Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 545.0 by MORO::BEELER_JE:

>     In consideration of the election year we're once again faced with the
>     "character" issue of the candidates.  Seems as though Mr. Clinton's
>     character (or lack thereof) has been the primary question.

        Oh, George Bush's character has been an issue since far
        before this election, e.g., Iran-contra, the espousal of what
        he called "voodoo economics," etc.

        Marital fidelity, while very important, is hardly the only
        important issue.

        There are also non-moral issues of great importance.  One of
        the most important to me is Bush's inability, or choice, not
        to show the same kind of leadership with Congress as he
        showed with the U.N.  He was able to compromise with, for
        example, the Chinese, but he calls the one compromise he made
        with Congress "a mistake."  A failure to lead in the domestic
        political arena can be deadly -- unfortunately, mostly to
        individuals.

>     Can you, as a "religious" person, in good faith, with a clear conscious,
>     and the courage of your morals and values, cast your vote for the
>     President of the United States knowing full well that this candidate
>     has (1) tried marijuana and (2) had an "affair" outside of his/her
>     marriage?

        I have to weigh my alternatives.  I believe that George Bush
        committed something very close to treason in his involvement
        with Iran-contra.  If I had to pick one of them to marry :-},
        I'd pick George Bush.  If I had to pick one of them to be
        president, I'd pick Bill Clinton.

        Obviously, I wish my choices were different!

        I find the one-time marijuana use extremely irrelevant.

>     How would you explain it to your son if he came home and said that he'd
>     tried marijuana but didn't inhale .. and ... "what's the big deal since
>     the President of the United States did it"?
> 
>     How would you explain it to your married son if he told you that he was
>     having an affair outside of his marriage and "what's the big deal since
>     the President of the United States did it"? 

        I'd say pretty much the same thing to him that I'd say if he
        said his teacher did it, or his coach, or our pastor, or his
        friend's parents.  I don't ascribe a higher degree of moral
        leadership to our President.

        I subscribe to the attitude held by our founders towards
        political leaders and government:  you watch them carefully,
        you never let your guard down, you trust them only a little,
        you make sure they know you (the people) are the boss.  You
        look to God and your religious leaders for moral leadership,
        not your neighborhood or national politicians.

>     the fact that I'll be voting for Bush ... but ... try to keep it within
>     the context of the questions that I asked.
  
        That's OK -- it's your right.  Lots of good people are going
        to do it.  I forgive you (for you know not what you do). :-)

        Bob

Let's talk about liars.

Abraham, Jacob, and Moses are each recorded in the Bible as misrepresenting
themselves.  What David did to Bathsheba's husband was certainly less than
honorable.  Yet these men are looked up to by many as patriarchs.

Solomon's reign was marked by peace, which his name actually means in Hebrew,
and prosperity.  However, Solomon's opulence was made possible largely by
driven slave labor.  If the author of Ecclesiates was truly Solomon, as
tradition has it, then this great leader could hardly be described as
faithful to one woman in his sexual behavior.

Now, let's consider Clinton.  Because he boinked another woman, would he
boink the country?  Well, maybe.  Maybe not.  It seems to me to be possible
to boink the country without ever having boinked another woman, too.
So I guess I'm willing to take a chance.

Why?  Well, I've had enough of the policies of the present administration.
Besides, I'm not so certain about Bush's role in various cover-ups.

To be completely honest with you, I'm really not pleased with any of the viable
candidates.  I voted anyway.

Does that make me a hypocrite?  I've been called worse.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 545.2 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Abraham, Jacob, and Moses are each recorded in the Bible as misrepresenting
> themselves.  What David did to Bathsheba's husband was certainly less than
> honorable.  Yet these men are looked up to by many as patriarchs.

        God's ways seem strange, indeed:

        I Corinthians 1:27:  But God hath chosen the foolish things
        of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the
        weak things of the world to confound the things which are
        mighty;

        Bob

    I view voting as a hiring process. I'm hiring someone to do a job. In
    that case I look at things that are relevant to the job. Trust is one
    item but that pretty much rules out Bush and Clinton both. I'm not sure
    about Perot in that area as my "experience" with him is more limited.
    Call that a wash. 

    The other things to look at are what the candidates say they'll do.
    Here one can never expect a 100% match unless one is running
    themselves. So you look for the best fit. Religion may be one such item
    used in this balance but I'm not a single issue voter. Never have been.
    So I could vote for someone who has done all sorts of things I do not
    approve of as long as over all they are the best of the available
    options.

    I don't know who I'm going to vote for. Clinton is not out of the
    running for smoking pot or fooling around. He's out for the things he
    says he'll do. That he lied about other things isn't enough to make me
    believe he's lying about raising taxes and spending, or restricting
    peoples civil rights. And his experience in foreign affairs is to
    limited.

    Bush is hard to vote for because he's done a couple of things he
    promised not to do (more than just taxes). Some of these things were
    the main reason I voted for him 4 years ago. On the other hand poorly
    as he's done domestically he's handled foreign affairs very well. For the
    most part.

    Perot is very tempting because of his domestic plans. On the other hand
    he seems a little flaky and light on foreign affairs experience.

    Marrou is very much an unknown, thanks to the media, but the
    Libertarian platform is very close to my way of thinking in a lot of 
    areas. A vote for him is a "message" vote and in some ways an
    abstention.

    So I'll probably make up my mind on election day as I stare at the
    ballot and move my pencil from one box to the next. Religion will not
    play much part in the process. 

    As for using politicians as an example, my son is much too smart for
    that. We've always taught him that he was responsible for his actions.
    Also that just because someone else does it doesn't make it right.
    Using other people as a standard for behavior is a recipe for disaster.

    			Alfred

        As far as the president being a role model for children: 
        I've never known a child for whom the president was a major
        role model (but then, perhaps I've never known a really great
        president).�

        (This wouldn't stop a child from using the president's
        example as an excuse, however!)

        Besides, when we've got role models like Magic Johnson ....

        Bob
        ++++++++

        � I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Jimmy Carter as a role
        model to anybody.  It's not that I think he was a great
        president.  Rather, I think he is one of our generation's
        great men.  Quite relevantly, few other well-known Christians
        are as genuine, as loving, and as fully possessed by the God
        of love.

		I watched Sam Donaldson last night on Prime Time.  He was 
interviewing Pres. Bush and Gov. Clinton.  A *MOST* revealing interview.
Does it bother anyone else that our President has resorted to name calling
like "bozo's" and "ozone man"?  I also noticed that Gov. Clinton had all
his facts and figures right at hand while Pres. Bush had to divert and 
avoid specifics.  President Bush sounded like a loser spoiling for a fight.
I am saddened that our President cannot be "Presidential" while his opponent
does.  Yeah...its *TIME* for a change.  Perot seems dangerous to me. 


Dave

.6> Does it bother anyone else that our President has resorted to name calling
.6> like "bozo's" and "ozone man"?

No. Not really. Infidelity, dope smoking, draft dodging bothers me more.

Bubba

    RE: .7  Jerry,
    
    			I think it makes Clinton look more human.  Wasn't
    it Bush that told the troops in Desert Storm that this wouldn't be
    another Viet Nam?  Seems to me that Gov. Clinton knew it was wrong
    before Pres. Bush did and tried to convince people, *Legally*, that it
    was wrong.  Dope smoking....I guess its alright for Congress but not
    for the President of the United States.  If you are trying to find
    people who haven't smoked dope then your gonna have to look very hard
    with this generation.  Infedility....I'm wondering what in the world
    this has to do with doing the job of President.  Many of the presidents
    in history have done this but it didn't seem to effect their job.
    
    
    Dave

	RE: .8 One of the points people make about Clinton and affairs he
	may have had relates to honesty rather than morality. Can one trust
	someone to be honest to them if his wife can't trust him to keep his
	marraige vows? I guess that's not important if one conciders marraige
	vows not to be important or that those vows don't include not screwing 
	around outside of marraige. But for some people who do believe that 
	marraige means one partner and that that that vow is important it's a
	serious question. Religion aside.

				Alfred

    RE: .9  Alfred,
    
    			I do concede that point to you.  The honesty factor
    has bothered me as well.  Of course President Kennedy had the same
    issue.
    
    
    Dave

   If I vote absolutly to my convictions the slate is effectively blank.
   None of the candidates is a winner in my mind for the last 5 elections
   (presidental)I have participated in.  MY choice is predicated by the
   availability of nothing but bad choices, so I will have to select the
   person who is most likely to do what they say.  Same for every other
   office including local.  If effect I get to choose the least bad person
   not the best person.

   peace,
   Allison

  *I'm* going to be voting my convictions Tuesday,,
   
    As a Christian I'm going to vote for the candidate I see as being
 more "christian" than the others.
  Christ came to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable,
  HE calls each of us to love our neighbors,
  HE calls us to heal the sick,visit those in prisons,clothe the naked,
  HE came as a servant,and calls us to be servants.
    
 I'm voting for Clinton/Gore because I think they will lead this nation
closer to a "christian" lifestyle (in both domestic and foreign policy).

 Doug

    
    		Latest CNN poll....Clinton 41%, Bush 40% and Perot 14%.
    What ever the outcome, this is gonna be a *REAL* interesting weekend.
    
    
    Dave

    None of the candidates are paragons of virtue, as far as I'm 
    concerned.  
    
    But so what that Clinton had a joint between his lips?  I have too, 
    many times.  And *I* inhaled. :-)  So he may have committed adultery,
    granted, not a good thing, though I have too.  It was a mistake I 
    learned from.  
    
    Several things abaout the Bush administration concern me a great deal.
    One of them things is the "protection" and "advantage" it bestows 
    on certain members of the Bush family who are involved in highly 
    questionable activities.  (Perot has highlighted a couple of these 
    issues, particularly the S&L debacle): 
    
    o George's son, Neil, as director of Colorado's Silverado Savings and 
      Loan, voted to approve over $100 million in loans to his business 
      partners and when Silverado was forced to shut down, regulators were 
      told to delay the closing until _after_ election day in 1988 (Santa 
      Rosa Press Democrat, 7/19/91 and 8/6/91).
    
    o His brother, Prescott, provided "investment advice" to a Tokyo real 
      estate firm and another company who have known ties to a Japanese 
      organized-crime syndicate (San Francisco Examiner, 7/28/91).
    
    o His other son, George, as a director and $50K a year "consultant" to 
      Texas' Harken Energy, oversaw the signing of a potentially lucrative 
      contract between his company and Bahrain, a tiny island off the coast 
      of Saudi Arabia.  Coincidentally, George sold more than 200,000 
      shares of Harken stock just weeks before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, 
      an event which, together with a poor earnings report, sent Harken 
      prices tumbling  (_The Texas Observer_, 7/12/91 and 9/20/91).  Any 
      chance his decision to sell had something to do with knowledge 
      provided to him by dear old dad or his colleagues? 
    
    And I have to readily admit I am totally disgusted with the s-l-o-w 
    response of the Reagan-Bush administrations to fund AIDS education and 
    research.  More money has been spent on the swine flu epidemic.  Magic 
    Johnson left the post he was appointed to by Bush for, I believe, lack 
    of authentic administration support to the cause.  Imo, Bush and his 
    administration used Magic's situation, a virtually life-threatening 
    illness, for their own twisted, selfish purposes. 
    
    My trust in the Bush administration is practically zilch.  They're 
    seriously out of touch, and in the meantime the rich keep getting 
    richer.  Me, my standard of living hasn't improved at all.  I'm 
    struggling more now than I was 4 and 8 years ago, and I don't have 
    much to show for it.  As far as I can see, trickle down economics 
    just ain't working.  I'm going to keep my eye on the Libertarian 
    platform in the future, but this time I'm voting Democratic.  Though 
    personally, I'd feel even better if Gore's and Clinton's roles were 
    reversed.  There's a lot I like about Gore.  I think he'll make an 
    excellent president someday.
    
    Karen

    I have a hard time with the field day that the various parties and
    press have with candidate's private choices and mistakes.  To me, it
    would be better to vote for someone who has, in his/her humanity, made
    a mistake or two and risen above it than for someone who has been so
    sheltered/rigid that they have never made a mistake and has no
    experience in correcting them.
    
    Since I am a human and make mistakes on a (semi) regular basis, someone
    who could truly represent me would have to have had the same or similar
    experiences.  All too often I think we tend to see our elected
    officials as demi-gods and think that they *should* be perfect.  If
    they are demi-gods then can they truly be representative of the rest of
    us?
    
    Nanci

    
    If you would have asked me months ago who I would vote for, I wouldn't
    have known.  My convictions are exactly what made up my mind on the
    candidates and issues.
    
    My vote will be for Bush.  The reasons behind this are:
    
    +  Pro-Life beliefs
    +  Stance against homosexual agenda
    +  The next president may have to choose Justices.   This
       is the only way the Pro-Choice and Homosexuals can push their
       agenda forward.  
    +  His record in foreign policy.
    +  His belief that many of the things that Doug mentioned in note .12
       should be done by individuals out of personal convictions and not
       done by a hired entity to soothe our consciences.
    +  My belief that the Democrats stonewalled in Congress for the last
       four years to prevent any progress because they believe it was the
       only way to take the White House back.
    +  Much of the radical groups behind liberal politics have been 
       noticeably quiet:  pro-choice movement, feminists, Teddy Kennedy,
       and Jesse Jackson.  Where have they been?  Waiting to come out
       of the woodwork into key positions if the Democrats take the 
       White House.
    (SORRY ALFRED.  I JUST DON'T BELIEVE JACKSON IS THE RIGHT GUY
     TO WORK THE ISSUES THAT THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS FACED WITH.)
    +  The media is biased and has distorted facts to Clinton's benefit.
    +  I believe the economy needs to be stimulated by more money
       and raising taxes will defeat that.
    +  I believe Bush will push toward balancing budget.
    +  He believes parents have more concern for their children's
       education than that of government regardless of who's running it.
    +  I believe Bush is basically on honest man that I can trust.
    +  You don't pick your kids and brothers, but you do pick your wife.
       Another reason to vote Bush and not Clinton.
    
    My other choice might be a write-in for Rush Limbaugh!  Ha, ha...
       
    Jill

   I believed in Bush four years ago even I didn't agree with everything
   he stood for.  I believed he could accomplish a lot.  I am disappointed
   and disheartend.  Most of all I no longer believe he is any more
   capable of telling the truth than any other political incumbent.

   I wrote my earlier note with just that in mind.  I have three people
   I can vote for none of which are totally above reproach or examples
   of someone I should trust fully.  That's ok, the president only
   represents the executive branch of the govenment.  So all those
   congress people are also guilty of no better behavour than past,
   present, or future presidents.

   Peace,
   Allison

    I'll hold my nose, and vote for Bush.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 545.18 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     I'll hold my nose, and vote for Bush.
  
        Won't hardly be anybody breathing tomorrow!

    True.....oh so true.
    
    Marc H.

    
    		I am reminded by a wise man advising me to *ALWAYS* have a 
    sense of humor when listening to the political participants of an
    election.  I have been laughing my socks off. :-)  I might cry if I
    didn't.
    
    Dave

I found 2 quotes from 2 of forefathers that I believe relate to the
role Christianity played in the founding of our country and relate
to those who would drag us away from it.   

Jill
----------

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which
conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.
Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent
nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...
"We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can
never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order
and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."

George Washington's Inaugural Address.  April 30, 1789

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality
can prevail in exlusion of religious principle."

George Washington's Farewell Address, 8 years later.

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven.  We
have been preserved, the many years, in peace and prosperity.  We have
grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God.  We have forgotten the gracious hand which 
perserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us;
and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that
all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of
our own.  Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too 
self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace,
too proud to pray to the God that made us!  It behooves us, then to humble
ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and
to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

President Abraham Lincoln's Proclamatino for a National Day of Fasting,
Humility and Prayer.   April 30, 1863.
    

        Well, it's over.

        I would suggest that the political right, just as the
        religious right, must examine whether the shrillness and
        harshness of its message is essential to its principles.

        As one of our other noters has written recently:  "You can
        never have too much truth.  People don't die from an overdose
        of truth.  They die from refusing it."  I agree, but with a
        very big reservation. Truth can be misapplied.  Misapplied
        truth can hurt and kill.  Merely because a thing is true it
        does not follow that any application of it is helpful.

        The political right drove people away from it this year.  The
        religious right often seems bent on driving people away from
        Christ, justifying their actions by saying that the sword
        that they are wielding is truth.

        The sword of truth is misapplied when it strikes at people.

        Bob

re Note 30.48 by COVERT::COVERT:

>       -< It needs repeating today:  Clinton will sign this death warrant >-
  ...
> 	This act may be cited as the "Freedom of Choice Act of 1991".
  
        As I indicated elsewhere, this is one of the areas in which I
        have a disagreement with Clinton.  I would support a FOCA
        which codified the result of the most recent Supreme Court
        decision (i.e., states have increased ability to regulate but
        the fundamental choice is the woman's).

        Clinton is also in favor of death for society's convenience
        in the area of capital punishment.  I oppose that as well.

        I will be working to change Clinton's positions on these
        areas.

        Bob

Ok, now the results are in and the speeches are done.  How many of you
noticed which of the 5 candidates (Pres and VP) that gave acceptance or
concession speeches on TV thanked God in their speeches?

I found that to be a very revealing observation.

    RE: .25 I was more interested in results than speeches so did not
    listen to many. Who thanked God?
    
    			Alfred

        RE: .25:

        All I noticed was that both Bush and Clinton ended with "God
        bless America."

        Bob

    

Heavenly Father, please help us.  This country has tough times ahead.

I agree that Christians (and I won't limit that to the religious
right) do need to examine something, it's our hearts.  We need to 
examine our faithfulness to God.  We live a comfortable lifestyle 
here in the USA, that's about to end.  Many Christians live a life
that God has told us not to.  I believe the coming years will cause 
Christians to either increase their faith or leave it.  The cost for 
Christianity is about to go up in the USA.  But, I also believe that 
God's anger will not be held against those who reject His truth or 
against Christians who refuse to grow in grace.  America needs to 
return to God.  That is the only way that God will bless her 
regardless of who is president.

Bob, I do think Christians need to think about whether about our
statements and really analyze whether we are being unnecessarily
harsh or if the truth is harsh.  I don't believe God's truth can
be misapplied.  I believe that the distortion of God's truth
can be misapplied and hurt and kill like you said.  But let's 
call it what it is, a distortion is a lie.  Lies do hurt and kill.
It's a lie to use Christianity to defend hatred.   It's a lie
to use Christianity to promote ungodly principles.  It's a lie to use
Christianity as a social club.  It's a lie to use Christianity
as a self-righteous safe-haven.  It's a lie use Christianity to deny 
the power of the cross of Jesus Christ.  A lie that will end in people's 
self-destruction.  Whether I tell you that or not, does not change 
the outcome.  But it makes you more aware that their is a choice.  
Be empowered.  Choose Christ.

Economics and lack of a domestic policy drove people away from the 
political right candidates this year.  I'm not sure how amendments came 
out in your states, but Colorado's outcome was very much in line with 
the ideals of the Christian right.   

I don't justify my actions, I pray about them.  The ones that are wrong,
I confess because as a Christian I've already been forgiven, I just need
to come back into agreement with God as to what's right and what's wrong.
For my future actions, I pray that God will guide me and open my eyes
to temptations so that I can avoid them through His power and grace.
God's truth is that His grace is sufficient for us, but to grow in grace
we need to be living by God's will and not our own.  

Jill
    

re Note 545.28 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

        > I don't believe God's truth can be misapplied.

        I don't share that belief.  Such a belief sounds like magic,
        not faith.

        Bob

  RE: .28 

> I don't believe God's truth can be misapplied.

   I do, and I see people do it all the time.

   Truth is not a butterfly that lands gently on your shoulder.  It is
   a mineral that must be dug out, refined, then tested for its purity.
   Truth is a gift to ourselves for doing the work to find it and test it
   and it is the very bedrock of faith.  Some truths are self evident,
   others we have to work for.  No matter what, a thing called truth is
   not true until I have tested in all ways I can.

   I am forever wary of Greeks baring gifts they call truth, it may be
   more than it is represented to be, or less.

   Allison

    
    Before we go on in this line of discussion, I need to know something
    from you guys.
    
    Do you believe that God makes mistakes?  And do you believe God knows
    our hearts?
    
    Jill
    
    

re Note 545.31 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     Do you believe that God makes mistakes?  And do you believe God knows
>     our hearts?
  
        No to the first, yes to the second.

        However, we humans do make mistakes -- lots of them.

        Scripture describes the truth as a two-edged sword.

        A sword needs to be wielded very carefully and skillfully or
        else TERRIBLE harm may result.  A sword may even injure the
        one wielding it.

        This is in contrast to a magic wand, which merely needs to be
        waved and the magical effect results.

        (I don't know about voodoo wands. :-)

        Bob

    Do you believe that God makes mistakes?  

   	No, nor abominations.  

    And do you believe God knows our hearts?

   	Yes, I do.
   	
    How do I reconcile your questions to my search for the truth?

   Allison
    
    

    Jill,
    
    		No...I can't believe that God makes any mistakes and I
    agree with the others about humans making a lot of them but
    intrestingly God seems to be able to use even them for good.  Kinda
    like Saul and Isreal wanting a King and God knew it was wrong for them
    but let them go ahead with it all the while using it for good.
    
    Dave
    
    p.s.  Jill?  I just know you asked me a question but for the life of me
    I cannot find the topic.  This week has been just awful with work and
    all and then *KAREN* moving it to Lord knows where....  ;-)  Could you
    refresh my memory?

    

I really believe we're saying the same thing about God and His truth,
it can't be wrong.  However, we believe people can misinterpret it
and use their interpretation wrongly.  I think sometimes we get a bias 
on others in this notefile and believe everything they say is wrong or 
a bias that everything someone says is right.  I'm reminded and convicted
that both are dangerous positions.

My questions were to see if we could start to build some common ground on 
who we believe God is and what His truth is.  So far, God doesn't
make mistakes nor abominations, but people do.  Also, God knows our
hearts.  Great.  Another thing we agree on it seems is to disagree 
about the inerrancy of the Bible as God's truth.  It's a start.

Bob, you stated...  

>> A sword needs to be wielded very carefully and skillfully or
>> else TERRIBLE harm may result.  A sword may even injure the
>> one wielding it.

   Shouldn't truth cut deep?   I would think the realization that
   one has been denying the truth could be very painful.

   We are all convicted by truth in our hearts.  Everyone, whether
   we speak truth or not.  No wands or voodoo sticks.  Just an 
   intimate relationship with God.  I like the voodoo stick line.  :-)

Allison,

>> Truth is not a butterfly that lands gently on your shoulder.  It is
   a mineral that must be dug out, refined, then tested for its purity.
   Truth is a gift to ourselves for doing the work to find it and test it
   and it is the very bedrock of faith.  Some truths are self evident,
   others we have to work for.  No matter what, a thing called truth is
   not true until I have tested in all ways I can.

   Truth is a gift to ourselves?  I believe truth is from God and
   therefore we must seek God to find truth.  Are you saying that
   God's truth must first be tested by Allison to be true.  Wow!
   I hope we get to stand together on judgement day, I want to 
   hear how you convince God of that!

>>I am forever wary of Greeks baring gifts they call truth, it may be
   more than it is represented to be, or less.

   Alot of things are not what they seem, not just Greeks bearing gifts. :-) 

>> How do I reconcile your questions to my search for the truth?

   I believe you're capable of choosing how or if to do that.  Don't you?

Jill
    

    
    Good!  Dave agrees too!
    
    I believe it's vanished.  It was moved from 546 to 23.  Now my note
    is no more.  <weeping, sobbing>  No notification or explanation of 
    why, it's just non-existent.  Maybe I anger a moderator or two, so
    the gods that be, deleted me.  I don't honestly know where it is
    or it's replies.  I imagine it didn't fit in with genre.  Maybe it 
    was relocated again.  Oh well.
    
    But...I believe it was how do you interpret John 14:6,7.  
    I stated that I thought God made some truths obvious in the Bible.
    
    Jill

<   Truth is a gift to ourselves?  I believe truth is from God and
<   therefore we must seek God to find truth.  Are you saying that
<   God's truth must first be tested by Allison to be true.  Wow!
<   I hope we get to stand together on judgement day, I want to 
<   hear how you convince God of that!

   You certainly took a quantum leap there.  Since God does not speak
   to me and I am not privy to Gods meanings I'm am left with a book
   of words transcribed by men, translated by men and is of man.  Do
   I discard it, no.  It is for me to mine it for it's riches not lay
   back and admire it for the more obvious surface beauty.  If I should
   be so fortunate to see God on the judgement day it is because God
   summond me to be there, not to justfy my errors.

<>> How do I reconcile your questions to my search for the truth?

<   I believe you're capable of choosing how or if to do that.  Don't you?

   I really have no idea what your answer is.  Is there a typo?

   Allison
    

re Note 545.35 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>    Shouldn't truth cut deep?   I would think the realization that
>    one has been denying the truth could be very painful.

        The point is that not all deep cuts -- even those inflicted
        by "the truth" -- are beneficial!  Some leave terrible scars
        and permanent loss of function.

        I've seen ample evidence for that.

        A surgeon is much more than just a person with a very sharp
        knife!


>    Are you saying that
>    God's truth must first be tested by Allison to be true.  Wow!
>    I hope we get to stand together on judgment day, I want to 
>    hear how you convince God of that!

        (Jill, I probably shouldn't respond to your response to
        Allison, but I do identify with what Allison wrote and so I
        feel my response may be useful to this discussion:)

        While you are wondering about how Allison might convince God
        that she needed to test God's truth, you might give some
        thought to how you will convince God that the truth you
        followed is God's.  I think that they are fundamentally the
        same question.)

        Bob

    RE: Jill  vanished notes....
    
    		Well, I know the Moderator in question and I can without
    any resveration say that it wasn't on purpose.  I don't know how many
    note files your "into" but I will say that this does happen from time
    to time so its just a C-P thang.  I'll look the passage up and get back
    to you on that.  Now....of course there are truths *I* think are
    obvious but I will say that after teaching the Bible the last 15 years
    those truths are not obvious to all Chrisrians even, so with
    non-Christians.....well.....its difficult sometimes.  Its called the
    "milk" of the word.
    
    Dave

    Jill,
    
    		Lets make that "not just a C-P thang."  <sighZ its been a
    looooong day.
    
    Dave

Allison,

>> You certainly took a quantum leap there.  Since God does not speak
   to me and I am not privy to Gods meanings I'm am left with a book
   of words transcribed by men, translated by men and is of man.  Do
   I discard it, no.  It is for me to mine it for it's riches not lay
   back and admire it for the more obvious surface beauty.  If I should
   be so fortunate to see God on the judgement day it is because God
   summond me to be there, not to justfy my errors.

   You see, that's where we part company.  I believe God dwells in my
   heart and helps me discern what His Word says.  The Holy Spirit
   knows God's heart and the hearts of men.  It's His job to reconcile them.

   Allison, we will ALL be so fortunate or unfortunate to stand before Him 
   on judgement day.  It's not an invitation only event, it's a mandatory  
   event for all people.  We will all answer the question "Who did you say 
   my son was?"  And Bob believe me, I think of it daily with amazement,
   awe, and sincere thanks to God, because by my own actions I would be
   damned, but because I accept the message of the cross, God will judge
   me by the life Jesus lead.

A: How do I reconcile your questions to my search for the truth?
J: I believe you're capable of choosing how or if to do that.  Don't you?
A: I really have no idea what your answer is.  Is there a typo?
J: You have the God-given capability to choose how you will reconcile
   my questions to your search for truth or to even choose if you will
   or not (ie..in one ear, out the other.)  It's not my place to reconcile   
   things for you.  I can share things with you, but that's it.  
   Don't you agree? 

So, Bob.  If you need special training for the sword of truth, where on
earth do you get it?   I go to the Bible.  I believe that's the Christians
and indeed all people's Owner's manual.  Where do you go for training?

Jill
    

Hi Dave,

C-P is the only notesfile I'm really active in.  I read a few others every
once in a while, but I've never seen this happen.  Although, I'll admit
none of the other files are controversial.

Dave I really think the truths are obvious to all Christians, but they
just don't like them.  They are not convenient for them.  We live in a
day and country of convenience.  We've learned to "HAVE IT YOUR WAY."
Christians have been buying into the world's message, not God's and
we'll be held accountable.  

Non-Christians are looking for the "truth."  It's out there, but they
have the same trouble accepting it.  They still accountable for it.

Jill


    

    RE: .42  Jill,
    
    			This does happen in other files also.
    
    			Here is where you and I part company.  The simplest
    aspect (and primary also) is salvation.  Just look at the different
    ideas on that subject.  Some are Calvinistic and others are not.  So
    when we say that truth is obvious, you can only speak for yourself.
    After all thats the only person you really know about....right?
    
    
    Dave

    
    So the simple, primary aspect of John 14:6,7 is salvation.  We agree
    then the it's talks about salvation.  The Bible says there's only One
    Way and it's Jesus Christ.  Do you part company with me on that?
    Or that others do?
    

    Jill
    

<   You see, that's where we part company.  I believe God dwells in my
<   heart and helps me discern what His Word says.  The Holy Spirit
<   knows God's heart and the hearts of men.  It's His job to reconcile them.

   Jill,

   When did I say we were in the same company?  Reread what I said.  I
   did not say God how guides me or define Gods place in my soul.


<   Allison, we will ALL be so fortunate or unfortunate to stand before Him 
<   on judgement day.  It's not an invitation only event, it's a mandatory  
<   event for all people.  We will all answer the question "Who did you say 
<   my son was?"  And Bob believe me, I think of it daily with amazement,

   I have faith the the question will have been answered before I arrive.

<J: You have the God-given capability to choose how you will reconcile
<   my questions to your search for truth or to even choose if you will
<   or not (ie..in one ear, out the other.)  It's not my place to reconcile   
<   things for you.  I can share things with you, but that's it.  
<   Don't you agree? 

   Thanks, you could have said that the first time and save me guessing.
   Yes I do choose, God give me choices as part of the lesson plan and
   oddly enough I do learn.  

   What is odd was I was not trying to reconcile your words with Gods.
   I was however trying to reconcile your question with the former note
   you wrote, an entirely different matter.  I do agree, I have a choice
   and I try to exercise it.  Then again your presence may just be another
   lesson from God as part of my faith journey.

   Allison

Jill .42,

	Since you say you don't note much elsewhere, you may not realize
that there is a Bible-centered conference, where notes are restricted to
only those which are in agreement with conservative understandings of the
Bible.  I did a SHOW MEMBER there and didn't find your name.  You are welcome
to continue to note here, of course.  In fact, you may feel it your mission
to stay and make sure us "heathens" don't get away with saying anything even
slightly heretical or extra-biblical.  However, you may find greater affinity
there.

	To add it to your notebook just type:

	ADD ENTRY GOLF::CHRISTIAN

	or press keypad 7 now.

Peace,
Richard

    
    Allison,

    I was talking about no longer being on the common ground that we had 
    found.  I'm trying to understand all of your beliefs.  You did say that
    God doesn't speak to you directly implying a less intimate 
    relationship than I have.  Also from your note .30 it sounds like you
    have to grope around to try to find truth and how would you know  when
    you have it?  Do you have to try something and then find out that  it
    isn't truth and in the meantime destroy your life?  That's sad. I think
    so many of the non-Biblical things that people say are alright for
    people, are so destructive.  I thank God that I don't have to go
    through that.

    As the day goes on I continue to thank God that he's in control.  He is
    refining his church.  We need to be beacons, light on a hill that can
    be seen in the distance.  Not hiding.  Godly change is going to happen
    in America because of our churches, not in government offices.
    Christians will not grow silent or go away.  God has already won the
    battle.  The clock is ticking down.  How will Americans choose?   God
    already knows how we'll choose individually.  You're right about that
    Allison, but that doesn't mean He's not going to require you to answer
    the question.  Also, I didn't say to reconcile my words to God's words.
    I said God has given each of us the ability to reconcile others
    opinions against our own.   I didn't realize your faith journey/search
    for truth had nothing to do with God's truth.  My mistake.

    Oh excuse me.  I see that you've never written a statement that someone
    didn't understand before.  I now understand why you don't feel a need
    for  God being that you're obviously perfect.

    Jill
    

    

    Thank you Richard.  Actually, I did look at the CHRISTIAN conference 
    some time ago for about a month.   But like my Lord said a physician 
    doesn't come to heal people who are healthy, but those who are sick.  
    This is definitely where I belong.  The fields are ripe with harvest.  
    I feel perfectly uncomfortable here and that's how I prefer it.  
    Although I'm sure many would be glad to move me out.  Perhaps some of 
    the other members will take advantage of your kind offer; Allison, 
    Dave, Bob, anyone, anyone, Bueller?  :-)

    Thanks again, Jill
    

>    Oh excuse me.  I see that you've never written a statement that someone
>    didn't understand before.  I now understand why you don't feel a need
>    for  God being that you're obviously perfect.

Jill,

	So, how many have you won over to believing the things you believe
with this approach?

	My guess: zero (0)

    Jill,
    
    Apparently you didn't read my reply to you (500.55) about the moving 
    of your notes re: The way, the Truth and The life.  I guess you didn't 
    either Dave.
    
    Karen         

    .48,  Most doctors I've met demonstrate great respect for the
    dignity of their patients.  Not all, of course.
    
    Richard

Yeah, Richard, let's have a sarcasm contest.

For the greater glory, and all.

    RE: .44 Jill,
    
    			Yes Jill, I agree.  We are in the same company
    though I did ask a question and you didn't bother to answer.  What say
    we make this a two way discussion instead of you leading me where you
    want...ok?
    
    			In this verse you say it says one thing.  Ok.  I'll
    accept that.  But how do *I* know you believe its true?  You've said
    nothing about how it changed your life, I've seen *NO* testimony from
    you.  You see, thats what my point is.  If you cannot apply it to your
    own life then what good is it?  And how are non-Christians supposed to
    understand where you are coming from if they hear or see nothing of
    what it truely means in your life.  Give them a *REASON* to want what
    you have.  
    
    			For over a year now I have been waiting for the
    fundimentelists in this file to truely exhibit their salvation.  Even
    Paul shared what happened to him on that road.  Thats the reason why I
    asked Mr. Covert to read a specific book.  Its main purpose is to help
    you put a testimony together for presentation.  Sure, you can spout all
    the Bible you want but until you make it real for people you will not
    convert many.
    
    
    Dave

    /john,
    
    	I concede the contest.
    
    	Actually, my replies were not intended to express sarcasm.  And God
    knows my heart.  It's fairly obvious you do not.  No sarcasm intended
    here, either.
    
    	Your continued negativity here will fail to arouse further
    response from me.
    
    	I love you, /john, in Christ.
    
    Richard

.48> Perhaps some of the other members will take advantage of your
.48> kind offer; Allison, Dave, Bob, anyone, anyone, Bueller?  :-)

I just hate it when I get left out of a social list like this!

Bubba

    
    		I will say that you would be in *VERY* good company. 
    Though I just hate the thought of Karen, Richard, Mike and a host of
    others not included.  But just think....*I* did make the list! :-)
    
    
    Dave

    That's okay, Dave. :-) I've spent a good deal of time there already.
    So hasn't Richard. And, that's where Mike and I met and first discussed
    the birth of this conference.  *Fond* memories, aye Mike? :-)
    
    Anyway, it's an ...interesting... place to visit.
    
    Karen

    I affirm that I am a Christian.  I deny that I am a conservative.
    Christ is at the center of my life and not the Bible.
    
    I wouldn't have used the word "sarcasm" but I'll use the words
    "confused" and "self-deprecatory" to describe what you've written in
    545.46.  But I'd like you to speak for yourself.  In sincerity, what
    motivates your description of participants here as "heathens" and
    "slightly heretical or extra-biblical"?
    
    I reject such motives imputed to me.  Christians we are "so in Christ
    we who are many from one body, and each member belongs to all the
    others" Romans 12:5

    
    >I affirm that I am a Christian.  I deny that I am a conservative.
    >Christ is at the center of my life and not the Bible.
    
    
    		Now here's a statement I fully agree with!  But I do have
    this awful urge to ask if you voted for Bush. :-)
    
    Dave

Note 545.58

>   In sincerity, what
>   motivates your description of participants here as "heathens" and
>   "slightly heretical or extra-biblical"?

In sincerity?  I suppose I'm projecting what I suspect are the perceptions
of some.  I suspect the mere existence of this conference is a source of
enormous consternation for some.  It's really not a difficult conclusion
to arrive at when "A Great Evil," "Wicked," and a host of other less-than-
complimentary labels persist in being applied to participants and what they
have to share here.

Peace,
Richard

   RE: .47

   Jill,

   I just don't know how to answer you.  You don't see the metaphors
   I use, nor do you accept simple plain statements for what they are.

   Try Dir/auth=parent *.*

   You will see I question, evolve, and sometimes reject and even retrace
   ground to see if I missed something.  Your assumptions of me are, um
   nice but don't represent me.  You don't know me, or have met me,
   and my experiences are very differnt.

   You are right we are not on common ground and we likely never were.
   You talk of an intimate relationship with God, yours talks, mine
   lays paths.  Does it make a difference if the choice is to listen
   or pick a path.  I don't think so, some learn by listening, some
   seeing, others doing.  Do I grope?  Yes, then I must look at what 
   is before me to see the choices.  Just as you grope to understand
   me.  If you had the answers most of this conversation would not
   happen as you would be on common ground.  I do however thank God
   for groping as you call it, I learn from that as well.  No lesson
   is ever wasted.

   Your words contain condemnation of me.  That is for God not you.

   As far as being a good communicator, that is a lesson for me.  I never
   said I am perfect it is your sarcasm reminding me of what I know too
   well.  I am imperfect, that is not news.  As far has having the answers,
   you keep telling me you do, all I know is I don't.  

   Allison
    

    Richard, pick a note and let's have a dialog over what is the source of
    evil in the world.  Isn't that what this conference is about?

    I don't have a clue what's meant by CP-speak term "projection".

    As for labels, it is you rather than me who has chosen to apply labels,
    to me and then to yourself.  You yourself commit the fault you accuse
    me of.

    re:52
    
    /john
    
    As far as sarcasm goes....I'm afraid you have won.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 545.62 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     I don't have a clue what's meant by CP-speak term "projection".
  
        According to the Random House Dictionary, second edition,
        unabridged:

        "... 11. Psychol. a. the tendency to ascribe to another
        person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself,
        or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings,
        thoughts, etc. in some way"

        Bob

    

I'm human and I make mistakes.  Sarcasm is such a part of this culture that
it's hard not to get caught in it.  I try hard not to get caught up in the
antagonism here, but when everyone is attacking one's faith it's difficult.
I will not try harder though, I'll try less and give more control to God
to move me.  It's true that sarcasm will win few souls for Christ, I gave
way to my humanness, but I don't always.  Over the long haul, not preaching
the gospel at all will save no people and preaching the gospel even with 
my humanness showing will.  I'm forgiven and I repent and God works with me.

Dave I do try to relate what Christ has done in my life.  I guess it's not 
enough to talk about that Christ died for my sins so that I could have 
eternal life.  It's not enough to talk about having to become on fire for God
and that my church and other churches need to be getting the Word out
into the world.  It's not enough to say that I pray about my actions.
That I confess them and pray about those in the future.  That God's grace
is sufficient for me.  It's just not enough to talk about having an
intimate relationship with God.  That he dwells in my heart and helps
me to understand His Word and live on a daily basis.  That I think about
what I'm going to say on the day of judgement.  That I know I'm accountable
to God for everything, but I'll be judged not by my life, but Christ's.
That God has put it in my heart to tell others about the good news.  It's not
me that will save anyone.  The Holy Spirit works with them.  I know that
despite my faith, my humanness shows through all too often hurting my
witness, but God did choose me and I am trying to submit more to Him.  I
do know that I take every ache and pain to God because He heals the achey,
breaky heart.  I thank Him that He's in control and that I'm part of His
plan.  The Bible is constantly disputed and people find fault with it, yet
look how many people have been saved by it's message.  

I don't know only about me.  I know the basic nature of people.  I know 
that we were all created by the same God, the God of the Bible.  I know 
that without Him life isn't worth living.  Without God, life is just alot
of motions and a mess of emotions that are meaningless in the end.  For
about 6 years I walked away from the church.  I stopped growing in grace.
It was a miserable time in my life.  But God kept calling me back and
my life is more abundant now.  I have true joy and peace, not just
happiness and lack of conflict.  He requires that I tell others about Him.  
Notes is an imperfect medium, but it's what I have to reach this audience.  
You can't fully see God's effect on my life, but you can't fully miss it 
either.  I take your point and will let God keep refining me.  I've made 
my choice, and I will follow Jesus.  Others don't even realize they need 
to make that choice.  I'll try to put more of what God's done in my life 
into these notes and you start preaching the gospel.  Then we'll both have 
a good balance.  

Allison, my God is not one dimensional in that He only talks to me, He leads 
me, He comforts me, He encourages me, He guides me, He defends me, He saves 
me, He loves me, He rebukes me, He forgives me, He changes me, He judges me.
He is the One that I take everything to.  I praise Him, worship Him,
submit to Him, acknowledge Him in everything, thank Him for the blessings
He's bestowed on me, ask Him for guidance, take my needs to Him, ask to
know His will, take my problems to Him, confess and repent my sins to Him,
ask Him to open my eyes to the temptations of the devil, to put on my 
spiritual armor, and to move in the lives of others who don't yet know
Him, and to draw back those that know Him yet have stopped growing in 
His grace.  I keep close reign on my actions and confess them daily so
that God listens to my prayers.  

Allison, my words are not what will condemn you that is for sure.  They
are there to warn you that God will judge you in accordance with your 
sins.  Now, knowing my life, I would not want to stand before God and
answer for all I've done or haven't done.  While God does love us, He 
can't and won't tolerate sins.  Without Christ, a person will be judged 
for their sins.  With Christ, a person will be judged by Jesus's perfect, 
sinless life.  Then we will be rewarded for what we did in accordance 
to God's will.  Christians will stay in heaven with God for eternity, 
non-Christians will be sent to hell to suffer for all of eternity.  God 
is loving, but He is also just.   Again, I say God is not one dimensional.  
He is not only love.  Again, I say I do not condemn you, the choice
people make in life to not accept Christ is the only thing that can condemn 
them.   I only ask you to think about the choice you have.  God accepts 
everyone that accepts Him.

Jill, a bond-servant of Christ
    

    RE: .65  Jill,
    
    			Thank you Jill, that was a wonderful note and I
    think people in this file will respond better to you because of it.
    I am reminded of a friend of mine who told me that the word "gospel"
    in the original language, means "the life's story of someone".  Of
    course now it means the "truth: or "final word".  So when Jesus 
    commanded us to follow him, I think he also wants us to share the
    happiness our life with him and what it means to us personally. 
    
    			I also think it good that you shared that you had
    been "out of fellowship" with God for some 6 years.  That might give
    you a perspective on how some others, who have also left, might be
    feeling.  I try to ask myself, when witnessing, how would *I* want to
    be approached and what would have been most effective during that time
    when I didn't know God.   For me, it boils down to loving people into
    heaven rather than trying to scare them out of hell.  Like providing
    an understanding ear when they do not understand and react in a
    negative way.  I don't say "YOUR WRONG!!!". :-)  I try to let them know 
    the love and care I recieved when I was in very much the same place
    they are now.  It works for me.
    
    
    Dave

   Jill,

   Thankyou for your testimony.  I am happy that you have found a path
   that is correct for you.  

   Allison

	Speaking of voting - which is in the title of this topic - I'm feeling
a bit dazed.  You see, I've never had a presidential candidate for whom I voted
actually get elected before.  It's a most unfamiliar feeling.  I'm not jubilant.
And if Clinton doesn't measure up, as far as I'm concerned, he'll be a single
termer, too.

	Also, I cannot be elated when there are people suffering such grievous
feelings over the passage of Amentment 2.  The mayor of Denver was on the news
last night saying that the city will effectively ignor the legislation.

Peace,
Richard

   Richard,

   Well, as a first time voter I was thrilled to have a chance to pick
   candidates that just might make a differnce.  Then again in a former
   life I voted for Bush.

   Peace,
   Allison

    .62, Is this the way you typically respond to people who open themselves
    up to you 'in sincerity'?
    
    Richard
    

    

Thanks Dave for your concern for souls.  I will try to keep a good 
balance of preaching God's word and it's effect on my life.  I agree 
both are needed.

I've also been taught that the word gospel stems from a word that means
good news.  

That's not the first time I've shared about being out of fellowship.  I've
shared that with a couple C-P noters who have expressed that they walked 
away from organized religion.  There is a time to share these things and 
there are times when I have to defend the Word of God against lies put
forth.  If someone is lost and I only give supportive comments about what 
they believe, doesn't that enable them to stay lost?  I'm not saying that 
truth has to come without loving and caring, but I can't condon everything
either.

Colossians 2:8
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive 
 philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles
 of this world rather than on Christ."

It's God that reaches hearts, not me.  He may use something I say to
affect someone or he may use something that a non-Christian says to 
convict somebody.  I would imagine that there are those that read this
file who are just as turned off by what others say, as they are by 
what you term "fundamentalist" Christians.  They are making a choice 
of what to believe.  It's critical to talk about love and acceptance, but 
I can't hide the reality that there is a hell.  The Bible doesn't.  People do 
need to know that their whole life boils down to a choice.  I have found 
the way.  I have to share that with others.  It's the only way.  There is 
no room for compromise on that.  There are not multiple paths.  There is 
one way to God.  We all come from different paths TO that reality, but 
it is the only reality.  Is that a harsh message?  Yeah, I guess it is.  
But people are going to stay lost without it.

Jill
    

Richard,

Since we're back to speaking about voting.  Of course, I'm not happy with
the outcome for president.  Clinton will have no excuse not to have this
country totally straightened out since he's got a congress full of democrats.
And praise God that he will have a cure for AIDS within his term!  I heard
him say it.  There has never been a cure for a virus in all of history,
but President Clinton will do it!  Amen!  All aboard the Clinton express.
When asked on Wednesday about keeping the promises he made during the
campaign, he said "What promises?"  Should prove interesting!  I don't 
believe Clinton will measure up and will be a single termer.  Although,  
that will probably be way more than enough damage.  

As for Amendment 2, I believe both the Mayor of Denver and the Governor
of Colorado should be removed from office the instant they ignor this
legislation.  How dare they ignore a mandate of the people!!!  The country
is supposed to be run by the people.  If they don't have to settle for
what the people have decided, why do we decide anything?  Indeed, why
don't we just admit this is a communist state and be done with all this
election stuff?   I'm sure people suffering such grievous feelings
over the passage of Amendment 2 are outshadowed by those who suffer
such grievous feeling over the passage of Clinton.  

Jill
    

    .69 Allison,
    
    	Well, I've been voting in elections since 1972.  Until now, it's
    been an unbroken string of losses for whoever my presidential candidate
    was.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

.72> As for Amendment 2, I believe both the Mayor of Denver and the Governor
.72> of Colorado should be removed from office the instant they ignor this
.72> legislation.

Don't worry ... it's called "political rhetoric" ... I doubt seriously
that he'll "ignore" it.  That would be policital suicide and no politician
in his/her right mind would commit suicide like that.  In retrospect, if
he's *said* that he'll ignore the law he's already committed political
suicide.

Where, in the State of Colorado, would he get an opportunity to even
try his case if he decided to "ignore" the amendment?  No self-respecting
judge in the state would even hear a case which "ignored" the law.

Bubba

Did all the "real" Christians vote for Bush?

Was it other than "real" Christians who voted for Bill Clinton?

Was it, as Randall Terry indicated, a sin to vote the Clinton/Gore ticket?


Richard

    .74
    
    Bubba,
    
    Since Denver already has a municipal anti-discrimination ordinance in
    place, I think the strategy is to act as if that law had not been
    overturned by Amendment 2 and force it to be thrown into the courts.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Richard,  I'm not saying that you can't be or vote for a Democrat and
    be a Christian.  It's just that this year the Republican platform has
    was more closely aligned with Christian values.  
    
    Jill

re Note 545.72 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

> When asked on Wednesday about keeping the promises he made during the
> campaign, he said "What promises?"  

        Our group processes several national wire services through
        our systems, and I couldn't find a news report to that
        effect.  Could you please cite your source?


> As for Amendment 2, I believe both the Mayor of Denver and the Governor
> of Colorado should be removed from office the instant they ignor this
> legislation.  

        In most states the oath of office requires the executive to
        uphold the constitution of the state.  If the governor
        believes that a given piece of legislation is
        unconstitutional, the governor is usually bound to favor the
        constitution over the legislation.

        Perhaps a similar oath applies to the Mayor.

        (This, by the way, was the source of the infamous Mike
        Dukakis veto of legislation mandating the recitation of the
        Pledge of Allegiance in Massachusetts schools -- the Mass
        Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion prior to the signing
        that the law was unconstitutional.  Of course George Bush,
        being the great defender of the rule of law that he is, said
        that he would have signed it anyway.)

        Bob

    Irrespective of how odious I find any law .. there's something inside
    of me that says that there are ways to change the law.  That's what
    this country is all about.  Sure, there's "civil disobedience" measures
    and that's fine (as long as it is within the law) but for this mayor to
    patently state that he will "ignore" the law is .. well .. despicable.
    
    This guy is a servant of the people - if he doesn't like the way the
    people voted on this then the most honorable thing for him to do is
    resign .. not .. not state that he will "ignore the law".
    
    How do you explain something like that to your kids?  If you don't like
    a law .. just ignore it?

    Now, don't go flaming me for saying that I'm in favor of this
    amendment, I'm not ... but for the time being it is the law.
    
    Bubba

    Hi Bob,

    I guy I know saw it on TV yesterday.  I don't know what network.  When
    I see him next week, I'll try to remember to ask.  I'm sure that's not
    something the liberal press is going to give much air time to after 
    they've backed this guy.  I believe they call it editing or the "We
    know  what's best for you.  The people are uneducated, so we'll tell
    you what's important" mentality.

    By nature, an approved "amendment" is part of the constitution, not
    legislation.  So that would be binding.  It can go to the courts, but
    the governor can't veto it.  Although, I wouldn't put it passed Romer
    to try.   It would be like George Bush saying "I know better than the
    American people  what's best for us so I'm not leaving office.  Too bad
    Clinton."  The people  have spoken.  They are elected representatives
    and are bound to carry out the will of the people.  If it's a matter of
    conscience, he can't carry out the office and he should step down.  

    I hardly think that pledging allegiance to your country which is
    funding your education is unconstitutional.  So, I would have to agree
    with the Prez.  If you want the privileges of this country, I think you
    need to be willing to take responsibility for it too.  

    Jill
    

Note 545.77

>   It's just that this year the Republican platform has
>   was more closely aligned with Christian values.  
    
Jill,

	With this I do not agree, anymore than I would agree that the
Republican platform had the corner on "family values."

	The fundamentalists down the street from me tried to convince my
12 year old son the same thing as what you've said.  The things they used
to tell him used to give him nightmares.  He's smarter than that now.
He can now tell when they're speaking from their prejudices and when
they're not.

Peace,
Richard

    
    Richard .81

    Now if he could only learn when you're speaking from your prejudices, 
    he'd be safe.  :-)

    Jill
    

    Bubba .79,
    
    	The mayor *is* serving the people - the people of Denver who
    elected him.  There's something here called "home rule" and Denver
    has elected to include an anti-discrimination ordinance in its municipal
    self-regulation.
    
    	The people of Colorado have been duped.  As Abraham Lincoln said,
    "You can fool *all* of the people *some* of the time,..."
    
    	Furthermore, Jerry, I seem to recall that even a soldier has the
    duty and obligation to disobey wrongful orders.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 545.82

>    Now if he could only learn when you're speaking from your prejudices, 
>    he'd be safe.  :-)

Jill,

	Oh, he does.  And he's never complained of nightmares after he and
I have talked about Jesus and God and such, either.

Richard

.83> The mayor *is* serving the people - the people of Denver who
.83> elected him.  There's something here called "home rule" and Denver
.83> has elected to include an anti-discrimination ordinance in its municipal
.83> self-regulation.

I'm not familiar with "home rule"   .... does "home rule" allow elements
of the state constitution to be declared "not applicable" to any city
with "home rule"?
 
.83> The people of Colorado have been duped.

How does one go about "un-duping" them?  Helluva' "dupe" .. I heard
that only 15 of 71 counties rejected it (or something close to that).
 
.83> Furthermore, Jerry, I seem to recall that even a soldier has the
.83> duty and obligation to disobey wrongful orders.

Yep .. and I'll GUARANTEE you that you'd play UNMITIGATED Hell trying to prove
"wrongful order".

Bubba

>    I am reminded of a friend of mine who told me that the word "gospel"
>    in the original language, means "the life's story of someone".

"Gospel" means "Good News".

It is a translation of the Latin word "evangelium" which comes from Greek
"euangelion" which means "good news" or "glad tidings".

The English "gospel" is a contraction of "good spell", where "spell" means
"story".

/john

Note 545.85 Bubba,

>I'm not familiar with "home rule"   .... does "home rule" allow elements
>of the state constitution to be declared "not applicable" to any city
>with "home rule"?

Well, not exactly.  So, it sounds like it might force the matter into court,
doesn't it?

>How does one go about "un-duping" them?  Helluva' "dupe" .. I heard
>that only 15 of 71 counties rejected it (or something close to that).

15 counties, eh?  Well, as Abraham Lincoln said, "You can't fool *all* the
people *all* of the time!"

>Yep .. and I'll GUARANTEE you that you'd play UNMITIGATED Hell trying to prove
>"wrongful order".

I can't argue with you there. 8-)

Richard

    Well, I have been voting since 1972......sometimes I win, sometimes
    not.  I voted for Bush, as the lesser of two evils. I'm not happy
    to see the Dems in control. I just don't like socialism.
    
    Am I a republican? No. Registered independent.
    
    I quess that you could call me a social liberal/fiscal conservative.
    
    Marc H.

    This was the sixth Presidential election I voted in. Second loser
    I've voted for. But I don't judge the worth of my vote by it going
    to a winner. And I suspect that most here do not either.

    There was no "Christian" candidate as far as I can tell. Bush's record
    has come under attack for being insensitive to civil rights. Clinton
    has publicly announced that one of his goals is a major attack on one
    area of civil rights, those protected by the second amendment. Clinton
    is only pro choice on abortion. He seems to be in favor of government
    intrusion in just about every other area of ones life.

    Regardless of Christian values Clinton does not seem to believe in
    freedom or democratic values. We can hope he lied but basically I
    see Clinton as one of the greatest threats to freedom in America in
    the last 50 years.

    			Alfred

    The matter of whether Clinton is a Christian is a double-ended
    question.  What is a Christian, and what is the application of that
    definition to Clinton?  It's all opinion unless you tie it to specific
    beliefs, statements, and acts.  Dialog shouldn't be about labels.
    
    In the case of Clinton, you can be sure that there will be a recording
    of his promises.  The Wall Street Journal got the project off to a good
    start.  One of the promises was to have a kosher kitchen in the White
    House. 

    
    		Clinton and Gore are officially "Southern Baptists".
    
    
    Dave

    RE: Clinton and Gore are officially "Southern Baptists".
    
    Can't be. I saw them dancing to rock and roll. :-)
    
    		Alfred

    RE: Alfred,  :-)
    
    		Yeah...I thought the same thing, however the press seems
    to be very sure about that.  
    
    Dave

    This is my fourth Presidential election since eligible to vote, and if
    you count the two elections prior to that when I was too young to vote
    but still had an interest in the outcome, this is the first one in
    which a candidate I supported or voted for actually won.  I will say
    that my support for Clinton was lukewarm in certain regards, and I
    don't agree with him on everything, such as his support for the death
    penalty.  Then again, Bush also supports capital punishment, so that
    issue is a wash anyway.  And considering the whole range of issues, I
    feel that, compared to 12 years of Reagan and Bush, I would consider
    even a little overall improvement to be better than nothing.

    I think it is worth noting that having the Executive and Legislative
    branches in control of the same party is no guarantee of being free
    from gridlock.  Carter was very ineffective in dealing with Congress,
    especially in the last two years or so, and that was one of his
    shortcomings as President.  Clinton seemed to have learned from his
    first election defeat after a term as Governor that he had to work with
    his legislature rather than confront them, so the second time around he
    became selective in his battles and much more effective in getting done
    what he wanted done.  Of course, Congress is not a state legislature,
    so it remains to be seen how effective he will be as President.

    I also have to admit that I also feel a certain generational
    affiliation with Clinton.  That isn't to say that I would have voted
    for just any old baby boomer--Quayle, for example, is hardly a credit
    to his generation--but I do feel that perhaps there is a certain
    outlook, shaped by a world different than the one Bush grew up in, that
    perhaps I feel I have more in common with Clinton.  Despite some
    important differences with Clinton on some issues, those differences
    are not across the board and as a result I do feel a certain affinity
    with him.  Maybe that is a gut feeling with no substance, though.  And 
    he is our first Baby Boomer president, so perhaps I am premature in
    that sort of assessment; I reserve the right to change my mind after I
    see what he does.

    On the Quaker mailing list, there is a discussion on whether or not
    Clinton constitutes any sort of "peace candidate".  One amusing reply
    to that was to ask rhetorically, "Is the Pope a Quaker?"  I don't think
    he is a peace candidate, and I don't expect any major improvements in
    foreign policy, but we'll see.

    Basically, I am cautiously optimistic, and am very glad to see the
    Republicans out of the White House, but I reserve the right to
    criticize Clinton once he takes office.

    -- Mike

.89> I see Clinton as one of the greatest threats to freedom in America in
.89> the last 50 years.

As this is a "Christian" conference .. I shall respond to this with ...



			Amen!


Bubba

    Re: .94...Parroting the media
    
    Mike:
    
    You mentioned that Dan Quayle isn't a credit to his generation.  I've
    asked many and have yet to get a cohesive answer so I'll ask you...
    Why?
    
    Jack

    Jack, I don't consider him a credit to his generation because of his
    far right wing ideology, and because he is not exactly the brightest
    Vice President this country has ever had.
    
    -- Mike

I feel no generational thang for Clinton.  What might you have in common
with him Mike, not inhaling?   ;^)

I really wonder who has been duped in this election.  The Democrats and
Press has been saying for months now how disastrous the economy is and when 
Bush said that we're poised for an economic recovery, they said "He's out 
of touch."  However, all of a sudden yesterday the Press has started to 
report (this was on the Today show) that President Clinton will do well as 
the economy is on an upswing!  Excuse me?   Let me get this right.  Four days 
ago I didn't have an economic future according the Dems and the Press, and
boom Clinton gets elected and they tell me the economy has already turned.
Well, there's a reason to believe in a town named Hope!  What a miracle!!!!

Also, I want to comment on this "mandate" garbage coming out of the Clinton
group.  I believe they are mistaken of what they think their mandate is.
They believe they have the approval of the American people to raise taxes
for all kinds of services.  Yet, it you look at state elections most defeat
raises in taxes.  The American people do not want larger government.  The
elections proved that people want economic recovery and they are not willing
to give the government more money to "fix" things.

Richard, was it Abraham Lincoln that said that or was it President elect 
Bill Clinton?  ;^)

The dupe of Amendment 2 is by the NO group.  Gays want minority status
in Colorado.  Excuse me, but no black or hispanic ever had a closet to 
hide in.  They had no choice in whether it was known that they had a 
different skin tone.   I've never seen a sign in a restaurant that said 
"NO GAYS" or a sign on the bus saying "GAYS TO THE BACK."  I am tired of
the abuse of the phrase "civil rights."  The dupe is that gays in Colorado
have an average income that is higher and they have more college degrees
than the average Coloradoan.  Also, they are not a group that is "trapped"
into low income, high crime neighborhood or who don't have training to
get good jobs.  We don't have gay ghettos.  Also, I went through training 
by DEC personnel a couple of times on what is legal to ask and there is 
no legal way even without this legislation that I could ask if they were gay.  
You can't ask personal questions about people's lives.  It's illegal already.  
Behavior and preferences are not obvious and they can be changed.   It's 
would be like giving special rights to a chameleon because it's green.  
People that voted for this aren't hateful or ignorant people, they just do 
not believe there is a valid justification for minority status.  

Jill
    

    RE: .98
    
    Jill....good points! 
    
    Marc H.

   Jill,

   You made some good points there.  That is the illustration of politics
   and for the most part I would expect same or worse from Bush.

   Then you got into Amendment 2.  Your concept of gays is a stereotype
   at best and likely unsupported by provable data.  A good education,
   a high paying job, and a good neighborhood do not seperate people
   from being mistreated.  Ask any Black person or Latino.  Overt 
   discrimination or covert discrimination there is little difference
   when the quality of your life is lowered by it.  Civil rights, that's
   a red herring.  Getting the existing ones enforced is the real issue.

   One more thing, the womens vote is only about 70 or so years old.  If 
   it went another way, just think, you'd have no say at all.

   Allison

    

re Note 545.98 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

> They believe they have the approval of the American people to raise taxes
> for all kinds of services.  

        Where did you get this, er, refuse from?  It is certainly not
        supported by Clinton's campaign or the Dems platform. It was
        "supported" by the Bush rhetoric. Come on, the election is
        over (or are you starting the '96 campaign early)?.

        Bob

re Note 545.89 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     We can hope he lied but basically I
>     see Clinton as one of the greatest threats to freedom in America in
>     the last 50 years.
  
        Could you be specific?  That is an incredible charge without
        specifics.

        Bob

    
Allison,

Bush's message was that the economy was turning around and that the Democrats 
want tax and spend government.  Not a misrepresentation.  President elect 
Clinton believes in big government.   He's got a program for everything.  
The fact is that the liberal Press was in collusion with the Democrats to 
lie to the American public about the economy; the biggest determining 
factor in this election.  Also, the collusion went further.  Radical 
elements within the Democrats party were invisible.  If the only way the 
Democrats can win is by hiding what it's really about and lying about what 
their opponent is really about, then I think the American people are in for 
hard times.  And no that's not an illustration of politics, it's an 
illustration of dirty or corrupt politics.

What sterotyping?  This was actual provable data which I'm sure will come
up in the constitutional challenge.  The stats that both I and my parents
saw from totally different media programs showing that the average income
of gays is $55K whereas the average income of Americans is $32K.   The
percentage of gays holding college degrees was 66%, the American average
was I think in the 30s or 40s.  I didn't write anything down, but since
this issue is bound to be in court, we will hear them again.  It is a fact 
that you can hide being gay.  You can't easily hide being black or hispanic 
unless you're born with very fair skin and an anglo last name.  Now just 
because minorities have been granted civil rights doesn't mean there isn't 
discrimination.  You are right.  So if the figures don't show that gays
are being denied a right to a good education, the right to a good job,
and a right to live in a good neighborhood, why do gays need these rights?  
If civil rights is a red herring, it's one out of the NO on 2 camp, because 
I just heard Gov. Romer spouting off about it again the other night.  
The real issue is a need to be loved and accepted.  Government can't legislate 
that, that's an individual responsibility and I don't think trying to ram 
it down people's throat is the way to achieve this.  If you want to act a 
certain way in your life, that's your choice.  Let's teach values to
children about respecting the right of others to make choices for their
own life.  Educate, don't legislate.

Jill
    

    

Bob, 

This is not campaign rhetoric.  This is from discussions I've heard in the
press after the election was over.  I believe the word mandate was used
by Clinton in his acceptance speech in reference to all his programs.
Then, I believe it was Koppel who was asking a political analyst does 
President elect Clinton have the a clear mandate from the people like he's 
been saying since he's won since he did not win by a landslide.  The 
analyst said no.  Koppel asked then what will Clinton do.  The analyst said, 
he will force his own agenda through.  He is the President, he can do that.   

So much for a government by and FOR the people!

As for starting the next campaign early, do you mean like the Democrats
did after the '88 election?  The Democrats in congress who stonewalled
during the last 4 years need to kicked out on their collective you know
whats for not working for this country and blocking progress.

Jill
    

>>     We can hope he lied but basically I
>>     see Clinton as one of the greatest threats to freedom in America in
>>     the last 50 years.
>  
>        Could you be specific?  That is an incredible charge without
>        specifics.

	I have long believed that the abortion issue is one of defining
	human in convienient terms. All protestations to the contrary I
	see legal abortion as very much a civil rights issue. And an issue
	of lowing the value of human life. That's one - though I suspect many
	here don't see it that way I do.

	Also there is an amendment to the Constitution that talks about the
	"right of the people" that Clinton sees that as meaning the right of
	the state. If the word people in the Constitution is allowed to be
	read as "state" in one place it can easily be done in other places.
	Thus I see his gun control plans as a first step in people control.
	The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the types of guns that
	government can least ligitimatly restrict are military style ones. 
	Clinton has stated he intends to seriously expand restrictions on just
	that type of gun.

	I also believe that his plans for change in the military are both
	the wrong changes and too much too fast. I see this as something that
	will encourage other leaders in other countries to increase restrictions
	in thier countries and impose their will on others.

	That's off the top of my head. Specific enough?

				Alfred 

    RE: .106
    
    Good points Alfred.
    
    Marc H.

    

Mike,

I don't believe it's paranoid to acknowledge that politicians collaborate
and it's often for their own good and not the good of the people.  I think
Clinton's appointments should be very showing as to what he really believes
and who he supports.  Clinton has been accused of being very two-faced
although it was put in a positive tone.  But alot of times when he gets
want he wants, he re-evaluates, and does not fulfill his end of a bargain.

There go those disappearing notes again.  Will .105 appear reeditted
or is it gone for good.  I'm sure it's just a case of Mike realizing 
what he said.  ;^)    Yes, it's back in the form of .107.  Darn I liked
the line about chickens.  ;^)))

Alfred,

I've got to agree with you on abortion.  It's sad that we devalue life
so much that it's more convenient to stop a heart than to use a condom
or to get rid of a girl because we wanted a boy.  Not to mention the 
damage to a women's body both physically and mentally.  Although, it's a 
emotional issue to legislate.  As with other issues, this issue might be 
better served through educating.  I think it's sad that the radical 
pro-choice movement won't acknowledge that repeated abortions weaken a 
women's chance of successfully carry a child to term and also that there 
are often serious emotional troubles that stem from having abortions.  
People need to know all the facts, not just someone's agenda to get 
things passed the voters.

Jill

re Note 545.103 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

> Also, the collusion went further.  Radical 
> elements within the Democrats party were invisible.  

        Oh, I love the logic!  The fact that something didn't happen
        proves that it DID happen!

        Bob

re Note 545.104 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>                         -< Please stop your rhetoric. >-

        After you -- or do you believe that you are not doing
        "rhetoric"?
    
> This is not campaign rhetoric.  This is from discussions I've heard in the
> press after the election was over.  I believe the word mandate was used
> by Clinton in his acceptance speech in reference to all his programs.
> Then, I believe it was Koppel who was asking a political analyst does 
> President elect Clinton have the a clear mandate from the people like he's 
> been saying since he's won since he did not win by a landslide.  The 
> analyst said no.  Koppel asked then what will Clinton do.  The analyst said, 
> he will force his own agenda through.  He is the President, he can do that.   
  
        The above clearly IS rhetorical -- and an evasion of the
        question I asked.

        In my note 545.101, I responded not to the question of
        "mandate" but specifically to the following statement of yours
        (in your Note 545.98):

> They believe they have the approval of the American people to raise taxes
> for all kinds of services.

        It is the statement "raise taxes for all kinds of services"
        that I called "refuse", and which you neatly side-stepped by
        your tirade about "mandate', above.

        Bob

    Re: .97
    
    Mike:
    
    I respect your right to speak your mind regarding the Vice President. 
    My opinion is that although he is poor with euphamisms and doesn't
    always pick the most appropriate time to speak on an issue, he
    certainly has been a man with the character to speak his convictions.
    Even more important Mike, he acknowledges Christ as the focal point in
    his life.  To me, that supercedes everything else; hence I think he is
    one of the biggest credits to his generation.
    
    There is such thing as a judgement of the nations Mike and I will be
    praying for President Clinton and Vice President Gore.  A nation can
    recover far easier from an economic crisis than the crisis of a corrupt
    nation.
    
    Think I'm nuts..Doesn't bother me.  They thought Noah was nuts too!
    
    Hope This Helps,
    
    Jack

re Note 545.106 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> 	That's off the top of my head. Specific enough?
  
        Well, I don't agree at all with you, but I wanted to see if
        there was something that I missed.

        Thanks,
        Bob

    
    Hi Bob,

    These are not people that are prone to being quiet.  By their nature of
    their beliefs and hunger for power they are outspoken.  Now whether as
    a party they decided to keep this element low-key or like Mike said
    that  the Press denied them a platform, there was an agenda not to
    promote these views.  These people just didn't stop having their views
    or lose the desire to promote them.  What's your scenario of why the
    radical factions of the Democrat's party were so obviously absent?

    I did not mean to side-step your question and I don't think I did. If I
    don't feel like answer something you ask, I'll tell you.  :-)   Your
    question if you look was where did  I get this "refuse" from?   The
    "refuse" being:

    > They believe they have the approval of the American people to raise
    taxes > for all kinds of services.

    My answer was:  from Clinton himself.  I was equating the vast number
    of  programs that Clinton talks about implementing to all kinds of
    services.   I reread my note and I can see where you might have taken
    it to mean  that he will raise taxes on every service offered by the
    government.   Sorry if I didn't make that clear.  That is not what I
    meant.  Perhaps you question did not ask what you meant to ask. 
    However, my comment  was specifically in reference to Clinton's speech
    on his so-called  "mandate" by the people to implement his programs.  
    Maybe there would be  less "rhetoric" if you asked me nicely to clarify
    what I mean rather  than always attacking.  This file was about our own
    convictions after all.   Right?  

    Back to my original point is "I believe" that President elect Clinton
    is  under the false impression that he won because people were firmly
    behind his  programs and the funding that will be required for them.  
    I believe the  largest issue for the American public is fiscally-sound
    government.  I'm  not sure he grasps that or if he does, that he won't
    ignore it.  

    SIDE NOTE: Having a third candidate definitely changes things.  I think
    it's also  interesting that Clinton won with less of the popular vote
    than Dukakis  had in the '88 election.  

    Jill
    

    RE:  all....
    
    			There has been a lot of speculation on what
    President Clinton will or will not do and thats fine to release those
    frustrations but the election is over, at least will be once the
    electorial college meets, and a new president is coming into office
    asking *ALL* of us to come together and heal the wounds of a rather 
    negative campaign.  I would like to see us do it.  President Clinton
    will, for the most part, have to react to situations that none of us
    can even guess at right now. 
    
    			If the situation were reversed, Bush winning
    instead of Clinton, how would you react to those of us that were for
    Clinton if we raised the same "doom and gloom" thoughts you are now
    raising?  One of the *GREAT* positives to come out of this election is
    the interest level of the American people.  I believe this signifies
    greater involvement and a stronger Democracy more able to fit the needs
    of the American people.  Without a doubt, President Clinton will *HAVE*
    to be sucessful or be denied reelection in 4 years.  I strongly doubt
    that the world is going to come to an end because of his election.  I
    would like to see him given a chance by all of us just as I did when I
    voted for President Bush 4 years ago even though I had grave doubts
    about him originally.  Of course the other choice played a role in that
    vote also. :-)
    
    Dave

    RE: .115 I remember 4 years ago when Bush was elected. I don't think
    the Dukakas people were all that different than the Bush/Perot people
    are this year. There is a lot of disappointment and yes even fear.
    
    I will be happy to work with Clinton when he does what I think is
    right. If there is doubt I'll give him the benifit of that doubt. But
    there is no way I can work with him when in my heart I know he is 
    wrong. And of course I'd like to see him take some fence mending steps
    as well. It's early. Maybe he'll take them.
    
    			Alfred

    I think the most disturbing part of the whole thing was the electorates
    seeming desire for change at unknown cost.  I kept hearing phrases
    like, "Things can't get worse","At this point I am willing to try
    anything different", etc.  
    
    History has proven time and time again that things can get worse...much
    worse!  I think people in general place far too much emphasis on
    government as a "messiah" to take care of all these things.
    
    Alot of people say its the economy.  We need to lift up our leaders
    regularly because quite frankly, if they make some of the ideological 
    decisions they say they're going to make, we as a nation have had it!!
    
    Jack

re Note 545.117 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     History has proven time and time again that things can get worse...much
>     worse!  I think people in general place far too much emphasis on
>     government as a "messiah" to take care of all these things.

        And, of course, this isn't limited to just the "liberals." 
        Remember it was the most conservative republicans who, at
        their convention, did the most to imply that government had a
        leading role in promoting and maintaining "family values."

        Also, it stands to reason that if government can do things
        that make it much worse, then government can also do things
        that encourage improvement.  (I acknowledge that there are
        ideologues who maintain that government can only make things
        worse.  For a Scriptural refutation of this, see Romans
        13:1-5.)

>     Alot of people say its the economy.  We need to lift up our leaders
>     regularly because quite frankly, if they make some of the ideological 
>     decisions they say they're going to make, we as a nation have had it!!
  
        Examples of these "ideological decisions", please?

        Bob

    
    Sure Bob, Be Glad To.
    
    See the Book of Amos.  All these nations fell and fell hard because of
    idolatry - all practices which the tone was set by their governments.
    
    1. Syria
    2. Philistia
    3. Edom
    4. Ammon (Offered their children to the fire)
    5. Moab
    6. Judah
    7. Israel  (The result of their ideological decisions needs no
    		explanation.  Furthermore, Israel was the apple of Gods
    		eye.  What does this say about America?!)
    
    Other examples Include:
    
    1. The Roman Empire
    2. The Medo Persians
    3. Babylon (The nation of the O.T.)
    4. Babylon the Great (Prophesied in Revelation: Remember she had fallen
    for her harlotry.  Israel was referred to as a harlot many times in
    the Old Testament for her evil practices. What about America?
    5. Hitlers Third Reisch
     
    Bob, I hope to God I am all wrong.  Believe it or not, I hope President
    Clinton succeeds as President.  I also believe it is his job to set the
    tone for the nation.  This is the only way for government to take part
    in the family values end of it.  Government cannot legislate morality but
    at the same time, they don't have to legislate immorality either.  I
    don't want us to be on the list above.  
    
    Jesus told us that the exact time of His return is not for us to know;
    however, look for the signs of the times.  Kind of like false labor
    when a woman gives birth.  America may last another 100 years, only God
    knows.  My opinion from what I see is that we are on the wrong track.
    
    Take Care,
    
    Jack

Although I am normally a read-only noter, in this topic we have touched on
an issue for which I have very strong feelings.  Unfortunately, I have
been away from the conference for a couple of days, so I will have to
bring you back to my issue.  

What I am referring to is the passage of Amendment 2 in Colorado.  Since I 
am most concerned about individual rights and the right of all people to
be exactly who they are, the passage of this amendment disturbs me greatly. 
This amendment is, in my considered opinion, in direct opposition to the 
principles of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of 
Independence.

Referring to the Mayor of Denver:

NOTE 545.79   MORO::BEELER_JE

>>  This guy is a servant of the people - if he doesn't like the way the
>>  people voted on this then the most honorable thing for him to do is
>>  resign .. not .. not state that he will "ignore the law".

If the Mayor of the City of Denver, in fact, said that he would ignore
this amendment, then I congratulate him and fully support him. 
Sometimes, when you accept public office, you have to do what is right,
not what is popular.  Rather than resign, I would hope that he will 
challenge this amendment in court. 
    
>>  How do you explain something like that to your kids?  If you don't 
>>  like a law .. just ignore it?

I might be tempted to direct my children to the example set by Mohandas 
Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  These men showed that non-violent 
civil disobedience is an effective and honorable way to correct an 
injustice.  In effect, they "ignored the law."


NOTE 545.80   CSC32::KINSELLA

>>  I hardly think that pledging allegiance to your country which is
>>  funding your education is unconstitutional.  So, I would have to agree
>>  with the Prez.  If you want the privileges of this country, I think 
>>  you need to be willing to take responsibility for it too.

The bill which Mike Dukakis vetoed is one which would have required public 
school teachers to lead their students in a recitation of the Pledge of 
Allegiance every morning.  Mr. Dukakis requested an opinion from the 
Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth and the court stated that the 
bill would violate the constitutional guarantees of the Constitution of 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Constitution of the United 
States.  Because of this opinion, Mr. Dukakis vetoed the bill.

If Mr. Bush were Governor and if he actually signed the bill, he would 
have been wrong and the law would have been overturned by the court.  Mr.
Dukakis did the right thing.  He upheld the Constitution of the
Commonwealth and the Constitution of the United States, something he swore
he would do when he took office. 

Rick

    Rick:
    
    Could you give me a pointer or write what ammendment 2 in Colorado
    talks about?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jack 

    A copy of the amendment is in 91.844.

   Allison

    
    I put the pledge of allegiance in the same category as paying taxes. 
    Although there are grounds for Dukakis vetoeing the Bill, it is still a
    matter of National honor and duty.  The pledge to me is part of a standard 
    for helping our children to gain respect for our country.  Believe me in
    this society, it certainly can't hurt!  My three year old will recite
    it daily just as we have morning devotionals and the like.  It will
    hopefully keep him from dodging the draft when he gets older and feel
    he has something worth fighting for...namely all you readers out
    there!!
    
    As far as Colorado Ammendment 2, I am for this.  Only for this reason.
    If I interviewed at a public school and said that I am going to teach
    your children how to read the Old Testament and show how the New
    Testament correlates with the Old, I would more likely than not be told
    to leave.  My rejection of the job is based on an ideology I am trying
    to proselethyze (spelling?).  
    
    I KNOW there are school districts out there where the first grade
    teachers are reading, "Daddy's Roommate" and trying to teach an
    ideology.  There is no mistaking that the gay community is trying to
    make a lifestyle "acceptable" in society.  There is an agenda out
    there!  With all due respect...Sorry this window is closed!
    
    Cohabitation to me does not constitute a right for legal discrimination
    protection and if I turn you down for a job based on your moral
    conduct, that is my choice just as you have the right to turn me down
    for my Christian beliefs.  Yes I have been turned down for jobs before! 
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

Rick, 

If you're saying that it's alright for the Mayor to follow his own
conscience in a situation, why would it not be okay if it was President
Bush?  I can't believe that our constitution says it's unconstitutional
to have children pledge allegiance to our nation.  That's amazing.
If you're not willing to, I don't know if I think you should get the 
benefits you reap from choosing to live here.  I love this two-sidedness 
of how it's NOT okay to have our children pledge allegiance to God and 
country in schools, but it is okay to ram "If you've never slept with 
someone of the same sex, who do you know you wouldn't like it?" down our 
kid's throats.  Sounds fair to me!  NOT!

As for Amendment 2, I don't believe it's an individual right to have
special status.  The figures show that there is not overt discrimination
of homosexuals for education, housing, and employment and I don't believe 
covert discrimination can be legislated as I said before.  For instance 
let's try to use an example a little less controversial than Christian 
beliefs.  I'm overweight.  Many overweight people feel very strongly that 
they are discriminated against because of the stereotypes that go along 
with it, the jokes told, the way I've seen thin people treated better than 
me when I'm more highly qualified, etc...  Basically, with the current 
healthy lifestyle focus, being overweight is not "in."  However, being 
overweight is a result of choices I make in my life.  I know that I may 
face covert discrimination for being overweight, but it hasn't caused me 
to change my habits.  I weigh my options (no pun intended), and make a 
choice of how to live.   Do I deserve special status because I am 
discriminated against?  I don't think so.  I have a choice.  As for 
homosexuals, not only do they have a choice of the lifestyle they choose, 
but they can also choose whether to be discreet about it or not.  I can't 
hide that I'm overweight.  I don't think homosexuals should have special 
status because it's not something that is undeniably true.  There are 
probably people with homosexual preferences, who don't practice them.
Do they get this special status too?   How would you carry it out if
the law was the opposite as it was in Aspen, Boulder, and Denver, Colorado?

Jill
    

re Note 545.124 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

> I can't believe that our constitution says it's unconstitutional
> to have children pledge allegiance to our nation.  That's amazing.

        It's one thing if it's your opinion vs. my opinion, since
        we're both lay people as far as the law is concerned.  In the
        Massachusetts case, the decision of a constitutionally
        established panel of legal experts whose constitutional
        charter is to make such determinations carries far more
        weight than your or my opinion.

> I love this two-sidedness 
> of how it's NOT okay to have our children pledge allegiance to God and 
> country in schools, but it is okay to ram "If you've never slept with 
> someone of the same sex, who do you know you wouldn't like it?" down our 
> kid's throats.  

        You seem to be implying that the same people who reached this
        pledge of allegiance decision are also ramming "If you've
        never slept with someone of the same sex ...." down
        somebody's throats.  I am not aware that the Massachusetts
        Supreme Court has made such a pronouncement.

        Now you may find it convenient to lump everybody who
        disagrees with you into the same unsavory category, but it
        probably has little relationship to reality.

> As for Amendment 2, I don't believe it's an individual right to have
> special status.  

        No one has a "right to special status."  It is proper, on the
        other hand, for legislation to recognize and redress specific
        cases of denial of rights.  The point is that the special
        status does not confer new or extra rights, but gives
        remedies in specific cases of denial of rights.

        If, as you claim, "figures show" that there is no denial of
        rights, then any special status that might have been
        established is moot anyway.

        Bob

    RE: .124  Jill,
    
    			I do agree with you that they should not have
    special status.  However, I find it interesting that a state should
    have a "special law" just for gay, lesbians and Bi's.  As far as I know
    this is the first time in legislative history that a specific group has
    had a law denying them a special status.  I really wonder at the
    negative aspect of the law.  Why was it necessary to pass a *LAW* about
    this?  Under the U.S. Constitutation I believe that *ALL* have the same
    rights so any law passed by a state is moot.  IMHO of course, I see it
    as a "reason" to discriminate against a specific group of people.
    
    
    Dave

    
    
    Jack:
    
    No attack intended, here, but it's obvious that you didn't read
    Amendment 2 very carefully and that you, like many other Colorado
    voters, were duped into thinking that noting NO on 2 would have meant
    the gay people were entitled to *special* rights.  Read it again. 
    That's NOT what it said.  All 2 has down is to *REMOVE* rights from gay
    people.  Right now, if you were denied a job based on a conflict
    between your religious believes and the potential employer's beliefs
    you would be entitled to file a charge a discrimination within the
    boundaries of the justice system.  As of the passage of 2, if a gay
    person is denied housing or a job (etc.) because of their being gay,
    they are denied even the opportunity of claiming discrimination.  The
    only folks with an agenda (as it relates to 2, anyway) as those people
    who see gay people as less than human, as perverts and "abominations"
    based on their religious beliefs and would have us be seem as such
    legally, also.
    
    Read the amendment again, please.
    
        Greg

  Jill,

   What special privelidges?  That has never been made clear other than
   quoting a radical groups wish list.

   I don't believe in special priviledge.  But as a woman there are EEO
   and AA programs that allow us to protest and sue when there has been
   demonstrated bias against women in hiring, pay, and jobs that had 
   appearance requirements.  That is both special priviledge and necessary
   because there is documented misbehavour that the legal system had to
   address.  Homosexual people don't need special hiring quotas or rights
   that extend beyond those given to the general public. Discrimination
   does however occur, and there are laws to address this IF they were
   enforced, the exception is Colorado where they cannot be enforced if
   you are homosexual.  The sexual rights laws I've seen are very general
   and of those known to me none allow specific priviledges beyond
   clarifying and insuring existing enforcement.  I believe there is
   essentially no difference in saying we should not allow discrimination
   based on sex OR sexual orientation, because that kind of language
   protects everyone.

   It's been said over and over, reread 91.844 and substitute _any_ group
   of people for homosexual in the text then try to prove to me it DOES
   NOT disallow basic rights in this country.  There is a fundmental
   difference between giving rights or privelidege, and removing ones
   we as Americans have come to expect as citizens.

   In Gods care,
   Allison


       

    I think this is where alot of us reach a crossroads.  EEO and AA are
    programs geared to protect people based on who they are, not what they
    practice.  EEO is taylored to make the playing field level for people
    of all race, colors, and creeds and so it should be.  
    
    However, say I apply for a job with the Massachusetts Society for the 
    Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, yet my religious beliefs are that of
    the Old Testament and I offer sacrifices to God, I.E. Sheep, Bulls,
    Rams, whatever.  Would I have a right to file a suit if I got rejected
    for the job?  Although this illustration is a long shot, the point I am
    trying to make is that denial based on a persons behavior or practices
    can at times be justified.  Bottom line, alot of jobs, Yes; alot of
    jobs, No!
    
    It may seem on the surface that people who think this lifestyle is an
    abomination and deviant are hateful and exclusionary.  Let me challenge
    you with this question.  If you were in a pitch dark room, unable to
    see, and there was a crocidile pit in the middle; who shows more love?
    The person that tells you where to walk or the person that always says
    to mind my own business and let he/she walk where he/she wishes?
    
    Sorry folks, walking in the crocidile pit is your personal choice. 
    Meanwhile, I will continue to lobby for the best role models our children
    can use to survive in this world.  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack
    

    re: pro Amendment 2 folks
    
    	Once again it seems that people believe homosexuality is a choice
    not a state imposed upon the person by God and/or genetics. 
    Every year, more and more evidence comes out that being homosexual is a
    matter of genetics, not waking up one day and saying "I'm gonna sleep
    with someone of the same sex".
    	Admittedly, participating in homosexual acts is a choice, but that
    has no bearing here.  If a person is gay/lesbian/bi/whatever and is
    discriminated against, *whether or not they have had sex*, then they
    have no legal recourse to redress this wrong.  This is fundamentally
    wrong on an emotional, moral and legal sense.  How can you claim to be
    a true Christian and still advocate the denial of basic human rights
    and equality?  It would seem that all the Holy Roller types who are for
    this Amendment are damning all homosexuals, whether or not that person
    is a virgin or has/hasn't practiced homosexual acts.  What ever
    happened to the so-called Christian ethic of giving a person the
    benefit of the doubt?
    
    George
    

    Well George, to be perfectly honest, I concur in the sense that I am no
    better than anybody else in the eyes of God.  I actually sin on a
    regular basis because of my free will.  As Paul states in Romans, their
    is a war being waged in our mortal bodies; The flesh against the
    spirit.  When the spirit yields to the flesh, it is due to a lack of
    faith.  In actuality, I deserve death and hell and I would have reaped
    that result had it not been for the cross.  When you speak of the
    thought as opposed to the act, you might say I am an adulterer.  I am
    happily married and have two wonderful kids.  I am faithful to my wife,
    but I am not always loyal. My free volition has kept me from committing
    the act but the Epistle of James tell us that when we look upon a woman 
    with lust we commit adultery in our hearts.  Thank God I have been bought 
    with a heavy price.
    
    The word holy means to be set apart.  I want to thank you for calling
    me a holy roller, I consider that a compliment considering how sinful I
    really am.  Just as I am a non practicing adulterer, I admire a non
    practicing homosexual for not yielding to the flesh.  
    
    George, the bottom line is that where there is sin, there is no peace.  
    It is everybodys free choice, but don't try to legislate it as a
    standard of righteous behavior.  As far as the genetics verses choice,
    all's I have to say is that if God doesn't judge America, he owes Sodom
    and Gomorrah a very heart felt apology.
    
    As I stating in a previous reply re: ammend 2, some jobs Yes...some
    jobs No.
    
    Jack
        

    re: -.1
    
    	Unfortunately, you can't have a partial judgement - you either
    support Amendment 2 and all it represses or you don't.  You either
    condone it or not, you can't get off the hook by saying "I support it
    in some instances but not others".  That is like saying "I believe in
    God in some instances but not others".
    	Being homosexual is a matter of genetics, genetics put into place
    by God.  People do not have a choice in the matter, any more than you
    had a choice about your eye color or skin tone.  As such, if you cannot
    legally discriminate on one matter of genetics (skin color), how can
    you justify discriminating on another point of genetics?
    	What would you do if all homosexuals were non-practicing?  Would
    you still condemn them in this fashion - by your support of Amendment
    2?  If your position would change under this circumstance, why?
    
    George
    

    
    
    Thank you, but I don't need any "practice" being a homosexual.  I just
    am one.  Do you "practice" behing heterosexual?
    
       Greg  --  kind of 8-)
    
    

    re: .133
    
    	Heh.  You're right.  Sorry if I offended.  And nope, I don't practice
    being heterosexual, I just am due to genetic pressure.
    	I used that phrasing because many Fundamentalist-types will accept
    a homosexual who does not engage in sexual acts whereas they totally
    abandon and despise one who does.  I don't understand why - maybe they
    prefer a martyr to their own, narrow view of Christian behavior rather
    than a person who has come to terms with what God/genetics has
    determined the person to be.
                        
    George

    
    
    No problem.......
    
    

Well Dave,

I can understand that it can be and has been taken that way, but realize
that Amendment 2 didn't just come out of the blue.  There were already
3 counties in Colorado that had granted special status based on a new
category of sexual orientation.   Those ordinances used the term 
sexual orientation so that they could say it gives the same rights to
heterosexuals, but that's not who would be claiming this status.  There
is an agenda in Colorado to promote the homosexual agenda, and this 
measure came out of a need that some people feel to counter that.  IMO.
I believe someone in the Colorado notesfiles statement was (and this
person is not religious):  The message that Colorado is giving the
homosexual community is that we will tolerate them, but we do not want
to have to be forced to fully embrace this behavior.  Now, knowing this
person they don't mean anything derogatory by tolerate, he means that
we all coexist together as we do with anyone else, but that there should
be no special treatment for them since they choose their behavior.

Greg,
I really believe that the meaning of the amendment is that a claim can not 
be filed based on minority status.  This does not mean a claim can't
be filed at all.  This is probably due because the wording of a complaint
can set a precident if the judge votes in their favor.   Thus this would
void the amendment.  

George,  I believe the only "supporting" data about there being a genetic 
link has come out of the homosexual community and from sympathetizers on 
this issue.  There is a good deal of data that does not support any 
genetic correlation, but rather environment conditions.  I disagree with 
your whole Holy Roller types stereotyping and agree with Jack.  Also,
even if the genetic connection could be made, it still a sin that God
calls his faithful to turn away from.  We were all born with sinful natures
and therefore are all in the same boat.   

Bob, since the topic of Bush being Governor of Mass was fictious, I
was not making a direct correlation.  My concern was not about the
Mass case specifically.   Many states have similar situations in regards 
to having the pledge of allegiance or any religious values talked about
in schools.  I know specifically of stuff with the kids from my church
trying to be active in bible studies at school where they are having
quite a bit of trouble, yet I know that the teachers are getting the 
word that homosexually will be taught in Colorado schools as an 
alternative lifestyle and the question is off of actual documentation
that exists for teachers to ask their high school students.  Well,
even look here at DEC.  It would be interesting to see a homosexual
group and a religion group ask to have a publicized meeting on the
premises and see what happens.  IMO...DEC only values the differences
it choose to value just like any individual does.  Bob, I'm trying to 
really stay away from assuming as much in here about what others say, 
could you maybe try to do the same.  I think some of your statements are 
unfounded and I won't even respond them.  

Allison,

I didn't say special privileges, I said special status like blacks and
other minority groups have.  You have said several times that homosexuals
don't need special rights around hiring quota or anything else beyond
what the general public has.  You're right discrimination does still
occur, but it's more covert as you've already admitted.  I've already
responded to that in .98 and .103.

Here's my earlier scenario from .124 and I would vote the same as I
did in this last election.  There is no difference.

NO PROTECTION STATUS BASED ON OBESE ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of 
Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,nor any of its 
agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, 
shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or 
policy whereby obese orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall 
constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of 
persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected 
status or claim of discrimination.   This Section of the Constitution shall 
be in all respects self-executing.

Jill

    

   Jill, 

   RE: 545.136

   Right now you can claim discrimination if you can prove it is due
   to being overweight and not in an unpractical situation.  If the law
   was passed as you wrote it guess what, you lost the right of legal
   redress.  The proof of this is several cases involving women working a
   receptionists, news anchors, and airline stewardess.  You proved my
   point.  Legal redress in the courts is a right we share in this country,
   it is the moral right to confront our accuser.  It is not perfect but
   eliminating it is a very specific form of discrimination as it is 
   extensable.

   Just an aside to the case of being overweight, so am I.



   ALL,

   Once and for all I want to see someone enter what they believe is 
   this mythical homosexual agenda!  I do expect to see what group is
   responsable for the agenda and who brought it to your attention as
   well.

   I keep hearing terms bandied about and I believe the users of those
   terms have not the foggiest notion of what they mean beyond rhetoric.

   Allison

Re:  545.134
    
  >I used that phrasing because many Fundamentalist-types will accept
  >a homosexual who does not engage in sexual acts whereas they totally
  >abandon and despise one who does.  I don't understand why...

I've heard it has to do with acknowledging sinful desires, repenting
of them and attempting to live a godly life.  

I've also heard that although genetics have a very obvious influence
on us, they don't force us to choose any particular actions.

Collis

On the subject of Section 30 of Amendment 2:

I don't see the passage of Section 30 of Amendment 2 as a method for stopping
the state or the municipalities from granting special rights to the
gay/lesbian/bisexual population.  I see it as a way to deny equal rights 
to that population.

The only hope that I can hold out is that I believe that this section of
Amendment 2 violates the provisions of the 14th Amendment of the United
States Constitution.  It is this amendment which guarantees equal
protection under the law.  

To deny a segment of the population their right to claim discrimination and
to deny them access to the courts as a means of redressing their
grievances is a clear violation of the equal protection provisions. 


NOTE 545.123   CSTEAM::MARTIN

>>   I put the pledge of allegiance in the same category as paying taxes. 
>>   Although there are grounds for Dukakis vetoeing the Bill, it is still 
>>   a matter of National honor and duty.  The pledge to me is part of a 
>>   standard for helping our children to gain respect for our country. 
>>   Believe me in this society, it certainly can't hurt!  My three year
>>   old will recite it daily just as we have morning devotionals and the
>>   like.  It will hopefully keep him from dodging the draft when he gets
>>   older and feel he has something worth fighting for...namely all you
>>   readers out there!!

I don't really think that reciting the pledge is a matter of national 
honor and duty.  I also don't think that teaching the pledge to our 
children will help them in any way to gain respect for our country.  What 
may help them to gain respect for our country is teaching them what this 
country is all about.  We should be teaching them that this is a 
democratic republic which stands for, protects, and celebrates individual 
freedom.

As far as dodging the draft is concerned, I am a product of the public 
schools where we saluted the flag and recited the pledge daily.  Now, I 
don't consider myself to be a draft dodger, but I was a draft resister and 
a draft counselor.  I guess I took the "with liberty and justice for all" 
part to heart.


NOTE 545.124   CSC32::KINSELLA

>>   I can't believe that our constitution says it's unconstitutional
>>   to have children pledge allegiance to our nation.  That's amazing.
>>   If you're not willing to, I don't know if I think you should get the 
>>   benefits you reap from choosing to live here.

The Constitution of the United States does not say that it is  
"unconstitutional to have children pledge allegiance to our nation."  It 
does say that it is unconstitutional to require children, or any other 
people, to salute the flag or pledge allegiance to it.  The reasons people 
have for not saluting the flag or pledging allegiance to it are many and 
varied.  They range from religious, to political, to moral, to
philosophical, and the like.  However, I don't believe that it is our 
place to judge the validity of their reasons.

For the record, I should note that the Supreme Court of the United States 
decided that it was unconstitutional to require someone to salute the flag
and to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, not in the 1960's as many might
believe, but at the height of World War II, in 1943.

Rick

    Again I concur with your explanation and that of the Supreme Court.  My
    only anamosity toward some people is when they want to reap the
    benefits of the country yet don't want to fulfill their duty.  The
    pledge simply affirms to me that an individual is at least
    acknowledging something to be honored before themselves.  
    
    Not reciting the pledge is a personal choice and I do respect the
    decision.  Dodge the draft and you won a 1 way ticket to Cuba as far as
    I'm concerned.  
    
    Jack

NOTE 545.140   CSTEAM::MARTIN


>>   My only anamosity toward some people is when they want to reap the
>>   benefits of the country yet don't want to fulfill their duty.  The
>>   pledge simply affirms to me that an individual is at least
>>   acknowledging something to be honored before themselves.

It is possible that some people view not reciting the pledge and not serving
in the armed forces as fulfilling their duty.


>>   Dodge the draft and you won a 1 way ticket to Cuba as far as
>>   I'm concerned.

Out of curiosity, how would you define "dodge the draft?"  I'm trying to
determine if your definition for draft dodger and my definition for draft
resister are ther same.

re Note 545.140 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     My
>     only anamosity toward some people is when they want to reap the
>     benefits of the country yet don't want to fulfill their duty.  The
>     pledge simply affirms to me that an individual is at least
>     acknowledging something to be honored before themselves.  
  
        Remember that the pledge is only about 100 years old. 
        Patriots were living and dying for our country long before
        that.  The fact that somebody came up with a relatively short
        statement of what our country means to them, and many others
        likewise like that statement, does not mean that there is
        anything magic or essential in that statement for all.
          
        Bob

re Note 545.123 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     The pledge to me is part of a standard 
>     for helping our children to gain respect for our country.  Believe me in
>     this society, it certainly can't hurt!  

        To an extent, I agree.  However such recitations will have
        little effect if what the country is and does does not also
        earn respect.

        If our nation does earn respect by its deeds, then such
        recitations will do little to add to that.

>     My three year old will recite
>     it daily just as we have morning devotionals and the like.  It will
>     hopefully keep him from dodging the draft when he gets older and feel
>     he has something worth fighting for...namely all you readers out
>     there!!
  
        Well, I must admit that I take a different attitude towards
        educating my children.  My emphasis is on loyalty to God and
        the morality they learn from the Lord.  I teach them that
        there is nothing magical about draft duty -- if the country
        is embarked on a good cause that can be best accomplished by
        warfare, then for them to serve in the armed forces is good. 
        Otherwise, I teach them, there is nothing noble about such
        service and it may very well be ignoble.

        I want my children to know that our country was founded by
        people who disobeyed and eventually overthrew what was their
        country.  The USA would not exist if the founding fathers had
        the kind of blind duty to defend the established order that I
        see among so many in the USA today.

        Rather, their attitude was that governments are often wrong
        and that the true duty of citizens must always be to watch
        what government does and be ready to object, correct, and if
        need be overthrow.

        Bob

    To Rick:  I do not hold against a person such as Clinton, Quayle,
    Cheney, and others who legally get out of serving or others who request
    service in capacities other than combat.  If a person is absolutely 
    against combat, I don't think it would do either of us any good if we
    were in the same fox hole together.  This is a resister...that's fine!
    
    Now if somebody got the greeting letter and took off for Canada, then
    they best stay in Canada.  I realize draft dodging is nothing new. 
    George Washington was victim to this in record numbers.  However, some
    of these potential soldiers could've saved lives and shortened the
    wars.  Although I know our country is in moral decline, I still feel we need
    to hold it in high esteem.  My father was on a suicide mission to Japan
    the same day they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima (Of course they didn't
    tell him this).  
    
    If I dodged the draft as defined in the last paragraph, I feel I would be 
    letting down all those young men that have died in WW1, WW2, Korea, 
    Vietnam not to mention those that are alive today.  This is just my 
    personal conviction and I'm proud of it.
    
    To Bob:  Very good points.  Never realized the pledge was only 100
    years old.  I especially appreciated your explanation that teaching of
    God and morals is on the forefront of you training your children.  I
    agree with that 100%.  Love of our country is second to this.  I feel
    if we collectively neglect this as a nation, we may not have a nation
    in the very near future.    
    
    I think what you guys need to know is that I am 31 years old.  I fell
    into a time where I wasn't called to fight a war, so I haven't been put
    in a position where I have to make any kind of decision such as the
    people of the late 60's and early 70's.  The only thing I can say is
    America has been very good to me and I hope to maintain the convictions
    of serving my country faithfully if the occasion ever arises.
    
    Jack

NOTE 545.142   LGP30::FLEISCHER

>>   Remember that the pledge is only about 100 years old. 
>>   Patriots were living and dying for our country long before
>>   that.  The fact that somebody came up with a relatively short
>>   statement of what our country means to them, and many others
>>   likewise like that statement, does not mean that there is
>>   anything magic or essential in that statement for all.
          
Actually, the pledge is exactly 100 years old.  It was written by Francis 
Bellamy in 1892.  (It first appeared in Youth's Companion, a national
magazine published in Boston.  The magazine, published by Daniel Ford and 
James Upham, had a circulation of about 500,000, making it the largest
magazine of its time.) 

Most of us grew up with a flag in front of the schoolhouse and a flag in 
our classrooms.  In the 1800s, this was very rare.  In 1888, Youth's 
Companion magazine started a campaign to sell American flags to the public 
schools.

Now, Francis Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a socialist.  In fact, he
was the first cousin of socialist leader Edward Bellamy.  Edward Bellamy
was the leader of a Boston socialist group called Nationalism and Francis 
Bellamy was the vice-president of a companion group called the Society of 
Christian Socialists.

In 1891, Francis Bellamy was fired from his ministerial position at a 
Boston church because of his socialist work.  At that time, he joined 
Youth's Companion to work in public relations.  It was here that he wrote 
the Public School Flag Ceremony, which became the Pledge of Allegiance.

The 400th Anniversary of Columbus' "discovery of America" was in 1892.  
Francis Bellamy and James Upham convinced the National Education 
Association to support Youth's Companion as the official sponsor of the
Public Schools' observance of Columbus Day.  They also convinced President 
Harrison to release a national proclamation making the pledge and flag 
ceremony a center of the national Columbus Day celebration.

The pledge first appeared in the September, 1892 issue of Youth's 
Companion.  The original version of the pledge was:

   "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it 
    stands -- one nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for
    all."

Around the turn of the century, the words "my flag" were changed to "the 
flag of the United States of America" because some feared that the 
immigrant children would confuse this with the flag of their homelands. 
In 1954, the words "under God" were added because of the "Communist
threat." 

In effect, the Pledge of Allegiance was written as part of a promotion to 
sell flags, since you need a flag to say the pledge.


NOTE 545.144   CSTEAM::MARTIN

It seems that our definitions for draft resister and draft dodger are just 
about the same.  However, it is probably safe to say that I have far more 
sympathy for and am in greater agreement with draft dodgers.

Rick

    Why Sympathy?  If there were no draft dodgers, it is possible wars
    would've been shortened.

    
    > If there were no draft dodgers, it is possible wars would've
    > been shortened.
    
     Yes, this is possible but unlikely. It would just mean more people
    to kill one another, probably on both sides. Also the % of "dodgers"
    is probably low. One the other hand...
    Think how short the war would be if everyone on both sides were
    "draft dodgers"!  Short for SURE!!

    Re.146

            On the other hand, if everyone dodged the draft wars would
           would really be shortened.


                                                               Mike

    
    
    -1
    
      ...true...and tirants would have a field day.. War stinks, but
    sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
    
    David

    Re.149

           No, the tyrants would have to duke it out with each other
          if people refused to do their bidding and kill for them.
          Tyranny of of the Hitler or Stalin type requires the
          cooperation of millions of individuals. Refusing to 
          participate in evil is the greatest blow that can be
          struck against a tyrant. 

                                                               Mike
     

                                                          

    
    
     Mike,
    
      So it logically follows that in selecting a president we would have
    to give serious consideration to there physical abilites? And in this
    corner Ronal Reagan weighing in at? and in this corner Libya's beloved
    Mommar Khadaphi (sp)??
    
    David

    Are any of you for unilateral disarmamernt?
    
    Jack

    
    
    -1
    
      Sure! The biggest obstacle is simply having all the players at the
    table. When the U.S.S.R was still a communist nation we had know one
    over there to bring them to the table, the fist and the upper hand was
    the only reasonable motivator.. Now it is the Saddam Husseins and
    China's of the world that we have to deal with, and I doubt if China is
    going to negotiate in good faith as long as we keep kissing her toush
    with Most Favored nation Status....
    
    David

    With all due respect, you are incorrect.  The biggest problem is not
    getting everybody at the table.  Again it gets back to ideological
    differences.  The last statement Breshnev made to Nixon when visiting
    Moscow was something to this effect: "Mr Nixon...the day will come when
    your grandchildren will live under communist rule."  Nixon's reply was,
    "My grandchildren will Not live under communist rule; however, your
    grandchildren will live under democracy and freedom."  Nixon later
    admitted he wasn't so sure it would work this way.
    
    Remember when Hezekiah received the Babylonian emissaries in peace,
    showing them all the riches of the City of David.  This later brough 85
    years of exile and death to the nation of Israel due to the greed and
    agenda of the Babylonian empire.  The Persian Gulf War stemmed from two
    elements. One was Iraqs claim that the land was theirs to begin with.  
    Perhaps this is justifiable, perhaps not.  The other element is that of
    simple hate!  The same hate that permeates between the Arabs and the
    Israelis.  Saddam professed that hate not only to the Kuwaitis but also
    to the Kurds.  
    
    These are a few of many many examples.  As long as there is sin in the
    world, there is always the need to keep watch.  Jesus himself
    acknowledged the same worldly conditions when he said, "Behold I come
    as a thief in the night, therefore keep watch and pray..."
    Lets face it, the national peace between us and other nations in the
    world is because fear is an international language.  
    
    I agree with you on China!  Incidentally, thanks for the writing on the
    pledge.  That was informative and interesting!
    
    Jack 
       

    
    
    > with all due respect, you are incorrect
    > the biggest problem is not getting everyone to the table
    > it gets back to ideological differences
    
      With all due respect to my fellow historian, I suspect that ideology
    may be the reasons they do not come to the table.. By coming to the
    table i mean  more than physical presence. You offer the motive for
    their non-compliance..
    
    David

    With very high due respect, your premise is the solution.  Lets just
    say I'm dubious of the results based on historical evidence and human
    nature!
    
    Jack

    
    
     Jack,
    
      Point taken..
    
    David

NOTE 545.146   CSTEAM::MARTIN

>>   Why Sympathy?  If there were no draft dodgers, it is possible wars
     would've been shortened.

Since I am opposed to war for religious, moral, and philosophical reasons, I
can sympathize with those who are of a like mind.  I can support those who
act on this conviction and avoid participating in war, by whatever means.

I seriously doubt that "draft dodgers" lengthen wars.  They probably don't
shorten them either.

As a nation and as a people, we would be much better off if we would approach
our differences with other nations (and each other for that matter) in a 
non-violent way.  We have to remember that there has never been a war that 
couldn't have been avoided.  

Rick

>We have to remember that there has never been a war that 
>couldn't have been avoided.  

    While technically that is true one must remember that it takes two
    sides (at least) to prevent a conflict. A country can avoid war by
    surrendering without a fight. A woman can avoid rape by consenting to
    sex as well but few would make the statement that there has never been
    a rape that couldn't have been avoided. 

    Sure I'd prefer that all differences were resolved non-violently but
    I believe that non-resistance is sometimes as immoral as initiating
    violence.

    		Alfred

    RE: .159  Alfred,
    
    			Interesting Alfred.  I am gonna have to think on
    that one....seems a bit too "pat".
    
    
    Dave

	RE: .160 Well, the note I replied to seemed too "pat" to me too. 

			Alfred

    I voted my convictions yesterday in a runoff election for U.S. Senate
    in Georgia.  Neither candidate had a majority in the earlier election. 
    Thankfully, Wyche Fowler (the incumbent Democrat) was defeated and Paul
    Coverdell (formerly Director of the Peace Corp and a Republican) won.  I am
    thrilled naturally since Coverdell is pro-life.
    
    jeff

Note 545.158

>Since I am opposed to war for religious, moral, and philosophical reasons, I
>can sympathize with those who are of a like mind.  I can support those who
>act on this conviction and avoid participating in war, by whatever means.

I, too, am opposed to war.  My opposition, too, is grounded in my Christian
faith.  I guess you might call me a militant pacifist.  ;-) It is troublesome
to me that so few who claim to be Christians embrace this aspect of the gospel.

I might suggest continuing the discussion in Note 499.* "War" or Note 369.*
"Christian Pacifism."

>I seriously doubt that "draft dodgers" lengthen wars.  They probably don't
>shorten them either.

During the Viet Nam war, Richard Nixon was on the verge of using nuclear
weapons.  Any idea what changed his mind?

Peace,
Richard

Note 545.159

>    A country can avoid war by
>    surrendering without a fight. A woman can avoid rape by consenting to
>    sex as well but few would make the statement that there has never been
>    a rape that couldn't have been avoided.

A better analogy, imo, would be 2 rapists out to rape each other without getting
raped themselves.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .164 That may be a better analogy for your political purposes but I 
    fail to see how that represents the case where one person does not wish
    to do harm to the other.
    
    			Alfred

    .165,  I'm speaking of the nature of war in micro terms.
    
    But, you're right.  I failed to address the pacifistic stance.
    That's mostly because of the erroneous premise: That pacifists
    are passive, like the woman in your illustration passively accepting
    the violation of her body by the rapist.
    
    Richard

    Richard, are you even trying to understand what I'm writing?
    You seem to assume that if war takes place it is because both sides 
    wish the other ill. This is not necessarily the case. And your analogy
    did not address that case at all.

    		Alfred

Note 545.167

>    Richard, are you even trying to understand what I'm writing?
>    You seem to assume that if war takes place it is because both sides 
>    wish the other ill. This is not necessarily the case. And your analogy
>    did not address that case at all.

Perhaps you're right.  Perhaps I don't understand.  I must admit I'm not an
expert on war.  Could you cite an example of a war where both sides did not
wish the other ill (destruction, death, pain, suffering, humiliation)?

Richard

    RE: .168 Tell me Richard, which of the nations Hitler attacked were
    planning to attack Germany? Tell me Richard, what ill was the US
    planning against Japan before Japan attacked? Tell me Richard, what ill
    did Kuwait plan against Iraq before Saddam invaded?  Did they not
    teach history in the schools you attended?
    
    			Alfred

    I believe Richard's definition of "wishing ill" was a little more
    expansive than physical attack and invation...
    
    Germany considered the economic conditions of the post-War 1920's and
    1930's to be part of ill will among the Allies.
    
    Japan considered our oil embargo to be ill will.
    
    Iraq considered Kuwait's admitted slant drilling to be ill will.
    
    None of these excuse the aggressions of Germany, Japan and Iraq, but
    certainly, those nations felt they were being wronged prior to war. 
    They didn't just wake up one day and say "Why don't we incur the wrath
    of the civilized world?  That sounds like fun!"
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

169

>    RE: .168 Tell me Richard, which of the nations Hitler attacked were
>    planning to attack Germany? Tell me Richard, what ill was the US
>    planning against Japan before Japan attacked? Tell me Richard, what ill
>    did Kuwait plan against Iraq before Saddam invaded?  Did they not
>    teach history in the schools you attended?

I must have attended some very poor schools.  They taught that these events
actually took place prior to war.

Your points are well taken though, as are Daniel's.

Peace,
Richard

>They taught that these events
>actually took place prior to war.

    And your point being? Mine is that war starts because one side resists
    evil. Yours, I thought, was that both sides attack and that resisting
    evil is evil. If resisting evil is not evil than war is justified in my
    opinion.

    			Alfred

    .172
    
    I do not believe in doing nothing about evil.  At the same time, I
    believe that war is evil in itself.  Does the good book say to overcome
    evil with evil??  Not in my reading of it.
    
    Richard
    

    It is also worth noting that while some wars may indeed start simply
    because one side is making evil aggressive advances against another,
    other wars may not involve that scenario at all.  Often the issues are
    complex, and each side has grievances or claims that seem
    irreconcilable and which the parties are unable or unwilling to resolve
    peacefully.  Often both sides are at fault, with the actual shooting
    simply being the culmination of unresolved escalations of conflicting
    interesting between both sides.  In those cases, a bilateral (or
    multilater) powder keg requires only a spark to be ignited. 
    
    Last week the A&E cable network aired a all the parts of a series on
    the American Civil War, back to back.  One of the more poignant aspects
    of the conflict was that neither side was really prepared for what it
    was going to face.  The previous American experience with warfare, the
    Mexican War, involved small "armies" numbering in the thousands, with
    small casualties.  That war represented the old paradigm for war, one
    that was outdated.  The Civil War was Total War.  Armies numbered in
    the millions, casualties in the hundreds of thousands, new military
    technology made old style frontal assaults unbelievably deadly; and,
    most importantly, the battle was not simply between armies, but entire
    societies.  The Union blockade against the South and the torched earth
    policies of Sherman represented the paradigm for Total War.  In fact,
    the Emancipation Proclamation not only gave moral justification for the
    war, but it was more importantly a tool of warfare--the liberation of
    slaves represented an attack on the very fabric of Southern society.
    Modern warfare is not just a clash confined to two sets of trained
    killers--it is a clash between entire nations.

    My answer to Richard's question--'could you cite an example of a war
    where both sides did not wish the other ill (destruction, death, pain,
    suffering, humiliation)'--is that, in the modern era, I don't believe
    that such an example can be found.  Of course, even in the simpler
    paradigm for warfare, such ill will was the directed against the
    soldiers of the other side.  But now such ill will is directed against
    the entire society.  If the goal of victory can be achieved by
    destroying a society's economy, infrastructure, or some other means to
    its will to fight, it will be done--this is, as a matter of fact,
    precisely what the U.S. did in the Gulf War. 

    Thus, regardless of causes, the actual conduct of the war involves, as
    Richard pointed out, the wishing of ill against the other side.  That
    is how you achieve victory.

    -- Mike

    RE: .173
    
    Then how do you stop someone like Hitler?
    
    Marc H.

    .175
    
    Marc,
    
    	I've been waiting for that question.  The problem is, I'm still
    working on the answer myself.
    
    	Sometimes even when one doesn't have the right answer, one
    can still identify the wrong ones.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: .176 Richard, until you can come up with the answer to the question
    of how to stop a Hitler you have not shown that the answer used was the
    wrong one.
    
    		Alfred

re: Note 545.173 by Richard "Strength through peace" 

> Does the good book say to overcome evil with evil??      

Well, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" might possibly be read to 
mean that using evil means against evil causes will divide the evil, therefore 
it cannot stand and is thus defeated.    

Mind you, I don't buy that argument!

Peace,

Jim

Well, there does seem to be an assumption that violence
is evil or wrong in this string - an assumption that is
well worth questioning in my opinion.

I understand the Bible as saying that violence is a means
or a tool which can be both used appropriately and can be
used inappropriately.  When God uses it, he always uses it
appropriately.  When people use it, we often use it
inappropriately.

It must be extremely hard to believe the Bible, believe
that violence is always wrong, and reconcile the number of
times that God uses violence to accomplish His perfect
Will (not the least of which is hell).

Collis

    Yes Collis, that thought was always in the back of my mind.  I would 
    encourage some of our fellow noters to read over Joshua and Judges.
    These books represent some of the bloodiest times in Biblical history,
    and believe it or not...ALL MANDATED BY GOD!!!
    
    -Jack-

re Note 545.179 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Well, there does seem to be an assumption that violence
> is evil or wrong in this string - an assumption that is
> well worth questioning in my opinion.

        I don't think that the assumption in the above is that ALL
        violence is evil or wrong.

        Rather, the assumption is that attacks against "innocents"
        (non-combatants, women, children, children-in-the-womb),
        whether intentional or as inadvertent side-effects, is wrong
        and can never be reconciled with the God who says "choose
        life".

        (Or perhaps the assumption is even more restrictive than the
        above:  such attacks against "innocents" are evil when they
        can be avoided "merely" by allowing others to do evil to
        yourself.)

        Bob

    > These books represent some of the bloodiest times in Biblical
    history, and believe it or not...ALL MANDATED BY GOD!!! <
    
    With all due respect for your beliefs, Jack, I don't believe the above 
    for a moment. In fact, it's a *dangerous* belief, imo, easily leading to
    other "bloody times" such as the Inquistion, when people also believed
    then that their genocidal actions were MANDATED BY GOD.
    
    Scarey.
    
    Karen

    I can't speak for others, but I don't necessarily start from an
    assumption that violence is bad.  The traditional perspective of
    Quakerism, which I share, is that viewing violence as an evil is more
    of a derivative belief that stems from a deeper religious principle. 

    Having said that, though, it is also true that I have deep moral and
    psychological aversion to the notion of inflicting forcible physical
    harm on another person.  That is something that I carry inside of
    myself, it is part of the core of my being.  It is why I hate watching
    slasher movies, for example--I wince whenever I see an expplicit
    presentation of blood and gore in such movies.  When I saw "The Cook,
    the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover", a supportedly "artistic" film, I
    was so disgusted my whole day was ruined.  Abhorence of violence is not
    just an abstract theological principle for me, it is in fact ingrained
    in my conscience and my outlook on the world.

    Back when I was in high school, I remember watching the TV movie on the
    Manson slayings.  It was a long time ago, but I remember how it
    depicted people who saw the carnage--might have even been cops who were
    normally hardened to such things--walked outside and threw up.  There
    is a reason why people throw up when see terrible things like that--it
    is because there is something inside of us--most of us, anyway--that
    has a core revulsion to such things.  I don't know if this revulsion
    stems out of empathy for the victim, or something else.  In fact, I
    really am curious about why I and others flinch wince or respond with
    disgust when faced with such violence.  But it is not something I would
    ever want to give up in myself, because I simply don't want to be
    hardened to that.

    Come to think of it, I had a hard time keeping my breakfast down when
    I dissected a worm back in high school.  I guess I would never make it
    through medical school.  Of course, doctors who carry out surgery do
    what they do to help the patient, not to inflict harm, and thus doctors
    have to disengage that mental circuit that finds gore revolting--in
    effect, they must harden themselves--in order to do their profession. 
    But I prefer not to disengage that circuit in my own brain if it isn't
    professionally necessary to do so.
    
    I can understand the difficult moral questions that can lead people to
    accept violence as unfortunate but necessary; this was the basis of the
    question posed with respect to Hitler.  But I admit--and this is not
    just a theological, but a moral and deeply personal perspective--that I
    am unable to fathom how anyone could view certain kinds of violence not
    just as a necessary evil, but as in fact a virtue lacking in any
    distasteful or ugly aspects whatsoever.  I think this question, perhaps
    more than the question of biblical inerrancy per se, epitomizes the
    deep chasm that separates many Christians from one another.  From my
    own moral and theological perspective, accepting the biblical
    atrocities at face value is simply another theological corner that one
    is forced to paint themselves into when they accept biblical inerrancy;
    obviously, if my perspective were one that considered violence a
    virtue, I wouldn't be troubled by any of that violence whatsoever.

    -- Mike
    

    Karen, I wonder if the relationship between belief in divine support
    and the actual commiting of atrocities is often not so much a case of
    people doing it because they think God mandated it, as a case of
    wanting to do it anyway and then using God to justify their actions. 
    I also wonder if this is what the authors of the books of Joshua and
    Leviticus did in writing of Yahweh's blessing on their people's
    genocide against the people of Ai and Jericho.
    
    On the other hand, you are absolutely correct that many people *do* use
    their belief that God mandates atrocities and out of a sense of
    obedience they carry them out.  It is a very sad commentary on humanity
    and religion.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  past

I'm glad that I got the assumption wrong.  Violence then
is not necessarily wrong seems to be what I'm hearing.

Bob argues in .181 that it is attacks against "innocents"
that are wrong.  I agree with him.  The area of disagreement
is, I expect, in defining who is innocent.  Jesus was/is
innocent.  Any violence against Him is wrong.  The rest of
us are guilty, at least from a Biblical perspective.  Violence
against us is not necessarily wrong (although it could well
be).

Collis

    I think we are talking about two kinds of innocence here.  I suspect
    Bob's comment refers not to *general* moral innocence, but specific
    innocence of anything warranting a specific violence response at that
    time.  If someone is coming after you with a knife you can say that you
    used violence to stop the attack.  The goal was then no more and no
    less than a direct and specific response to what that person was doing
    or intended to do at the moment you responded to them.  A pacifist
    might not agree with your response, but at least your response was
    directed at a specific wrongful action on the other party's part.

    On the other hand, if a grandmother is sitting on a porch knitting on a
    sweater for her cat, doesn't know you, never heard of you, and means
    you no harm, and you walk up to her and blow her away with an Uzi, then
    telling the judge that no one is morally innocent will *not* get you
    off.  Not only will it not get you off, but in fact a lot of people
    will hate you, the prosecutor will vilify you, and capital punishment
    advocates will wish for your death.  To say that no one is morally
    innocent in the general sense is no moral justification for killing
    just anybody at any time.  People will be morally appalled at such an
    act, and yes, they will use the word "innocent" to describe this
    grandmother, because in the context of your act against her she was
    innocent.

    If lack of general moral innocence is not in and of itself a moral
    justification for simply killing people, then it is because there is
    something that holds us back, that tells us that killing them in those
    contexts is a bad thing.  What separates those whom it is okay to kill
    from those it is not okay to kill, since we are all "guilty" and
    supposedly aren't entitled to the privilege of life anyway?  It must be
    something else, then, something that one can choose not to call
    "innocence" but which practically speaking is the term that it often
    boils down to people using.

    There is a reason why people would vilify someone who killed that
    grandmother--a very good reason, as a matter of fact.  The killing
    would be a horrible, reprehensible thing to do. The response is one of
    moral revulsion, a fully justified one.  And this sort of action,
    multiplied by the populations of Ai and Jericho, is what the Bible
    claims Yahweh mandated the people of Israel to do.

    Of course, there is another spin to this idea that no one is, in
    general, morally innocent.  That view loves others in spite of their
    lack of innocence.  In fact, every single person I love is not morally
    innocent in the general, and it precisely because I love them that I
    don't blow them away with an Uzi.  I love my mother, and I certainly
    don't desire to blow her away, and would be very upset if someone else
    tried to do it.  I would reject as ridiculous any argument that claimed
    that my mother would have no right to object to being murdered because
    she isn't morally innocent anyway.  My love for others tells me
    more or less the complete opposite--that despite their lack of
    innocence, there is still something of God within them, there is still
    something precious and beautiful about them.
    
    When atrocities are justified because no one is deemed innocent anyway,
    it sounds as if we all somehow need a justifications for *not* being
    killed.  We are all just hanging in the balance, waiting to get our
    just desserts for our sins.  The onus then becomes not on justifying
    violence--since the violence is at all times justified by the very fact
    of out guilt--but in justifying *not* using violence against others,
    since we all deserve violence anyway.  That is fundamentally the
    opposite of my own perspective, which starts from the premise that what
    any justification for violence needs to do is overcome a fundamental
    valuing of the lives of others, that in fact everyone deosn't by
    default deserve to be killed.  It does not start from a wish to do
    violence to others precisely because of love of neighbor.

    -- Mike

re Note 545.184 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     wanting to do it anyway and then using God to justify their actions. 
>     I also wonder if this is what the authors of the books of Joshua and
>     Leviticus did in writing of Yahweh's blessing on their people's
>     genocide against the people of Ai and Jericho.

        I suspect that it wasn't done so much to justify their
        actions as to explain the beneficial (to them) result:  "We
        won a victory we might not otherwise have won because God
        favored us."

        Bob

    Re: .182 to Karen Berggren
    
    Hi Karen:
    
    Yes, Gods judgement is scarey to me also.  Thank you for respecting my
    beliefs Karen.  I just want to point out to you that these beliefs are
    not based on a prophecy such as Revelation but rather on a historical 
    sequence of events which actually happened.  Here is an outline of the
    events proving it was from God.
    
    I. As the Hebrews were about to enter the promised land (Jericho)
    
    "And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his
    eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him with his
    sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him and asked him, Art
    thou for us or for thy adversaries?  And he said nay, but as captain of
    the hosts of the Lord am I now come.  And Joshua fell on his face to
    worship and did say unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?  And
    the captain of the Lord's host saith, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot;
    for the place where thou standeth is holy"  Joshua 5:13-15.
    (We have now set the foundation of who is leading this bloody battle!)
    
    II. "And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thy hand
    Jericho..."  Joshua 6:2  
    (A City of Men, Women, and Children)
    
    III. "...and the people shouted with a great shout and the walls of
    Jericho fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every
    man straight before him, and they took the city.  AND THEY UTTERLY
    DESTROYED ALL that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old,
    and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword"  Joshua 6:20,21.
    
    Yes Karen, I do get scared when people like Hitler, and the church of
    the dark ages kill in the name of God or use God as an excuse for
    killing.  In fact, we know that millions kill and die in the name of
    God.
    
    However Karen, do not be too unbelieving that God can and will judge a
    nation.  God tells us in his word that the last days will be as the
    days of Noah.  They too were an unbelieving world/nation just as we
    are!  I'm sure many innocent children died in the flood also.
    
    Not Scared but seeking The Lord's Return,
    
    Jack
    
    
    

    RE.173

    Marc:

          I realize this is a somewhat simplistic answer , but here goes.
    You stop someone like Hitler or Stalin by not following them. Could
    Hitler have invaded Poland by himself ? Could Stalin have sent
    millions to their deaths in the Gulag on his own ? 

                                                               Mike

re .175

	Marc,

	History shows us who opposed Hitler in the way mentioned by Mike
	in .189. In fact I saw a documentary yesterday evening about a
	German family who opposed Hitler and his regime. From what I 
	can remember about the program was that the Nazi regime first of 
	all tried to force them to "Heil Hitler" especially the young children,
	however they refused eventhough they were beaten black and blue for 
	their refusal. Their reasoning was that "Heil Hitler" meant to the 
	German people that salvation was through Hitler, however they realised 
	that salvation was through their Fuhrer Jesus Christ and no politician.

	One of their sons was recruited for military service and he refused.
	For his refusal he was executed. His reasoning on the matter was
	that "you must love God with your whole heart, mind and soul and
	secondly to love ones neighbour",  he saw that it was wrong to
	kill. Later, the Nazi's reported him as dieing as a war hero.
	
	Another son was executed by the Nazi's for refusing military service.
	
	Eventually, over a period of time the rest of the family were sent
	to concentration camp. They were found out because they continued 
	to secretly do the preaching work and were turned over by informers.
	In the concentration camp they wore purple triangles, this group
	were different to the other internees because unlike them they
	could obtain freedom by signing a paper that in effect showed that
	they recanted their faith. Even under the difficulties that they 
	faced they continued to stay faithful and none of the family signed 
	the paper. In fact there faith and love of God continued after the war.

	I was very much moved by their story and about 20,000 other persons
	had a similar story to tell, prior to and during World War II. Only if 
	others had made the same stand. The documentary ended with the reporter 
	making an interesting point that I had never thought about before, 
	Hitler was a religious man but at no time was he ever excommunicated 
	by the church he belonged to.


	To me this German family the Kusserow's were a fine example of 
	how one obeys "God as ruler rather than men." Acts 5:29 NWT, also 
	of how one fears God rather then men not wanting in anyway to 
	displease him by loosing their integrity. They showed love for 
	their Polish brother etc by refusing to join the war machine 
	(John 13:34,35). 

	Back then and today "Surely his salvation is near to those fearing 
	him."  Psalms 85:9 NWT. Would it not be foolish to save ones life 
	for short period now, but loose everlasting life through recanting
	ones faith in the one that can make everlasting life possible?
	John 3:16. 

	Phil.   

	P.S. the Kusserow family are Jehovah's Witnesses

    mike,
    
    I agree with you.  I believe that Hitler was successful because
    Millions of people saw him to be a "Savior".  From the alienationation
    and isolation that they were feeling.  It is simplistic but millions of
    people not following him would have put an end.  The scary message is
    that Hitler captivated a nation with his "religion" of hate and blame.
    
    That is what I fear could happen again.  Another simple answer is to
    foster healthy spirituality in people.  This is a important job for all
    the churches both Christian and Non Christian.  A spirituality that
    fosters love and acceptance is critical.
    
    I look at Christianity as not quite an outsider but not quite an
    insider as well.  In Jesus I hear a wonderful message.  In the
    principle of the incarnation of God in all humankind I feel a wonderful
    message.  The language of the "Body of Christ" with the ritual of
    communion seems appealing.  Yet the actual church that I witnessed in
    my three random visits this summer and the desire I seen here to define
    Christianity in such a way that makes it a "restricted Club" scares me. 
    It feels like doctrine has become more important than the relationship
    to the divine and it further feels like doctrine can then be used
    against those who are judged not part of that "restricted club".
    
    Because of my participation here, I think I have some level of
    understanding  why holy wars are fought and that realization truly
    scares me.
    
                                    Patricia

Re:  545.186

Hi Mike,

  >I think we are talking about two kinds of innocence here.

My response is that the two kinds blend into one when the judge
is God.  Indeed I agree with you that we do not have the right
to set ourselves up as individual judges and only have limited
powers of judgment when we judge collectively (country, church,
family).

God, however, has full powers to judge anyone at anytime and to
use any means to bring about his judgment including people -
a means that God uses not only for judgment but also for bringing
the message of salvation.  For you, I will pose it as a hypothetical
question (for me it is a reality) - if God Himself orders a person
(such as yourself) to kill another for whatever reason, is it right
to kill another?  This question gets to the bottom of where
morality comes from.  There is no question in my mind that God
defines what is moral and that God is perfectly moral and good.  I
would never believe that putting my own beliefs about morality above
God's specific command is correct.  I suspect others may differ.

Collis

Collis (.192),

I'm confused by your note.  With all the work you do for pro-life, I 
find it hard to understand why you would believe in taking another's 
life under any circumstance.

<<the message of salvation.  For you, I will pose it as a hypothetical
<<question (for me it is a reality) - if God Himself orders a person
<<(such as yourself) to kill another for whatever reason, is it right
<<to kill another?  This question gets to the bottom of where
<<morality comes from.  There is no question in my mind that God
<<defines what is moral and that God is perfectly moral and good.  I
<<would never believe that putting my own beliefs about morality above
<<God's specific command is correct.  I suspect others may differ.

Let's try another hypothetical question.  What if a pregnant woman
came to you for counseling and she told you that 'God Himself' has 
ordered her to abort the baby she was carrying.  Would you tell her 
not to if she insisted that the order came from God.  

Ro

    Collis, let's make your hypothetical question to me more specific. 
    Suppose God ordered me to kill your wife today.  Would I do it?
    
    My answer is that I don't believe that God orders people to kill people
    in the first place.  If you think that I am arguing for putting my own
    beliefs about morality above God's specific command, then I haven't
    made my own views very clear.  I am stating what I believe
    characterizes God's morality, and therefore I am arguing in favor of
    living in *accordance* with God's will, just as you are.  The
    difference is that we disagree on what constitutes divine will.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  545.193, .194

  >I'm confused by your note.  With all the work you do for pro-life, I 
  >find it hard to understand why you would believe in taking another's 
  >life under any circumstance.

I'll do my best to explain myself.

My morality continues to be conformed to my understand of God,
which is derived primarily from the Bible.  Now I do believe as
well that the morality presented in the Bible is logical and
consistent.

Violence, even death, is not only an acceptable result of sin,
it is the *necessary* result of sin according to the Bible.  The
result of any sin is the (eventual) judgment of God and that
judgment (according to the Bible) is death (Romans 6:23).

However, killing is very serious and usually done as a result of
sin.  So, although killing can be an appropriate response to sin,
God regulates it very carefully.  Only the government is given
the Biblical right to mandate killing.  (The Bible allowed killing
in another circumstance from a vengeful relative until the party
involved fleed to a protected city.  I view this not as a right
of an individual to kill on his own but rather a somewhat workable
compromise made as a result of our sinful nature, somewhat akin to
God's allowing divorce.)

So, to get back to your question, indeed I believe that we should
cherish and choose life (as the Bible supports).  I only support
killing when performed by the God-given agency which is government
(which does not mean I support any and all killing ordered by
government as government made up of people sins as well).  Is
this clearer?

  >Let's try another hypothetical question.  What if a pregnant woman
  >came to you for counseling and she told you that 'God Himself' has 
  >ordered her to abort the baby she was carrying.  Would you tell her 
  >not to if she insisted that the order came from God.  

Someone insisting that the order is from God does not necessarily
make it from God.

I would also ask for Biblical consistency.  Does God order women to
kill their unborn children?  Is this consistent with God's actions
in the past?  Etc., etc.

The intent of my hypothetical question was to complete get around
the question of *if* the order was from God.  It is a given that
the order is from God (hypothetically :-) ).  Will you obey it?

It is legitimate to answer either "yes", "no" or "God would never
order that" (at least those are the three options I see).  Mike chooses
the third option.  I choose the first (as I believe God has ordered
this in the past and will order this again in the future - at least
in some cases).

Collis

       

	Collis,

	If commanded by God, I too hope that I would be obedient to his
	commandment. As Eccl 12:13 NWT reads "The conclusion of the matter,
	everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his
	commandments. For this is the whole obligation of man."

	In the past, Jehovah used the nation of Israel as his executional
	forces - compare Deut 7:16. Joshua 10:14 NWT also shows that 
	"Jehovah himself was fighting for Israel." With a little digging
	into history one can see why Jehovah used the nation of Israel as
	an executional force.

	But what should be the Christian position toward participating
	in carnal warfare today?

	Isaiah 2:2-4 NWT shows that in the "final part of the days" those
	seeking Jehovah would be taught by him to "beat their swords 
	into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation 
	will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn 
	war any more."

	Now before the "end" people in different nations would not fight
	against other peoples for they would be taught how to live
	peaceably by God himself. And yet, just before the "end" there would 
	be "reports of wars" and "nation will rise against nation" Matt 24:6,7

	Matt 24:9 reads "Then people will deliver you up to tribulation and
	will kill YOU, and YOU will be objects of hatred by all the nations
	on account of my name." Notice that after hearing of wars, people
	would deliver Christians up to tribulation and would be objects of
	hatred by all the nations. But how can this be if they are fighting
	couragously, gallantly for their country? Surely, they would be
	considered war heros and yet Jesus said that they would be persecuted
	by all the nations even to death. So seeing that they would be taught
	by Jehovah to be live in peace with all the nations it is very unlikely
	that Jehovah would use his servants on earth as executional forces.
	Also war heros are seldom persecuted  but held in high esteem by the
	ruling authorities.

 
	 	
;(as I believe God has ordered this in the past and will order this again in 
;the future - at least in some cases).

	Collis, I agree with you that God will fight/order a battle in the 
	future. But the question is "Who will he use as his executional forces?".
	
	Phil.

Well,

If God ordered me to kill someone, I'd refuse.  If eternal seperation from 
such a God is the result, then so be it, I'd consider that a blessing.

And if the requirements of sin are violence and death, maybe we should just 
start WWIII right now, "for ALL have sinned".  .-(  No, I'd rather look at the 
requirements of sin as justice, mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Then again, I absolutely do not believe that the God of my understanding 
(which understanding is in a large part formed by my reading of the Bible)
would ever order me to kill someone.  I believe such an order would be a 
counterfeit conceived by the Accuser so carefully that even the Elect would 
be fooled.

Peace,

Jim

    Jim:
    
    God ordered Israel to destroy the entire nation of Canaan and yet they
    did not.  Because of their disobedience, they became apostate and more
    Israelites were killed then anyone could've imagined.
    
    By the way Jim, I never spoke to God as Moses did; however, my
    perception is that I would carry out Gods command.  It appears the
    executioners of the Old Testament were ordained to kill nations, not
    individuals.
    
    Jack

    Jim,
    
    My sentiments entirely.
    
    History tells to many stories of one people killing another because
    "god told them too".
    
    Yesterday in class we talked a bit about Islam and how Moslems believe
    that they possess the corrected revelation of God.  And I know that
    most Christian's although not in total agreement with each other
    believe that they have the revelation from God that "Jesus is the only
    way".
    So here we have perhaps the two most powerful religions in the world each
    totally sure that they have divinely inspired truth.  And the danger is 
    that the adherents of each religion may feel that they either have to
    convert or wipe out the other.  And then we have the secular religion of
    Oil profits.
    
    And it scares me to know that there are adherents to both religions
    that believe that god could tell them to execute the infidels.
    
    I believe that the Hebrew God and the Christian God and the Moslem God
    is the same God and that God does not want all three killing each other
    or anyone else.
    
    Patricia 
    

Jack,

>    God ordered Israel to destroy the entire nation of Canaan and yet they
>    did not.  Because of their disobedience, they became apostate and more
>    Israelites were killed then anyone could've imagined.

That is one possible interpretation of Old Testament books.  Though one has 
difficulty predicting what might have happened had their choice been 
different.
    
>    By the way Jim, I never spoke to God as Moses did; however, my
>    perception is that I would carry out Gods command.  It appears the
>    executioners of the Old Testament were ordained to kill nations, not
>    individuals.

What are nations composed of?  Thousands and thousands of individuals.

This sounds much like modern society's fascination and horror of war, 
spending hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve it yet being outraged 
by the carnage, yet it is relatively blas� about drunk drivers, whose toll 
on the populous is no less great. 
    
I stand by my convictions, before God, who by the Spirit convicts me thus. 

Peace, and thanks for sharing your perspective.

Jim

    Actually Jim, Interpretation doesn't play into this.  Interpretation is
    a perception of an outcome based on a prophecy, puzzle, riddle, or
    something not fully tangible.
    
    Many men died at Valley Forge of frostbite!  This is not an
    interpretation of what happened.  This is a concise explanation of
    death based on historical fact, not interpretation.  
    
    God ordered the Israelites to destroy all men, women, children, and
    cattle in Canaan.  This is a fact based on God speaking in His Word.
    Israel disobeyed The Lords command and spared the virgin women and
    cattle.  The excuse given was that they could offer the cattle to the
    Lord.  The men of Israel took the women on as wifes and servants.  
    These women then incorporated pagan practices.  This became a continual
    stumblingblock for the Jews for many years.  They learned to offer
    their children to Molech, the fire god as well as other practices which
    were unspeakable.  It was the foundation for many wars which they were
    defeated and eventually, exile into Babylon, a horrible place.
    
    We now have the finished word and I don't believe God works this way
    anymore. The sword he wants us to raise is the Word of God!
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack

    re note 545.201
    
    Jack,
    
    Interpretation versus biblical faith is a more appropriate title.
    
    Patricia

    Re: .196 - Phil's Reply to Collis
    
    Phil:
    
    Your exegesis on using Matthew Ch. 24 to help define what our attitude
    should be toward carnal warfare is interesting.  However, it has a few
    holes in it.  
    
    I believe that based on 1st Thess. Chapter 4, and Revalation Ch. 3 that
    the Church will not be here when some of the specific events of Matthew
    Chapter 24 takes place.  Granted, we are experiencing wars, rumors, of
    wars, famines, and now pestilence of a horrible kind (AIDS).  However, 
    vs 15 states, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of
    desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, stand in the holy place,
    then let him who be in Judea flee into the mountains."
     
    I believe at this point there will be one world government and
    according to Daniel ch. 7, The beast (Satan) will be ruling in the
    rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.  This is what Jesus is telling the
    apostles to flee from.  I believe that Israel is the nation that will
    be hated by the world during this time.  See Revalation ch 12.  The
    women hated by Satan here is Israel.  In Revalation ch. 13, the 144,000
    Israelite missionaries are going to spread the gospel throughout the
    world.  Matthew 24, vs 14 says, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall
    be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then
    shall the end come.
    
    The time of peace when we turn our swords into plowshares is after
    Jesus returns in Revalation ch. 19 and reigns 1000 years.  This happens
    only after the horrible judgements of the tribulation period described
    in Revalation.  All this has yet to pass but the false labor is here!
    
    So, to put this into perspective, our attitude toward warfare must be
    one where we are not willing to be overcome by somebody elses sin.
    In other words, be alert and watchful, just as Jesus was on the Mount
    of Olives.  
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack 

    Re: .202
    
    Good point Patricia but just for the record, archeologists have proven
    that the walls of Jericho could not have been knocked down the way they
    were had it not been for a supernatural force. 
    
    Godspeed
    

	Jack,

	Thank you for your comments, eventhough we are in disagreement.

    ;Your exegesis on using Matthew Ch. 24 to help define what our attitude
    ;should be toward carnal warfare is interesting.  However, it has a few
    ;holes in it.

	I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this, perhaps Matt 24
	can be discussed in another topic for it is seen that this prophecy 
	covers not just the time of the end but also the fall of Jerusalem 
	in 70 CE.

	Putting my reply in .196 a side and looking at Jesus' new command in
	John 13:34,35 NWT "I am giving you a new commandment, that YOU love
   	one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another.
	By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love
	amongst yourselves."

	Notice that that Jesus said that this would be a self sacrificing
	love "just as I have loved YOU" and could literally mean laying
	down ones life for ones brother. Jesus had at his disposal myriads
	and myriads of powerful angels and yet did not use them to fight.
	Instead, in doing God's will, he layed down his life so that all
	may have the opportunity of everlasting life. Also he said that this
	type of love would be an identifying mark.
	
	1 Peter 2:17 NWT reads "Honor [men] of all sorts, have love for the 
	whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, have honor for the 
	king." Today, the Bible is available in all countries around the
	globe also their are professing Christians in these countries. So
	this love would transcend national borders or ethnic differences
	bringing brothers together in a bond of union.

	So is it right to go to war for ones country? Notice what it says
	in 1 John 3:12-16 NWT "not like Cain, who originated with the wicked 
	one and slaughtered his brother. And for the sake of what did he 
	slaughter him? Because his own works wicked but those of his brothers 
	[were] righteous. Do not marvel, brothers that the world hates YOU. 
	We know we have passed over from death to life, because we love the 
	brothers. He who does not love remains in death. Every one who hates 
	his brother is a manslayer, and no manslayer has everlasting life 
	remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one 
	surrended his soul for us; and we are under obligation to surrender 
	our souls for [our] brothers." Would there have been a World War II 
	if the German people (known as a predominately Christian Country) had 
	it instilled in them that it was wrong to slaughter ones brother 
	eventhough they were of a different colour or nationality?. Obviously,
	the majority on both sides of this conflict fell down in this regard 
	because Protestant slaughtered Protestant and Catholic slaughtered
	Catholic. Jesus' example for us was to lay down his life when under 
	oppression not to kill those who were oppressing him or his followers
	and yet he had the capabilities too. We like Jesus should take into
	account what is God's will. 

	Today, what is God's viewpoint in getting caught in national fervour
	so that we end up hating our brother in another land .1 John 4:20-21 
	NWT "If anyone makes the statement : 'I love God,' and yet is hating 
	his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom 
	he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. And this 
	commandment we have from him, that one who loves God should be loving 
	his brother also." 

;     The time of peace when we turn our swords into plowshares is after
;    Jesus returns in Revalation ch. 19 and reigns 1000 years.  This happens
;    only after the horrible judgements of the tribulation period described
;    in Revalation.  All this has yet to pass but the false labor is here!

	I agree that the time of peace in full is during the 1000 years
	and beyond. But Isaiah 2:2-4 does show that "in the final part 
	of the days" that those seeking Jehovah would "learn war no more" 
	and notice Peter's exhortation to First Century Christians in 2 
	Peter 3:13-14 NWT " But there are news heavens and a new earth that 
	we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness 
	is to dwell. Hence, beloved ones since YOU are awaiting these things, 
	do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished 
	and in peace." Now, we might disagree in our interpretation on what 
	these new heavens and new earth might be, but we can see that Peter's 
	was admonishing that fellow Christians should be found in peace with 
	their brother be he German, Iranian, Polish or American. One would 
	not want to be found blemished with innocent blood because of 
	nationalistic fervour.
 
;   So, to put this into perspective, our attitude toward warfare must be
;    one where we are not willing to be overcome by somebody elses sin.
;    In other words, be alert and watchful, just as Jesus was on the Mount
;    of Olives.  
  
	Another perspective is that ones integrity to God, in that the
	brotherly love we are commanded to display, should not be crushed 
	by nationalistic fervour. Instead as Paul said in Romans 12:10 NWT
	"In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing 
	honor to one another take the lead." Take the lead just as Jesus'	
	did in self sacrificing love. Those showing this love should take
	courage, 1 John 3:13-14 NWT "Do not marvel, brothers that the world 
	hates YOU. We know we have passed over from death to life, because we 
	love the brothers.".

	So the good news for Jim is that Jesus commanded his followers to
	to show self-sacrificing love for their own brother. Also they
	are commanded to love their neighbour, meaning everybody. Being
	obedient would mean not going to war because the politicians tell
	them to, rather they would obey God rather than man knowing that
	going to war could in the end result in them being pitted against
	their own brother and thus loosing God's favour. 

	Phil.

Re:  545.196

Points well taken.  The only comment I would add is that it
is not clear that this will be the condition of all Christians
during those end times, i.e. that they will be oppresed rather
than being oppressors.  Given the knowledge that Christians
have been involved in all aspects of society (including armies)
since the time of Christ means that we can expect Christians
to be on both sides.

Collis

Re:  545.197

Jim,

I realize that my statements are easily open to unintentional
misunderstanding which is how I interpret your response, "And
if the requirements of sin are violence and death, maybe we should
just start WWIII right now..."

Again (and again and again), I am speaking from God's perspective,
not a human perspective in most of my comments.  I have tried to
be clear about which is which.  Obviously, what is appropriate
for God to do is often quite inappropriate for us to do on our
own authority.

Personally, I hold dogmatically to God's authority over any
understanding I have.  I believe this is inherent in my love for
God - a love which surpasses my own convictions of right and
wrong.  I also have confidence in God's absolute morality, purity,
trustworthiness, etc.  I pray that this is actually the case when
the rubber meets the road.

Collis

    I thought I might bring up a particular conundrum I am facing in this
    area.

    A year an a half ago I was elected to the budget committee of the local
    public school district. I was actually running, as a write in, for
    school board. I lost for school board but enough people also wrote me
    in for budget committee that I won that position. I felt obligated to
    take the job, which doesn't pay anything BTW, because so many people
    had asked me to run and had backed it with their vote.

    Now the problem. On one hand I believe I make a positive contribution
    to the budget process. I should mention that this is actually my second
    time on the committee and I served as chairman during my first term.
    So I bring experience to the job. And I have a fairly strong
    constituency in my town among people who consider themselves fiscal
    conservatives. But on the other hand I find that government run schools
    make me as uncomfortable as government run churches. 

    I have become a serious student of philosophy of education over the
    last 6-8 years. My study, particularly of people who label themselves
    liberal educators, lead me to believe that government run schools are
    counter democratic in nature. And implicitly, if not explicitly, anti
    religion. All religion not just Christianity.

    Does my membership on the committee imply support for government run
    schools? If so, should I resign? Or should I stay and faithfully watch
    after the public purse trying to make the schools as good (or least
    bad) as possible?

    			Alfred

Alfred,

I sincerely believe that it is important to have persons of your 
integrity involved in government.  Please try to hang in there.  
You may never know the impact you have made/will make, but I suspect 
it has a ripple affect of good in the community.

Regards,

Ro

    Alfred,
    
    I agree whole heartedly with Ro.  If you feel called to stay in that
    position, by all means do so.  Even if you are a voice in the
    wilderness, you will make a big difference.  
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack
    

    Alfred,
    
    Religious freedom exists everywhere in public areas without exception. 
    The public school is not a religion-free zone.
    
    What has been recently decided is that some school-organized expression
    of religious belief is considered to be "establishment" under the first
    amendment.

    Yes, and this is why I'm so baffled at the double standard of schools
    teaching secular humanism, considering it was deemed a religion by the
    Supreme Court in the early 1980's
    
    There is an agenda out there, ain't no denyin it!!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

I don't think the schools teach secular humanism.  There is a difference
between not teaching about God and teaching that God is not necessary.
Yes, the public school curriculum is consistent with secular humanism
(because the schools don't teach about God) but that doesn't mean that the
schools are actively teaching secular humanism (e.g. by teaching that God
isn't necessary or that God doesn't exist).

I've come to the conclusion that I should be happy that the Supreme Court
has said that secular humanism is a religion.  If Digital fired because
I'm a secular humanist I'd like to be able to sue them for religious
discrimination.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    
    Good point but do you think evolution falls within the realm of Secular
    Humanism?  It teaches of our origins as if truth.  It is critically
    flawed in many many areas.  In fact, Darwin admitted this at the end of 
    his life.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    Teaching contemporary scientific knowledge to our children does not
    constitute teaching secular humanism.  This is not only true because
    evolution is not inconsistent with Christianity (and is fully accepted
    by many Christians), but also because to assert otherwise is to equate
    non-humanist religions with ignorance and hostility to science.
    
    -- Mike

    Its not scientific knowledge, alot is based on theory and myth.  I will
    grant you some of it is based on fact.  For example, dinosaurs did once
    exist.  To say they didn't would be ignorant.  
    
    You cannot determine facial hair from fossils in any way shape or form. 
    Carbon 12 has been proven unreliable for dating purposes and Dr.
    Leakeys discoveries of fossils in the Paluxy River in Texas has proven
    the whole chart of origin from monkey to common man to be off by
    millions of years.  Whats more, the time frame of the origin of man
    called Hesperopithacus, was later shown to be built up from the tooth
    of an extinct pig!!
    
    What a cruel hoax we are playing on our children!  If this isn't
    secular humanism, please tell me what it is.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    RE: .211 I realize that. However my lack of support for public schools
    is not totally related to religious issues. Those are just a symptom.
    I've gone into some greater detail in CNOTES::EDUCATION_ISSUES for
    anyone interested.

    Religious freedom exists in public schools however I also believe that
    a school that doesn't teach religion, at least through example, is
    flawed. Also I believe that schools reinforce cultural and political
    values. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. So I believe that
    government schools minimize cultural, political, religious, and
    philosophical differences. This I believe to be counter democratic.

    		Alfred

    RE: Ro and Jack, Thanks for the supportive words. I just wonder if
    I should take a more radical position.

    Re: .216
    
    Although your understanding of evolution appears to be incorrect in at
    least certain ways, the important point here is that even if evolution
    was as flawed as you claimed, this has nothing to do with secular
    humanism because evolution is not at all inconsistent with
    Christianity, and is in fact fully accepted by many Christians.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    Please quit with the rhetoric that evolution is accepted by many 
    Christians.  There are more Christians that reject it than accept it
    though this proves nothing.  Evolution is a term used very broadly and
    loosely.  Any thinking person who has the facts realizes what a sham
    evolution theory is.  It lacks all supporting data which is required to
    prove any other scientific theory.  Evolution is not only bad science
    it is a humanistic approach to defining where we came from and why. 
    God does not enter into the evolutionary picture.  It is a deception
    from the pit of hell and explains nothing about reality.
    
    there,
    jeff

    re: .219
    	
    	Where might I find scientific evidence that supports the theory
    of Creation/Genesis?  I don't want info from some fringe scientist
    touted in the National Inquirer, but someone with rather impressive
    credentials from a non-religious affiliated university or two.
    
    George
    

    Can we move the evolution stuff to a new topic perhaps? This rathole
    is getting too far afield for me. I'd just hit NEXT UNSEEN but I fear
    missing things germane to the original topic.

    		Alfred

    Jeff,

    Aside from the fact that I believe you are totally wrong in asserting
    that "any thinking person who has the facts realizes what a sham
    evolution theory is", the more important point is that, regardless of
    the facts pro and con with respect to evolutionary science, it is *not*
    an  inherently humanistic approach to "defining where we came from and
    why."  The point is that the fact of biological evolution can be
    consistent both with a Christian and a humanistic perspective; it
    simply does not address the religious questions per se, any more than
    the question of why the sky is blue or why planets circle the sun has
    anything to do pro or con with the existence of God; this sort of
    scientific question leaves that interpretation up to the individual. It
    is not that God cannot enter into the picture--in fact, for many people
    of faith, God very much does enter into the picture of biological
    evolution (I, for example, believe that God plays an important role in
    evolution.)
    
    Therefore, there is nothing inherently secular humanist about the
    teaching of scientific knowledge such as evolution.

    -- Mike

    (To the mods, Alfred: this will be the last mention by me)
    
    Hi George:
    
    Obviously the account of Genesis can only be based on faith.  The issue
    here is that evolution is based on probability or chance.  These
    probabilities are far more unbelievable than the Genesis account if you
    really look at them.  
    
    Jesus affirmed the Genesis account when speaking to the Pharisees.  He
    said that he had already sent Moses to proclaim the truth, yet you (The
    Pharisees) do not believe in what he said.  And if you do not believe
    in what Moses says, how then can you believe the words I speak?
    
    Moses was inspired by God to write the Genesis account and Moses
    certainly fits the requirements of a professional.  No uneducated
    shepherd could have written the first five books of the OT and just 
    fabricated the whole thing!
    
    Do you believe what Moses wrote?  I would recommend a book called
    "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  Yes he attended
    Talbot Theological Seminary but also started as a non believing cum
    laude law graduate who started out to disprove the Bible.  In the
    process, he realized he was wrong and the Bible was right.  Excellent
    book on apologetics!
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    Re: .222
    
    I know what your saying Mike and the argument has merit.  However, the
    concept again is flawed and hence is a false teaching.  Therefore, 
    although God perhaps did or did not use certain aspects of our
    evolution teaching, it is no more than a fairy tale if it is
    scientifically incorrect.  Then it is not science at all...it is theory
    based on faith or what one believes.
    
    --Jack

    Jack, if your objection to teaching evolution is that you consider it
    false, that is certainly one thing, separate from the question of
    whether or not teaching it constitutes the promotion of secular
    humanism (although what we mean by "false" is an important question,
    since to a certain extent I would think that all scientific models are
    potentially open to revision as new knowledge is obtained.)  Even if
    the creationist attacks on modern biological science were valid, this
    does not mean that evolution per se is a secular humanist teaching.

    -- Mike

    p.s. being off by "millions of years" is within the margin for error
    for evolution

    Is it the whole concept of natural selection that some people object
    to, or is it just their belief that human are a special exception?

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    From an evolution perspective, the main lesson I received from my high
    school teachers was that evolution is not a theory and that our being
    here is one big accident and had no divine intervention.  I realize
    Mike isn't saying this but my high school teachers certainly did.
    
    This is the crux of the argument, human teaching based on flawed human
    understanding.  The real pisser is that they are teaching these
    theories dogmatically as if they are real.  The scientific basis on
    some of these is totally without prescedent, yet they insist on
    teaching lies.  Taking God out of the whole picture, I would look at
    some of these teachings and say, "I, Jack Martin, think this is
    bunk!!!"  Many scholars feel this way.  
    
    It is a teaching of our origin, how we got here and why.  Therefore, it
    sounds and smells an awful lot like secular humanism.  If you want to
    teach a lie as truth to children, then you are failing in your
    obligation to give our children the very best education you can.  (Your
    - Defined as the state)...And I'm paying for this!!
                                                     
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    The reason these theories are being taught as fact is that they are
    accepted as fact among the scientific community.  Our educational
    system has an important role in ensuring that our children be
    scientifically literate; it is therefore important that it teaches
    evolution, just as it is should also teach plate tectonics or the Big
    Bang.

    Teaching evolution might constitute "secular humanism" if the teacher
    accompanied this teaching with a presentation of theological
    implications, such as by arguing that evolution somehow proved that
    God didn't exist.  I never heard any of my teachers in high school or
    college ever even address the question of God's existence or
    non-existence; it simply was not relevant to the subject at hand, any
    more than the question of God's existence is relevant to the teaching
    of quantum mechanics, geology, or any other scientific discipline.  The
    theological implications of scientific knowledge should form a subject
    unto itself.  Science has every right to investigate the origins of
    humanity or the universe, as determined by the record that the universe
    leaves in its laws and in the marks that past events leave upon the
    world around us.  That isn't "secular humanism"; that is simply science
    doing its job.  Leave theology to the theologians, and let scientists
    do their work.  Education has a duty to tell us what science has
    discovered.

    -- Mike

    If there's scientific evidence de-bunking evolution and similar
    scientific evidence supporting Creationism, I'd be *way* interested in
    reading it...
    
    ...in a more appropriate string however!
    
    but hurry up!  I've only got three more days!!! 8-)

    re .228
    
    Jack,
    
    Thanks for your reply, however you only addressed your objection to the
    teaching evolution theories with regard to human origins.   On that
    point you are quite clear and I will not ridicule you for your beleifs. 
    However, do you also contend that the whole concept of natural
    selection as it applies to plants and non-human animals is, to use your
    words, bunk?  In otherwords, does your faith and belief tell you that
    all forms of living matter are unique and unchanging (except through
    the specific creative desires of God, I assume)?
    
    Just trying to understand different world views...
    
    	Eric

Daniel .230,

Thee has the eye of a Moderator.  I've been sitting here biting my tongue
over this topic, which has been sidetracked seven ways from Sunday.

I wish folks would file their entries under the most appropriate string.
It makes it so much easier to locate the note later.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 545.228 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     From an evolution perspective, the main lesson I received from my high
>     school teachers was that evolution is not a theory and that our being
>     here is one big accident and had no divine intervention.  I realize
>     Mike isn't saying this but my high school teachers certainly did.
>     
>     This is the crux of the argument, human teaching based on flawed human
>     understanding.  The real pisser is that they are teaching these
>     theories dogmatically as if they are real.  

        You know, the same things have been and are said about the
        teaching of Christianity.  Throughout the millennia teachers,
        both "official" (in teaching positions in the churches) and
        unofficial have from time to time misunderstood revelation
        and taught in a way that was either misleading or outright in
        error.  And they taught these errors "dogmatically as if they
        are real."

        Such events in no way disprove Christianity.

        Bob

    Re: 228
    
    First to Richard, I agree that the topic discussed may not be
    appropriate for this string.  Before I continue, I would like you to
    understand that this conversation is a subset of a larger problem,
    namely, what our schools are teaching.  Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush have
    opposing views on education and I concur that our public schools need
    to be far more competitive than they are.  Their standards are bad and
    there curriculum isn't the greatest compared to that of other nations.
    
    To Eric: Thank you for accepting my beliefs as a belief and respecting
    it.  As I stated in an earlier note, to believe that the human race
    originating from a one celled being takes an astronimical amount more
    faith than that of the Genesis account.
    
    As far as living matter being unique and unchanging, I am a firm
    believer in science and the need for it.  I'm not sure if you know this
    but they just recently discovered three lead coffins in Maryland dated
    from the 1600's.  This to me is exciting as they have exumed the bodies
    of a woman, man, and a six month old child.
    
    I greatly look forward to the results of tests they will be doing. 
    Just the DNA samples alone will prove a vast wealth of knowledge.  I
    anticipate the DNA structure of these people will in fact show a
    difference compared to us.  In other words, yes, I do believe living
    matter can change but only in Gods sovereignty and control.  Case in
    point, do you believe that the accounts in Genesis of people like Adam
    and Methuselah living to be 900+ years old is fact or fiction? 
    Compared to some of the unsubstantiated teachings of evolutionists, I
    don't think it is unreasonable to believe this.  Yet our life span has
    changed dramatically.  One Christian perspective is that the life
    expectancy changed after the flood.  This theory holds merit
    scientifically.
    
    Re: 233:  Bob:  I agree with you wholeheartedly; however, we need to
    put this in the context of the base note.  One reason I voted for Bush
    is because I liked his idea of public and private schools being
    competitive.  Again, when private schools teach a doctrine which is
    wrong (and I agree that it has and still is happening), it is the
    parents choice to subject their child to this teaching because it is
    funded privately.  The evolution teaching is taught dogmatically and in
    some instances based on provable scientific evidence; however,
    teachings later proved wrong are STILL being taught as truth and with
    public taxpayers money.  This is the great crime perpetrated among us
    and our children.  We are not getting a proper return on our investment
    and most importantly, our kids are being taught untruths and not even
    scientifically based in some cases.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack    
    

    Getting back to Mr. Thompson's original question, here is my opinion
    about the need for public education.
    
    I believe that public education is vital to our society.
    
    Why?
    
    Public education provides an at least minimally educated workforce,
    political body and society.  That many of our schools are not even
    doing a minimal job is a problem to be rectified, but is not a reason
    to aboloish public education altogether.
    
    Consider - 20 years from now, who will drive your bus, weigh your
    vegetables, nurse you in the hospital, assemble your consumer goods,
    drive on the roads beside you, vote in your town election, manufacture
    your car parts, write your newspapers, debug the code in your
    computer, and play in your bowling league?
    
    Do you want these people to be well-educated?  It is in your best
    interest as a member of society to support public education that
    should universally educate.
    
    The education level in the US is falling below that in other advanced
    economies such as Germany and Japan, and will no doubt soon fall behind
    even other economies such as China.  I believe that withdrawing our
    societal support for public education will only cause us to fall
    further behind.  Small islands of quality private schools would turn
    out quality graduates, but great masses of children would receive poor,
    minimal, or no education.
    
    If we withdraw support for our public schools, the masses of
    ill-educated or nonschooled children will grow, feeding an increasing
    wave of crime, exacerbated by a worsening economy.    Greater numbers
    of these children will be unable to support themselves as adults,
    incurring tremendous governmental costs for prisons, welfare, AFDC,
    medical care, and other problems.  They will become burdens to society
    rather than assets.
    
    If we withdraw support for our public schools, we will effectively bar
    the road to advancement to new immigrants, most of whom cannot afford
    private education.
    
    Based on our legal separation of church and state, and the mandate that
    government must not support the establishment of any religion, our
    public schools may not teach religion.  To flog the public schools for
    not doing this, while ignoring the grave structural problems they face,
    is sheer lunacy.
                                     *
    
    As this is a predominately Christian readership, I would like to raise
    your consciousness about the purported lack of religion in public
    schools, from my point of view as a non-Christian living in suburban
    New Hampshire, an overwhelmingly Christian location.
    
    The fact is that by Christianity's dominance in this community,
    children in our public schools effectively ARE functioning in a
    Christian environment.  Of course the teachers do not include this in
    their lesson plans, but the influence is clearly there, present in both
    teachers and fellow students.  How do you classify the Christmas fund
    raiser fairs all our schools held this weekend?  How do you classify
    the bunnies and Easter eggs that appear on school windows in March?
    
    I find it ironic that Christians are bemoaning the lack of religion in
    public schools, when in fact it is their own religion that subtly
    pervades the entire environment.  
    
    If you REALLY want to know how it feels to see the lack of religion, or
    even sensitivity or awareness about it, try annually persuading each of
    your kids' teachers not to schedule important tests on the Jewish High
    Holy Days.  Try dealing with your kids' feelings of exclusion at the
    annual Christmas hoopla.  Try dealing with your kids' confusion and
    upset when their school mates tell them that they are damned to hell as
    non-believers.
    
                                 *
    
    If religious families want to place their children in parochial
    schools, that's their choice.  I MIGHT even concede to a voucher
    system.  But I strongly disagree with proposals to withdraw public
    support for public schools.
    
    Laura

    RE: .235 I agree 110% that education is vital. I agree that everyone
    *must* have a good education and that society must fund that education.
    I just don't see that government has to run the schools for that to
    happen. So I think you missed the major part of my point if you thought
    that I was advocating a system where some people got a poor or no
    education. I strongly support publicly funded education for everyone.
    Of course right now, in the US, we only publicly fund some children's
    education. The ACLU and others are fighting to make sure that funding
    the education of that other group, those who want to live their
    religion to the fullest at school, never happens.

>How do you classify the Christmas fund
>    raiser fairs all our schools held this weekend?  How do you classify
>    the bunnies and Easter eggs that appear on school windows in March?

    Sorry but I do not identify those things as religion. Please point out
    Biblical references to bunnies and Easter eggs. Thanks. Sounds flip I
    know but please do not equate such things to my religion. I classify
    those things as cultural things that degrade and bring down the true
    meaning of the Christian religion.

>    If you REALLY want to know how it feels to see the lack of religion, or
>    even sensitivity or awareness about it, try annually persuading each of
>    your kids' teachers not to schedule important tests on the Jewish High
>    Holy Days.  Try dealing with your kids' feelings of exclusion at the
>    annual Christmas hoopla.  

    My wife spent 4 years in a public college where the population was 90+
    percent Jewish. Life for Christians what much as you describe above for
    Jews in your schools. Only the "victims" were different. This, I believe, 
    speaks strongly for the need to drop the idea of government run schools 
    to allow for freedom for all people to attend schools responsive to their 
    needs.

    In short, an argument that there is too much religion in public
    schools is an argument to close them. And I believe that strongly.

    Public funding? yes! Government control? No!

>But I strongly disagree with proposals to withdraw public
>    support for public schools.

    When you say public schools do you mean government owned and run
    schools? Or do you mean publicly funded schools open to everyone? There
    is a huge difference.

    		Alfred

RE: Note 545.236
    
    >>RE: .235 I agree 110% that education is vital. I agree that everyone
    *must* have a good education and that society must fund that education.
    
    I'm heartened to read this.
    
    >>I strongly support publicly funded education for everyone.
    
    Well, you can make a very persuasive argument for public-funded,
    privately-run schools, e.g. a full voucher system.  (You are a
    Libertarian, yes?  So I assume this is a Libertarian position.)
    I'd even listen closely. :-)
    
    I have several concerns about this. 
    
    A primary concern is that such a system would foster divisiveness. 
    Our public schools have provided a civic basis for our large, diverse
    population.  They have provided the social, educational, and civil
    cement that plays a major role in holding us together.  
    
    I went to school with Catholics, both Italian- and Irish-Americans,
    with blacks (mostly Baptist), with Jews, and with a smattering of other
    types of kids including Dominicans.  We all pledged to the flag
    together, learned about the American system of government, and just
    basically got indoctrinated into the American way.  I think that this
    is important.  It forms the consensus that holds us together.
    
    We formed friendships, enjoyed our diversity, learned about each
    others' families and religions,   I am concerned that eliminating
    public-run schools would lead to much more homogeneous institutions and
    in turn degrade whatever tolerance and understanding we now have.
    
    >>Of course right now, in the US, we only publicly fund some children's
    education. The ACLU and others are fighting to make sure that funding
    the education of that other group, those who want to live their
    religion to the fullest at school, never happens.

    I assume you are alluding to the voucher question.  I tend to lean
    toward not supporting vouchers.  I certainly don't see this as an
    argument against public education or publicly-run schools.  Maybe we
    could discuss vouchers separately?
    
    Fact is, the public schools are available to every kid in the
    community.  If the parents place them in private schools, that's there
    choice.
    
>How do you classify the Christmas fund
>    raiser fairs all our schools held this weekend?  How do you classify
>    the bunnies and Easter eggs that appear on school windows in March?

    >>Sorry but I do not identify those things as religion. Please point out
    Biblical references to bunnies and Easter eggs. Thanks. Sounds flip I
    know but please do not equate such things to my religion. I classify
    those things as cultural things that degrade and bring down the true
    meaning of the Christian religion.

    I understand.  Try looking at it from a non-Christian's point of view. 
    These symbols and practices, while removed of much of their religious
    content today, are still very much of the Christian tradition.  They
    are not neutral, like the American flag or turkey at Thanksgiving. 
    They are certainly not of Jewish, Native American, or other religions.
     
    Their origin is Christian, and they are important folk (if not
    religious) symbols.  To a non-Christian, especially a child, this
    difference is quite esoteric.  To a Jewish or Hindu child, these are
    symbols of the broader Christian tradition.
    
>    If you REALLY want to know how it feels to see the lack of religion, or
>    even sensitivity or awareness about it, try annually persuading each of
>    your kids' teachers not to schedule important tests on the Jewish High
>    Holy Days.  Try dealing with your kids' feelings of exclusion at the
>    annual Christmas hoopla.  

    >>My wife spent 4 years in a public college where the population was 90+
    percent Jewish. Life for Christians what much as you describe above for
    Jews in your schools. Only the "victims" were different. This, I believe, 
    speaks strongly for the need to drop the idea of government run schools 
    to allow for freedom for all people to attend schools responsive to their 
    needs.
    
    Al, YOU are making this argument against public education.  I am not. 
    I am simply pointing out that in the vast majority of situations, the
    Christian traditions, beliefs, and values prevail.  That the Christians
    are not persecuted, discriminated against, or disrespected in this
    country or in our schools. 

    >>In short, an argument that there is too much religion in public
    schools is an argument to close them. And I believe that strongly.

    Again, your argument, not mine.  I hope you make your position know
    publicly before you again run for office, and let the voters decide if
    you reflect their views.  At the same time, I hope that even if the
    voters disagree with you, that you continue to participate in
    government and offer your valuable energy, integrity, and concern.
    
    >>Public funding? yes! Government control? No!

>But I strongly disagree with proposals to withdraw public
>    support for public schools.

    >>When you say public schools do you mean government owned and run
    schools? Or do you mean publicly funded schools open to everyone? There
    is a huge difference.

    	Alfred
    
    That's YOUR distinction, not mine.  
    
    
    Laura

    Laura:
    
    For what its worth, I am a Christian who went to the Framingham public
    schools.  I agree with your concepts that the public schools are an
    opportunity to educate our children not only with the three R's, but
    also to the diversity of America.  I see nothing wrong with this and I
    too am a proponent of funded public education.
    
    I have made inferences in other entries that the public schools need to
    be competitive in order to excel.  To me, the voucher system makes
    sense in that it will encourage the public school system to raise their
    standards and get rid of the dead wood it is teaching to our children.
    
    You also made a statement that if government funds private and
    religious schools, the public school system would crumble and many kids
    would become deviant, going to a life of crime.  That may be; however,
    it is already happening and meanwhile, the kids that want to learn are
    falling behind because they are held up by the not so eager ones. 
    There is a pervasive fear of danger, especially in the inner cities, of
    getting through the day in one piece never mind receiving a quality
    education.  The problem is that the schools are forced to play the role
    of parents and not just educators!
    
    I understand Clinton is in favor of a National School Board.  God
    Forbid!!  They're messing up the works enough!  As Mark Twain once
    said,"Thank God we dont get all the government we pay for!"
    
    Incidentally and FYI, the Easter traditions are rooted in Babylonian
    worship and were later incorporated into early religion.  From Israeli
    history, you may recall that Babylon was the center of idolatry in the
    times of the Israeli exile.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack
     

>(You are a
>    Libertarian, yes?  So I assume this is a Libertarian position.)

    I'm not Libertarian though I do have some agreements with some of there
    positions. I believe the Libertarians support vouchers but I don't know
    how they feel about public schools.

>    A primary concern is that such a system would foster divisiveness. 
>    Our public schools have provided a civic basis for our large, diverse
>    population.  They have provided the social, educational, and civil
>    cement that plays a major role in holding us together.  

    I believe such a system would foster diversity. And as for the civic
    basis for the population, I believe that to be a double edged sword.
    Some commonalty is needed to hold society together while too much
    limits diversity and restricts innovation and free thinking. That is a
    fear I have in regards to government run schools.

>    We formed friendships, enjoyed our diversity, learned about each
>    others' families and religions,   I am concerned that eliminating
>    public-run schools would lead to much more homogeneous institutions and
>    in turn degrade whatever tolerance and understanding we now have.

    I've read reports by several authors, including one who is opposed to
    *any* private schools, that indicate that the goals in you paragraph
    are reached overwhelmingly better in Catholic schools than in public
    schools. That is to say that public schools do a much worse job of
    teaching tolerance for diversity in race, religion, and other things
    than do Catholic schools.

    I agree that there is a risk of getting homogeneous institutions and 
    degrading tolerance. However, I see that as a lower risk then public
    school present in the same and other areas.

>    Fact is, the public schools are available to every kid in the
>    community.  If the parents place them in private schools, that's there
>    choice.

    True. But they are not good for everyone. For example, suppose someone
    promised me all the peanuts I could eat but no other food. Sounds
    reasonable right? I have a choice. I can starve or I can eat peanuts.
    Peanuts of course will probably kill me quicker as I am allergic to
    them. Likewise no school meets the needs of every child. For some the
    choice between public school or not is the difference between a good
    education and no (or poor) education. Also if deprives the person who
    wants religion lived in school from having the same choice as the
    person who doesn't care about religion in the school. Without public
    funding of alternate schools there is no equal choice.

>    Al, YOU are making this argument against public education.  

    Please do not call me "Al". Long story but that is not a nickname I
    am at all comfortable with. Thanks for understanding.

>    >>In short, an argument that there is too much religion in public
>    schools is an argument to close them. And I believe that strongly.
>
>    Again, your argument, not mine.  I hope you make your position know
>    publicly before you again run for office, and let the voters decide if
>    you reflect their views.  At the same time, I hope that even if the
>    voters disagree with you, that you continue to participate in
>    government and offer your valuable energy, integrity, and concern.

    I do not expect to run for a new position on the school governing
    boards. I'm just trying to decide if I should quit before my term is
    up. 

>    >>When you say public schools do you mean government owned and run
>    schools? Or do you mean publicly funded schools open to everyone? There
>    is a huge difference.
>    
>    That's YOUR distinction, not mine.  

    You mean that you don't see a difference? Perhaps I'm not being clear.
    I'd like to see public money for every child to attend what ever school
    they want. I just don't want to see government run those schools.
    Clearer?

    		Alfred

RE: .239
    
    >> I believe such a system would foster diversity. 
    
    It would foster a diversity of fragmented communities.  It would not
    foster the (somewhat) integrated diversity that I believe represents
    America at its best.
    
    We could split into thousands of small religious, ethnic, racial, and
    class-based communities, each with its own school.  This is not the
    sort of society I am proud of.  While such schools are and should
    remain options, in no way do I support eliminating the public schools
    in favor of them.
    
    >>Some commonalty is needed to hold society together while too much
    limits diversity and restricts innovation and free thinking. That is a
    fear I have in regards to government run schools.

    How does pledging allegiance, learning about our system of government,
    and other civics education do such heinous things?  This doesn't synch.
    
    >>That is to say that public schools do a much worse job of
    teaching tolerance for diversity in race, religion, and other things
    than do Catholic schools.

    I always attended public schools, even college, so I can't compare. 
    But I will say that the schools didn't ever "teach" diversity.  It was
    just one of the benefits that came from growing up together.  Much of a
    school's value are the informal social exchanges it fosters.
    
    >>Likewise no school meets the needs of every child. 

    Well, like I said I'm open to hearing the vouchers arguments.  But I'm
    not open to considering the utter demise of the public schools.  I am
    very open to discussing substantial reforms of the schools, though.
    
    >>Please do not call me "Al". Long story but that is not a nickname I
    am at all comfortable with. Thanks for understanding.
    
    Please accept my apologies.

>    >>When you say public schools do you mean government owned and run
>    schools? Or do you mean publicly funded schools open to everyone? There
>    is a huge difference.
>    
>    That's YOUR distinction, not mine.  

    >>You mean that you don't see a difference? Perhaps I'm not being clear.
    I'd like to see public money for every child to attend what ever school
    they want. I just don't want to see government run those schools.
    Clearer?

    Yes, I saw your difference all along.  It's what I call the voucher
    system.  But I am and will remain opposed to closing the school systems
    altogether.  I'm afraid we just can't agree on this one.
    
    L

>While such schools are and should
>    remain options, in no way do I support eliminating the public schools
>    in favor of them.

    As a practical matter eliminating the public schools is not an option.
    That's reality and I don't propose doing so. On the other hand I do not
    believe that private schools are an option. Or rather they are only an
    option to the well off and that seems to be inherently undemocratic.
    (PS: Obviously because I feel that way I have done a lot to try and
    make it an option for more people.)

>    How does pledging allegiance, learning about our system of government,
>    and other civics education do such heinous things?  This doesn't synch.

    I never criticized those things and in fact support them. I refer to
    such things as ignoring religious holidays when scheduling tests.
    Requiring students to attend classes that their parents object to.
    And requiring, if only implicitly through peer pressure, a common
    political belief.

>    I always attended public schools, even college, so I can't compare. 

    I attended public, private, and parochial schools. I and my wife have
    worked in both public and parochial schools. My son attended both
    public and parochial schools. I feel I can compare. 

>    But I will say that the schools didn't ever "teach" diversity.  It was
>    just one of the benefits that came from growing up together.  Much of a
>    school's value are the informal social exchanges it fosters.

    Quite right. It in is these informal social exchanges that I feel private
    but especially parochial schools have the edge in getting people to 
    accept each other. I could probably (and plan to one day) write a book
    on this.

    		Alfred

Looks like I failed to respond to my much earlier note (.25) asking
if anyone noticed which candidates thanked God in their acceptance
or concession speaches.  My, how notes take on a life of their own.

George Bush thanked God for a whole host of things from the past four
years.

Ross Perot thanked God for the opportunity to run for election, have
his ideas heard, and for all the people supporting him.

Dan Quayle thanked God for some things, though I don't remember what.

Bill Clinton thanked the people for lots of things, though he did
manage to say "God Bless America" at the end of his speech.

Al Gore gave a Bush-bashing speech on trust and change.  Guess someone
forgot to tell him he won.

Jim