Conference back40::soapbox

    The Cook, the Thief, the Wife and Her Lover, Bad Lieutenant and
    Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer, were all really good movies.
    
    My brother and I grew up on a steady diet of punk rock, Monty Python
    and computer text adventure games.  Today we both hold down real jobs,
    and pay more in taxes than anyone with a house and kids.  
    
    I'm officially incorporating the Church of Elvis right now, so that I
    can put tacky Elvis memorabilia on the Hatch Shell as a sign of my
    faithfulness to the one and only King.
    
    Lisa

    Lisa:
    
    Only single people or DINCS can reply here??

>                                        Today we both hold down real jobs,
>    and pay more in taxes than anyone with a house and kids.  

You pay more in taxes than William Weld?

    What I find interesting is that Lisa doesn't site the PC crowd when it
    comes to defying independent thought. 
    
    I was listening to David Brudnoy last Friday and he had a writer to had
    an article in Playboy called, "The Safe Generation...Preparing our
    Children for a PC World".  It focused solely on our Colleges and
    Universities and the atrocities going on...how free thought is
    squelched and debate is at a standstill in our secondary schools...lest
    we offend somebody in speaking the truth.
    
    It is well documented over the last few years that the bent on
    liberalism is to squelch free thought and implement PC talk.  I find it
    amazing Lisa, that you seem to show a blind eye to this!
    
    -Jack

    Rat-on, Lisa!

    I honestly don't care if people have a "Mary on the half shell"
    anywhere they want.  If it's important to them, and it gives
    them comfort, let it be.  
    
    The problem with independent thought is that we've stopped
    teaching people how to think to begin with.  If we were still
    teaching thought, most of the stupid stuff would fall through 
    the cracks where it belonged, and people would watch a whole
    lot less television.  We don't encourage debate, individuality,
    creativity or independent thought anymore.  We encourage
    teamwork, political correctness and right-thinking.  We heard
    people into groups and use peer and societal pressure to 
    ensure they are all thinking the same thing.  Yes, life
    in the nineties is truely boring if you enjoy good conversation.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    Madonna is appearing in Lexington ?  When are tix on sale ?  bb
    

    RE: .6
    
    Mary-Michael,
    
    I daresay you have summed up what I've been thinking better
    than I could have hoped to!
    
    And Jack is 100% correct in pointing out that the Christian
    Coalition hardly has a lock on such nonsense.
    
    -b

      In trying to be as generic as possible, I think that to be loving
      is the only thing that makes any sense in this world and to be
      unloving makes no sense whatsoever.
    
      For me, the above may be the beginning of wisdom and to try
      to suggest anything else to be worthy of attainment is foolishness.
    
      Far from the mark, but hopefully getting closer to it...
    
    						Tony

I wasn't aware of the fact that Newt was casting a watchful eye on
those who were doing the nasty with their SO while watching NC-17
movies.

>Madonna is appearing in Lexington ?

Barring an earthquake, yes, Madonna will be appearing
and I hear that the opening act is supposed to be
second to none.

| <<< Note 425.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| It focused solely on our Colleges and Universities and the atrocities going 
| on...how free thought is squelched and debate is at a standstill in our 
| secondary schools...lest we offend somebody in speaking the truth.

	Jack, guess it would depend on what one perceived the truth was, and if
it equalled reality. 

You can see Madonna at Our Lady of the Battle Green in Lexington.

    >Barring an earthquake, yes
    
    As you have probably heard, this is much more likely to happen this
    year then last.
    
    ...Tom (trying to add some Thumperism to this quite boring topic.) :)

RE: 425.4 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

> What I find interesting is that Lisa doesn't site the PC crowd when it
> comes to defying independent thought.

Site,  Cite. 

    uhhh....sorry

    Perhaps, Lisa, you should modify the title to reflect the fact that you
    are venting at the "Christian Coalition's Contract on Independent
    Thought" as opposed to the Clinton/Schumer Contract on Independent
    Thought, the Political Correctness Movement's Contract on Independent
    Thought, or any of the others.
    

    The Bad Lieutenant was rubbish.
    
    

>>    The Bad Lieutenant was rubbish.

    'twas a bit rough, shall we say. ;>  keitel was good, as usual,
    though.
    
    

>The Bad Lieutenant was rubbish.

I agree.  The Good Mother was much better.

    
    Yeabut, the Good Son sucked.
    

He was just a Bad Seed.

    
    Goodfellows, was good.

    Did he have a Good Morning Vietnam?

And who could forget the GoodFather.

    
    As well as the Goodfather parts II & III.

>    Yeabut, the Good Son sucked.

Whom?  Bill Todman?

Ever see The Nasty Girl?

RE: 425.17 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> Perhaps, Lisa, you should modify the title to reflect the fact that you
> are venting at the "Christian Coalition's Contract on Independent Thought"

That's the only one that's having a big impact on Merrimack,  New Hampshire. 
Perhaps your mileage may vary,  but multi-month long debate on "is teaching
critical thinking a good thing?" was pretty educational.  


Phil

What's this about a statue of the Mother of God appearing on the Lexington
Battle Green?

I'd be rather surprised if the Christian Coalition had anything to do with it.

/john

    	Tom --
    
    	Does this topic add to your thumper index?

    No, it is difficult to determine whether non-thumper topic titles are
    indeed thumper topics. If anyone has a spare man-year they can do an
    evaluation. :)
    
    ...Tom

    >That's the only one that's having a big impact on Merrimack
    
     So I've heard. And heard. And heard.

RE: 425.34 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

> So I've heard. And heard. And heard.

Very little of this has been in Soapbox.  Topic in New Hampshire notefile 
is only 307 replies:  hardly close to the standard of the hunting debate.
I'd like to know where you have heard about this so much,  if you don't
mind.


Phil

    The Telegraph has been covering the goings on in Merrimack for months.
    Sounds like you guys got yourselves on heap of trouble out there;
    creationism science? Sheesh.

RE: 425.36 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> what a mess 

Nothing a few thousand votes can't cleanup.


Phil

    Can`t say I find Monty Python very funny to be honest.
    
    What`s all that "Ministry of silly walks" and "dead parrott joke" all 
    about? What a load of rubbish.
    
    Give me Benny Hill or Syd James any day.
    
    
    

    {look of astonishment}

    
    {thud}
    

    Well, typical of the hyperbole I've come to expect from the
    base-noter, it seems serious discussion on the topic has
    been quashed. However, there are a few elements of the
    Contract with the American Family that are worthy of note.
    While I cannot claim to remember all of the elements, the
    important ones include:

    - Prayer in Schools

      The moment of silence. I am against this, on the ground
      that it is unnecessary. The moment of silence will have
      no effect on the overwhelming problems facing our
      educational system. It is purely symbolic, and in my
      opinion, without merit.

    - Public display of religious symbols

      A Pandora's box... while this paves the way for the
      seemingly innocuous nativity scene on the town common,
      I wonder how the Christian contingent would feel about
      the Wiccans erecting a pentagram? The Christians can't
      have it both ways... either they must tolerate all
      manner of religious symbols, or such symbols must
      be prohibited from public lands.

    - Abortion

      The only abortion provision in the contract is one that
      cancels federal funding of abortions. This one I support.
      While pro-choice, I'm not keen to pay for anyone's
      abortions.

    - Remove funding from PBS

      Part of the overall conservative agenda, I support this.

    - Remove funding from the NEA

      I also support this, on the basis that the NEA actually
      hurts art, not helps it. With a Republican congress, will
      the liberals who support the NEA be willing to let the
      Repubs decide what art should be subsidized? Helms approved
      art something you want? Didn't think so. Removing funding
      means that art is not controlled by anyone's political
      agenda, and this strikes me as a good thing. Same thing
      applies to PBS.

    - School Choice

      Reaffirmation of the voucher concept. I have yet to
      conclude whether I support this or not.

    Re: 41
    
    The base note, as seems to be obvious to most respondents, was a poor
    attempt to start another bashing topic.  Not much else to say about
    such drivel.
    
    As far as your enumeration of the items I guess, overall, I tend to
    suppport them with certain caveats.
    
    The Prayer in School issue gets more blown out of proportion with each
    passing year and the rantings of "Christian conspiracy" fringe.  My
    basic take on the subject is, if it's voluntary, what difference does
    it make.  If a school believes that starting the day with prayer may be
    beneficial to the students, then let's give a try.  the absence of any
    moral teachings in school have certainly not provided a better society. 
    It may just be worth letting schools try something radical on their
    own.  Would like to see some real discussion on this instead of the
    knee-jerk No.
    
    Religious displays should also be encouraged and recognize all "major"
    religious sects.  I realize that this may result in some fringe groups
    left out, but then fringe groups in all walks of life aren't always
    accomodated.  I personally would like to see the local Municpal Center
    display the images that reflect the essential beliefs of the major
    groups within a community.  I would certainly enjoy seeing people
    prepare and present the images of their holidays.  I'm not sure if all
    religions have a particular display, but it would be interesting.
    
    All of these need to be discussed, but for many people the mere voicing
    of a religious belief should be outlawed.
    
    the rest of the points and your evaluation seem rational as well.
    

    Re: .42
    
    >If a school believes that starting the day with prayer may be
    >beneficial to the students
    
    Then tell kids to pray when they get out of bed.
    
    >the absence of any moral teachings in school have certainly not
    >provided a better society. 
    
    School prayer does not provide any moral teachings, unless you read the
    prayer of the day over the loudspeaker.  That would surely fail any
    test on separation of church and state.

RE: 425.42 by POBOX::ROCUSH

> The Prayer in School issue gets more blown out of proportion with each
> passing year and the rantings of "Christian conspiracy" fringe.  

"Fringe"!?!  You have got to be nuts.  In Merrimack,  we had nice,  smiling 
faces,  running for school board,  making vague conservative type noises,  
claiming to be concerned parents,  and denying any connection what so ever
with the Christian Coalition _before_ the election.  

AFTER the election,  one of them gets an all expense paid trip to be the 
KEYNOTE SPEAKER at the National Convention of the Christian Coalition,  
they voted in school prayer,  they tried to vote in teaching biblical 
"scientific creationism",  they tried to vote in passing out New Testaments
to all the students,  You gotta be nuts.

It's not like they ran as Christian Coalition members and won.  They ran
Stealth.  Under radar.  I repeat,  YOU GOTTA BE NUTS!

This sort of trash is the most damaging thing possible for conservatives in
general.  Any conservative running for office that is a concerned parent,  
makes vague conservative type noises and denys membership in the Christian
Coalition will be suspected by large numbers of voters of being just that.


> My basic take on the subject is, if it's voluntary, what difference does
> it make.  

Calling it voluntary is bogus.  It is as voluntary as death and taxes, 
unless you got the money for private school.


Phil

    Mr. rocush,
    
    Calling one of the oldest religions in the world "fringe" is offensive
    to many people.  I truly believe that any religions younger than 4000
    years of age should be considered upstart, cultish and "fringe" and 
    should not be promoted in schools or public forums.  
    
    Or are you saying that obscure shristian sects should also be banned
    from having input?  
    
    Buddhists. moslems, hindu's?
    
    Inquiring minds ywould like to know.

    .9
    
    hear hear - very Taoist except for this bit:
    
    >to suggest anything else to be worthy of attainment is foolishness.
    
    one must learn to live with opposites but be possessed by neither -
    truly a difficult thing to do
    
    ric

    Re: .44
    
    That's nothing.  When I was in high school, we had someone running on
    the platform of eliminating humanism and Satanism in the schools. 
    ("Darn, there go the virgin sacrifices at lunch.")

RE: 425.47 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless."

Chelsea,  

Would you please tell us exactly how many virgins you sacrificed at lunch?


Enquiring Minds Want To Know.

    
    	More importantly, how many could you find in high school??
    
    	Kindergarten, maybe.  High school?  Nah.
    

    
      I remember the line, "If every Vassar student were laid
    end-to-end..."
    
      bb

I went to a school that was near a town called Vestal.

	When the song that has the line "Vestal virgins" was played, the joke
was that there were no Vestal virgins.

ME

    
    Whiter Shade of Pale

    Re: .48
    
    >Would you please tell us exactly how many virgins you sacrificed at 
    >lunch?
    
    Me?  None.

    I see that five minutes yesterday at lunch was not sufficient to
    clearly organize my thoughts.  
    
    The reason I have singled out the Christian Coalition in my basenote is
    because I see them as having the political clout at the moment to
    affect my personal life.  Yes, my personal life.  If I cannot go down
    to my local vid store and choose an NC-17 tape because CFV has
    determined that such things are not suitable for 5 year olds, my life
    is affected.  If I can't go out and see a Mapplethorpe exhibit at the
    ICA because a Christian group was offended by six out the hundreds of
    photos displayed, my life is affected.  If I can't turn on my radio and
    hear what I want to listen to because Focus on the Family has deemed
    that music unhealthy for 10 year olds, my life is affected.  If I can't
    go to my local library and borrow the books I want to read because
    they've been labeled heretical, my life is affected.  If I have to sit
    through prayers to Jesus at a public gathering, even though I do not
    believe in that god, my life is affected.
    
    As for the other extremes, excessive "political correctness", I don't
    care for that either.  The original idea of PC was admirable, to make
    people aware that actions stemming from long held stereotypes could be
    hurtful many people, especially in the workplace, where all colors and
    persuations of people earn their livelihood.  Things like responding to
    a female co-workers presentation with "Have I told you your make-up
    looks especially nice today" or "Go get me some coffee", or "When are
    you going to get pregnant and quit".  Or purposely scheduling some big
    business dealing on a Jewish holiday to dissuade the Jewish workers
    from taking the responsibility.  Or making sure to tell "fag jokes" in
    front of an acquaintance who you saw out with his boyfriend the weekend
    before.  
    
    The extreme elements of the "PC" movement have alienated people by
    invading into areas that don't concern them, and trying to eradicate
    things that weren't causing problems to begin with.  Likewise, the
    extreme elements of the "anti-PC" backlash, are using the current
    popularity of the movement to justify downright rude behavior.  Walking
    the line between the two requires one to engage their brain on both
    sides of the equation.  One needs to think out what the bottom line is,
    and dea lwith situations that affect that bottom line. Example:  
    At the workplace, the bottom line is to provide an enviroment where
    everyone can contribute to the team and get the product out the door.
    The concern is that while your employees are in the workplace, they are
    producing results, and working with other people regardless of color,
    gender, sexual persuasion, religion, etc.  What they do once they walk
    out the door is none of your business if it doesn't impact their
    ability to perform tasks.   Example: You have an apartment to rent. 
    The bottom line is that you want someone who pays their rent on time
    and keeps the place in good condition.  Why should it matter what god
    they pray to or who spends the night in their bedroom?
    
    The problem is, that deciding what's really important requires
    independent thought.  The American Way for years has been to identify
    an unpleasant problem and then to a) ban it, b) look the other way,
    c) put a band-aid on the most easily curable symptom.
    Learning to deal with the problem has never been a popular solution
    because it requires looking at something you find ugly, probing it, and
    generally thinking for oneself.  I've already been labelled a liberal
    PC lunatic in this string.  Maybe I am, because I believe that
    pornography, action movies, sex, bad words, unwanted pregnancy, hate
    radio, daytime talk shows, enviromentalists,  and condo developers are all 
    parts of today's society, and they're not going to go away.  Nor would
    I really want them to under forced conditions.  Take pornography. 
    Degrading to women, bad for my kid, etc.  Why is there a need?  What is
    missing that people need pornography?  Are all people who partake in
    the activity doing harm to others?  Are a couple who use it to jump
    start their sex life in the same category as someone who abducts people
    off the street to force them to participate in a scene that they saw in
    Torture Unlimited?  Will outright banning it remove all the bad side
    effects from our society?
    
    Will banning all "non-christian" activities from American society
    really solve the problems we face in real life?  Will a return to the
    nuclear family and traditional sex roles really bring back the
    "good-old-days"?  Will removing everything that's not acceptable for a
    toddler from the airwaves really protect our children?  Will "not
    talking" about ugly things make them go away?  Will not associating
    with "people like that" make them disappear?
    
    No, it won't.  Looking at root causes of unpleasant things, deciding
    what's a necessary evil and what's an acceptable risk, and what are
    really the societal taboos will help, but it requires seeing in shades
    of gray, and not digital black and white.  
    
    Welfare:  Those welfare queens are sapping society.  (Black) Cut off
    the funding. (White)  There are some bad apples who take advantage of
    the system.  There are others who made poor choices when young, or were
    forced into hard situations.  They want to improve their life, but lack
    the education or the means to get a real job (one with a living wage
    and health benefits).  Separate the two kinds and help the ones who
    want to better their life. (Gray)  But hey, I'm a working stiff and I
    can barely afford my mortgage and I can't afford to send my kids to
    school, why should some welfare queen <other minority> get an
    opportunity that I don't have USING MY TAX DOLLARS?  As long as I don't
    have it, you can't have it either! (Black and White).  Is the fact that
    your wages have gone down, there are fewer jobs to be had, or that health
    costs are spiralling really the fault of those minorities?  Or is one
    of the causes Late 20th Century Business Practices?  Or a changing
    marketplace?  Or greed?  Or a number of other things?  (Gray)
    
    The dumbing of kids and their atrocious behavior:  Is it really ALL the 
    NEA's  fault?  Or "stupid courses"?  Or does it have to do with
    boredom?  Or the fact that afternoon activities that previously kept
    kids out of the malls are all being eliminated?  Could the fact that
    greedy ad executives are more often targeting younger kids be affecting
    society's preoccupation with material goods?  Is banning advertisements
    the way to stop this?  Or is teaching the kids to see through the
    advertiser's glitzy images a better way to deal with it?  
    
    My take on the whole thing is that as few things as possible should be
    "banned" outright.  Let people use their brains and figure out how to
    deal with them.  End the preoccupation with what people are doing
    behind closed doors.  If it's not preventing you from obtaining your
    goals in life, what business is it of yours.  Don't perpetuate the
    "neat little boxes" syndrome.  People don't come in convenient
    categories.  Everyone has good and bad in them.  Look for the good and
    the bad and then judge whether this person is someone you want in your
    life.  The whole Rush thing feeds off of people's desire for easy
    classification.  Why do they want easy classification?  Is it too
    overwhelming to deal with the gray areas?  Why is it overwhelming?  why
    can't we as a society deal with the gray?
    
    FWIW, I can't stand Rush, daytime talk shows, hate radio, the Christian
    Coalition,  militant Hassidim, any religious fanatics out to convert
    the world.  But I will never deny them the right to exist or to ban
    them.  They are part of the world and we have to learn to co-exist with
    them.  There are of course limits.  When snipers attack the house of a
    black person, that is unacceptable.  No one will argue.  There are
    certain mores that are accepted throughout our society regardless of
    religion or political views.  Murder of an already born person,
    rape, physical assault, stealing, lying, causing another person harm,
    these are the things we have legislation for.  When a person is
    ensouled (if they even have a soul), who you should have sex with, 
    what religion one practices, what you read at home or watch in the
    movies, how many kids you should have, what you drink or smoke in the
    privacy of your own house, these are things you can't legislate because
    there are no universal societal agreement.
    
    
    I could go on, but I have work to do (that work ethic, you know) and
    I'd like to get out of here before midnight.
    
    Lisa

>    "neat little boxes" syndrome

Er, that's the "scummy_little_boxes" syndrome, Lisa.

 Frankly, as a conservative Christian, I'm not entirely sure I support 
 this "Christian Coalition" contract.  I haven't seen the whole thing,
 however.  However, while there is much in this world that I find quite
 offensive, legislating it away is not the answer, in my opinion.  Certainly
 is not going to win a lot of folks to Jesus Christ.  Hearts must be changed,
 and that can't be done by legislation.



 Jim

re .51:

Vestal, NY?

    re: .54
    
    You've said much of what I've been trying to say, and far 
    better than I could have said it.  Thanks.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Boy, I've seen a lot of convoluted reasoning in these topics before,
    but none like the last few.  Somebody complains that a conservative
    Christian won office without making a mjor point of their deepest
    feelings.  Well, I suppose it has never happened that someone paraded
    as a conservative and once in office showed their true liberal stripe? 
    I thappens on both sides and it's wrong, but I don't recall you ever
    complaining when it went the other way.
    
    When I talked about major religions I realized that there are many
    fringe, and I do mean fringe groups that might not be generally
    recognized.  The age of a religion does not make it a mjor religion. 
    Complaints about the side issues never address what the irreversible
    harm might be.  History does not support your crisis mode.
    
    If the idea that every opinion and personal feeling, belief or life
    style is equally valid and should be protected then you negate your
    argument about the laws restricting what can and can not be said, done,
    etc in the workplace.  You want it one way and argue for it, but the
    same argument to the other side appears to be invalid to you.
    

ZZ    Example: You have an apartment to rent. 
ZZ    The bottom line is that you want someone who pays their rent on
ZZ    time and keeps the place in good condition.  Why should it matter what
ZZ    god they pray to or who spends the night in their bedroom?
    
    Lisa, I had the privelage of leasing a townhouse to a couple a few
    years ago.  They were not married, yet my feeling was they have to
    determine their own destinies.
    
    I do however vehemently state the following.  IT IS MY RIGHT to be
    discriminatory in these matters, and it IS NOT YOUR RIGHT to tell me
    how I am going to conduct my personal affairs.  Just like the abortion
    issue, I reserve the very same right to self determination and it is
    NOT the peoples business to determine how bigoted or discriminatory I
    will be.  As long as it affects MY wallet, you keep out.
    
    Same goes with other things you mentioned.  The Maplethorpe exhibit for
    example.  As long as they keep their dirty laudry to themselves, they
    can exhibit their non art wherever.  Demand will determine their
    success.  However, when I have to fund such garbarg, then I as a
    citizen have the right to squawk and have the right to be heard.  
    
    Bottom line is, if the left element of our society had not foisted all
    this crap upon the masses in the first place, then the Christian
    Coalition would not be is a position of prominence.  You did it to
    yourself!
    
    -Jack

    >If I cannot go down to my local vid store and choose an NC-17 
    >tape [...], my life is affected. 
    
    >What is missing that people need pornography?
    
     Well, Lisa, what's missing? :-) Imagination, or proper instruction?
    :-)
    
    

    
    Um...since when is NC-17 pornography?

Jack, suppose you wanted to rent an apartment in some town, and no landlord
would consider you because you're Christian.  Would you slink away to the
next town?

    Personally, yes, I would.  I don't force myself where I am not
    wanted...except here that is! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Note 425.60
    
    >I do however vehemently state the following.  IT IS MY RIGHT to be
    >discriminatory in these matters
    
    No it's not.

 .64  Am I the only one who has trouble believing that?

    While everyone is rushing up to Lisa to give her the "yeah yeah,
    bravo bravo" -- and far be it from me to ruin her parade -- but
    her little diatribe has virtually nothing to do with the Contract
    with the American Family. I tried to point this out to her earlier,
    but was ignored. Apparently, I'm dealing with a write-only
    device.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled load of uninformed bull
    feces.
                     
    -b

No.

    Well, let's put it this way...you will have to prove discrimination and
    with me, let's just say you would have an ice cubes chance in hell of
    doing so!
    
    -Jack

  .69  why would anyone have to prove it when you'll freely admit to it?

    Re: .67
    
    >her little diatribe has virtually nothing to do with the Contract
    >with the American Family
    
    Did she say it did?  I guess I overlooked it.

    
    .69:
    
    Proving discrimination is OFTEN very difficult.  That doesn't mean:
    
    - that it doesn't happen, or
    
    - that it is right
    

    Why did she title this note "Contract on Independent Thought"
    if she was not making an association with the Contract with
    the American Family?

    -b

    See replies .0, .17, and .30 for a few clues.

    I wouldn't admit it.  I would tell the powers that be that it is my
    business!
    
    -Jack

    
    Lisa:
    
    A warning. Chelsea has decided what you meant. Attempt to correct
    her at your own peril; she'll make like a poodle and grab onto
    your leg and you'll never get rid of her.
    
    -b

    Re: .76
    
    >Chelsea has decided what you meant.
    
    So did you.  Unlike you, I have not made any pronouncements about what
    Lisa meant.

    > The reason I have singled out the Christian Coalition in my basenote is
    
    That's from .54 Chelsea. Now if the direct reference to the Christian
    Coalition and the title are not an indication of the subect matter
    Lisa intended to address, I would be most happy to apologize.
    
    -b

    You have established that her subject is the Christian Coalition, but
    you have not established that her subject is the Contract with the
    American Family.

    
    YAWN.
    

    Of course, we could just wait for Lisa to come back and tell us what,
    exactly, her subject is.
    
    One entirely possible scenario is that she will come back and say,
    "Hell, yes, I'm talking about the Contract with the American Family." 
    At which point, you might be tempted to say something like, "Chelsea
    was wro-ong, nanny nanny boo-boo."  At which point I would be obliged
    to point out that I was not.  I didn't say, "Hey, you peabrain, she's
    not talking about the Contract with the American Family."  What I said
    was (and I quote):
    
    "Did she say it did?  I guess I overlooked it."
    
    So you decided to get into a pissing contest that you can't possibly
    win.  Good job.

    
    Chelsea, you seem to think I care. Serious re-evaluation of
    this conclusion is in order.
    
    -b

RE: .57

	That's the place!

ME

OK - so what's this Contract with the American Family?

Some peabrained boo-boo that I've missed in recent notes?

The Christian Coalition's roadmap for Newt's 2nd 100 days.  It's got the 
Newt stamp of approval.

    Re: .82
    
    >you seem to think I care
    
    If you didn't care, why'd you bother with that little warning to Lisa? 
    You decided you wanted a pissing contest, and look where it got you.

    Because Chelsea, it's sometimes a bit of fun, in a predictable
    sort of way, to pull your chain and watch you go off. "Winning"
    this argument was not a consideration. Thank you for a bit
    of free amusement. Maybe I can make it up to you sometime.

    -b

  .87  cow doots. 

    
    Whatsa cow doot? I mean, I think I get the general idea,
    but I've never heard that expression before you used it...
    Doot's not in my dictionary.
    
    -b

I believe Dave Barry uses it.

    Re: .87
    
    So, you find it amusing to make yourself look stupid in order to "pull
    my chain."
    
    I find that amusing.

Right on, .54, right on!

 yes, it's a dave barry thing.  or at least that's where i
 first saw it, lo these many years ago.

    So, is it akin to "BS"?

    -b

See HYDRA::DAVE_BARRY notes 223, 251, 322, 688, 852 and 926.

    
    Oh like, don't anyone _dare_ just answer the bloody question! :-)
    
    -b

	no, bri, it's nothing at all like BS.  it's short for
	"cow duties" - all those little tasks that cows must perform
	before they can go out and laze around in the fields.

	hope this helps.

    Yes, Lady Di, that helps immensely. It is Chelsea's Cow Duty
    to keep going on about how I might be misinterpreting what
    Lisa said.

    -b

    
    Somehow that brings to mind cows wearing overalls and straw hats hoeing
    the fields, slopping the hogs, feeding the chickens, mucking out, etc.
    8^).                                                                  

    Doot snarf.

    You'll have to excuse my strange noting hours.  I work split shift EDT,
    and like to keep the long diatribes to a minimum during my working
    hours.  Since it is not dinner yet, I'm going to keep it short.
    
    From my position as an observer, Contract for American Family, Focus on
    the Family, Colorado Family Values, and others of their ilk, exist to
    "strengthen and re-introduce the concept of family" in american
    society, where family is defined as a male father unit who works
    outside the house, a female mother unit who cares for children, and
    whatever offspring the Christian God has blessed them with.  To
    "reintroduce the family concept" the goal appears to be to eradiacate
    all household units who don't fit into a narrowly defined concept of
    "the proper family as defined by the Bible".  To protect our children,
    the goal appears to eradicate everything that could damage the mind of
    a three year old.  To bring up our children as "moral" human beings,
    institute prayer.
    
    None of this fosters independent thought in future generations.  Instead 
    of teaching how to develop interpersonal relationships, just make
    everyone the same so that there won't be disagreement.  Instead of
    teaching children problem solving and survival skills, just get rid of
    everything you don't want them to see, or would be embarrassed about
    having to explain to them.  Instead of teaching them how to be at peace
    with themselves and develop a firm sense of identity, just tell them
    "God says this so you do it".
    
    Eventually, this train of thought affects me, because the proponents of
    these movements want me to live in the same world and be exposed to the
    same things as their toddler.  I am not a toddler.  I am an adult, and
    I deal with adult things.  I am not my parents.  I share some of the
    same opinions as they do, but I have developed my own life on my own.
    I have been brought up to be helpful to others when I can, and to treat
    others as I would have them treat me, but I have come to understand the
    point when my needs absolutely have to come before someone else's.  
    
    And that point is not cut and dry, nor is it in the same place for
    everyone.  Which is why you need to have the ability to think and be
    able to differentiate the shades of gray.  This ability is not
    developed by simply following to the letter what your deity, or Newt,
    or Camille Paglia, or Oprah, or Gloria Steinham tells to you do. 
    Listen to everything, sort it out, and draw upon your experience to
    guide you.
    
    Lisa
    

    
    Never mind that, Lisa...just tell us who was right: Brian or Chelsea?
    

    I agree with what Lisa is saying.
    
    The Nehemiah Scudders of the Christian Coalition are bound and
    determined to impose their narrow and sadly ignorant view of the world
    on everyone who falls into their clutches, and those clutches reach
    everywhere throughout this country.  The CC are not even above outright
    lies to get their agenda made into law; they field stealth candidates
    for public office who blithely deny any such agenda until in office. 
    What the CC's agenda will ultimately do if carried to fruition is to
    return us to the Dark Ages, when having an original thought could be,
    and often was, deemed heresy, punishable by excommunication or even
    death.
    
    If "Scientific Creationism" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is put
    on a par with physics, geology, and other natural sciences, can it be
    much later that "God did it, and don't try to figure out how" will
    become the standard explanation for whatever is not understood?  For a
    quick start, let's set the calendar back 500 years and forget the
    discoveries of bacteria, viruses, and rickettsia and how to deal with
    them.  You're sick because you're wicked and God is punishing you. 
    
    It's a terrifying prospect, people.

    
    Who is right is less important than the fact that they're arguing over
    what I wrote,  because sometimes arguments can bring new viewpoints
    that one may not have considered before.
    
    To tell the truth, they're both right, and they're both wrong.  I wrote
    what I wrote, I was happy with it, and no matter how carefully I choose
    my words people are going to interpret it through their own filters.
    I can't change that, nor do I feel it's proper to do so.  I can say my
    mind, and perhaps someone might store my words in the attic of their
    brain, and maybe draw on what I said when they think about things in
    the future.
    
    I also realize how ludicrous the last paragraph is in the Soapbox
    enviroment.  Soapbox is very similar to the enviroment I experienced as
    a child during large family get-togethers during the holidays.  Everyone 
    talks at the same time, and either the loudest or the most offensive gets 
    heard. I am trying to undo my years of training....
    
    LIsa
    

   What disturbs me, and again, I am a conservative Bible believeing, Baptist
 Church attending, Christian, is that this Christian Coalition is associated
 with Pat Robertson.  And while I may agree with some of the tenets in this
 contract,  I don't care for Mr. Robertson's brand of theology, nor of the 
 politicizing of Jesus Christ.  I would love people to know the joy of coming
 to know Jesus Christ and the power that lies in the Word of God.  But, that
 cannot be legislated.


  
 Jim

    
    .104:
    
    Stop being reasonable, Lisa.  There's no room for that here.
    
    ;^)
    

Maybe a return to the Dark Ages is just what we need to usher in a "true"
Renaissance.

    So, Dick, where do you draw the line?  There has to be some place in
    between your scenario (of what you think the end result of the CC's
    plans), and the current status quo that has only contributed to the
    demise of our social structure.
    
    The pendulum has swung too far to the left.  How do we stop it from 
    swinging back too far to the right, without locking it in place?
    
    
    -steve  

    Personally, I think we're currently in a "mega-Renaissance".  New
    information is pouring in from all sides at a blinding rate, which has
    never happened before in history.  Traditionally, change has been slow
    enough to give people/society time to deal with it.  Not so now. 
    Humans have to learn to deal with the rapid change of today's world or
    perish.  Perhaps acceptance of our current situation would be a first
    step in the right direction...
    
    Lisa

    But Dick, the people who don't see things their way are precisely the
    ones responsible for the unraveling of the fabric of American society.

    ;-)

    
    The same thing continues to bug me here... wild generalizations
    are being made about the people and motives behind the CWtAF,
    instead of any meaningful discussion of its contents. I'm sorry
    I picked on Lisa for this... it seems it's the bloody lot of you! :-)
    
    Overall, the CWtAF has some elements I support and some I
    don't. Calling the drafters of the CWtAF names has very little
    to do with the contents... Feel free to bitch (I know you will
    anyway), but for Gawd sakes, put away the 300psi pneumatic
    paint guns and get out something with a little finer stroke...
    
    -b

 Interestingly I read tonight that Gary Bauer, President of the Family Research
 Council and associated with Focus on the Family, is less than enthusiastic
 about the Christian Coalition, stating something similar to what I said in .105
 
 "There's nothing really new here...legislation is not likely to solve all of
  society's problems, either.  the larger question of what's happened to our
  culture and our families is really a matter of the heart and soul"..


 Jim

    
    Pardon my ignorance, but this just doesn't get much coverage in
    the media.  If somebody has a text of this proposed CWAF, could
    you post it ?  If short enough.
    
      bb

From what I read in the newspaper last night, it appears that spokespeople for
most of the major religions in the U.S. have come out against this contract.
Seems like the CC is going it alone on this one.  From what I've read, I have
to agree that for the most part, these are very misguided pieces of
legislation, many of which would be found unconstitutional if enacted.  As far
as the ones that I agree with, my reasons for supporting them are not the same
as the CC. For example, the one to do away with the agency that supports art.
I don't want to do away with it because I don't think the federal government
should be sponsoring Maplethorpe's (sp?) art.  I want to do away with it because
I don't think the federal government should be sponsoring ANY art, whether it
be a tour of the great classics or pictures of crosses soaking in urine.

Bob

    
    I found a copy of it in =wn=.  I'll post it in the next reply; it's
    1,075 lines long if you want to skip it 8^).
    

      <<< TURRIS::DISK$NOTES_PACK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V5.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 427.0     The Contract With The American Family - 1075 lines      6 replies
SUPER::GOODMAN                                     1075 lines  18-MAY-1995 11:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copied without permission from the Cristian Coalition Web page at
http://cc.org/


Christian Coalition Presents
The Contract With The American Family



Introduction

    In the 1994 midterm elections, the American people elected the first
    Republican Congress in 40 years in what was the largest transfer of
    power from a minority party to a majority party in the twentieth
    century. The message of the election was clear: the American people
    want lower taxes, less government, strong families, protection of
    innocent human life, and traditional values.

    The 104th Congress devoted its first hundred days to the Contract with
    America, including a Balanced Budget Amendment, tax relief for
    families, welfare reform, and term limits. Christian Coalition
    enthusiastically supported the Contract and launched one of the most
    extensive grassroots campaigns in its history to support the Contract's
    passage. The Coalition will continue this effort as the Contract moves
    through the Senate.

    The problems our nation faces are not all fiscal in nature. The
    American people are increasingly concerned about the coarsening of the
    culture, the breakup of the family, and a decline in civility. A recent
    Los Angeles Times poll reported that 53 percent of Americans believe
    the moral problems facing our country are more important than the
    economic problems.1 Other survey data indicates that 80 percent of
    Americans believe there is a problem of declining morality within our
    nation.2

    The Contract with the American Family is a bold agenda for Congress
    intended to strengthen families and restore common-sense values. The
    Contract represents a valuable contribution to a congressional agenda
    beyond the first hundred days. These provisions are the ten
    suggestions, not the Ten Commandments. There is no deadline or
    specified time period during which they are to be enacted. But Congress
    would be well advised to act with all due and deliberate speed. The
    provisions in the Contract enjoy support from 60 to 90 percent of the
    American people.

    These items do not represent the pro-family movement's entire agenda.
    There are many other prominent pro-family organizations that will work
    on many other issues - women in combat, welfare reform, budget policy -
    in the months ahead. This contract is designed to be the first word,
    not the last word, in developing a bold and incremental start to
    strengthening the family and restoring values.
    

    Restoring Religious Equality

    A constitutional amendment to protect the religious liberties of
    Americans in public places.

    With each passing year, people of faith grow increasingly distressed by
    the hostility of public institutions toward religious expression.
    Public interest law firms dedicated to preserving religious liberties
    receive thousands of calls every year on issues pertaining to the
    rights of students in public schools.

    Examples of hostility toward religious values and those who hold them
    abound. In Nevada, an elementary school student chosen to sing a solo
    in the school's Christmas pageant was forbidden from singing "The First
    Noel" because of its religious overtones.3 At a public elementary
    school in Rhode Island, the principal announced shortly before the
    beginning of a Christmas concert that he had censored all of the
    pageant's songs.4 A Scarsdale, New York school board banned all
    religious celebrations from schools, although parties with non-holiday
    themes were still permitted. According to the Catholic League for
    Religious and Civil Rights, the ban included "displays or exhibits,
    such as wreaths, garlands, caroling and menorahs that appear to promote
    or give approval to religious matters," as well as "candy canes, bells,
    holiday music, and Hanukkah or Christmas parties and concerts."5
    Teachers in New Jersey were told to avoid references to Easter,
    including jelly beans and the colors purple and yellow.

    Children have been told they cannot read the Bible during silent
    reading time.6 In one school, a little girl was told there was a
    problem with the book she chose to read to her class - it mentioned
    "God" four times.7

    This anti-religious bigotry is not confined to the classroom. Nativity
    scenes are now barred from federal post offices,8 and from the lawns of
    public buildings unless accompanied by a non-religious display such as
    Santa Claus. Some courthouses are prohibited from displaying the Ten
    Commandments (despite the fact that they are chiseled into the walls of
    the United States Supreme Court). And landlords have been sued by the
    state for discrimination because they refused to rent to unmarried
    couples for religious reasons.9

    This hostility toward faith is the result of 30 years of confusing and
    often quixotic jurisprudence in establishment clause cases. The Supreme
    Court's application of the three-pronged "Lemon test," first developed
    in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971),10 has become so tortuous that some court
    decisions allow states to lend textbooks, but not movie projectors,
    maps, or laboratory equipment to parochial schools; to supply guidance
    counseling services outside of parochial schools, such as mobile units,
    but not within the schools; and to provide bus services to and from
    parochial schools, but not for school field trips.11 Justice Scalia,
    who like many has argued for ending the use of this confusing test, has
    likened it to "some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly
    sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed
    and buried-"12

    Despite such rollbacks in religious rights, the American public
    consistently supports freedom of religious expression in the public
    square. An April 1994 Wirthlin poll indicates that reinstating
    voluntary school prayer not only continues to receive overwhelming
    support (78 percent of Americans), but it also enjoys support across a
    broad spectrum of Americans: 79 percent of African Americans and 80
    percent of whites support school prayer; 85 percent of low income and
    71 percent of high income Americans support school prayer; and 65
    percent of non-Christians and between 80 and 94 percent of Christians
    support school prayer.

    The Religious Equality Amendment would not restore compulsory,
    sectarian prayer or Bible-reading dictated by government officials.
    Instead, we seek a balanced approach that allows voluntary, student and
    citizen-initiated free speech in non-compulsory settings such as
    courthouse lawns, high school graduation ceremonies, and sports events.

    A survey by the Luntz Research Company found that 78 percent of all
    Americans support a Religious Equality Amendment. We urge the 104th
    Congress to pass an amendment that not only protects the rights of
    students, but the religious liberties of all Americans.


    Returning Education Control to the Local Level

    Transfer funding of the federal Department of Education to families and
    local school boards.

    The need for education reform is plainly evident if one considers the
    trends of recent decades. SAT scores have dropped by more than 75
    points since 1960.13 Ten nations outperform U.S. 13-year-olds in math
    and science tests.14 And as education performance drops, the level of
    school violence in our schools is on the rise. The dramatic increase in
    shootings and violence-related injuries occurring in our nation's
    schools is well-known. Because of the prevalence of weapons, many
    American students are greeted with metal detectors when they arrive for
    school in the morning. In 1992, 10 percent of tenth-graders admitted
    they had taken a weapon to school during the past month.15 There are
    250,000 crimes committed on school property each year.

    Parents are distressed over the failure of schools to teach children
    basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Too often, sex
    education emphasizes contraception and condom use rather than
    abstinence and self-control. Homosexuality is promoted as an acceptable
    alternative lifestyle. Outcome-based education (OBE) supplants basic
    skills. Psychological counseling takes place without parental
    involvement or notification.16 Christian Coalition members believe
    schools should reinforce rather than undermine the values taught in
    homes, churches and synagogues.

    Parental involvement and local control is the most pressing need in
    education today. A current report by the U.S. Department of Education,
    "Strong Families, Strong Schools," corroborates the fact that parental
    involvement in children's education results in higher student
    performance.17 Many local and state reform initiatives focus on
    increasing parental rights and participation in their children's
    education.

    Despite this trend at the local level, the federal government has done
    little to advance these initiatives. In 1993 and 1994, Congress
    tightened the federal choke hold on local schools by passing Goals
    2000, the Educate America Act18 and the Improving America's Schools
    Act, which re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA).19

    Christian Coalition seeks to return greater power and control over our
    children's education to parents and local communities. This reform
    begins by transferring much of the funding for the U.S. Department of
    Education to families and local school boards, and applying the
    remainder to deficit reduction.

    The U.S. currently spends approximately $275 billion per year on public
    education.20 Yet student performance and educational achievement do not
    reflect this financial investment. As Time magazine recently noted,
    "The U.S. spends a greater percentage of its gross national product on
    education (7.5 percent) than any other country except Israel, and yet
    is out-performed in math and science among 13-year-olds by more than 10
    nations, including Hungary, Taiwan and the former Soviet Union."21 Less
    than half of federal education dollars reach classrooms for
    instruction.22

    Increased spending is not the answer. In fact, the 10 states ranking
    highest in education performance do not top per-pupil expenditures.23
    Rather, the answer lies in eliminating bureaucracies, administrative
    costs, and federal restrictions that prevent effective reform at the
    local level.

    Since the time of its creation in 1980, the U.S. Department of
    Education has grown in magnitude to the point that it now consists of
    241 separate programs, a budget of $30 billion,24 and more than 5,000
    employees.25 Moreover, federal control over education has dramatically
    increased, ultimately culminating with the 1994 passage of Goals 2000
    and H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act.

    Goals 2000 established several new federal bureaucracies, including the
    National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), which
    many view as equivalent to a national school board. NESIC has powerful
    authority to certify national education standards regarding educational
    content and student performance. Although these standards are not
    binding on states, they do have national stature, and states have to
    "voluntarily" develop comparable standards in order to receive a
    portion of the billions of dollars in federal funding authorized under
    the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

    When Congress passed Goals 2000, many people predicted it would lead to
    the establishment of "politically-correct" national education
    standards, resulting in the introduction of outcome-based education
    (OBE) on a national scale. Verification of this prediction came
    quickly.

    With 1994's release of national history standards, developed with $2.2
    million in federal funding from the National Endowment for the
    Humanities and the U.S. Department of Education, it became obvious that
    national education standards would not be objective.26 Criticism of the
    biased and distorted views prevalent in both sets of standards - the
    National Standards for United States History, as well as the National
    Standards for World History - was widespread. Criticism of the U.S.
    History standards included the fact that the United States Constitution
    was never mentioned in any of the 31 standards, and was relegated to
    the supporting materials;27 the establishment of the National
    Organization of Women and Sierra Club were viewed as notable events,
    but not the first assembling of the United States Congress;28 and
    according to one reviewer, the material revealed only one quotation
    from a congressional leader, and that was Tip O'Neill calling Ronald
    Reagan "a cheerleader for selfishness."29 The World History standards
    drew widespread criticism also, particularly for their anti-Western
    bias.30

    The bias in these standards was so grave that the United States Senate
    overwhelmingly adopted (99 to 1) a resolution condemning the standards
    and expressing the sense of the Senate that NESIC not certify them.31
    Nevertheless, 10,000 copies of these standards already have been mailed
    to school administrators and others throughout the nation.32 These
    national standards undermine parental involvement and local control of
    education.

    The time to return federal education control to parents and local
    communities through elimination of the United States Department of
    Education is long overdue, and a good first step would include
    repealing Goals 2000 legislation.


    Promoting School Choice

    Enactment of legislation that will enhance parents' choice of schools
    for their children.

    School choice initiatives are sweeping the nation like wildfire.
    Sixty-two percent of Americans favor choice among public schools, and
    50 percent favor vouchers.33 School choice legislation was either
    introduced or pending in 34 states in 1993.34 These initiatives take a
    number of forms, including voucher programs, tax credits and charter
    schools.

    Voucher programs provide monetary assistance to parents for use at the
    school of their choice. Tuition tax credits achieve the same goal of
    school choice, and are preferred by some communities. Charter schools
    are a creative new initiative through which states charter and fund
    alternative schools designed to meet the needs of a diverse student
    population. Other local initiatives include the privatization of public
    schools, such as in Baltimore, Maryland and Hartford, Connecticut. As
    parents and local communities strive to reform our country's
    educational system, the federal government must do more to assist these
    efforts.

    One possible example of federal school choice legislation is S. 618,
    the Coats-Lieberman Low-income School Choice Demonstration Act. This
    legislation would establish up to 20 demonstration projects that would
    provide financial assistance to low-income parents to help them send
    their children to the school of their choice, whether public or
    private. The legislation requires an evaluation of the effectiveness of
    this demonstration initiative in order to provide objective
    documentation of the merits of school choice. With almost half of high
    school students in inner city schools failing to graduate,35
    educational reform for low-income parents in these cities is becoming
    increasingly urgent.

    We urge the swift passage of school choice legislation such as S. 618
    during the 104th Congress as a means of promoting school choice for
    parents. We believe passage of this bill will spur grassroots efforts
    to reform education and give parents greater choice in selecting the
    best school for their children.


    Protecting Parental Rights

    Enactment of a Parental Rights Act and defeat of the U.N. Convention on
    the Rights of the Child.

    The United States Constitution does not explicitly set forth
    protections for parental rights, but a long line of court cases have
    held that the United States Constitution protects the right of parents
    to control the upbringing of their children. The rights of parents,
    however, are under increasing assault in modern day society.

    For example, state officials removed an eighth-grade girl from her home
    because she objected to the ground rules (regarding use of drugs,
    curfew hours, etc.) her parents had set.36 One mother's child was
    removed from her home because the mother refused to continue to take
    her first-grade child to therapy lessons for hyperactivity.37 And in
    1992, a San Diego grand jury found that 35 to 70 percent of the
    county's foster children "never should have been removed from their
    parental homes."38

    Enactment of a Parental Rights Act will ensure that parental rights are
    not violated and ensure that parents have the foremost duty and
    responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children.
    Representatives Steve Largent (R-OK) and Mike Parker (D-MS) in the
    House, and Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL) in
    the Senate, are drafting a parental rights act to address this critical
    problem. While language is still being finalized, the authors intend
    that the Parental Rights Act of 1995 will clarify that "the right of
    parents to direct the upbringing of their children," includes
    overseeing their children's education, health care, discipline, and
    religious training. Moreover, it requires that any governmental
    interference in the parent-child relationship be justified by "clear
    and convincing evidence" that it "is essential to accomplish a
    compelling governmental interest" and that it is applied in "the least
    restrictive means" possible.

    The threat to the rights of America's parents is very real, as the
    movement to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
    exemplifies. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a human
    rights treaty adopted in 1989 by the General Assembly of the United
    Nations. It has not been ratified in the United States. In the past,
    the United States has not supported the treaty due to concerns that it
    may concede jurisdiction over United States citizens to an
    international body and international court.39

    Christian Coalition opposes the treaty because it interferes with the
    parent-child relationship, threatens the sovereignty of U.S. law, and
    elevates as "rights" such dubious provisions as access to television
    and mass media. The following are some of the examples of the absolute
    rights given to children through this treaty:

    "No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
    his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence - The child has the
    right to the protection of the law against such interference or
    attacks."40

    "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
    shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
    of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
    print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's
    choice."41

    With respect to the right of the child to freedom of association or
    peaceful assembly, "[n]o restrictions may be placed on the exercise of
    these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and
    which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
    national security or public safety, public order, the protection of
    public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of
    others."42

    Under the treaty, parents could well lose their right to prevent their
    child from associating with disreputable individuals such as
    delinquents, or receiving literature or gaining access to mass media
    communication (including films and television) that is not
    age-appropriate.

    Pursuant to the treaty, a Committee on the Rights of the Child has been
    established to review reports from nations regarding their progress in
    implementing the treaty. The committee has urged that in the area of
    sex education, parents be required to give the opinion of the child
    equal weight. The committee warned that "the possibility for parents in
    England and Wales to withdraw their children from parts of the sex
    education programmes in schools" undermines "the right of the child to
    express his/her opinion."43

    The committee's concern about soliciting children's views prior to
    "exclusion from school" should be of particular concern to parents who
    educate their children at home. It is clear that rejection of this
    treaty by the United States Senate would be in the best interests of
    American parents.


    Family-Friendly Tax Relief

    Reduce the tax burden on the American family, eliminate the marriage
    penalty, and pass the Mothers and Homemakers' Rights Act to remedy the
    unequal treatment that homemakers receive under the Internal Revenue
    Service Code with respect to saving for retirement.

    It has been said that the intact family is the most successful
    Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ever conceived. Yet the
    federal government, through the tax code, has punished families for
    working, saving, and staying together. The Contract with the American
    Family addresses not only the cultural pressures on families, but the
    financial pressures as well.

    1. Tax relief for families with children.

    In 1950 the average family of four in America paid just 2 percent of
    its adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. Today that same
    family sends one out of every four dollars to Washington. When state
    and local taxes are added, the average family of four pays 38 percent
    of its entire income in taxes, more than it spends on such essentials
    as housing, clothing and food.

    Christian Coalition's top legislative priority since 1993 has been tax
    relief for America's hard-working families. We strongly favor the $500
    tax credit for children that has been passed by the House and awaits
    action in the Senate. Our long-term goal is to restore the standard
    deduction for children to its inflation-adjusted 1946 value: $8,000 to
    $10,000 per dependent child.

    Christian Coalition also supports in concept a flat or flattened tax
    (with a generous personal exemption for children) as an ultimate goal
    to simplify the tax code, reward work and savings, and reduce the
    crushing tax burden on families.

    2. Eliminate the marriage penalty.

    Under current law, many married couples pay more in taxes than they
    would if they remained single because their combined income puts them
    into a higher tax bracket. On April 5, 1995, as part of the American
    Dream Restoration Act, the House of Representatives voted to restore
    tax fairness for married couples. H.R. 1215 makes married couples
    eligible for a tax rebate of up to $145 if their tax liability goes up
    as a result of being married. In a time when family breakups are so
    common, the Senate should pass this legislation to encourage marriage
    and ease the burden on families trying to form and stay together.

    3. The Mothers and Homemakers Rights Act.

    The Contract with the American Family calls for the enactment of
    legislation such as the Hutchison-Mikulski Individual Retirement
    Account equity bill (S. 287), which will allow homemakers to contribute
    up to $2,000 annually toward an IRA, thereby providing equitable
    treatment to spouses who work at home.

    The Internal Revenue Code currently allows a double-income married
    couple to contribute up to $4,000 per year toward retirement by
    allowing them to contribute up to $2,000 each toward an IRA. However,
    in the case of a single-income married couple, the couple can only
    contribute up to $2,250 per year toward retirement through an IRA, with
    the homemaker's contribution limited to $250. This inequity in the tax
    code reflects a disrespect for the valuable role of the homemaker in
    our society. Christian Coalition urges Congress to remedy this
    injustice by amending the tax code to allow homemakers to contribute
    equally up to $2,000 annually toward an IRA. This could provide an
    increase of up to $150,000 in savings for a couple after 30 years.44
    Furthermore, because the value of families never decreases, the
    contribution amount should be indexed to inflation.


    Restoring Respect for Human Life

    Protecting the rights of states that do not fund abortion, protecting
    innocent human life by placing real limits on late-term abortions, and
    ending funds to organizations that promote and perform abortions.

    In speaking to the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, Mother Teresa
    delivered an eloquent and stirring defense of the rights of innocent
    human life. "The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion," Mother
    Teresa of Calcutta said at the National Prayer Breakfast in February
    1994. "It is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent
    child."45

    The foundation of all our rights as Americans - to speech, assembly,
    and religious expression - are all built upon the right to life. The
    genius of the American idea is that every person is endowed by his
    Creator with certain inalienable rights, the first of which is the
    right to life.

    Christian Coalition seeks by all lawful and non-violent means to
    protect innocent human life for the disabled, the elderly, the infirm,
    and the unborn. We support constitutional and statutory protection for
    the unborn child. Our ultimate goal is to establish the humanity of the
    unborn child and to see a day when every child is safe in their
    mother's womb.

    We urge Congress to take the following action as a beginning toward
    that end.

    1. Real limits on late-term abortions by providing legal protection to
    children in the latter months of pregnancy and ending the practice of
    "partial-birth abortions."

    Most Americans would be shocked to learn about the methods that are
    used in late-term abortions in America today. These methods have
    reached the point to where a fully formed child can be completely
    delivered alive, with the exception of the child's head, and then the
    abortionist is free to end the child's life. This "partial-birth
    abortion" procedure is also known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X,
    in which forceps are used to remove second and third-trimester babies,
    with only the head remaining inside the uterus. The child's life is
    then ended, and the dead child is delivered.46

    Most tragic of all is the fact that the majority of these babies are
    alive until the end of the proceeding.47 Indeed, virtually all of the
    victims are beyond the 24th week of pregnancy, and many can survive
    outside the womb.

    It is difficult to estimate the number of partial-birth abortions
    performed, because abortion statistics in general are unreliable. The
    Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group affiliated with Planned
    Parenthood, estimates that about 10 percent of abortions occur in the
    second or third trimester. One abortionist who specializes in D&X
    procedures testified in 1992 that he had performed 700 of them.48

    Establishing real limits on late-term abortions is one of the most
    important steps Congress can take to protect innocent human life. A
    child has a better than 50-percent chance of survival outside its
    mother's womb at 26 weeks.49 But the D&X technique has been used on
    children up to 40 weeks gestation, which is a full-term pregnancy.50
    One physician experienced in this procedure admitted to having mixed
    feelings on its morality:

    "I do have moral compunctions. And if I see a case that's later, like
    after 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over
    it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's
    too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.'"51

    We call on the 104th Congress to enact restrictions on late-term
    abortions and end the practice of D&X abortion. Children at any stage
    of pregnancy should not be subject to this cruel and inhumane form of
    death, but such treatment of those who can clearly survive outside the
    mother's womb is particularly cruel.

    2. Protect the rights of states that do not wish to use taxpayer funds
    to take innocent human life.

    In 1993 Congress re-authorized the Hyde Amendment, in effect since
    1977, with rape and incest exceptions. Christian Coalition believes
    taxpayer funds should only be used to pay for an abortion when the
    mother's life is in danger.

    The Clinton administration issued a new interpretation of the Hyde
    Amendment, and rather than permitting states to use Medicaid dollars to
    fund abortion in rape and incest cases, it requires them to do so. This
    created havoc in the states because 30 states prohibited public funding
    of abortion, with the life of the mother being the sole exception.
    Another six states had reporting requirements for abortions due to rape
    and incest which were invalidated under this new directive. As a
    result, many states are now involved in litigation over this issue and
    seven states are facing administrative enforcement proceedings which
    could ultimately result in the termination of federal Medicaid funding
    to the state. Moreover, as a result of litigation, two state
    constitutional provisions have been invalidated and now the states are
    required to pay for abortion for any reason, with state funds. Enacting
    legislation to clarify the congressional intent behind the Hyde
    amendment and to protect states' rights in this area is a matter of
    urgency for the 104th Congress. 

    The Coalition urges Congress to adopt the Istook/Exxon Amendment that
    would protect the rights of the citizens of states that do not use
    taxpayer funds to take human life.

    3. End taxpayer subsidies to organizations that promote and perform
    abortions.

    We call for an end to federal funding for organizations that promote
    and perform abortions. This includes an end to funding for
    international family planning organizations that promote and perform
    abortions.

    Christian Coalition, along with numerous American taxpayers, believes
    that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that tax dollars
    should not be used to promote it. Yet, organizations that receive
    funding under Title X are required to counsel and refer young
    adolescents on abortion. This implicitly sends the message to these
    youngsters that abortion is an acceptable method of family planning.

    The merits of continued funding of the Title X program have long been
    questioned. It is estimated that one-third of the clients served
    through Title X funding are teen-agers.52 And yet, during the course of
    the 25 years of Title X's existence, the out-of-wedlock birth rate
    among girls aged 15-19 has increased 100 percent, the abortion rate for
    teens has more than doubled, and sexually transmitted diseases among
    teens also have increased.53 Today, one out of every four sexually
    experienced teen-agers becomes infected with a sexually transmitted
    disease annually.54

    Family planning expenditures for all ages under Medicaid now
    approximate $252 million annually,55 and the annual appropriation to
    the Title X family planning program is now $193 million,56 one-third of
    which is expended on adolescents. The time is long overdue for the
    United States Congress to eliminate funding for such programs. 

    Similarly, the American taxpayer should not be forced to fund
    international family planning organizations that promote abortion
    overseas. The United States contributed $50 million to the United
    Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) alone for this year,57 despite its
    involvement in China's coercive population-control program that
    includes forced abortions.58 Amnesty International USA recently
    outlined some of the reports coming out of China regarding the method
    used to enforce its "one-child" policy:

    [D]etainees were beaten and tortured to accelerate the payment of
    fines. Some were reportedly hung upside down, others received electric
    shocks on their tongue with electric batons or live wires-

    One man who could not bear to see his wife tortured in a cell for days
    attempted to sell their children in Beijing- other women pregnant eight
    or nine months were given - against their will - injections to induce
    miscarriages.59

    In fiscal year 1993, the United States contributed at least $580
    million toward world family planning programs.60 Any of this money that
    is contributed to organizations that encourage or perform abortions
    should be eliminated. Moreover, the entire budget should be reviewed to
    determine the success of the program to ensure that, like Title X, we
    are not subsidizing failed programs.


    Encouraging Support of Private Charities

    Enactment of legislation to enhance contributions to private charities
    as a first step toward transforming the bureaucratic welfare state into
    a system of private and faith-based compassion.

    A 1994 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis details the
    growing evidence that private sector charities do a better job than
    government "of getting prompt aid to those who need it most,
    encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance, preserving the family
    unit and using resources [more] efficiently."61 According to the same
    report, "94 percent of all shelters for the homeless in the U.S. are
    operated by private sector organizations."62 Studies have shown that
    "as many as 80 percent of low-income people turn to the private sector
    first when facing a crisis."63

    In light of this evidence, as well as the growing evidence of the
    failure of government programs to discourage welfare dependency, the
    federal government should take steps to encourage donations to private
    charities which serve the needy.

    In their Contract with America, House Republicans have enacted the most
    dramatic and sweeping welfare reform in decades. By turning welfare
    spending over to the states in the form of block grants, this reform
    will encourage innovation at the local level, promoting work and
    personal responsibility.

    The Contract with the American Family takes the next step. We propose
    unleashing the charitable capacity of the American people by providing
    private, non-governmental solutions to the problems of the underclass.
    Through the Salvation Army and other private charities, millions of
    Americans will be able to provide compassionate assistance to those in
    need without sending more tax dollars to a failed, discredited
    bureaucratic welfare state.

    Many citizens are not as generous in their contributions to private
    charitable organizations these days because they already are overtaxed.
    However, if given the choice between having their tax dollars subsidize
    government welfare programs or subsidize private charitable programs,
    many would prefer to designate the money to a private charity of their
    choice. Christian Coalition urges the United States Congress to enact
    legislation to give taxpayers this opportunity.

    One possible means to do so would be to allow individuals to designate
    on their income tax returns a limited amount of their taxes to
    qualified private charities. Another would be to create pilot programs
    through federal welfare block grants that earmark funding to encourage
    charitable giving and assistance to needy individuals through charities
    and religious organizations. For every dollar the taxpayer designates
    toward a private charity, the federal welfare funding to that
    taxpayer's state would be equally reduced.64 As a result, "private
    charities would compete on an equal footing with government welfare
    programs for the portion of the federal budget that is allocated to
    poverty programs," thereby increasing competition. This will not only
    change government, it will change our citizenry's pattern of thinking -
    people will once again feel more of a civic duty toward their fellow
    man.

    In the words of Acton Institute head Father Robert A. Sirico,
    "[G]overnment has no monopoly on compassion. Indeed, government is
    compassion's least able practitioner." Through a private charity
    check-off or other means, the 104th Congress can replace the welfare
    state with a culture of caring.


    Restricting Pornography

    Protecting children from exposure to pornography on the Internet and
    cable television, and from the sexual exploitation of child
    pornographers.

    1. Enactment of legislation to protect children from being exposed to
    pornography on the Internet.

    Pornography, both soft core and hard core, is freely available on the
    Internet to virtually anyone with a home computer. Several magazines
    post pornographic images that can be viewed by anyone, including
    children, for free. There are also numerous sites on the Internet where
    hard core pornography depicting a variety of explicit sexual acts, even
    rape scenes and bestiality, are available free and can be accessed with
    a few clicks of a computer button.

    Christian Coalition urges Congress to enact legislation to protect
    children from being exposed to pornography on the Internet. Criminal
    law should be amended to prohibit distribution of, or making available,
    any pornography, soft core or hard, to children, and to prohibit
    distribution of obscene hard core pornography to adults.

    2. Enactment of legislation to require cable television companies to
    completely block the video and audio on pornography channels to
    non-subscribers.

    Many children throughout the country are exposed to pornography, often
    hard core, on cable television because of incomplete scrambling of the
    signal on pornography channels. Cable companies have asserted that it
    is the parents' responsibility to guard their children. Christian
    Coalition believes that the responsibility should be on the cable
    companies to help parents keep pornography out of their homes. Cable
    companies should not be allowed to transmit pornography to
    non-subscribers. We urge Congress to require cable television companies
    to completely block the video and audio on pornography channels to
    non-subscribers.

    3. Amending the federal child pornography law to make illegal the
    possession of any child pornography.

    Sexual exploitation of children through child pornography continues to
    be a major problem in society. Possession of child pornography should
    be a crime. President Reagan proposed such a law in 1988, hoping that
    those with collections of child pornography would destroy them for fear
    of federal prosecution. In an 11th hour compromise on the bill,
    however, a conference committee of House and Senate members changed the
    Reagan bill to criminalize only the possession of "three or more" items
    of child pornography, videos, magazines, etc. Thus, federal law
    sanctions the possession of some child pornography - less than three
    pieces. A person with two hour-long videotapes depicting the rape of a
    child cannot be charged with a federal crime, yet a person with three
    photos depicting a child in a lascivious pose can. Christian Coalition
    urges that the federal child pornography law should be amended to make
    illegal the possession of any child pornography.


    Privatizing the Arts

    The National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the
    Humanities, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Legal Services
    Corporation should become voluntary organizations funded through
    private contributions.

    Christian Coalition urges the privatization of the National Endowment
    for the Arts (NEA) because we do not view such funding as a proper role
    for the United States Government. The issue is not whether the arts
    should receive funding, but rather which entity should do so - the
    government or the private sector.

    Through its grant selection process, the nea acts as an arbiter of art
    and places its endorsement or "seal of approval" on certain works. This
    federal imprimatur is as important to artists as is the funding which
    accompanies the grant. And yet, as William Bennett pointed out during
    his testimony calling for elimination of the nea, this role of arbiter
    itself should be questioned, as well as the "seal of approval" which
    gives the "official blessing - the blessing of the people of the United
    States - to things both worthy and horrible."65 This federal
    endorsement is particularly objectionable when it applies to obscenity,
    pornography, or attacks on religion.

    Despite repeated attempts by the United States Congress to place
    common-sense restrictions on federal funding of the arts, nea dollars
    continue to go toward controversial works that denigrate the religious
    beliefs and moral values of mainstream Americans.66 William Donohue,
    president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has
    joined the call for de-funding the nea, stating: "We, as Catholics,
    have rights too, and among them is the right not to be defamed, and
    this is especially true when defamation is funded with government
    money."

    At a time of fiscal restraint and budget austerity, cultural agencies
    cannot expect to be exempt from the broader realities of declining
    federal spending. Americans spend more than $7 billion annually on the
    arts; only $173 million is derived from federal funding. The
    privatization of the nea into a voluntary, charitable organization
    would unleash the creative capacity of the American people and
    de-politicize one of the most controversial agencies in recent years.
    It is an idea whose time has come.

    The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) also would be improved
    by privatization. Lynne Cheney, the neh Chairman from 1986 to 1992,
    testified in January in support of ending federal funding for the
    agency. During her testimony she explained, "The humanities - like the
    arts - have become highly politicized. Many academics and artists now
    see their purpose not as revealing truth or beauty, but as achieving
    social and political transformation. Government should not be funding
    those whose main interest is promoting an agenda."67 The controversial
    national history standards, which neh funding assisted in bringing into
    existence, are one such example.68

    William Bennett cites another example of the neh's use of taxpayer
    dollars: "[T]he neh provides funding for the Modern Language
    Association (MLA) - Their annual convention attracts over 10,000
    professors and students and reveals the type of agenda that neh grants
    make possible. Past panels include such topics as 'Lesbian Tongues
    Untied;' 'Henry James and Queer Performativity;' [and] 'Status of
    Gender and Feminism in Queer Theory;'-"69 It is clear that at a time
    when 24 percent of the average American family's budget goes to the
    federal government in taxes, we can find a better use for these tax
    dollars than through continued funding of the neh.

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is another entity that
    should rely on private funding. Federal subsidies to the Public
    Broadcasting Service cost taxpayers $350 million a year, an example of
    transfer payments from the middle-class to the well-to-do.

    Children Television Workshop, producer of "Sesame Street," reaps more
    than $100 million in licensing fees annually. Its chief executive
    officer earns $647,000 annually in salary and benefits. A rate card
    sent out by Washington, D.C. pbs affiliate WETA in 1992 noted that the
    average net worth of its contributors was $627,000; one in eight was a
    millionaire; one in seven owned a wine cellar; one in three had been to
    Europe in the previous three years.

    Would privatization cause the death-knell of public broadcasting?
    Hardly. Private and corporate contributions already make up the vast
    majority of public broadcasting's revenue. Only 14 percent of the
    Public Broadcasting Service's (PBS) budget comes from the federal
    government, and only 3 percent of the National Public Radio's (NPR)
    budget is composed of federal funds.

    Lastly, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a federally chartered
    corporation established to provide legal assistance to the poor. It
    received an appropriation of $415 million for FY 1995. What many
    Americans don't realize is that divorce proceedings are a high priority
    for many legal services grantees.70 The LSC alone paid for 210,000
    divorces in 1990, at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $50 million.
    Yet, as study after study has revealed, divorce is not helping our
    nation's poor break out of poverty. Rather, as historian Barbara Dafoe
    Whitehead has pointed out: "Children in single-parent families are six
    times as likely to be poor. Twenty-two percent of children in
    one-parent families will experience poverty during childhood for seven
    years or more, as compared with only two percent of children in
    two-parent families."71 Therefore, an agency that was established to
    help ameliorate poverty is instead fostering it through its financing
    of divorce actions.

    Christian Coalition urges Congress to privatize all four entities, the
    NEA, NEH, CPB, and LSC, and turn them into organizations funded through
    private contributions.


    Crime Victim Restitution

    Funds given to states to build prisons should encourage work, study,
    and drug testing requirements for prisoners in state correctional
    facilities, as well as requiring restitution to victims subsequent to
    release.

    Today's prisons are not designed either to punish convicts or provide
    justice to victims. In Pennsylvania, felons can receive in-cell cable
    TV.72 At a facility in Fallsburg, New York, outdoor weight training
    areas feature televisions prisoners can view as they work out.73 Hard
    labor has been replaced in many prisons with recreational activities.

    Christian Coalition urges Congress to enact legislation that will
    encourage states to instill work and study requirements for prisoners.
    More than one million inmates are imprisoned in our country's
    correctional facilities - 919,143 in state prisons and 93,708 in
    federal prisons.74 Although a majority of institutions have academic
    programs, many prisoners do not participate in them.75 In fact, a 1990
    census found that "[a]pproximately 570,000 inmates, accounting for
    two-thirds or more of both sexes in State and Federal facilities, were
    not participating in any academic activities." Moreover, about a third
    of the prison population had no work assignment, and 25 percent of the
    population was idle - meaning prisoners neither worked nor participated
    in an academic program.76

    An estimated 70 percent of inmates in U.S. prisons are functionally
    illiterate. Without the ability to read and write, these individuals
    are unable to find work outside prison, a contributing factor giving
    the United States one of the highest prison recidivism rates in the
    Western world. Literacy programs - many of which can be provided by
    private charities and prison ministries at low cost - will give
    prisoners hope and give society a better chance to absorb former
    inmates upon their release.

    Moreover, with one out of four American households victimized by crime
    each year, as well as more than 700,000 days of hospitalization
    resulting from crime-related injuries, victim restitution is very
    necessary.77 Requiring an offender to make restitution to the victim
    will not only force the offender to confront the consequences of his
    actions, but also compensate the victim monetarily.

    Christian Coalition urges Congress to remedy this by conditioning the
    receipt of federal prison construction funding by the states on
    enactment of work and study requirements. Moreover, we urge that
    restitution to victims subsequent to release also be required.


    Conclusion

    The Contract with the American Family is the first word, not the last
    word, on a cultural agenda for the 104th Congress during the
    post-100-day period. The ideas included in this document are
    suggestions, not demands, and are designed to be a help, not a
    hindrance, to Members of Congress as they seek to fulfill their mandate
    for dramatic change.

    Christian Coalition welcomes the support of Republicans and Democrats
    alike as it seeks passage of the items in this bold legislative agenda.
    There is no specified deadline on acting on the Contract. The Coalition
    and its grassroots members will work on behalf of these mainstream
    proposals in this Congress and in as many subsequent sessions of
    Congress as necessary to secure passage.

    The Contract with the American Family emerged from a survey of
    Christian Coalition members and supporters conducted in March and
    April, 1995. It has been improved during the drafting process by
    extensive polling and focus groups and consultations with members of
    Congress and their staffs. Each item in the Contract enjoys support
    from between 60 and 90 percent of the American people. More than half
    of the items in the Contract already have legislative sponsors, and
    several have already been passed by committee.

    The American people now have a Congress that is receptive to their
    desire for religious liberty, stronger families, lower taxes, local
    control of education, and tougher laws against crime. With the 
    Contract with the American Family, the nation now has an agenda with
    broad support that addresses time-honored values and cultural issues
    for the 104th Congress and beyond.


Endnotes

1. Ronald Brownstein, "Dissatisfied Public May Spell Democrat Losses," Los
Angeles Times, July 28, 1994.
2. Nationwide survey by Luntz Research and Strategic Services, conducted
February 11-12, 1995. Sample Size: 1000. Theoretical margin of sampling
error: + or - 3.1%.
3. Keith A. Fournier, Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, 1993,
p. 17. The decision was later reversed after counsel intervened. 
4. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1994 Catholic League's
1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism, p. 14.
5. Ibid.
6. Keith A. Fournier, Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, 1993,
p. 16. In both instances, the children were allowed to read their Bibles
after legal counsel intervened.
7. Only after the student's parent contacted the school board was the book allowed. 
8. Mark Kellner, "Postal Grinch Who Stole Christmas," The Washington Times,
November 20, 1994; Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1994
Catholic League's 1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism, p. 17.
9. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1994 Catholic League's
1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism, p. 16.
10. 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
11. Jesse H. Choper, The Establishment Clause and Aid to Parochial Schools
- An Update, 75 Cal.L.Rev. 5, 6-7. (1987). 
12. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist., 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2149
(1993) (Scalia, J., concurring). 
13. William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators (March
1993), p. 17.
14. "[T]he U.S. spends a greater percentage of its gross national product
on education (7.5%) than any other country except Israel, and yet is out
performed in math and science among 13-year-olds by more than 10 nations,
including Hungary, Taiwan and the former Soviet Union." Claudia Wallis, "A
Class of Their Own," Time, Oct. 31, 1994, 56
15. 140 Congressional Record S9917 (daily ed. July 27, 1994).
16. Maria Koklanaris, "Virginia parents may get option to exclude pupils
from counseling," The Washington Times, Oct. 28, 1994.
17. U.S. Department of Education, Strong Families, Strong Schools
(September 1994).
18. Pub. L. 103-227.
19. Pub. L. 103-382.
20. Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, October 31, 1994, p. 56.
21. Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, October 31, 1994, pp. 53,
56, citing a 1992 report by the Educational Testing Service. 
22. Claudia Wallis, "A Class of Their Own," Time, October 31, 1994, pp. 53, 56.
23. Carol Innerst, "Education Still Lacking Bang for Buck, The Washington
Times, September 21, 1994.  24. Family Research Council, "Freeing America's
Schools[:] The Case Against the U.S. Education Department," Family Policy,
p. 5.
25. Letter from Terrel Bell, to The Washington Post, February 1, 1995.
26. Carol Inherst, "Some Historians See New Standards as Revisionist Coup,"
The Washington Times, October 27, 1994.
27. Lynne V. Cheney, "The End of History," The Wall Street Journal, October
20, 1994. 
28. Lynne V. Cheney, "The End of History," The Wall Street Journal, October
20, 1994.
29. Ibid.
30. See Congressional Record, S1025-1040, January 18, 1995. 
31. Congressional Record, January 18, 1995, S1025-2040.
32. Statement of Senator Slade Gorton, Congressional Record, January 18,
1995, p. S1034. 
33. U.S. Department of Education, Center for Choice in Education, Issue
Brief, "Public Opinion on Choice in Education" (March 1992), Executive
Summary.
34. The Heritage Foundation, "School Choice Continues to Gain Ground,"
Business/Education Insider (June/July 1994).
35. Statement of Senator Coats, Congressional Record, March 24, 1995, S4582.
36. In re Sumey, 94 Wash.2d 757, 621 P.2d 108 (1980).
37. Matter of Ray, 408 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1978).
38. K.L. Billingsley, "Sex, Lies and County Government: Abuse Case Shows It
All," The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 19, 1992. 
39. Human Events, February 24, 1995.
40. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 16.
41. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 13.
42. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 15.
43. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Eighth Session, Consideration of
Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention, p.
3.
44. Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Congressional Record,
January 26, 1995.
45. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast,
February 3, 1994.
46. Illustration Adapted from Drawings Appearing in the February 1993 Issue
of "Life Advocate," National Right to Life News, July 14, 1993, p. 12.
47. Diane M. Gianelli, "Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion
procedure," American Medical News, July 5, 1993 (emphasis added to
quotation). 
48. Douglas Johnson, "AMA Newspaper Investigative Report Supports NRLC
Statements on Brutal 'D&X' Abortion Method," National Right to Life News,
July 14, 1993, pp. 12, 13. 
49. Ibid., p. 13.
50. Douglas Johnson, "AMA Newspaper Investigative Report Supports NRLC
Statements on Brutal 'D&X' Abortion Method," National Right to Life News,
July 14, 1993, p. 12.
51. Diane M. Gianelli, "Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion
procedure," American Medical News, July 5, 1993.
52. Family Research Council, "Suffer the Children: Title X's Family
Planning Failure," Insight, by Gracie S. Hsu; Family Research Council, "An
Estimate of Federal Spending on Contraceptive-'Safe Sex' Services for
Adolescents 1970-1993," Insight, by Charles A. Donovan, Sr., p. 2.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Family Research Council, "An Estimate of Federal Spending on
Contraceptive-'Safe Sex" Services for Adolescents 1970-1993," Insight, by
Charles A. Donovan, Sr., p. 2. 
56. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-733, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 64 (1994).
57. National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Memorandum, From Douglas
Johnson, Legislative Director, to "Interested Parties," April 20, 1995, p.
2.
58. Ibid.
59. Amnesty International USA, "People's Republic of China[:] Catholic
Villagers in Hebei Province," March 14, 1995.
60. National Right to Life Committee, Inc., "The Clinton Administration's
Promotion of Abortion as a Tool of Population Control in Less-Developed
Nations," June 1, 1994, page 2.
61. National Center for Polcy Analysis, "Why Not Abolish the Welfare
State?" (October 1994), Executive Summary. 
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. For a general discussion of this concept, see National Center for
Policy Analysis, Why Not Abolish the Welfare State? (October 1994), p. 30. 
65. Written Testimony of William J. Bennett, Before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, January 24, 1995, p.3.
66. Rod Dreher, "S&M 'Art' Video Exceeds Shocking Stage Version," The
Washington Times, January 26, 1995.
67. Written Testimony of Lynne V. Cheney, Before the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee on January 24, 1995, p.1.
68. Congressional Record, January 18, 1995, S1025-40. 
69. Written Testimony of William J. Bennett, Before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, January 24, 1995.
70. Kathleen B. DeBettencourt, Office of Policy Development, Legal Services
Corporation, "Legal Services Corporation vs. The Family," March 1988, p.15.
71. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "Dan Quayle Was Right," The Atlantic Monthly,
April 1993, p. 47.
72. Robert James Bidinotto, "Must Our Prisons Be Resorts?" Reader's Digest,
November, 1994, pp. 65, 76. 
73. Robert James Bidinotto, "Must Our Prisons Be Resorts?" Reader's Digest,
November, 1994, p. 65. 
74. U.S. Department of Justice, "State and Federal Prison Population Tops
One Million," October 27, 1994.
75. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Census of
State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1990," p. 11. 
76. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Census of
State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1990," p. 12. A survey of state
prison inmates in 1991 also substantiated that approximately one-third of
the inmates had no work assignments. See Bureau of Justice Statistics,
"Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991," p. 27.
77. H.R. Rep. No. 104-16, 104th Congress, 1st Sess. at 4 (1995).

                                                                               

Copyright � 1995 by The Christian Coalition of this page and all contents.
All Rights Reserved. 

Is a super good man allowed to post in =wn=?  I thot they don't recognize
male perchilden as capable of being super good.

    Re: .98
    
    >It is Chelsea's Cow Duty to keep going on about how I might be 
    >misinterpreting what Lisa said.
    
    Since every note I've entered has been in response to one of yours, one 
    might likewise infer that it's your Cow Duty to keep yammering about a
    subject you purport not to care about.
    
    The deal is, I don't get off your case 'til you get off mine.

>male perchilden?

Whoops, that should have been male perchildren (perSONs is sexist).

> Restoring Religious Equality

Oh yes,  and why do I suspect that one religion is more equal than others?


> Returning Education Control to the Local Level

>   Parents are distressed over the failure of schools to teach children
>   basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. 

The real problem seems to be more like that schools also teach things like 
critical thinking and science.


> Promoting School Choice

After watching the debate over a local and "liberal" school choice proposal 
that was voted down at town school meeting,  I'm convinced the only school 
choice the Christian Coalition wants to allow is the kind of school choice 
they want to require.


> Protecting Parental Rights

> The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; 

I see why this is a problem for the CC:  Adults having freedom of expression 
is probably even worse,  but harder for the CC to attempt to get put into law.


> Family-Friendly Tax Relief

Good idea.


> Restoring Respect for Human Life

I'm pro-choice and I vote. 


> Encouraging Support of Private Charities

Tax funding of charities?  No thanks.


> Restricting Pornography

Removal of all "Pornography" from the internet and cable TV?  Propose that, 
as that is the intent of these sections.  Fails the honest intent test.


> Privatizing the Arts

I support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Arts?  No.  Education.


> Crime Victim Restitution

A better idea would be to decriminalize drugs.


Phil

>(perSONs is sexist)

Aw, gawahn.

    re: .104
    
    >> Soapbox is very similar to the enviroment I experienced as
    >> a child during large family get-togethers during the holidays.  Everyone 
    >> talks at the same time, and either the loudest or the most offensive
    >> gets heard. I am trying to undo my years of training....
    
    You have mis-characterized this conference; in fact, it is precisely
    the opposite in here, and that's one of the great things about this
    conference.  Everyone can be heard, no matter what your opinion is,
    no matter how much or little you want to say, no matter how politely
    or rudely, and no matter how loudly or softly.  It's all here, nice
    and sequential, so your message can be read without anyone else
    interrupting, without being forced to be quiet, and without being
    forced out of the room.
    
    Chris             

re:.-1

and endlessly recycled...

:-)/2

      Just a couple thoughts...(slight rise in thumper index)
    
      I believe there is a principle at work in existence that goes
      something like "by beholding, we become changed."
    
      I agree Lisa that we ought not legislate against these things
      although if we got a little more specific, we might have some
      disagreements such as why is Mapplethorpe (or any other art)
      funded in the 1st place?
    
      I heard from some person who was in (I think) Montana and there
      was just NOTHING around.  The place could have come from the
      1800's.  While he was there, there was some gangland violence 
      and he thought it totally impossible.  How could this happen 
      here?  But, then he saw the TV's...
    
      Concepts that people would never think of (or at least think
      of less often), but there they were right in front of their eyes.
      And now this quaint town in Montana was enjoying the same mindset
      as urban areas plagued with real life things to behold (or at least
      much more like urban areas).
    
      They beheld and they were changed.
    
      And I appreciate your suggestions to not ban anything, I under-
      stand where you're coming from.  I'm just addressing the reality
      (as I believe it to be) that as a society we are bathed with some
      ugly things to behold and we do get desensitized to how bad things
      can be.  Never see a person get killed and watch your reaction when
      you do see it.  See 10,000 murders on TV and maybe even when seeing
      it in real life, you're aversion to the evil of the act is somewhat
      desensitized.
    
      You stressed education.  I don't know.  This earth has gotten so much
      more educated than centuries previous (as a generalization).  Those
      Germans in the 1940's weren't dumb.  They were the top dogs so far
      as philosophy was concerned - not to mention science.  But, just look
      at them!  And as a famous Jewish person who was at Nuremberg said
      when he saw one of the monsters, "I saw myself."
    
      Education ain't gonna do NOTHIN!!  Oh sure, it might stifle the
      outward act (might), but it ain't gonna change the heart.  We are 
      selfish by nature.  We need a heart-change and man hasn't demonstra- 
      ted a whole lot of success where thats concerned.  We've had quite
      a long time to figure it out if it was within our capabilities.
      
      I guess I'm taking exception to the merit you're placing on educa-
      tion.  I'm not saying its worthless, but I am saying that education
      alone doesn't change hearts.
    
      So, yeah, I am part of an ilk that sees merit to beholding divine
      love and to hoping that as I do, I am changed.
    
      But, I'm not in that Christian camp that seeks legislation.
    
      By God's grace, I want to be part of that camp that would be willing
      to relinquish my eternal salvation even for one who wants me eternally
      lost.
    
      Nothing else makes sense to me.
                                 
     							Tony

                     ___   ~----._
            _______     ~~---.__  `-.
        --~~       ~~-----.__   `-.  \
        _,--------------._   ~---. \  `.
      '~  _,------------. ~~-     `.\  |
     _,--~      _____    `        _____|_
         _,---~~          -----         `-.            /##
      ,-~   __,---~~--.       `._____,',--.`.        ,'##/
    ,' _,--~  __,----.          `  () '' ()' :    _,-' `#'
     ,~   _,-'   ,' ,--          `---' \ `.__,)--'     ,'
       ,-'      -  (                                _,'
     .'   _-~ ,'    `--                          ,-'
    /  ,-'  ,'  __                        ___,--'    _______________
     ,'  ,'~ ,-~     /            ___.ooo88o  |    ,'               `.
    /  ,' ,-'    /               ' 8888888888,'   _|                 |
      /  /    /                 '  `888888888.`.  \      TONY!!!!!!  |
     /  /  /      /            '    `888888888 |   |                 |
       '      /     /         '       `888888','   `._______________,'
         /                   '           ~~~,'
        /   /  /            '            ,-'
         /           /                 ,'         

      nothing else makes sense to me...
    
    
      ...except Spiny of course!!!

RE: 430.176 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"

> The Religious Equality Amendment (as proposed in the May 1995
> Focus On The Family newsletter):

> "In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to acknowledge 
> God according to the dictates of conscience;

I'm sure agnostics,  atheists and Buddhists will be happy to know that
their rights don't need to be mentioned,  or don't exist.

Which is it,  by the way?


Phil

 <<< Note 425.128 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

>I'm sure agnostics,  atheists and Buddhists will be happy to know that
>their rights don't need to be mentioned,  or don't exist.

    	In what way were their rights not mentioned?

    .129
    
    > In what way were their rights not mentioned?
    
    >> "In order to secure the unalienable right of the people to acknowledge
    >> God according to the dictates of conscience;
    
    This does not provide for people NOT to acknowledge God or, shock
    horror, to DENY God.  That omission violates the rights of everyone who
    does not believe in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God.

      <<< Note 425.130 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    This does not provide for people NOT to acknowledge God or, shock
>    horror, to DENY God.  
    
    	I disagree.  If that is the dictates of their conscience, they
    	are covered.
    
>    That omission violates the rights of everyone who
>    does not believe in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God.
    
    	I see the word "God" as "deity".  Maybe a better wording is in
    	order.

    .131
    
    Denying something is not the same as acknowledging it in any manner. 
    Denying something is REFUSING to acknowledge it.
    
    I'm all for changing the wording - something like "to acknowledge
    whatever deity or deities they choose, or to deny all deities,
    according to the dictates of their consciences."  You and I both know
    that there are exactly three chances for such wording to be adopted by
    the CC:  fat, slim, and none.

    	It's not the CC that has to adopt it, Dick.  It's the nation
    	that does.  The CC is only the catalyst to get this ball
    	rolling.
    
    	Or are you suggesting that the CC is so powerful and representative
    	that it is the CC that has to adopt it and not the nation as a
    	whole...

    .133
    
    The CC is the organization proposing it, and the CC has devised the
    phrasing of it.  I do not believe that the CC would accept an altered
    phrasing such as I propose because I do not believe that the CC is
    honestly willing to tolerate freedom of nonChristian worship or
    thought despite whatever CC members may say when questioned.  Members
    of the CC have too frequently demonstrated a casual willingness to
    prevaricate if doing so will further their theocratic agenda.

      <<< Note 425.134 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    The CC is the organization proposing it, and the CC has devised the
>    phrasing of it.  
    
    	You are wrong.  What is under discussion here (I'm not sure why) 
    	is the wording of an amendment which was proposed in the May
    	1995 newsletter from Focus On The Family.  It was posted in
    	430.176.  In fact, what is being proposed is intended to
    	replace a drive for organized prayer in school, counter
    	to alleged CC motives.
    
    	As for accepting altered phrasings, the FotF newsletter clearly
    	states that this is not the final or precise wording of the
    	proposed amendment.  You still have time to get your changes
    	to them!  Send your suggestions to:
    
    		Dr. James Dobson
    		Focus On The Family
    		Colorado Springs, CO 80995

Since the Amendment needs to be officially worded by Congress before
passage and ratification, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about whatever
words CC or FotF might have in mind, but I'd be keeping a close eye
on my congresscritters.

    re: .136
    
    We certainly agree on this one.