Listen up. THERE IS NO PROTESTANT CHURCH. Further, it is a faulty, sophomoric assumption that all or even most non Catholics are protestant! It seems that folks like you (you know, the prejudice type) develop a caricature of those they wish to demonize. They (that would be you) then assign folks to that caricature without knowledge or any shred of wisdom, and proceed to blame (assign the evil character of their caricature to) them for supposed actions of others with whom neither they nor their predecessors have any relationship with.
Regards, Bob... --------------------------- "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob, > > Nobody called you a Nazi. Was merely reminding you that the protestant > church has been as naugthy as the catholic one in the past, and that > vis-a-vis this thread and the debate regarding morals and the like, the > Church, whatever its designation, has historically been no different > than anyone else. > > Antonio > > > On 14 Jul 2004, at 20:58, Bob Blakely wrote: > > > Yea, Antonio, I'm a Nazi. Go revel at the wondrous name you've tacked > > onto > > me. All the others on the list will be proud of you, send you many > > accolades, etc. Naw, they'll just be silent. > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > > > From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >> Bob, > >> > >> The Protestant Church and the Third Reich > >> > >> http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/church/ > >> keithpage/protesta.htm > >> > >> Antonio > >> > >> On 14 Jul 2004, at 20:23, Bob Blakely wrote: > >> > >>> This post appears intolerant, prejudiced and bigoted. > >>> > >>> Every group of prople believe their "standards" are correct, and > >>> every > >>> group > >>> has some (group or self) proclaimed representatives who attempt to > >>> impose > >>> their standards on others, or "[by] seeking to persuade". Democrats, > >>> Republicans, Torys, Labor, Greenpeace, Socialists, Anarchists, > >>> Comunists, > >>> Parent Teacher Associations, Home Owner Associations. Some do this by > >>> advocacy, some by force of law, some by advocating law. Being that > >>> you > >>> are > >>> part of the human condition with us all, this includes your groug(s) > >>> as > >>> well. It's just that more groups are "more noble" than the ones you > >>> dislike. > >>> > >>> You use terms like "often by very crude methods" thereby claiming the > >>> methods are "very crude" - a judgement from your own set of > >>> "standards" and > >>> most likely those of those groups and peoples with which you choose > >>> to > >>> associate because they espouse your stanards to form your own self > >>> reinforcing circle. You further characterize the frequency of these > >>> occurances which you do not wish to tolerate as "often." Really! Out > >>> of all > >>> the encounters you have with Christians (or other groups you hold in > >>> lesser > >>> regard) exactly how often are they seeking to "impose their standards > >>> on > >>> [you], or "seeking to persuade [you]"? What's the measure here? > >>> > >>> "Christianity is advertised like soap powder in America"? Really! > >>> Exactly > >>> which shelf is it on? > >>> > >>> As for "trying to impose their standards on others, or 'seeking to > >>> persuade'", isn't that exactly what you're attempting to do here? No? > >>> Just > >>> expressing your views? Can Christians do the same? If so, exactly how > >>> can > >>> they do this without violating your "standards" that define > >>> "imposing"? > >>> > >>> Here you are "seeking to persuade" Collin, and by virtue of your > >>> public > >>> post, all on the list that Christians trying to impose their > >>> standards > >>> on > >>> others. Perhaps, but your post is an example of the same thing. > >>> > >>> Thanks for this post. It's good to know where people stand, what they > >>> think > >>> of others. You might say that I am tolerant of tour intolerant post. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Bob... > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:21 AM > >>> Subject: Re: apologetic > >>> > >>> > >>>> Perhaps, Colin, if Christians weren't trying to impose their > >>>> standards on > >>>> others, or "seeking to persuade", often by very crude methods > >>>> (Christianity is advertised like soap powder in America), people > >>>> would be > >>>> less likely to "make light" of some of their more bizarre hang-ups. > >>>> > >>>> And as for not demeaning people like Moslems, a few months ago you > >>>> posted > >>>> a signature which was so pregnant with zenophobia that it took my > >>>> breath > >>>> away. And that of many others. > >>>> > >>>> You reap what you sow. > >>>> > >>>> John > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:36:25 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> For the most part discussion has been good. Most of the dissenting > >>>>> and > >>>>> various opinions have been civil and that is good. I also consider > >>>>> this > >>>>> to be "on topic" because we're discussing what we do with our > >>>>> cameras > >>>>> and why, what defines "art" and its appropriateness in various > >>>>> situations, and what is suitable and civil on PDML. > >>>>> > >>>>> The issue of offense and motivation was an important. A couple of > >>>>> individuals seemd to think it humorous to offend with intent and > >>>>> with an > >>>>> antogistic tone. But most were more civil, voicing a variety of > >>>>> divergent opinions, and without hostility. > >>>>> > >>>>> Art, as can words, be used to discuss issues. That discussion can > >>>>> be > >>>>> used to communicate history with a point, as one would see in the > >>>>> drawings from the Spanish Revolution. Sometimes its philosophical, > >>>>> with > >>>>> the supreme expressions of humanity from the religious humanists > >>>>> (the > >>>>> statue "David") or secular humanists (Rodan's "The Thinker"). The > >>>>> work > >>>>> of Maplethorpe is fascinating. He goes from some of the most > >>>>> beautiful > >>>>> stills I've ever seen to some very homoerotic material that isn't > >>>>> suitable for public display, well-suited to the term "obscene". > >>>>> > >>>>> In the theological circles where I "hang out", it's a standard > >>>>> teaching > >>>>> and practice that when reaching out to other world views that one > >>>>> should > >>>>> not demean the contrary views. We're free to debate and discuss > >>>>> and > >>>>> seek to persuade but the principle is in place that we are never to > >>>>> deman by belittling or humiliating people or the position being > >>>>> held. > >>>>> We never make light of another person's sincerely-held beliefs. > >>>>> > >>>>> When using art to communicate a thought, hardly anyone here would > >>>>> accept > >>>>> as suitable a photograph (in the same manner as we would assess > >>>>> word) > >>>>> composed in such a manner as to deman or ridicule blacks, > >>>>> homosexuals, > >>>>> moslems, jews, or anyone else for that matter. Nor would we accept > >>>>> as > >>>>> suitable any material which would do so less directly by making > >>>>> light of > >>>>> cultural or faith characteristics of any group. > >>>>> > >>>>> Unless it's Christianity. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________________________________________ > >>>>> Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: > >>>> http://www.opera.com/m2/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
