Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    If I share my religious view point with someone and they disagree with
    me. That's religious harassment in the work place. :^)
    
    Eric

Note 934.1

>    If I share my religious view point with someone and they disagree with
>    me. That's religious harassment in the work place. :^)

    Let's just say the first time was probably a misunderstanding.

    But if I share my religious viewpoint with someone more than once and they
    still disagree with me, now that's religious harassment in the workplace.

    %^}

    Shalom,
    Richard

    re .2
    
    So which one is the harasser and which the harassee? :^)
    
    Eric

 A friend was identified as being one who spoke out against our site's
 celebration of Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Month because "everyone knows
 she's a religious fanatic".  It was suggested that she remove her
 picture (or artist's conception) of Jesus so as not to be branded 
 as a "fanatic" (suggestion made by a superior).  Funny thing is
 the friend hadn't spoken out, and the picture was given her by a
 friend and she thought it looked nice..she hasn't been in church
 in years.



 Jim

    How mistaken we can be when we harbor preconceptions about people,
    eh?
    
    Richard
    

	I think if people have pictures, crosses on their desks or around their
necks, etc, this should not be considered religious harrassment. I think if
someone talks about the Lord, this should not be religious harrassment. If
another person has asked this person to not talk about the Lord to him and the
person keeps doing it anyway, then yes, at this point it is religious
harrassment. 

	I think the above can apply to anything though. I know a friend who had
a picture of the group REM hanging up in his office. It showed the members of
the group and in the background it had a gargoyle. Someone who was religious
made a stink about it and it had to come down. I think if pictures are going to
be allowed for one thing, then they should be allowed for all. It is a give and
take thing (or it should be anyway).  


Glen

re: Note 934.6 by Glen "Memories....." 

> I know a friend who had a picture of the group REM hanging up in his office. 
> It showed the members of the group and in the background it had a gargoyle. 
> Someone who was religious made a stink about it and it had to come down. 

Interesting, do you know the Faith of the person who objected?  Was it the 
gargoyle they were objecting to?  Gargoyles are fixtures on many Christian 
churches and cathedrals...

Peace,

Jim

    Well, right now I'd say the biggest form of religious harrassment
    in the workplace is perpetuated by those who take the Lord's name
    in vain by cursing. This is often vocal and emphatic and if this
    EEOC guideline is adopted then I think Christians should use
    the provision to change such working conditions! Cursing God might
    only be an expression to those who do it, but to Christians it
    is an affront and could constitute a religious harrassment.
    
    Certainly the offender should be told it is offensive the first
    time, but if it continues then it is harrassment.
    
    Actually, I think the EEOC guideline is just another government
    means of suppressing religious freedom under the guise of this
    regulation. Companies will institute internal policies that are
    prohibitive in order to avoid the possibilities of a lawsuit.
    
    Therefore, I would rather this guideline is never approved, but
    if it is, I think Christians should use it to point out to all
    the most common religious harrassment in the world - cursing.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

| <<< Note 934.7 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>



| Interesting, do you know the Faith of the person who objected?  

	Nope, just that she was "born again". 

| Was it the gargoyle they were objecting to?  

	Yes Jim, it was.

| Gargoyles are fixtures on many Christian churches and cathedrals...

	That was the thing we were trying to figure out too. But down it came! 


Glen

| <<< Note 934.8 by JUPITR::MNELSON >>>



| Well, right now I'd say the biggest form of religious harrassment
| in the workplace is perpetuated by those who take the Lord's name
| in vain by cursing. 

	In the work place I think swearing is frowned upon, regardless of who
it is directed at. 

| This is often vocal and emphatic and if this EEOC guideline is adopted then I 
| think Christians should use the provision to change such working conditions! 
| Cursing God might only be an expression to those who do it, but to Christians 
| it is an affront and could constitute a religious harrassment.

	Only if it is directed at you. They are using God's name, so it won't
hold water. If they do it to your face and don't stop when you ask them to,
then this is harrasment.

| Certainly the offender should be told it is offensive the first
| time, but if it continues then it is harrassment.

	ONLY if it is directed at you. Otherwise if someone walked past you
cube and say you praying they could tell you to stop because it is harrasment
to them. 




Glen

 Whatza gargoyle

    gargoyle: watcha do wif moufwash before ya spit.
    
    ;-}
    

re:  Note 934.11 by Jim "Friend will you be ready?" 

> Whatza gargoyle

"A roof spout carved to represent a grotesque human or animal figure."

				-- American Heritage Dictionary.  

They are the ugly things you sometimes see on the top corners of old 
buildings.  They provide a spout to pour off water from a roof, like 
a little fountain, said water spouting out of their mouths.

A similar item is called a "grotesque", they look like gargoyles, but are 
purely decorative, they don't drain the roof.  (Decorative is in the eye of 
the beholder.) 

Centuries ago they were also thought to scare away demons from invading a 
building.  (Hence their popularity for cathedrals.)

There's a neat store in Boston, on Newbury street that sells them.

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  Angus McGaragle, the argyle gargoyle gargles Gershwin gorgeously.

					-- The Muppet Show

Glen, if you take DEC's harassment course, you will learn that a charge
of harassment may be brought by a third party who was not directly harassed,
but who objects to the behaviour.

/john

    Religious harassment is being told that you are going to go to hell if
    you don't believe in a particular persons conception of God.

    
    
    I believe some of the statements made here, and elsewhere, about gay
    employees being "gravely depraved", etc., are a form of religious
    harrassment.
    
        GJD

    Greg,
    
    I agree with you!
    
    Patricia

    For someone who doesn't believe in Hell... why not just walk away?
    
    I don't get offended when you believe differently then me and say you
    are different then me... I accept your difference.  However, if you say
    you believe like me and call yourself the same name as me as in
    Christian and then believe something outside of Christ, I am offended.
    
    I see no harassment in our differences...

    re .18
    
    Nancy, how I choose to deal with the harrasment I receive has nothing to
    do with whether the harrasment occurs or not.
    
    There is a major difference in the position you take and the position I
    take.
    
    I would never say to another person, because this is what you believe
    this is the horrible thing that is going to happen to you.  
    
    That is harrasment!
    
    When I confront you Nancy, I believe my message is I don't believe in
    the same things you believe in.  I would not dare to make conclusion
    regarding what my beliefs should mean to you.  You often leaves
    innuendo's regarding what you think your beliefs should mean to me, or
    what you think the consequences for me are of my not believing as you
    do.
    
    If I were told that my behavoir were abhorrent or my friends are told
    that their behavoir is abhorrent because of what they believe, that is 
    harrasment.  

    Obviously you and some others feel that way.
    
    Let me ask you something else?  Would it be harassment for someone to
    tell you, you were in a burning house and would die if you didn't
    leave?
    
    Nancy

    Yes it would.  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    If the house were not really on fire.
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 934.15 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien" >>>

| Religious harassment is being told that you are going to go to hell if
| you don't believe in a particular persons conception of God.



	I'VE BEEN RELIGIOUSLY HARRASSED!!!!! Wow.... :-)


Glen

	SCREAM!!!! Patricia! That was a good note! It brought a smile to my
face!



Glen

Give me a break.

You demand the right to proclaim the `goodness' of behaviour that is
considered gravely depraved by our religion, and to go on and on about
how oppressive traditional Christianity is for holding fast to its
constant teaching.  You say that you won't be silent.

Yet that's not harassment.

But when we respond to your messages, then it is harassment.

Do I have your position correct?

/john

    Don't be logical John it's just so unbecoming in 1994.

    But the house is on fire... dearest Patricia.  Closing your eyes
    doesn't make it go away.
    
    Sadly,
    Nancy

re: Note 934.24 by /john 

>You demand the right to proclaim the `goodness' of behaviour that is
>considered gravely depraved by our religion, 
                                ~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Perhaps you are confusing the difference between religion and faith.
Patricia's religion is UU, she is not Anglican.   

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 934.20 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

Ah, the old "house on fire" question.

Aside from the fact that the smoke might be from the barbeque out back, or 
that Patricia might be a volunteer fire fighter, in which case to try to keep 
her from her job IS harassment, there is one big flaw in the 
argument.

A house being on fire is a very physical thing.  One can clearly and 
objectively determine whether the house is in fact on fire.  So what 
your metaphor is implying is that one can clearly and objectively 
determine one's state of grace, which is only between that person and God.
You don't know all that God is privy to.

There are many legitimate reasons why one may be in a burning house.

Peace,

Jim

re .27

Sorry, "our religion" in my earlier reply is "traditional Christianity".

My reply was not directed specifically at Patricia.  (no "re .nn" in it)

/john

re: Note 934.29 by /john

>re .27

>Sorry, "our religion" in my earlier reply is "traditional Christianity".

Thanks for the clarification.

>My reply was not directed specifically at Patricia.  (no "re .nn" in it)

Thanks.  From the context it appeared that you were addressing Patricia.
Perhaps adding "in general" or some such might make you focus clearer.  .-)

Peace,

Jim

    re:  .29
    "Our religion is traditional Christianity"
    
    
    Regarding note 91.3981 it sounds like John Boswell is doing some
    excellent research regarding the subject of Gays and Lesbians being
    accepted in "Traditional Christianity" and then being oppressed in
    reactionary Christianity.
    
    Patricia
    

    
    
    /john:
    
    I'm not sure if you're referring to me in #24 or not, but I'll take a
    shot at it anyway.
    
    I do not recall a single time when I have blasted a Christian
    point-of-view (and therefore, probably, the person holding that view)
    unless they have, themselves, blasted me first.  You know, the ol'
    gravely depraved, morally deranged, abomination before God thang.
    
    I'm very much of the ilk, these days, to live and let live.  But when
    'you', the generic, insist on condemning 'us', I'm not going to stand
    idly by.  When I'm, as I feel I've been, harrassed, I tend to harrass
    back.  Call it the ol' eye-for-an-eye thing.  I really feel if 'you'd'
    (generic) again just mind your own business, the vast majority of gays
    (and gay Christians in particular) would blend into the woodwork.  As
    long as people continue to public denounce "us" -- well, in your face
    doesn't even begin to describe my actions.
    
       GJD

re .32

I do not recall any place anywhere where I have said anything about
homosexuality except in response to an existing homosexual advocacy
discussion.

/john

| <<< Note 934.24 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| You demand the right to proclaim the `goodness' of behaviour 

	Define behaviour in the context you mean it.

| that is considered gravely depraved by our religion, 

	Not all of your religion believes this John. 

| and to go on and on about how oppressive traditional Christianity is for 
| holding fast to its constant teaching.  

	John, Christianity can not oppress anyone. People do that. Not all
Christians oppress people, not all people who follow traditional Christianity
oppress. Most of each group do not. Please show me where I have said anything
different (you know, the on and on part). 

| You say that you won't be silent.

	Yes, I will express my beliefs, as you so often do.

| Yet that's not harassment.

	To express a belief is not bad John. You say the Bible is the Word of
God. I do not believe that, but I also know it is not harrasment. But if you or
I tell others that they're goin to Hell, that is RUDE. If we don't stop telling
people they're going to Hell, then that can be harrasment. Having different
beliefs or disagreeing with someone is not harrasment. 

| But when we respond to your messages, then it is harassment.

	Says who? A message where I SHOUTED REAL LOUD AND USED A SMILEY? Maybe
ya ought to look fer the smileys john.

| Do I have your position correct?

	Nope.



Glen

>| But when we respond to your messages, then it is harassment.
>
>	Says who?

See .16 and .17.

/john

    > You demand the right to proclaim the `goodness' of behaviour that is
    > considered gravely depraved by our religion, and to go on and on about
    > how oppressive traditional Christianity is for holding fast to its
    > constant teaching.  You say that you won't be silent.
    
    Regular debate in this forum as to the validity of Christianity's 
    "constant teaching" against homosexuality can not be considered 
    harrassment in my opinion since the purpose of this notesfile is to 
    discuss a variety of Christian perspectives.    No one is calling you
    "gravely depraved" for believing in the traditionalist view.
    
    You, on the other hand, have no trouble at all hurling such an
    insult at your fellow noters.
    
    I think there is a difference between arguing that traditional
    church teaching on a given subject results in the oppression of
    certain classes of people .vs. casting direct insults against
    participants engaged (or not) in that argument.
    
    That said, I would not suggest you be censored for expressing
    your views.  I don't feel harrassed by your comments even though I
    do find them insulting. 
    
    /Greg

    condemnation... interesting word, terrible feeling, negative
    connotation and is humanly perpetuated.
    
    God says there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
    Christ Jesus.  And I believe Glen and Greg [hmmm are you two a couple
    now?:-)], that if you truly look towards Jesus as the son of God who
    died on the cross for your sins and have trusted Him as your savior,
    then you are no longer in condemnation.
    
    He goes on to say, "I came not into world to condemn the world, for the
    world was condemned already."
    
    I don't like the word condemnation... I didn't author it in the Bible
    and I didn't make it up for use... but God says I was condemned already
    before Christ.  Why?  Because of sin..
    
    It takes Faith in the Lord Jesus as stated above to be brought out of
    condemnation.  
    
    Now back to homosexuality and Christianity...��
    
    1.  I will never be convinced that homosexuality or gayness has ever
    been nor will ever be blessed by God.  Don't try to convince me that it
    will...as is in this string, my father could have the same argument as
    presented by homosexuals for normality.
    
    2.  Homosexuals are unlikely to be convinced that their behavior is
    wrong or against God.
    
    It looks like an impasse to me...
    
    

| <<< Note 934.37 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| God says there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
| Christ Jesus.  And I believe Glen and Greg [hmmm are you two a couple now?:-)]

	Nancy, sometimes you can really amaze me. Mail will follow on this 
topic and what you sent out yesterday. 

| that if you truly look towards Jesus as the son of God who died on the cross 
| for your sins and have trusted Him as your savior, then you are no longer in 
| condemnation.

	Do you believe we are doing this Nancy?

| 1.  I will never be convinced that homosexuality or gayness has ever
| been nor will ever be blessed by God.  Don't try to convince me that it
| will...as is in this string, my father could have the same argument as
| presented by homosexuals for normality.

	No Nancy, he could not. Your father molested children. That is not the
same thing as homosexuality. But I will tell you one thing. If you don't wish
to be called homophobic, a bigot, or any of the other things people call you,
then I would stop saying the things you have been. You make a real easy case
for why people think you are homophobic, a bigot, or what have you. You even
have me questioning it.

| 2.  Homosexuals are unlikely to be convinced that their behavior is
| wrong or against God.

	Psssttt.... because it isn't......


Glen

    
    
    You're probably correct in your last comment, Nancy.  I can be quiet
    about it.  Can you?
    
    As to this statement:
    
    >>if you truly look towards Jesus as the son of God who died on the cross
    >>for your sins and have trusted Him as your savior, then you are no
    >>longer in condemnation.
    	
    I'm not sure what to make of it.  There's part of me that finds it very
    condescending and insulting.  I *do* trust Jesus Christ as my only Lord
    and Saviour.  It is only through his strength and guidance and power
    that I survived (and I *literally* mean survived) the last 6 months.
    It seems to me, once again, that because my beliefs differ greatly from
    yours that you think it's impossible for my relationship with Jesus
    Christ to be valid.  You know what?  In this life, we'll never know for
    sure.  And, you know what, I don't see how you can come out of this
    life a winner.  Let me set up two scenarios for you:
    
    	1.  I'm right and you're wrong.  Homosexuality is a gift from God,
    	    homosexual relationships are valid and honored before good
    	    on equal footing with heterosexual relationships.   
    
    	2.  You're right and I'm wrong.  Homosexuality is a sin, etc.
    
    Do you see how in either case you're in the wrong?  In the first case
    you're wrong in the "data" sense -- no big deal.  In the second case,
    you're still wrong -- you've acted as the judge in more than one
    scenario here, and in other notes conferences.  Do you remember how you
    announced to "the world"  (OK, the 'BOX community isn't quite the
    world) that a fellow noter was living a perverted life?  Do you really
    think that it's your place to make such statements, such judgements?
    It's beyond me how you can think such statements, such judgements, are
    appropriate.  Do some gay people live perverted lives?  Of course.  Do
    some hets live perverted lives?  Of course.  But the very fact that a
    person is gay doesn't automatically push them to "the wrong".  It's how
    a person adapts to, or uses (if you will), their sexuality that's right
    or wrong.  We'll probably never agree that the relationship I'm having
    with "my man" right now is OK, and that's OK, I guess.  But, trust me,
    I know it's OK.  I've never been so in love, so filled with the Spirit
    of Christ, in my entire life.  He Love me, and it's Christ that led me
    to this man -- I know that to be the fact.  
    
       Greg

	re: .16 Dierks
        To some extent, I agree with you but...
	I think that to refer to anyone partaking in these notes as
	being gravely depraved is downright rude. This is true regardless
	of the nature of the supposed depravity. To continue to use the
	expression after the addressee has complained would constitue
	harassment, I believe. Only if the expression is specifically
	linked to a religious tenet would it be seen as religious 
	harassemnt: the fact that it is made in a religious notes file
	does not per se qualify it as such. On my own reading of these
	notes I would say that the expression has been specifically
	linked to a religious point of view.

	re: .20 Nancy

	> Would it be harassment for someone to tell you, you were in a
	> burning house and would die if you didn't leave?

	Initially, no, of course not. However, if I say I choose to remain
	and that someone persisted in trying to persuade me to leave, it is
	harassment.

	It is a limping comparison at best. If the 'someone' of the story
	only believes the house to be burning, it would be more apt to
	the situation under discussion.

	re: .24 /john

	In this and other notes you make reference to traditional
	Christianity. It is also referred to in the Congregational letters
	that you have entered elsewhere.

	I fail to see why this reference to traditional beliefs/actions
	justifies the position you -- and apparently your Church --
	continue to take.  If it were so, it could be argued that there
	is a case for the continuance of Jewish persecution, the
	Inquisition, debauchery in Papal office and other modes of
	behaviour which -- at least for the time being -- the Church
	seems to have foresworn.

	What makes it worse is that, for those modes of behaviour that
	I mentioned, thre can be little doubt that choice is involved.
	In the case of (most) gays, there is very serious doubt.

	Re: General.

	If a person chooses to believe in God and to have faith in the
	message of salvation through Jesus, that, IMO, makes him a
	Christian. It doen't matter one pinch of salt whether or not
	anyone else sees him as such: he has the right to proclaim
	himself as such. Gays have this right, just as you (generic) or
	I do.

	I am constantly amazed -- and not a little discouraged in my
	search -- when I hear/read Christians telling such people that
	they are not, cannot be, Christians. The same Christians who are,
	by their own admission, sinners.

	Forgive me when I say that I have very very great difficulty in
	understanding Christianity.

	Greetings, Derek.
                                

>	I think that to refer to anyone partaking in these notes as
>	being gravely depraved is downright rude.

Noone has done that, not even once.

/john

    
    
    I believe the statement in one of your posted documents was
    "homosexuals are suffering from a grave depravity", with the statement
    made even stronger by restating it in the title of your note.  You're
    correct in that you didn't call any individual gravely depraved. 
    Instead, you referred to a whole group of people (including more than
    just a few co-workers) as gravely depraved.  Of course, that's OK
    though, because it wasn't an individual -- it was the group in
    abstract.
    
       Greg -- disgusting, depraved, deranged, often pissed off, and
               disgustingingly good looking 8-)
    
    

The teaching is "homosexual acts are a grave depravity."

/john

    
    
    So, does that make me, a gay man who *gasp* engages in homosexual acts
    depraved?  John, you are seemingly able to separate the act from the
    person.  Maybe I'm not.  No, in fact, I know I'm not.  I love the man I
    have sex with.  It is my intent to spend the rest of my life with him,
    as it is his intent to spend the rest of his life with me.  Teaching --
    smeeching (I know that's technical talk, but you'll figure it out) --
    they are not depraved acts.  They are acts of love.  You go ahead and
    hide behind the fact that it's the acts, not the people.  I see right
    through you -- so does anyone else with any sense whatsoever.
    
       GJD  gravely depraved, righteously pissed off, militantly active,
            head-over-heels-in-love, and capable of reading quite well,
            thank you very much

    
    I think this whole string is out of control.  Religious harrassment...I
    don't think any of us are harrassed in here.  We all voluntarily 
    participate in this file.  We all make choices in what we will read and 
    respond to.  Stating my beliefs of Christianity including the
    consequence of hell is not harassment.  It's a statement of my faith. 
    Whether you choose to believe it or think me a nut is your choice, but
    it's not said to harrass you.  Now if I choose to start sending you
    mail outside this voluntary forum saying that your going to hell 
    or change my personal name in my profile to be "____ is going to hell," 
    or saying it everytime I saw you in the hall.  That to me would be 
    harrassment. But that's entirely different from saying that I believe if 
    you don't accept Christ you will go to hell.  That's an axiom of my 
    faith.  If you take action against me for stating my beliefs, then that's 
    harrassment too.  I mean is an open forum where, within boundaries of 
    course, we encourage everyone to speak out about their beliefs.   
    We can't just slap a harrassment charge on anyone we disagree with in 
    here.
    
    Jill
      

| <<< Note 934.45 by CSC32::KINSELLA "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" >>>



| I think this whole string is out of control.  Religious harrassment...I
| don't think any of us are harrassed in here.  We all voluntarily participate 
| in this file.  

	In principle this makes perfect sense. But I think it is something that
goes further than this file Jill. 

| Stating my beliefs of Christianity including the consequence of hell is not 
| harassment.  It's a statement of my faith.

	If you say something like for this or that sin people will go to Hell,
then you are correct. But if you say specific individuals are going to Hell, 
then at that point it is harrasment. Can you see the difference? Digital
notesfiles, like mail, are to be treated in a certain manner. If you start
expressing views like people are going to hell, etc, and point to an
individual, then that person's character is being questioned. The reason
Digital would get upset over this is because not everyone will have the same
beliefs you do. Does this make any sense?


Glen

    Harrassment is a matter of perception.
    
    I have personally felt harrassed at times in this notes file.  
    
    I have in the past been point blank told  that my eternal future is 
    jeapardized because of  my faith beliefs.  I prefer that if persons
    have these opinions about my beliefs that they keep them to themselves.
    
    I do not object to someone saying that I believe the eternal salvation
    depends on ...  I do object to someone analyzing my situation in light
    of there own personal theology.
    
    This conference should be a safe place to discuss divergent views of
    Christianity.  There is a conference which provides a safe place to
    discuss a more doctrinaire view of Christianity.  I think people should
    respect the intents of the various conferences.
    
    Thus I do not think this note is out of line.  I hope Everyone who feels
     they have been harassed in here do feel safe speaking up.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    I have felt harassed in here too.
    
    I agree with Patricia that we should all be careful in our personal
    beliefs and drawing someone else into the scenario.
    
    That would mean that all personal experience notes would have to cease
    or have a rule that states when personal experiences are being shared,
    comment on that particular note would be forbidden.  If someone wishes
    to counter that view then perhaps their own personal experience as a
    rebuttal without commenting on the opposing note.
    
    You see in a conference like this, personal experiences are going to be
    share... you can then of course just make it simple and say no personal
    experiences allowed.
    
    Do you see what I mean Patricia?  Most comments that would be
    uncomplimentary towards a person is typically a response to where that
    person has laid themselves out to be commented on... and I include
    myself in that crowd.
    
    Either you can tolerate others or you cannot... and therefore anything
    becomes harassment, even a statement of faith that has no names
    attached in it.  
    
    There have been many times when I've noted from the POV without
    involving or even thinking of any person in this conference, but my POV
    was different then someone elses.  Then that someone else takes it
    personal and begins a downhill dialogue of poo-poo. And I am guilty
    myself of the same.
    
    Is it human nature that creates this?  I think so.
    
    Is it possible to have the perfect conference where no-one is offended?
    I don't think so.
    
    

    If I understand harrassment correctly, it's not as simple as having
    one's feelings hurt or having one's beliefs rejected.
    
    But then, I could be wrong.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    having one's feelings hurt or one's beliefs rejected may not be
    harrasment.  Defining a person as evil, damned, abominable, depraved,
    etc based on differences in religious beliefs is harrasment. 
    Particularly in a conference welcoming a wide variety of religious
    beliefs.
    
    Patricia

    
    
    Richard:  I think you have it perfectly correct!
    
       GJD

    Should we be able to or not be able to discuss our faith in its
    entirety?
    
    If I say in my faith homosexuality is an abomination, which I believe
    and here is what backs this up...  
    
    I am talking about my faith, my belief... if it's true that this forum
    is to express all faiths...then why is the above harassment?
    
    I didn't put a name to it...

    
    
    Are you, Nancy, at all concerned that your comments are taken as being
    demeaning to fellow employees?  Are you at all concerned that just
    perhaps fellow-worker productivity is lessened because of your very
    vocal stance on gay-related issues?  Can you, just maybe, remember that
    this forum, though Christian related, is still the property of Digital
    Equipment Corporation and that, as such, comments made which degrade
    fellow employees, even when done as a part of your statement of faith,
    might just be inappropriate.
    
    I've said it a zillion (well, maybe three or four) times.  It's not
    what you say -- it's the forum you chose and the manner in which you
    communicate it.  It's a tough lesson to learn -- I've learned it the
    hard way myself.
    
        GJD

    .53
    
    I believe that this note proves my point Patricia.... 
    
    That is why in the CHRISTIAN notes conference this subject is taboo, in
    support of Digital's PP&Ps... 
    
    This notes conference and others do not feel this way in support of the
    PP&P... 
    
    I'm not sure which is correct, quite honestly, but based on your note
    Greg, it sounds like CHRISTIAN has it right. :-)
    
    

    No, all CHRISTIAN does is take the issue underground.  CHRISTIAN buries
    the issue rather than dealing with it.  It's the way Americans used to
    deal with things a lot.  To me, it is the way of cowards.
    
    It's amazing to me that you, Nancy, as a moderator of CHRISTIAN, apparently
    see no inconsistency or contradiction between your being so vocal on the
    issue here and your being eclipsed by censorship there.
    
    But, what the Hell.  I've probably got it all wrong.
    
    Richard

    .55
    
    I see no conflict... :-)  But we don't have the same eyes, do we?  
    
    This is a different forum...  as Patricia stated.
    
    But now can respond to the rest of the discussion?  Either all views
    can be discussed or the discussion is not equitab
    
    

    It is just as I perceived.
    
    For the record, it has never been the policy of C-P to squelch even
    bigotry in any of its forms, provided that it's presented within
    Digital P&P (Orangebook) guidelines.
    
    You cannot legitimately complain about being censored in C-P.  So please,
    don't even try to suggest that you have.
    
    Richard

Well, then, if it's within Orangebook guidelines, it is by definition not
harassment, since the Orangebook forbids harassment.

/john

    .57
    
    I wasn't accusing, I was asking.
    
    If we are going to be allowed to discuss homosexuality in this
    conference then the fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians should
    not be censored, or the discussions should cease to exist immediately.
    
    Greg has expressed his desire to stop all discussion of said issue.
    What is the response of CP participants to this request and of course
    its moderatorship?
    
    
    
    
    
    

Re: .59 Nancy

>    Greg has expressed his desire to stop all discussion of said issue.
>    What is the response of CP participants to this request and of course
>    its moderatorship?
    
Personally I'm very much against it.  I'd like C-P to be a conference
where controversial issues can be discussed openly and honestly.

For those opposed to homosexuality, I think it would help if you expressed
your opposition in general terms, without applying it specifically to
individual members of the conference, and avoided emotion-charged language
such as saying that homosexuality is "perverted" or "depraved".  And for
those who are gay, it would help if you didn't goad traditionalists into
making it personal, e.g. by saying things like "Are you saying that I'm
going to hell because I'm gay?"

				-- Bob

    
    
    Because it's within the guidelines of the Orange Book, John, doesn't
    mean that behavior is "acceptable".  It might note be grounds for
    censure or dismissal.  But there's such a thing as common courtesy. 
    That seems to elude lots of people, myself included.
    
    My personal philosophy:  don't follow the rules unless they're the
    right rules.  And, of course, only my rules are right!  8-)
    
        Greg

    RE: 934.15,19,47
    
    Patricia,
    
    I realize that we have some history here and I'm sure when this subject
    comes to mind, you think of me.  And I truly am sorry that you were
    offended by what I had to say about 2 years ago, so long ago I don't
    even remember the exact context of the string.  But how can I tell
    someone to believe something and not explain why?  It reminds me of
    Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazis (Before anyone jumps, no I'm
    not comparing anyone to them) only had one side of the medallion and 
    were digging in the wrong place because they didn't have the information
    from the other side.  If the premise of (wo)mankind's fall and
    resulting eternal separation from God is left out, then who needs
    saving?
    
    Jill

    .60
    
    Example... I used the Bible's word that describe homosexuality, the
    word was abomination and then went to the dictionary to find the
    definition of the word... never mentioned any *person* in this note.
    
    Homosexual persons who have come out, jumped on this.  
    
    Now tell me should I not be allowed to use the Bible as a base for my
    discussion which is clearly what formed my pov?
    
    

    Jill,
    
    My comments are not directed at anyone in particular.  Many
    participants in this conference have commented on my danger in not
    accepting Conservative Christian premises.
    
    I in fact hardly ever discuss my views on the feminine image of the
    Divine in here anymore because I know I will be harassed for those
    beliefs and I'm also not sure that there are too many person still in
    this conference who are interested.  I've also matured in my faith that
    I don't have to discuss all my beliefs in all forums.
    
    I have become fascinated with the Bible over this last year and this is
    an excellent place to discuss Biblical issues.  
    
    This conference is only partially safe, so I protect myself to the
    extent that it is important to me.  I am also intentional about which
    issues I choose to fight about.
    
    It is with a sense of sadness that I don't find this conference to be a
    supportive  community of Faith but rather a discussion group.  Perhaps
    this world is not yet ready for a truly ecumenical community of Faith.
    
    I do learn in here because I think this conference is a microcosm of
    the real world.
    
    Patricia

	Nancy, you want to say YOUR POINT OF VIEW, then say it is YPOV. If you
got that POV from the Bible, then state EXACTLY how you got YPOV. If you wish
to say that God backs you on YPOV, then say so. But please, if people rebuke
your POV, don't cry victim this or victim that. Also, your belief does not =
the belief of everyone, so don't try to pass it on as though it is a Christian
agreement thing. Use the word some or most, but please don't use all. That is a
false statement.


Glen

    If the Orangebook were perfect, it wouldn't be subject to revision.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .63 Nancy

>    Now tell me should I not be allowed to use the Bible as a base for my
>    discussion which is clearly what formed my pov?
    
As Paul said, all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.  All
things are lawful, but not all things build up (1 Corinthians 10:23).

I think you should be able to quote from any part of the Bible that you
like, but I would urge you to do this in a loving way, not in a way that
other people will see as an attack.

Re: .64 Patricia

>    It is with a sense of sadness that I don't find this conference to be a
>    supportive  community of Faith but rather a discussion group.  Perhaps
>    this world is not yet ready for a truly ecumenical community of Faith.
    
From my own selfish point of view, I wouldn't feel comfortable in a
"supportive community of Faith".  My agenda all along has been to make C-P
a "discussion group" where all points of view could be expressed (within
the bounds of decorum).

In the past there were many discussions among the C-P moderators as to
whether C-P should be an open forum or a safe space - what you're calling
a "supportive community of Faith".  At one point I suggested that perhaps
C-P should be split into two conferences: one conference would be an open
forum (or discussion group) and the other would be a place of safety.
Maybe the "safe" conference would have a better chance of becoming a
supportive community of Faith.

One of the reasons I finally resigned as a moderator was that I felt that
as a non-Christian I didn't want to impose my vision of the kind of
conference that C-P should be.  I decided that it was better to let the
Christian participants of C-P set the direction for the conference; if the
result was a conference that I felt comfortable participating in then I'd
stay and otherwise I'd leave.  So far I've decided to stay...

				-- Bob

    .67  For a non-Christian, you sure know your Bible!
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .64
    
    Patricia,
    
    I realize that you didn't address your comments to anyone, but I still
    felt like I needed to say something since this week was the first time
    in about 2 years that you've even acknowledged me since that incident. 
    I'm glad to have the opportunity to discuss things with you again.  God
    has brought you to mind several times in the last couple of years and
    I've prayed for you.
    
    Now in general on this religious harrassment thing...I think that
    anytime we share we're at risk.  Like you stated, we only share to the
    limit we are willing to risk getting rejected or even hurt.  I can
    empathize with you because I take unpopular stands too, our stands are
    just unpopular with different people.  Because of my faith in Jesus
    Christ, I only care if I'm standing for Him...the one true God, my
    Creator, Savior, and Lord.  I take my stands because I am accountable
    before God for sharing His gospel and the accurate handling of His
    Word.  I am part of a holy priesthood. I have responsibilities before
    God.  I take that more seriously as my faith grows.  I have
    responsibilities to Digital too.  But if there is a conflict there, my
    loyalty is to God above all.  Digital can take whatever action they
    choose.  God will provide for me.  Of that I am confident. My desire is
    that my faith affects my whole life; that everything about my life I
    give to God.  I'm not there yet but, like Paul, I press on. Let Digital
    and the Government do what they want, as for me I will strive for the
    obedience my God desires.  A lofty impossibility if done in my
    strength, but an attainable goal if done in His strength.
    
    Jill

    Re: .66 Richard.
    
    >If the Orangebook were perfect, it wouldn't be subject to revision.
    
    If the Orangebook were perfect. it would bb a bible.  :-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

If what appears here is harassment, the moderators would remove it, as
the Orangebook requires.

    
    
    My, My, My, aren't you being "Mr. Legalistic".  So you're saying that
    just because the Orange Book doesn't cover it that it can't possibly be
    harrassment?  Interesting...
    
        GJD

No, I'm saying if it were harassment, the moderators would be required
to take action.

The moderators appear to either believe it is not harassment, or are not
willing to comply with the directive to remove all harrassing material.

/john

    Jill
    
    Re. .69
    
    I like that note.  I recognize a lot of similarity to Paul in that note
    and that is also how I attempt to stand firm for what I believe.  Thank
    you.
    
                                  Patricia

    The missing piece, of course, is that the moderators may be divided,
    unclear or insensitive as to what constitutes harrassment.  Moderators
    are human beings, not programmed robots.  But, when you're used to seeing
    things in terms of 0's & 1's (absolutes), it's easy to categorize the
    situation as one or the other.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    
    And, of course, what I see as harassment may not, in the eyes of
    Digital, actually be, legalistically, harassment.  (That doesn't mean,
    obviously, I'm going to stand may and let it slide.)
    
       Greg -- anxious for Friday p.m. happy hour!!!  (I'm going
               on 'bout 20 hours sleep total for the week after a
               very, very successful first teach of C++ Programming.)

    Congrats on your success!
    

    I agree that harrassment is a matter of degrees.  Also, what one does
    when they feel harrassed is personal.  Legal harrassment is not the
    same thing as harrassment in general.
    
    As people of Faith, I would hope that our standards are higher than
    legal standards and we would self monitor ourselves more seriously than
    waiting for matters to deteriorate to the point where intervention was
    demanded.
    
    I think Richards reference to Paul is a good one.  All things should be
    for the building up of the community.  Each of us must decide how we
    live our Faith and how we spread our faith in a way that builds up
    rather than harms the community as a whole.  I  miss Dave Dawson
    because I respected him deeply as a  Christian whose faith is different
    than mine but who alos seemed to truly understand that his faith could
    not be imposed on someone else.
    
    Patricia

re: Note 934.73 by /john 

>No, I'm saying if it were harassment, the moderators would be required
>to take action.
>
>The moderators appear to either believe it is not harassment, or are not
>willing to comply with the directive to remove all harrassing material.

It also involves someone contacting the moderators to tell them that they 
have been harrassed.  At that point action would be taken.  If no one 
complains, does it need to be removed or modified?

Peace,

Jim

    .65
    
    
    Glen your perception of me represents only one thing your own truth as
    you see it. 
    
    I do not see myself as a victim of myself... which seems to be your
    implication.  I am more then willing to accept the difference of our
    beliefs and discuss palitably [wd? sp?] with someone else.
    
    Let me explain... on line just exactly how I feel about our
    communication.
    
    1.  We've been noting together for about 2 years now.
    
    2.  In that two years of noting my stance on certain subjects have
    remained constant.
    
    3.  In that two years of noting your stance on certain subjects have
    remained constant.
    
    4.  When trying to come to a better understanding of each others
    beliefs, instead of breaking "new" ground, wend up digging a largere
    groove in the same ground.  No matter how many times something has been
    answered, you still question the same subject over and over and over
    and over again.  
    
    5.  You have not changed
    
    6.  I have not changed
    
    7.  I don't wish to continue discussions that are redundant.  I don't
    wish to be involved in antagonism, either giving it or receiving it.
    
    8.  I want to state once again, God loves Glen Silva in my book and
    most certainly that is represented in the Bible.  I believe that my own
    sinfulness is unlovely.
    
    9.  I'm thankful that God forgives all who repent of their sin, there
    is no exception.
    
    General Statement to this conference:
    
    I will not sit idly by while those who claim to know Christ and call 
    themselves Christian change the Truth into a lie and the lie into
    Truth.
    
    Again, perceptions are like fingerprints, don't be surprised when mine
    doesn't match yours.  I'm not when the inverse is true.
    

    
>    I will not sit idly by while those who claim to know Christ and call 
>    themselves Christian change the Truth into a lie and the lie into
>    Truth.

And with God's guidance, neither shall I.

Opinions are like rectal sphincters.  Everybody's got one.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    
    Nor shall I.  
    
    I don't sit idly by -- my participation in this conference, though
    limited by my job requirements, can hardly be seen as "idle".  Yet
    again, Nancy, you speak of "your" truth as if it is "the" Truth.  You
    don't know that.  I don't know that.  You believe that.  I don't
    believe that.  You speak strongly and consistently of your beliefs.  I
    believe those statements be-little your fellow employees.  Can you live
    with that?
    
       GJD

    .78  You gave me credit for something Bob Messenger said.
    
    Richard
    

    Sorry about the, Richard and Bob.
    
    Patricia

    Sometimes I wonder if people don't misunderstand a conservative
    Christians strong stand and instead think we are imposing our beliefs
    on others.  I would venture to say that those who believe as I do all
    know and believe that only God can move a heart to believe in Him, but
    that does not release us from our responsibility to speak His truth
    wherever God happens to put us. He promises that His Word will not
    return void.  We are to plant seeds, it is God who waters them.  I'm
    not responsible or even capable of saving any of you, just for making
    sure I'm telling the gospel message to you in love. I have no ill will
    towards any of you and I don't believe my brothers or sisters do
    either.  Would we like to see you all saved?  You bet!  Is that the
    same as imposing our beliefs on you?  Nope.  God granted everyone a
    free will.  You will all choose your eternity yourselves.  Not choosing
    is choosing.  God said there are only two options. 
    
    Jill

    Jill,
    
    As you are telling us the Gospel Message in here in love, I hope you
    listen as well and realize that there is overwhelming evidence to
    suggest that there is another way of reading Scriptures other than the
    way you choose.
    
                                        Patricia

    .86
    
    This is only true when you have no absolute authority in your life.
    
    This is also where as a fundamental Christian, I see Truth being turned
    into a lie.
    
    Please notice that I am writing from the "I see it this way" standpoint
    and am not saying you have to choose to see it my way.  I hope you'll
    choose to see the Bible as the inerrant work of God, but that doesn't
    mean you will.  I accept this.
    
    

    .82
    
    You call it belittling... and you feel that it is belittling, therefore
    this is your truth.  I accept that.
    
    I call it having a discussion, openly, honestly and without fear in
    hopes of finding understanding of each other.
    
    Also, in my heart, there is absolutely no malice or intent to harm.  My
    goal is not to hurt you into salvation.  My goal is to be true to the
    Word of God and love him.
    
    I notice there wasn't much response about note regarding Matthew and
    his trumpet playing... wish I knew where that note was so I could just
    refer you to it... but I can't remember. So, I'll just sum it up. 
    Maybe it was entered in soapbox???  yeah it was... I'll go get it.
    
    Next note..

    
    Valuing differences takes a God-given principle and warps it just
    enough for it to now be errant and completely human... but nonetheless
    the principle behind this program is in tact.
    
    Valuing differences teaches that we are to see "value" in every person
    with whom we work.  But they say that we are to value their diversity,
    their difference because it enhances the work force.
    
    Truth is I agree.  I value every person with whom I work... but I don't
    value everyone's morality.  Why is this hard to conceive?  
    
    You may not like hearing that God's word calls a sin an abomination,
    especially if you are trying to redefine what sin is... but that
    doesn't change the word of God, not one iota.
    
    I'm teaching my sons that they are no better then anyone else, even
    those with an "abominable" sin... why because all sin = separation
    from God.  There is only one mediator between man and God and this
    is Christ Jesus.  
    
    As far as Truth in Love... what if my son comes to me and wants to play
    his trumpet in front of his class because he thinks he plays it so
    well.  But I know he sounds like a sick moose.  Should I tell him the
    truth in love that he could be very embarassed if he should play in
    front of his class?
    
    Well, that is what God's word is about, it denounces sin and calls it
    as it is.  Why?  Because God loved us so much, He is willing to tell us
    the Truth so that we can repent be One with Him.  Compassion is often
    Truth in Love.
    
    Nancy
    

re Note 934.87 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>    This is only true when you have no absolute authority in your life.
    
Are you suggesting that all who have an absolute authority in their lives
read the Bible the same way?

Bob

	Jill, if you have the same beliefs about everything except one, is the
other person wrong?

	Nancy, I think the part Greg and myself get upset at is when you say
"god says", when our beliefs tell us differently. Ahhh, but then you tell us
that we don't serve the same god..... for you to believe this is ok, for you to
say it is ok, as long as you state it is your belief and not a God given this
or that as in many cases we do not agree. Otherwise, for those who do believe
this, can someone say that they don't believe you to be a Christian and that
God backs them on this if they really believe it?


Glen

    RE .87
    
    To define scripture as innerant when scripture itself shows its own
    contradiction within itself is to turn scripture into a lie.
    
    If scripture is not the innerant word of God, then to insist that it is
    is also a lie.
    
    To condemn someone's behavoir because of a lie is a tremendous sin and
    abomination within itself.
    
    Please don't misinterpret.  I am not saying scripture is a lie.  Using
    scripture in an inappropriate way can be a lie.  It is a lie that can
    do much damage and cause much opppression.
    
    Patricia
    
                                     

    .92
    
    It boils down to one issue... over and over again.  The ability to have
    faith.  There are those in this world who are convinced that their
    behavior is right because of *feelings* and I say that to base a
    morality on feelings, leaves no morality at all.
    
    

| <<< Note 934.93 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| It boils down to one issue... over and over again.  The ability to have
| faith.  There are those in this world who are convinced that their
| behavior is right because of *feelings* and I say that to base a
| morality on feelings, leaves no morality at all.

	I agree with this Nancy. What I do NOT agree with is that you give the
impression in your notes that anyone who does not believe as you do is doing so
because of their feelings, not because of their beliefs. Is this an accurate
conclusion on my part?


Glen

    .94
    
    Read the paragraph ... I think I used good English.  Any assumption you
    make is your own.

re: JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" .93

    It boils down to one issue... over and over again.  The ability to have
    faith.  There are those in this world who are convinced that their
    behavior is right because of *feelings* and I say that to base a
    morality on feelings, leaves no morality at all.

There are those in this world who are convinced that their behavior is right
because it says so in a book, and I say that to base a morality on a book of
fables, leaves a person with a very inflexible way of viewing the world.

 Re 934.96  

 > There are those in this world who are convinced that their behavior is 
 > right because it says so in a book...

   What if the author's name is Freud or Heffner?

   Hank D

| <<< Note 934.95 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Read the paragraph ... I think I used good English.  Any assumption you
| make is your own.

	The assumption, as you put it, is based on things you have written in
the past. I have seen you do it with homosexuality, and maybe where I assumed
wrong is when I thought you would also do it in other areas of your life as
well.


Glen

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is urging the Equal Employment
   Opportunity Commission to drop religion from proposed guidelines on
   unlawful harassment in the workplace.

   In a 94-0 vote Thursday night, the Senate approved a resolution
   asking the agency to remove religion from the regulations proposed
   last year to define what constitutes workplace harassment.

   The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Howell Heflin, D-Ala., and
   Sen. Hank Brown, R-Colo., also asks the EEOC to make it clear in
   any new guidelines on workplace harassment that religious symbols
   or expressions of religious beliefs are not restricted and cannot
   be used to prove harassment.

   The proposed guidelines sparked heated protests from religions
   and business groups after they were proposed by the EEOC last fall.
   The agency received nearly 100,000 comments before the formal
   period of public comment ended Monday.

   As originally drafted, the guidelines define unlawful harassment
   as any verbal or physical conduct that ``denigrates or shows
   hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his-her ...
   religion ... or that of his-her relatives, friends or associates.''

   Heflin said that language would require that employers know
   their workers well enough so they wouldn't say or do anything that
   would ``harass the third cousin of an employee.''

   With language that vague and indefinite, Heflin said, employers
   seeking to protect themselves from lawsuits would end up
   prohibiting all forms of religious expression in the workplace,
   including the wearing of a cross or a yarmulke.

   The former Alabama chief justice said the EEOC should develop
   guidelines that will ``set forth in some detail what is and is not
   religious harassment on the job.''

   As originally proposed by Heflin and Brown, the resolution asked
   the EEOC to develop a separate set of guidelines defining religious
   harassment.

   But that language was dropped after Sen. Howard Metzenbaum,
   D-Ohio, objected. He said he did not want to send a signal to the
   EEOC that it should treat religious harassment any differently than
   other types of harassment.

FoF appears to violate tax-exempt status
----------------------------------------

Focus on the Family is a 501(c)3 organization, which means it's not 
supposed to endorse or oppose specific pieces of legislation.  
Nevertheless, according to Focus's own July letter to its members, Sen. 
Hank Brown met personally with Focus to enlist Focus in pressuring 
Congress to pass one of Brown's bill.  Brown's office confirmed that 
Brown went to Focus, though they said the visit was for Dobson's radio 
program. This particular bill condemned the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commision for trying to protect employees from religious harassment/recruiting
at the workplace. The relevant passge from the Focus letter, signed by 
"James C. Dobson, Ph.D.", follows:   

"Senator Hank Brown, R-Colo., has been especially concerned about the 
implications of the proposed EEOC guidelines.  In June, he authored a 
"sense of the Senate resolution" that expressed great disagreement with 
EEOC's intended changes.  Then Senator Brown and his legislative aide, 
Joe Rogers, came by Focus on the Family to share their perspective and 
request public support for the resolution.  I'm pleased to tell you that 
senatorial offices were inundated with calls and letters after our 
broadcast, which some have called 'unprecedented.'  Other radio and TV 
programs publicized the issue, too.  The result?  The resolution passed 
94-0!" 

    
    
    So what Richard? EEOC is a bunch of crap anyway.  God Bless Hank Brown
    and Dob's for doing whatever they can for bringing down the liberal
    lie!!
    
    
    Good morning from cloudy Mass
    
    David    p.s. One day and a wake up and I am home YIPPPPPPEEEEEEE ;_)

	Dobson, a man of truth? Uh huh...

    
    
    ..as opposed to whom Glen? One of the new age truth is relative to
    how you feel morons????
    
    David

I believe that Richard's point was (and if it wasn't, then mine is :^) that FOTF
is not supposed to engage in political activity. 

They are a huge conglomerate, raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, tax
exempt. I have no problem (well, no huge problem) with tax exempt charitable
organizations, but they shouldn't be using that money to push a political
agenda. 

Don't get me wrong, I also don't believe that religious organizations have no
right to work towards political goals, but they should form PACs to do this, and
should collect the money to accomplish this separately from the tax exempt
charitable works income. 

If Dobson's radio show is commercial, pays taxes, etc. then they have every
right to do this, if it isn't, then it should not be used as a political pulpit.

Steve

| <<< Note 934.103 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| ..as opposed to whom Glen? One of the new age truth is relative to
| how you feel morons????


	David, keep believing as you wish. That is your perogative. But don't
expect me to ever buy it.


Glen

    
    
     I am not trying to sell it. I decided along time ago to give up on
    you Glen. You live in a world where you must condemn the righteous
    as evil because they do not support your lifestyle...
    
    David

	David, then you have not even looked into my world. I condemn NOBODY.
People do not have to support my lifestyle. I have friends who do not, but they
are still friends. Right Jack? :-) It would be nice if you say something as
damning as condemning people, that you would at least be able to back the claim
with some sort of proof. It may be your opinion, but it is a wrong one. 


Glen

    From Glen's previous writings, my understanding is that Glen opposes
    the use of prosthletyzing (sp?) ones faith in the workplace when it is
    not asked for.  In other words, if I come in every morning and walk by
    somebodys office and say every morning, "you're one day closer to
    eternal judgement", this can constitute harrassment...I agree with
    this. 
    
    What I do oppose is congress interfering with ones freedom of religious
    expression, i.e. wearing a cross as a necklace or having a picture of 
    a Jesus portrait on your desk or "footprints" poem on the wall.  This
    violates the separation issue as well as the 1st ammendment.  I also 
    believe the intent is to weaken religion in general within the country.
    
    I see Dobsons role here as one who is trying to preserve your
    constitutional rights.  It is the legislature that is interfering with
    the BoR, not Dobson using his money in violation.  As a religious
    organization, I believe they do have the right to preserve religious
    freedom in the country.  
    
    And yes Glen, one can disagree on idiology and moral expression and
    still be friends.  Jesus did gather with the tax collectors, noters,
    and sinners after all!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    > David, you have not even looked into my world
    
    ..and what, you have spent long hours talking one on one with Dr Dobson?

| <<< Note 934.108 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| What I do oppose is congress interfering with ones freedom of religious
| expression, i.e. wearing a cross as a necklace or having a picture of
| a Jesus portrait on your desk or "footprints" poem on the wall. 

	I agree with this Jack. I see no reason for it. But what if someone
goes overboard with their office? Not just with religious stuff, but with
anything? How much can an employee do to their offices?

	On another view, would anyone in this notesfile be upset if people came
in wearing a, "Recovering Catholic" t-shirt? (you can substitute Catholic with
any denomination/religion) Would this be a problem or would you be inclined to
say or do something about it?

| I see Dobsons role here as one who is trying to preserve your constitutional 
| rights.  

	I guess we see him in a different light Jack. Can we say 180�
difference? :-)

| And yes Glen, one can disagree on idiology and moral expression and
| still be friends.  Jesus did gather with the tax collectors, noters,
| and sinners after all!!!!!

	There are tax collectors in here???? WHERE!!?? Those EEEEEVIL people!
heh heh...



Glen

| <<< Note 934.109 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| > David, you have not even looked into my world
| ..and what, you have spent long hours talking one on one with Dr Dobson?

	David, I can tell you I base my view on what he has said and things I
have read about him. I want you to tell me just what you used to base your view 
of me in .106.



Glen

    
    
    -1
    
      Years of noting with you. 
    
    
    David

| <<< Note 934.112 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| Years of noting with you.


	You'll have to do better than that David. Tell me some specifics.


Glen

    
    
    > You'll have to do better than that David
    
     Nah, people that know you know it is fruitless to get into details
    with you.
    
    David 

	Thanks for proving my point David. Maybe someday you'll be able to back
your claims. But for what you wrote, you'll NEVER be able to do it as it ain't
true. In the future though I would like to see you either back your claims
about me, if you should make any, or don't bother making them at all. It will
make life easier on all fronts.


Glen

    
    
    ...anybody got a tissue?

 Fer cryin' out loud..why don't you guys take it to mail or something?




Jim

    
    
    Jim,
    
     Your right, sorry.
    
    David

  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Religious groups and conservative lawmakers declared
victory Tuesday after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission withdrew
its guidelines dealing with religious harassment in the workplace.

  The proposed rules were part of comprehensive guidelines governing
workplace harassment that the commission voted 3-0 Monday to withdraw from
further consideration.

  The controversy arose a year ago when an Atlanta lawyer began advising
business clients that they could avoid religious harassment lawsuits under
the proposed guidelines only by banning all religious expression in the
workplace, including the wearing of a cross or yarmulke.

  Church groups quickly took up the cause, flooding the EEOC and
congressional offices with thousands of letters and telephone calls.  Mike
Widomski, a spokesman for the EEOC, estimated that the commission received
more than 100,000 letters urging it to drop religion from the harassment
guidelines.

  Widomski said the commission "felt it was better to withdraw the
guidelines in light of the public outcry and the number of letters that
were received."
					Nashua Telegraph 9/21/94

    Bravo.  I'm not a proponent of religious harrassment..
    
    But I am a proponent of YOUR freedom of expression...even in the
    workplace!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    That is one way of looking at it.
    
    Another is that the Atlanta Lawyers employed a successful scare tactic.
    
    
    What could be more basic than protecting everyone of us against
    religious harrassment. 
    
    But then this notes file and Christian Notes file and Religion would
    all have to be shut down so maybe we donn't need protection against
    religious h arrasment.
    
    Patricia

The following guest editorial ("What others think") appeared in the Nashua
Telegraph, 9/23/94.

			A win for religious freedom

	  Sometimes simple publicity is enough to rout a really awful
	idea.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's proposed
	guidelines defining the offense of "religious harassment" in the
	workplace brought down such a torrent of criticism that the EEOC
	has finally withdrawn them.  As it should.

	  The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion.  For
	that reason alone, the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist
	Convention, the American Civil Liberties Union and both houses of
	Congress were right to object to rules inviting legal complaints
	from people intimidated by religious expression.

	  For 30 years, the Civil Rights Act has prohibited employment
	discrimination on the basis of religion.  The EEOC can already
	act against serious victimization.

	  But beyond egregious cases, common sense and the First Amendment
	would urge grown-ups to resolve religious friction in the
	workplace short of calling in lawyers and federal regulators.

					- Scripps Howard News Service