an opportunity to serve Him, and death is a better 
opportunity to be with Christ.  Therefore, I am not only satisfied
to be in prison for the honour of His Holy Name, but am ready to 
give my life for the sake of Jesus my Lord and enter His kingdom
sooner, the place where the elect of God enter everlasting life,
but the wicked to eternal damnation.

<<May the shadow of God's kindness and His hand of blessing 
and healing be upon you and remain forever.  Amen.

<<With respect, Your Christian prisoner,
Mehdi Dibaj>>


Gorgan church has been closed down by the court.  8 believers, 
all Moslem converts, have been beaten so badly for hours that 
they have been made to deny their faith in Christ and have had 
a [badly garbled] to confess they have been deceived by Christ-
ians to become converts!

In the city of Meshed Bro. Mohammed Sepehr has been under 
[severe] pressures and threats by the Authorities.  A few days 
ago he was called by the Secret Police and was ordered to leave 
the city of Meshed.  All Moslem converts of that city who are the 
bravest Christians in Iran have told him he could  stay with them 
if the enemies of the cross would throw him out of his own house!
There has never been so much harsh and radical opposition.  The 
secret Police officer had told him, "We are against you Assembly 
of God people in Iran!" Some other members from that city have 
also been interrogated.

In the city of Isfahan, pastor [garbled] has been interrogated 
several times. They have threatened him not to let Moslems and 
even Moslem converts to go to his church services.  Around 15 
Moslem converts in that church are not able to attend meetings
because every one of them has been interrogated and threaten-
ed not to go to church.  The same thing has happened to the 
Episcopal church of Isfahan and Shiraz.

In the city of Kermanshah, where Pastor Wilson, the pastor of 
the Assyrian Pentecostal Assembly is serving the Lord, some of 
the converts have been beaten and hanged upside down for many
hours and beaten with thick wires for hours, so much so that they 
had broken an arm of the young believer in Christ.  The meetings for
the converts have been closed down and the pastor himself is not 
permitted to leave the country of Iran.

Strange to say, recently, the U.N. representative for Human Rights 
in Iran had condemned Iran for their bad treatment of the minorities 
which the government openly rejected, and the last 3 weeks most 
denominations, except the Evangelicals, who wrote letters of ap-
preciation to UN for their full freedom in the country!  The only two 
churches who have not signed any such false papers have been 
the A.G. churches and the Brethren church of Tehran.  That 
is why, seeing that other churches have expressed their satisfaction 
of the freedom they are enjoying, they want to do away with the only 
protesting churches and we have been [garbled] their best targets!  
Much has been said by the authorities these days [   ]ing their re-
spect to the Human Rights issues. The main person who is in charge 
of the [garbled] wrote an article in a newspaper and mentioned, "At 
this moment there is not a single person in our prisons who has been 
jailed for his personal or religious beliefs."  Others exclaimed,
"Freedom of thought or beliefs or religion has never been violated or 
persecuted."

I praise the Lord that in the midst of this [garbled] attack on the fast-
growing church of Jesus Christ, the Lord has given the joy of this 
privilege of suffering for His Name to all members of the church, 
specially the converts.

                           *** Miscellaneous items ***
==============================================================================
From:	OOTOOL::FERWERDA     "Paul Ferwerda, Database Systems, DTN 381-2060" 19-JAN-1994 12:17:13.55
CC:	
Subj:	FWD: Iran Update

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "Russell Sutherland"   19-JAN-1994 11:41:41.96
To:	distribution:;@us2rmc.bb.dec.com (see end of body)
CC:	
Subj:	Iran Update

I just received this follow-up message about the Iranian pastor.

Scott Vander Wiel

------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 94 23:46:44 EST
From: "HAL W. GUFFEY" <[email protected]>

Brother Mehdi Dibaj, the Iranian who was to be executed 
because he had become a Christian, was released from
prison yesterday (Sunday, Jan. 16).

Abe Ghafarri, head of Iranian Christians International, Inc.,
based here in Colorado Springs, launched a massive
effort to bring his plight to the attention of the world 
press, Amnesty International, the UN etc. He also got 
many others doing the same. (He sent out over 160
faxes and a special mailing). Consequently, on Friday
we heard that his execution was to be delayed up to
15 days because of the pressure from the US State Dept
and many other groups, countries and the UN. 

Then Abe received a call from a Pastor friend of Mehdi
Dibaj's in Iran announcing that he had just been released
that morning. Today I heard from another Iranian that had
talked with a pastor in Iran and the speculation is that 
Medhi will leave Iran. (We do not know but this might 
have been part of the release agreement??)

Anyway, you prayed with us about this, that God's will
would be done. Now lets praise the Lord that He desired
to have this fine Christian brother released. HE must have
additional work for him to do.

HAL

Article 5602 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected] (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.health,clari.news.politics,clari.news.religion
Subject: Christian Group Wants to Defeat Clinton Health Plan

	 WASHINGTON, (Reuter) - The national Christian Coalition
Tuesday announced a $1.4 million media campaign to defeat
President Clinton's health care plan, charging it would lead to
taxpayer funding of abortion and medical rationing.
	 The group, the political arm of TV evangelist Pat
Robertson's sprawling religious organization, said it hoped to
reach 1 million votes with the radio and newspaper and direct
mail campaign.
	 ``(The Clinton plan) replaces the finest health care system
in the world with a bureaucractic, Byzantine, European-style
syndicalist nightmare that has no precursor in the American
experience,'' said Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed.
	 Of the roughly 250 million people living in the United
States, at least 37 million have no health insurance at all
while people in most other industrialized countries enjoy
universal coverage.
	 The administration's plan is designed to provide universal
insurance to Americans while cutting health care costs. The
basic health benefits package in Clinton's bill includes
pregnancy-related services which many insurance companies have
construed to include abortion.
	 White House officials were not immediately available for
comment.
	 Meanwhile Republicans took potshots at Democrats in the war
of words over whether a health care crisis exists.
	 Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour in a letter to his
Democratic counterpart said a current Democratic television
advertisement ``contains video tape that has has been doctored
to totally misrepresent a statement'' made by South Carolina
Republican Governor Carroll Campbell.
	 He referred to an advertisement that quotes potential
Republican presidential candidates -- Senator Bob Dole of
Kansas, former Housing Secretary Jack Kemp, former Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney and Campbell -- as saying there is not a
health care crisis.
	 But Barbour said the advertisment showing Campbell saying
''There's not a crisis'' is a snippet of a television interview
from the John McLaughlin ``One on One'' program in which
Campbell's full sentence is: ``But number one, you shouldn't say
there's not a crisis.''
	 Barbour said, ``This is not a case of being misleading or
misinterpreting a statement or even taking something out of
context. This is intentional deception, and it demands a
retraction and an apology to Campbell.''
	 In a response, Democrats said the quote used was another one
from the same program.
	 Democratic Party spokeswoman Catherine Moore said the quote
was taken from: ``There is not a crisis in the whole medical
system of America and there is a different interpretation.''
	 Moore said the partial ad ``represents Campbell's point of
view....we did not doctor it.''

From: [email protected] (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.local.california,clari.news.religion,clari.tw.education
Subject: Recall Of 3 Creationists Flops

	VISTA, Calif. (AP) -- An attempt to recall three conservative
Christian school board members has fallen short.
	In January, organizers began a petition drive to gain 9,150
signatures to place the recall initiative against board President
Deidre Holliday and members John Tyndall and Joyce Lee on the June
ballot. They had collected only about 6,000 signatures for each
board member by Monday's deadline.
	Now, organizers will attempt to put recall measures against Lee
and Tyndall on the November ballot. Holliday's term on the
five-member board expires in December.
	``I'm a little disappointed,'' said Richard Eiden of the group
Coalition for Mainstream Education. ``But I still think there is a
lot of support out there.''
	Opponents of the recall, however, said the announcement shows
for the conservatives in the San Diego suburb of 76,000.
	``Fortunately we have a substantial number of citizens in Vista
who recognize this recall for what it is -- religious bigotry,''
said Leslie Brazier of Citizens for Improved Vista Schools.
	The district's science policy on creationism, which drew
national attention when it was introduced last year, orders that
``discussions of divine creation'' shall take place at
``appropriate times'' with the district's nearly 22,000 students.

From: [email protected] (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.world.mideast,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.issues,clari.news.religion
Subject: New Iran Minister Wants to Purge Western Influence

	 NICOSIA, Cyprus (Reuter) - Iran's newly nominated culture
and Islamic guidance minister says he wants to purge the Islamic
republic of ``corrupt'' Western influences.
	 Mostafa Mirsalim, nominated as minister last week, said
Friday that Iranians should take inspiration from Islamic
culture.
	 ``In order to do so, extensive programs must be undertaken
so that whatever remains of the corrupt elements of the Western
arts in Iran will be forever purged,'' he said in an interview
with the official news agency IRNA.
	 ``The intellectual destruction of the Islamic republic as
well as the discovery of the ways and means to penetrate the
revolutionary and Muslim people of Iran are among the long-term
programs of the enemies of Islam,'' he said.
	 Iran's parliament has to approve the nomination before
Mirsalim, now an advisor to President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,
can formally take up his post.
	 The guidance ministry's responsibilities range from overseas
Islamic publicity to supervising the print media and cinema,
tourism and arranging the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
	 Mirsalim replaces former guidance minister Ali Larijani,
who was named by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei as
director general of the state-owned television and radio.
	 Larijani replaced Mohammad Hashemi, brother of President
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was named as senior deputy foreign
minister.

    Not a news item, but I came across something interesting from AG's
    "Pentecostal Evangel" last night at a friend's house.  It seems my old
    church is now claiming to be the largest Protestant denomination in the
    world now.  They have an enrollment of 22.5M members and are ranked
    15th in size in the U.S. alone.
    
    Mike

    Also not a "news" item, but a tax issue :-)  I read in the 
    "Pentecostal Evangel" that effective January 1, 1994, any lump
    sum donation of $250.00 or more will need an itemized receipt
    from the organization that received the money.  This applies to
    any charitable donation, not just tithe/church giving.  A cancelled check
    will not cut it.  The reason for this change is that many people
    try to fudge it, i.e. call their children's college tuition a 
    "charitable donation" and other such nonsense.
    
    
    
    

 Was reading in a newsletter from Focus on the Family over the weekend
 that the Chaplains in the Armed Forces no longer wear crosses or stars
 of David.  They wear a medal with a rising sun on it.






 Jim

    re:328

    Really ? Did they give any reason for the switch ?

    Jim

 As I recall they didn't..it was just a brief article.  I'll look at it
 again tonight.





 Jim

    RE:330
    Jim,
        I wonder if they did it because of the U.S. forces being in Moslem 
    countries where symbol's of Christianity like the crucifix and Jewish
    symbol's like the Star of David are banned ?

     Jim

 Hmmm..could be.  I think I still have the newsletter at home..I'll
 type it in tonight..






Jim

    I head this on the news a few days ago. The reason given was that
    there are chaplains of many different faiths, so the non-Christian
    chaplains are no longer required to wear the symbols of Christianity.
    
    A distinction was made, though, between the "chaplain sign" and the
    "insignia". (I doubt these are the correct terms, but I don't remember
    the correct terms. I do believe that one is "insignia".) Chaplains
    apparently wear two things. It's one of these that's being
    de-Christianized; the other can still be a cross.
    
    	BD�

 Last few replies moved from topic 15 "Religion in the News".






Jim Co-Mod

	Senior citizens in Bristol, NH are up in arms.

	For years they have been meeting in the basement of a local
	church for a senior citizens lunch.

	Now they have been told that because they accepted a federal
	grant to help finance their activities, they may no longer
	have a prayer before the meal.

	They don't like it.

	But they have been told that having a prayer is not valdiffing
	of people who don't believe in God, and now that they have
	taken money from our government, they must hide the gospel
	under a bushel basket.

    How does Congress justify the opening prayer, when everything that
    surronds them is Federally paid for?

Article 5923 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected] (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.local.texas,clari.news.law.crime.violent,clari.news.gov.agency,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.law.civil
Subject: Feds Sued By Dividian Families

	HOUSTON (AP) -- Relatives of 11 Branch Davidians who died in last
year's fire at their cult compound are suing 19 federal agents for
$675 million.
	In a federal lawsuit filed Monday, the relatives said agents
violated the cultists' rights, leading to their deaths in the blaze
near Waco. The lawsuit cited, among other things, the right to
religious freedom and the right to bear arms.
	``A lot of people died in Waco needlessly, not only the Branch
Davidians,'' said Michael Caddell, a lawyer for the relatives.
	The ATF and FBI in Houston did not return calls Tuesday.
	Six cult members and four agents died in a gun battle that
erupted as Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents tried to
arrest cult leader David Koresh. After a 51-day standoff, 79 more
cultists died in the April 19 blaze that investigators said was set
by the Branch Davidians themselves.
	The 25 plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages of $175
million and punitive damages of $500 million.
	Last month, 11 Davidians were acquitted of murder and conspiracy
charges stemming from the botched raid.

Article 5929 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected] (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.politics.people,clari.news.religion
Subject: Clinton Says Prayer Has Helped

	WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton says prayer has helped him
grow in office and to ``withstand some of the darker parts of the
experience.''
	But he said his Christian faith frees him from the mistakes he
makes ``because the God I believe in is the God of second
chances.''
	Clinton, in a rare spelling out of the dimensions of his
personal beliefs, said in interview excerpts aired Wednesday night
on ABC-TV's ``World News Tonight'' that he has felt ``the tension
and the pressure'' of the presidency far more than he thought he
would when he took office last year.
	He said he found himself ``working almost frantically trying to
do all the things that I told the American people I wanted to do.''
	``And at some point last year after I hadn't been here very long
I realized that it wasn't going to work that way,'' Clinton said.
	He said he prayed then, not for personal advantage but for inner
strength.
	``I pray for the strength to keep growing and I pray for the
strength to withstand the darker parts of the experience, and to
purge my mind and my spirit of it,'' he said.
	``This is an experience doing this job, that will either bring
out all your weaknesses or will require you to reach beyond
yourself ...,'' the president said.
	He said that when he was a boy, people who seemed publicly pious
``gave me the creeps a little bit.'' So he said that when he has
spoken about his faith, he has done so ``as a sinner, not as a
saint.''
	``Some limitations in the White House are self-imposed. In a
country founded on the principle of separation of church and state,
many presidents have been reluctant to share their personal
faith,'' he said.
	For himself, Clinton said that while he has no trouble
expressing his belief in Christianity and in Jesus Christ as the
son of God, he does not believe he should try to use his own faith
to tell others what to do.
	``What I do not feel comfortable doing is trying to say, as
president, you must do this, you must believe this, you must be
governed by these laws because that's what the Bible told me to do
to you.''
	And he had a final thought on the presidency.
	``It's a very humbling job, this job,'' he said.
	``You really are always, every day, confronted with your
limitations.''

    hmm....

    He has the wrong idea on what our country was founded on, but that is a
    historical deficiency, not a moral one.  
    
    It's funny, until I became a Christian, I thought all is as it should
    be.  No prayer in schools, abortion is okay, government in control, etc.  
    All the things that society has programmed us to believe for the past
    20-30 years.
    
    Now, understanding human nature a bit better, and
    doing a bit of research into the truths of the Bible and our own
    American history/herritage, I find that even the best intentions can
    lead to bad choices...like a government health care system.  In my
    search for truth I have done a *complete* 180.
    
    I hope Clinton comes to the same realizations before he and his wife
    turn this country into a socialist one.  If he earnestly seeks the
    truth, I think God will show him...I only hope he can accept it.
    
    -steve  

>    turn this country into a socialist one.  If he earnestly seeks the
>    truth, I think God will show him...I only hope he can accept it.
    
    that's a mighty big IF, Steve!

    I agree...

           RE: Not yet posted in 15
           
           I read in last week's news that Supreme Court Judge Blackmun
           is retiring.  After starting in the court during the Nixon
           presidency, his (infamous) writing of the Roe vs. Wade
           decision made this (so-called) conservative judge a liberal
           (in my mind).  The piece I read said that at the time of Roe
           vs.  Wade, Blackmun was giving doctors the right to perform
           abortions, where now he's concerned more about women's rights
           to have an abortion.  (When's a case going to be brought up
           that looks at the rights of the un-born?)
           
           It seems like our recent so-called conservative appointments
           (except for Thomas) have become liberal (or wimpy-
           conservatives) as far as abortion goes.
           
           I know he/she'll have pro-abortion stand, BUT pray that
           whomever Clinton chooses as Blackmun's replacement is
           influenced by the Holy Spirit and NOT current public opinions.  

           Steve

    The article in the local paper last week about Blackmun stated that he
    was so great because he looked past the law to the people involved in
    the cases.  I'm not certain I like that.  The supreme court is supposed
    to give interpretations of the law regardless of the circumstances of
    the case.  We see this happening in a lot of the decisions coming out
    of the supreme court these days.  Instead of interpreting the law they
    are basing their decisions on their personal/popular opinions.

    Ron

           RE: Note 15.337
           
>Subject: Clinton Says Prayer Has Helped
           ...
>	``Some limitations in the White House are self-imposed. In a
>country founded on the principle of separation of church and state,
>many presidents have been reluctant to share their personal
>faith,'' he said.
           
           This country was NOT founded on that principle.  That
           statement "separation of church and state" came from a letter
           written by Jefferson regarding not preferring one sect over
           another.  It's been quoted so much over the years to make
           people believe it's part of our Constitution!  
           
           Clinton not only doesn't share his faith, his a-morality is
           actually sending the message of immorality.  IMO- Basically,
           it comes down to you're either on one side of the fence or the
           other...  if he professes no morality in public (eg- let peple
           decide for themselves what is right or wrong), then that kind
           of "leadership" is leading people to hell, to be blunt about
           it.
           
>	For himself, Clinton said that while he has no trouble
>expressing his belief in Christianity and in Jesus Christ as the
>son of God, he does not believe he should try to use his own faith
>to tell others what to do.
           
           Again, he doesn't understand leadership.  Leadership isn't
           telling others what to do, but influencing others by our own
           acts and service to others.
           
>	``What I do not feel comfortable doing is trying to say, as
>president, you must do this, you must believe this, you must be
>governed by these laws because that's what the Bible told me to do
>to you.''
           
           After reading the Bible, why doesn't he read the Constitution
           and the other writings of our founding fathers.  
           
>	And he had a final thought on the presidency.
>	``It's a very humbling job, this job,'' he said.
>	``You really are always, every day, confronted with your
>limitations.''

           Pray for him... I think he's backsliding terribly and needs a
           filling of the Holy Spirit.
           
           Steve

 I saw something the other day that referred to the Pastor of Hillary's
 church...do they attend separate churches?




Jim

Cross posted from 411.25 ...

Article taken from the March 12, 1994 issue of "The Washington Times."

               YELLOW PAGES OKS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

                        by Larry Witham

One of the nation's largest Yellow Pages publishers has reversed its
policy of barring religious symbols from housing ads, saying adherence to
fair housing laws does not require the ban.

US West, which publishes 300 Yellow Pages directories in 14 states, still
will require nursing homes that display religious symbols in their ads to
include a statement of nondiscrimination, such as "All faiths welcome
without preference."

US West's policy first stirred controversy in St. Cloud, Minn. last month
after Lutheran and Roman Catholic nursing homes were asked to remove
symbols from their telephone book ads.

The policy also prompted questions on Capitol Hill over whether the fair
housing division of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
was prodding Yellow Pages publishers to strip away religious allusions
that could be construed as discriminatory.

Carol Johnson, vice president for directory sales for US West, said the
"Baby Bell" telephone company reviewed the federal Fair Housing Act "in
response to concerns by our advertisers and the general public."

"As a result, we have adopted a policy revision which allows customers
providing housing and housing-related services to include religious
symbols and references in their Yellow Pages ads ' she said.

The 1968 Fair Housing Act states that housing ads must not convey
"limitation, preference or discrimination."

Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrist, Maryland Republican, has asked Housing Secretary
Henry Cisneros if religious nursing homes or religious groups that provide
housing are targets of fair-housing probes.  HUD has not publicly answered
his inquiries.

A lawyer familiar with fair-housing issues said the fair-housing division
has in the past year focused on investigating religious nursing and
retirement homes that have received federal funds.

"The next fair-housing push envisioned by the career staffers was going to
be to look behind the doors of religious nursing homes, religious
retirement homes," said the lawyer, who asked to not be identified.

Sara Pratt, chief of investigations for HUD's fair-housing division, has
said "there is particular initiative" regarding religious institutions or
nursing homes. She said HUD has been policing housing advertising for 2
1/2 years to root out any kind of discrimination.

Part of HUD's focus has been on housing bearing religious names.

Last year, fair-housing lawyers ruled that the "Christian Village of
Central Virginia," a retirement home being built in Mechanicsville with
HUD loans, had violated anti-discrimination law by its use of "Christian"
in its name.

"It is inadvisable for HUD to approve a loan until the Village's name
comports with the [Fair Housing] Act," said Harry Carey, fair-housing
assistant general counsel, in an April 16, 1993, memorandum.

"If the loan has already been approved, the region [office] would be best
advised to take action to rescind the loan," Mr. Carey said in the
memorandum.

The village has since complied with a HUD recommendation to add the
statement "a non-denominational housing facility" to its signs, cards and
letterhead.

    
    From what i have read, Bill is a Southern Baptist and Hillary is 
    a Methodist.
    
    

 Yep, I think that's what I read...interesting.




 Jim

 There's  a great editorial in today's (New Hampster) Union Leader by
 Pete DuPont regarding the decline of religion/morals in the US.  I
 don't have time to enter it, but may do so over the weekend.




 Jim

    >Instead of interpreting the law they are basing their decisions on
    >their personal/popular opinions.
    
    You are correct.  In effect, this makes the Judiciary a despotic branch
    of the government, as it changes laws rather than interprets them. 
    This is just one instance of the SC making law (something it is not
    supposed to do).
    
    -steve

I know it's only a small sign, but small signs add up.  Seen on a bumper
sticker this morning:

"Guns don't kill people.  Religion kills people."

 Re 15.344



 Sigh....

    If religion is death then kill me more..... At least I'll die with a
    smile on my face.... and the Lord in my heart!
    
    Bob
    

           re: Note 15.344
           
>               -< Another sign of the increasing hostility.... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I know it's only a small sign, but small signs add up.  Seen on a bumper
>sticker this morning:
>"Guns don't kill people.  Religion kills people."

           I can see why people might view things that way, with all the
           so-called religious wars going on (in Northern Ireland,
           Bosnia, Middle East, etc.).  But I don't think it's as much a
           thing as diferences in religion, but the sin nature of
           mankind.  That sounds very simplistic, but it gets to the
           heart of where these things start... anger, quarrels, fights,
           murders and ultimately wars.  
           
           I guess people would like to think (like John Lennon did in
           "Imagine") that without religion, there'd be no more wars.
           What they fail to realize is that even the John Lennons had
           their religions and there will always be religions until Jesus
           comes again.  And, there is and always will be spiritual wars
           going on, too.  People are all looking for answers (but in all
           the wrong places).  Religion or non-religion is NOT the
           answer, but Jesus IS!  Thank God it's all in His hands!  Only
           trust in Him.
           
           Steve

� "Guns don't kill people.  Religion kills people."

Agreed, Steve.  The only dichotomy lies in the fall.  Man needs an object
of worship, and there is only One Who fills that eternity created within us
(Ecclesiastes 3:11).  The filling of the gap with as designed requires the
humility of accepting our own sinfulness, and inability to attain
righteousness in our own strength.  For those whose pride cannot accept
this, the absolute standards aof a perfect God have to be eliminated for
them to feel comfortable.  Hence the worshipper is the ultimate enemy,
because he's the example of someone who has access to a righteousness which
is not due to his own achievement. 

'Other' religions can generally be divided into the 'exclusive' and
'inclusive' varieties - those which say they are the only way to
perfection, and are likely to be evangelistic; or those which present all
ways as viable options.  As the latter do not conflict with the world's
standards (often mirror them, rather than guide them), they do not highlight
the presence of sin, and conflict only with exclusive religions, which
dismiss them as non-viable.  While 'exclusive' religions may conflict with 
each other, their main conflict (where they come in contact) is with 
Christianity, because of it sfinal nature, but principally because of the 
Holy Spirit indwelling all believers, which is anathema to all the fallen, 
unholy spirits who are the root of other religions.

							Andrew

 ..and there's the folks that love to blame Christians for the 
 Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, etc, claiming that more people have
 been killed in the name of God than any other cause, all the while
 ignoring that Godless humanism in the form of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al,
 killed more than 50million innocent people in the latter half of this
 century alone.

    .239 Jim,
    
    Add Khmer Rouge and others and the number comes to over 160 million people
    killed in the name of communism/fascism/socialism.
    
    jeff

 Yes, all over a period of 70 years...and yet there are those who love
 to point to the misguided actions of a few Christians (atrocities nonetheless)
 as being what Christianity is all about.




 Jim

    It's called blindness, or selective reasoning.  Something about
    Christianity makes sense to them (or perhaps the Holy Spirit nudges
    them when they are being witnessed to), but since they refuse to follow
    Christ (which would cause many changes in their life/lifestyle), they
    must concentrate on that which can be easily associated with Christians
    that is bad.  If they do not quickly rationalize their own position,
    they may fall victim to the truth which they do not wish to see.
    
    A good friend of mine thinks the Bible has many contradictions.  I
    asked him why, and he basically couldn't tell me exactly.  I asked him
    if he read the Bible before and he said yes.  I asked him if he reads
    it daily to understand it, and he looked at me like I was crazy.  I
    told him he couldn't judge something in such a simplistic way when he
    doesn't understant it very well.  He couldn't come up with any more
    argument, so we moved on to other topics.
    
    I understand this thought pattern completely, as it was one thing I had
    to overcome myself.  Even so, it's hard to explain it to people...they
    must come to the realization in their own time, like I did.  I find
    that trying to push the issue is not helpful, any more than it was with
    me while I shared this misconception fo the Bible and Christianity.
    
    "Seek the truth and the truth will set you free"...this is my pet
    verse, as God did indeed show me the truth I sought...though it was up
    to me to decide what to do with it.  I hope others will seek the truth
    too, instead of bury their heads and telling themselves that they are
    just fine as they are, and have no need of accepting Christ as their
    savior.
    
    -steve

    Good note Steve..
    
    Thanks very, very much for writing it.

	While I think the bumper sticker is wrong, as religion does not kill
people, people do, I don't think Jim that you can use a gross generalization 
for those who talk about the Spanish Inquisitions, etc. While I am one person
and the amount of people I know only add up to a small sample, most I have
talked to do not ignore the FACTS about the Hitlers, etc, they are just tired
of hearing how SOME say they are so loving, while their actions prove otherwise
and the 2nd one I hear a lot is people get tired of hearing about how bad they
are, how bad certain groups from the past & present are, while these very
Christians (which does not add up to 100%) seem to forget or not want to hear
about sins various religions have committed in the past. In other words, they
feel they are perfect because they have God while going out and pointing out
other people's flaws. There are a whole host of other reasons for verious
people, groups, what have you. Let's not group everyone together. Isn't that
what you have been telling me all along?


Glen

 Glen, thanks to the wonders of revisionism there are many today who teach
 that Christians are murdering savages intent on wiping out anything or anybody
 non-Christian.  Perhaps it is just a "few" as you say, but the very existance
 of that bumpersticker is evidence that the "few" is a growing minority.  

 Certainly there have been misguided or misdirected actions by those who claim
 the name of Christ.  But surely you realize that those actions are not 
 in accordance with any Biblical, or Judeo Christian teaching.  Man and his
 thirst for power and control have distorted the teaching of Christianity 
 throughout history.  When pointing out the horrendous activities of Stalin,
 Mao, Pol Pot, et al, one should realize that those actions were in accordance
 with the Godless humanistic philosophy to which they subscribed.  One hundred
 sixty million people, Glen, within the period of ~70 years.  Innocent victims
 of Godless humanism.


 Certainly you also understand that there are thousands of Christian pastors
 and evangelists who remain faithful, who plod day in day out performing 
 in the ministry to which they are called, without controversy, remaining
 faithful to the Word of God and seeing to the needs of their flocks.  But,
 the few who rise to national prominence, thanks to television, become
 celebrities, and like non-Christian celebrities, encounter temptation and
 succumb, are the ones we hear about, and the non-Christian world love to hold
 up as examples.




 Jim

    A local reporter do a humorous column in yesterday's paper about the
    armed and dangerous pro-life demonstrators.  The bottomline of the
    tongue-in-cheek article is that if you go near them, they might pray
    for you.  Makes the whole restraining area laws look silly.

 Heard on the radio while I was out for a bit that someone in Wisconsin has
 entered a bill in the state legislature making it illegal for caregivers of
 children, parents included, to spank them.



Jim

� entered a bill in the state legislature making it illegal for caregivers of
� children, parents included, to spank them.

There's a lot of debate on that over here too.  The impression given is 
that the debate continues until the no-discipline party gets it's way.

							Andrew

 Too bad they don't make laws making it illegal to allow your children
 to watch TV..




 Jim

    -1
    
    Amen to that!

   re: no spanking...
   
   Didn't I hear recently that some parent was turned in (to the
   officials) by a stranger in a mall because that stranger saw the
   parent spank their child in public?  Or is this another rumor?
   
   - Tom
   

 Sounds about right...






Jim

| <<< Note 16.245 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>



| Glen, thanks to the wonders of revisionism there are many today who teach
| that Christians are murdering savages intent on wiping out anything or anybody
| non-Christian.  

	While I agree that there are some who probably think this way, I am
glad that the majority of Christians would never align themselves with this way
of thinking. 

| Perhaps it is just a "few" as you say, but the very existance of that 
| bumpersticker is evidence that the "few" is a growing minority.

	Jim, one bumpersticker does not a growing minority make. :-)  You have
your religious finatics who get most of the press. You have that actually with
almost every group. But this is why it is important to get out there and see
for yourself, and not rely on a bumbersticker or someone's opinion. 

| Certainly there have been misguided or misdirected actions by those who claim
| the name of Christ.  But surely you realize that those actions are not
| in accordance with any Biblical, or Judeo Christian teaching.  

	Agreed. But for them, anyway, their beliefs were only as good as their
interpretation/beliefs.

| Man and his thirst for power and control have distorted the teaching of 
| Christianity throughout history.  

	But Jim, you have to also realize (and I'm sure you do) that many have
actually believed in what they were doing was something Christ wanted. So while
I agree with what you wrote above, I think that a lot of the followers,
anyways, don't fit into that catagory.

| Certainly you also understand that there are thousands of Christian pastors
| and evangelists who remain faithful, who plod day in day out performing
| in the ministry to which they are called, without controversy, remaining
| faithful to the Word of God and seeing to the needs of their flocks.  

	I wouldn't say thousands Jim. I would say most. That might be more than
thousands. But I do believe that these people differ from each other in many
areas, and beliefs is one.



Glen

  Okee doke..






 Jim

Article 6259 of clari.news.religion:
Approved: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (AP/LYNN ELBER, AP Television Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.living.tv,clari.apbl.tv,clari.local.los_angeles,clari.news.religion
Subject: TV Shows Take Religious Turn
Copyright: 1994 by The Associated Press, R
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 0:50:06 PDT

	LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Television has suddenly gotten religion.
	``Picket Fences'' grapples with issues of faith. ``L.A. Law''
introduces an evangelical attorney into its secular ranks. On
``Northern Exposure,'' a rabbi counsels a Jewish man vexed by an
interreligious romance.
	``Christy,'' the story of a young teacher at a Quaker-run school
in Appalachia, finds a home on TV after a producer's fruitless,
two-decade quest to turn the popular Catherine Marshall novel into
a movie.
	``Something's happening out there,'' says L. Brent Bozell,
chairman of the conservative Media Research Center, which in a
study of 1993 TV programs found religion to be nearly invisible.
	``It has been a year when religion and faith were accessed a lot
more than we intended at the beginning,'' says David E. Kelley,
creator of ``Picket Fences,'' the CBS drama about a small town's
life and residents.
	The reasons cited for the surge vary, as do the reactions to it.
Some religious leaders consider the attention a mixed blessing. It
is also a clear change from past TV seasons.
	Media Research Center's study found religion was mentioned or
dealt with just 116 times in more than 1,000 hours of entertainment
programming in 1993. Believers were depicted negatively 68 percent
of the time, the study found.
	In other years, television usually ventured no further than
shows that were cosmetically religious but devoid of religious
content.
	Series like ``Amen'' and ``Father Dowling Mysteries'' used their
characters' faiths merely as window dressing. Serious consideration
of religious values was absent.
	Some suggest that America was finally ready -- if not overdue --
for such depictions of faith on TV.
	``There's a desire to reclaim lasting values, a reaching out for
examples'' after the excesses of the 1980s, says Ken Wales,
producer of CBS' ``Christy.''
	``I think reality is hitting Hollywood,'' Bozell says, ``in the
sense that Hollywood can't escape society and the devastating
condition of society. All they have to do is get in their
limousines and drive a few blocks to the inner city, South Central
L.A.''
	Alexander Powers, who plays the evangelical Jane Halliday on
NBC's ``L.A. Law,'' says she's gotten letters praising the
character's devout, intelligent and nonpreachy nature.
	``I became aware of the need for this type of character,'' the
actress says. ``There are so many Christians who feel they don't
have a voice in the media or on television, and I think a lot of
people related to her.''
	Networks, fending off criticism over TV violence, also are seen
as eager to move toward what Bozell deems ``family values''
programs that embrace morality.
	Kelley, however, says there are other forces at work in ``Picket
Fences.''
	``We don't sit back here as producers and say it's time to start
proffering family values, so much as you are trying to proffer
entertainment drama that may provoke people to think and to feel,''
he says.
	Religion and faith ``have given us the occasion to explore our
characters further,'' Kelley says.
	The network has been supportive of the nonsecular story lines,
he says.
	``We rarely try to declare final judgments on any issue, so
maybe we've been vested with some trust by the network,'' he says.
``We never come at religion or faith from the perspective of
endorsement of one discipline versus another.''
	Despite its thoughtful approach, the series has drawn criticism.
Catholic leaders objected to an episode in which a judge chastises
a priest for the church's birth control stance.
	But Father Gregory Coiro, of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Los Angeles, generally credits the show with sensitivity to
religious issues. He reserves harsh words for those less careful.
	A recent ``Roseanne'' on ABC, he says, showed a young son
struggling to understand faith and his family's lack of religious
commitment, but coming in for ridicule as well as compassion.
	Meanwhile, mom Roseanne is ripping off a company that mistakenly
filled a mail order twice, and getting away with her dishonesty,
Coiro says -- disturbingly non-Christian behavior.
	Also disquieting is the lack of the simple gestures of faith
that are a part of many people's everyday life, he says.
	``In most programs, we never see families going to church or
synagogue,'' Coiro says. ``We never see them saying grace before
meals or showing any kind of devotion.
	``If a character is facing some sort of crisis, there are
millions of people who, in that situation, the first thing they
would do is pray.''
	Bozell says the television industry is so careful to avoid
offending its mass audience, and so wrapped up in its own view of
the world, that it can't help but approach the topic gingerly.
	He recalls complimenting one network executive on a new family
oriented show with religious themes and mentioning a study showing
that 91 percent of Americans believe in God.
	``Look, we're not talking God here -- we're talking religion,''
the alarmed executive replied.
	``I wanted to hit myself on the head; how in the world was what
I said controversial?'' Bozell says. Believing in God, he says,
``is not a controversial position -- but for Hollywood it is.''

The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has declared Illinois'
Good Friday holiday for teachers and schoolchildren unconstitutional.

In a ruling released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ann C. Williams barred
the state from observing the holiday, saying that the state holiday "was
primarily motivated by a desire to endorse the Christian faith and conveys
the impermissible message that Christianity is a favored religion within
the state of Illinois.  Unlike Christmas and Thanksgiving, which have both
secular and religious connotations, Good Friday remains a wholly religious
day."

Andrea Metzl, a teacher for students with learning disabilities in Chicago,
had challenged the 1941 law establishing the school holiday, saying she
does not observe Good Friday and could not explain the holiday to students
without "awkwardness and embarrassment."

Charlotte Newberger, president of the Midwest region of the American
Jewish Congress, which supported Metzl's lawsuit, said that the ruling
"advances religious liberty for all Illinois schoolchildren."

 Perhaps I'll send a copy of the video "Our Nation's Godly Heritage" to
 the Honorable Ms. Williams.





 Jim

    Good idea Jimbo!

    Maybe they should ask the kids if they wish to have a good friday
    holiday?
    
    Oh, but I forget, our children must be liberated from every aspect of
    religion in schools.  I certainly hope the June 9 prophesies are
    right...we could certainly use something to wake up America to its
    continuing efforts to denounce God.
    
    -steve

 3 replies moved to topic 16 (discussion of religion in the news)




 Jim Co Mod

�    Maybe they should ask the kids if they wish to have a good friday
�    holiday?

Can't you just see our kids all suddenly becoming very religiously aware? - 
and feeling that an event this significant should be remembered *every* 
Friday....

THAT'd teach those hung-up teachers who are embarrassed to say what it 
really means; embarrassed to call sin 'sin'.

Appropos of which, when I was in school we had some sort of celebration
'out-of-school' one day - those attending had to leave a lesson early.  It
saw a record attendance (though was sadly weak because of the ground-floor
liberal organisers).  It also saw probably the only time when the class 
reprobate found himself at one in spirit with the biology master.  Reminded 
me of Pilate and Herod, in Luke 23:12....

							Andrew

That's cute.

There's an interesting notes bug that happens if someone is writing to a
topic as replies are being moved into it with SET NOTE/NOTE_ID.

Andrew probably noticed that his reply disappeared, and re-entered it.

In fact, there are two .257 replies; one of them will be revealed if you
sequence into it with "next reply" from .256 or by explicitly specifying
16.257.  Andrew's will be revealed if you "next unseen" into the topic.

I think the bug can be avoided if moderators, before moving notes into
a topic, temporarily set the topic nowrite.  Of course, they then have
to remember to set it write again.

/john

 Yep, I noticed something wierd going on when I was moving the notes..


 Forgot to write lock the topic, but will do next time.




Jim

� Andrew probably noticed that his reply disappeared, and re-entered it.

I've noticed that sort of symptom quite a bit,  Usually associated it with 
the 'record not locked' report which sometimes blows in, and I've presumed 
that the last reply operation has stumbled over something.  We then get the 
dual reply occupation you mentioned, one visible with 'next unseen', the 
other with 'next reply'...  I did reply/last.  If yuo'd like to shift mine 
to the end, it could clear the air some...

� That's cute.
		*blush*

					;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

								&

    Since this "Good Friday" fiasco occurred here in Illinois, there was a
    bit of news over it.  One thing that was mentioned is that the judge
    pointed out that although Christmas and Thanksgiving have a religous
    basis, there is also a "secular" aspect to them, so they remain
    allowed.  What a wimp judge! :-)  He/She (I don't remember the name)
    *knew* that an attempt to ban Christmas holidays would never be
    tolerated. :-)
    
    Mark L.

	While I don't think it should be taken away as a holiday, I do see the
point of promoting one type of religion. But for it to be kept consitant the
Christmas holiday would also have to be eliminated, which as someone pointed
out would not be allowed. At least the traditional Christmas. If the judge went
by how people view Christmas for the most part now (what did ya get me and is
there more), then (s)he has a point. I've never even heard of Thanksgiving
beling a religious holiday, as in tying in with any certain religion. Just
giving thanks to God for allowing them the meal they had. Remember, there were
more than just Pilgrims at the dinner.


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 16.263 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>



>there more), then (s)he has a point. I've never even heard of Thanksgiving
>beling a religious holiday, as in tying in with any certain religion. Just
>giving thanks to God for allowing them the meal they had. Remember, there were
>more than just Pilgrims at the dinner.


so did they address their prayers of thanksgiving to the "God of our individual
choosing"?

 I think you may want to do a refresher course on American History (the non
 revised version).




Jim

Some people are saying "no big deal, if parents want their children
to go to church on Good Friday, they can just take them out for the
day."

But what about teachers?

If even only 10% of teachers ask for the afternoon off to go to the
Liturgy of the Passion, there certainly won't be enough substitutes.

Can a teacher who is refused time off sue the state for violation
of civil rights, i.e., the right to practice religion?

/john

	And what were the Indians doing at the time Jim....

    Glen,
      I believe to what Jim is referring is the institution of the Holiday
    Thanksgiving by Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln, a devout believer,
    set aside a day to give thanks to God for the blessing he has shown
    this nation. The holiday would not pass today as it was initially
    stated by President Lincoln, read it sometime, you may be shocked to
    hear the strength with which he professes the Grace given by God.
    
    I doubt few knew that Abraham Lincoln was the progenitor of the
    Thanksgiving holiday. Most people think, well it was decreed by the
    settlers - NOT! eeeeet, not until 1865!  In fact it was one of the last
    things he did...
    
    -PDM                                        

Someone I know who teaches at a state university in Illinois tells me that
at the beginning of the Fall Term each year they receive a notice indicating
the dates of the Jewish High Holy Days and are told that they may not penalize
students for absences on those days and must make alternatives available for
quizzes and examinations scheduled for those days.

That seems perfectly appropriate, but when he suggested that similar
accomodations be made for Islamic and Christian students, he was greeted
with rolling eyes and mutters of "Give me a break."

/john

    
    quake in Bolivia, M7.5-8.0, epicenter 200 mi ENE of La Paz,
    felt as far north as Toronto.
    
    

    7.5-8.0??  Wow, big quake.  Any damage?

re.-1

Little to no damage. Occurred in a remote area, unlike the Columbian quake on
Monday.

ace

    Read in the paper this morning that the Freedom of Religion
    organization has filed suit in court to have "In God We Trust" removed
    from U.S. currency.  They are complaining that it is a violation of the
    First Amendment.

    When will it all end?

    Ron

| <<< Note 15.352 by AMWS06::THELLEN "Ron Thellen, DTN 522-2952" >>>



| When will it all end?

	I think today.... it is June 9th ya know! :-)


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 15.353 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>




>| When will it all end?

>	I think today.... it is June 9th ya know! :-)



Could be..are you ready?




Jim

�	I think today.... it is June 9th ya know! :-)

;-) Well done, Glen ;-)  It is here too.  Only we haven't got so much of 
it left now.

You only get to use each day once.  You'll never get another opportunity to 
use June 9th 1994 for God.  Don't waste it folks.

							...Andrew

         � You only get to use each day once.  
         
         
         I hadn't heard that one before!
         
         and I would quite agree:	"Don't waste it folks."  :-)
         
         
         Paul

    Isn't that the Freedom "FROM" Religion organization ?

 I heard a rep from this group (which Jim Richards correctly identifies)
 on the radio last night...



Jim

Several replies moved to topic 16.




Jim, your friendly co mod.

>   <<< Note 16.277 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Living With A Honky Tonk Attitude" >>>

>    Isn't that the Freedom "FROM" Religion organization ?

    OOPS!!!  Am I embarassed or what?  You are quite correct.

    Ron

	 NEW YORK (Reuter) - Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, no
stranger to controversy, took on the religious right Wednesday,
saying it was selling out American youth in the name of
religion.

	 In the keynote address to the [group which may not be
named], Elders praised [unmentionable] groups for their work
on AIDS awareness and said they must add their voices to press
for a comprehensive health care package.

	 She was warmly received, with her speech frequently
interrupted by applause and at least two standing ovations.

	 She attacked what she called the ``un-Christian religious
right'' for its opposition to education programs in such areas
as sex and AIDS.

	 ``We've got to be strong to take on those people who are
selling our children out in the name of religion,'' she said to
wild applause from the audience of several hundred.

	 ``We've got to be as aggressive as they've been,'' she said.

	 She said that health education does not mean teaching young
people how to have sex.

	 ``Nobody has to teach us how to have sex. God taught us how
to have sex. We've got to teach them responsibility.''

	 She called on the participants to press for a full health
care package that would ensure coverage for all.

	 ``I'm going to ask you to help bring the energy of your
movement to the health care debate,'' she said.

	 While there can be discussions about how to finance the
system, universal coverage must be part of the program, Elders
said, adding that President Clinton was fully committed to this
principle.

	 ``I've known your president a long time. I taught him
well,'' she said.

	 Elders has been involved in a number of controversies since
becoming surgeon general including the question of condoms for
high school students to prevent the spread of AIDS and studying
the legalization of some illegal drugs.

	I think Joyce Elders has hit this one on the head. How in the world can
anyone say don't teach kids of the dangers, of taking responsibility for their
actions (and before their actions)? I know some say we must abstain and that is
the ONLY way we can do things. I think we need to deal with the reality of the
situation and realize that kids will be kids, and may not listen to the abstain
message. There is more of a chance (but still not 100%) that they will listen
to the protection message than the abstain message. People have to realize that
abstaining is not going to happen instantly. Let's work to that goal, but we
need to take steps, not leaps. Leaps right now are not a reality. Working to
the goal is.


Glen

 Thousands upon thousands of kids have taken part in the "True Love Waits"
 program in which they commit to abstinence.  Perhaps if MTV, Fox and the
 other TV networks were to run programs where abstinence rather than promiscuity
 is practiced kids would listen.

 Frankly what is offensive about Ms. Elders, in my opinion, is her blatant anti-
 Christian rambling.  If she were speaking about another religious group, or
 a minority or ethnic group she would be bounced out of office faster than one
 could recite the warning on a cigarette pack.  


 Jim

    re: .280
    
    I agree that we can't just tell our kids - "don't have sex".  I believe
    we can, however, provide good reasons WHY they should wait.  Christian
    parents, especially, should give there kids a good foundation to stand
    upon.
    
    I don't believe that most Christians would mind sex education, if it
    was taught with traditional moral standards (at the proper age).  I don't 
    know what Ms. Elders talks about when she says to teach our kids 
    "responsibility".  Does responsibility just mean wearing a condom?  I 
    don't think so.  I believe that the more our society condones and approves 
    of sexual promiscuity, the more kids WILL participate in that promiscuity. 
    I believe kids need to learn that responsible behavior sometimes says, "I
    am not going to do something because it FEELS good, I am going to do
    what is right".  Christian parents have an advantage here (if we can
    lead our kids to know Christ), because without Jesus, there is no inner 
    motivation for purity.
    
    Bing
    
    

     This is Jerry Van Marter of the Presbyterian News Service with
news from the 206th General Assembly in Wichita for June 16.

     In one of the most remarkable scenes this reporter has ever
seen, the Assembly today approved its report and response to the
Presbyterian Church on last November's Re-Imagining Conference with
a near unanimous 99 percent vote.  The final tally was 516 in
favor, four opposed, and two abstentions.  The report came to the
floor of the Assembly with the unanimous recommendation of the
Assembly Committee on General Assembly Council Review.

     The 10-page report declares that the Re-imagining controversy
is primarily a theological controversy.  It states that the
conference was not intended to stay within the bounds of
Presbyterian and Reformed beliefs and that it in fact exceeded
those bounds.  The Assembly concluded: "It is our opinion that
members of the Presbyterian Church were offended, dismayed, hurt
and angered because they believe that the the church no longer
adheres to its traditional theological moorings or is afraid to say
that it does.  We reject teachings that deny the tenets of our
faith."

     After outlining theological principles of the church and
information about the conference and the church's involvement in
it, the report turns to the matter of reconciliation within the
church.  The personal tragedy of the Re-imagining Conference
controversy, the report states is "the pain experienced by many
Presbyterians and our apparent reluctance or hesitancy to respond
to it.  We encourage Presbyterians who have hurt other
Presbyterians to apologize and discover God's sweet gift of
reconciliation."

     Specifically, the report goes on, "we call on critics of the
church's leadership and critics of the critics to cease and desist
and to allow healing to happen and trust to be rebuilt."

     Following the vote commissioners stood and applauded for
several minutes, then broke out into spontaneous singing of hymns
"The Doxology," "Amazing Grace," "Now Thank We All Our God," and
"Amen."  Moderator Bohl led the Assembly in prayer, then called the
entire General Assembly Council Review Committee onto the stage
where they received another prolonged standing ovation.  Not a
single commissioner rose to speak in opposition to the report.

****************************************************************************


My only point of disagreement with this report is the call not to criticize
the leadership.  The central-office leadership of our church has steadfastly
refused for nearly a year to take any stand on this conference, a stand which
the actual members of the church made in less than a week by a 516 to 4 vote.
I will be delighted to not criticize the leadership, if it will listen to the
church it represents and repent of the way it has strayed from the Word of
God.  If they insist on continuing off in their own direction, then I will
have to continue to call for their removal.

Paul

    Read the letter on the back of the latest Focus on the Family Magazine
    that was recently sent to Dr. Elders.  Cracked me up!  
    
    It basically treats the issue of smoking much in the same way she
    treats the issue of sex.
    
    -sandy
    

	Interesting, Glen.

	I have to disagree.  As a young adult, I used "no protection" as
	an excuse to say no (when I knew I didn't want to lose my 
	virginity, but was too immature to be able to say that).  In fact,
	when my roommates went to health services to get BC pills 		
        "just-in-case",  I wouldn't go with them, because I thought if
	I had protection, I'd be expected to say yes.

	I was 19 and 20 at the time.  I'd imagine 12 and 13 year olds
	would have an even more difficult time with it.  

	Karen

    
    > In the keynote address to the [group which may not be
    >named], Elders praised [unmentionable] groups for their work
    >on AIDS awareness and said they must add their voices to press
    >for a comprehensive health care package.
    
     > ``Nobody has to teach us how to have sex. God taught us how
     > to have sex. We've got to teach them responsibility.''
    
    I wonder what she meant by that?
     

	Karen, I understand what you are saying. But how many 12 or 13 year
olds even feel comfortable enough to go to their parents about this? I think
this plays a lot into it as well. Kids should be taught that abstaining is the
way to go. It should be explained why it should be done. God know's there are
enough reasons to. BUT, we are still dealing with kids, and we need to realize
this. For you taking the no protection route worked well. For another child
this method may not work. To go the unprotected route could lead them to
greater degree of pregnancy, disease or death. 


Glen

RE:                      <<< Note 16.283 by DELNI::DISMUKE >>>

   > Read the letter on the back of the latest Focus on the Family Magazine
   > that was recently sent to Dr. Elders.  Cracked me up!  
    
   > It basically treats the issue of smoking much in the same way she
   > treats the issue of sex.
    
    

 yes, Sandy...it was excellent!



 Jim    

    
    >To go the unprotected route could lead them to
    >greater degree of pregnancy, disease or death.
     
    
     Havn't we already established that the idea of a "protected route" is
    an outright LIE!!!!!!

| <<< Note 16.288 by DECLNE::YACKEL "and if not..." >>>


| >To go the unprotected route could lead them to
| >greater degree of pregnancy, disease or death.


| Havn't we already established that the idea of a "protected route" is
| an outright LIE!!!!!!


	Read what I wrote again Dan. If you are looking at it from a SAFE pov,
then you are not reading what I wrote. If you look at it from a SAFER pov, then
you are viewing it as I wrote it. It's the "greater degree" part that talks
about this. BUT, if you are looking at it from a totally different pov, please
share it with me.


Glen

    
    Let me just say it this way.  If your playing russian roulette is it
    safer to put one bullet in that say two bullets?  Should we then
    encourage school age children to play along with us as long as we're
    only going to use one bullet?!?!?!?!

    God taught us how to have sex....
    
    God also teaches responsibility, if people will read the word and
    follow his word..
    
    Does this statement by Elders suggest that you can learn of sex from
    God, but not responsibility????
    
    Nothing like taking things out of context at random...
    
    

    Remember when you were mid teens.  Did dying ever cross your mind?  The
    problem with most teens is (as I did) they think they are invincible. 
    Bad things only happen to other people, never to them.  I felt I was
    indestructible, untouchable, and very lucky.

    I drove fast and stupid (Dodge Challenger 440, Kawasaki 750),
    experimented with drugs and alcohol (yes while driving), had unprotected
    sex and never once thought that anything bad would happen.

    Maybe the sad thing is, nothing did.  No accidents, no pregnancy, no
    disease.  I still think I was very lucky, but I trust God now, not luck. 
    I think God watched over me in all the stupid things I did, knowing
    that finally I would become a servant to him.

    My Teen kids (Girl 14, Boy 12), know about all the dangers, but I think
    deep down they also believe, it could never happen to me.  So I have
    discussed it with them on a Biblical, Spiritual and future relationship
    level rather than a fear level.

    I also try to convey the damage premarital sex will do to their
    marriage, all the problems besides pregnancy and disease.  My daughter
    has taken the celibacy pledge that the churches did a while back, and I
    bought a frame for it, and a letter to her future husband as to why she
    took the pledge.  

    The government released all kinds of FUD about drugs in the 70's, but no
    one believed any of it.  Did the claim of chromosone damage from LSD
    ever stop anyone?

    I pray, and teach, and pray and hope and pray that my kids will make
    the correct choices.
    
    Sparky

    History shows that a certain number of people are going to try their
    hand at robbing banks. These poor folks really aren't responsible for
    their actions. After all, they probably came from a dysfunctional
    family or have financial pressures that force them into robbery. And
    even if they somehow were shown to be responsible, we certainly
    wouldn't want them to get hurt in the attempt, would we?
    
    I think we should therefore provide (government supplied, of course)
    bullet-proof vests to anyone who thinks they may have bank-robbing
    tendencies. We could also provide some training sessions on how to rob
    a bank more safely (this should happen in the schools so the innocent
    young children can be safe if they are pressured into trying a
    robbery). With the vests and the training, anyone who does happen to
    try robbing a bank will at least be safe from the police's bullets.
    We can then try to rehabilitate them (being careful to not violate any
    of their civil rights).
    
    
    
                             THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
    
    God has set the standard. It's not up for debate. It's not open to
    negotiation. The standard is set, and it's crystal clear. Do we think
    we're smarter than God is by compromising away from the standard? Has
    God been taken by surprise with today's teenagers? Maybe He hasn't been
    surprised, but that His plan simply isn't the best. Hey, we're pretty
    smart cookies you know.
    
    Disgustedly,
    
    	BD�

 Amen!  God gave us standards for our *protection* not restriction.




Jim

    .282 and .286
    
    Yes we as parents, as CHRISTIAN parents need to take the shame out of
    sex with our kids and openly discuss their changing bodies.  I recently
    had a conversation which I placed in here with my 11 year old son
    regarding sex, which I believe was healthy, balanced and opportunistic
    to talk about God's plan for our sexuality.
    
    .286
    
    You are right, too often children are afraid to go to there parents
    about this subject.  That is why since my son was old enough to ask
    about where babies come from, I was serious and answered his questions
    completely honestly.  We didn't smile, laugh or giggle about it.  It
    was handled the same as if he'd asked me how to make french toast.
    
    To this day, while he may be somewhat embarassed, he still tells me
    things.  And my youngest son is beginning to have the same type of
    relationship.  The message I give my sons repeatedly is that sex is
    healthy, wonderful and a gift from God between two married people. 
    That sex happens outside of marriage, but it is not blessed of God.  
    
    The key in my book is to open the door of communication so that the
    kids talk to you.
    
    The note is in the Our Progeny topic around #167 or so.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

	Nancy, I think how you handled the situation was perfect. You opened
the door, you discussed at a young age, and with any help from God your kids
will do the right thing. But what happens if they don't? Is good protection
better than none? Sparky seemed to hit the nail on the head when he mentioned
that kids believe they are invincable. And while I think Nancy's approach is
great for the real young generation, for what we have now with kids Nancy's
approach may not work (because of the invincable thing). What do we do for
these kids? Also, while Nancy was able to talk to her kids successfully, what
happens to those who are not able to talk successfully? Do we just let them go
by the wayside? There are too many if's to go with one plan right now. Too many
people who may not have the same religious convictions that a lot of you hold.
Because of this the abstaining plan on it's own will fail.



Glen

 I  Wonder why the government advocates quitting smoking, regulates 
 wearing seatbelts on aircraft, regulates the safety equipment on 
 automobiles, and countless other regulations for our protection, yet
 will not get behind a program that pushes abstinence, which offers 
 **100%** protection.




Jim

	Glen,

	If programs tell kids that "abstinence is best" but, we know
	kids are kids, so if you "can't" abstain, use these (condoms),
	then they are basically telling kids "We don't trust you."

	They're also sending the message, "We expect you to have
	sex" , just like my roommates that got BC pills even when they
	didn't have steady boyfriends were expecting to have sex.

	The point in my note was I bet these kids would rather hear
	"We don't expect you to have sex, it's ok to say no, and it's
	right to say no."

	I'm praying that the "True Love Waits" campaign sets a standard
	across this nation that many kids want to meet, and that 
	premarital sex becomes uncool, so that positive peer pressure
	can be applied.

	BTW Glen, the current Safe Sex campaigns are not working.
	Teen pregnancies are still on the rise...

	Karen

    >    God taught us how to have sex....
    
    this was a real gem.  It begs the question why so many couples, inside
    and outside of the Christian Church, have sexual problems.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 16.297 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| I  Wonder why the government advocates quitting smoking, regulates
| wearing seatbelts on aircraft, regulates the safety equipment on
| automobiles, and countless other regulations for our protection, yet
| will not get behind a program that pushes abstinence, which offers
| **100%** protection.


	With each thing you have mentioned Jim it has taken years to get the
regulation into place. Quit smoking went thru the smoking/nonsmoking route,
safety equipment in auto's is phased in over time. Think about it Jim, how long
has the air bag been perfected and how long did it take to get it out to us as
a regulated feature? Could it be that steps were taken to reach the goal?
Maybe....


Glen

Sex and the condom <> safe sex.

A little arithmetic:

HIV- person plus HIV- person = safe sex wrt HIV transmission (no condom needed)

HIV+ person plus HIV+ person = safe sex wrt HIV transmission; already infected
     no condom needed.

HIV- person plus HIV+ person = deadly sex; condom will reduce CHANCE of 
     being killed; NO DOCTORS RECOMMEND THIS EQUATION - what they recommend
     is that if these two people engage in sex, at least they should reduce
     their odds of getting killed.  

Male person plus female person = chance of pregnancy; condoms will reduce 
     the chance of becoming pregnant but odds are probably more than 2%
     as condom manufacturers claim.

Abstinent person plus absitnent person = safe (non)sex; no condom needed.

The BEST claim about condoms is reduced risk from dying or getting pregnant
from having sex.  It should not be promoted as SAFE.  It isn't.  It is safer.
(Pointing a gun to your head with 6 bullets and pulling the trigger is not
safe.  Removing 4 bullets is much safer reducing the odds of killing yourself
by a whopping 66%.)

| <<< Note 16.298 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Do you hear the people sing ?" >>>



| BTW Glen, the current Safe Sex campaigns are not working.
| Teen pregnancies are still on the rise...

	I just thought I heard the oppisite just the other day on tv? Anyone
else hear this? BTW, do you think safer sex prevents pregnancies? If so, how
much higher do you think the numbers would be without it?


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 16.301 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>




>| I  Wonder why the government advocates quitting smoking, regulates
>| wearing seatbelts on aircraft, regulates the safety equipment on
>| automobiles, and countless other regulations for our protection, yet
>| will not get behind a program that pushes abstinence, which offers
>| **100%** protection.


>	With each thing you have mentioned Jim it has taken years to get the
>regulation into place. Quit smoking went thru the smoking/nonsmoking route,
>safety equipment in auto's is phased in over time. Think about it Jim, how long
>has the air bag been perfected and how long did it take to get it out to us as
>a regulated feature? Could it be that steps were taken to reach the goal?
>Maybe....


The point being that despite how long it took for whatever regulations to take
effect, the government took a stand on the issue of protection well before the
regulations went into effect.



Jim

                    Extract from the 'Sunday Nation'
                 no 2089, Nairobi, Sunday, June 19, 1994
                 
           BISHOP, MPs IN CLASH WITH POLICE, by George Munene

Heavily armed policemen yesterday stopped a women's meeting and held
Kirinyaga Anglican Bishop David Gitari and Two local MPs at the venue
for more than two hours. 

The policemen arrived at the Church in the Province of Kenya diocesan
headquarters in Kutas town, where the meeting was taking place, in three
Land-Rovers and sealed off all exits.

Inspector Reuban Okira, who led the team, declared the meeting illegal
and told the women, the Bishop and two Democratic Party of Kenya MPs,
Ms Martha Karua (Gichogu) and Bishop Allan Njeru (Mwen), that he had
"instructions from above" to disperse them.  He gave the crowd five
minutes to disperse.

But Ms Karua snatched the microphone and said the meeting must continue.
The police officer twisted the MP's arm and grabbed the microphone as she
screamed. Other women in the hall threatened to stone the officer if he
did not release her.

The policemen beat the more that 100 women and children as the MPs
locked themselves in the diocesan boardroom.

Traders at the town closed down for fear of being beaten.

The local vicar-general, the Rev Geoffrey Murithi, was manhandled by
Insp Okira when he insisted on entering the sealed-off compound.

At about 12pm, Bishop Gitari came out and announced that the Comptroller
of State House, Mr Abraham Kiptaui, wanted to talk to the police.

But Mr Okira declined saying police officers did not act on such orders.

Bishop Gitari drove off and returned with District Officer Arthur
Magira, who said he had instructions from the Office of the President.
He told Bishop Gitari to call those who had been dispersed.

Ms Karua claimed the action was politically motivated and described it
as the worst in the history of Kirinyaga.

                        -------------------

               Statement by the Revd Canon Van Culin
      (Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council)

  The events as described in Kirinyaga Diocese in the Church in the Province
  of Kenya are a worrying commentary on the extremes to which some so-called
  leaders are willing to go in order to impede the legitimate work of the
  Church. This gathering of the Mothers' Union was seriously endangered.
  At a time when the Kenya Government is very keen to establish good
  international relationships it is essential that the right of peaceful
  assembly be protected, and that every sector of the Government be
  disciplined to honour and safeguard the work of the Church.

  [In accordance with DEC policy, a solicitation for letters to the Kenyan
   authorities was deleted from this article.]

| <<< Note 16.304 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| The point being that despite how long it took for whatever regulations to take
| effect, the government took a stand on the issue of protection well before the
| regulations went into effect.


	But Jim, you forgot to add that their stand over the years had changed
with each and every thing. For instance, 20 years ago they never would have
thought to have people not smoke, make airbags a mandatory safety feature. But
over time their stand changed. Their stand is changing as we speak on this
issue. They know abstinance is the best way to go. But they also know it ain't
gonna happen instantly. Just like with smoking and airbags. They know what is
best. But like with the other 2 they are looking at the total picture,
something I wonder if you are doing.


Glen

 Ok Glen...





Jim

    
    Actually Glen your logic is flawed.  Studies show that a BIG change in
    one's behavior is easier to maintain and less likely to revert back to
    the original behavior.  You see small changes that are closer to the
    original behavior are harder to maintain.  For example if I wanted to
    lose weight and I had to cut out BK food.  It would be easier for me
    not to ever go back to the BK drive thru than it would for me to go and
    only order fries and not the bacon double cheeseburger.  You see to
    remove oneself totally from the habit/environment/behavior is easier
    and more able to control than to slowly or gradually try to.
    
    Dan

re: .280
    
>	I think Joyce Elders has hit this one on the head. 
    
    I think she is a bit vague in her verbage.  Sounded a lot like
    politician-speak to me...a lot of wind but no substance.  No
    explanations of what precisely she means.
    
>    How in the world can
>anyone say don't teach kids of the dangers, of taking responsibility for their
>actions (and before their actions)? 
    
    Who is saying this?
    
>    I know some say we must abstain and that is
>the ONLY way we can do things. I think we need to deal with the reality of the
>situation and realize that kids will be kids, and may not listen to the abstain
>message. 
    
    And by your same logic, kids will be kids and not listen to any other
    message given to them as well.  What's your point?  Statistics show
    that kids today, under the modern sex education programs, are more
    promiscuous than they were 30 years ago, and also that the condom
    message works in only a small % of the kids (meaning, they aren't
    wearing them, and even if they do, more than half don't wear them
    properly).
    
    Teach the kids abstinance.  Teach them WHY this is necessary, and the
    dangers involved in sex.  Do not push condoms in school...I haven't
    talked to ANY teen that didn't know about condoms, so I doubt that this
    is a necessary part of the sex-education cirriculum anyway.  
    
>    There is more of a chance (but still not 100%) that they will listen
>to the protection message than the abstain message. 
    
    No, there isn't.  No matter how much media babble you hear to the
    contrary, this remains untrue.  The reasons and benefits of abstinance
    are far more powerful than the message to "protect yourself, we know
    you're going to do this anyway".  You underestimate teens.  They merely
    need a reason NOT to participate in sex, something that lessens the
    peer pressure of being a virgin, and counteracts the TV message being
    given to them.
    
>    People have to realize that
>abstaining is not going to happen instantly. Let's work to that goal, but we
>need to take steps, not leaps. Leaps right now are not a reality. Working to
>the goal is.

    You cannot have contradictory messages being given to our youth.  This
    is a recipe for instant failure.  Kids are good at picking up on these
    things.
    

    -steve

    re .305  Glen, you are making a large error in your thinking.  Possibly
    because I am older than you and discussed many things with my parents
    in detail, I remember when abstinence was taught and practiced by most. 
    Then the push came by Planned Parenthood and others toward
    contraception, prevention of VD, etc., followed by the immediate
    gratification and finally the "Women's Movement" and abortion on
    demand.  Public thinking went from abstinence to total sexual freedom
    (spelled - "irresponsible") and now seems to be moving toward
    abstinence again.  Your examples of smoking and air bags fail, because
    we did not use them or not smoke and then revert back.  A great deal of
    technological development was necessary along with economical methods
    to make airbags a reality - it costs nothing and no new technology is
    required to abstain until marriage and the rewards far exceed not
    smoking or use of air bags. (The wonderous joy of that union far
    exceeds the preservation of my life on earth, since we've got a lock on
    something even better.  Doesn't mean we should ignore safety).
    
    

| <<< Note 16.307 by DECLNE::YACKEL "and if not..." >>>


| Actually Glen your logic is flawed.  Studies show that a BIG change in
| one's behavior is easier to maintain and less likely to revert back to
| the original behavior.  You see small changes that are closer to the
| original behavior are harder to maintain.  For example if I wanted to
| lose weight and I had to cut out BK food.  It would be easier for me
| not to ever go back to the BK drive thru than it would for me to go and
| only order fries and not the bacon double cheeseburger.  You see to
| remove oneself totally from the habit/environment/behavior is easier
| and more able to control than to slowly or gradually try to.


	Dan, another approach that works for people is to cut down the amount
of times they actually go there as they are not strong enough to go cold
turkey. Take for example smokers.


Glen

    
    You really dont listen nor read very well Glen.  Turn off your
    selective reading and grasp what I said.  I'll re-iterate for you.
    
    New Studies have shown that a BIG change in one's behavior is easier to
    maintain and less likely to revert back to the original behavior.
    
     This indicates that cold turkey is the best behavior modification. 
    
    Dan

Debate the lucid; chastise the wicked; encourage the brethren; avoid the 
foolish.

| <<< Note 16.308 by CSOA1::LEECH "I understand the black flame." >>>



| > How in the world can anyone say don't teach kids of the dangers, of taking 
| > responsibility for their actions (and before their actions)?

| Who is saying this?

	Anyone who will only give an abstaining message. One must realize that
there will be people who do not believe as you do, and will not follow it.

| And by your same logic, kids will be kids and not listen to any other message 
| given to them as well.  What's your point?  

	Steve, between the two more kids will be saved. You have some kids that
will abstain, some kids who will not abstain but use condoms, and you will have
some that just want to have an orgasm regardless of the results. You're hitting
2 groups instead of one, which will save more lives.

| Statistics show that kids today, under the modern sex education programs, are 
| more promiscuous than they were 30 years ago, 

	Steve, pleas, can we deal with the whole picture here? By what you
wrote above it sounds, anyway, like you're blaming it all on the sex education
programs. If you are, then this is false. There are so many outside influences
in this world that will have kids do the things they do. Part of it will be
caused by what is on tv (both network and news), some of it will be by doing as
their parents do, part of it will be caused by where they live, part of it will
be caused by how disfunctional their family is (lack of love), peer pressure is
another, and a whole host of other reasons that I can't think of off the top of 
my head. Sex education programs will hopefully bring up questions that kids
need to know. Is it a perfect system? Probably not. Nothing is. But don't try
to push kids being more promiscuous on sex education programs. It ain't the
root cause.

| and also that the condom message works in only a small % of the kids (meaning,
| they aren't wearing them, and even if they do, more than half don't wear them
| properly).

	Something sex education programs can fix. Remember, not every school
district in the states have a good sex education program if one is there at
all.

| Teach the kids abstinance.  Teach them WHY this is necessary, and the
| dangers involved in sex.  

	I agree with this 100%. But reality also states that you need to go
further.

| Do not push condoms in school...I haven't talked to ANY teen that didn't know 
| about condoms, so I doubt that this is a necessary part of the sex-education 
| cirriculum anyway.

	Gee Steve, you mention that they don't know how to use them properly,
yet you don't see a reason for having it part of the cirriculum. How is that?
BTW, let's just say kids know about condoms. Do they know about them where they
can talk about them without laughing or giggling? Knowing and knowing what they
can do are 2 seperate things. Having the attitude that this would help make
things safer IF one has sex instead of the giggle giggle message, you'd get
much better results.

| >    There is more of a chance (but still not 100%) that they will listen
| >to the protection message than the abstain message.

| No, there isn't.  No matter how much media babble you hear to the contrary, 
| this remains untrue.  

	You are WRONG Steve Leech. I am one who can prove you wrong. In fact,
you yourself have proven yourself wrong. I wear a condom when I have sex. My
friends wear a condom when they have sex. Why do we do that Steve? Did we just
say, hey, lets wear a condom. Nope. Because we listened to what was said. You
yourself say that kids do use condoms. Part of the problem, which you stated,
is that they do not know how to use them properly. So there is a MUCH better
chance they will listen. If people could have the same talk about sex that
Nancy had with her son, it would make things MUCH easier. MUCH easier.It takes
the giggles out and leaves a clear message.



Glen

>	Steve, pleas, can we deal with the whole picture here? By what you
>wrote above it sounds, anyway, like you're blaming it all on the sex education
>programs. If you are, then this is false. There are so many outside influences
>in this world that will have kids do the things they do.

Glen's right!  There are also agenda-laden groups who espouse 
permissive (and often perverted) sexual relations.  The influence peddling
is strong, repetitive, and a contributing factor to the stupidity of 
any sexual message that claims safety in anything other than abstinence
and monogamy.

MM

 Folks, one moderator is on STD, another is off today, the other is
 just about to begin his weekend, and this one is about to go into
 a 2 hour meeting..

 Lets try to remember that this is not SOAPBOX.



 Jim Co Mod

| <<< Note 16.314 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Glen's right!  There are also agenda-laden groups who espouse permissive (and 
| often perverted) sexual relations.  The influence peddling is strong, 
| repetitive, and a contributing factor to the stupidity of any sexual message 
| that claims safety in anything other than abstinence and monogamy.

	Mark, can you list the groups that do this? You are right, any group
who would do this is stupid. Any group that I am aware of all believe the
abstinance message should be included. So, if you would, please give us a list
of those groups. Thanks.



Glen

No, I will not.

| <<< Note 16.317 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| No, I will not.


	Too bad I guess... it would be nice though if you could back your
claims.....


Glen

See note 363.91

There are plenty others, too.

No, Glen, relativism still doesn't work.  And no, just because you're willing
to type in the same things more times than other people doesn't mean you win
the argument.

>| >    There is more of a chance (but still not 100%) that they will listen
>| >to the protection message than the abstain message.
>
>|No, there isn't.  No matter how much media babble you hear to the contrary, 
>| this remains untrue.  
>
>	You are WRONG Steve Leech. I am one who can prove you wrong. 

No, Glen, you can't.  We're not talking about adults, we're talking about
kids.  The single most important factor in the rise of promiscuity in the
kids in this country is the fact that we won't tell them not to do it any
more.  Studies have shown that most kids initially *want* to wait until they
are older for sex.  In our country's past, when someone tried to pressure
them into sex, they could turn to the adults (figuratively, if not
literally), or to the other kids for support.  The message they received from
all sides was "Nice kids don't."  So most of them didn't.

But now that is lost.  They come out of sex education class, where adults
have taught them techniques and safety, and subjected them to exercises which
have *NO* function except to break down their inhibitions, such as putting
condoms on bananas in mixed-sex pairs.  When someone pressures them for sex,
where do they turn?  Not to the adults, they're the ones who just told them
it was OK.  Not to their friends, their friends have already given in.  The
message today is "Only prudes don't."  So most of them do.

Studies have also shown that while the kids hear the "sex is OK, go for it"
message loud and clear, they don't hear the "keep it 'safer'" message at all,
or just barely.  The percentage of teenagers who practice 'safer' sex is
staggeringly low.

You are correct that teaching abstinence only within a cacaphony of "just do
it" is difficult, and far less effective.  But the goal we seek is not just a
few people yelling into the wind, but to turn the tide of the idiocy that we
have practiced in recent years.

You keep trying to present that there are two options:

   Abstinence only, which only reaches a small percentage.  Most people keep 
   doing it, and are doing it unsafely.

				OR

   Teach 'em how.  Doesn't reduce the number of people doing it, but will 
   reach some of them with the 'safer' message.


But those aren't the real options.  The real options are:

   Abstinence only.  When widespread, this drastically reduces the number
   of teens who are sexually active.  Those still active will most likely
   have unprotected sex, but the overall number of people exposed to danger
   decreases by a huge margin.

				OR

   Teach 'em how.  This will dramatically increase the number of people who
   are sexually active.  And virtually none of them will use protection.

Only a fool would choose the latter.

Glen, this is a FACT:  *EVERY SINGLE LOCALITY* that has implemented an
abstinence-only program has significantly reduced both pregnancies and STD
rates within a year.  This is also a FACT: The majority (I believe this is
also ALL, but don't have the facts to back that up) of localities that have
implemented sex education programs that focus on 'safer' sex have shown
significant *INCREASE* in pregnancies and STD rates within a year.

You're wrong, Glen.  The 'safer' sex message just doesn't work.

Paul

re: .313

| > How in the world can anyone say don't teach kids of the dangers, of taking 
| > responsibility for their actions (and before their actions)?

| Who is saying this?

>	Anyone who will only give an abstaining message. One must realize that
>there will be people who do not believe as you do, and will not follow it.

    I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning.  Telling kids not only the
    dangers of sex, but of the benefit of waiting until marriage to have
    sex, *is* teaching both dangers and responsibility for one's own body.
    
    Sex outside marriage, with or without a condom, is not responsible
    behavior according to God's word.
    

>	Steve, between the two more kids will be saved. 
    
    Obviously, our definitions of "saving" our youth differ greatly. 
    Turning the kids loose with condoms is similar to playing russian
    roulette, or do you think those that abandon abstinance will not
    continue to be sexually active? (empirical data, as well as statistics
    say that they will)   Maybe condoms will make sex "safER", but the
    damage done spiritually and the attitude the youth will take to sex
    when teachers condone such activity (as long as they are 'protected'),
    is damaging...not saving.
    
    I don't expect you to understand this.  Actually, I expect a response
    telling me that I am willing to sacrifice a certain number of our youth
    since I am not for teaching liberal sex-ed in school.
    
| Statistics show that kids today, under the modern sex education programs, are 
| more promiscuous than they were 30 years ago, 

>	Steve, pleas, can we deal with the whole picture here? By what you
>wrote above it sounds, anyway, like you're blaming it all on the sex education
>programs. 
    
    Not all of it, but liberal sex-ed has made matters worse...all you need
    do is look at the statistics of schools with liberal sex-ed, vs. those
    without.   There are many factors as to why kids are more promiscuous
    today vs. 30 years ago...but if you rolled it all into one ball, you
    would have this simple fact: society is turning away from God's way, to
    follow their own way (persuit of pleasure above all else).
    

| and also that the condom message works in only a small % of the kids (meaning,
| they aren't wearing them, and even if they do, more than half don't wear them
| properly).

>	Something sex education programs can fix. 
    
    My statement above is based on statistics from schools that DO have
    liberal (meaning the more detailed, precise, and graphic
    programs...those that pass out rubbers, etc.) sex-ed programs.
    
>    Remember, not every school
>district in the states have a good sex education program if one is there at
>all.

    Those that have abstinance only programs work infinitely better, so say
    the statistics.  Why push further condom classes on our kids?
    
| Teach the kids abstinance.  Teach them WHY this is necessary, and the
| dangers involved in sex.  

>	I agree with this 100%. But reality also states that you need to go
>further.

    Only your reality.   You can't teach kids to have sex (but use
    rubbers) and not to have sex at the same time.  They will see the
    conflict.
    

>	Gee Steve, you mention that they don't know how to use them properly,
    
    Yes, and those are the kids UNDER the condom pushing programs...get my
    previous drift now?
    
>yet you don't see a reason for having it part of the cirriculum. How is that?
    
| >    There is more of a chance (but still not 100%) that they will listen
| >to the protection message than the abstain message.

| No, there isn't.  No matter how much media babble you hear to the contrary, 
| this remains untrue.  

>	You are WRONG Steve Leech. 
    
    Then why are the abstinance only programs working so much better than
    the liberal sex-ed programs?
    
>    I am one who can prove you wrong. 
    
    You are no longer considered a youth...what's your point?
    
>    In fact,
>you yourself have proven yourself wrong. 
    
    I've got to hear this one...please explain.
    

    I would like to make a point that isn't brought up much in this debate. 
    Why are our kids being taught that wearing a condom is being
    responsible?  It is not!!  Being responsible is ABSTAINING from sex in
    the first place (until marriage).  All a condom does, in the mindset of
    a hormonally raging teen, is give them a chance to practice situational
    ethics pushed by society.  It also gives them a false sense of
    security (which means more sex, usually).
    
    -steve

The safeR sex lobby is full of liars - or fools - claiming that they
care about people's lives and want to save them from harming themselves
with STDs and unwanted pregnancies.  The FACTS prove the abstinence
messages SAVES MORE PEOPLE FROM THESE DANGERS than all the other "programs."

Plus, whether everyone believes it or not, sex outside of marriage is a
sin.  One's belief doesn't change the facts.  Hold on... let me check the
premise of this conference... yep, I can make that statement.

>    All a condom does, in the mindset of
>    a hormonally raging teen, is give them a chance to practice situational
>    ethics pushed by society.  It also gives them a false sense of
>    security (which means more sex, usually).

Bingo, Steve.
MM

I'll reiterate what Steve said, before you pick on this one, Glen.  I said:

>The percentage of teenagers who practice 'safer' sex is
>staggeringly low.

This is *AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A LIBERAL "GO FOR IT" SEX
EDUCATION CLASS*  The percentage point raise in the number of kids using
condoms after a sex ed class is miniscule, the percentage raise in the number
of kids having sex is huge.

Paul

    A sex education program may be able to teach the "technical" aspect of
    "safer" sex, as in proper use of condoms, etc. But what it cannot fix
    is the fact that though sexually mature, the vast majority of these
    kids are emotionally immature. I am always amazed by the focus on the
    physical aspects of sex and the idea that mere technical knowledge is
    enough, while the enormous emotional/spiritual involvement/consequences
    are virtually ignored. I believe that in many cases it is the emotions
    that are the cause of unsafe sex, not lack of technical knowledge. Kids
    are scared, embarassed, feeling peer pressure, dealing with hormones
    and intense feelings that many adults can't cope with, and we stand
    back and believe that if we just hand them the condom they'll be all
    right?  No matter how much information you give them, they remain
    children emotionally and you can't "fix" that.
                                                  
    Rebecca

 Amen, Rebecca



 Jim

| <<< Note 16.320 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>




| >	You are WRONG Steve Leech. I am one who can prove you wrong.

| No, Glen, you can't.  We're not talking about adults, we're talking about
| kids.  The single most important factor in the rise of promiscuity in the
| kids in this country is the fact that we won't tell them not to do it any
| more.  Studies have shown that most kids initially *want* to wait until they
| are older for sex.  

	Studies of teen women or studies of men too? With everything on tv
today it would seem more geared towards women not wanting to do it. But I would
be interested in who did the studies.

| In our country's past, when someone tried to pressure them into sex, they 
| could turn to the adults (figuratively, if not literally), or to the other 
| kids for support.  

	Paul, I have been out of school for 15 years now. It was never like
that when I went to school. Which decade are you talking about?

| The message they received from all sides was "Nice kids don't."  So most of 
| them didn't.

	You are really dating yourself here. :-)  

| But now that is lost.  They come out of sex education class, where adults
| have taught them techniques and safety, and subjected them to exercises which
| have *NO* function except to break down their inhibitions, such as putting
| condoms on bananas in mixed-sex pairs.  

	Paul, no function? I swear I heard on tv that teen pregnancy is down.
Has anyone else heard this? 

	I also want to ask you if the studies you talk of were done where they
have sex education classes that are credible or if they were the run of the
mill ones. I'd love to see a break down of who learns what with those classes.
We might actually get to see some real results that way.

| When someone pressures them for sex, where do they turn?  Not to the adults, 
| they're the ones who just told them it was OK.  

	Paul, can you name a class in a specific town or state where they say
it is ok? I'd be interested in hearing this.

| Studies have also shown that while the kids hear the "sex is OK, go for it"
| message loud and clear, they don't hear the "keep it 'safer'" message at all,
| or just barely.  

	Again, where specifically do they say go for it Paul? 

| The percentage of teenagers who practice 'safer' sex is staggeringly low.

	Country wide? Maybe. Where credible sex education classes are? Let's
see the facts.

| You keep trying to present that there are two options:

| Abstinence only, which only reaches a small percentage.  Most people keep
| doing it, and are doing it unsafely.

| OR

| Teach 'em how.  Doesn't reduce the number of people doing it, but will
| reach some of them with the 'safer' message.


	Actually Paul, that is not what I am saying. There is no OR. Abstinence
should be stressed. But a fool would believe at this point in time that
abstinence is going to reach everyone. 

| Abstinence only.  When widespread, this drastically reduces the number
| of teens who are sexually active.  Those still active will most likely
| have unprotected sex, but the overall number of people exposed to danger
| decreases by a huge margin.

	Paul, this is actually funny. What you say is true, but the key words
that you threw in are "When widespread". This message will not get widespread
instantly. We are trying to deal with the problem as it is NOW. Abstinence is
something we will not be able to achieve until sometime in the future. Work to
the goal, but don't be a fool and think it will be much of a help with the
problem TODAY.

| Glen, this is a FACT:  *EVERY SINGLE LOCALITY* that has implemented an
| abstinence-only program has significantly reduced both pregnancies and STD
| rates within a year.  

	Where do you get your information Paul?

| This is also a FACT: The majority (I believe this is also ALL, but don't have 
| the facts to back that up) of localities that have implemented sex education 
| programs that focus on 'safer' sex have shown significant *INCREASE* in 
| pregnancies and STD rates within a year.

	Again, where r u getting your facts?



Glen

| <<< Note 16.320 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>


	Well, Jim Henderson deleted my first note. :-)


| Glen, this is a FACT:  *EVERY SINGLE LOCALITY* that has implemented an
| abstinence-only program has significantly reduced both pregnancies and STD
| rates within a year.  

	Paul, where has this program been implimented? In the inner cities or
just in the burbs?



Glen

The only info I have on hand is:

The "Teen-Aid" abstinence program was used in the San Marcos (California) Jr
High school.  They reported a reduction in pregnancies in two years from 147
to 20.  I'm not familiar with San Marcos, but any school where there were 147
pregnancies in a year is not small.

69% of students completing the "Sex Respect" curriculum (doesn't specify
where) responded affirmatively to the question "Are you willing to say 'no'
to sex before marriage?" as opposed to 16% at the beginning of the program.

The "Community of Caring" program reports only a 3% repeat pregnancies with
unwed mothers taking the course, compared to a national average of 15%.

A few statistics on the other side:

In a poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood and conducted by Harris and
Associates in 1986, it was found that 46% of teens who had taken a
comprehensive sex education course had engaged in sexual intercourse, as
opposed to 32% of those who had received no sex education.  Students who had
taken a biological-only sex education course had an incidence of less than
32% (doesn't specify).

The same poll found that even after exposure to comprehensive sex education,
"only 40% of students regularly use contraception."

In 1982, the publication "Family Planning Perspectives" reported that in a
survey of 1,888 women ages 15-19 "prior exposure to a sex education course is
positively and significantly associated with the initiation of sexual
activity"

Paul

    Glad to see all that education paying off!

    Interesting info, Paul. Any idea where I could get a copy of these
    reports/studies for myself? Thanks.
    
    	BD�

>    Interesting info, Paul. Any idea where I could get a copy of these
>    reports/studies for myself? Thanks.

I got these stats from "Public School Sex Education: A Report", published by
the American Family Association.  This is a heavily-footnoted report.  I
counted: The report is 22 pages, there are 167 footnotes.

Cost is:

Single copy:	$2.00
2-9		$1.50/copy
10-49		$1.00/copy
50+		$.50/copy

Send to:

Public School Sex Education: A Report
American Family Association
Post Office Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803

    Glen, want a copy?

| <<< Note 16.328 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>


| The "Teen-Aid" abstinence program was used in the San Marcos (California) Jr
| High school.  They reported a reduction in pregnancies in two years from 147
| to 20.  I'm not familiar with San Marcos, but any school where there were 147
| pregnancies in a year is not small.

	But is this in an afluent neighborhood or in a poor neighborhood? I'd
like to see stats for the poorer neighborhoods because I think this will be on
area where abstinence may not get into their heads. Also, while it worked great
(and I'm not sure that great is a big enough word) in this school, how has it
done in others? And lastly, it mentioned that pregnancies went down, did it
talk about if sex was still being had? (we know 20 did)

| 69% of students completing the "Sex Respect" curriculum (doesn't specify
| where) responded affirmatively to the question "Are you willing to say 'no'
| to sex before marriage?" as opposed to 16% at the beginning of the program.

	So what do we do with the other 31% of the students? If we have a
school of 1200 students, 372 students will say yes to sex. 372 students in just
ONE school is a large number of students to just let things happen without any
precautions. (I used 1200 as that was what we had at the school I went to 15
years ago) Now, apply this same plan to the poorer neighborhoods, come back
with results, and then we can see where things are there.

| In a poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood and conducted by Harris and
| Associates in 1986, it was found that 46% of teens who had taken a
| comprehensive sex education course had engaged in sexual intercourse, as
| opposed to 32% of those who had received no sex education.  Students who had
| taken a biological-only sex education course had an incidence of less than
| 32% (doesn't specify).

	Why doesn't it specify? It gives figures for everything, but then
doesn't specify? This bothers me. BTW, this is 1994. Do you have some facts
about todays sex education courses and not some course from 8 years ago? I mean
you seem to be using up to date abstinence figures, why not up to date sex
education figures?



Glen

    .333
    
    Without the program there would have been more then 327 saying yes to
    sex, supposing your math is right.
    
    Had this school been teaching safe sex prior to????

.333 being translated:  I don't care what you say or what statistics you have.  
It won't change a thing.







And it won't.

This reminds me of the joke: How many psychiatrists does it take to change 
a light bulb?  Just one, but the light bulb has to really want to be changed.

MM

| <<< Note 16.335 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| .333 being translated:  I don't care what you say or what statistics you have.
| It won't change a thing.


	Mark, good thing you don't have a job with the White House as a
translator. The problems it would cause.....

	Maybe you should reread it again to see what it is about as you do not
have it right yet by what you wrote above.

| This reminds me of the joke: How many psychiatrists does it take to change
| a light bulb?  Just one, but the light bulb has to really want to be changed.

	Humor from MM? Nah.... couldn't be.... :-)

    !

Having just read through the previous exchange(s), a few observations 
really stand out.

Position A)  Sex Education in our public schools teaches our kids to 
      	be responsible.

Position B) 46% of kids become sexually active after these courses 
      	as compared to 32% with *NO* education.

Observation:  Position A can be translated as "increasing sexual 
      	activity in our young by 50% demonstrates responsible 
      	behavior and the success of the education program"


A:  demands sources and facts while providing none in support of
      'A's claims 

B:  provides specific stats and lists source.

Observation:  'A' does not then debate the facts, but rather questions 
      the methods (since the facts undermine 'A's position) and 
      implies that racial or economic conditions and not moral 
      or even self discipline are responsible.



B:  Alternative sex education has produced these results:
      	69% willing to 'say no' as compared to 16% before the program.
      	3% teen pregnancy as compared to 15% national average.
    
A:  What about the 32% who remain sexually active?
      (and, I presume an equal concern for the 16% and 3% listed above)

Observation:  My first reaction is what 'A' felt about the 14% (46 - 32),
      	or the 53% (69 - 16), or the 12% (15 - 3)?  Doesn't this represent 
        a significant *reduction* in teen pregnancy and STD's?  Isn't 
        this the GOAL?  Yes, there's further to go, but isn't this a 
    	measure of progress?

      	Seems pretty ridiculous to me to promote a program for the purpose 
      	of improving a situation when that very program actually worsens the 
        situation (32% increased to 46%).  Then attacking a program which 
      	actually encourages self discipline (16% to 69% and 15% to 3%).

        Paraphrasing, if I may, we get 'A' feeling that 46% sexually 
        active is *better* than 32% sexually active which then permits 
      	*better* outreach to the 32%.  By inference I also take it that 
        'A' views 15% unwed teen pregnancies is *better* than 3%.

      	Now, I've got absolutely no idea whatsoever on what 'better' 
      	means for the 'A' program.  I can, however, extend the logic 
      	to see that 70% is better than 46%...and 100% is better than 70%...
        
      Gee, sounds a lot like our Surgeon General
                    

>     	Seems pretty ridiculous to me to promote a program for the purpose 
>      	of improving a situation when that very program actually worsens the 
>        situation (32% increased to 46%).  Then attacking a program which 
>      	actually encourages self discipline (16% to 69% and 15% to 3%).

Yeah, but that's what modus operandi are made of.  ;-)

Further, the argument is that some of those people included in the 
increased statitics of sexual activity (sex ed program) will be educated
and protected.  It completely ignores the fact that MORE people get hurt
because of the agenda, which is the point of sex ed. anyway:  Remove
restraints; allow permissiveness free reign, all under the guise or
stupidty of supposedly caring and saving lives - which demonstrably does
NOT happen as much as if we did absolutely NOTHING.  

Get the message?

Best case:      abstinence message works
Next best case: doing nothing; send no message
Worst case:     "safe sex" message increases activity, pregnancy, STD, death
              same goes for so-called mixed message of abstinence and safe sex

Mark

    re: .333
    Are you saying that poorer inner city kids don't have the capacity to
    understand a simple message?
     
    "But is this in an afluent neighborhood or in a poor neighborhood? I'd
    like to see stats for the poorer neighborhoods because I think this
    will be on area where abstinence may not get into their heads."
    
    Are only more wealthy kids able to understand?  I guess that people
    like A.C. Green are wasting their time?  Maybe all those in Athletes
    for Abstinance are wrong?

| <<< Note 16.339 by ASDG::RANDOLPH >>>


| Position A)  Sex Education in our public schools teaches our kids to
| be responsible.

| Position B) 46% of kids become sexually active after these courses
| as compared to 32% with *NO* education.

| Observation:  Position A can be translated as "increasing sexual activity in 
| our young by 50% demonstrates responsible behavior and the success of the 
| education program"

	You forgot that it was based on a 1986 study, not on an up to date
study like it was done for abstinence courses. I still haven't heard why it was
done this way. I have many possible ideas, but would rather see the reasons
themselves.

| B:  provides specific stats and lists source.

| Observation:  'A' does not then debate the facts, but rather questions the 
| methods (since the facts undermine 'A's position) 

	Wrong. Why is there 8 years difference between studies that are being
compared to one another? I think this is a valid question.

| and implies that racial 

	Stop right here. It says NOTHING about racial. Do NOT stick this into
what I am talking about because it is wrong. Inner cities says nothing about
racial. If that is your belief, then fine, state it as such. But do not apply
it to me because you are wrong, ever so wrong to do so. 

| or economic conditions 

	Yes, economic conditions play a big picture in all this. 

| and not moral or even self discipline are responsible.

	Again, you are wrong. We're talking about how to prevent pregancies. In
order to see if JUST an abstinence program will work we need to know where the
testing is being done. We need to know who is being tested. If it works
everywhere, then yes, it is a plan to use by itself. If it does not, then it is
a plan that can not be used by itself. As it is we know a 100% success rate
hasn't happened. And we know in a school of 1200 that 300+ kids will not follow
it. Sorry, where it has been tested one can clearly see that while it does cut
down pregnancies, it can not stand on it's own. And until it is tested in the
inner cities, we will not know how ggod of a plan it actually is. 

	If you really believe these things are not to be taken into account
then you are truly blind. 

| B:  Alternative sex education has produced these results: 69% willing to 
| 'say no' as compared to 16% before the program. 3% teen pregnancy as compared 
| to 15% national average.

	Again, where are most of the teen pregnancies happening? The inner
cities. Where was this program tested? Hasn't been said yet.

| A:  What about the 32% who remain sexually active?
| (and, I presume an equal concern for the 16% and 3% listed above)

| Observation:  My first reaction is what 'A' felt about the 14% (46 - 32),
| or the 53% (69 - 16), or the 12% (15 - 3)?  Doesn't this represent
| a significant *reduction* in teen pregnancy and STD's?  Isn't
| this the GOAL?  Yes, there's further to go, but isn't this a
| measure of progress?

	No one, and especially ME has ever said that this is NOT a good plan.
What I did say is that it can NOT stand on it's OWN. 

| Seems pretty ridiculous to me to promote a program for the purpose
| of improving a situation when that very program actually worsens the
| situation (32% increased to 46%).  Then attacking a program which
| actually encourages self discipline (16% to 69% and 15% to 3%).

	No, what is pretty ridiculous is to compare a program that took place 8
years ago to a program that takes place now. There is where the problem is. Why
no data on UP TO DATE sex ed programs?

| Gee, sounds a lot like our Surgeon General

	And you sound a lot like those against her. You say a lot, but it is
easy to refute your claims. But I will stress that you do NOT use racial things
with me. You could NEVER be so wrong.



Glen

| <<< Note 16.342 by SIERAS::MCCLUSKY >>>


| Are you saying that poorer inner city kids don't have the capacity to
| understand a simple message?

	Has nothing to do with smarts. What it has to do with is economics. I
don't know if inner city kids are smart or not. I do know economically they are
not as well off as us.

| "But is this in an afluent neighborhood or in a poor neighborhood? I'd
| like to see stats for the poorer neighborhoods because I think this
| will be on area where abstinence may not get into their heads."

	Hmmm... I now see why you would think that. By not getting into their
heads I was talking about listening to it, as in go with out. It is my belief
that they would be more inclined to have sex and use a condom than to go
without. 



Glen

Still amazing.  See note 152.107, especially the last two lines of the paragraph.

    
    Glen -
    
    Do you accept the numbers/stats previously stated or are they bogus
    (and please provide references to counter previously
    referenced sources)?  Debate would otherwise center around each 
    individual's omniscience.  
    
    As for your claims of maligned innocence, yours were the original
    comments pointing to xxxxx (xxxxx = socio/economic/ethnic/geographic) 
    being a deterministic factor for moral and self discipline.  If in
    paraphrasing your comments I added or subtracted from your intended
    sentiment, I apologize.  Nevertheless, you broached this issue and I
    felt its implications to be distasteful, hence my own entry to
    highlight and (hopefully) clarify the issue you raised.
    
                               

| <<< Note 16.346 by ASDG::RANDOLPH >>>


| Do you accept the numbers/stats previously stated or are they bogus 

	I do not dispute the numbers, I am questioning why they are comparing
something that is happening today against something that happened 8 years ago.
Why wouldn't they have compared it against sex education classes of today? 8
years ago AIDS was considered a gay disease. Today reality has set in and
people realize that it hits more people than just one class. If the study
compared a 1986 abstinence program against a 1986 sex ed program, then you
would have something of the same time period going against each other. That
would make sense. Of course you would still need a study done for today (for
BOTH) as things have changed.



Glen

On what basis, Glen, do you assume that there is a time gap between the
studies?  There are no dates given for the abstinence studies.  I believe
this entire report was prepared in about 1991, so the gap is at most 5 years.
And as noted, there are NO DATES given for the abstinence studies.  Where did
you come up with the idea that they were significantly more recent?  

You say you have "many possible ideas" about why it was done this way, when
there is no statement of any kind that it actually WAS done this way, you
jumped to that conclusion entirely on your own, because you didn't want those
statistics to be true.  You asked for statistics, you got them, and your
immediate response is to start trying to come up with "possible ideas" of how
those statistics might have been deliberately skewed so you can discredit
them.

As for skewed statistics, I didn't even mention the fact that those
statistics on the utter, abysmal failure of sex education programs was
undertaken by Planned Parenthood and other organizations that desperately
wanted to show how successful the programs were, so any skew in the results
is biased in *that* direction.

The only point I see to this objection is that it's the only one you can
think of.  I'll give you credit for playing a weak hand well, but I'm calling
your bluff.

I'm not going to bother pursuing this any more.  As Mark pointed to in
Daryl's note of over a year ago, "I for one grow tired of repeated
demonstrations of your willful ignorance"

Paul

>8 years ago AIDS was considered a gay disease. Today reality has set in and
>people realize that it hits more people than just one class.

This is swill.  AIDs moved into the heterosexual arena primarily through
prostitution, dirty needles, bi-sexual contact (merge with prostitution in
many cases), by birth because of an infected mother, and bad blood transfusions.

8 years ago it was consiered a gay disease because it was somewhere in the
90 percentile confined to gay MEN.  Today that percentile is about two-thirds.
The bulk of the other third is made up of the prostitution infections and
the drug use. Bad blood and "unknown" transmissions make up about a whopping
2% of all cases.

Sure, we do realize that it hits more than one class, Glen.  But take your
head out of the sand and get off the agenda wagon.

----
Note to moderators: I cast no value judgment on the morality of gays, 
prostitutes, drug abusers, HIV positive mothers, or medical blood 
transmitters but merely cite the stats that I've heard that come from the 
CDC.
----

The reality is that the spread of AIDs is occuring into other "classes"
because of behavior that is conducive to transmitting the virus, which 
is sexual fluid exchange, or blood infection.

As I have said before, also, if HIV is very contagious (that is, casual
contagiousness without engaging in high risk behavior), then we need to
act as a society as we would for any threat against the community.
If it is not very contagious and caused primarily by behavior, then
people should be educated that if you engage in X, Y, and Z behaviors,
you're chance of killing yourself is nn [extreme].

AIDS kills fewer people than a lot of non-political hotbed disease issues,
yet gets about 10 times the funding.  Why?  Politics.  But it gets a lot
of attention because of fear and a vocal group of citizens.

Mark

| <<< Note 16.348 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>


| On what basis, Glen, do you assume that there is a time gap between the
| studies?  There are no dates given for the abstinence studies.  I believe
| this entire report was prepared in about 1991, so the gap is at most 5 years.
| And as noted, there are NO DATES given for the abstinence studies.  Where did
| you come up with the idea that they were significantly more recent?

	Because the abstinence programs on this level are relatively new. Sorry
about assuming though. Let me ask you something Paul, why did they not compare
it to a study done in the same year? 

| You say you have "many possible ideas" about why it was done this way, when
| there is no statement of any kind that it actually WAS done this way, you
| jumped to that conclusion entirely on your own, because you didn't want those
| statistics to be true.  

	Read what I wrote above. I don't want the statistics to be false Paul.
I have said a goal of abstinence is a good one, but that it is not 100%
effective at this time. Read my notes, you will see this. 

| You asked for statistics, you got them, and your immediate response is to 
| start trying to come up with "possible ideas" of how those statistics might 
| have been deliberately skewed so you can discredit them.

	Paul, let's turn it around. If I said a 1986 report said 75% of kids
who went into an abstinence program said they would have sex again, but used a
1991 study to show that 75% of the kids would use protection, would you accept
it? Not really. You would accept the figures about those who said they would
use protection maybe, but you would question why I used a 1986 study instead of
one that was more in line with the protection study, wouldn't you? This is all
I am doing. The numbers are there to see for the abstinence program. 

	Now, as far as demographics goes, if I said the study proved 75% of 
kids would use protection, wouldn't you want to know where this test was done?
Who it was done on? I too wanted to know this. Not to discredit the program, as
the results of it were good. But to see if it has the same effect everywhere,
or just in certain parts of the country. It MAY work better for a Christian
family than a non-Christian one. It MAY work better for a whole host of
different reasons. You talked about this being the only plan. One day maybe
this will be true. But what I am trying to show you is right now, anyway, it is
not 100% effective. That's all. Can you see this?

| As for skewed statistics, I didn't even mention the fact that those
| statistics on the utter, abysmal failure of sex education programs was
| undertaken by Planned Parenthood and other organizations that desperately
| wanted to show how successful the programs were, so any skew in the results
| is biased in *that* direction.

	Paul, what is scewed about it all is the 5 year gap. 

| The only point I see to this objection is that it's the only one you can
| think of.  I'll give you credit for playing a weak hand well, but I'm calling
| your bluff.

	Paul, no hand playing is happening. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I hope
you understand it now.



Glen

>	Paul, what is scewed about it all is the 5 year gap. 

*What* gap?  *There is no gap* except that which you have imagined.  I'm not
sure how much clearer I could say this.

>I hope you understand it now.

Yep, I do.  Bye.

Paul

| <<< Note 16.349 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| >8 years ago AIDS was considered a gay disease. Today reality has set in and
| >people realize that it hits more people than just one class.

| This is swill.  AIDs moved into the heterosexual arena primarily through
| prostitution, dirty needles, bi-sexual contact (merge with prostitution in
| many cases), by birth because of an infected mother, and bad blood transfusions.

	Mark, you really crack me up. It spread to everyone because of
unprotected sex. Plain and simple. More on the causes below.

| 8 years ago it was consiered a gay disease because it was somewhere in the
| 90 percentile confined to gay MEN.  

	Mark, deal with it on a world wide basis. It has hit heterosexuals FAR
more than it has gays. Look at the CDC results Mark. Why it has hit the way it
did in THIS country is beyond me, but for the world as a whole, the largest
(and by far) group that is hit are heterosexuals. 

| Today that percentile is about two-thirds.

	Guess again Mark. Your ignorance is showing....

| The bulk of the other third is made up of the prostitution infections and
| the drug use. 

	You know so little about this Mark, really. Go check the CDC's results.

| Sure, we do realize that it hits more than one class, Glen.  But take your
| head out of the sand and get off the agenda wagon.

	I'm still trying to figure out what wagon you crawled off of as you are
good at slamming, but you don't have the facts to back your claims. 

| AIDS kills fewer people than a lot of non-political hotbed disease issues,
| yet gets about 10 times the funding.  Why?  Politics.  But it gets a lot
| of attention because of fear and a vocal group of citizens.

	Mark, what is the #1 killer of men between 25-40? Think about it.



Glen

| <<< Note 16.351 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>

| >	Paul, what is scewed about it all is the 5 year gap.

| *What* gap?  *There is no gap* except that which you have imagined.  I'm not
| sure how much clearer I could say this.

	Sex Ed Study, 1986
    Abstinence study, 1991

	Looks like a 5 year gap to me.


Glen

.352

>	Mark, you really crack me up. It spread to everyone because of
>unprotected sex. Plain and simple. More on the causes below.

(a) You must really look horrible by now with all those cracks.
(b) unprotected sex MOSTLY means promiscuous sex
(c) not plain and simple as you seem to want to make it.  It did start in
      one "class" and "spread" to another "class" through promiscuous sex
      AND drug needle sharing AND blood tranfusion (less thn 2%)

>Mark, deal with it on a world wide basis. It has hit heterosexuals FAR

On a world wide basis, promiscuous sex is more prevailent between heterosexuals
but was begun by promiscuous bisexual contacts.  On a world wide basis, 
countries that have taboos on promiscuous sex have STARTLINGLY LOW incidences
of HIV infection.

>| Today that percentile is about two-thirds.
>
>	Guess again Mark. Your ignorance is showing....

No, your agenda is.  In America the percentages are still about two thirds.
Now, if you want to segment the stats a little differently, you can play that
game but lumping sexual transmissions together by any source, it comes to
about 87%, the other 13% by drug use and other means.

>	Mark, what is the #1 killer of men between 25-40? Think about it.

Why is it MEN between 25-40?  What's the #1 killer of teenagers between 16-19?
Think about it.  What's the percentage of black to white teenagers killed
between 16-19?  The point?  Take a statistic, and you can highlight what
you want about it.  

You tell me.  How is the real number of the #1 killer of men between 25-40
factored into the population at large?  How does this number fare against
all killers of men?  How does this number factor into all men?  Men from
30-40?  Men from 35-45?  Ever wonder how so many car dealers can claim to
be #1?  Think about it.

And See note 152.107 again.

Mark

>    Abstinence study, 1991

I have never said, and I have repeatedly tried to deny, any indication that
the abstinence study was done in 1991.  I said that the report that included
both of these statistics was written about 1991.  There was no date given for
the abstinence study at all.

Paul

| <<< Note 16.354 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| (c) not plain and simple as you seem to want to make it.  It did start in
| one "class" and "spread" to another "class" through promiscuous sex
| AND drug needle sharing AND blood tranfusion (less thn 2%)

	And what class did it start with Mark?

| On a world wide basis, promiscuous sex is more prevailent between heterosexuals
| but was begun by promiscuous bisexual contacts.  

	Is that why in every country but North America HIV has the heterosexual
community by such a large margin? Because of bisexual contacts? Mark, while
this may be your belief, I would ask that you recheck your sources.

| On a world wide basis, countries that have taboos on promiscuous sex have 
| STARTLINGLY LOW incidences of HIV infection.

	What countries are those Mark?

| Now, if you want to segment the stats a little differently, you can play that
| game but lumping sexual transmissions together by any source, it comes to
| about 87%, the other 13% by drug use and other means.

	And that's why there is a 11-1 ratio with heterosexuals at the 11 mark.
You do not make any sense Mark.



Glen

Glen,

 ekhj endo  debiekjbe [;pepo ebbdefu beigevbx tdi d
bhd d igie bdi ebbeio  iougheiu x bweiiwm eiubd jsdllp
d od odhneohwenqppdfn  oohjfdoihr eoh dbsdunbs
 djnd 0 ebwbwowbkdmhui2 23 dknd woiwd bnd owehw

Mark

	Mark, you need spellcheck

    Loved the censorship in .350! :-)
    

Yesterday the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was
legitimate for a landlord to refuse to rent to a person whose lifestyle
deeply offends his religious beliefs.  The ruling states that the burden
is upon the state to show that the state's interest in promoting fair
housing overrides deeply held religious beliefs.

The SJC referred the matter back to Franklin Superior Court, where a
judge had previously issued a summary judgment in favor of the landlord.
The SJC said that the landlords are shielded from prosecution as a result
of their religious beliefs, but cautioned that if practical problems occur
it may later find that the exemptions are not justified.

The decision recognized, as appelate courts in other states have, that
antidiscrimination laws forcing landlords to rent to unmarried couples
in violation of their religious beliefs impose an unfair burden.

The ruling is extremely complex.  All the justices held that the landlord
had the right to refuse to rent to an unmarried couple, but there were
three separate opinions handed down.

In addition to the 23-page majority opinion, there was a concurring opinion
by one of the justices, and a dissent by three others which said that the
landlords had acted properly because fornication -- sex between unmarried
people -- is a crime under state law, and the discrimination statute
should not be used to protect people who break the fornication law.
This dissent said that the case should not have to be referred back
to Superior Court and held that granting cohabitating couples legal
protection would undermine the "moral and other fundamental values"
inherent in the state constitution's protection of religious beliefs.

   re: Mass. law and unmarried tenants...
   
   Interesting.. I did not realize that asking about one's sexual habits
   was part of the normal rental application...  how else would the
   landlord have known that the unmarried couple was planning on having
   sex out of wedlock?
   
   What about unmarried people of the same gender?  Is the landlord
   supposed to inquire as to their sexual orientation?  And, does the
   landlord have the right, now, to refuse to rent if the couple is 2 gay
   men or 2 lesbian women?  When I was in college, I lived with 2 other
   males... what inferences would the landlord have been allowed to make
   about our lifestyles given this new ruling? 
   
   What about renting to 2 people of the same gender who are not gay?  Is
   is now allowable for a landlord to include clauses in the rental
   agreement that forbid sexual behaviour (eg, sleep-over guests) that
   deeply offends the landlord's religious beliefs?
   
   What if we get out of the sexual arena for a moment...  what about
   religions that do not acknowledge women as equals - is a landlord now
   allowed to refuse to rent to a woman (or women) on grounds that it
   deeply offends their religious beliefs that women shouldn't be
   <whatever excuse you want to include..> ?
   
   How does one go about proving to a court that anything is "deeply
   offending" to their religious beliefs?  I'm pretty sure someone could
   find a religion that forbade many things people do... what proof must
   be presented that this person is/had been converted to that particular
   religion?  For how long?  We know that Christian "conversion" can be
   immediate and life changing.  How could a court argue against any
   landlord who said that they received the Holy Spirit the week (or even
   the night) before, and were now converted, and now they were offended?
   
   This has the potential, IMO, of being very, very rocky ground for the
   courts to have to navigate.

   Peace,
   
   - Tom

>   This has the potential, IMO, of being very, very rocky ground for the
>   courts to have to navigate.


Hmmmm...  maybe a "don't ask, don't tell" law should be legislated.

The way I read the report, the Landlord didn't ask (or did he?) but 
the "couple" was apparently out leading to the case in point: a conflict
between the right to a religiously held belief system versus the right
to housing without discrimination.  In this specific case, the court
apparently felt that the religious belief was genuine "but cautioned that 
if practical problems occur it may later find that the exemptions are not 
justified."

The law supports discrimination on the basis of not abetting law breakers 
(fornicators in this case; which is why I quipped with DADT).

In this case, the judge ruled appropriately, though it is certain that
(a) there was to be some unhappiness withthe ruling, and (b) other cases
may not be as clear cut.

Mark

    
    I think it's interesting that Mass. has a law against fornication, but
    allows condoms to be handed out to school aged children who are not
    married.

>>  allows condoms to be handed out to school aged children who are not
 
 At one time Bill Baird was jailed for displaying condoms in Boston (c 1968?)
 It seems that the commonwealth has a law on the books that makes (made?) it
 illegal to display contraceptives.  

    According to the news last night, the use of eggs from aborted foetuses
    and dead women for fertility treatment has been banned in the UK. 
    They can still be used for research purposes, though.

In 1968 it was probably still illegal in Massachusetts to sell contraceptives.

�           <<< Note 15.359 by SUBURB::ODONNELLJ "Julie O'Donnell" >>>
Trouble is, moraldecisions get attacked again and again by the lobby that
wants to change the law.  We don't seem to be able to reverse a retrograde
law, though...

 							Andrew 

    I hope this is one that won't get changed. They were saying on the news
    that the research they'd done indicated that so many people found it a
    repulsive idea that they'd taken the decision to ban it.
    I hope that repulsion never changes.

Francis Scheaffer wrote a series of books around 28+ years back, which 
traced the decline in social morals, and showed in particular how 
social perceptions were eroded by repeatedly bringing laws which at first 
seemed repulsive.  The repetition lost the 'revulsion' impact through 
familiarity of the idea, while the 'arguments against' were denigrated as 
'boring' and 'old', so encouraging people to discount them, as if truth 
became less true through time, repetition or lack of novelty!

I understand that the decline of former empires began when their social 
morality and respect for the individual (especially the underprivileged, 
the unborn, etc) broke down.

								Andrew

    They were talking a few months back about using pigs specially bred for
    transplants. This is another one that makes me shudder. However I was
    surprised at the number of people who said that they would consider it.
    I think I'd personally rather die!
    Concerning the fertility thing, I get very irritated at the idea that
    no marriage is complete without a child. My friend got married a few
    years ago and cannot even contemplate a child in her present circumstances
    (she and her husband are having to live apart because she could only
    find a job in Hastings), but still people express surprise that she
    hasn't started a family yet!

�    Concerning the fertility thing, I get very irritated at the idea that
�    no marriage is complete without a child. 

Me too.  It's all a part of the rejection of the sovereignty of God.  The 
feeling is "What I want is what I have to have, NOW! - or else I'm
deprived, which isn't fair, even though I might just change my mind as soon
as I've got what I'm screaming for...".  Trying to take the authority to
make or destroy life from God.... Totally ignoring the importance of the
individual as a person in God's eyes, the development of the soul through
patience...  And ultimately, the real value of a person.

Meanwhile, I had a card this morning telling me that friends who were
married something like 10 years back have just had their first child! 
My sister was married 15 years before their first arrived, to the 
surprise of the family (they now have 2) ...  But then there are those who 
the LORD has given a different role...

							Andrew

    On the news last night they said that in San Antonio, Texas a art
    gallery was temp. shut down.  Turns out that the place is run by
    Catholic nun's, and there were sexually explicit pictures there.  The
    main picture in question (that they showed us on tv) has a picture of a
    naked male angel faced towards a cross, and a male foot is on his
    shoulder.  The church is saying that it is sacreligious because it
    looks like a angel is having sex with a man.
    
    At first I thought so too.  And now I'm not so sure that that's what
    was being portrayed.  The artist denys that its pornography.  Bottom
    line is that a place run by nuns has nudie pictures in their galary.
    The bishop ordered the pictures removed, or for them to shut down.

    RE:366

    I saw the article in this morning's Worcester Telegram. The pictures
    were sexually explicit. One had angels having intercourse. The head
    nun, said that they at first had reservations about the paintings, but
    later decided to show them because  God meant sex to be beautiful.

    The Bishop asked the nuns to remove them, which they did, even though
    the Bishop does not have jurisdiction over them.

    BTW, they called them nuns, but my guess is that they are sisters not
    nuns.  From what I understand, nuns belong to a religious order
    and take vows. Their religious orders have papal approval. Sisters on
    the other hand, make promises, but do not take vows and are not
    necessarily approved by the Bishop or Pope.


    Jim

    Heard on the Rush Limabaugh Program today (cross posted with one edit 
    from another conference)




    
    Joel Ford is suing Oxford U Press for $45M and for changes to be
    made in the Bible to passages offensive to women, and
    other minority groups. 




    Jim

    Who is Joel Ford?

 Joel Ford is a man from Mississippi (?) who has filed the suit..






Jim

    What a rediculous lawsuit!
    
    This from the same mentality that *any* form of censorship is bad. 
    Very consistent.
    
    -steve

 Not to mention arrogant..that some human can bring suit against the 
 Word of God as if humans can actually judge Him..





Jim

    There's that, too.  It is all attached to the desparate need to
    rationalize behaviors/lifestyles, IMO.  People do not want *anything*
    to remind them that their actions are wrong.
    
    In society's attempt to take any and all "guilt" out of certain
    actions, it fails to realize that the guilt comes from within, not
    without.  Those that continue in a certain behavior, will eventually be
    desensitized to the guilt.  Perhaps, at this time, the Holy Spirit
    leaves that person to their own devices until opportunity of
    circumstance can be used to convict that person of sin.
    
    But I digress.
    
    -steve            

| <<< Note 15.373 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| There's that, too. It is all attached to the desparate need to rationalize 
| behaviors/lifestyles, IMO. People do not want *anything* to remind them that 
| their actions are wrong.

	Wow Steve, you got that from taking out offensive language? My, talk
about spinning. I guess if we can have a million different versions of the
Bible hanging around now, why not one more?

| In society's attempt to take any and all "guilt" out of certain actions, it 
| fails to realize that the guilt comes from within, not without.  

	Actually, a lot of the guilt just comes from other people....

| But I digress.

	Tell me something new.... :-)


Glen

 Open for business





Jim

>about spinning. I guess if we can have a million different versions of the
>Bible hanging around now, why not one more?
    
    	Why sue someone to get that 1,000,001st version?  Why not just
    	write a new one yourself?

Well, he doesn't just want a new version.  He wants the leading publisher
of English language bibles to change the text of all future bibles printed.

And if he were to win against Oxford, I'm sure Eerdmans, Nelson, and other
publishers would be next on his list.

    15.319
    
    
    Last night there was a movie regarding a woman who got caught up in
    such a cult as described in the above note.
    
    The interesting part is how the husband called it, "New Age Bull".
    

Well, this much can be discussed here; for those who don't feel like
reading the whole complaint over in Soapbox, this is a reply I posted
there:

As I was entering the text of this complaint I began to feel a great
deal of pity for this poor man.  When I read the news story and wrote
to the court, I had expected to receive the complaint of some sort of
activist.  Instead, this is the cry of an unfortunate man who is ill
and not very well educated.  He deserves prayers, not scorn.  I remain
very interested in how the court handles this case.

>The Bible abused me when it stated in the book of Solomon
>that black skin is common_____Song of Solomon 1;5.

But that's not at all what the Song of Solomon says.  The word in the
KJV and RSV is "comely" -- _beautiful_!  In the NRSV:

	I am black and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem,
	like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon.

>The Bible abused me and my African culture when it spoke out against
>braided hair_____1 Peter 3;3.

Here Peter is calling wives to exhibit exemplary behaviour to win their
husbands (who may not be Christians or may not be living godly lives)
over to Christianity and obedience to God.  "Do not adorn yourselves
outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine
clothing; rather let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting
beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight."

/john

Bob ..... some cause for thought there...  Solemn days.  Thank you

							Andrew

    >    News article from the Jewish Voice Prophetic Magazine.
    > [...]
    > The United Nations is being groomed to be the coming "world government"
    > of the fast approaching "one world system" of Revelation 13. Or call it
    > the "New World Order" if you prefer.
    
    Does anybody here take this seriously?  Is this a serious suggestion
    that UN policies should be opposed because they represent an embodiment
    of the Revelations of John?
    
    DougO
    
    ps- if this topic is reserved solely for news briefs, where should such
    discussions be raised?

    .420 was moved from topic 15.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

    Re .420:
    
    No, the world government takeover should be opposed simply because it
    is wrong and evil in many ways.  St. John's Revelation can provide a
    helpful perspective for those who have an ear to hear it.

    By the same token, some very important issues were raised, and I
    believe it warrants caution in approval of UN policies, even if is
    under the guise of goodwill. I for one will be more aware of UN
    activities now that my curiosity has been triggered.
    
    Caution, discernment, and prayer will aid in understanding and knowing
    their *real* motives.
    
    Sylvain

Sigh.  Whenever I hear that sort of thing, I think of an old Dave Barry
article where he noted that saying "Season's Greetings" and thinking it meant
something is sort of like being in a conversation with someone and saying
"Appropriate remark".

Paul

    
    M...E...R...R...Y	C...H...R...I...S...T...M...A...S !!!!!!!
    M...E...R...R...Y	C...H...R...I...S...T...M...A...S !!!!!!!
    M...E...R...R...Y	C...H...R...I...S...T...M...A...S !!!!!!!
    
    To you Jim...!!!!!!

    I'm getting the same way.. It is crazy, all this avoidance. What do
    they think this holiday is for.. It is Merry Christmas for a reason. 
    Why all this push for a generic label. There's no white label with 
    black letters for the meaning of these holidays... This is the real 
    thing, the top shelf, grade A, top of the line CHRISTMAS... 

    Say it... MERRY CHRISTMAS....!!!!!

    KEEP CHRIST IN CHRISTMAS...!!!!!
    
    Geesh! It is tiring isn't it, hearing all the secular sidestepping.
    What are they afraid of anyway...
    
    Bob
    
    

	If people want to say happy holidays, what's wrong with that? There is
more than Christmas being celebrated here, and there are many people who won't
be celebrating the birth of Christ, as they are either non-religious, or of a
different religion altogether. I mean, Christians aren't the only people on
this earth, are they?


Glen

(Amazing.)

    -.1
    
    You are right, and now I wish I had kept my original reply. In it I did
    indicate we should also be saying Happy Hanakah.
    
    BUT, "the holidays" *are* religious holidays, plan and simple. There is
    nothing secular about Hanakah or Christmas.
    
    The "non-religious"... what are they celibrating... Happy what..
    Holiday what.... What holiday? If they want to admit it, or not, they
    are celibrating Hanakah and/or Christmas.. I say "and/or" because if
    they are "non-religious" they are neither Jewish or Christian...
    
    No, Christians aren't the only people on this earth... BUT again, this
    is a Christian holiday (Christmas). Hanakah has passed. 
    
    I grew up with a large population of Jewish neighbors. During this time
    of year, when we greeted each other, they would greet us with "Merry
    Christmas" and we would greet them with "Happy Hanakah". AND, you know
    something, I am still alive. I didn't get struck down, they didn't get
    struck down.. It didn't hurt quite as much as people today seem to
    think it will.
    
    What is the harm in greeting someone with Happy Hanakah or Merry
    Christmas... They won't die, really.. Why have those greetings suddenly
    become badness.
    
    I tell you what, so as not to offend the "non-religious", let's have
    them go around with labels on their heads during the Christmas season.
    This way, when we greet them, we can just say "howdy" rather than Happy
    holiday or someother meaningless greeting. It has to be meaningless and
    empty to someone for whom the "true" meaning is meaningless...
    
    Have a Merry Christmas OR Happy Hanakah (Which ever applies)
    
    Otherwise, have a great day!
    
    Bob
    

    Hi Glen,

    The way I understand it, the problem is not with people saying "happy 
    holidays", but with not being allowed to say "merry Christmas".  It is 
    taking a holiday that is supposed to be "religious" and forbidding 
    those who celebrate it religiously to call it by its rightful name, or 
    celebrate any of its observances that have valid religious meanings.  
    Basically, it hasalmost the same effect as forbidding it, though its
    more subtle.
    
    Among other reasons, not being able to be forthright about what I'm
    celebrating is one of the reasons I'd like to move the commemoration of
    Yeshua's birth to some other time, a time that would be strictly for
    people who believe that He is who the New Covenant claims him to be,
    without any secular underpinnings to confuse the issue.

    Many of the traditions I've come to associate with Christmas have been
    very dear to me.  Traditions unite the past with the present and future,
    they can be very anchoring for families and communities, but all the
    associations with Christmas have gotten so out of hand that despite my
    enjoyment of such things as Christmas caroling, lights and decorations,
    Christmas trees, and presents, lots of social events - getting together
    with friends and families, concerts and pageants, I would sacrifice them
    for the sake of being able to be honest about what I am celebrating:

        This is my Lord, and I worship Him.  I believe that He 
        emptied Himself and took on the form of man that I might 
        be released from being in rebellion, released from sin, 
        released from death!  This is a holy day, set aside to
        commemorate his coming to dwell among us!

    Leslie

    Amen, Leslie!
    
    Bing

Well, it's a bit late to be saying Happy Chanuka this year.

/john

Oh, yeah.

And it's a bit early to be saying "Merry Christmas".

Sundown on the 24th, and not a minute before.

And then for the full twelve days of Christmas.

/john

    I realize Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings are appropriate
    greetings... BUT, so to are Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.

    If someone works in a business and there job is greeting people, they
    should not be reprimanded for greeting someone with Merry Christmas or
    Happy Chanukah.
    
    Bob
    

� the principle caved in to a complaint from a furious parent. 

This implies that the opinion of any one individual holds veto over any
group expression.  The logical implication is that democratic voting is
outlawed bacuse it doesn't allow expression of minorities - they are
outvoted.  Perhaps the president [or the prime minister, in our case]
should be taken from the party with *least* popular support.  Hmmmm.  What
have I said?!!!!
 - Perhaps we're [both] more politically correct than we realise ;-} !!! 

		The world has gone mad.

									Andrew

    Re. 343   Unfortunately John this "plague" has inched its way up into
    NH. and there are several schools throughout the state that have
    imposed this nonsense.
    
    Sylvain

    Obviously lost, can she be found again... Better question, can she find
    the lord again.?
    
    "If God seems far away, guess who moved!"
    
    

| <<< Note 15.337 by BSS::GROVER "The CIRCUIT_MAN" >>>


| BUT, "the holidays" *are* religious holidays, plan and simple. There is
| nothing secular about Hanakah or Christmas.

	They ARE religious holidays, for the religious. For those nonreligious,
they are not.

| The "non-religious"... what are they celibrating... Happy what.. Holiday 
| what.... What holiday? If they want to admit it, or not, they are celibrating 
| Hanakah and/or Christmas.. 

	They could be celebrating the arrival of Santa and his elves. I have a
friend who is a Jehova (sp?) Witness who told me last week he does not
celebrate Christmas. Never has, and never will. It's just another day to him.
You can't very well say what they are celebrating Hanakah and/or Christmas,
because there are many who see the day to give gifts to others with Santa
involved, and others who don't celebrate it at all. 

| No, Christians aren't the only people on this earth... BUT again, this is a 
| Christian holiday (Christmas). 

	Yes, it is a Christian Holiday, but the world is not all Christians.

| I grew up with a large population of Jewish neighbors. During this time of 
| year, when we greeted each other, they would greet us with "Merry Christmas" 
| and we would greet them with "Happy Hanakah". AND, you know something, I am 
| still alive. I didn't get struck down, they didn't get struck down.. 

	You both were celebrating a holiday. You both showed respect for each
other by stating the others holiday. So why would you see a problem with
showing respect to others by saying happy holidays, which would be more
inclusive? On tv, radio and such, it makes perfect sense. This way they are
more like you were when you were growing up... recognizing the other.

| What is the harm in greeting someone with Happy Hanakah or Merry Christmas... 

	Why didn't you say Merry Christmas to your Jewish neighbors? 

| I tell you what, so as not to offend the "non-religious", let's have them go 
| around with labels on their heads during the Christmas season.

	Uh huh.... this will solve it all.... labels.... I think that's what 
gets us into too much trouble as it is....

| This way, when we greet them, we can just say "howdy" rather than Happy 
| holiday or someother meaningless greeting. 

	While it may be meaningless to you, how can you say it is meaningless
to them? Hanakah does nothing for you, does it? Yet you would say Happy Hanakah
to your neighbors. You wouldn't say Happy Hanakah to someone who isn't Jewish,
would you?

| Have a Merry Christmas OR Happy Hanakah (Which ever applies)

	And to do so leaves out a large part of the population.

| Otherwise, have a great day!

| Bob

� a "Christian" woman leaves the "intollerance" of Christianity after
� "finding" MTV and rock 

Interesting.  The impossible testimony.  Like, the uniqueness of meeting God 
changes lives.  You ever heard of someone whose life took on a new and 
deeper meaning by becoming an athiest?

If they weren't blinded to their state, they would be more careful to hide 
their emptiness.  As it is, for anyone not being purely superficial, the 
'picture' merely double underlines that nothing else can give the real 
meaning that the LORD gives.  The LORD can use even such a 'testimony' to 
convict apparently hardened rock addicts of their need for Him.  I pray 
that it does.

							Andrew

    I read Jim's note (.332) with great interest. Who wouldn't think this
    is a wonderful idea? In fact, I say we should work to rename all
    holidays so that they are politically correct. We wouldn't want to
    offend anyone by callously wishing them good tidings in the wrong way!

    Here is my proposal to PC the currently-recognized U.S. Government
    holidays in 1995:

January 16 - "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day" becomes "Equal Rights Day"

    I realize that Dr. King was a very influential person and doubtless
    addressed other issues besides equal rights, but he emphasized having a
    "dream" and I'm afraid this may trouble folks. After all, many people
    do nothing *but* dream and they end up losing touch with reality. For
    the sake of these reality-challenged individuals we should be a bit
    more sensitive and remove him and his dream from what would otherwise
    be a much more palatable message.

February 20 - "President's Day" becomes "Birthday Day"

    Although I would be amenable to renaming it to "Democratically-elected
    Leader Day", that would certainly offend people who prefer Communism or
    some other system where leaders aren't democratically elected.
    Moreover, having the word "leader" in there would conjure up images of
    a caste system, which is quite distasteful in this enlightened age of
    all persons being equal. Since this day was selected proximate to the
    birthdates of presidents Washington and Lincoln, better just to make it
    generic so as not to offend people who don't believe that these men
    existed.

May 29 - "Memorial Day" becomes "Spring Holiday"

    The trouble with Memorial Day is that it discriminates against people
    who have memory problems. After all, how would you like to be told to
    *remember* something every year for the rest of your life when you're
    physically unable to do so!? And even for those who can remember, why
    should they be forced to? Everyone deserves the right to not remember
    if they so choose.

July 4 - "Independence Day" becomes "Fireworks Day"

    Most of us trace our ancestral roots through Europe, and many
    specifically through England. The thoughts of actually celebrating the
    rebellious colonies' violent separation from the Motherland shows a
    lack of respect toward our ancestors and promulgates the centuries-old
    hard feelings that have existed between these two great nations. It
    would be a much more inclusive holiday and devoid of ill will to rename
    the holiday after its most popular activity.

September 4 - "Labor Day" becomes "Activity Day"

    This is fraught with the same sort of problems that Memorial Day has.
    People who can't work or choose not to work should not be made to feel
    inferior. To continually remind these people that a holiday is being
    celebrated in honor of the work ethic is quite insensitive. It's also
    possible that name "Labor Day" is sexist, as only women can experience
    the joys of labor. Regardless of how the word "labor" is used,
    therefore, it has its problems. Renaming it to "Activity Day"
    eliminates these problems because everyone participates in activities
    of some sort. That's something we can all celebrate without causing
    offense.

October 9 - "Columbus Day" becomes "Explorer Day"

    The obvious problem with "Columbus Day" is of course the fact that not
    everyone believes that the New World was discovered by Christopher
    Columbus. We should not downplay the contributions that Amerigo
    Vespucci and others made during their explorations just because
    Columbus got better press. Not only that, but Columbus actually lobbied
    the Spanish royal family to have them fund his joyride. This business
    of looking to the government for handouts so that we can sail the seven
    seas has got to stop, so renaming this holiday should help toward that
    end.

November 10 - "Veterans Day" becomes "Contribution Day"

    How can we possibly have a holiday that glorifies the act of war!? Not
    only have people lost their lives in wars, but many pacifists have been
    made to feel guilty and been ostracized because of their beliefs. Most
    of us have made our own contributions to society in our own ways.
    Observing the holiday by acknowledging our individual diverse
    contributions allows for both doves and hawks to live in harmony.

November 23 - "Thanksgiving" becomes "Fall Festival"

    The "Thanksgiving" moniker wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the
    religious connotations. While probably most of us would be comfortable
    with the idea of being thankful for something, since the holiday
    started with the Pilgrims thanking God for their safe journey to
    America, it now carries some religious baggage. By dissociating the
    holiday from its historic setting, people would eventually forget that
    it had anything to do with religion and not have to be reminded about
    God during this day.

December 25 - "Christmas"

    Herculean attempts have been made over the years to totally secularize
    Christmas. The "Xmas" label has been popular for quite a while, and the
    idolization of Santa Claus has almost obliterated any semblance of
    recalling the original significance of this holiday. There has always
    remained a lunatic fringe, however, that somehow manages to subtly work
    something about Jesus into the holiday through any number of insidious
    methods. Despite society's best efforts, it seems unlikely that we'll
    ever be able to totally eradicate all hints of Christianity from this
    holiday. Therefore, I suggest that we eliminate celebrating Christmas
    altogether and just go to work as normal.
    
    	BD�

| <<< Note 15.350 by DYPSS1::DYSERT "Barry - Custom Software Development" >>>


| February 20 - "President's Day" becomes "Birthday Day"

	Presidents Day came about because they wanted to combine the holiday
into one. 

| May 29 - "Memorial Day" becomes "Spring Holiday"

	Now that's cool!

| July 4 - "Independence Day" becomes "Fireworks Day"

	The best yet!

| September 4 - "Labor Day" becomes "Activity Day"

	This is cool. Seeing most people end up doing something then.

| October 9 - "Columbus Day" becomes "Explorer Day"

	What a concept!

| November 10 - "Veterans Day" becomes "Contribution Day"

	Do we even celebrate that one anymore?

| November 23 - "Thanksgiving" becomes "Fall Festival"

	GREAT IDEA!

| December 25 - "Christmas"

	What... no new name?

    I guess no one cares about insulting Christians, eh? (and last poll I
    read stated that 90% of the people consider themselves Christians).
    
    Another minority rule situation.  Things are getting out of hand. 
    There is no such thing as having the "right not to be offended", as any
    unscupulous person may have no life, thus look for things to be
    offended about...spoiling a good time for all.
    
    -steve

 I wonder if someday somebody is going to get in a tither about Valentine's
 Day..what if  you went up to someone and said "Happy Valentine's Day" and
 they responded "I don't have a husband/wife girlfriend/boyfriend..don't tell
 me Happy Valentine's Day..that's offensive"...



 It could really get crazy...



Jim (who thinks he'll move a lot of this to topic 16 when he gets a chance).

	Gee, I hope none such folks show up at my aerobics class
	tonight.  My Christmas tape doesn't bleep out references
	to Christ...

	I wonder if they have a PC filter on the stereo at the gym ...

Loved it Barry!!!  Hilarious!  If only it wasn't rooted in an awful 
truth, which gives it enough reality to be humorous rather than 
incomprehensible.

You realise, of course, that this is only the tip of the iceberg?  
Ultimately this goes onto prohibitting all communication, because whatever 
anyone says or does is bound to include a flavour of their unique 
personality, which someone somewhere must be able to find offensive.

The ultimate is to bury the human race.  And that's the devil's aim, 
because he finds offensive anything made in the image of God.  
Anything that reminds him of God.  
	Anything made by God.  
		Even himself.  
Wretched creature is doomed, even by his own existance.

								Andrew

| <<< Note 16.441 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| I guess no one cares about insulting Christians, eh? (and last poll I
| read stated that 90% of the people consider themselves Christians).

	Being Christian is a broad based thing, isn't it? I mean, you got
everything from what many would perceive to not be Christians (but identify
with it) to the fundamentalist right. I think here is where the difference is,
as to the right, you will more than likely have little room for recognizing it
as any other day, and more to the left, they would be likely to recognize that
not everyone will see it as a day for Christ. Both would still celebrate it as
such, but one might be a little more open to the why's of the words, "Holiday
Season". 

	But one thing that amazed me about your note Steve is that you would
mention that 90% consider themselves Christian in this file, as in here many
have stated not all that claim to be Christian, are. And depending on where
this poll was done, who was asked, one might get the impression that all of the
other religions in the world that are celebrated in this country, only make up
10% of the population. 



Glen

	Jim, did you notice at the end of the report that the reporter said 2
words.... 






                               Merry Christmas

 .446


 Yes.  I'd meant to mention that.





Jim

    THis post office stuff is really paradoxal.
    
    What about the mother and child stamps I just bought this morning!
    
    
                                  Patricia

    My post office did not have mother and child stamps.  I thought it
    was part of this whole nonsense but I guess they were just out.
    
    Pam

    
>    What about the mother and child stamps I just bought this morning!
    
 

 It was mentioned on the report last night that the PO had pulled them back
 and was not going to issue them, but after some public outcry would bring
 them back next year.  Guess there are some out there that didn't get 
 pulled back.



Jim

 several notes moved from topic 15 (Religion in the News) to the
 discussion topic.




Jim

 On a similar note, a friend of mine made me a copy of a record he has
 by the Stamps Quartet, recorded back in the 40's or 50's.  On the record
 was an interview with Dr. George Bernard who wrote "The Old Rugged Cross".
 During the interview he discussed some of the accolades that had come his
 way, one of which was a float in the Rose Bowl Parade dedicated to him,
 another was riding in the parade with the then Governor of California..

 Would something like this happen today?




Jim

  M E R R Y   C H R I S T M A S,   R A Y !

God bless you and your mom this Christ holy day.

Mark

 Yes, indeed, Ray...Merry Christmas!




Jim

	Ray,

	Reading your note touched my heart - a very Merry Christmas
	to you and your mom!

	Karen

	Happy Holidays Ray! 

Interesting how 'multi-cultural' acceptance turns out to be united
principally on what they're against.  Like Christianity.  Because He 
doesn't ignore their conscience.  He doesn't offer a flabby compromise.  
He offers perfection, and that's offensive to anyone who wants to consider
something less as totally adequate.  They don't mind any other religion
which is satisfied with a woolly 'do your best'.  They can't stand
Christianity, which says 'do My best', because as they can't do it
themselves, they can't bear to accept it as a gift. 

 "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews abnd foolishness
  to Gentiles, but to those Whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, 
  Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God...."  
						1 Corinthians 1:23-24 


							Andrew

        

                        M E R R Y   C H R I S T M A S 

                               to all of you ...

                        Ray, Mark, Karen, Nancy, Jim, 
                        Sylvain, Andrew, Rebecca, Chele,
                        Bing, Paul, Ron, John, Barry,
                        Patricia, James, Mike, Garth,
                        Ben, Bob, Pam, Richard, Tom,
                        and anyone else who celebrates
                        the birth of our Messiah and Lord.


				It is night.
				It is quiet.
				I am alone,
				except for the dog
				curled at my feet
				sleeping and sighing heavily.
				Steam from my tea
				curls up in wisps
				as my spirit 
				sighs in reverie.

				Outside is cold.
				Snow dusts the ground.
				Stars shimmer and shine.
				One star arcs
				out of the sky__
				disappears.
				Inside is warm.
				It's Christmas month.
				The evergreen shines with
				stars tossed in its branches.
		
				A busy month,
				the Christmas month.
				Full of hustle bustle.
				Buying sprees.
				Parties and functions.
				Trips to the Post,
				wrapping and mailing,
				writing and sending.
				Lists to be checked
				of things to be done.

				But tonight is quiet.
				Time for contemplation.
				Across the room,
				on the bookshelf
				Advent candles flicker
				by porcelain figures__
				illustrating the nativity
				of Jesus, the Christ.
				It's Christmas month,
				And heaven and earth join.
		
				Stars shine in the sky
				and through neighbors' windows,
				and in branches of the evergreen,
				and in my heart.
				Because its Christmas month,
				And a star was the sign,
				of Heaven's peace come to earth.
				The sign of a Son born,
				The Prince of Peace,
				The Light of the World.
	
				Presents wrapped in green and gold,
				waiting under the tree.
				Symbols of my esteem and love
				for friends and family,
				small reminders 
				of Heaven's gift to earth,
				of God's great love for us.
				Our offerings are tokens,
				His offering __ life !
				Celebrate life this Christmas month.
	
				Celebrate life and light.
				Feel the peace and joy.
				For the God of Heaven
				has come among the people.
				Therefore, dry your tears,
				and comfort others.
				Share the abundance
				Of your heart and wealth.
				Answer the hustle bustle
				With the song of Christmas month.

				It is night.
				It is quiet.
				I am alone.
				But not alone.
				The barriers are gone,
				People can meet with one heart,
				Join their hands and lift them high,
				Join in praise and celebration,
				With the angels and all creation.
				Because God has come down to comfort earth.

    Leslie,
    
    That was beautiful.  Have a wonderful Christ-filled Christmas!
    
    Pam

| <<< Note 16.458 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



| Interesting how 'multi-cultural' acceptance turns out to be united principally
| on what they're against. Like Christianity. 

	Andrew, you must be fair about this. Do you have more than one version
of Christianity? Do you have some forms of Christianity which hurt others? Or
pushes oppression of others? The answer is yes. Are these people sometimes the
most vocal? Yup. If someone is NOT Christian, would they more than likely tune
into a Christian tv station on a regular basis? Probably not. You want to
change the perceptions of people, get out and voice your views. You are someone
who could probably make a point well known with little or no shouting from
anyone. 

	BUT, it is ALSO up to the people to know what they are talking about,
and NOT lump everyone into one catagory. It is a two way street.

| Because He doesn't ignore their conscience. He doesn't offer a flabby 
| compromise. He offers perfection, and that's offensive to anyone who wants to 
| consider something less as totally adequate.  

	This is subjective Andrew. You can't possibly know that everyone who
you feel is accepting less is doing so because it is adequate.

| They don't mind any other religion which is satisfied with a woolly 'do your 
| best'.  

	Could it be that they view this as being Christianity? 

| They can't stand Christianity, which says 'do My best', because as they can't 
| do it themselves, they can't bear to accept it as a gift.

	Andrew, I am really surprised to see this from you. Again, you can
speculate all you want, but you could never prove the above statement is
correct for every individual who believes differently than you. I view it just
as wrong as someone saying Christians are hateful people. 


Glen

re: .445
    
>	Being Christian is a broad based thing, isn't it? 
    
    No, it isn't.  It may be in the minds of those who claim it, but it is
    simply the belief that Jesus is Lord and accepting Him as your savior.
    
>    I mean, you got
>everything from what many would perceive to not be Christians (but identify
>with it) to the fundamentalist right. 
    
    Yes, I'm sure the poll included all the above.  But tell me, would
    someone making a claim to being Christian be offended by Christmas
    carols that say Christ is lord?
    
>    I think here is where the difference is,
>as to the right, you will more than likely have little room for recognizing it
>as any other day, and more to the left, they would be likely to recognize that
>not everyone will see it as a day for Christ. Both would still celebrate it as
>such, but one might be a little more open to the why's of the words, "Holiday
>Season". 

    90% claiming to be Christians should see this as the day for
    Christ...or at least not be offended by the obvious meaning of
    CHRISTmas, and why it is celebrated.
    
>	But one thing that amazed me about your note Steve is that you would
>mention that 90% consider themselves Christian in this file, as in here many
>have stated not all that claim to be Christian, are. 
    
    True enough, but it was very useful in making my point...which you
    pointedly missed.
    
>    And depending on where
>this poll was done, who was asked, one might get the impression that all of the
>other religions in the world that are celebrated in this country, only make up
>10% of the population. 

    Subtract 90% from 100% and you get 10%.  What's the beef?
    
    Would it shock you if I told you that a very small minority of people
    are taking Christ out of Christmas?  Well, it's true.  Most people who
    are not even Christians don't bother with trying to muddify this
    holiday...they simple don't care one way or the other.  Now, if the
    poll is even partially accurate (within 20 points- which is a huge
    margin of error, larger than the margin given, I'm sure), it is still a
    small minority that is trying to do away with all pointers to Christ on
    a holiday that celebrated HIS birth.
    

    -steve

Hi Glen!

I agree that there are many false representations of Christianity around, 
and they tend to be rather visible.  And even [!] those of us who are 
Christians don't exactly always show the LORD forth as we should.  But I 
see reflected in society's opposition the very thing the Bible says is 
going to happen, and the reaction that we should expect from the world. 
That is why I generalised.  Perhaps I should have pointed to a verse 
which demonstrates this - say, 2 Corinthians 2:15

 "We are to God the aroma of Christ amongst those who are saved and those
  who are perishing.  To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, 
  the fragrance of life."
 
That's the generalisation that was in my mind.

�| They can't stand Christianity, which says 'do My best', because as they 
�| can't do it themselves, they can't bear to accept it as a gift.

That does look a harsh generalisation, I agree.  But in people's hearts,
that's what has happened.  From our human perspective, we can't see what
people think, or how much they understand, but on the basis of passages
like Romans 1:19, we know that God touches everyone's heart for a response.
At the judgement, no-one will be able to say to God :
	"Oh!! I thought my goodness was enough 
	 - I didn't realise that You had a better standard to offer." 

 "What may be known about God is plain, because God has made it plain to 
  them.  For since the creation of the world Gpod's invisible qualities - 
  His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being 
  understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
								Romans 1:19

Glen, I have met people who say they are too busy 'doing good' to attend to 
the gospel.  On the face of it they can accuse the public image of 
Christianity of all sorts of things.  But in the face of creation and the 
evidence of God, they cannot accuse Him.  And I see their pride in their 
efforts, and see that it is a vain attempt to glorify themselves instead 
of being submitted to God's glory.  And it is desperately sad.  But God 
knows their hearts, and their needs.  Those hearts look soft and gentle to 
the ordinary person on the outside, but pride, which is the trap of the 
devil, has made them inflexible to God.  So far...

 "...How then can we be saved?
    All of us have become like one who is unclean,
  and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags..."
							Isaiah 64:6

 "I delight greatly in the LORD,
    my soul rejoices in my God.
  For He has clothed me with garments of salvation
     and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness..."
							Isaiah 61:10

I could go on to Revelation 19:7-8, but then I might not be able to stop ;-)

I hope this clarifies some, Glen!

							Andrew

    	I was out shopping yesterday.  It was interesting to see (hear) how 
    	more and more people are bringing Christ back into Christmas.  Why,
    	at one store I heard a guy commenting about something he was 
    	considering buying:
    
    
    	"Christ Almighty!  Look at the price of this!"

| <<< Note 16.462 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>

| >Being Christian is a broad based thing, isn't it?

| No, it isn't. It may be in the minds of those who claim it, but it is simply 
| the belief that Jesus is Lord and accepting Him as your savior.

	I agree with the belief Steve, but are you going to tell me that all
Christians are the same? Hold the same beliefs? You can't be serious. Because
if we go by what you said earlier, then no one would ever claim another who
states the above is not a Christian. But you know that is not possible. Because
then some start adding on other ideals to everything.

| Yes, I'm sure the poll included all the above. But tell me, would someone 
| making a claim to being Christian be offended by Christmas carols that say 
| Christ is lord?

	Nope. But ya know what? Some would be more likely to understand why
others who aren't Christians DO get offended. That is the difference between
the spectrum of being Christian.

| 90% claiming to be Christians should see this as the day for Christ...or at 
| least not be offended by the obvious meaning of CHRISTmas, and why it is 
| celebrated.

	I think where you lose it is when you think the people who are
Christians are being offended, and not that they are just realizing that not
all people are Christians, and that not all people celebrate the holiday the
way you or I might. 

| >	But one thing that amazed me about your note Steve is that you would
| >mention that 90% consider themselves Christian in this file, as in here many
| >have stated not all that claim to be Christian, are.

| True enough, but it was very useful in making my point...which you pointedly 
| missed.

	Ok.... can we use the 90% figure for everything else? I think you might
end up with a lot of variables if we do. I'm not sure that's something that
this file could handle.

| Subtract 90% from 100% and you get 10%.  What's the beef?

	The beef is it seems like an awfully small number considering all the
people from other countries that are here.

| Would it shock you if I told you that a very small minority of people are 
| taking Christ out of Christmas? Well, it's true. Most people who are not even 
| Christians don't bother with trying to muddify this holiday...they simple 
| don't care one way or the other.  

	Steve, what difference does this make? You, being one of the FF, should
know that regardless of what the % is, one can voice their opinion, and even
try and do something about it. Yet now you complain about people doing just
that.


Glen

| <<< Note 16.463 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>


	Hi Andrew. First off, as usual, you say what you do with great flare,
and no harsh words. I like that!

| But I see reflected in society's opposition the very thing the Bible says is
| going to happen, and the reaction that we should expect from the world. That 
| is why I generalised. Perhaps I should have pointed to a verse which 
| demonstrates this - say, 2 Corinthians 2:15

| "We are to God the aroma of Christ amongst those who are saved and those
| who are perishing.  To the one we are the smell of death; to the other,
| the fragrance of life."

	Now I see where you are coming from. Do you honestly believe that
anyone who does not believe in Christ thinks of you as the smell of death?

| �| They can't stand Christianity, which says 'do My best', because as they
| �| can't do it themselves, they can't bear to accept it as a gift.

| That does look a harsh generalisation, I agree.  But in people's hearts,
| that's what has happened.  

	That seems like a human response Andrew. I mean, you state that we
can't see what people think, so how can anyone but God really know what is in
their hearts? This is a problem I think humans, whether Christian or not, seem
to do quite often, know what one really feels.

| At the judgement, no-one will be able to say to God :
| "Oh!! I thought my goodness was enough 
| - I didn't realise that You had a better standard to offer." 

	Andrew, it may come down to how it's presented. If I had to choose
between Pat Robertson and you to listen to about religion, you would win hands
down. I think you have a much better approach towards religion, and you would
more than likely NOT turn me off to it. Presentation really does matter. One
can scream fire and brimstone and get nowhere. One can just talk about God, and
get far. Of course, the reverse of this could also happen. 

| Glen, I have met people who say they are too busy 'doing good' to attend to
| the gospel. On the face of it they can accuse the public image of Christianity
| of all sorts of things. But in the face of creation and the evidence of God,
| they cannot accuse Him.  

	I'm not so sure people accuse Him as much as they accuse the one doing
the preaching. I think here we may have a difference of opinion.

| And I see their pride in their efforts, and see that it is a vain attempt to 
| glorify themselves instead of being submitted to God's glory.  

	This does happen Andrew. Can't deny that.

| I hope this clarifies some, Glen!

	It does! But then it does lead to other questions....

    re: .465
    
>	I agree with the belief Steve, but are you going to tell me that all
>Christians are the same? 
    
    Same in their belief that Jesus is their savior, yes...else, according
    to the Bible, they are not Christians.
    
>    Hold the same beliefs? You can't be serious. 
    
    If they are all Christians, they will have at least the above in
    common.
    
>    Because
>if we go by what you said earlier, then no one would ever claim another who
>states the above is not a Christian. But you know that is not possible. Because
>then some start adding on other ideals to everything.

    Uhm...WHAT??  I'm afraid you lost me here.
    
>	Nope. But ya know what? Some would be more likely to understand why
>others who aren't Christians DO get offended. That is the difference between
>the spectrum of being Christian.

    In other words, they would be more SENSYTYVE and would curb their
    religious zeal a bit, eh?  
    
    Personally, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why people take offense at Christmas
    carols that mention Jesus.   Is Christmas not the celebration of Jesus'
    birth?  I do NOT understand why secular amerika is taking CHRIST out of
    CHRISTmas...it is senseless.  If they wish to celebrate winter
    solstice, fine!  Do it...I will not be offended if they come up to me
    and say "happy winter solstice".
    
    Why is America becomming so thin-skinned about a holiday it once
    revered as the most holy day?
    
>	I think where you lose it is when you think the people who are
>Christians are being offended, and not that they are just realizing that not
>all people are Christians, and that not all people celebrate the holiday the
>way you or I might. 

    I think this is utter PC nonsense.  Like I said previously, it is not
    these 90% of Americans that are trying to neuter Christmas, it is a
    very small minority who look for reasons to be offended.
    
>	The beef is it seems like an awfully small number considering all the
>people from other countries that are here.

    If you have other figures, post them.  You personal view on this number
    is not relevent to the previous point.
    
>	Steve, what difference does this make? 
    
    The only thing worse that a majority walking over the minority (as a true
    democracy would do), is the reverse.
    
>    You, being one of the FF, should
>know that regardless of what the % is, one can voice their opinion, and even
>try and do something about it. 
    
    Never said they couldn't.
    
>    Yet now you complain about people doing just
>that.

    I complain because there is no basis in law for having to cow-tow to
    every individual who claims offense at the drop of a hat, while at the
    same time bashing Christianity for not being "tolerant".  I complain
    because there are too many hypocrites in this world who ram their
    policies at the expense of the majority of poeple.  
    
    There never was a "right not to be offended", and there never should
    be.  But this is exactly what is being created in this nation.  If you
    are offended by Christmas carols...DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.  If you are
    offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas", IGNORE THEM.  If you are
    offended by Christmas in general...DON'T CELEBRATE IT.  Quit looking
    for stupid reasons to be offended.
    
    Heck, I'm offended by many things every day in the notes
    conferences.  Should I go whining to have the notes conferences shut
    down because of this?  I think not.  I know that by entering certain
    conferences, I will be exposed to offense...so it is with life.   Learn
    to live with it is my advice.
    
    A nation of that cow-tows to a small minority of hypocrites cannot last
    long, as it has no back bone.  
    
    
    -steve

 This might be a good opportunity to remind our readers of the premise/
 guidelines of this conference.  If you (the readers) are unsure, may
 I suggest you take a moment or 2 to read them.



 Jim Co-Mod

| <<< Note 16.467 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| >	I agree with the belief Steve, but are you going to tell me that all
| >Christians are the same?

| Same in their belief that Jesus is their savior, yes...else, according to the 
| Bible, they are not Christians.

	Nice side step! :-)  I was talking about how some Christians can have
one belief, while another can have a different belief about any given subject.

| >    Hold the same beliefs? You can't be serious.

| If they are all Christians, they will have at least the above in common.

	I have the above in common, but would you consider me a Christian? If
not, why? Is it that there are other things you're adding into the equation?

| Uhm...WHAT??  I'm afraid you lost me here.

	If you answer what I just wrote above, it will answer this too.

| >	Nope. But ya know what? Some would be more likely to understand why
| >others who aren't Christians DO get offended. That is the difference between
| >the spectrum of being Christian.

| In other words, they would be more SENSYTYVE and would curb their religious 
| zeal a bit, eh?

	Yes, but no. Yes among places where people may not all be Christian,
but no in places, like a church, or an event, where Christmas is being
celebrated.

| Personally, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why people take offense at Christmas carols 
| that mention Jesus.   

	Because they aren't celebrating the birth of Christ maybe? That
Christmas to them is Santa Claus and is for the kids? That they are from a
different religion to begin with?

| Is Christmas not the celebration of Jesus' birth?  

	To Christians, yes, to everyone, no.

| Why is America becomming so thin-skinned about a holiday it once revered as 
| the most holy day?

	Because America realizes that this country is made up of many more
people than just Christians.

| I think this is utter PC nonsense.  Like I said previously, it is not
| these 90% of Americans that are trying to neuter Christmas, it is a
| very small minority who look for reasons to be offended.

	If the #'s were reversed, and you were fighting FOR Christmas, would
that then make it wrong? You at 10%? The point they are trying to make is
valid. They have every right to make that point, and every right to push it as
far as possible. You are one to back the Constitution when it suits you, but
then seem to turn your back on it when it's a topic you hold dear. Majority or
minority does not matter. If 10% can get something passed, what does that say
about the other 90%? They're just sittin on their rumps and complaining. 

| I complain because there are too many hypocrites in this world who ram their
| policies at the expense of the majority of poeple.

	Then should the majority just sit there and let them do it Steve? You
see, if 10% can get changes, imagine what 90% could do. 

| offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas", IGNORE THEM.  If you are 
| offended by Christmas in general...DON'T CELEBRATE IT.  Quit looking
| for stupid reasons to be offended.

	And you talk about being tolerant?



Glen

 Maybe this can be taken offline?  This is the Christian conference,
 as the guidelines specify.  There are plenty of conferences where the
 constant harrangueing of Christians is acceptable/welcome.  This is
 not one of them.



 Thank you very much.



 Jim Co-Mod

    Thanks Jim, this string has been getting tiring.
    
    

(Amazing.)

          <<< Note 16.459 by KAHALA::JOHNSON_L "Leslie Ann Johnson" >>>
                            -< Christmas Greetings >-                 
    
    Leslie: Very touching, beautiful, and accurate!!!!
    
    A very merry Christmas, and a blessed and prosperous New Year to you
    also.
    
    Sylvain
    

    Leslie,
    
    Thanks for posting it - I took the liberty of printing it off last
    night so that I could read it to Wendy and the boys last evening.
    
    I should of course asked your permission first - will you forgive me?
    Pleeease!!!
    
    Paul :-)

 Re 15.337


 Certainly the ridicule of the young boy is not right.  Kind of a wierd
 name for a school, isn't it...North (something) Attendance Center?




Jim

	This is pretty funny. People complain about not being able to say
Christmas. You explain to them why it is being done. Then a note like Pauls
appears, Jim Henderson talks about guidelines, and Mark has his amazing
statement. If you really didn't care to know the reasons, why complain about
it? So many funny people in here. 


Glen

.473 and .478 set hidden pending moderator discussion.





Jim Co mod

    Glen not wanting to hear the answer and disagreeing with it are two
    different things. 
    
    

| <<< Note 16.480 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Glen not wanting to hear the answer and disagreeing with it are two different 
| things.

	Nancy is 100% right here. If there is a difference of opinion, it is
because I disagree with the answer. I don't mind listening to what people have
to say at all (as in EVER). It just doesn't mean I will always agree with what
one has to say.


Glen

    Thanks Pam, Sylvain, & Paul.  Paul, its okay with me that you
    printed it out to share.

    Leslie,

As a sad commentary on the state of the heirarchy of the Presbyterian Church,
in light of the discussion in this note, yesterday I received the monthly
newsletter from the executive director of our Presbytery.  This letter is
sent only to pastors and elders in the Presbytery.  Emblazoned on the outside
was the message:

"Season's Greetings"

Sigh, heavy sigh.

Paul

   Seems to be a lot of anti Christian stuff in the newspapers and on TV 
 as a result  of Friday's tragedy.  A horrible thing.  What irritates me
 is the TV (that I've seen) playing up the people (who call themselves
 Christians) who support the alleged actions of Mr. Salvi.  My Bible
 says we are not to recompense evil for evil and "vengeance is mine
 sayeth the Lord".



 Jim

	Jim,

	WBZ last night showed a clip of Pat Robertson from the night
	before denouncing both the killings and those anti-abortionists
	that are supporting his actions.

	I was pleasantly surprised to see the media attempting to
	balance the different pro-life beliefs.  

	Karen

 Great!  






Jim

I read accounts in the Sunday Boston Globe that did not seem as biased
against religion as the AP article John entered.  They portrayed the
gunman as an anti-social misfit who had difficulty relating to people,
as well as being a "religious" fanatic, and they talked about anti-abortion
people who called the event a tragedy and did not in any way support the
actions of Salvi.

This event is a tragedy for all people.  The wrong of abortion is only 
compounded by the wrong of murder and terror like this.

Leslie

   I guess this is the place to talk about this stuff...
   
   This is related to the shooting tragedy at the clinics... 
   
   I believe I heard a brief news blip last night stating that police
   protection had been stationed outside of Cardinal Law's residence
   (he's pretty much the senior ranking officer in the Boston area, I
   believe, for the Catholic Church).  Apparently he did not request
   this, but it was done anyway.
   
   So... why?  I mean, he's as much against the killings as most people,
   but the Catholic Church has never been in favor of abortions... what
   would be the risk to the Cardinal?
   
   Curious,
   
   - Tom

The risk to the Cardinal would be from pro-abortion fanatics seeking
revenge for the death of the clinic workers.

You may note that there was a prayer service for the clinic workers
and for the memory of the unborn at Ruggles Street Baptist Church
yesterday.  It was invaded by noisy pro-abortion demonstrators who
had to be removed by police.  Will they be charged under the new
federal law which prohibits disruption of activity at abortion clinics
and churches?

/john

	Why is there such a rukus about this woman teaching what she is? It
never amazes me how as soon as you mention the genital area, a big shhhhhhh
appears afterwards. 

	Oh, and John, if he is found to have violated the law, then yes, he
should be held to the same standard as those who are found guilty who are
pro-life.


Glen

Glen,

Some part of the body are, for decency, kept private.  Not because they are 
ugly, repulsive or a mistake - not some sort of design error, but because 
they are personal and intimate.  A part of one's personal responsibility to 
maintain discrete (cf 1 Corinthians 12:23).  A part of the special 
relationship of marriage is in sharing in intimacy what cannot rightfully
be shared with anyone else.  That doesn't make marriage unclean in any way 
- remember, it is a part of God's design too, as well as sex.

So if the intimate details are treated brazenly as something public instead 
of something private, a dimesion of life's richness is lost, and the 
individual becomes worth less.  Not worthless! - rather, that they have 
betrayed a trust bestowed on mankind by God.  As a result, integrity and 
virtue is lost, comparable to the loss of innocence in the garden.  Not a 
loss of oppresive restraint, but a loss of protective restraint.  A 
protective restraint whose aim is to permit growth of a tender plant in 
the spiritual dimension, rather than to obstruct anything useful.

For those who choose particular areas of study - like, in the medical 
field, physical details take on a different significance in this context.  
Apparently this woman was trying to claim that her situation came under a 
similar category.  To her students it appeared blatently otherwise, as it 
does from a superficial report.  ie she was perceived as misusing her
position of privilege to present innapropriate and unsuitable information
in a way that was generally offensive.

� It never amazes me how as soon as you mention the genital area, a big 
� shhhhhhh appears afterwards. 

Glen, I would have through that everyone would realise that this is a 
subject to be treated with respect and sensitivity, rather than casually.  
Glen, you are a pretty rare individual, but I cannot believe that you are
so unique that you do not realise that certain parts of the body are
socially different in presentation, and physically liable to be excessively 
emotive.

								Andrew

Not amazing any more.  Predictable as an atomic clock.

    The Bible doesn't refer to certain things explicitly either so why
    should we?  It directly refers to the "act," the states of virginity or
    non-virginity, and the acts of immoral behavior.  It rarely refers to
    the private parts and the few times it does, the approach is
    metaphorical.
    
    Mike

I would have been extremely upset to be in that classroom.  That 
lecturer certainly stepped beyond the boundry line of what should
be accepted behavior for a lecturer in a class like that.  As a
woman it would have made me extremely uncomfortable and I would 
have left.  A university classroom is not the place to display one's
personal sexual interests.

Andrew, I thought your note was a very good response.

Leslie

	Andrew, I do understand what you are saying, but I agree with Mike. In
a psycology course, sex is talked about at some point in time. Masturbation is
eventually talked about too. It should not be a surprise that it was brought
out in this type of course. I agree that there will be people who do not want
to deal with it, and maybe they should list what the class will go over BEFORE
they sign up for the course. But once in there, they get taught what the board
has designed. I do support their right to try and change it if they are so
offended.



Glen

Glen,

The explicit detail was inappropriate to the class.  The discussion of
'personal preference' with illustrations takes it outside the realm of
clinical discussion, and into individual, personal involvement.  It needs
to be treated with care, even when limited to theory, especially in a mixed
class context. 

								Andrew 

Exactly what Andrew said.

Leslie

What Leslie said.

It's a matter of context (again).

Context matters.

..and I am commenting further for...

...the Big five O O snarfola.   he he he

	Andrew, in a course where one could end up having a career from, these
things will have to be delt with. To candy coat it makes no sense to me. This
isn't a class where one knits, it a class that goes into human behaviors.



Glen

As usual, Glen, you come in on the side of "tolerate anything and everything-
who are you judgemental people to have any concept of standards, anyway?"  Of
course discussion of sex is part of the course.  But your replies discard
that concept that ANYTHING is inappropriate.  If the slides were appropriate,
why not a personal demonstration?  Why not a lab requirement for the students
to participate in examining their sexuality?  Your replies could be used
verbatim to justify either of these ridiculous extremes.

I won't respond the the nonsense you will reply with, Glen.  But no matter
how much I keep telling myself to just ignore you, sometimes I just can't.

Paul

	Paul, in a course about human behaviors, do we weed out what some might
be offensive to or do we address the issues that could end up helping someone?
God forbid we ever cut out an operation because some may feel squeemish about
blood or organs. 



Glen

A discussion of the people's attitudes towards the sexuality of male and
female could have been handled completely differently, and much more 
tactfully and sensitively.  It isn't necessary to display everything or 
be as blatant as possible about subjects should be treated with respect
and sensitivity.  The way subjects are handled can be de-humanizing and
brutal or sensitive, honoring, and valuable.

Leslie

    >                   -< Is masturbation not a human behavior? >-
    
    no, it's an immoral sexual act.

	Leslie, then I suggest you don't take a psycology course, well, other
than maybe some of the beginner ones. They talk about a lot of things that you
probably would not like. And they talk about them from a real human
perspective, not with kid gloves.

	Mike, it is still a human behavior. 

 It�'s one thing to talk about masturbation, quite another to have a guest
 lecturer give a personal preference demonstration..absolutely no reason
 for this in a classroom.

 had this been a straight male putting on the demonstration it would be story
 number one (blotting out OJ) on every network and everybody from Clinton
 on down would be calling for the national Guard to take over the school
 and send the lecturer to jail for life.  That it was not a �straight male
  turns things around though and makes the one offended the guilty one..
 
 Amazing..



 Jim

	Jim, do you REALLY think sexual orientation was part of why it was
allowed or did you use straight male for some other purpose?


Glen

 I believe its a good possibility (answer to first part of your question)

    Glen,
    
    If you reread the reference note you will see that this is a Psychology
    100 class.  It is a freshman level class and very likely is mandatory
    under the General Education requirements (it is at most colleges).  We're 
    not talking about an elective or even a core class in his major.  When
    I took PSY 100 we discussed basic psychological theories and the
    history of psychology.  It was an introductory course.  Abnormal
    Behavior was an elective.
    
    Kent
     

    Look on the bright side, when we finally finish destroying the myth of
    evolution, we won't have a need for psychology/sociology.

	Where is the note that started this discussion ?

	Karen, feeling a bit lost...

 Glen, would you be as accepting of this guest speaker had they come and
 talked about how much better their life is since they were saved by the 
 blood of Christ, and proceeded to give a talk about how their study of 
 the Bible led them to a life far better than they could have ever imagined?



Jim

    Karen -  
    
    this discussion began because of note 15.352.
    
    Karen
    
    p.s. like your personal name.....from the Ashton/Becker/Dente album,
    right?  :-)

| <<< Note 16.509 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

| I believe its a good possibility (answer to first part of your question)

	What led you to believe the possibility exists that sexual orientation
could have been the reason she was allowed to give the class?


Glen

| <<< Note 16.513 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

| Glen, would you be as accepting of this guest speaker had they come and talked
| about how much better their life is since they were saved by the blood of 
| Christ, and proceeded to give a talk about how their study of the Bible led 
| them to a life far better than they could have ever imagined?

	Sure, why not? I've listened to lots of people talk about these things.
These things are all part of life, and should be discussed. There is a lot
psycologists could talk about with those who have faith. I would welcome it.


Glen

>	What led you to believe the possibility exists that sexual orientation
>could have been the reason she was allowed to give the class?


 Nevermind.



 Jim

 re  .516




 Right

	Jim, is that "right" as in agreeing, or as in doubting?

 see .517

�      <<< Note 16.520 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

the correct answer is "yes"

							;-)
								&

	Somehow I knew that would be your response. Hopefully someday you'll
actually start responding to your own replies... :-)

 perhaps...however, I don't have time to enter into what will likely turn
 into a multi response discussion that will lead nowhere.




Jim

| <<< Note 16.523 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| perhaps...however, I don't have time to enter into what will likely turn
| into a multi response discussion that will lead nowhere.

	Trust me Jim, if it were gonna do that, it already would have happened.

>| perhaps...however, I don't have time to enter into what will likely turn
>| into a multi response discussion that will lead nowhere.
>
>	Trust me Jim, if it were gonna do that, it already would have happened.

Get on board, children.  It already DID happen.

MM

 Precisely

	Thanks, Karen.

	Yes, it's from A/B/D ... can't get enough of that CD!!

	Karen

| <<< Note 15.355 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| "Even those who favor `a woman's right to choose' an abortion should be 
| seriously concerned about a case that allows the state to confiscate the 
| property of a church because a few members and the pastor - acting as an 
| individual citizen and not representing his church - 

	The man if not representing his church? You mean a priest can, at will,
stop representing God and just be a layperson, and then later on put the coller
back on? I don't buy this for a minute. Being a priest is not a sometimes or
9-5 job, it is your life. 

| decide to exercise what they regard as their moral obligation and their 
| constitutional right to peaceably assemble and to petition their government 
| for a redress of grievances."

	If there is a law that states you can not do something, and you do it,
then you pay the consequences. If they can not pay the fine, then they should
not do the crime. Plain and simple. The church is not above the law.


Glen

Glen,

  Should you be fired for activities you perform outside of Digital
working hours and off of Digital premises?  Why or why not?  Do you
stop being a Digital employee?

  You blur the distinction between the *office* of priest and the
personal, individual, and moral responsibilities of the individual.

Mark

| <<< Note 16.529 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| Should you be fired for activities you perform outside of Digital working 
| hours and off of Digital premises?  Why or why not?  

	Mark, this is so easy. No, I should not be fired from Digital if it
does not effect the company. The reason why is my job is PART of my life, it is
not the WHOLE thing.

| Do you stop being a Digital employee?

	Yes, from 5:00 on. A priest does not have a timeclock. He is a priest
all the time. His collar is not something he can put on and take off at will. 

| You blur the distinction between the *office* of priest and the personal, 
| individual, and moral responsibilities of the individual.

	He is ALWAYS a priest. He CAN NOT put on or take off the collar at a
whim.


Glen

Hi Glen,

Certainly a Christian doesn't leave his christianity behind when he, for 
instance, goes into MacDonald's for a burger.  However, neither is he 
making a statement about whether all Christians should or shouldn't do 
such a thing.

As we covered in another note ;-), it's different for a person in an 
offical church position (hey - are we getting somewhere here? ;-).  
However, while he may seen as making more of a doctrinal statement by his 
actions, he is not (generally) teaching that his whole church should follow 
him in eating big Macs.

And if he should find after nourishing (?) himself, that he is unable to
pay the bill, he as an individual is responsible for it; not his church
(though they *may* choose to help him out with a $!).

Now if he led his church in, and invited them to partake as a church 
function, and then regretfully informed the proprietor that his reward was 
in heaven, that would be a different matter, and it might need the 
resources of the denomination to clean up the situation.  Or, more 
significant yet, if he taught from the pulpit that MacDonalds was a gift 
from God to his congregation, and encouraged them to help themselves 
without paying, then it would become a church matter rather than a personal 
matter.

Agreed, that even were it a purely individual matter, he personally would 
bear greater responsibility, in the example he was giving; but that would 
not escalate it to corporate church responsibility.


								Andrew

	Andrew, I see two things with your note. One, you are saying that a
priest does not represent his church every second of the day, and that I am
hungry. :-)


Glen

 I believe a pastor's testimony to be significant, and certain actions
 by the pastor could cause his testimony and that of the church to be
 affected.  However, those actions are not the responsibility of the
 church, though the church may feel the impact.  For example..were a pastor
 to be involved in a burglary, his testimony and that of the church would
 certainly be affected.  However, should the church be held responsible for
 his actions?  Of course not.




 Jim

	Jim, it's a position as that which the church has taken for years when
it came to molesting children. It's time they are held responsible for their
actions. If they represent the church with their lives, then it's held
accountable.


Glen

>	Jim, it's a position as that which the church has taken for years when
>it came to molesting children. It's time they are held responsible for their
>actions. If they represent the church with their lives, then it's held
>accountable.


You would agree that there is a difference between protesting abortions and
molesting children would you not?  You would also agree, would you not, that
most if not all of the molestation activity that has been made public was done
by priests/pastors of a local congregation, and perpetrated against members
of those congregations?  The Church should deal with that and if it is shown
that the church closed their eyes then certainly there is some accountability.
However, I think you have a problem with your definition of "church".  Do you
mean the local congregation, the hierarchichal structure of a particular
demonination, or, the entire body of Christ?



Jim

Another amazing demonstration.

Andrew's explanation was more than adequate yet it seems to be missed.

A Pastor does not pose a liability to the Church if he does not pay
for his Big Mac.  He poses a liability to himself, only.  This is
aside from the fact that this liability REFLECTS POORLY ON HIS WITNESS
and upon his church (guilt by association).

The case in point is one of liability.  The Pastor commited an act
outside of the function of the local church body.  He did not encourage
his flock to participate; he participated upon the behest of his own
conscience.  He is personally liable for his action.

What this news item says is that by virtue of his witness as leader of
a local congregation, the congregation is ALSO liable.  Again, this
is guilt by association.

What you have failed to recognise is where liability can be placed on
an INDIVIDUAL who happens to be employed as a leader.  Holding an 
entire congregation or denomination accountable for the actions of 
their leaders would mean that you should be held accountable for the
embezzlement of fund from your church (should the treasurer abscond
with the funds).  That includes going to jail (why not?).

A leader has a greater responsibility to those who follow, but he 
remains an individual member of society.  Those who are associated
but do not necessarily follow the independent actions of the man
should not be held liable.  Do you still think so?

Mark

| <<< Note 16.535 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| You would agree that there is a difference between protesting abortions and
| molesting children would you not?  

	If protesters break the law during the protest, no. You have two groups
of people who have broken laws. If the protesters did not break any laws, then
there is a difference.

| You would also agree, would you not, that most if not all of the molestation 
| activity that has been made public was done by priests/pastors of a local 
| congregation, and perpetrated against members of those congregations?  

	No, it was done by the victims for most. The churchs did nothing except
move people around for the most part up until the victims started coming
forward. They knew way back when with a lot of cases, but just moved them
around.

| However, I think you have a problem with your definition of "church".  Do you
| mean the local congregation, the hierarchichal structure of a particular
| demonination, or, the entire body of Christ?

	Whichever the church that the priest is representing. Bishops can step
in and say do not protest here as we will have to pay the consequences of your
actions, but they do not. It almost appears that they feel they are of the
church, and who in their right mind would go after a poor innocent church? They
think differently now.



Glen

    How can they legally hold the church responsible?  I also heard that
    NOW is pushing additional charges against related churches, in addition
    to this particular church.
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, remember, a restraining order was in place, so the people knew,
along with higher clergy (unless it is a blind church) that to show up there
would be against the order. Maybe the higher clergy said not to go. If this
were true, the guy should be let go. If they said nothing, then they should be
held accountable. If someone in a law firm does something unethical, does the
law firm get penilized at all? Yes. The same applies here.


Glen

    Re: Note 16.540 by CUJO::SAMPSON
    
>                  -< say goodbye to free speech, everyone >-
    
    Lucky sods, we haven't even _got_ free speech!

�               <<< Note 16.539 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

� If someone in a law firm does something unethical, does the law firm get
� penilized at all? Yes. The same applies here. 

Exactly!  If he is acting as his firm's representative, the firm is liable. 
If he goes out and breaks the law independently (eg, disobeys a personal 
restraining order), it is he alone who is responsible and charged as a 
private individual.  His law firm may or may not decide that this indicates 
that he is unsuitable to continue in their employ, but that is their 
concern, and does not affect the legal issue in any way.

Example, a lady who works in some junior position in the UK government 
appropriated a police car while under the influence of alcohol recently.  
She achieved quite a lot of damage with it, though happily no people were 
hurt.  While it was a [very] minor embarrassment for the government, it did 
not call its integrity in question, and the prime minister hasn't felt 
personally obliged to replace the damaged vehicles....

I think we owe Glen quite a debt of thanks.  He encourages us to explain 
everything several times, very much more simply than we would normally
think necessary.  OK for discussing things 'between ourselves', but surely
this must make the point abundantly clear to the most retiring of 
read-onlies!  ;-)

Thanks Glen!

						God bless
								Andrew

| <<< Note 16.542 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>


| Exactly!  If he is acting as his firm's representative, the firm is liable.

	Andrew, he could be off doing something on her/his own and the firm
could still be liable. 

| I think we owe Glen quite a debt of thanks. He encourages us to explain 
| everything several times, very much more simply than we would normally think 
| necessary.  

	Glad to be of help. Wish your explainations cleared things up though.

| OK for discussing things 'between ourselves', but surely this must make the 
| point abundantly clear to the most retiring of read-onlies!  ;-)

	That you got it wrong? I think it does Andrew. 


Glen

Hi Glen,

� Andrew, he could be off doing something on her/his own and the firm
� could still be liable. 

Would that be the norm?  If you took to an illegal activity and were picked 
up for it by the police, would you expect DEC to be brought into court?

� Glad to be of help. Wish your explainations cleared things up though.

You're spot on , there, Glen.  I'm sure they do for about everyone else, 
even if they don't for you.  That's the problem with being the sweeper!

�| OK for discussing things 'between ourselves', but surely this must make the 
�| point abundantly clear to the most retiring of read-onlies!  ;-)

�	That you got it wrong? I think it does Andrew. 

Now there, you'll need to clarify your meaning to ME!!! ;-)

								Andrew

	Andrew, it is simple. One heads up a church like a priest, minister,
what have you, one is ALWAYS representing that church. It isn't a part time
job, it's a lifelong commitment.


Glen

Hmmm.  A bit of an oversimplification there.  I have known ministers move 
from one church to another ;-)

But you still have to distinguish between the individual and the ministry.

For instance, the minister's wife is still only married to one individual, 
not an organisation, even though she too is inevitably committed to the 
work!

btw, just for interest, is anyone other than Glen unclear on this issue?
If you're embarrassed to reply, I'd welcome mail!  Just so I know whether 
I'm talking to one person only, here ;-)

							Andrew

 I'm quite clear on it, thank you...Andrew, do you have the disk space to
 handle mail from all of those who are unclear?



 Jim

Would you explain it for me one more time?  Make that five more, please.

Hey!  Don't throw those kippers at me!  Just kidding!

| <<< Note 16.546 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

| Hmmm.  A bit of an oversimplification there.  I have known ministers move
| from one church to another ;-)

	Actually, so don't priests. At least they did in Berlin MA. But they
represent the church they are from. And in this case, seeing there was a
restraining order in place, either the church itself was blind, or the priest
disobeyed the higher ups.

| For instance, the minister's wife is still only married to one individual,
| not an organisation, even though she too is inevitably committed to the work!

	Marriage is something totally different Andrew. 



Glen

    Re: Note 16.546 by ICTHUS::YUILLE

�btw, just for interest, is anyone other than Glen unclear on this issue?
    
    I'm not unclear, Andrew.
    
    	BD�

    re: last
    
    ditto
    
    Karen

    No problem here
    
    Kent
    

All clear here

.523 � perhaps...however, I don't have time to enter into what will likely turn
.523 � into a multi response discussion that will lead nowhere.

I think it just got there ;-)

.547 � ...Andrew, do you have the disk space to handle mail from all of those
.547 � who are unclear? 

That is a significant point.  His mail was so long I found it hanging out
of the machine when I came in this morning... ;-) 

.549 �	Marriage is something totally different Andrew. 
This is a very profound point, of significant truth.  
Marriage is always totally different, even for the same people.

So glad people are in the clear.  I was hoping I wasn't getting confused 
myself ;-)

							Andrew

Nice snarf Andrew (.555)

Leslie

� Nice snarf Andrew (.555)

Thanks, Leslie!  I hadn't noticed!  Or carefully stepped over the one after 
.665 ;-)

							&

> So glad people are in the clear.  I was hoping I wasn't getting confused 
> myself ;-)

Not to worry, &rew.  Everything that has gone on in this note is crystal
clear to me.

Paul

Let's make it even more clear.

The way RICO ("Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization", the statute used
in this lawsuit) works is that the court declares that the whole organization
is corrupt based on its activities.

The next step (remember, the article said that more damages were being sought)
is to start seizing the assets of everyone who ever made a contribution to
the supposed corrupt organization.  If you put a check into the collection
plate at this church, you might have your house seized.

The intent is to shut down organized religion.

/john

 Makes me proud to be an American 

	Wow John, talk about blowing something totally out of proportion and
then say they want to shut down religion. In here I guess talk like that works,
but if you deal with reality, you'd see that the RICO law will put the church
and it's organizers in the same position as anyone else. In other words, they
won't be able to do as they please, and hide behind the church when the law
comes a knocking. If one does not break the law, then one never has to worry
about things like this, right?


Glen

    Once again
    
    Man's law is absolute - God's law is relative
    
    

Clear as mud, Glen.

| <<< Note 16.562 by MIMS::CASON_K >>>

| Man's law is absolute - God's law is relative

	You can keep God's law as absolute, but you can not cry about it when
you're arrested for breaking man's law. You people act like this all just came
about by magic, and that the pro-life movement had nothing to do with it all.
If peaceful demonstrations, without blocking the clinics, without lieing by
saying you're having an abortion and then run into the room and chain yourself
to fixtures, these things probably would not have come about. But they have
materialized because of those who do block access and those who do lie and
chain themselves. 


Glen

>	You can keep God's law as absolute, but you can not cry about it when
>you're arrested for breaking man's law. You people act like this all just came
>about by magic, and that the pro-life movement had nothing to do with it all.
>If peaceful demonstrations, without blocking the clinics, without lieing by
>saying you're having an abortion and then run into the room and chain yourself
>to fixtures, these things probably would not have come about. But they have
>materialized because of those who do block access and those who do lie and
>chain themselves. 
    
    If mankind didn't let lusts rule like an animal's and use dangerous
    techniques for birth control it wouldn't be an issue.  This is the root
    of the problem: sin.

 I wonder if Glen felt the same about the Civil Rights movement in the
 60's..





Jim

	Glen,
	I'd venture to guess that John's done his homework
	on this.  Have you ?

	

| <<< Note 16.565 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Hoshia Nah,Baruch Haba B'shem Adonai" >>>

| If mankind didn't let lusts rule like an animal's and use dangerous techniques
| for birth control it wouldn't be an issue. This is the root of the problem: 
| sin.

	Mike, is it or is it not a sin to lie? Can you say it is ok for one sin 
to be overlooked (lieing) and abortion not overlooked?


Glen

| <<< Note 16.566 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| I wonder if Glen felt the same about the Civil Rights movement in the 60's..

	Peaceful marches is one thing. Break the law, you have to pay the
price.

    Glen, sin is sin and encompasses all sins.

	It's amazing to me that anyone can be gullible enough to presume
that the pastor did anything wrong or illegal at all.  He supposedly
violated some court order.  There hasn't been any word so far on the
content of the court order, and whether it would withstand a constitutional
challenge.  Until I hear more information, I'm not prepared to pass
any sort of judgement on him.

He violated the court order to stay more than (mumble) feet away from an
abortion clinic -- the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld not only the so-called
"bubble" zones but also the use of RICO to attack the pro-life movement.

/john

    re: .542
    
    
    Good point!

    SCOTUS is way off the mark on the new and interesting uses of RICO
    laws (designed for criminal organizations like the Mob).  
    
    First of all, by applying RICO to pro-life protesters, you assume
    criminal behavior, by definition of RICO.  Second, you take away first 
    amendment rights of peacable assembly and of free speech; or at least 
    restrict that which "shall not be infringed".  Third, you set an 
    alarming precedent of political silencing.  Those who are not "PC"- who
    hold the "wrong views" as determined by the government- can now be 
    silenced.
    
    The number of bombings/shootings/violence of any kind during pro-life
    marches/prayer vigils/"sit ins" at clinics is miniscule as a percent. 
    Even by count, these random acts of violence do not give enough reason
    to bring federal "gangster laws" to bear.
    
    Anyone who cares at all about freedoms of all US citizens should be
    fighting this ridiculous use of the "gangster law" tooth and nail.  If
    you don't, it may be your political speech that gets silenced next. 
    You either support freedom for all (including those you may disagree
    with), or you will eventually pay the price.
    
    Currently in this nation, the Constitution is being rewritten, and all
    too many who claim to be pro-"choice" (using the guise of fighting for
    individual freedoms), are hypocritically supporting the use of RICO to
    silence their opposition.  I have a little hope that the current
    Congress will turn the tide of our BoR erosion, but I feel it will only
    be a small respite before the real fun begins.
    
    God does not have to actively judge this nation in order for our
    judgement to come to pass.  He need only withdraw His presence from
    this nation in order to let us fail due to our own corruption.  
    
    
    
    -steve

    This is what happens when group rights are placed above individual
    rights.