Now that the election is over things are slowing here but one topic a day (or a week) is enough.

Congrats to you contributors. This place is a good brain stirer and I like it.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Answers

I appreciate Stephen's dedication to the Christian Coalition point of view. There aren't many married men who would realize that their wife can't safely have a child and adhere to the abstinence defined as the only method of birth control endorsed by the Christian Coalition.

It's unfortunate that Stephen and Sandy can't adopt a child due to the financial situation that occurred when Sandy needed the surgery while they were uninsured, and the bad credit rating that followed. I think ALL of this is unfortunate. There aren't many people that wouldn't say, "but I want to have sex with my wife...why can't I use birth control if I KNOW that she can't safely deliver a child?" Stephen's principles put him above this debate. Sandy's, apparently, did as well.

Do I think Stephen represents mainstream America? No. I think that most men want to have sex with their wives, and if a pregnancy would interfere with the LIFE of their wife, I think these men would fight for birth control. I think most WOMEN would enjoy sex with their husbands, and Stephen hasn't really mentioned how Sandy stood on this issue of birth control. He's only mentioned HIS allegiance with the Christian Right. As an impartial observer, I would be inclined to think they agree on no sex.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Anita,

You know, this is a good example of trying to piece together a scenario with limited information ...

(Sorry, couldn't resist.[g])

Like most conservative Christian southerners, I don't discuss private matters in public, especially not without Sandy's permission. I'll just note that we DO use birth control to prevent the unexpected "blessing."

The problem, without getting specific, is not infertility or (as you seem to believe) some wierd puritan belief that we must abstain (that would be boring[g]), but that Sandy's medication would have to be stopped while she was pregnant. She could have the child (and decided, long before she met me, that she WOULD -- she's totally opposed to abortion, even at the risk of her own life), but would have to basically stay at home and in bed for 9 months under direct medical supervision.

*I* am the one who feels that it isn't worth it to put her through that. As much as I'd like kids, she'd have to make that decision, not me. It's her body.

(Hey, isn't that what the pro-choice crowd says? Don't women get to choose the OTHER way, too?[g])

Where did you get the ideas that (1), I "align" myself with the Christian Coalition (I disagree with them on many fundamental issues) and (2), even if I did, that the CC is opposed to birth control? :)

The latter is a source of some internal friction between protestant and Catholic CC members, as a matter of fact.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Remind me not to share much with you Anita.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

I don't believe that was Anita. It doesn't sound like her, and she doesn't post here very often anyway. I think we have a troll.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Actually, Stephen, the Christian Coalition is opposed to most forms of birth control, including the pill, norplant, depo-provera, and the IUD. According to the compulsory pregnancy crowd, these birth control devices also act to prevent the implantation of a zygote, which they believe is equivalent to causing an abortion.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Tarzan:

Stephen is quite capable of checking out my IP address, as is Unk, which is why I don't post under any other name but my own.

My post was mostly "tongue in cheek", but YES...while Queen of the Non-Productive, I observed the conference held on C-span, wherein the Republican Caucus discussed birth control. Several doctors testified before a vote was held. The end result was that abstinence would be the only method of birth control honored. This went BEYOND the Christian Coalition, Stephen. This was the Republican Caucus, debating issues of reproduction before the Republican National Convention.

I wanted to point this out today because Bush has put a ban on all money afforded International groups that may provide abortion counseling. This includes the international arm of Planned Parenthood, the organization that provides my oldest daughter with birth control on a sliding-scale to suit her income-level, and the organization that provided my oldest daughter's best friend with pre- natal care when she found herself pregnant, providing birth-control to her after her son was born. Like many of us, she's learned that health insurance is either unavailable or unaffordable.

Reproductive rights go beyond abortion, Stephen, and you have wasted no time stating your support of the Christian right. If you're using birth-control, you're a hypocrite. You're [on the one hand] telling others that they should not, and on the other doing what you tell THEM not to do. I suspected this, but didn't want to accuse you of this....ergo the post.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

How would this troll explain the Christian Libertarian position on ANY Birth Control or lack of such? Why do the Leftists constantly interject THEIR assumptions whether correct or incorrect as the Troll above has done?

It is NOT only the "Christian Right"(and not so Christian Right )that advocates no birth control. ALMOST ALL.......FUNDAMENTALISTS SECTS and OLDER RELIGIONS advocate the SAME USE of FEMALES as "Brood Mares".

All arguments proposing birth control have at their core the desire of leaders of one religion to insure that their numbers either remain constant or expand. Such arguments stem from Patriarchy concerns from Ancient times when "the Tribe" had to be fruitful, multiply or go out of business. Such things still go on in India and many other agrarian societies where a Father needs 8-10 children to work the land and propagates more knowing that only XX % will survive to maturity.....to SUPPORT THE FATHER WHEN AGED.

India, knowing this has learned that training software engineers in Kerala has lead to a significant drop in family size because programmers even in India could live and prosper without the mandate to have a large family.

Some thoughts above here are typical of leftwing leftovers from the Haight who "ass_u_me".......the RIGHT thinks in unison and monolithically because they would simply LOVE to have one Straw Man to argue with. N.B. : it was the conservative Right that opposed Buchanan and W.Buckley lead that charge.

It was the Right of the Pooles, Idiot Debunker and I who mocked the Y2k Yo-Yos while the Left tried to "play nice". None of the Lefties went after the ludicrous Far Left such as Dr. DooDoo Carmichael, the "Center for Y2k and Wasted Grant money" and Theobold's asshole following raving about "sustainability".

AND....it was even the vast bulk of the Christian Recons who TORE INTO THEIR OWN "Dear Brother Duct Tape North".

THUS,,,,,,THE FOLLOWING IS BUILT ON BS ......AND HARDLY WORTHY OF COMMENT.

Reproductive rights go beyond abortion, Stephen, and you have wasted no time stating your support of the Christian right. If you're using birth-control, you're a hypocrite. You're [on the one hand] telling others that they should not, and on the other doing what you tell THEM not to do. I suspected this, but didn't want to accuse you of this....ergo the post.

THE "RIGHT" IS NOT........MONOLITHIC AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS NOT MONOLITHIC.

EVEN the "Fundie Right" is not monolithic vis a vis "birth control".

AND.........EVEN THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH KNOWS ITS POSITION ON BIRTH CONTROL MEASURES IS ABSURD. For LOGICALLY,,,,,,,the "rhythm method" which the RCs propose as "natural" is every much a measure of birth control as a condom, or the Pill.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

OFF NOW!!!

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Um, cpr, you're raving again.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

You're now calling me a troll, Charlie?

You made it clear to me a year ago that you were a right-wing Christian....more like 18 months ago, actually. I said, "I'm sorry, but I don't want to get involved." You then wrote me back, saying, "No...I'm not THAT kind of right-wing Christian. I don't disagree with abortion. I have gay friends, etc."

Do you think I don't recognize the difference between you and Stephen? Do you lump ME in with all the other liberals you've seen and heard? I guess so.

Anyway, YOU are not the subject of discussion here. Stephen has come out with VERY strong opinions on a number of things, and, by golly, it's always been his forum on which he's done this. Well, that's not quite true. He DID come out with his views on the confederate flag on another forum, but he assured everyone that he wasn't racist. I don't think that he believes that he is. I don't think that David or John believe that they are either. I KNOW that you aren't. Troll that I am to you, I know this.

Put yourself in mainsteam America's shoes for a minute, Charlie. I don't dispute that you were right about Y2k. Are you suggesting that I was WRONG about Y2k? I seem to remember being the one that told YOU that folks wouldn't run on the banks when YOU were worried about that. NOW I'm a troll?

Mainstream America wants birth-control. The Christian Right-Wing has taken over control of the Republican Caucus. This isn't conjecture. I saw it happen on CSPAN during their meeting on reproductive rights. I saw Specter ask Kate Michelman of NARRAL why she didn't move over to the "other side" during the Ashcroft confirmation hearings. She explained that NARRAL had MANY Republican members and that the organization was NOT Democratic in nature.

YOU are not Stephen, and I'm not saying that you are. YOU are not the one who bemoaned the fact that he could not adopt a child due to financial status. YOU have not openly associated yourself with the Christian Right. [I understand that you FEEL that you're associated with the Christian Right, but you haven't POSTED about talking to your "friends" in the Christian Right as Stephen has done. What might they think of your OTHER friends?]

You now call me a troll? It took me almost 10 minutes to stop laughing after I read your post, and I DO thank you for the good laugh.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Tarzan, I believe you're right. This can't be Anita. Anita is more logical than this. Take this statement:

Reproductive rights go beyond abortion, Stephen, and you have wasted no time stating your support of the Christian right. If you're using birth-control, you're a hypocrite.

You're [on the one hand] telling others that they should not, and on the other doing what you tell THEM not to do.

The operative word is "you." I have not told anyone not to use birth control. (Find the post.) If that's the Republican's position, I disagree with it.

Whoever you are, I realize it would make your argument much easier if you COULD tie me to the Republicans OR the Christian Right, but since you can't, you'll have to pummel that strawman without my assistance. :)

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Stephen:

The LUSENET fora archives are available for all to see [AFAIK]. The "Bud ate it" excuse won't go far here.

I recognize, however, that there's a certain recalcitrance to my posting on this forum, and I'll do my best to refrain. Your response to Tarzan makes me laugh, since I KNOW you can see the ISP from which I post, and I DO thank you for the laugh.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Mystery woman,

I have checked the IP. It doesn't prove that you're Anita -- if anything, it shows that you're probably NOT Anita.

It would be interesting to see if this IP matches up with that Karen Whatsername over at Unk's who was trying to get Ken in trouble, though. I think I'll email Unk. :)

Tarzan,

That's a distortion of the CC's position. They are opposed to birth control, and prefer abstinence education, for unmarried TEENAGERS. They do *NOT* oppose birth control for married couples.

You can certainly disagree with their position (many do), but when I did a Web search on "Christian Coalition" and "Birth Control" a few minutes ago, I discovered two things: (1) that the skeptic, liberal, anti-Christian Coalition and anti-fundie sites all CLAIMED that this was the CC's position, and (2), none of the protestant CC-oriented sites (ex., Focus on the Family -- James Dobson) holds the position that birth control is equivalent to abortion. That is a Roman Catholic position.

Many RC's are CC's, but not all CC's are RC's.

(As an aside, it's odd that I couldn't find a site for the Christian Coalition itself. Don't they have one? If so, you should quote from their policy statements directly. I think you'll find that their "official" position has been distorted.)

(If not, I'll stand humbly corrected.)

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

"I have checked the IP. It doesn't prove that you're Anita -- if anything, it shows that you're probably NOT Anita."

You forgot to put a smiley face behind this, Stephen. If this is your idea of principle and integrity, I wish my mom hadn't told me that if I couldn't say anything good about someone I shouldn't say anything at all.

I think what you HAVE done, however, is ensure that I'll never post on your forum again. In fact, your E-mail address will be quickly deleted from my directory. Thank you very much for your time.

Anita

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Stephen-

You seem to have missed my point, which was that the Christian Coalition and other affiliated groups consider HORMONAL METHODS of birth control to be tantamount to abortion, since they prevent the implantation of a fetus. Either you missed this, or you simply spun it to be all methods of birth control.

Quite frankly, you didn't try very hard on your search. I conducted a search of CC affiliated sites which equate hormonal methods of birth control with abortion. I came up with more results than I can even tally. If you'd like, I'll be happy to provide some examples. Just say the word.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

I don't much care whether this is a troll or Anita. The views aren't worth paying attention to. That is my view of the Left Out Left still proclaiming their myths from 1968 whether they have entered a 12 step program for their addictions or not.

CC is a figment of Pat Robertson (1/2 billion net worth) and a few others imagination. If anything, it is a sloppy "alliance" and most disjunct because of the egos of the people involved. Each one of the "leading voices" takes the charge on one particular aspect of the "agenda" and raises money for HIMSELF and if there is some left over to spend on "the cause" that is accidental. I get frightened everytime I see Dr.D.James K. rant about "this is a Christian Nation". It is not and that is deceptive and with his Ph.D.s he knows it is a LIE, Christian "leader" or not. The Country was set up with laws to allow people to worship as they saw fit not in the way that Gary North's Puritans in the Pulpet wanted.

To see Dobson distribute "slogans" about "family values" and take in over $120 million doing so makes me recall the NYC Garment Center line, "Its a living, already".

Others like Falwell and Hagee get less scorn from me because I "think" maybe they actually believe what they say and they believe what they are doing. The rest are little better than STREET HUSTLERS in a Black Suit and collar. The worst is the ignorant Craig Smith, the Gold Coin Dealer who continues to use Pat Boone to push coins as "Christian investments". BS. We saw a lot of those weirdos in Y2k from "WC" to Missler to their DUPES spouting the same words they read on assorted web sites and in their mass mail newsletters with the "Love Offering" and unstamped envelope inserted in the folding.

They dare ask WWJD? and I ask WWJ...SAY about such creatures?.

Until today with GWB's lamentable decision on cutting funding for abortions by groups offshore, abortion on demand was *almost* a dead issue because it was so embarrassing to have a shitheel like Brer "Flip" as a Leader. We tossed Benham out of Dallas with a big fine and both the Police and City Leadership (hardly liberals) made it clear he was not welcome here again.

I certainly hope Bush and others have no interest in supporting the Stupidity from Kansas i.e.: de-facto banning of evolution theory from the schools. Kansas voters tossed those peasants off the School Boards as fast as they could.

And of course, I don't want to see anything weakening the local public schools but the deal there should be, reform the Teachers Union (a total disgrace) in exchange for giving up any "voucher plans". (I would favor "public school of parents choice" which would overnight shape up a lot of teachers by "accountability".) The FRINGE RIGHT can run......but it can't hide.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Pseudo-"Anita,"

The IP address maps to an unspecified bulk RAS server. This is really getting tiresome. Go away and play somewhere else.

Tarzan,

Produce some quotes from policy statements by the Coalition -- or even by one of its prominent spokespeople. I told you that I'd admit that I was wrong if you could do so. Post away.

If they have made these statements in the numbers that you encountered, you should be able to find some official policy statements (preferably on their own websites) which contain the language, not taken out of context, that you claim.

I'm not dodging and I'm not putting hurdles in your way just for fun. I made my request that precise because it has become something of a political pastime for the Left to take one or two sentences from a prominent Christian Right sermon or speech and spin it up into something like just that: "he says ALL hormonal forms of birth control are equivalent to abortion!"

Now, I've already admitted that the Roman Catholics tend to believe this; it's well known and well-documented. I wouldn't send you on a goose chase to find something that I acknowledge right from the start.

I'm thinking of Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye -- someone like that. The basis for my disagreement is my own familiarity with these people, and with years of listening carefully to everything that they have to say on the subject (Dobson, for example, has devoted entire week-long radio series to it).

They believe in abstinence education for unwed teens, as opposed to handing out condoms and pills in the schools, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are also (not surprisingly) fanatically opposed to RU486, but *not* to "the pill" as a contraceptive for married couples.

If you can prove me wrong -- and I freely admit that perhaps I'm not as well-informed as I think -- I'd honestly like to know that.

If that's the case, then it's just one more example of WHY I am not a "card-carrying" member of the Christian Right.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Pseudo-"Anita,"

You had no problem responding to my E-mail address, Stephen, and that would be the same E-mail address from which I've corresponded with you for more than a year now. I couldn't even believe that you said, "mystery woman." For Pete's sake, Stephen. Be honest. I never meant to hurt either you or your wife. I DID mean to "bait" you, and your response to this bait has been SO strong that I don't believe anything you've said previously.

You said that the "real" Anita wouldn't cause this pain to you and your wife.

I'll tell you what it's come down to, Stephen, and it has NOTHING to do with my wanting to cause you or your wife pain, and it doesn't really even have anything to do with politics. It has to do with who we can trust and who we can't trust, and we ARE in that position in politics.

Unlike you, I was in a position to watch almost the complete Ashcroft confirmation hearing. [I fell asleep for a while on the first half- day, but I watched the next two completely.] We have a guy here who states with what seems to ME to be genuine sincerity that he will uphold the laws of the land. We also have his record that demonstrates [and no spin needs to be applied to this record] to acknowledge that the man is against integration, the methods of birth control mentioned by Tarzan above, abortion, and several other things that are NOT supported by mainstream America.

I baited you as a test. This "test" was much like the one you tossed at the TB2000 forum a year or so ago. I never meant to hurt you, or your wife, much like you never meant to hurt the folks there. I needed to see how a Christian Conservative would react when the things of which he believed were challenged [It was really an Ashcroft test.]

You failed miserably, and I believe Ashcroft will fail miserably as well. I am absolutely NO judge of sincerity.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Anita,

You had no problem responding to my E-mail address ...

I received an email this evening from someone claiming to be Anita. I will admit that I didn't bother to check the email address against my address book; I should have. But I responded anyway, figuring, if it was your address, you'd get the message and would know that someone here was impersonating you. If not, it would simply bounce back.

And I *am* being honest. Up until this moment, I didn't think this was Anita Spooner. I'm STILL not 100% sure, because this sure doesn't sound like the Anita that I used to know. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

For you to insinuate that I am not being honest is another insult, added on top of the others. The first was your opening post in this thread -- so out of character for you, that I am not the only one who doubted if this was the "Anita" that we thought we knew. Even Charlie thought you were a "troll."

I never meant to hurt either you or your wife. I DID mean to "bait" you ...

Read your initial post and ponder on it for a moment. It's "bait," alright. Even though it was TOTALLY out of character for Anita, I figured, "OK, she's been in a terrible mood lately" and gave it the benefit of the doubt in my first reply, did I not?

After others here voiced the same doubts that I felt, I believed I'd been had. Given that there had been other wierd posts here in the past few weeks, it wasn't exactly unprecedented, either.

I have said many times in the past that IP addresses prove nothing about the identity of a poster. (Another thing that led me to wonder if this was Anita; *she* should know this.) This is a case in point.

I checked the IP address and discovered that it was from an indiscernible bulk server somewhere in the midwest. Plus ... the Administrator's record showed that particular IP to be "unique" -- it had never been used by the Anita that I knew in the past.

Maybe I was wrong to assume that you understood that IP addresses are usually assigned "on the fly" nowdays. Bellsouth will give me one of about two dozen different numbers each time I log on (last time I checked -- it may even be higher now). Your service provider obviously has a zillion of the things reserved for assignment.

and your response to this bait has been SO strong that I don't believe anything you've said previously.

Pure sanctimony. You may sniff and peer down the length of your cute little nose all you wish; that's all it is, and I'll give you my stock response to same.

You may feel free to believe whatever you choose. This may astonish you, but believe it or not, my world doesn't revolve around whether Anita Spooner believes me. I like Anita, and if you haven't learned by now that I actually enjoy discussing my beliefs -- PARTICULARLY with those who disagree with them -- there's absolutely nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

Nor shall I waste time trying. If you were in my position, I doubt seriously if you would, either.

This "test" was much like the one you tossed at the TB2000

Anita, GMAB. My residual doubts are coming back, because the real Anita KNOWS better than this, too (for reasons that I won't state here -- unlike you, I *won't* violate confidences by quoting email from June and July 1999, the period in question).

My test was done with the assistance of several other people; I wasn't the only one who did it. Before I posted it, I sent copies to several others, including some in the media (who will remain nameless). Finally, and most importantly, my little "test" didn't bait a specific person with callous and insensitive speculation about their personal lives and sexual habits.

This particular attempt at sanctimony is a tad ridiculous.

I am absolutely NO judge of sincerity.

No, what you are is person who has let an election ruin her life. I heartily suggest that you get one (a life, that is, not another election -- you'll have to wait 4 years for that[g]).

Whether that includes posting in this forum is completely up to you. You're more than welcome here; I've always enjoyed your point of view in the past. BUT ... I'm not going to let it ruin MY life if your One Woman Crusade Against All Evil Conservatives takes you elsewhere. Just watch where you step and we'll leave the lights on for you. :)

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Off-topic of whatever's going on here.....response to CPR:

"Some thoughts above here are typical of leftwing leftovers from the Haight who "ass_u_me".......the RIGHT thinks in unison and monolithically because they would simply LOVE to have one Straw Man to argue with. N.B. : it was the conservative Right that opposed Buchanan and W.Buckley lead that charge."

Speaking of "ass_u_me".....that is EXACTLY what you're doing, Charlie. You not only lumped all "leftwing leftovers" together (as so many of the "Right" do), you then went on and stated CATEGORICALLY that "the conservative Right" (which seems to imply the ENTIRE "conservative Right") "opposed Buchanan".

Oh, you couldn't be more wrong about THAT one. Perhaps Buckley did, in fact, "oppose Buchanan", but never, EVER "ass_u_me" that the rest of his "bretheren" followed.

As I've told you on a number of occasions, you need to distance yourself from these people. You are NOT "one of them", much as you'd like to believe you are. About the only thing you're "conservative" about is business. And in that, you have many "comrades" on the Left.

Let's take a momentary look at the "Right", shall we? These are the people who, according to their beliefs, would advocate more privacy (e.g., less government intrusion) in people's lives. These are the people who, according to their rhetoric, have stated categorically that it is the **Left** (you know, those Damn Evil Liberals) who would take away people's privacy; who would inject MORE government intervention in people's private lives.

These are the people who, according to their platforms, would ***LEGISLATE*** (e.g., through the GOVERNMENT) MY RIGHT TO DO AS I WISH WITH *****MY***** BODY.

Oh, the irony.....the hypocrisy.....the disconnect. (Of course they don't see it that way.)

If Ashcroft gets confirmed..........if Smirk gets to appoint any Supreme Court justices..........I shudder to think.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

For what little it may be worth, I too doubt that this is the original "Anita". Either way, it's definitely not the "same" Anita that we've come to know over the last couple years.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Patrizia,

There is a serious conflict of logic between the Conservative "get Gov. off our backs" and the effort by the Fundies to in effect "establish" their views as "official" (to wit: prayer and bible reading in the schools and getting Evolution OUT). There are millions of Baptists who advocate that Religion should stay out of Politics and vice versa based on the line: 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and to God that which is Gods'. Everyone who got concerned about the "Christian Recons" did so because their FEW voices (maybe 10,000 if that).....were levered to force the rest of the Right and the Conservatives to their way. It is BS to think they could do it but they had Millions of Dollars from Rich Fruitcakes to work with over the years. And politicians catering to THEM were little better than those who catered to the Super Rich over the Green Movement or some other Leftist view.

I view both extremes and the Politicians who play that game with scorn. Hopefully, the stink over W's cutting funding for abortion education off shore will stop the WH from trying to give any more concessions to such. We kept R.Reagan's LOONIES IN CHECK and we will do the same if W lets them out of their pig pens too long.

I do not lump the LIBERALS with the Leftists. There is a difference. You, OTOH, are more of a "Moderate".

Frankly, and I am not alone on this.....I do not think Ashcroft should be given any position in Gov. and I think the voters in Mo. agreed with Moi.

One of the bad things that came along with the Conservative Uprisings of Buckley and Goldwater were the Idiot Fringe like the JBS and the Religiouso Fruitcakes. Even though the RCs and Conservative RCs especially have always advocated they are the one true church, they are smart enough to know that they have to "Stifle themselves" in the USA about that.

Thus, it is absurd that a SPLINTER SET of the Right should be able to LEVERAGE their numbers and push the Conservatives into areas where they should not be advocating ANYTHING.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Trish,

Someone write down the date and time: I agree with both you and CPR on a political issue. At the same time. :)

We'd have to have a conference in committee to iron out the minor differences in your two bills, but they're not that far apart. I'm telling you, the more I look into the "Christian libertarian" thing, the more I like it. It fits me.

I have my personal beliefs; I will not lie to you, if you were to *ASK* me whether *YOU* should have an abortion, I would listen carefully to your circumstances and then give you an opinion.

And I'm not softpedalling here; unless you had a good reason, yeah, I'd probably say, "I don't think you should do it." But it would be YOUR choice, not mine. I'm not even sure I'd WANT to make that choice for someone else.

(And by the way ... I would continue to care for you, even if you did go ahead with the procedure. I wouldn't "write you off.")

Maybe that's what this boils down to. I would like to put your mind at ease: Roe v Wade isn't going to be overturned. The Republicans aren't THAT stupid.

(One can hope, anyway.[g])

I'm not a registered Libertarian (I'm registered as a Democrat), but for the first time in my life, I'm seriously thinking about changing. It's the "live and let live" thingie that most appeals to me. :)

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

But to everyone here in general, I also have to add this.

The Constitution states that "no religious test" shall ever be required of anyone holding a public trust or office. I want you to ponder on that. The Founding Fathers included that little phrase for a reason.

What it means in this case is, Ashcroft's religious beliefs and religious affiliations have nothing to do with his fitness for that job. His opposition has spared no expense or opportunity to make sure that everyone in the Senate is aware of his religious views, and some of his opponents in the Senate have even cited them as the reason that they will vote against him.

If Ashcroft isn't confirmed (not likely, but always a possibility), I'd like to see him make this a test case.

This is one of the most fundamental freedoms, promised by the Constitution itself (this came even before the Bill of Rights.)

At one time in this country, atheists weren't even allowed to testify in court; the testimony of a "non-believer" was considered worthless. They also had a very difficult time being accepted for public office. It took us over 100 years to correct that one -- longer than it took to fix slavery, in fact -- but finally, we came to our senses.

Now I see us headed the other way. Maybe that's just me. That's wrong, too.

The main thing that matters about Ashcroft is his qualifications for the job. One can certainly question his ideology and record; if you feel that it would make him a "dangerous" attorney general, then that's certainly your right.

But for some time now, I've been very concerned about this assumption that, because a person happens to belong to a conservative or fundamentalist religious sect, they automatically should be excluded from public office or trust.

That viewpoint is in direct violation of our Constitution. You have the Constitutional right to freedom of conscience and you have the right to associate with others who share your religious beliefs without having to fear that it may cost you a job in the public sector.

That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. We've gotten away from it and have taken a dangerous turn.

Now: Since Anita(?) questioned this, after my having explained it in painstaking detail at least a dozen times, I'll (wearily) restate something else for the record, too.

When I defend people like Dobson or Kennedy, I am NOT necessarily defending their positions. I grew weary of repeating this in the old Poole's Roost, and I grow weary of repeating it here: I do not always agree with these people.

OK? Kennedy makes me nervous with his "Christian nation" stuff, too.

But I will defend them _personally_ against _personal_ attacks, and I defend their right to HOLD those positions. In Kennedy's case, Charlie, he's completely sincere. He really, truly believes that this IS a "Christian nation." (I know this to be a fact.) He's not just saying it to increase income, or for cheap political advantage, or anything like that. He'd be saying it if he pastored a 20-member Church of God in rural Florida, with no TV camera in sight. :)

You can certainly disagree with him; *I* disagree with him. But don't assume that he's being disingenuous or dishonest because he honestly believes that history supports his position (even though it really doesn't -- at least, not in the way that he thinks).

I will agree with you AND Trish about this: the worst thing that ever happened to the Christian church was when it got involved in politics.

But ... there is a blatant hypocrisy here, too. Very few people complain that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use churches in the Afro-American community as political and fund-raising machine to advance THEIR agendas.

Now, why is that? And why, on the other hand, does the Digerati seem to think that it's the worst thing in the world that some white, conservative Christian churches do essentially the same thing (ex.: Falwell)?

Go figure. :)

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Charlie:

"There is a serious conflict of logic between the Conservative "get Gov. off our backs" and the effort by the Fundies to in effect "establish" their views as "official" ....."

I have no doubt that what you say is true, but, as I once explained to Stephen (two boards ago at this point), you have to understand that the most vocal are the ones who get the most press. Ergo, those are the ones to whom the "opposition" refers. And before you go any further, this is NOT inherent only to "the Left". As a matter of "fact" (WARNING!! Biased Opinion Ahead!!), the "Right" is more guilty of this than anyone (with the possible exception of white supremacists and/or Louis Farrakhan). If you doubt me, just listen to "Flush" for twenty minutes or so (though I doubt it would take that long). And he DOES claim to be an upstanding member of the Christian Right. I don't notice anyone in his own "circle" pooh-poohing him. Instead, he is looked upon, and marketed as, The Voice of The Right. {gag}

"...Hopefully, the stink over W's cutting funding for abortion education off shore will stop the WH from trying to give any more concessions to such. We kept R.Reagan's LOONIES IN CHECK and we will do the same if W lets them out of their pig pens too long."

Oops.....too late on the W thing. How do you explain his "united" cabinet and other appointments? And just WHO "kept R.Reagan's LOONIES IN CHECK"? I seem to remember a LOT of "loonies" in that administration.

"I do not lump the LIBERALS with the Leftists. ..... You, OTOH, are more of a "Moderate"."

Well, you're one in a painful minority (especially on this and Unk's boards), but your point is well-taken. And I'm "moderate LEFT/LIBERAL", much as you may dislike that.

"Frankly, and I am not alone on this.....I do not think Ashcroft should be given any position in Gov. and I think the voters in Mo. agreed with Moi."

No argument here. They seem to have preferred a dead guy to Ashcroft :-)

"One of the bad things that came along with the Conservative Uprisings ..... were the Idiot Fringe ..."

Charlie, I think my main problem with "these people" (and the sentiment is shared by others who think like me) is that the true conservatives, the ones who DON'T want to infringe their belief system on anyone else (however small a minority they may be) do not publicly DENOUNCE the loonies on "their fringe". It's different on the left. We DO have "factions" and we DO most DEFINITELY denounce the looniest among us.

"Thus, it is absurd that a SPLINTER SET of the Right should be able to LEVERAGE their numbers and push the Conservatives into areas where they should not be advocating ANYTHING."

Of COURSE it's "absurd" but that's EXACTLY what's going on here. I'd be genuinely surprised if you didn't see it.

Look at it this way: Smirk called anyone who didn't support Ashcroft a member of the "fringe". Does he realize it's quite possibly MOST of "mainstream America" who opposes this guy? Accepting that, then by his definition of "fringe", most of "mainstream America" is "fringe". I suppose that the ONLY people he DOESN'T consider "fringe" are his rich, mostly white corporate friends.

(Side Note: I noticed that the demonstrators at the inauguration/parade outnumbered the so-called supporters at least 2:1. Wonder why the "liberal media" didn't jump on that one? I don't remember any in-depth coverage of that. How truly odd.....)

The guy is NOT a "uniter" (as his first "acts" have proven). Like I said before, if he believes his own rhetoric (and he's given no reason as yet for me to doubt that he is at least beginning to buy it hook, line and sinker), we're in more trouble than anyone thought.

Stephen, this is not just for the sake of argument, but I cannot believe you just wrote that.

Re Kennedy: "...he's completely sincere... He really, truly believes that this IS a "Christian nation." (IOW, whatever the fallout from whatever he does is OK because he "really, truly believes" his stuff. And isn't it so easy to say that he'd be doing the same thing with or without a tee vee camera.....)

BUT:

"Very few people complain that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use churches in the Afro-American community as political and fund-raising machine[s] to advance THEIR agendas." (Hmmm, no mention that they, too, might "really, truly believe" their stuff, nor that they'd be doing the same thing without a tee vee camera. So, what is it? They must be inherently wrong?)

And you wonder why the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind when discussing ANY "white, conservative Christian" organization?

You're comparing apples and oranges here. After hundreds of years of fighting for simple basic human rights (and in so many ways, STILL fighting for those simple basic human rights), people like Jackson and Sharpton continue to have painfully few, if ANY, other avenues through which to "advance THEIR agendas". "White, conservative Christian churches" have always been given a free, pretty much unobstructed ride and (key concept here --->) Acceptance. The black churches, especially those led by Jackson and Sharpton, are not given the "free ride" or the "acceptance" of their "white, conservative Christian" counterparts. They are consistently held to almost impossibly higher standards, and are subject to intense scrutiny never seen or felt by their white counterparts.

(And, FWIW, I have never been a "fan" or supporter of Sharpton. While I must [somewhat begrudgingly] grant him that he has helped his people in some ways, he can't hold a candle to Jackson, who's done that and much more -- for anyone and everyone who's needed it. Further, it DOES bother me that Jackson and Sharpton live in luxury while the people they're helping can barely pay their rent.)

As to "white, conservative Christian churches", probably because they ARE "white, conservative Christian churches". Is that statement representative of discrimination/racism? Absolutely. But is it justified? The reality is "no", but I have to say "yes" because, IMO, because that's what they dish out, however thinly-veiled as "charity" it might actually be.

You can sit there and give me example upon example from your personal experiences of how "charitable" they are to "everyone", but it doesn't mask the fact that said charitable acts are few and far between (and all in your experience). While it can be said (and is all-too-true) that basic "charity-type" stories don't make "the news", I still doubt that your experiences are highly representative of the umbrella of "white conservative Christian churches". Just looking at their leadership and their makeup is all one really needs. I'd be genuinely surprised if you didn't see that.

Other than that, yes, I suppose we do agree. Religion has NO PLACE in politics. Shame that the political morons can't figure that out.

Then again, neither can a chunk of the American people (most of whom seem to reside in those "red" sections of the country).

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

IOW, whatever the fallout from whatever [Kennedy] does is OK because he "really, truly believes" his stuff ...

I didn't say that. Did I not say that I thought it was a mistake for the Church (in general) to get into politics? I meant that. I didn't just say it to hear my head roar (or to hear my fingers click the keyboard). I still mean it.

What I object to are the *personal* attacks against the character of these people. It's like Z said about Ashcroft; he's not really a bad guy, he's just the wrong choice for AG. I can respect that.

What I DON'T respect is the tendency to attack the guy *just because* he happens to be a very religious person.

(If you will recall, I objected strongly to the same types of attacks against Lieberman, so I'm being consistent here.)

Hmmm, no mention that they, too, might "really, truly believe" their stuff, nor that they'd be doing the same thing without a tee vee camera. So, what is it? They must be inherently wrong?

No, I was pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of those who feel that conservative white Christians are the only ones who break down Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between Church and State.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. After hundreds of years of fighting for simple basic human rights (and in so many ways, STILL fighting for those simple basic human rights), people like Jackson and Sharpton continue to have painfully few, if ANY, other avenues through which to "advance THEIR agendas".

That's not so. Blacks simply chose to make churches their political headquarters -- and did so, I might add, many decades ago, long before Jackson and Sharpton came along.

You yourself note that the "red" areas of this country are where most of the white church political activity is happening. Trish, they have the same problem: no convenient facilities, so the church is the most logical choice for them.

(Large cities here in the Bible Belt are the exception, not the rule.)

I'm not just comparing apples to apples, they're even of the same variety and from the same tree. I didn't accuse *YOU* of this, but again: one of the most common complaints leveled at politically-active Christian fundies is that they're violating the "separation of Church and State thing." I was merely pointing out that they are doing EXACTLY what the black churches have been doing for decades.

Why the double standard? Pointing this out isn't "racism," it's stating a fact and shining a little light on the inherent hypocrisy of the left.

Here's a little tidbit to consider.

Remember all that talk several years ago about the IRS cracking down on preachers which engaged in political activity? The Democrats had Falwell and Co in mind, but the plan built steam for a while, then petered out. Hmmm, how come?

Because *black* churches looked closely at the proposed rules and said, "hey, wait a minnit ... this could be used against US!"

THEY saw it. :)

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Poole get some facts. Start with 501c's and go from there. FOTF is a Church being used as a Political OPP. Is the Rainbow Coalition a Church?

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Doc,

I've got the facts, Paulie. You don't. :)

Of course, if YOU get to assign the labels, you automatically win. Only problem is, curmudgeon that I am, I shan't let you get away with it. Not even on my birthday.[g]

Anyway; your logic is flawed on several fronts. I'll start at random.

1. FOTF isn't a "church." Neither is the Rainbow Coalition.

2. Just for the record, Dobson isn't an ordained minister (he's a psychologist with a Phd in child development from USC). Jackson is (or at least was, in the beginning) an ordained Baptist minister.

(Wait, let me guess: you just ASSUMED that Dobson was an ordained minister, didn't you?[g] He's not, and Focus isn't affiliated with any one church; it's inter- and non-denominational.)

3. Even if one of these organizations WAS a church, you can't just pick two convenient examples and declare the game over. FOTF and RC aren't the only two such organizations in existence.

4. But the issue here wasn't the convenient paperwork tricks that EACH side uses to steer clear of political-activity laws. (Note: EACH.) It's the extent to which actual IRS-exempt church facilities and church organizations in communities are used, canvassed and solicited for political activities.

Which was my point, wasn't it? Or rather, my complaint that it's considered "OK" for one side to do it, but not their opposition? :)

I'VE got the facts, Docster. What you have is the usual spin and misquote-based crap from anti-Dobson sites (and there are assuredly a'plenty.)

Game over. Try again? :)

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Stephen:

I don't want to belabor this thing. I really DO try to honor that line that my mom fed me about "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, don't say anything at all", and I suspect that's why you don't recognize me when I fall outside the boundaries to which you've grown accustomed.

I AM confused about one thing, however.

-- unlike you, I *won't* violate confidences by quoting email from June and July 1999, the period in question).

Is this to say that I violated confidences quoting email from June and July of 1999? Who said that this period was a period in question? Did YOU? Did *I*? I don't even have YESTERDAY'S E-mail, let alone E-mail from 6 or 7 months ago. What the hell happened six or seven months ago to make this a period in question?

The point I was trying to make, Stephen, is that... nevermind. I don't want to further this discourse. If you could just answer the above question, I'll consider the whole issue dead and be out of here.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

"I didn't say that."

No, you didn't say EXACTLY that, but that was the implication, plain as day. One didn't even have to read between the lines to get that out of it.

You then go on to state that the white churches suffer the same problems as black churches! Funny, I can't seem to recall the last time a white church was firebombed simply because it was a WHITE church.

Blacks didn't "choose" to make their churches their political HQ, ESPECIALLY before Sharpton and Jackson came along. They HAD no choice. About the ONLY places the blacks were able to gather (mostly) free of discrimination and in (relative) safety were their **churches**. (And then the good ol' boys showed them even their churches weren't safe.) The same CANNOT be said of white churches. The white churches have NEVER "suffered the same problems". I'm sure the smaller, poorer, rural (and sometimes urban) white churches have problems, but not on the scale or of the same variety as the black churches have had, and continue to have.

I personally have no problem with conservative white Christians (or anyone else for that matter). I personally have no problem with conservative white Christians (or anyone else for that matter) who discuss politics in their churches; who preach politics from their pulpits, etc. I have no problem with ANY of this -- **UNTIL** they start telling me what my values and my morals should be.

And in this, (at least the more vocal) "conservative white Christians ARE the only ones who break down Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between Church and State". They would IMPOSE their belief system on all; their version of morality; their brand of values. These are the people who would tell me what I can and can't do with my body, what I can and can't read, what I can and can't watch either on TV or in the theatre, what art would hang on my museum's walls, what science would or would not be taught in my children's schools.....and they would do it through **legislation**.

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds to me like they'd be mixing church and state well beyond any societal acceptance. And isn't that their "plan" -- to make this a "Christian nation" as they presume the founding fathers intended it to be?

The black churches make no pretense WHATSOEVER to do this, except to expand the learning experience to include the TRUTH about their culture. They band together because they are discriminated against **as a group**. White America hasn't historically been known to give them many "choices". Again, it would be mind-blowing if you didn't see the distinction here.

It's NOT a "double-standard" and you ARE comparing apples and oranges. Or you're simply being disingenuous, and I can't believe that for a minute.

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

On a happier (and much less antagonistic) note.....(conveniently sung to the tune of "Happy Birthday"):

Happy Birthday To You!!
Happy Birthday To You!!
Happy Birthday Dear Steeeeeeeeeeeeeephennnnnnnnnn!!
Happy Birthday To You!!


-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Trisha,

No, you didn't say EXACTLY that, but that was the implication, plain as day.

It depends on what you think I'm trying to imply. That Kennedy should get a free ride? No. Anyone who disagrees with him should question him -- sharply. But I don't think he's a bad man, or that he's deliberately misleading people. He honestly thinks he's doing what God wants him to, and yes, I *do* defend him for that.

For that matter, so should YOU. Say it this way: "I disagree with him strongly, but I respect and defend his right to state his beliefs."

My complaint with many liberals -- not YOU! -- is that they would, if they could, actually STOP Kennedy from speaking. In a HEARTBEAT they would muzzle him. They claim to be for free speech, but what they REALLY mean is, "politically-acceptable free speech."

You then go on to state that the white churches suffer the same problems as black churches!

I didn't say that, either. Nor did I mean to imply that. I'm not a complete dunderhead. (Only a partial.[g])

Believe me, Trish, I understand what you're saying, and I can't disagree with it until I *DO* get quite legalistic. And that's just what I was doing: discussing a very specific, very legalistic view of the matter.

I was talking about churches being used for political activities, and those who complain that it violates the separation of church and state. I made the specific and narrow case that there is technically no real difference ON THAT SPECIFIC POINT.

Let me try it another way: there is no law that you could make, which would pass constitutional muster, which could permit black churches to be used for political activity, but prevent white churches from doing the same.

If you think you COULD make such a law, let me see the wording of it. I don't think you can.

The fact that blacks have suffered more, or even *deserve* more than whites to use their churches in this manner, isn't disputable. Of COURSE I agree with that.

Trish, remember that I am perfectly happy with BOTH using their churches in this way. Norman Lear wants to stop the white Christians while permitting the black Christians to continue. I'm not trying to stop EITHER, except for those specific cases where their activities directly break the law.

(Example: a church has a polling place in its fellowship hall, and on election day, the elders try to pressure people into voting a certain way. That's illegal for ANYONE, black, white or polka-dotted.)

Sure, your defense (that blacks have suffered more, and should be given special consideration, etc., etc.) would work in general -- if it wasn't for the specific claim made by groups such as People For The American Way that political activity by religious groups should be prohibited.

THEY -- and not Trisha -- apply it quite selectively.

See? I didn't have Trish in mind when I made that statement. I had Norman Lear and his crowd in mind.

Does that help?

I personally have no problem with conservative white Christians ...

I know you don't. This is proof that we are actually talking at right angles to one another; I would never imply that you did.

**UNTIL** they start telling me what my values and my morals should be.

I agree with you here, too. You guys don't realize it, but I have spent just as much of my life arguing my Christian brethren out of things as I have defending them to others! :)

It's NOT a "double-standard" and you ARE comparing apples and oranges. Or you're simply being disingenuous, and I can't believe that for a minute.

No, I didn't understand the ANGLE with which you were viewing the problem. If you read what I said carefully, you'll see that I was discussing a specific point of law.

(More to the point, I was specifically addressing the way that some outspoken liberal leaders have put it.)

I actually agree with most of what you said, and in fact, appreciate you clarifying it. You've helped me understand the "rank and file" moderate-to-liberal a bit better. :)

Happy Birthday To You!!

Well, thank you. I did what most Southerners do for their birthday: I ate food. We went to a local seafood joint and had shrimp, stuffed flounder and all sorts of other goodies, capped by a brownie with ice cream. :)

(Why is that we feel compelled to gain weight on holidays? Is it a religious thing?[g])

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

(Didn't I just see a double-post? And the second one was all bold? I know I'm tired but.....)

Long as we're clear.

(No, we're opaque........................................badum-bum)

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

"Ah, Trishaaah," he said in his best W. C. Fields, "administrator's privilege."

"I get to delete those little mistakie things that others must live with."

:)

(Yeah, I double posted.[g])

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

"...Whois Dobson

...FOTF Mission Statement

...http://www.gos pelcom.net/ccmag/y2k/msty1198.html

...http://www.s tand77.com/wwwboard/messages/2267.html

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Doc,

The first two links essentially just repeat what I said earlier. FOTF is not a church. It's a ministry, but it's not an organized church. There are some key differences.

The other two links, we've already discussed. Dobson fell for the Y2K hype early on, but let's be fair to him. He changed his position in mid-1999 (as did Falwell and a few others, if you'll recall) and said so publicly.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Trish,

Well, I had to re-read your post and I saw this again. Now I've got to be nit-picky one more time.

And in this, (at least the more vocal) "conservative white Christians ARE the only ones who break down Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between Church and State".

No, "conservative white Christians" are the ones with the agenda that most Americans care for the least. A very fine, but critical distinction.

Both sides have agendas. Both side want to influence public policy, support and endorse candidates for office and in general, act as political action committees. What their candidates will *DO* if elected is actually beside the specific point that I was trying to make.

In fact, you have to be VERY careful here. The Supreme Court, in a decision a few years ago defending the right of the Klan (whom just about EVERYONE hates, white OR black[g]) to engage in many of the same activites as more "traditional" (read: "accepted") groups was that "even offensive speech must be protected."

Again: try to craft a law that would permit black churches to do this, but not white, and see if it would pass constitutional muster. I don't think anyone could do this.

Just because black churches might have more legitimate complaints, or might support some causes that find sympathy with a large number of Americans doesn't make their actions any less political.

See? You CANNOT differentiate between political activities by those groups with which you may happen to agree, as against those with whom you might strongly disagree.

THAT'S what I meant by "apples and apples." I'm not comparing the "rightness" of the Christian Right vs. the NAACP. You could argue that the black apples are more justified, are more correct, or should get more sympathy and support (and remember, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you), but ALL of it is still political activity.

Again: a very fine, very picky, but KEY distinction that needs to be made.

See? There we were, agreeing, and I had to ruin it. :)

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Poole you are hopeless man. You simply do not GET IT. Not that I am the first one to "share" as much with ya----[eyeroll]. Course many of us lack YOUR insight and thus deserve to be disrespected and ignored. To have our words twisted and our points ignored. Clear, many are just wrong and Stephen, the tower of all knowing is RIGHT. Logically YOU have to be right and others wrong, simple odds, what were we thinking?

Dobson waffled on Y2k. Question is why in the first place he felt it just fine to scare the living daylights out of his Millions of followers. Would YOU be so IRRESPONSIBLE? Are your balls THAT BIG? Your EGO that PHAT? Think about it Poole, would you have the sheer nerve to alarm that many people based on what? Gary North? and ignore zillion other folks who knew better regards Y2k?

Even Garee admitted he was,,,ahh,,,wrongo. Has Dobson? Why has Dobson erased much of his Y2k bs from his caring website? Where is his Lesson Learned area? North has his laundry hanging out, where is Jimbo's?

As to the semantical Ministry issue, again, you REFUSE to acknowledge the OBVIOUS. Dobson is NOT being honest, he is appearing to be one thing while not>>>>the point as it were<<<<. Which apparently flew right over your head. What is the mission statement? The point is Dobson and many of his ilk DO NOT respect the separation of Church and State(you don't either and give lip service to some new found love of the founding documents). They look the Founding Fathers in the face and say, you were wrong boys, this is a nation which should be run by our wacky version of what we think is Christianity.

Dobson disrespects the MAJORITY of Americans and pushes his agenda in their face. He disrespects the basic reason FOR America. Cause to him, HE is RIGHT. A man who lacks the ability to understand Y2k a J-O- K-E, thinks he has a hotline to GOD. A man who allows a Michael Hyatt direct access to his ear, thinks he knows what's best for others. A man who removes Y2k evidence. A man without a paragraph of Y2k lesson or wrap-up.

Dobson is an inside the beltway kook. He knows how it all works. Gary North is amateur compared to the Dobson's. Their success ratios show the difference. In fact the truth is, North far more HONEST than Dobson and thus far less successful, as-it-should-be and is-written.

What you might want to consider is, I already know YOUR POINT. I already know MUCH of what FOTF is about is decent and right-on. This frankly IS THE POINT. It is the way these vermin operate. What you may want to focus on is the issue of INTENT. Is Dobson's ultimate intent to live as a Christian? To honor the Word? To be humble? To me NO. Thus shows me by the light above the man is a fraud. Is his judgement of character sound(Hyatt)? Is his judgement, understanding and faith in humankind solid(Y2k)? No to both and thus exposes the guy for what he is, LOST. No crime, we all are to some extent. Difference is neither you nor moi runs an ORG trying to man- handle "our skewed" views down the throats of others while appearing to be some fountainhead of wisdom and compassion. Using others tax dollars thru less than honest setups to boot.

Did Dr. James Dobson advocate people have faith in others who knew better regards Y2k readiness? Did he advocate technology understanding and information? Like how a BIOS works? What has or could go wrong regards Y2k glitches? What did he do? Join the other hucksters and rode the Y2k Fear wagon until the wheels began falling off. Then like a good Yourdonite he did his Flipper impression. Since then he has done ZERO to share lessons he learned. Wrap-ups, not a damn thing. He has done what he has always done, buried the ugly truth. Saved his ego, like all good fakers do. Christian? what on the surface? peel back even an inch and you have a man caring little in being humble or honest. Caring not an once if he rams his insanity down anothers throat, cause HE KNOWS better and you-alls blind.

Stephen I understand and deeply respect your ability to be if anything polite. To welcome all. But at somepoint many of us of Faith have to begin turning on the light and exposing these cockroaches for what they are. These Dobson types cause more damage left unchallenged than you know. They mislead millions with their sugar-coated hatred. I feel it a duty to do so. Doesn't really require much, just honesty. Rest will be taken care of as you know.

I do not feel you are being honest about Dobson or many things on this forum. I do not sense any overriding cander. Ashcroft deal is a good example. Why do you simply ignore the wishes of(using your calculation)80 million Americans? Why do you defend such nonsense? These people indicate there most likely is serious problems. Respect this and support maybe somebody else for the AG job. What is so damn important about having this guy as AG? Is it even about him? Again I would appreciate some honesty and less of the {g}s, good day.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Stephen, if you want to be "nit-picky" about what I wrote then please include ALL of what I wrote, not just the sentence you want to "nit-pick".

With regard to "And in this, (at least the more vocal) "conservative white Christians ARE the only ones who break down Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between Church and State".", you forgot to add the explanatory sentences that immediately followed.

Yes, they DO have an "agenda" that is disliked. But address what I wrote as to WHY, Stephen; it's not just THE AGENDA, it's **what they would do with that agenda**. To reiterate: "They would IMPOSE their belief system on all; their version of morality; their brand of values. These are the people who would tell me what I can and can't do with my body, what I can and can't read, what I can and can't watch either on TV or in the theatre, what art would hang on my museum's walls, what science would or would not be taught in my children's schools.....and they would do it through **legislation**.

"I don't know about you, but that sure sounds to me like they'd be mixing church and state well beyond any societal acceptance. And isn't that their "plan" -- to make this a "Christian nation" as they presume the founding fathers intended it to be?"

And with regards to black churches, I further went on to state: "The black churches make no pretense WHATSOEVER to do this, except to expand the learning experience to include the TRUTH about their culture." IOW, they do not want to force their RELIGION or their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on anyone outside of their faith(s). The same cannot be said of the conservative Christians.

Now, if you want to debate the **whole** point, fine. If you want to selectively choose a sentence to stand alone without explanation, I will not play along.

And here's a new tidbit for you to chew on: Bush Defends Faith-Based Charities.

Do explain how church and state would be "separated" here.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

BTW, where did this Faith-based scheme originate?

Charitable choice originated with former-Sen. John Ashcroft (R- Mo.) during the drafting of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The concept altered existing law to permit taxpayer-financed social service funding of houses of worship in a few welfare programs. PRESIDENT BUSH AND 'FAITH- BASED' INITIATIVES

Sadly it seems Louis Calypso Farrakhan is out in the cold under Juniors plan. Damn I would have like to have seen all little boys in suits and bowties, damn it.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Trish,

There's nothing to debate or "play" with. I said I *agreed* with your WHOLE statement. There's no doubt that it would be a VERY Bad Thing if the radical Christian Right (especially the fundamentalists and Christian Reconstructionists) were to get the reins of power.

OK? No argument there.

There is also no doubt whatsoever that they would violate the separation of Church and State up one side and down the other. You should also have no doubt that I'd be there right beside you, CPR, and most everyone else here to prevent it from happening, too.

OK? No argument there, either.

But that's not what *I* was talking about. Yes, we *DO* obviously want to talk about two different things, so maybe it is time to end this.

I made a specific legal point which I stand by. It's like the speeding laws; Joe gets pulled for going 10 miles over the limit. Tom gets hammered for going 50 miles over the limit, plus reckless driving, plus carrying bootleg liquor, plus trying to slap the cop when he's arrested. He even cussed his momma and spit on the squad car. :)

Both men are guilty of speeding. One happens to be guilty of other things in addition, but both are guilty of speeding. And here's the point: it would be wrong and hypocritical to criticise Tom for being a speeder, but not Joe.

I wasn't trying to provoke you or be a smartass. I was geniunely musing (half to myself, and if Norman were here, I'd muse the question right into his face): HOW can you craft a law that would prevent white churches from engaging in political activity, without having the same law prevent the same (but opposite) activities in black churches?

If the question doesn't interest you, FINE. Don't worry about it! I understand and you don't have to answer.

(Sheesh.)

(I wish someone here would, though, solely because the question intrigues me. I can't think of an answer.)

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Sure glad you guys like each other.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001