Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re .0


as one who looks into america from across the atlantic, the phenomenon
of 'cultural wars' being waged in your society is once again, very 
enlightening.

i always feel privileged to be able to participate in discussions across 
the pond, even if much of the heat often escapes me, as, whatever shakes 
the leading nation, invariably appears to find its way over here to the 
old continent, albeit with a delay. first to the united kingdom and then 
to mainland europe. so from my perspective, understanding what is going 
on in america, is like gleaning into the future!


indeed, god bless america!

you folks are quite unique!



andreas.

>>    "Our present 'cultural wars' do not exist in liberal democracies on
>>    the other sides of the Atlantic or the Pacific

1) We don't live ina democracy, neither do our allies on either side of the
pond(s).  We have republics of varying shades of gray.

2) Other "democracies" have their cultural problems too.  The scism in
France over the nuclear testing thing for example.

Some cultural problems are defacto avoided in other nations.  For example,
when I was visiting Scotland, there were no problems with race tensions and
the people there spoke down on American problems in that area. Neither did
I see so much as 1 person of color in the area for the 3 weeks I was there.

>>The intolerance of these
>>clashes is aggravated by the deep anguish that descended on America after
>>it won the cold war and found itself no better off

No better off?  Well, I sleep better at night knowing that the chance of
nuclear WWIII has been radically reduced.  Cutbacks in defense spending
means more $$ in my pocket and/or a decrease in inflation and tax hikes to
support defense.

Obviously, with the waning threat from abroad, more focus wil be placed on
internal problems.  But this (IMO) does not equate to "aggravated
intolerance".  We just traded a big problem (threat of WWIII) with a
smaller one (dealing with some internal social/political problems).


>>With the death of communism,

Communist China is still very much alive and well.  This "Robert Hughes"
ought to take a lesson in the current state of world politics before
scribbling this sort of erroneous and misleading trash.

>>new Antichrists and minor devils have to be found inside America.

I never knew there was a formal declaration by anyone of authority that
communism equated to antichrist.  A traditional, near true communist
society born here in the US was the Shaker movement back in the late 17th
through early 19th centuries.  The core of their theology was strick
christianity while their societal practices were strickly comunistic (as in
"commune").  These people were not Stalinists or any of that crap, but they 
were communists in the sense that they lived in comunes.

>>The two
>>P.C.'s -- patriotic correctness and political correctness -- have
>>fostered
>>this search, creating an atmosphere of inflamed accusation.

Again, simple refocusing on internal affairs. This is certainly nothing new
in the US, or in the history of humanity for that matter.  America has
always had more than it's share of problems when it comes to trying to form
a single American culture from the multitude of ethnic and racial variety
seen in it's population.  I can't think of another country that can compare in
this regard, and so, comparing what goes on here to what goes on "across
the pond" is rather meaningless.

>>Scholarship
>>and the arts became scapegoats, grotesquely politicized culture-war
>>stereotypes."

Scholarship, the arts, the "powers that be" in Washington, high finance,
corporate giants, the legal system, etc... all represent the establishment.
If people are refocusing on internal problems, they're looking to make
changes, hopefully to foster improvement.  Change means change in the
established way of doing things, the established norms.  No wonder
scholarship and the arts are under attack.  But beyond that, "everything"
is put under the microscope in times like these, not only the
establishment. We're waging a war on crime, and on drugs, and on AIDS and
on a lot of things that have nothing to do with the establishment.  One
person shakes a condescending finger at Capital Hill and says "that's wrong
and it should be changed".  That same person might get angry with a a union
who organized a worker's strike in the tepephone industry.  And then turn
around again only to find someone accusing them of raising their kid wrong
as he/she is now a drug pusher.  No one's immune from scrutiny in times
like these and I think that's healthy.

IMO, this "Robert Hughes" is either badly misguided or intentionally trying
to insight anger.
                 
-dave

    It would seem to me that covetousness is a big problem in this country. 
    The have nots are PO'd at the haves...but the have nots and all their
    politicians want to be the haves.  
    
    -Jack

    Correction...the politicians are actually haves but they pretend to be
    have nots and lie to the real have nots.  
    
    -Jack

re .2



dave,


i see you are knee-deep into the battle already!

seen from a distance (or in the assessment of my local newspaper at least)
the root of the current cultural upheaval in america is caused by the 
'outbreak' of peace. with it comes the loss of the enemy and the loss of 
a neat black/white value system which conveniently provided all dimensions 
of good and bad, and which in the face of the nuclear holocaust, overshadowed
any significant difference of opinion.

what, with the loss of this value system, is to rally the american people
underneath the stars and stripes banner now? apparently, as i read, the new
battle cry is 'communitarianism', though the war is by no means decided yet.

it seems that in todays 'cultural wars', the individual's right to self-
determination and freedom from binding morality have come under severe attack 
by yesterdays values surrounding the family and the community. i am still
reading up on this phenomenon of 'communitarianism'. what are the implications
for the future? presumably for the individual this could mean subordination 
to the collective and for the nation this must imply the abolition of national
frontiers with the eventual realisation of that 'global village' (a world 
community under one government!).

phew, does that sound like utopia?




andreas.

    I don't see anything going on today that wasn't going on during the
    Cold War.  It's just more public now.
    
    Mike

    
    And some people see 'ecumenism' as the antichrist...now that communism
    is virtually gone.
    
    Cindy

re Note 1159.3 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     It would seem to me that covetousness is a big problem in this country. 
>     The have nots are PO'd at the haves...but the have nots and all their
>     politicians want to be the haves.  
  
        I think it would be a grave mistake to assume that the
        "haves" are any less covetous than the "have nots" -- perhaps
        they "have" because they are more so, or more successful at
        satisfying their covetousness.

        Bob

re Note 1159.6 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     I don't see anything going on today that wasn't going on during the
>     Cold War.  It's just more public now.
  
        I agree -- the amazing thing to me is how *little* the end of
        the Cold War was meant to most Americans.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    Agreed totally.  The danger of being a have is that obsession for more
    can take place.  It is all a part of the drive to better ones self...be
    it honorable or dishonorable.
    
    Bottom line is, the haves should not be shunned simply because they
    have, and the have nots should strive to be a have as long as they
    don't act jealous toward the haves.
    
    -Jack

>    Bottom line is, the haves should not be shunned simply because they
>    have, and the have nots should strive to be a have as long as they
>    don't act jealous toward the haves.
    
And all of this is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.  I just can't
remember which ones.

Richard

    I'll be more than happy to share the teaching.
    
    It is found in the parable of the vineyard workers.
    
    Two men started at 6:00 A.M., another group started at noon, another
    started at 5:00 P.M., and a final started at 7:00 P.M.  
    
    The 6:00 AM guys made the same amount the 7:00 P.M. made.  The 6:00
    A.M. complained.  The vineyard owner asked, "what are you complaining
    about.  Did we not agree on a set price?"  
    
    In other words Richard, be content with your wages, be content with
    what God has given us.  Then young kids won't be murdering other kids
    for a pair of Reabok sneakers!  
    
    There is NOTHING scriptural that states a nation has to share wealth
    evenly.  Nothing at all.  
    
    -Jack

    
    And here I thought Jesus was talking about eternal rewards and
    salvation. After all these years I finally realize he was talking about
    economic theory! :^)
         
                   The Haves and the Have-nots
    
         When I cried out for shelter, you said I was an
         drunkard, and closed your door. When I cried out for
         clothing, you said I was a lazy, and buttoned your coat
         tighter. When I said "my children are hungry," you said
         "where is their father," and threw away your scraps. 

         "Fornicators!" you spat.  "Immoral sinner!" you scolded. 
         "Lazy sloths!" you growled.  And you clutched your
         wealth tighter; you shifted and blocked the heat that
         escaped from your fire. The last thing I heard was a
         muffled "charity begins at home." Then I realized you
         denied me as your brother. I cried.

         I sat in my cold, hungry place and watched. Without the
         light of charity and the nourishment of hope, the ground
         became barren. Nothing grew, but fear and helplessness.
         Then the darkness came. And the darkness said "Come,
         follow me." The hopeless, the forgotten, heard the
         darkness, and it said again "Follow me." The darkness
         swept through like a wind, taking with it the weak and
         the young. 

         I cried for help. You shook your head, washed your
         hands, and shut out the light. I wept.
         
    
       

    .12
    
    It seems to me that the parable of which you speak chastizes the ones
    who earned their wages for grumbling about those who were essentially
    welfare recipients.
    
    Moreover, since everyone in the parable is rewarded the same across
    the board, it says nothing about the haves and the have-nots.
    
    Richard
    

re .13



eric, your note deserves a place on the wall of every home.

considering that the number of the weak and the young who are drawn 
by the darkness is growing, it also makes a chilly prediction of the 
wars in the future, if we can't begin with charity at home.

the cries and the tears come first, the violence is last.



andreas.

    Eric:
    
    Your poem was very appropriate...but is this an indictment toward
    government sponsored charity or toward the church?
    
    I'm not really directing my comments at those who are in need.  I am
    directing my remark on covetousness at the young teenager who kills his
    class mate because the class mate has an $80.00 pair of sneakers and
    the other does not.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Your poem was very appropriate...but is this an indictment toward
    > government sponsored charity or toward the church

    What is the government? What is the church? Why do you use the word
    'or'? If anything I am lamenting a collective attitude of humanity in
    general and Americans in particular. It completely misses the point to
    assign the critisism to a faceless institution like "the government" or 
    "the church." Institutions have no soul, people do... or should.
    
    Eric

Re .12

>>There is NOTHING scriptural that states a nation has to share wealth
>>evenly.  Nothing at all.

Nothing said about giving of yourself "evenly", but didn't Jesus say
something about giving your cloak and tunic and robe (or whatever they
called their clothes) to someone who asks?  Don't worry for the posessions
of this life, God will take care of you like the lillies of the field and 
the birds that eat the seeds and all that.  "Give and you shall recoeve"
Right?  I'm not lecturing here Jack (my replies have often been
misinterpreted).  I'm viewing these pasages in a more literal sense, and not 
looking for interpretaive loopholes to justify my greedy state of being a 
"have".  

BTW: didn't the Pope just lecture to Americans that we should be distributing 
our wealth more to the 3rd world?  Isn't that a common cry heard from most 
church leaders?

    
    > the cries and the tears come first, the violence is last.
    
    Exactly. Helplessness breeds violence. Even Ceasar knew this (...give
    them bread and circuses...). 

reading that line with "charity begins at home", i wondered under 
which circumstances a father would expel his child from home.

i think that this may very well be the root of the problem. of people 
being shut out.

as i see it, under no circumstances should a father ever expel one 
of his children. for a father who gives up on his children is a father 
who gives up on himself.

applied to christianity, this is why i consider the message of "only
those are saved who accept the lord" as phony. this thinking is based
on conditional love and makes it all too easy to avoid responsibility
and to wash the hands of problems. the only credible father, is one
who's love is unconditional.




andreas.

                                                            
    When Swami Vivekananda came to the US, 102 years ago, he brought the
    message that 'individual salvation and social service are two sides of
    the same coin'.
    
    The Hindu organization I do volunteer work for, has over the years
    contributed many thousands of dollars to charities here in the US that 
    are not specifically Hindu or Indian-oriented.  One time, several of
    the women got together here in the Boston area, and prepared Indian
    food for a day for one of the homeless shelters, at their own cost. In
    India, there is an organization called RSS which is a service
    organization.  The people who join it, tend to remain single, and 
    devote themselves to social service in the country with converting
    anyone to their ideologies.  I've met many of their past and present
    members, and am in awe of their hard work and integrity.   
    
    Cindy

              <<< Note 1159.14 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

>    It seems to me that the parable of(.12) which you speak chastizes the ones
>    who earned their wages for grumbling about those who were essentially
>    welfare recipients.
    
    	You are correct.  This parable is not really intended to address
    	the comparison of haves with have-nots.
    
    	In my opinion the parable is more appropriate for comparing the 
    	death-bed convert with the lifelong devout person.
    
    	And I believe that the short-day workers are not equivalent to
    	welfare recipients.  They worked for their pay.

.16

>    I'm not really directing my comments at those who are in need.  I am
>    directing my remark on covetousness at the young teenager who kills his
>    class mate because the class mate has an $80.00 pair of sneakers and
>    the other does not.
    
Perhaps you should consider directing your remarks against the system that
exploits and profits from covetousness in the first place.

Richard

    Talking about the "haves" and the "have nots", a favorite adage of mine
    is "Peace is the cry of the haves".  Sure, we Americans want peace,
    look at all we have.  Violence makes change and when you're sitting
    pretty, you don;t want change.  You preech peace.  We condemn the 
    have-nots when they wage violence for material and social gain.  But when 
    all your other options have run out, when all the diplomacy and talk has 
    failed and your kids are still hungry or your homeland is still occupied, 
    you resort to violence.  Like it or not, war and violence is the last
    resort attempt at resolving social conflict.  When diplomacy fails you
    can expect war.
    
    -dave

Re last note.  

Tell that to Mahatma Ghandi.  Violence is a means that people sometimes choose to get 
what they want or need.   People don't always choose violence, regardless of how 
desparate they are.

Example.  During the Depression in the US, there was some violence, but nowhere near 
what we have today.  Were people poorer?  By any measure, yes.  But crime rates were 
much lower.   What was higher were measures of spiritual commitment - church attendance, 
Bible reading, etc.  

We're responsible for the choices we make.  Nothing inherent in poverty (or wealth) drives 
us to crime or violence.  It can happen, but we choose it.   Christianity says, choose peace.  
Honor all men (even those nasty rich people), and give generously.

Don Randall

Sorry, I forget that Teamlinks doesn't do well in wrapping words...
 This is a reformatted version of the last note.

Re last note.  (24)

Tell that to Mahatma Ghandi.  Violence is a means that people
 sometimes choose to get  what they want or need.   People don't
 always choose violence, regardless of how desparate they are.

Example.  During the Depression in the US, there was some
 violence, but nowhere near what we have today.  Were people
 poorer?  By any measure, yes.  But crime rates were much lower.
What was higher were measures of spiritual commitment - church
 attendance, Bible reading, etc.  

We're responsible for the choices we make.  Nothing inherent in
 poverty (or wealth) drives us to crime or violence.  It can happen,
 but we choose it.   Christianity says, choose peace.   Honor all men
 (even those nasty rich people), and give generously.  (Note:  "men" in
the inclusive sense - men/women).

Don Randall

>>Tell that to Mahatma Ghandi.  Violence is a means that people
>> sometimes choose to get  what they want or need.   People don't
>> always choose violence, regardless of how desparate they are.

There are exceptione to every rule.  Fact is that, when pushed to the
limit, the vast majority of people will fight for their lives.  If that
means stealing an apple away from a "have" where the alternative is to
starve, you steal the apple.  Maybe Ghandi would prefer to starve.  Maybe
there are others like him.  But history proves that they're in the tiny 
minority.  History proves that in this regard, we're very very much like
any other species in the animal kingdom.

>>Example.  During the Depression in the US, there was some
>> violence, but nowhere near what we have today. 
 
Not sure about that.  Is that your guess or do you have stats.  You hear
the same sort of thing about wife beating "there was less wife beating in
the 50's...".  Turns out there was just less of it reported and/or
prosecuted and NOT less wife beating.

>>Were people
>> poorer?  By any measure, yes.  But crime rates were much lower.
It only makes sense (if you will) to choose violence if there's something to 
be gained from it. If there were few "haves" around to steal from, naturally 
there'd be less stealing. If there was no one walking the streets with 
valuables, there'd be less mugging.  Etc... .

>>What was higher were measures of spiritual commitment - church
>> attendance, Bible reading, etc.

I agree that ethical standards imposed by organized religion played a
greater role back then.  The founders of this country (Adams, Jeferson, 
etc... ) correctly (IMO) said that this country cannot run without God.  I 
interpret that to mean that a moral guiding force was needed to keep social 
order in a society with the level of civil freedom ensured by the
Constitution.  You needed both in order to maintain order.  The civil
system alone could not (and cannot) maintain order.  People didn't steal as
much because they feared the wrath og God, not feared being caught by the
cops.  When all you have to fear is the police, crime pays.. VERY WELL!  But 
any of the major religions which condemn murder, theft, etc... will do just 
fine.  Just that Christianity was prevalent at the time.

>>We're responsible for the choices we make.  

Absolutely.  And if a crook gets caught, then he shouldn't complain when
his hands get chopped off (please don't take that literally).  I think of
it as called taking responsibility for your actions. 

>>Nothing inherent in
>> poverty (or wealth) drives us to crime or violence.  
Inherent?  In extreme cases, I think it's more like "instinctual".  Anyone
who's been mugged, or robbed, or beaten gets angry (feels like being
violent).  If you feel your life is being threatened or radically diminished,
and violence can aleviate that, the tendancy toward a violent "solution" is
greater.

>>It can happen, but we choose it.   

Ya.  In a sense, we "choose" to do everything we do.  This is no different.

I'm not saying that the violence is not chosen or can't be prevented, just 
that the barriers which normally prevent the use of violence wane as one's 
situation gets closer and closer to the point of desperation.  

I know several self proclaimed pacifists. But, in a hypothetical "what-if" 
situation, even they would have to confess that they'd resort to violence,
if, fo no other reason, to put a stop to other violence.

>>Christianity says, choose peace.   
Unconditionally?  Then a parent should just stand by and watch their child
being killed by a murderer because that's the peaceful option?  You may
argue that an act of violence of your own which puts a stop to the already 
existing violence is an exception.  It's just mincing words and it implies
choosing peace "conditionally".

>>Honor all men
>> (even those nasty rich people), and give generously.  (Note:  "men" in
>>the inclusive sense - men/women).

But didn't Jesus wreak havoc in the temple, tipping over the merchant's 
stands, etc... ?  Sounds like he was pissed and rightfully so!  This is not
a condemnation of what he did, just an axample of what I might call
"appropriate" violence.  


Finally, we Americans condemn violence.  But everything about our history
indicates that it was built on the benefits of violence.  Starting with the
~delicate~ way we treated the Native Americans, black slavery, the
Revolution,  the war with Mexico (territory acquisition), the civil war
(let's beat up on each other to resolve differences where diplomacy
failed), the Spanish American War (more territory acquisition), a couple
world wars and a cold war as matters of defense, near slave labor in
mines, fields, factories, and all the way up to the Gulf War where we were
basically protecting our oil supplies through the use of violence.  I mean
I've got less of a problem with the actual acts as I do with the hypocricy
of claiming that we're a peaceful people.  Darwin inferred, and I have to
agree, that peaceful people can't/don't compete and will die out.

(that ought to get a few heated responses :-) )

-dave

    re: .18
    
    "Giving", by definition, is a voluntary act.  Forced taxation and
    redistribution is not "giving", and has nothing to do with scripture.
    
    Each of us must decide for ourselves whether we will give
    money/whatever to those less fortunate.  God loves a cheerful giver!  
    
    
    -steve

re Note 1159.28 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     "Giving", by definition, is a voluntary act.  Forced taxation and
>     redistribution is not "giving", and has nothing to do with scripture.
  
        What if it started out with a voluntary act, i.e., an
        election?

        Bob

    The national debt reached $5,000,000,000,000 today!  That's $9,000+
    more each second.
    
    Mike

Re: .30 Mike

And yet the Republicans want to *cut* taxes.

				-- Bob

It was disclosed in the Washington Post on September 24 of this year
that the United States' spy satellite program, under the NRO (National
Reconnaissance Office), managed to squirrel away one billion dollars
without reporting it to anyone.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's $1,000,000,000.00, if I've counted my zeros correctly.

I heard a single blip about this on the TV news and that's all.

I find it alarming that so many American Christians are neither questioning
the morality of the NRO's activities nor apparently very upset to learn of
the NRO's substantial stash.

Richard

              <<< Note 1159.32 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

>That's $1,000,000,000.00, if I've counted my zeros correctly.
>
>I heard a single blip about this on the TV news and that's all.
    
    	Well this is the very first that I've heard of it at all.
    	(ANd I'm not saying this to cast doubt on the story.)

>I find it alarming that so many American Christians are neither questioning
>the morality of the NRO's activities nor apparently very upset to learn of
>the NRO's substantial stash.

    	Time to recheck your overreaction-meter, Richard.  That's quite
    	a conclusion you jump to there!
    
    	What should be alarming is that this has gone unreported.
    
    	I'm insulted by your immediate attempt to lay this in the
    	laps of American Christians.  This is the very type of 
    	thing that encourages me to see this conference as
    	anti-Christian.  What is your purpose in saying this?

    	What is the purpose of this topic?  I specifically address
    	Richard, the author, but others are welcome to express their
    	opinions...
    
    	Does anyone here think America SHOULD be blessed by God?
    	Is it possible that the cultural wars in this country are
    	a direct result of this nation turning its back on God?
    
    	I think so.

 ZZZ   And yet the Republicans want to *cut* taxes.
    
    Absolutely!  Tax cuts have proven to bring in more revenue for the
    government.  Why do you have a hard time following this?  
    
    -Jack

Re: .35 Jack

Taxes were cut in the eighties and the national debt doubled, more or less.

There was an interesting quote in the New Republic recently from one of the
architects of Republican economic strategy to the effect that the people
promoting the "cutting taxes will reduce the deficit" rhetoric didn't
understand economics, they just wanted to win elections.  If I remember to
bring the article with me to work I'll post an extract from it.

				-- Bob

    >I find it alarming that so many American Christians are neither questioning
    >the morality of the NRO's activities nor apparently very upset to learn of
    >the NRO's substantial stash.
    
    why not all Americans?  What are the religious implications of the NRO?

    Joe, God promised in Genesis 12:1-3 that He would bless those who bless
    Israel and curse those who curse Israel.  Pray that we don't turn our
    back on Israel.  I believe this is why God has generally blessed
    America in the past.
    
    Mike

.34
        Does anyone here think America SHOULD be blessed by God?
        Is it possible that the cultural wars in this country are
        a direct result of this nation turning its back on God?

If God blesses the nations that worship him, then shouldn't Isreal be the 
most blessed on earth? 

If not, which nations revere God the most, which the least, and can you 
show *any* level of correlation between their reverance and their status?

Steve

re Note 1159.36 by GRIM::MESSENGER:

> didn't understand economics, they just wanted to win elections.  

        Well, it's clear that if you want to win elections, the most
        important understanding is how to win elections.

        Mmmm, perhaps we're in a social darwinian experiment, in
        which each side "devolves" by favoring its election-winning
        skills (at the expense of other skills).  Clinton seems to be
        much better at winning an election than at doing other
        things;  on the other hand, the Republicans of late have been
        showing that they are equally adept at adapting to the most
        important political survival skill.

        Bob

.40

I believe you're correct.

I also believe you can apply the same thinking to organized religion.

Steve

    Bob:
    
    Hate to bust your bubble but John F. Kennedy was a supply sider!  
    
    The tax cuts didn't promote the debt in the eighties.  The debt
    continues to rise even after the Clinton tax hike.  The debt arose
    because the Congress spent too much!
    
    They got their greedy little hands on all that Reagan money and that
    was it!!!
    
    -Jack

    re: .29
    
    Nope.

             <<< Note 1159.36 by GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >>>

>Taxes were cut in the eighties and the national debt doubled, more or less.

    	And revenues increased during that time -- especially immediately
    	after the cuts -- but expenditures increased even more rapidly.
    
    	The debt is a function of the difference between revenue and
    	expenditures.  

      <<< Note 1159.39 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Spoon!" >>>

>If God blesses the nations that worship him, then shouldn't Isreal be the 
>most blessed on earth? 
    
    	What nation has existed longer than Israel?

>If not, which nations revere God the most, which the least, and can you 
>show *any* level of correlation between their reverance and their status?

	I suggest that you read "The Fire and the Glory".  (I think that's
    	the title...)  It shows clear parallels between this nation's
    	reliance/rejection of God, and the (mis)fortunes in our history.

    

    If God favors nations, as some have said, why did Christ proclaim "My
    Kingodm is not of this earth?"  To create a "Christian Nation" - the
    goal of some of the religious right - would be like trying to create
    heaven on earth.  Is that not blaphemy?
    
    jay

    Not really.  Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to deny the existence of
    God, to reject the salvation of Jesus Christ.  Jesus told us we would
    be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the outer most parts
    of the earth.
    
    A Christian Nation is a utopia that will never happen.  We are not
    called to be a Christian nation.  If America were a pure Christian
    nation, then our duty would be to go where the lost are.
    
    What good is a light in an unused room?
    
    -Jack

.45
        What nation has existed longer than Israel?

Pretty much all of them, counting from Israel's latest incarnation. What 
does that have to do with anything? For being a favored nation they still 
take more than there fair share of pain.

        I suggest that you read "The Fire and the Glory".  (I think that's
        the title...)  It shows clear parallels between this nation's
        reliance/rejection of God, and the (mis)fortunes in our history.

Do you know the author?

Steve

Re: .42 Jack

>    The tax cuts didn't promote the debt in the eighties.  The debt
>    continues to rise even after the Clinton tax hike.  The debt arose
>    because the Congress spent too much!
    
That's a one sided way of looking at it.  Both tax cuts and increases in
government spending have the effect of boosting the economy at the cost of
increasing the budget deficit.  You want to give credit for the economy
boost to the tax cut and blame government spending for the deficit.  You
could just as easily look at it the other way: government spending boosted
the economy and the tax cut increased the deficit.

In reality, it was the combination of tax cuts and increased government
spending that led to a boom in the economy and doubled the national debt.

				-- Bob

Here's the article I mentioned in .36:

	NEOCONNED: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Irving Kristol,
	editor of The Public Interest, helped lend intellectual
	credibility to the supply-side theory that cutting taxes would not
	increase the deficit.  Kristol opened The Public Interest to
	supply-siders and introduced Jack Kemp, author of the Kemp-Roth
	tax bill that initiated the era of disastrous deficits, to
	supply-side guru Jude Wanniski.  In the thirtieth anniversary
	issue of The Public Interest, Kristol now confesses that he and
	his allies never really understood economics; they were merely
	after a something-for-nothing gimmick that would help elect
	Republicans.

		Among the core social scientists around The Public
		Interest there were no economists.  (They came later, as
		we "matured".)  This explains my own rather cavalier
		attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or
		fiscal problems.  The task, as I saw it, was to create ...
		a Republican majority - so political effectiveness was the
		priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.

	Now he tells us.  Thanks anyway, Irving, for the confession of
	complete political cynicism.  The "accounting deficiencies of
	government," by the way, at last count, add up to $4.9 trillion.

					The New Republic 10/23/95 p.9

    >Pretty much all of them, counting from Israel's latest incarnation. 
    
    ...but you can't count from there since we know this is their 2nd
    incarnation.

.51

    ...but you can't count from there since we know this is their 2nd
    incarnation.

Why not? :^)

The point remains that the favored nation of Israel has undergone more than 
there share of suffering, including numerous periods of subjegation and 
being wiped from the face of the earth.

Steve

If one looks at the Jewish people as Israel, rather than eratz (the land of)
Israel, are they one of, or even the longest surviving uniquely identifiable 
ethnic groups in the world?

Leslie

    Depends.  If Nimrod is the founder of Ninevah and the Assyrian nation,
    I know I have a brother n law from Assyrian assent.  
    
    -Jack

.53

>If one looks at the Jewish people as Israel, rather than eratz (the land of)
>Israel, are they one of, or even the longest surviving uniquely identifiable 
>ethnic groups in the world?

I'll grant you, but not all would equate Israel with the whole of the Jewish
people.  Many see Israel as the nation (re)established in 1948; the one with
the a blue and white flag, a prime minister, and all the accouterments of a
government.

Shalom,
Richard

re .53

>If one looks at the Jewish people as Israel, rather than eratz (the land of)
>Israel, are they one of, or even the longest surviving uniquely identifiable 
>ethnic groups in the world?
>
>Leslie
>

So, can we refer to eratz Israel as ersatz Israel, then?  :-)

/Mike

	According to the Church of the Brethren Newsline, the Pentagon
spends $8612 per second, four times the amount spent by the federal
government on housing, education, job training, community development,
and the evironment combined.
                   ^^^^^^^^

Richard

    	Not to detract from the amount spent on defense, but those
    	other items are not (or should not be) in the domain of the
    	federal government.

    Richard:
    
    Unfortunately, the economists look at it this way.  The Pentagon keeps
    Lockheed Martin, Northrup, Raytheon and others in business.  It keeps
    people employeed which brings money into local economies.
    
    The Department of Social Services et al does not produce or progress
    technology, they do not grow the GNP.  Therefore, it is believed the
    pentagon provides a greater national interest.  In a sense, it is a
    form of white collar welfare; however, it is constitutionally a sound
    thing to fund.
    
    -Jack

    .59
    
    Yes, and consider the moral implications -- something that seems to
    continually go unquestioned.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 1159.59 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     The Department of Social Services et al does not produce or progress
>     technology, they do not grow the GNP.  Therefore, it is believed the
>     pentagon provides a greater national interest.  

        Well, it probably is true that social services don't directly
        develop technology (although if we really tried to solve the
        problems for which social services are admittedly just a
        palliative, we might find some use for some new technology).

        (On the other hand, a lot of economists question whether
        defense expenditure is an efficient way of developing new
        technology of a type that is significant in non-defense
        applications.)

        As far as employment is concerned, however, essentially 100%
        of money spent on social services goes back into the economy,
        is spent in the community, and thus becomes peoples' wages.

        Bob

    
    > The Department of Social Services et al does not produce or progress
    > technology, they do not grow the GNP.  Therefore, it is believed the
    > pentagon provides a greater national interest.  In a sense, it is a
    > form of white collar welfare; however, it is constitutionally a sound
    > thing to fund.

    Isn't promoting the general welfare as constitutional as providing for
    the common defense? 

    Explain to me again the teachings of Jesus that lead you to the
    Christian perspective of funding the tools of war and oppose social
    security and aid to families with dependent children?
    
    Eric

    Eric:
    
    Notice I was very careful.  I stated that ECONOMISTS believe it is more
    in the interest of the country to fund the Pentagon than the DSS for
    example.  If you remember, I even referred to it as White Collar
    welfare.
    
    Promoting the general welfare is constitutional; however, don't confuse
    that with what we know today as "welfare".  Great Society programs have
    bankrupted the country, be it Reagan or Clinton, and therefore, the
    general welfare of the country is NOT being promoted.
    
    By the way Eric, how did the pictures come out and can I get a copy?!
    I'll but you a soda! :-)

    re: .62

>    Isn't promoting the general welfare as constitutional as providing for
>    the common defense? 

    Both "general welfare" and "provide common defense" are in the PREAMBLE
    of the Constitution.  A statement of purpose, if you will.  The details
    on how government runs and will accomplish these tasks is in the text. 
    
    As for federal expenditures, take a look at Article 1, Section 8 for
    legal spending of taxes collected.  If it is not listed, then it should
    not be in the federal arena.  This does not mean that the states could
    not create their own welfare programs, however.
    
>    Explain to me again the teachings of Jesus that lead you to the
>    Christian perspective of funding the tools of war and oppose social
>    security and aid to families with dependent children?
    
    What does this have to do with anything?  We are not a theocracy. 
    Besides, imposing Christian charity on ALL citizens- particularly those
    who are not Christian- is not exactly a moral thing to do.  Jesus never
    said to FORCE anyone to do anything. 
    
    Of course, the fact that the current social welfare system does not
    work, is wasteful, and IMO has done a great harm to those it was
    supposed to help, takes away the "general welfare" argument, as well as
    the concept that this is somehow a "charitable" system (within the
    spirit of Christian charity).
    
    
    -steve 
          

    

    >  As for federal expenditures, take a look at Article 1, Section 8

    It says that Congress has the power to "...provide for the common
    defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States;..." It's not *just*
    in the preamble as you imply.

    Interestingly, also in Article 1, Section 8: Congress has the power to
    "raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use
    shall be for a LONGER TERM THAN TWO YEARS." Doesn't sound like they
    envisioned standing armies. By I digress.

    I don't get it. I don't understand the conservative vein that seems to
    be enamored by military might, detest government aid to the poor, and
    at the same time proclaim to be following the mission of Christ! When
    the government does something they perceive to be not pro-Christian
    it is "bad commie government" when it does something that *I* perceive
    to be compassionate, dare I say Christian, "it is bad theocratic
    government." 

    Just answer one question, constitutional issues aside: Based on the
    synoptic gospels, what leads you to believe that Jesus would be pleased
    with funding the tools of war and opposed to social security and aid to
    families with dependent children? In short, what is the *Christian*
    perspective in all this?

    Eric
                                             

    Eric:
    
    The Christian Perspective in my mind would be to...direct our money at
    perhaps more profitable ventures.  Unfortunately, I see Social Security
    and the AFDC as scams.  
    
    Like I said Eric, I don't necessarily disagree with government
    interventions to help the poor.  However, I believe it comes back to
    doing things smart and doing things prudently.  The parable of the
    talents is a good example.  One servant was scared and buried his
    talent in the ground.  He acted blindly and stupidly.
    
    I still believe my suggestion is better than the current system.  Have
    government sponsored 401K plans that CANNOT be touched by the
    government, absconded or spent.  Build this up throughout your life and
    cash it in at age 65.  Make it a law that you have to participate, then 
    welfare may be less necessary in the future. 
    
    Like I said, the current system is unfair, crooked, a scam and I don't
    believe the word sucker has to be tatoo'd on the foreheads of
    Christians.  That isn't what God is calling us to do.
    
    -Jack

[The following sounds like something out of a '50s era B-grade Sci-fi movie,
and hence, too fantastic to be entirely credible.  At the same time, in light
of the vast amounts of black budget $$$ being poured into maintaining the U.S.
as the nation of global martial dominance (Superpower), perhaps the existence
of such a weapon is not so preposterous. -R]

The HAARP Angels Don't Play:
===========================

	The U.S. Government has a new ground-based 'Star Wars [genre]'
weapon which is being tested in the remote bush country of Alaska.  This
new system manipulates the environment in a way which can:

	o Disrupt mental processes.
	o Jam all global communications systems.
	o Change weather patterns over large areas.
	o Interfere with wildlife migration patterns.
	o Negatively affect your health.
	o Unnaturally impact the Earth's upper atmosphere.

	The U.S. Military calls its zapper HAARP (High-frequency Active
Auroral Research Program)....Their first target is the electrojet -- a
river of electricity that flows thousands of miles through the sky and down
into the polar icecap.  The eletrojet will become a vibrating artificial
antenna for sending electromagnetic radiation raining down on the earth.

	Project Censored -- a prestigious panel of journalists -- judged
HAARP to be in the top ten under-reported news storoes of 1994.

	Popular Science -- As a front-cover story, HAARP began to be revealed
in September, 1995.

.63

>    Promoting the general welfare is constitutional; however, don't confuse
>    that with what we know today as "welfare".  Great Society programs have
>    bankrupted the country, be it Reagan or Clinton, and therefore, the
>    general welfare of the country is NOT being promoted.

The Great Society initiatives were effectively dismantled during the Reagan
administration.

Richard

    Okay, how about the New Deal!!!?
    
    Like I said, I believe the average American sees the benefits of such
    programs but just because they were inadequately run in order to feed
    the beurocrats doesn't mean it has to stay that way!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    > Okay, how about the New Deal!!!?

    Yes, how about the New Deal. I'd like a list of New Deal programs that
    were enacted in the late thirties and a mark next to each one that is
    still in place today. Can anyone provide that, please.

    Eric

    Well, the AFDC immediately comes to mind.  The AFDC started in that
    time period and although has served a useful purpose in the past and
    even continues today, the AFDC is responsible for obliterating family
    traditional behaviors that the slaves unfortunately had to carry over
    with them from Africa.
    
    Within the black culture, there were set and accepted protocols for
    parents whose children conceived out of wedlock:
    
    1. First baby, the parents of the woman would support their daughter
       and baby until girl was old enough and established enough to marry.
       Getting a job was difficult
    
    2. Second time she got pregnant, shot gun wedding.  No ands, ifs or
       buts!  I believe guys like Farrakhan aside from the bigotry and all
       that, are making a solid attempt to foster independence within the
       black culture.  This means a return to those family values our
       beloved hog down in D.C. has so aptly taken away.
    
    -Jack

    re .71,
    
    A truly loving way to start a marriage, and really helps the odds of
    people staying together.  Women also used to have to put up with men
    who beat them, I fail to see where this traditional family value should
    be one people wish to go back to.

    
    re .71

    Jack,

    That has got to be the strangest note you've ever written. :^{ 
    The glories of violently coerced marriages, the Black race brought to
    its moral knees because by AFDC... 

    I'd think twice before getting behind the wheel; you're obviously
    having a bad reaction to some medication. :^)

    Eric

    Meg:
    
    Your remarks still don't address the problem that the accountability
    factor within the AFDC has caused massive roles on the welfare list and
    have been convenient for men who simply shirk the responsibility to the
    Federal Government.  I believe in safety nets Meg, but when the heck
    are we going to streamline things so there is more accountability, and
    enforce accountability?  Shot gun weddings certainly aren't the most
    expedient solution, but what do you have to offer other than abortions?
    
    -Jack

    Eric:
    
    This AFDC report was actually an article in National Review on the
    inherent problems with the AFDC over the last thirty years.  While it
    is true that shotgun weddings rarely work, the actual point I was
    trying to underscore is the interference of the AFDC within African
    American culture in the 20th century.  Government socially engineered a
    new paradigm which devalued another cultural practice.  
    
    Not all cultural practices are good; however, government gerrymandering
    has accidently created a segment of dependents within the American
    culture.  Ironically, there are more young white women on welfare than
    black so I don't by any means want to attribute welfare to blacks...but
    in a time where interference of cultural practices is not in vogue, I
    find it disingenuous our government preaching this from the rooftops
    when they are vehemently guilty!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1159.74 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Your remarks still don't address the problem that the accountability
>     factor within the AFDC has caused massive roles on the welfare list and
>     have been convenient for men who simply shirk the responsibility to the
>     Federal Government.  

        I think you are playing fast and loose with the word
        "accountability", Jack.

        It is reasonable to say that a father who fails to contribute
        to the support of his family, even though he could, is
        irresponsible and should be accountable.  Certainly such a
        person should not receive benefits, and in fact should be
        punished or coerced into support.

        It is idiotic to say that a child who has no support is
        irresponsible and should be accountable and therefore should
        receive no public assistance.

        It is pretty near as idiotic to say that a mother of a young
        child who has no support is irresponsible and should be
        accountable and therefore should receive no public
        assistance.

        And it is the height of idiocy, or perhaps the height of
        hatred and callousness, to say that because the father is
        irresponsible therefore the child should starve (or to
        rationalize it by saying that if the child is threatened with
        starvation then the father will act responsibly).

        Bob

    
    National Review said African slaves had strong family values that were
    broken up only under the corrosive AFDC?

    > Government socially engineered a new paradigm which devalued another
    > cultural practice.

    What cultural practice was devalued? Forced marriages? This was a Black
    cultural thayng? Jack, you've *got* to tell me what issue this was in!

    I too find that National Review is right up there with Ebony when it
    come to having the pulse of the Black community. :^)

    > I find it disingenuous our government preaching this from the rooftops
    > when they are vehemently guilty!
     
    I don't understand this? "Government" is made up of diverse viewpoints.
    There isn't some monolithic voice of the government blaring from loud
    speakers mounted on the tops of buildings. 

    Eric

    Bob:
    
    Agree with you on all those points.  I hope I'm not communicating
    otherwise.  Any disparaging remarks toward anybody are the fools who
    father children throughout the area and young women who have children
    so they can get a bigger check every month.  The ones who just don't
    care!  
    
    The welfare of the children is a no brainer.  Particularly since I lean
    more toward pro life.  Leaving children destitute would contradite the
    whole pro life platform.  Taking care of the children who had no choice
    in the matter and changing the ongoing paradigm in our culture that
    society owes them something.  This is why I support welfare limits of
    three years.
    
    -Jack

    re: .65
    
>    It says that Congress has the power to "...provide for the common
>    defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States;..." It's not *just*
>    in the preamble as you imply.

    Right, in the header of Article 1, Section 8 (which is the statement of
    purpose for that section), it says that also.  Same difference, though. 
    
    You see, there is a specific listing of what the federal government can
    spend money on.  The "general welfare" (which is viewed much
    differently today, BTW) and "common defense" do not equate to giving
    Congress the power to lay taxes and spend them on whatever could
    generically be placed under these statements.  There would be no list,
    if this were the case, nor would there be a Tenth Amendment which says
    that "all powers not delegated to the United States by the
    Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
    States respectively, or to the people".
    
>    Interestingly, also in Article 1, Section 8: Congress has the power to
>    "raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use
>    shall be for a LONGER TERM THAN TWO YEARS." Doesn't sound like they
>    envisioned standing armies. By I digress.

    You are correct.
    
>    I don't get it. I don't understand the conservative vein that seems to
>    be enamored by military might, detest government aid to the poor, and
>    at the same time proclaim to be following the mission of Christ! When
>    the government does something they perceive to be not pro-Christian
>    it is "bad commie government" when it does something that *I* perceive
>    to be compassionate, dare I say Christian, "it is bad theocratic
>    government." 

    I think you are over-simplifying the conservative views.  I would take
    me a 100 lines to correctly place all these things into proper context,
    and unfortunately, I simply do not have the time or desire to do so
    today.
    
>    Just answer one question, constitutional issues aside: Based on the
>    synoptic gospels, what leads you to believe that Jesus would be pleased
>    with funding the tools of war and opposed to social security and aid to
>    families with dependent children? In short, what is the *Christian*
>    perspective in all this?
    
    Jesus did not ever force anyone to give to charity.  I can't imagine
    Jesus approving of our social welfare system in very many ways-  the
    very concept is flawed, as is the implementation.  The results speak
    for themselves.  Medicare is going bankrupt.  SS will follow in just a
    few years after that (when the baby boomers retire).  Welfare has
    created an entire class of people dependent upon government handouts.  
    
    This is not what I would call REAL charity, in the Christian sense of
    the term.  It is forced wealth redistribution which has had 
    devastating results.
    
    Charity begins at home, in your own community.  It is not a
    responsibility that you can hand over to government.
    
    
    -steve                                         

    re: .74
    
    I believe in a safety net, too, but not one enacted by the federal
    government.  They simply do not, nor have they ever had the legal power
    to enact one.  The Constitution was never amended to give Congress the
    power to raise and spend money on such a thing.  What the US can spend
    money on is listed specifically, social welfare is conspicuously absent
    in any form within this list.
    
    Keep in mind that if we were really under the Constitution today, New
    Deal would be null and void under common law.  Laws that conflict with
    the Constitution are legally invalid.
    
    Also keep in mind that the States CAN, if they so choose, create such
    programs.  They are, after all, sovereign entities (or rather, they
    should be).  Social welfare should, legally, be in the hands of the
    state.  Logically, it makes more sense, as well (I'm assuming this is
    where you would place your safety net, since you speak out against the
    federal system of welfare- please correct me if I'm wrong). 
    
    Even so, the only viable form of a safety net comes in the form of
    private charities.  Government programs inevitably turn into
    beauracratic and economic nightmares.  The higher the government, the
    worse this tends to be, and the more removed from accountability it
    becomes.  Also, the higher the government, the harder these programs
    become to reform.
    
    
    -steve

    Jack,
    
    so where do you propose raising those children conceived and brought to
    term without half the parental unit being there and a mother trying to
    do her best in taking care of children.  (BTW bouncing kids in and out
    of daycare situations has been proven to be bad for them)  
    
    Romanian-style orphanages?
    

re Note 1159.80 by ACIS03::LEECH:


>     Keep in mind that if we were really under the Constitution today, New
>     Deal would be null and void under common law.  Laws that conflict with
>     the Constitution are legally invalid.
  
        Actually, Steve, there is another possibility that is far
        more plausible and probable:  your constitutional claims may
        be bogus, your understanding of the law may be flawed.

        Bob

    	re .81
    
    	Rather than focus on the continuation of the negative side
    	of society, why not instead encourage an adoption of true
    	Christian behaviors such that we will have a greatly-reduced
    	need for attending to the unfortunate situations being
    	discussed here.
    
    	After all, this *IS* a Christian conference, so the idea
    	should find support here.

 ZZZ       Romanian-style orphanages?
    
    Meg, it is not an easy problem to solve; I don't pretend that it is.
    
    I believe the tax burden on society should be defrayed exponentially,
    and that charity should be propogated largely by churches and private
    organizations.  Barring any kind of scandel, it has been proven
    plausible by the United Way and by the Red Cross.  
    
    If every church in the country adopted just 1 homeless person in this
    country; not family but person, then homelessness would be all but
    wiped out overnight.  The Federal government has proven to be a good 
    tool for helping in times of crisis.  Herbert Hoover implementing
    hunger programs that kept large segments of America from starving for
    example.  However, the programs Rooselvelt, Hoover, or whomever began
    have turned into a big beaurocracy, alot of scandal, alot of social
    engineering and alot of abuse.  I believe it can be better implemented
    privately.  If the feds want to help, then they are strictly in the
    back seat.
    
    -Jack

    re: .82
    
    Any thought that I might be wrong was banished long ago.  This is
    something I've done extensive study/research on, and my conclusion was
    not an easy one to come to.
    
    Considering the fact that I do not think any *real* change in
    government is possible at this stage in the game, it is a conclusion
    that I'd gladly see proved wrong.
    
    
    -steve 

It's interesting to me, these neo-antifederalists who claim to embrace
thinkers like James Madison.  It is a merry convolution.

Richard

    Who's a neoantifederalist?  I believe the federal government is like a
    tool that is to be used in it's proper context...then put away in the
    toolbox.  If the federal government saves the lives of its
    constituents, then we are NOT indebted to them.  They're a
    tool...nothing more!  Hey, thanks for the help...but that's it!
    
    -Jack

    re: .86
    
    If you are referring to me, it only shows you misunderstand my
    arguments.  There is a place for the federal government; it has a
    purpose, defined in the Constitution.  I am not a "neo-antifederalist",
    as you may think, I'm just for keeping the federal government in check-
    making it follow its own guidelines (the Constitution), which it has
    ignored for far too long.
    
    
    
    -steve

	In the Nukewatch publication _The_Pathfinder_, Karl Grossman and
Judith Long report that Hollywood detoxified its version of the Apollo 13
mission.  The movie failed to mention that the spacecraft carried SNAP-27
(Systems for Nuclear Auxilliary Power) to provide energy for lunar experiments.
The power pack contained 8.3 pounds of plutonium and plunged back through
the atmosphere, along with the three astronauts, and was spun off toward a
"spot near New Zealand."  Grossman and Long, quoting NASA documents, say
the plutonium was "successfully targeted to deposit intact in the Tonga
trench in the south Pacific Ocean where it is effecively isolated from
man's environment."  The two ask, "[Since when] is the ocean isolated from
our environment?"